HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-09-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Committees

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE INDEPENDENT EDUCATION INQUIRY

A message was received from the Legislative Council requesting that the House of Assembly give permission for the Premier (Hon. J. Weatherill), the Minister for Education and Child Development (Hon. J.M. Rankine) and the Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills (Hon. G. Portolesi) to attend and give evidence before the Select Committee on Matters Relating to the Independent Education Inquiry, 2012-13.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (17:03): I move:

That a message be sent informing the Legislative Council that the House of Assembly does not give leave to the Premier, the Minister for Education and Child Development and the Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills to attend and give evidence before the Legislative Council Select Committee on Matters Relating to the Independent Education Inquiry 2012-13.

I think the Speaker has already canvassed the constitutional arrangements in relation to this matter, and I do not wish to traverse that territory again. The choice this house theoretically has to make is between two options. One is that this house willingly offers three of its number to decide for themselves whether they wish to submit to what amounts to a judgement before a committee of another place, or whether this house says that it is not consistent with the dignity of this house for members of this house to be permitted, even should they wish to do so, to submit themselves before a committee of the other place which sits, in effect, in judgement upon them. I move this motion for that reason: that this house retain its dignity.

It is a matter for this house, not just for the individual members of the house. It is a matter for this house whether members of this house should be called before, or should appear before, a committee of the other place where they would be, in effect, adjudged by members in another place in circumstances where those members in another place would be able to say what they like, with the benefit of privilege, and there would be no recourse other than complaint by members of this house.

Furthermore, I make the point, and I will make it very briefly, that it is absolutely clear to anybody who has observed the goings-on in parliaments, certainly around this country and certainly this parliament, that the exercise that is going on in the Legislative Council presently is an exercise which is not motivated by any lofty ideal associated with the protection of children from predatory individuals. It has got absolutely nothing to do with any lofty principle, it has got nothing to do with making children safe and it has got nothing to do with achieving any positive outcome, because the Debelle Inquiry, as we know, has been very thorough. There have been all these recommendations made, all of which the government has accepted, many of which have already been implemented, and many of which are now being implemented through the parliament as we speak.

The exercise going on in the other place is motivated and inspired by base politics. It is designed to create a spectacle which can then be used as a piece of theatre to attract media attention and to smear individuals. In support of that, I only need refer to some of the remarks made, under privilege, by the Hon. Mr Lucas in the other place regarding the Premier and other people, remarks which he or anybody else would not make outside of that forum.

So, it is inconsistent with the dignity of this house for this house to permit members of this house to submit themselves to adjudication in what amounts to a political circus in another place, and if it were the case that there was a request for various bits of information which were pertinent to the question of whether children were at risk in various places, and that request is received, then obviously that is a different matter, but that is not what the message from the Legislative Council is about, and it is for that reason that I have moved the foregoing motion.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:07): Should members be persuaded by the argument just presented by the Attorney-General to oppose this request, then this house will stand condemned by the public for failing to have an open, transparent process of review. That is the reality, and it smacks of hypocrisy. The reason I mention that is this. Let me just go past all of the rhetoric about whether further inquiry is necessary for the protection of children in this state. Let me give the example of where every year ministers are released by their house to present before another house for examination, and for disclosure of public accounts, and that is called the estimates process.

Every year ministers who reside in the Legislative Council are requested to come and appear before a House of Assembly estimates committee to answer questions to the people of South Australia through the forum of a committee of this parliament, of this house, as to the integrity of the allocation of funds and the proposed programs that they are going to initiate in the forthcoming budget year. Not very well do they do it, but I will not go into that today. That is a process which happens every year. Nobody says, 'Well, those ministers, if they are in the other house, should not be coming before this house to answer questions.' No, that is not suggested. The fact that they do come down and most often do not answer any questions is their prerogative.

This is not a motion that says that the two ministers and the Premier of this state are in some way being summonsed, coerced, lassoed, roped and dragged up to the Legislative Council for some sort of Star Chamber. It is a request. The Premier and these two ministers of the Crown are members of this house, yes, but they are also ministers of the Crown. They have a responsibility to the people of South Australia. They are in a position themselves to say, 'I will not attend.'

There is no power in the Legislative Council to demand their attendance, to require it. There is no penalty if they do not accept that invitation to attend the Legislative Council, other than the public review and probably condemnation if they continue to follow the lead of the Premier of the state and now the Attorney and try to describe this request as a summons to a circus.

If they continue to do that, then the public will condemn them anyway, but there is no legal obligation for them to go. What is being presented to us as a matter of courtesy, as a parliament, is a request from the Legislative Council for those members of this house to have permission to attend. They do not need, in the sense that they can decline it themselves, to have the umbrella of protection of this house.

Who is to say that an appearance in a committee of inquiry in the Legislative Council or an estimates committee in this house, which a minister from the other chamber comes to every year, is going to be some kind of tawdry cross-examination and some kind of circus? Who is to say that? Who is to say that there is going to be some kind of witch-hunt in either circumstance? That is a matter for the committee to determine in the other house if and when the Premier and/or the two ministers decide that they will appear.

Mr Speaker, this morning I woke to your dulcet tones espousing the constitutional impediments to such a motion having any carriage in this parliament as though in some way it was in breach of the South Australian constitution. I respectfully disagree with you, Mr Speaker, but I then heard—not in full; I had to read the transcript later—the Attorney-General leaping to your aid and his support for this apparent constitutional invalidity argument that was being presented.

As I say, I read some of the transcript. Nowhere did I see an indication that the Attorney or you, sir, as former attorney, had called for some crown law advice on this matter. Not one legal opinion was trotted out to support this, and while, sir, I would usually, at first blush, have a high regard for the legal opinion that might be espoused by you as a former attorney or indeed by the current Attorney, I do not recall this being an area of expertise that I have identified in either of you, with respect, or your being constitutional experts.

Probably none of us in this chamber would really be well-equipped to do that. Maybe I have missed something. I do note that in the last couple of years in the dying days of your administration as attorney, legislation was passed that ended up in the High Court under constitutional challenge, so I would not be readily rushing to your views on these matters.

The SPEAKER: The Dyson Heydon dissent is excellent.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, that one little voice in the wilderness that was supporting Totani, but I digress. Again, the Attorney-General regularly comes into this house armed with advice from the Crown Solicitor's Office or indeed from senior counsel, such as Martin Hinton QC. These are people who work for the government to provide expert advice. Other senior counsel have been called in from time to time to provide independent advice and their opinions are waved around. Do I see the fabric of even one letter from one barrister from anywhere in the world to support this? None.

That is what makes this whole exercise really, I think, an embarrassing attempt by the government, in this case the Premier, to protect himself and try to frustrate this motion. It is utterly absurd. Admissions have been made in this very parliament this week of another scandalous situation and an allegation of serious sexual assault on a child that was treated as harassment, for goodness sake, and years later identified by the police as being a matter to be considered for prosecution, and that is underway.

What is even worse, to me, is not that there might have been a misunderstanding or misjudgement in relation to the assessment as to whether or not that case was serious (the judges will make determinations on that) but, scandalously, just this week (after months of notice by way of requests and correspondence), on the day the current Minister for Education and Child Development is questioned by the media about why her department has not conducted some investigation into a complaint about a failure, allegedly, to mandatorily report a matter, she instigates an inquiry. And what do we find? It is an inquiry that is, in fact, a request to her chief executive officer. We have current issues. It fills me with despair.

The SPEAKER: Member for Bragg, in your despair, could you be seated for a moment? We are discussing, I gather, a message back to the other place about whether certain members of this house should appear. I rather doubt that what you are now traversing is germane. Member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: Perhaps if I remind you, Mr Speaker, that the request for the Premier, the Minister for Education and Child Development and the Minister for Higher Education to appear before the committee to assist its deliberations relates to the management, conduct and enforcement of government services for the protection of children. The Premier, as a former minister responsible at the time of an incident, the subject of the Debelle inquiry, and the two ministers who had various roles in picking up the pieces over that exercise, are telling us this week of an example of further allegations of departmental failure.

I do not need to get into the merits of that. I make the point, though, that the fact that we are still hearing in this chamber about cases or incidents or allegations that relate to child protection in relation to which the Debelle inquiry has made a number of recommendations ought to fill everyone with despair for what is happening. Why is it that we are still hearing of cases such as this that are contemporaneous, almost, with the Debelle findings that have been tabled?

We are finding there are more cases. It is imperative that we get this sorted out and that we have some clear structure to how we are going to ensure that the representatives in government and their officers in departments who are vested with a legal obligation to protect our children do so. We have to arm them with every opportunity to do that, and that does not mean just resources: it means them undertaking their responsibilities.

We have had promises from the Premier and ministers that they have learnt from the recommendations of the Debelle inquiry. They have thanked Mr Debelle profusely for his time and consideration of these matters, yet we are still having these cases here right now. It is unacceptable. I cannot understand why the Premier is not in here saying, 'I will be going. I want this issue sorted out.'

He told us today of the last 10 years of Layton reports, of inquiries, and of leading edge commitment to rooting out what he had previously, in about 2003, described as the corrupt practices of cover-up in the then department of families and communities. Right through to today—inquiry after inquiry, recommendations—why is he not in here now saying, 'Look, I don't need the house's protection. As a minister of the Crown I'm going to be up there, first cab off the rank to give information every way I can to support that inquiry.' Clearly, it is still not working. Our children are still at risk. The position is such that it needs to happen.

The government members who have been called to give some support and evidence to the inquiry are not compelled to attend; it is simply a request. They do not need to hide behind the protection of a motion presented by the Attorney-General, which will surely pass because the government has the numbers. In a few minutes this motion will be put and the Premier and these two ministers will hide behind a motion to protect them from going to another place and helping the children of South Australia—and shame on them.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (17:20): I want to make a contribution to this debate and try to articulate why it is important that the Premier, the Minister for Education and the minister for further education (who was the former education minister) do come before the inquiry. I was in the other place listening to the debate in the upper house. I heard what every member in the other place said and what reasons they gave for supporting the establishment of the select committee. Remember that every single non-Labor Party member in the Legislative Council voted for this select committee.

Mr Bernie Finnigan abstained—he was not there for the vote so we do not know what his views are on this issue. He was not there for the vote so there were six votes against and every other vote in that chamber was in favour of this select committee. I did not hear a single member of the Family First Party, the Greens or Dignity for Disabled give reasons for this committee being established because it was a political exercise. They had genuine concerns about child protection; they had genuine concerns about the questions that have been raised subsequently on the delivery of Mr Debelle's report.

I want to refer the house to paragraph 422, for example, page 138, where it refers to the Minister for Education's office being made aware of the rapist at the western suburbs school. I will read into Hansard what Mr Debelle found in that instance. He stated:

In fact, no further information was given to the Minister's Office concerning the matter of X until March 2012, when Minister Portolesi received a briefing with her reply to a letter from Mr Bohm. That briefing failed to give accurate information to Ms Portolesi. Furthermore, it did nothing to alert Ms Portolesi to the question whether sufficient information had been given to the parents of the metropolitan school.

The point that Mr Debelle made in paragraph 422 was that it was not until March 2012 that Minister Portolesi's office was aware of the rapist at the western suburbs school.

I was the recipient of FOI documents that were only handed over to me when the Ombudsman overturned the department's ruling that I could not have them in a six-month period. There was an email that was copied to Kate Baldock on 8 or 9 February—which was a day before the Port Adelaide by-election and the Ramsay by-election—where there was an exchange with media advisers within the education department, and minister Portolesi's own media adviser, about what letter they could produce in case the very brief report on ABC radio, which named the school and named the perpetrator, had been heard more widely and they had to respond.

So, a draft letter was written and circulated amongst about a dozen people, including Keith Bartley, Kate Baldock, other executive members of the department of education and, importantly, the office of the minister for education. If we thought that maybe Kate Baldock did not see that letter, it was a letter being drafted—

The SPEAKER: Member for Unley, would you be seated. This is a debate about whether members of this chamber should respond to an invitation from the other place to go there for a select committee. It is not a reagitation of all the issues before the select committee. So, if you would kindly address yourself to the motion before the house.

Mr PISONI: The public debate, of course, from the Premier has been that all the questions have been answered by Mr Debelle with regard to the case of the rape of the seven year old at the western suburbs school. I am pointing out in my contribution to this debate that questions have arisen out of Mr Debelle's inquiry.

Keith Bartley sent an email in November, 10 months later, after the opposition had exposed this tawdry affair in the parliament, confirming that the minister's office, via Kate Baldock, was aware on 14 February of the rape of the seven year old in the western suburbs school, yet we have an incorrect fact, based on that evidence, in Mr Debelle's report that the minister's office was not aware until March 2012—a full month after.

Keith Bartley has confirmed that the minister's office was aware, and that emails sent to the minister's office were released by freedom of information. Another question that arises out of Mr Debelle's inquiry the Premier was asked today to explain. This question goes to the fact—

The SPEAKER: Member for Unley, I am asking you to address the motion rather than to canvass the entire issue before the select committee. Please address the motion, or I will simply have to withdraw leave for you to continue.

Mr GARDNER: Can I ask a point of clarification?

The SPEAKER: Yes, of course.

Mr GARDNER: It goes directly to the ruling you have just made. The member for Unley is making points which, in my estimation, go directly to the motion in that he is raising points that are arguments as to why the members in question should be allowed by this chamber to appear at the select committee in question. By my reading of the member for Unley's comments, I submit and request that you, sir, reconsider, because I think they do go directly to the need for these members to be allowed to attend at the select committee.

The SPEAKER: The question is whether the members of this chamber be given leave. I ask the member for Unley to join up his remarks to that question.

Mr PISONI: I am arguing that members be given leave. I am demonstrating why other mechanisms that are available to the public, whether that be questions by the media or questions by members of parliament during question time to the Premier, are not giving answers to these questions. Today we heard the Premier asked whether he was advised of a meeting between the manager of his ministerial office, Ms Pat Jarrett, and Ms Jen Emery, who is the Director of the Office of the Chief Executive. Minutes were taken at that meeting, where Pat Jarrett mentioned that the process of monitoring all critical incident reports within the minister's office had dropped off since the election and that she had organised meetings with Lucille Lord to have the name of a ministerial liaison officer, or 'MLO' as it is reported in Mr Debelle's report at paragraph 480.

The Premier was asked whether he was advised of that meeting, and he said, 'Those questions were covered by Mr Debelle,' but they were not. They were not covered by Mr Debelle. There is no mention of Mr Weatherill being advised of that meeting or otherwise in Mr Debelle's paragraph that covers this point. Another interesting factor in this argument is that we were told by the government, by the Premier and by the education minister, that all relevant documents were submitted to Mr Debelle, yet Mr Debelle states in paragraph 480, and I will read this for the benefit of those listening:

There is further evidence that the Department has from time to time informed Ministers of serious incidents in schools. Towards the end of the Inquiry, the Minister’s Office sent me a document that had been discovered in a search of documents in response to a request made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.

That was my freedom of information. It was not identified as a document that was relevant for Mr Debelle until it was discovered when the office was looking for FOI documents that used the search words that were in my FOI. So, one has to ask the question: how many more documents that were relevant to the Debelle inquiry did Mr Debelle not receive because incorrect search words were used to find those documents? That is damning evidence as to why these ministers should be presenting themselves and be able to present themselves to the select committee.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Health and Ageing, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (17:31): I will keep my remarks very brief, but the simple fact is that the opposition have had hour upon hour of opportunity to ask questions of the three ministers involved—

Mr Pisoni: Which they don't answer.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: —in question time.

The SPEAKER: The member for Unley is warned for the second and final time.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: They have had certainly more opportunity to ask questions of ministers than I recall the Labor Party ever did when we were in opposition. Certainly, the government of the day used question time in such a way as to frustrate the ability—

Mr GARDNER: Point of order: relevance.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: —of opposition to ask questions. I remember some question times when the opposition were lucky to get four or five questions up. Today, in question time I would hazard a guess that the opposition would have had 20 or 25 questions. In fact, they were embarrassed because, with about half an hour left of question time to go, they ran out of questions.

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Not only is that untrue, but it is clearly outside the relevance to the debate.

The SPEAKER: I accepted the point of order of the member for Morialta, which seems to me to broaden the scope of the debate. The Minister for Health.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The simple fact is that the opposition have had hour upon hour—as is entirely appropriate—to ask questions about this matter of those three ministers involved, and this is the appropriate place for those questions to be asked, not a stacked select committee that has already come to its own conclusions about this matter in another place. That is not the appropriate place—

Mr GARDNER: Sir, point of order. I seek your indulgence and hope that you will accept this as genuine and not frivolous. I will just ask for your guidance on whether what the minister has just said is in fact an inappropriate reflection on a vote to be taken at some stage, presumably in the other place, 'a stacked select committee' that has already drawn its conclusions.

The SPEAKER: I will take advice on that but, whereas it is entirely out of order to impute improper motives or make allegations against members of this house, other than by substantive motion, I have not come across examples where members here have been pulled up for doing the same in respect of members of the other house. One need only read the red Hansard to see daily examples of members of the other chamber imputing criminality to members of this chamber. Minister for Health.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Indeed, sir, if the opposition were correct, I think the Hon. Rob Lucas in another place would be left with nothing to say because, on an almost daily basis, he imputes improper motives to members of this chamber. This is nothing but a tawdry attempt by the opposition to play politics with what has been a human tragedy—a human tragedy that this government has been quick and determined to do everything that we can humanly do to rectify.

There is no new material that the opposition has offered. There is nothing new that it has presented that was not available to the royal commission. Not a single shred of evidence has it posited that, in any way, was not available to the royal commission and that Mr Debelle was not able to base his findings on. Is the opposition really suggesting that a stacked select committee of the Legislative Council is going to be any more objective or any more comprehensive than the royal commission of Mr Debelle?

Ms Chapman: Absolutely.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Sorry? I think the deputy leader just said 'Absolutely'. So, it is wonderful for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to bell the cat. The opposition today is saying that it does not agree and it does not believe that the royal commission has any credibility.

Ms Chapman: I didn't say that. You tell the truth, Jack.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It questions the findings of a royal commission.

Ms Chapman: You tell the truth, Jack.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The deputy leader said, 'Absolutely'. If she did not; if I misheard her, I am happy to withdraw the comment but, when I said that, Hansard will record the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying 'Absolutely'. The opposition did not get the result that it wanted from the royal commission. The Premier was exonerated, and now it is trying to have another go. It is trying to have another ago through a select committee in another place, which has already come to its own conclusions about what its report will be.

We have just seen, obviously the Deputy Leader of the Opposition but the member for Unley as well, calling into question the findings of the royal commission. The royal commission is the ultimate authority, with the most sweeping powers to investigate any matters, and it has come to these conclusions. Not liking the outcome from the royal commission, the opposition is now saying that it needs to have another go with the select committee. It has made it quite clear that it rejects the findings of the royal commission.

On this matter, there has been a royal commission. For weeks on end, ministers of the government have been available for hour upon hour of questions. Tens upon tens, if not hundreds, of questions have been asked of ministers. Ministers have been available to answer questions from any member of this house on this matter. This house should not subject itself to what will be nothing but a tawdry circus of the upper house. We should support this motion and send a very clear message to the other house that we will not be a party to it.

I would be very interested to know, too, if it is also the opposition's position that, should it ever be on the Treasury benches, it will be happy to have ministers who are represented in this chamber subject themselves to select committees of the Legislative Council. I would be very happy for the opposition to put on record that, should it ever come onto the Treasury benches, it will be happy to subject its ministers to questioning by select committees of the other place.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (17:39): Ministers, frankly, do not need this motion as protection. If they have the justification of a genuine reason why they should not appear, they should take responsibility for it and argue it themselves. They do not need the protection of this motion to do that. This motion would, in fact, deny them the opportunity to appear, if they want to clear up these matters.

There are some things in the minister's speech that do actually need to be responded to directly. First, his regular and consistent verballing of the deputy opposition leader, and indeed the opposition, about comments on the royal commission. The Minister for Health claims that the opposition did not like the outcomes, and that we rejected the findings of the royal commission; that is absolutely not the case.

Before the government set up the royal commission, it was an inquiry, and the royal commissioner had to ask three times to be given the powers of a royal commissioner—questions raised in this house. The opposition fully supported the royal commission. I think even the Premier agreed that it was the opposition's work that instigated the royal commission.

The Minister for Health repeated this calumny, I think it is fair to say, on the select committee: that it was stacked and had already come to its own conclusions on what the report would be. I remind the Minister for Health that this was in fact a select committee established upon the motion of a crossbench member of parliament, and I am sure that every single one of the crossbenchers in the other place who supported this motion requesting the attendance of the ministers in question would be most disappointed and distressed to hear the minister's words.

The key point, though—and this goes again to the minister's speech—is that this select committee is necessary to answer questions that were not asked by Mr Debelle, were not asked of Mr Debelle to be found, were outside the terms of his terms of reference, or were in fact raised by Mr Debelle for future consideration.

This select committee is also necessary because when we have question time in this house we are unable to ask the member for Hartley questions about matters related to her role as the education minister, because if we were to do so they would be answered by the Minister for Education, who has responsibility for that department, or the Premier if he so chooses—although I suspect that the Minister for Education might be more likely to, as she often answers questions that are put to the Premier.

Indeed, when there are matters that pertain directly to the Premier's knowledge or directly to the minister's knowledge and the other chooses to answer the question in question time, then that is something that the select committee will be able to get to the bottom of. When we ask questions in this chamber, there are certain restrictions on things that are able to be asked, and they are largely dependent on whether or not the minister chooses to answer them.

So far in question time this week there have been some 40 or 50 questions asked on matters relevant to this matter, but there have been very, very few answers. I would urge this house to allow the ministers the freedom to attend the Legislative Council's select committee if they so wish, or otherwise make a case for why they do not. I think it would be a curtailment on those ministers' liberties for this house to pass a motion denying them the right to attend the select committee as requested.

The house divided on the motion:

AYES (19)
Bedford, F.E. Bignell, L.W.K. Breuer, L.R.
Close, S.E. Conlon, P.F. Fox, C.C.
Geraghty, R.K. Hill, J.D. Key, S.W.
O'Brien, M.F. Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, A.
Portolesi, G. Rankine, J.M. Sibbons, A.J.
Snelling, J.J. (teller) Thompson, M.G. Weatherill, J.W.
Wright, M.J.
NOES (13)
Chapman, V.A. (teller) Evans, I.F. Gardner, J.A.W.
Goldsworthy, M.R. Griffiths, S.P. McFetridge, D.
Pederick, A.S. Pisoni, D.G. Redmond, I.M.
Sanderson, R. Treloar, P.A. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C.
Williams, M.R.
PAIRS (10)
Bettison, Z.L. Pengilly, M.
Rau, J.R. Marshall, S.S.
Koutsantonis, A. Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J.
Kenyon, T.R. Whetstone, T.J.
Caica, P. Venning, I.H.

Majority of 6 for the ayes.

Motion thus carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT