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

Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Debate resumed.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (16:32): Today, I reply to the opening of parliament address of Her Excellency the Hon. Frances Adamson AC, Governor of South Australia. I record my appreciation of her service to the people of South Australia and to this parliament.

Already our Governor has travelled extensively in South Australia and been warmly received by its people. We are indebted to her for the intellect and energy she brings to her position as Governor and which we all enjoy the benefit thereof.

During Her Excellency's address to parliament yesterday she welcomed 14 new members to the parliament, and I add my welcome. Her Excellency also congratulated those of us who were returned as members by their constituencies, and in particular I noted the following:

You each have your own loyalties, your own priorities, and your own areas of personal interest. But the necessarily adversarial nature of Parliament should not overshadow the far greater qualities that unite you all, most significantly your desire to make a meaningful difference in the lives of South Australians as evidenced by your embrace of Parliamentary service.

May you carry out these solemn responsibilities with wisdom, with respect, with courage, and above all with integrity.

As is well known to members who return, and will be learned by those who are new, parliament has means by which to ensure that we all undertake our responsibilities with integrity. As members of parliament, including ministers, the parliament can deal with any failings in this regard. There are a number of options open to parliament, including giving precedence to the establishment of a privileges committee.

Last year, by a motion passed on 12 October, the parliament determined that it would establish a select committee of inquiry essentially to consider and report to the parliament on my alleged conduct. The select committee, inter alia, referred matters to the state Ombudsman to investigate. The Ombudsman provided a report to the parliament, which was tabled yesterday on 3 May. Both reports are public and the contents speak for themselves, though I think it is fair to say the findings could not be more different.

I welcome the Ombudsman's report and thank him and his office for the comprehensive, thorough and independent investigation over the past six months. His findings were clear: no conflict of interest, no breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct and no maladministration. I am particularly pleased that the hardworking public servants have been cleared as public officers.

The public officers who presented to last year's select committee included the head of the Attorney-General's Department, the department of planning and local government and the Department for Infrastructure and Transport and senior public servants from the Crown Solicitor's Office, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the Department for Environment and Water and ministerial offices. Not to be left out, there were two state planning commissioners.

As is now a matter of record, there was an enormous number of documents called for and produced by government departments and ministerial offices both to the select committee and to the Ombudsman. I also advise that the Ombudsman at all material times allowed me to be legally represented. This included my solicitor's correspondence on my behalf and the presence of senior counsel to present submissions and accompany me in the providing of evidence on oath to him.

The Ombudsman himself has made statements about the reference to him by the select committee on this matter and has given quite a scolding in respect to the failings of the drafting manner of terms of reference to him. Essentially, he has outlined the shortcomings of the way in which the matter was referred to him and indicated that, if parliament or a select committee thereof has any concerns about the conduct of a member, then it would be prudent for it to consult with him on the drafting of such terms of reference to ensure that it is consistent with and within his jurisdiction and responsibility.

Further, it should not make findings on these matters first and then ask him to undertake an investigation subsequently, as it clearly has the potential of politicising his office. Understandably, he is concerned about the reputation of his office, including the public's confidence in his independence. I suggest it is also important that the advice given and the invitation extended by the Ombudsman be heeded to ensure this parliament's reputation is not tarnished.

No-one in this chamber will be surprised to hear that I consider the select committee of last year to have been nothing more than a witch-hunt and that it had all the features of a kangaroo court. However, I make the following comments that I trust will be of assistance in ensuring future select committees or inquiries actually enhance and protect the interests of parliament and its reputation and will be useful for the parliament to consider.

Firstly, if the parliament is to establish a select committee to investigate and report on such matters, then surely it should allow the select committee to determine a time frame to facilitate this. I note the select committee last year was established by motion of the parliament on 12 October 2021 and required to report by 11 November 2021. Quite frankly, it is farcical to expect that any inquiry body, particularly given the extent of witnesses and documents to be considered, have 37 days for completing this task, in particular giving procedural fairness to all concerned.

This is no excuse for them failing to give me procedural fairness, but then it is my view that this inquiry was and remains motivated by the political objectives of at least three of the members, including the Chair. Just one example to support this was when counsel assisting submitted, and the majority of the select committee found, the existence of a contract between KIPT and the independent forestry owners. This formed the basis of their finding that I had an actual conflict of interest.

The Ombudsman uncovered in his investigation that there was no contract at all. It did not exist. Now I suggest that even the most junior lawyer would understand the importance of having evidence of a contract before making such an assertion. There was none. I do not for one minute consider it is any excuse that this was as a result of having an unreasonable restriction on time. It is just plain incompetence at best and, at worst, mischievous.

Secondly, I refer to the select committee's use of legal support, including the appointment of Senior Counsel as counsel assisting. Although this has been unusual for a select committee in the past—they usually have one research officer and no lawyers—I agree that there may be considerable value to the parliament in making provision for this taxpayer expense. Indeed, a legal team and counsel assisting have been and continue to be valuable in inquiries such as royal commissions and inquiries by the Coroner.

What is startling, I suggest, was the approach taken in this select committee in the denial of legal representation for any witnesses who elected to have the same. Historically, and in my experience in the parliament, select committees have not had their own legal teams appointed, so consideration of how this witness representation may operate has not really been addressed. I know the select committee in the other place, chaired by the Hon. Frank Pangallo MLC, denied legal representation to the Commissioner of Police in an inquiry last year.

The question of legal representation, I suggest, does need to be fully explored and I would urge the parliament to do so. Failing to do so will again put the parliament at risk of criticism. We all have an obligation to ensure that the reputation of the parliament is not diminished and, most importantly, that it retains the confidence of the people of South Australia for whom it exists to serve.

Dr Gray, counsel assisting the committee, stressed the importance of procedural fairness in the conduct of the inquiry. I agree with her in that regard. I suggest, however, that there were considerable failings in this regard by this committee and, notably, where omitted from Dr Gray's closing submissions. I refer in particular to my application to the committee for counsel—namely, Ms Frances Nelson QC—to appear to present an application early in the hearings, namely, after the first three witnesses. It was refused, that is, an application for her to appear.

However, the Chair of the committee advised that my counsel could put a written submission in support of that application. That written submission was made on 5 November 2021. Members might be puzzled as to the nature of this submission and the application it made. That is not surprising because it does not feature in the submission of Ms Gray or the final report of the select committee. The application directed to the attention of the Chair was in fact an application for recusal.

It outlined the basis upon which the member for West Torrens, the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis, should disqualify himself from the committee. It suggested that the member had, at the very least, a reasonable apprehension of bias, if not actual bias, having made public statements repeatedly after only three witnesses had appeared before the committee. I propose to refer to that submission. It is addressed to Ms Andrea Michaels MP, Chair, Select Committee regarding the Kangaroo Island port application:

Dear Ms Michaels

Re: Application for recusal

I am advised that the Select Committee inquiring into the Attorney-General has declined her request to make a submission in person to the Select Committee. On behalf of the Hon the Attorney-General, I make following submissions.

1. I regard the integrity of the Select Committee and the consequences that may flow from any report to the Parliament of such importance that I am providing written submissions.

2. In my respectful submission, the Hon Tom Koutsantonis MP should recuse himself from sitting further on the Select Committee because there is a reasonable apprehension of bias.

3. The Select Committee is charged with inquiring into the conduct of the Hon the Attorney-General in her role as Minister for Planning and Local Government.

4. The process involves hearing evidence, and, after hearing all the evidence, forming a view on all the evidence and providing a report to the Parliament. The process of inquiry by any tribunal must not be infected by the apprehension of bias because, if so infected, its ultimate report would be of little, if any, value.

5. The apprehension of bias principle is that a decider of fact must disqualify himself if a fair-minded lay observer may reasonably apprehend that such a person might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question he is required to decide. That principle is so important to perceptions of independence and impartiality that 'there should be no appearance of departure from it, lest the integrity of the inquiry be undermined' (Charisteas v Charisteas & Ors [2021] [HCA 29] at [11] - [18]).

6. The formulation of the basic test for apprehended bias is the same for both curial and non-curial decision-making.

7. In her opening statement on 2 November 2021, Dr Gray said the role of a parliamentary committee is to make factual inquiries, and emphasised that a Select Committee does not have the power to make any findings as to whether there has been a breach. If a breach is alleged, it must be referred back to the relevant House.

8. Dr Gray went on to say that her role was to assist in ensuring the inquiry is conducted in accordance with the requirements of procedural fairness. I note that she also said the Committee should consider any application made by the Hon the Attorney-General or counsel on behalf of the Attorney-General concerning the requirements of procedural fairness. Again, I am disappointed that her application has been declined.

9. In my respectful submission, there is, at the very least, a reasonable apprehension of bias, if not actual bias, on the part of the Hon Tom Koutsantonis MP such that he must immediately recuse himself.

10. On 3 November 2021, when only 3 of the 10 witnesses had given evidence, he issued a public statement, which was repeated in both the printed and electronic media. Relevantly:

a. Deputy Premier Vickie Chapman has no choice but to resign, after giving utterly unsatisfactory answers to serious questions about perceived or real conflicts of interest and allegations of misleading Parliament…

b. Vickie Chapman failed to provide a satisfactory response as to why Minister Michelle Lensink had been designated as a potential acting minister in the event [of her recusing] herself.

c. After today's unsatisfactory answers, Vickie Chapman has no option but to resign her commission immediately.

d. If she won't resign, Steven Marshall must sack her.

e. Vickie Chapman had more than three hours today to provide satisfactory answers to serious questions about perceived or actual conflict of interests.

f. Her answers were unsatisfactory.

11. Further, in the course of receiving the Hon the Attorney-General's evidence on 3 November, he said:

a. I have to say, Attorney, in my 24 years in this place I have never seen a clearer example of a conflict of interest.

b. I'm sorry, Attorney, those two statements don't add up. Either you have lied to us or you have lied to the parliament. Both statements can't be accurate.

12. In response to his comment by the Hon the Attorney-General that he had made up his mind, he said:

a. I think everyone has, given we have given what we have just heard today.

b. Attorney, isn't this just blatant corruption?...

c. I think any fair-minded person looking at this would just think you didn't want anything near your land changed and therefore you did not approve this port…

d. We've got documents prepared here for you to sign for your own department saying you had a conflict. Attorney, at what point does this whole facade just collapse around you? And you have just decided before you became planning minister there was no way you were going to allow this proposal…to be approved…

e. You should not be the decision-maker, yet you ignored that advice and you did not declare it. You didn't tell anyone. Even the proponents told us in evidence today that they didn't know that your property was adjacent to land they contracted.

Again, 'contracted'—I have added that piece. The email continues:

Attorney, it's clear as day.

13. Further, on 3 November 2021, the Hon Member published on social media: 'Evidence from @VickieChapmanMP is that she can't recall whether she sought Crown Solicitor's advice as to whether she had a conflict. Just staggering.'

14. On 3 November 2021, the Hon Member said:

a. 'That land adjacent means she has a real or perceived conflict and she should have recused herself' (Channel 7 Adelaide).

b. 'Completely unsatisfactory. The Attorney has no other option but to resign' (ABC Adelaide).

c. 'Isn't this just blatant corruption?' and 'The Attorney has no other option but to resign, and, if she won't resign, the Premier surely has to dismiss her' (Channel 9 Adelaide).

15. I am aware that legal authorities do not require that an allegation of actual bias be raised. Given what has fallen from the Hon Member, no fair-minded lay observer would conclude that he was able to decide the factual matrix in this matter impartially or without prejudice.

16. If the ultimate report of the Select Committee is to have any credibility, the Hon Tom Koutsantonis MP must recuse himself forthwith.

FRANCES NELSON QC

5 November 2021

I remain concerned, and I suggest so should this parliament, that this matter appears not to have been dealt with by the committee. It may be that certain members, and indeed, even the member for West Torrens, had considered this submission and rejected it. Surely, if there had been some consideration, it would have been important to record how the matter was dealt with and by whom and, most importantly, report it to the parliament via the final report. Perhaps some members of the committee did not want this matter to be reported on, as it might blemish the ultimate findings.

For completeness, I remind members that two of the members of the committee provided a dissenting statement, and I thank them for that. But how can a parliament be confined to relying on advice of select committees if there is such a blatant exclusion of even consideration of such matters by the committee? Ignoring matters and/or keeping them a secret does nothing to assist the parliament and can only attract criticism and the reputational damage that I have outlined.

I have made public comment about the probative value of the inquiry and any attendant report, with the participation of the member for West Torrens, as being negligible. Most importantly, however, I urge the parliament to ensure that in future select committees the hearings, if they are public, are also transparent. It is a matter for the parliament, but it may be beneficial for the parliament to seek advice on these matters, including from the state Ombudsman, as he is invited, including as to how improvements can be made.

I am mindful that as members of parliament we also have responsibilities under our code of conduct, in addition to our constituents ultimately determining our presence in this chamber. These are matters that are important to consider and are critical for confidence in this parliament. I urge parliament to do so.

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (16:50): I rise to make an impromptu and unprepared Address in Reply speech, as is my wont. It is always a pleasure to be here, but I have to say that over the last week it has been more of a pleasure than it has been over the last four years. That is as a result of the very hard work of our leader the Premier, the member for Croydon, and of course of the whole Labor team, a united and strong team which from day one was determined that we needed to get back into government, needed to save the state from those opposite. As it turned out, we did.

I mentioned the member for Croydon as a particular driving force for this, of course. From day one he has driven his team at a relentless pace and with relentless energy, and that team has stayed strong and united behind him. That is what got the result we saw at the election on 18 March.

I want to start by congratulating all the new members in this place. Some of them have spoken today, and very passionately. There were a lot of tears, and it was an emotionally draining day for a lot of us on this side of the house. It has been my pleasure to work with some of these new members in various ways, whether it has been on campaigns or even before the campaigns.

It was my absolute pleasure to spend a couple of days down in North Brighton, in the member for Gibson's electorate, an area I am not particularly familiar with. At that time it was unclear to me how the people I was speaking to intended to vote—they were not giving anything away—but it is fair to say that they were amongst the nicest people I have ever spoken to. I remember saying to the member for Gibson afterwards, 'Everyone here is just so nice. I don't know whether it's you or the picture on the card I'm giving out, but everyone was so nice and pleasant.' I would like to thank the people of North Brighton for getting behind the member for Gibson and making the right decision in the end.

Of course, I also spent a fair bit of time with the members for Adelaide, Newland and King, particularly, whether it was doorknocking or making phone calls on their behalf, because I believed in them as candidates. I think one of the great successes of the Labor victory was in deliberately preselecting candidates in every seat that we thought could win. There were no candidates fielded who we did not believe in. That paid dividends and we won previously unheard of seats such as Waite. The now member for Waite worked relentlessly and built on her already existing networks in the community, and that also paid dividends.

I remember spending quite a bit of time out in Waite at the Upper Sturt CFS, a great collection of people working under the firm direction of Captain 'Moose'. That was an absolute pleasure, and it was also an absolute pleasure to have been able to make some commitments on behalf of and with the member for Waite in order to make their lives safer as they go about making our lives safer.

I want to congratulate all the new ministers. As I said, it was a strong and united team over the last four years that went into this election, and it remains a strong and united team that has been put in place to enact the policies we took to the last election. As members have previously stated, these policies were nuts and bolts policies about properly funding schools, properly funding TAFE, but there were also pretty far-reaching reforms in terms of early childhood education and, of course, the Hydrogen Jobs Plan. It was an absolute pleasure to be part of that team and it still is an absolute pleasure to be part of that team as we put those plans into action.

I want to congratulate the new shadow ministers. I will not say anything unparliamentary. I want to congratulate all the new shadow ministers, including the new leader, of course, the member for Black. Certainly, our experience as shadow ministers is that it is a pretty thankless job. There is relentless pressure to monitor and respond to what the government is doing, what the media are saying the government is doing and what the media are saying we are doing. It is a relentless and often thankless job, getting up early in the morning to read the papers, to listen to talkback radio and to receive text messages back and forth all over the place. It is a relentless job and I do wish them well.

I think democracy is well served by a well-functioning opposition. Certainly, during the last four years, our democracy was served by a well-functioning opposition, and I do hope that that is reflected over the next four years because it is important, and that is reflected in our support for the appointment of an independent Speaker in the Westminster model. It is something that I support very much. I think Westminster, as the beginning of this beautiful and sometimes flawed experiment in parliamentary democracy, sets the model for the rest of us and we could hardly do better than adopting an independent Speaker. I congratulate you, sir, on that appointment.

As I said, it is a tough gig being a shadow minister. You are responding all the time and you are working all the time. To digress, I want to thank the member for Hartley. The member for Hartley, who was my opposite for the last two years of our time in opposition as the police minister, did have some good qualities as a minister and one of those was his propensity to consult—his propensity to reach out to me when there were matters of importance that we needed to agree on and that we needed to find common ground on—and his common decency. He called me on the Sunday morning after the election, as I understand he called several others, congratulating me on my win and I congratulated him of course. In his seat, we had a good candidate who fought the good fight and ultimately was not successful, but I do want to thank the member for Hartley.

I want to thank some people close to me. I have been here for 12 years and I have been served every step of the way by my officer manager, Chantelle Karlsen. She has been an absolute rock. Whatever happens to her, whatever happens in her life, she is always there for me. She is always there at the end of the phone if I need her, and she especially has been over the election period we have just been through.

In fact, she was much more so in 2018, when I had a candidate for SA-Best running against me. The Liberals, as always, ran dead in my seat. The SA-Best candidate, not through any work of their own, did take the fight up to us and ended up coming second in the seat of Elizabeth, so that was a particularly hard-fought campaign in a particularly difficult environment for the Labor Party after 16 years in government. Chantelle Karlsen, with the rest of the team, was there every step of the way for me. I do understand that some newer members of the house have reached out to her, in terms of setting up the office and a bit of advice along the way, and I hope that she has given them the help that she always gives me.

I also want to pay tribute to my other permanent staffer, or up until recently only other permanent staffer, Chad Buchanan. What can I say about Chad?

Members interjecting:

Mr ODENWALDER: Tittering from the back! Chad is an incredible person. He always makes something out of nothing, and I mean that in the best possible way. As an organisation, we have a limited number of resources at our disposal and, of course, in an election campaign, particularly an election campaign run under the leadership of our party at the moment, we concentrated on seats that we wanted to win, that we hoped to win, such as Waite and Unley. We can talk more about Unley if you like, member for Unley. Of course we directed resources to those seats where they were absolutely needed.

Somehow, when election day came around we managed to find the resources we needed to staff our booths, put up our corflutes—all those things—as well as assist where we could in some of our neighbouring seats. There was a large pool of volunteers, obviously, but they were moving around all the time. I want to acknowledge Chad's work in pulling those people together at the last minute, particularly for Elizabeth, where, as I said, the Liberal Party did not put up much of a fight. I was hoping they would, but in this instance they did not.

While I am on the election in Elizabeth, I want to mention One Nation. I note there is a new One Nation member in the upper house. I have not met her yet. I genuinely do not know anything about her—I did not hear her acceptance speech—but I do welcome her to this house. I understand that she has made some considered comments so far in the media. I want to acknowledge that One Nation as a party did reasonably well in Elizabeth. They came third, with just a little over 10 per cent. I have not checked all the other figures, but I suspect that is among the highest in the state, and that does not surprise me.

I will be careful about what I say, but One Nation and parties like One Nation represent quite a broad range of people, I believe. There are people none of us will have anything to do with. There are people who for ideological reasons are full of hatred towards other races, towards people who believe that our democracy simply should not exist, and they will gravitate towards a party of the right where they see they may have a home.

I think there is a much larger group of people, who the first group of people exploits, who genuinely feel they have been left behind by the major parties. Whether or not that is true, they genuinely feel that, and they largely exist in working-class communities like mine. I urge people to perhaps have their political differences with a party like One Nation but not have a knee-jerk reaction to those people who have chosen to vote for a party like One Nation.

Obviously, I would prefer them to vote for the Labor Party. From the bottom of my heart, I believe that the Labor Party exists to serve the interests of working people. We of course try very, very hard to listen and engage with all our communities, but we have to acknowledge that there are people who, for whatever reason, feel that they are not properly engaged with and have been left behind by the major parties in recent years. They will gravitate towards these parties not because they are intrinsically racist or intrinsically full of hatred towards certain groups in our community but simply because they feel, perhaps unfairly, that they are not well represented.

I want to mention the member for Unley—not that I have anything against the member for Unley; he has been a delight to deal with so far. Others may not realise that, as the Opposition Whip, he has been an absolute delight to work with. I want to talk a little bit about his opposite in the state election, Ryan Harrison, who sadly is not here amongst our people today. He worked extremely hard in the seat of Unley, as did all our candidates. He took it right up to the wire I think. I do not know what the end results were; the member for Unley may furnish me with those.

An honourable member: One.

Mr ODENWALDER: One?

An honourable member: Yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: I do just want to acknowledge publicly the work of Ryan Harrison and his team. They did an incredible job in Unley and worked very hard. It is a shame that he could not be here today because that was a seat much like Waite, which was very unlikely we would win and in the end we did not. So I just want to pay tribute to Ryan.

I have been absolutely delighted to be made the Government Whip. The last few days have been incredibly busy and incredibly stressful, but I am so happy that I am part of a team that are disciplined and know the rules before they start, and so it makes that job easier in some respects. Of course we have had a lot of juggling to do this week. We have had a lot on the agenda, and it has been an absolute pleasure working with everybody, and I hope that we can continue to be disciplined as the years go on. I know we will and I hope I continue as the Government Whip for a long time.

I want to acknowledge my two new staff, Rebecca and William. Like me, they have never worked in a whip's office, so be patient with them, everybody. They are learning the ropes as well and they are working incredibly hard. They have been here late every night so far this week preparing motions, juggling things around, sorting out pairs with the opposition, sorting out the general functioning of parliament, and I do want to acknowledge their hard work.

I hope that most of you behind me here have had a chance to meet both of them. They are there whenever you need them, as is of course the member for West Torrens, the Leader of Government Business's parliamentary staffer Corey Harriss, who is also an absolute machine of the parliamentary process. He knows whatever is going on at any given time and has always been there to help.

Given that this was an impromptu speech, I have not prepared too many things, but I want to end on this note. Unlike some people in recent speeches, I did actually remember that I should thank my wife. I want to thank Ann; my two young boys, Felix and Miles; and also to a certain extent my elder son, James, who actually does not really care whether or not I am around very much. I want to thank them for their love and their support not only during the election period and not only during the last three days—which have been particularly difficult to juggle, as I am sure they have been for others—but over the last four years as a shadow minister.

As I said before, it is a tough gig being the shadow minister. It is the early mornings that get you down, and it is not just the workload you experience but the fairly random and unexpected bursts of work you are expected to do and you want to do that do put an immense pressure on your family, as anyone who has been a shadow minister or, I am sure, a minister will know.

So I do want to thank Ann. She has been an absolute rock, juggling her own work life and working from home, as well as juggling a particularly energetic 14-month-old kelpie. It has all added to the mix to make our family life particularly stressful over the last four years and also over the last few days. I will not read aloud to the house the text message I got when I informed her that we might be sitting late tonight, but thankfully we are not, I hope.

Of course, there are other members I want to acknowledge. The member for Taylor is here and I want to welcome him to this place. Amongst the new members, I welcome the member for Taylor to this place. He is a very experienced federal politician and, like Olivia, I had the immense joy of working in the member for Taylor's office when he was the member for—

The Hon. N.D. Champion: Wakefield.

Mr ODENWALDER: —Wakefield. It was a fascinating experience and in many ways a learning experience.

Mr Pederick: Go deeper, go deeper.

Mr ODENWALDER: No, I won't, I promise. Before I hand the floor to the member for Gibson, I want to thank all the other northern MPs. Over time we formed a fairly solid northern bloc. At the moment, we are of course right behind the prospective member for Spence in the member for Taylor's vacated seat, Matt Burnell, who is a very, very good candidate. I have known Matt for a long time. In fact, his sister and my wife went to school together in Mildura, then I came across him later on in the union movement. It shows what a small world it really is. He is a very good man. He has the interests of working people at heart, and of course he has the support—as we all do mutually—of all the other northern MPs.

It is so good to have some new northern MPs to add to that support, including the member for Florey and the member for Playford. I remembered to thank the member for Playford, although on election night the member for Playford spoke for about 75 minutes and thanked everybody he had ever met, except for me and the member for Taylor. Admittedly, I did not do anything to help him, but we were among friends.

An honourable member: It would have been nice.

Mr ODENWALDER: That is right: it is the polite thing to do. Of course, I thank the member for Ramsay, the member for Light and the former member for Taylor. I should pay tribute to him. The former member for Taylor Jon Gee was an exceptional servant of the labour movement over many, many years. He was a good friend to many people in this place and he is a loss to this place. I am sure the new member for Taylor will adequately make up for that loss, but Jon Gee will be missed. His solid presence in this place will be missed. I do not think I have left anyone out of the north.

Mrs Pearce: I got one before.

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes, it is great to welcome the member for King and the member for Newland to this place as well. I might wrap it up here, sir, if you are alright with that.

The SPEAKER: I was hoping that you might address the house on—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: It is a terrific whip speech. I note that a former whip is interjecting and I welcome those interjections. Perhaps the member speaking does as well. I do note that the member did of course make a significant contribution to the South Australian police force.

Mr ODENWALDER: I have not actually resigned yet.

The SPEAKER: Of course not.

Mr ODENWALDER: I just indicated that I would resign soon.

The SPEAKER: I see.

Mr ODENWALDER: Sorry, I interrupted you and I apologise.

The SPEAKER: You most certainly have the call, member for Elizabeth.

Mr ODENWALDER: You were saying something nice about me, I thought.

The SPEAKER: I was. I was looking forward to your contribution in relation to the South Australian police force.

Mr ODENWALDER: Well, that will have to wait, sir. I will leave that to others for now. Thank you for your indulgence.

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