HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2017-06-20 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Member for Bragg

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Minister for Investment and Trade, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (15:47): I am delighted that the member for Bragg is in the house, because I refer to the last week of sitting when, in the third reading remarks on a proposed bill to deal with legislation on the ICAC, she launched a personal attack on me—not in the second reading, where I could have responded, but in the third. So I will take this grieve as an opportunity to answer her concerns.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: She attacked not only me but also Independent MPs who voted against her rushed and poorly thought-through bill. The member's criticism showed a lack of understanding—

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order: the member is now reflecting on a vote of this house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hope he is not going to. He is discussing—

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I am referring to your actions—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are going to listen to you very carefully, member for Waite.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: The member's criticisms showed a considerable lack of understanding of a range of processes in the house. This is the person who infamously used parliamentary privilege to lambast an ambulance driver for sleeping while a transplant patient was abandoned, an operation cancelled and a donor organ destroyed. A good story, she thought, but there was no sleeping ambulance driver—the patient made it to hospital and the transplant was a success. It is a story that underlines the importance of proper inquiry and competent research and highlights the danger of public allegations—

Ms Chapman: A bit like dodgy documents.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —yes, I will come back to that—against public servants that are later shown to be false.

On Thursday 1 June, the member for Bragg said I supported open ICAC hearings but changed my position 'to sit arm-in-arm with a government of secrecy'. My position has not changed from when the bill introduced when I was leader of the opposition in 2008. Under clause 28 of that bill, provision was made for public inquiry in matters of corruption subject to a set of considerations that included the seriousness of the corruption allegation, the risk of undue prejudice to a person's reputation and the preservation of a person's privacy.

The member for Bragg proposed that hearings into maladministration should be held in public. This is a concept not contemplated in the 2008 bill which dealt with corruption, not maladministration. It also ignores the fact that under present arrangements there is a fully public, fully open disclosure of all information in an unfettered way and in a very public way at the discretion of the commissioner.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: For the member to ask MPs to rush through such a substantive change to legislation without comprehensive debate and consultation shows her inclination towards haste at any expense and how, for her, a headline outranks the truth. If you want an example of how life under the Liberals' amendments would play out, remember 7 April 2009. On that day, the member for Bragg told the media and the parliament that a heinous thing had happened to a seriously ill man in Mount Gambier. She claimed in a media release:

An elderly Mount Gambier resident who needed to be flown to Adelaide for a kidney transplant was driven to the airport in a taxi instead of an ambulance and missed his flight and missed out on a new kidney.

The release was headlined, 'Kidney wasted as ambos sleep'.

Staff at the SA Ambulance Service stood accused of an appalling act. The RFDS staff and transplant specialists were embroiled in the saga and a Mount Gambier man left in limbo. But what was the truth of the alleged maladministration? As the health minister told the house that day, the claims by the member for Bragg were simply wrong, wrong, wrong. The patient did catch the flight. He was taken to hospital and he did get his kidney transplant and was recovering well.

What action did the member take to apologise for her false allegations of maladministration under privilege? In her personal explanation on 8 April 2009, the member for Bragg's only concession was that she did not mean all ambulance officers in Mount Gambier—no apology to the RFDS, no apology to the ambulance drivers, no apology to the surgeons or the patient, no apology to the health department's administrators. 'Mistake made, move on,' she said. Reputations were ruined. Move on. Her work was so sloppy I should have done what was suggested by a number of her colleagues who came to my office at the time and sacked her that day because they wanted her gone.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. I do not want to be shouting as loud as you. I think it is absolutely outrageous. Did you leave the chamber today? You were on two warnings.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I can count. I was just giving her the option to tell me if she left because it is not clear. Okay, that means you are on two warnings and there is only a minute to go.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: Every public servant in South Australia should understand what the member for Bragg thinks of their right to privacy and protection. If you would trust the member for Bragg with your reputation, you are taking a huge risk. Not even her own colleagues trust her. Former leaders John Olsen, Iain Evans, Isobel Redmond and I learnt the extent to which they could trust the member for Bragg. She is like Lady Macbeth on steroids, so treacherous. She is hiding in the shadows of the alley with her dagger, having a sweep at anyone who would walk by. There is much I could say about the member for Bragg, and if she would like to continue her personal attacks I have a long list of responses. It is a testament to what she would be like as attorney-general—a disaster for the state.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Time expired.

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