HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2022-05-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Ombudsman Investigation, Member for Bragg

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (15:29): My question is to the Deputy Premier. Following the report of the Ombudsman, will the Deputy Premier withdraw the accusation she made against the former Attorney-General, Deputy Premier, in this place on 18 November that in stating neither she nor any family member owned property near or impacted by KIPT forests the former Attorney and Deputy Premier made an untrue statement? With your leave and that of the house I will explain.

Leave granted.

Mr TEAGUE: In paragraph 195 of his report the Ombudsman advises that at the time the former Attorney and Deputy Premier was considering this project KIPT did not have a contract to harvest a plantation near the property she owned.

The SPEAKER: Before the Deputy Premier or any other minister answers, there's a matter that does occur to me, and that is that there has been, as I understand it, a suggestion that a false statement was made to the house. But, of course, at the time the statement was made certain materials were then before the house and before the member, and I think the effluxion of time is relevant to the answer the Deputy Premier may give. It's also relevant to any question that might be raised as to argument within a question. The Deputy Premier, or a minister.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Energy and Mining) (15:30): We can go around this as often as members opposite like. The Ombudsman is an independent statutory officer. Everyone in this chamber—everyone in this chamber, from what I understand—respects Mr Wayne Lines. He is someone we all hold in very high regard. I hold him in very high regard.

In fact, can I say that during the last four years, during the period that the former opposition was in opposition, we relied on independent statutory officers to do their jobs. As far as I was concerned, the opposition was their ally. We did everything we could to make sure that they were resourced, that they got what they needed. Often, the Ombudsman would come to the committee that I was on, the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee, to seek support, to seek protection, because he didn't have enough funding to do the reports he wanted to do.

This idea, this line of questioning, where we are being asked to, firstly, adjudicate between statements on the basis of a select committee report and votes of a parliament and an Ombudsman's report when they are in conflict is to say that one is right and the other is wrong. That is not the case. The Ombudsman has done his own work. The Ombudsman has come up with his own set of findings. I also point out that he did not investigate whether the former Deputy Premier misled this house; that was a matter for us. That's been settled: tick, misled the parliament, penalty imposed.

The next question becomes about the conflict. The select committee made a view about that. There was a minority dissenting report in a parliament where we only had 19 of 47 members. The house agreed with the committee. That stands. Nothing is going to change that. So asking us to say, 'Who do you trust more, the parliament or the Ombudsman?' is ridiculous. Of course, we accept what the Ombudsman is saying. He has done his own investigation. He is independent.

But also criticising a select committee and someone who is a member of the independent bar—imagine if I got up here today and said that the former Attorney-General, the member for Heysen, is making criticism, under privilege, of a member of the independent bar. Of course he is not. That's what he is implying, that Rachael Gray got it wrong. The fact is you can have two legal officers look at the same thing and come up with different points of view, and it happens all the time; hence, we have appeals—all the time.

The Hon. P.B. Malinauskas: It's a feature of the system.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It's a feature of the system, and it's a good system. The parliament made its point of view. After the parliament spoke, the Liberal Party acted and acted decisively and brutally, and the member for Bragg was no longer Deputy Premier or had her other portfolio responsibilities, but somehow was still Attorney-General but on the backbench, and then parliament expelled her from the parliament as punishment for misleading the parliament. If the Liberal Party and the member for Heysen think the member for Bragg has been hard done by, reinstate her, bring her back. If she has been hard done by, return her to the job she was taken out of, make her deputy leader, make her shadow attorney-general. Until then, it's just hypocrisy.

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