HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-11-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE ATKINSON/ASHBOURNE/CLARKE AFFAIR

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (16:59): I move:

That this council notes the evidence and documents tabled in relation to the select committee and expresses its concerns with the actions of the Premier, the Attorney-General, members of their staff and other members of the Rann government in connection with the affair.

The select committee was established by resolution of the Legislative Council on 7 July 2005. After the 2006 election, the select committee was revived. That revival occurred on 7 June 2006, when the President laid on the table the evidence given to the select committee at that date. When the second session of the 51st parliament was prorogued on 14 August this year, the select committee was not subsequently reappointed, and we accept the decision of the council in relation to that matter.

On the Notice Paper, Orders of the Day: Private Business No. 15 is a motion moved by me for the tabling of the balance of the material collected by the select committee. I am gratified by expressions of support from members of the council that they will be supporting that motion. However, the essence of what I wish to say in relation to the motion presently before the council—namely, that we express concern at the actions of the Premier and others in relation to this affair—relies upon the evidence that you, Mr President, laid on the table on 7 June 2006.

Some members were not present at the time this affair arose, and I think it is worth placing on the record what was actually encompassed in the Atkinson /Ashbourne/Clarke affair, that is, the circumstances and events surrounding the discontinuance in 2002 by former Labor deputy leader, Ralph Clarke, of his defamation action against Attorney-General Atkinson. Clarke claims that Premier Rann's then senior adviser, Randall Ashbourne, acting on behalf of the Hon. Mr Atkinson, offered him appointments to two government boards if he (Clarke) discontinued the action. Clarke honoured his part of the bargain and discontinued the action, but supervening events deprived him of his promised reward.

Although Ashbourne was ultimately acquitted on a charge of abuse of public office and was summarily dismissed by Premier Rann, serious questions about this affair have remained unanswered. I interpose that the select committee, which was appointed on 7 July 2005, was established because the government did not honour its promise to establish an independent and open judicial inquiry into the affair. In July 2005, the government introduced a bill, entitled the Special Commission of Inquiry (Powers and Immunities) Bill, but the terms of reference proposed by the government were not acceptable to the Legislative Council. They were too narrow and envisaged a closed behind-doors inquiry.

Members ought be reminded of the chronology of events that led to this affair. Although its principal events occurred in 2002-03, it is necessary to refer to a course of events that began as early as 1997. In that year, Ralph Clarke (then ALP member for Ross Smith) was charged with three counts of assault of his domestic partner, Edith Pringle. The Premier (then leader of the opposition) suggested to Ms Pringle that she should drop the charges, and the Hon. Mr Atkinson (then shadow attorney-general) also spoke to Pringle about withdrawing the charges.

In February 1999, charges against Clarke came on for hearing in court. Pringle gave evidence, but the then DPP, Paul Rofe QC, entered a nolle prosequi. At that stage, Clarke had not given evidence. Later, in April 2000, shortly after he had lost ALP endorsement for his seat (now renamed Enfield), Clarke spoke on air on Father John Fleming's program on Radio FIVEaa. Mr Atkinson also spoke. Mr Atkinson said that the result of the Clarke-Pringle trial was unsatisfactory and that the Labor Party needed a not guilty verdict.

Clarke considered that Atkinson's statements were defamatory of him, and in October 2000 Clarke instituted an action for defamation against Atkinson in the District Court. Atkinson filed a defence and counterclaim alleging that Clarke had defamed him on the same radio program. The action progressed very slowly. There were various interlocutory applications during 2001 and 2002. Members will recall that, in March 2002, there was a state election. After that election, Randall Ashbourne was appointed Premier Rann's senior adviser.

The chronology then moves to October 2002. On 28 October, about three weeks before the defamation action was due to begin, Ralph Clarke met Ashbourne and had a discussion with him. The discussion centred on Clarke's intentions in relation to the defamation action. A short time later (again prior to the trial date), there was a second meeting between Clarke and Ashbourne. During this second meeting, Ashbourne offered Clarke two positions on government boards if he would discontinue these actions.

Shortly after the second meeting, there was a third meeting. At this meeting, and in a later telephone conversation, Ashbourne confirmed that Clarke would be appointed to two government boards if he discontinued his defamation action. I am here dealing with the chronology of events, and I later propose to examine the evidence you tabled, Mr President, which related to that. On 16 November 2002, the defamation action was in fact discontinued by Clarke. There was no public announcement of the settlement. On the following Monday, 19 November, Ashbourne attended a regular meeting of ministerial advisers. Also in attendance was Cressida Wall, who was the chief of staff to the Deputy Premier and Treasurer (Hon. Kevin Foley). Ashbourne reported that the Clarke/Atkinson action had been settled.

The following day, Ashbourne asked Wall to find board positions for Clarke because he would drop the lawsuit against Atkinson. She reported this conversation to Foley who, in her presence, telephoned Ashbourne and said, 'What the hell have you done?' Foley immediately spoke to Premier Rann, who convened a meeting that included Foley, Atkinson and senior members of the Premier's staff, including Ashbourne. Later, on 20 November, the Premier requested Warren McCann, Chief Executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, to conduct an investigation into the matter. The Premier clearly understood the seriousness of the situation.

McCann interviewed Ashbourne and he sought legal advice from a Victorian solicitor who, in turn, sought advice from a member of the Victorian bar. On 2 December, McCann presented a three-page report to the Premier. He concluded that there were no reasonable grounds for believing that the conduct of either Ashbourne or Atkinson was improper. He also said that Ashbourne's actions may have been inappropriate, and he was given a letter of reprimand and a warning by the Premier. No public announcement was made by the Premier or any person concerning the extraordinary events that I have just outlined. The matters were not reported to the police. Crown Law advice was not sought.

The first public hint of the matter surfaced on 25 June when, during question time in parliament, the member for Bragg asked Deputy Premier Foley whether he had asked the Premier or anyone on the Premier's staff to instigate an inquiry into the actions of the Attorney-General. The Deputy Premier said that he would take the question on notice and, thereafter, a slow series of revelations emerged. In the subsequent days in parliament, ministerial statements were made.

On the weekend of 28/29 June, the government for the first time consulted the Crown Solicitor, who advised that the information should be referred to the Anti-Corruption Branch of the police. The following day, the Attorney-General was stood down as Attorney-General and the Leader of the Government here became the Acting Attorney-General.

On 8 August 2003, the Acting DPP, Wendy Abraham QC, announced that Ashbourne would be charged with the offence of abuse of public office. She said: 'There is insufficient evidence to charge anyone else in respect of the matter.' Ashbourne was charged and the Premier sacked him. The Hon. Mr Atkinson was reinstated as Attorney-General.

In February 2004, Ashbourne entered a plea of not guilty. On 6 June in that year a magistrate ruled that there was sufficient evidence for Ashbourne to be put on trial on a charge of abuse of public office, and on 13 July Ashbourne was formally arraigned in the District Court. In June 2005, Ashbourne's trial was conducted and he was acquitted on 17 June. On 7 July, the Legislative Council appointed this committee, the government having decided not to proceed with its bill to establish an inquiry.

Finally in this chronological sequence, I mention the fact that, on 8 December 2005, the government finalised an agreement whereby it agreed to pay Ashbourne at least $443,500 plus legal costs of $17,000, and Ashbourne agreed to release the government from liability in relation to the termination of his employment.

The McCann inquiry was established, as I mentioned, on 20 November 2002, within four days of the discontinuance by Mr Clarke of his defamation action. Premier Rann appointed Warren McCann, Chief Executive of his own department, to conduct the inquiry. McCann interviewed Randall Ashbourne, who made certain admissions about his dealings with Atkinson. McCann also interviewed the Hon. Mr Atkinson but he did not interview or attempt to interview Ralph Clarke.

Ashbourne admitted to McCann that he had discussed with Atkinson the issue of possible board appointments for Ralph Clarke. This admission was inconsistent with the stance of the Hon. Mr Atkinson. He said that 'the first I knew of the idea of a board or committee position for Ralph Clarke' was at a meeting in the Premier's office on 20 November. This conflict of evidence was never referred to in the McCann inquiry or the subsequent report, let alone resolved. It will be apparent that the evidence given by the Crown Solicitor, Mike Walter QC, to the select committee was overly polite when he described the McCann inquiry as 'an inept investigation'.

The bungled McCann inquiry had a very serious subsequent effect. At a preliminary stage of Ashbourne's subsequent trial—the so-called voir dire—the court was required to rule whether Ashbourne's record of interview with McCann could be presented in evidence. In the voir dire, Ashbourne, in the absence of the jury, confirmed on oath that the record of interview was accurate. However, the court ruled that the record of interview could not be presented as evidence because McCann had failed to warn Ashbourne that he was not legally obliged to answer any questions.

The forensic effect of McCann's bungle was crucial. When Ashbourne came to give evidence in the presence of the jury he was able to change his position without fear of contradiction. He was able to tell the jury that he had never had a discussion with either Clarke or Atkinson about board positions being offered to Clarke. This was crucial, and a letter dated 25 September 2005 from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the select committee was tabled. It shows that the forensic effect was such that Ashbourne was able, without fear of contradiction, to change his evidence.

The deficiencies in the McCann inquiry and report were not confined to the blunder to which I just referred. McCann accepted Attorney-General Atkinson's bland assertions that the question of board positions for Clarke was never canvassed. He did not even contact Clarke, let alone ask him for his version of the events; nor did McCann interview Atkinson's adviser George Karzis. If he had done so, McCann would have had an entirely different picture from that presented by Atkinson.

The finding by the McCann inquiry that there were 'no reasonable grounds' for believing that the conduct of either Atkinson or Ashbourne was improper or breached relevant codes of conduct is not credible. Those findings were based upon evidence that was incomplete and that was not properly tested. The evidence collected by the select committee, including the crucial testimony of Ralph Clarke, shows that the actions of both Atkinson and Ashbourne were highly improper.

The McCann inquiry was itself flawed in that it did not thoroughly examine or test the evidence it gathered, and failed to interview all relevant witnesses or gather all relevant material. McCann obtained legal advice from Melbourne solicitors Deacons. That advice highlighted the inadequacy of the evidence collected by McCann and included the following, under the heading 'Outstanding issues':

The investigation has been conducted with urgency and expedition. A much more thorough (and time-consuming) investigation would no doubt resolve some outstanding issues which emerge from a reading of the material. For example, there is a difference between the evidence given by the Attorney-General and that of Ashbourne on the extent to which the Attorney-General knew that Clarke wanted or expected or should have a government appointment…

I emphasise that here, at a very early stage and whilst Mr McCann was investigating the matter, the lawyers from whom he obtained advice—lawyers in Melbourne as I mentioned, not in Adelaide—said that there was a difference between the evidence given by the Attorney and that given by Ashbourne on the extent to which the Attorney-General knew that Clarke wanted or expected board appointments.

That is a matter that ought to have been resolved, ought to have been cleared up, but despite those serious uncertainties McCann concluded that further investigation should not occur because it would be 'expensive and unwarranted'. That conclusion was flawed and wrong. It presumed—wrongly, as it later emerged—that further inquiries would prove fruitless. Moreover, McCann's refusal to conduct further investigations on the grounds that it would be expensive was wrong in principle and inconsistent with the most elementary principles of good public administration.

The select committee heard evidence from the Crown Solicitor that the police investigation was seriously compromised by the delay of seven months between the time the McCann inquiry began and when the matters were finally reported to the Anti-Corruption Branch.

One of the important issues that had to be considered by the select committee—which, for the first time, was able to gather all the evidence; evidence which has been tabled, as I mentioned—was whether or not Attorney-General Atkinson's denial about discussions of board positions should be accepted. In relation to that matter, the select committee was able to see:

the statements made by Randall Ashbourne—the initial statements given to McCann, the subsequent statements given at his own trial, and the differences between the same;

the evidence presented by Ralph Clarke;

the evidence presented by the former ministerial adviser to the Attorney-General, George Karzis; and

the evidence presented by Cressida Wall, in the form of notes and evidence at the trial (as I mentioned, she was chief of staff to Deputy Premier Foley).

Former Labor senator Chris Schacht gave evidence, as did former Labor member Murray DeLaine, and evidence was received by the select committee and tabled from Gary Lockwood, a former staff member of Robin Geraghty MP and also of Frances Bedford MP, and from Edith Pringle, whose name I have mentioned earlier in the chronological sequence. The evidence given by Ms Pringle was particularly interesting, and was closely examined by the select committee.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I hear the Hon. Russell Wortley bleating a little at the moment. There was a time when he was chair of this select committee, and a draft report was presented. It did not appear to rely upon the research material that had been prepared by the independent research officer (who had prepared a very thorough and comprehensive summary of the evidence); it appeared to make a number of outrageous political conclusions entirely unsupported by the evidence. Amazingly, that report was leaked to The Advertiser.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: Not surprising. The Advertiser published a report stating 'Minister clear in Atkinson case'. That purported report was absolute nonsense but the fact is that the honourable member opposite leaked it to the media, thought he would obtain a politically satisfactory headline, and put out in the community conclusions that were absolutely false and unsupportable. It was a laughable exercise by the honourable member.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind honourable members that that report has not been tabled in the chamber and its contents should not, therefore, be discussed.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I am only referring to the report that The Advertiser was given by sources unknown.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! That report has not been tabled in the chamber and, therefore, its contents should not be discussed.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: Its contents are not worth discussing; they are absolute nonsense.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The honourable member should move back to the evidence that has been tabled.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: The evidence which has been tabled, and much of which has not been reported upon—and certainly not misreported upon—shows, first, that the claim made by Attorney-General Atkinson that he was not aware that Ralph Clarke was offered government board positions in connection with the finalisation of the defamation case is not credible. The Attorney-General's claim is directly contradicted by his own staff and is inconsistent with the evidence of numerous witnesses.

Secondly, Premier Rann severely compromised the criminal proceedings against Ashbourne. The Premier and other ministers acted improperly by not promptly reporting matters to the police and by ordering an in-house inquiry into allegations that Ashbourne and Atkinson had abused their public office. Thirdly, and importantly, the McCann inquiry was so grossly bungled that the jury in Ashbourne's case was prevented from hearing the full facts of the matter. Moreover, the seven-month—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: Moreover, the seven-month delay between the time the Premier became aware of the issues and the time when they were reported to SAPOL's Anti-corruption Branch jeopardised and compromised both the police investigation and the subsequent trial. The evidence that has been tabled by you, Mr President, clearly demonstrates the urgent need for an independent commission against corruption in this state.

Three members of the committee who heard the evidence and were members of the committee throughout its time have agreed upon a statement, which I have in front of me. It expresses the conclusions we have reached and also outlines the—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I table the statement that has been agreed upon by three members: namely, myself, the Hon. Rob Lucas and the Hon. Sandra Kanck. The reason I do that is simply to avoid the necessity of reading out at length all of the evidence, which is comprehensive.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I am glad to hear that the Hon. Bernie Finnigan will facilitate the expedition of this matter by the tabling of the report. I table the statement. It is not a report; it is a statement of the three members.

I urge members to study the statement in close detail. I think when they do they will agree with the conclusion reached in relation to ministers as follows: in relation to the conduct of Attorney-General Atkinson, it is such that (a) he impliedly authorised Ashbourne's offer; he denied that he was aware that Ashbourne had offered board positions on his behalf; in adopting the attitude that Ashbourne could do as he liked, as long as it did not involve himself, Atkinson's conduct was reprehensible, if not criminally aiding and abetting the commission of a serious criminal offence; it was in clear breach of clause 2.4 of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, which requires ministers to act with appropriate standards of honesty; it was inconsistent with proper standards of honesty and integrity, quite apart from the Ministerial Code of Conduct, and it really rendered him unfit to hold the office of Attorney-General.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: The conduct of Premier Rann, in appointing his chief executive—

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: —of not reporting forthwith issues—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: —forthwith to the ACB, and not reporting to parliament or to the public the fact that the incident itself occurred; nor reporting to parliament the fact that McCann had been inquired into—I think members will agree—was improper in that he placed his personal and political interests ahead of the requirements of openness and accountability and was also contrary to clause 2.4 of the Ministerial Code of Conduct.

The conduct of Ashbourne in offering to secure Clarke's appointment to government boards in exchange for Clarke's discontinuance of his defamation action against Atkinson was highly improper and reprehensible.

The conduct of Deputy Premier Foley on 20 November 2006, when he first learnt from Cressida Wall that Ashbourne had agreed to arrange for Clarke's appointment to two government boards, was understandable. He expressed outrage and immediately reported the matter to the Premier. He then attended the meeting at the Premier's office, where he questioned Ashbourne and told the Attorney-General that he should step down. All of that was reasonable. However, the Deputy Premier's subsequent actions were unsatisfactory in that he agreed with the Premier and others that the issue should not be reported to the police. He agreed to the establishment of the secret in-house McCann inquiry, and participated in the cover up of the affair by not revealing details of it until forced to do so in parliament some seven months later. The conduct of others is referred to in the statement that has been tabled. I commend the statement to members and look forward to their contribution to the debate.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (17:31): I supported the setting up of this committee back in 2005.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: It was a long time ago.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: It was a long time ago, most definitely. I did so because I believed there had been some process issues, one might call them, associated with the way the government had handled this issue right from the moment it became apparent to the Treasurer and the Premier. I believed that it was important to have this committee so that we could come up with some findings and recommendations so the same mistakes would not be made by either this or a future government. From that perspective I am pleased that the committee has come up with these recommendations, but it is really interesting to look at all this evidence calmly here in 2008 and join the dots.

I thought that some of the most interesting evidence we heard came from Edith Pringle. The statement that was tabled a short time ago has a section on this, 1.5. It will take a little while before everybody gets to see it, so I will outline what it says. It recognises that, when she came before the committee to give evidence, one of the things Ms Pringle told us was, 'I know Michael Atkinson quite well'. We heard a little of the history and much of it is on the public record in media reports from the time about domestic violence charges made against Ralph Clarke, and those domestic violence charges were a precursor to the litigation that ultimately led to these events and the trial against Randall Ashbourne. Pringle told the committee:

When the issue of criminal action was first raised, Mike Rann had put me under considerable pressure to assist in the withdrawal of the charges, and Michael Atkinson supported that process.

I am not a member of the legal profession, but I wonder whether or not that is a really kosher thing to do. She said she had been contacted by Michael Atkinson, our Attorney-General, to give evidence in the case against Clarke, and she had told him, basically, that if she was subpoenaed she would have to give evidence. Interestingly, in the nature of the evidence she gave to the committee, the very clear message was that she had a very close relationship with Michael Atkinson. As she said, she knew Michael Atkinson quite well. She told us that he had given her the number of his direct line in his ministerial office. She said:

I spoke to Michael Atkinson on this number on 15 November 2002. I inquired about when I would be required to testify. Michael informed me that the case was not going ahead as a deal had been done. I recall that Michael seemed proud of the fact that he did not 'have to pay Ralph Clarke one penny'.

Members will note the familiarity in that she does not refer to him as 'the Attorney-General' or even 'Michael Atkinson' but as 'Michael'. She goes on to say:

I asked Michael Atkinson about the nature of the deal and he told me that it involved board positions for Ralph. When I asked him—

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. I. Hunter): The honourable member will ignore interjections from both sides.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: She continued:

When I asked him which boards were involved, he said that WorkCover would probably be one. I expressed my disapproval to Michael in fairly robust terms and his response to me was that it was out of his hands. He said the instruction to settle had come from higher up.

When she was asked about that, she responded by saying, 'The impression that I was left with was that this had come as a directive from the Premier at arm's length'. That understanding is consistent with what her adversary, Ralph Clarke, also told the committee. He told the committee that he believed that Randall Ashbourne was acting as an emissary. When one considers that Edith Pringle—

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: On a point of order, sir, what we are hearing here—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: What standing order?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Let me state my point of order. We are hearing versions from people who had an axe to grind and came under parliamentary privilege and gave evidence. It is one of the most gross attacks on natural rights.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT: Neither members interjecting are in the chair at the moment. The chair will hear the point of order.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The three amigos! My point of order is that they have had 14 months to discuss this evidence—

The Hon. S.G. WADE: On a point of order—

The ACTING PRESIDENT: Sit down.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: They did not have the guts to turn up and are about to use parliamentary privilege—

The ACTING PRESIDENT: There is no point of order.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: As this motion is, I believe (unless someone has changed it), noting the evidence and documents tabled in relation to the select committee on the Atkinson/Ashbourne/Clarke affair, I am talking about some of that evidence. As I say, Edith Pringle, who I am talking about, and Ralph Clarke, were hardly friends by this time. As we know, there was legal action and all sorts of toing and froing, yet these two people, who do not even talk to each other, came to a similar conclusion. Ms Pringle also provided to the committee photocopies of her phone records so that we could see the evidence that she had directly dialled the particular number that gave her access to the Attorney-General.

I agree with the comment that was made to the committee, and which the Hon. Robert Lawson has already placed on record, that the McCann inquiry was inept, and there is no doubt that, if that had been done more effectively, the outcome of the court case against Randall Ashbourne might well have been different. I happen to like Randall Ashbourne but, nevertheless, those are the realities of the system.

As I said at the beginning, I am pleased that we have come out with at least one particular recommendation, because later this evening I hope to be putting my bill for an independent commission against crime and corruption to a vote. The first recommendation of the small group of three of us from that committee is that an independent commission against corruption be established in South Australia. Recommendation 4 is that the Ministerial Code of Conduct be amended to include a further reminder that the Premier and all ministers should duly report to the Anti-Corruption Branch any conduct which might arguably be deemed to involve corruption.

Recommendation 5 states that a specific code of conduct for ministerial advisers and political staff be promulgated. Recommendation 6 is that section 5 of the Whistleblowers Protection Act be amended to require explicitly that, where a minister becomes aware of information relating to fraud or corruption, the minister is required to pass the information to the Anti-Corruption Branch of the police force or to an independent anti-corruption commission, if one is in existence. For me, those four recommendations—Nos 1, 4, 5 and 6—vindicate the setting up of this committee in the first instance.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (17:40): I had not intended to speak today to this motion, but this extraordinary abuse of parliamentary privilege cannot go unchallenged. We have the three amigos opposite—the three who hear all evil, speak all evil and see all evil. That is all they have. They come in here and use the conventions of this place to abuse parliamentary privilege and put out a statement which is, in effect, a minority report that they have had years to produce and did not do so, because they were either too lazy, too incompetent or not committed to it. So they never produced a minority report.

They would not turn up for meetings and they would not put forward their report, and they come in here and use the conventions of this place to obtain leave to table documents, which is given quite liberally. Unlike other houses of parliament, we like to be cooperative and we allow people to table documents. They have abused that by putting forward a document that is clearly their version of a minority report that they were too lazy or too incompetent to produce in the years in which this committee ran. They could not put forward a report then. No—they had to come in today and seek leave to table a statement.

If they are so confident about their statement and the actions of the Attorney-General, why do they not walk outside and give a press conference, free from the protection of parliamentary privilege? If they are so confident about the conduct of the Premier, the Attorney-General and Mr Ashbourne, let them walk out there. Let us see the Hon. Sandra Kanck put her pension on the line by walking out there and defaming officers and ministers of the Crown. We will not see that. Instead, we see this abuse of parliamentary privilege which enables the tabling of this absurd statement which has not been provided to members—this absurd statement which is, undoubtedly, their version of a minority report because they were too lazy and incompetent to get around to producing one.

What do we have here? We have, again, the collection of absurd hearsay and tittle-tattle that we have had throughout this saga. We have former members of the DLP talking about what happened in the 1950s, and that constitutes evidence. We have what Edith Pringle claims to have heard, and that she had access to Michael Atkinson's direct line. That constitutes the great indictment of the Attorney-General and the government of this state, because someone had access to his telephone. Someone was able to telephone the Attorney-General. Arrest the man! Someone was able to telephone him! That constitutes the evidence that they are putting against the Attorney-General of this state.

It is the collection of hearsay and absurd bits and pieces from enemies and people who have an axe to grind that they have continually used this committee for. They have slung around the mud—that is all they are good at doing, particularly the Hon. Mr Lucas. We know he is an expert at slinging mud all over the place. It does not matter whether it is correct. He has already been humiliated today by the fact that he has been throwing around accusations that have no basis in fact.

What we have seen here is a gross abuse of parliamentary privilege and parliamentary procedure. The opposition has brought this council into disrepute even by the fact that it set up this committee, and then it has gone through the charade of hearing all this evidence, which is basically just throwing around mud on the back of recollections and hearsay.

They have added to that charade today by abusing the conventions of this council to table this statement—which is clearly the minority report. They had years to produce it, yet they were too lazy and too incompetent and did not get around to it. They moved a motion in the last sitting week to table all these documents. Now we have a new motion today to note the documents and to condemn the Premier and others. For two weeks the most important thing the alternative government of this state has to put before the people of South Australia and to talk about concerns events that happened years ago.

The events have been investigated by solicitors, Warren McCann and the Anti-Corruption Branch. They have been the subject of a criminal trial. These matters have been agitated and regurgitated for years and, still today, they are the most important thing facing the opposition. Forget about water and the global financial crisis: the big thing facing the opposition in this state is the Ashbourne/Atkinson/Clarke affair—something that has been discussed for years.

Here they are, yet again. It is their most pressing priority. They have wasted well over an hour of parliamentary time talking about events which happened years ago and which have been in the public domain for years. They have made a disgrace of this parliament and called into disrepute the Legislative Council. They have the gall to wonder why the government seeks to abolish the Legislative Council. They have turned the Legislative Council into a laughing stock. They have humiliated the chamber by abusing its processes and abusing privilege.

I make the challenge: if they are so confident about the conduct of the Attorney-General and his staff and Mr Ashbourne, let them stand on the steps of Parliament House, removed from the sinecure of parliamentary privilege, and let us see them put their houses and pensions on the line. But we will not see them do that. Instead, they come in here and abuse the conventions of this place and abuse the facility of parliamentary privilege to make this Legislative Council a laughing stock.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Wortley.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (17:47): It is like the laughing clowns at a circus. I had the misfortune of being made chairman of this committee. It was the first committee to which I was appointed when I was elected to parliament. I believed that select committees would pursue truth and justice. I was quite naive, because I found out in a short time that it was one of the most partisan committees this parliament has ever seen. I also believed that the Democrats stood for something; that they had a bit of the high moral ground. I found very quickly that they were prepared to get in the gutter with the worst of them in order to complete their political goals. This is one reason why they have been wiped out. The public has wiped them from the political domain, because they speak one thing and do another. They have no principles. The way in which they behaved with the Liberals on this select committee was nothing less than disgraceful.

I also point out that when the select committee was seeking evidence—at that time we did not believe that we had heard all the evidence—I was threatened with being kicked off as chair if I did not hand up a report. I always thought that one would listen to all the evidence and then do a draft report. The Hon. Ms Kanck threatened me at the meeting and said that, if I did not have a report within a month—it could have been week, I am not sure—they would use their numbers to kick me off as chair of the committee. I handed up a report, which was quite damning of the behaviour of those opposite.

The Hon. Sandra Kanck was outside the court in front of television cameras calling for a royal commission into Randall Ashbourne. That almost caused a mistrial. Secondly, there was the behaviour of the Hon. Mr Lucas. The vast majority of the witnesses had an axe to grind. They used parliamentary privilege to attack the Hon. Mr Atkinson. I would think that, during a select committee hearing, if a witness is giving evidence regarding a minister, members should allow the witness to speak of their own volition. It was proven during the committee hearing that the Hon. Mr Lucas—who thinks it is a joke—actually coached the witness before she appeared before the committee. Mr President, I understand you were a member of the committee at the time; in fact, you asked the question.

A lot of the evidence that was given to this committee was tainted. People had an axe to grind. People were caught out lying. It was all in an effort to pursue the head of the Attorney-General. The courts found Randall Ashbourne innocent. The case was thrown out in record time. The processes through which it went were given the thumbs up by a number of eminent people—but that was not enough for the opposition. With the Hon. Sandra Kanck, the opposition wanted a political scalp and they were prepared to do whatever it took to achieve it.

I gave a report in July 2007. I tried on numerous occasions to get members together to talk about the report. Some 14 months went by and I could not get them to meet to discuss the report. They have never explained themselves. They have never had the decency to explain why they would not meet in those 14 months. If we had met, we could have gone through the evidence and discussed the report. They could have presented their report to this council and our job would have been done, but that was not to be. They have handed up a statement with recommendations. None of it has been debated by committee members. Members opposite have used parliamentary privilege. The obvious outcome for which they are hoping is a muddying of the waters around the Premier and the Attorney-General.

I find it a disgraceful abuse of the processes of a select committee. I think this council should condemn the way in which members opposite have handled this matter. It reeks of incompetence and political partisanship. All the evidence that was taken before the last election was done to death in the press. The election produced two fewer members of the Liberal Party in this chamber. The electorate just wiped them out and basically condemned the Democrats to political oblivion at the next election.

The public really did not have any interest in this after that. I have not had at any stage one person from the media phone me as the chairman to ask when the report would be handed down, because there has just not been the interest. It is obvious—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I wish you would sit down before you fall down, John. You are starting to embarrass me.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: You are too red in the face. Just sit down before you fall down, mate. Just have a bit of pride in yourself. Hopefully, the public will treat the statement they have handed down with the absolute contempt it deserves. It deserves to have no credibility whatsoever. It has been a gutless and spineless way—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Don't take a breathalyser test on the way home, John, because I would be embarrassed for you, mate—on the front page of the newspaper. You are an absolute goose. How about letting me finish my contribution, and we can all sit down and get on with some real business that affects the people of South Australia.

In conclusion, what a gutless way of ending a select committee. Hopefully, the public will treat the so-called statement with the contempt it deserves.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.


[Sitting suspended from 17:55 to 19:50]


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