HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-10-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE ATKINSON/ASHBOURNE/CLARKE AFFAIR

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. R.D. Lawson:

That this council notes the evidence and documents tabled in relation to the Select Committee on the Atkinson/Ashbourne/Clarke Affair 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.

(Continued from 26 November 2008. Page 954.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (20:33): I rise to support the motion originally moved by the Hon. Robert Lawson. In speaking to this motion I am mindful of the comments made by my colleague the Hon. Mr Lawson when he originally moved the motion and, to the extent it is possible, I do not want to repeat those statements but, rather, concentrate on some particular aspects of the evidence presented to the select committee and tabled as part of the large package of documents that the Legislative Council received at the outset of discussion on this motion.

I remind members that one of the documents tabled (which was referred to by the Hon. Mr Finnigan as the minority report) was a statement on behalf of a majority of the members of that select committee: the Hon. Robert Lawson, the Hon. Sandra Kanck and me. As you would be aware, Mr Acting President, there were five members of that committee, so the statement tabled by those three members certainly does not constitute, in any sense of the word, a minority report, unless the Hon. Mr Finnigan counts in a different way from the rest of the members in this chamber.

That particular statement—which, as I said, came from a majority of the members of the select committee, having listened to all the evidence—was tabled in the way it was because a decision had been taken by this chamber, which we understand and accept, that the committee would not be reconstituted to allow it to finalise and vote on its report. Clearly, had it been able to do so, it would have shown that the majority of members agreed with the statements that have been included in this statement that has been tabled in the council.

The crucial findings in that statement were based on the evidence presented to the committee and were in three areas, as follows:

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.

Premier Rann severely compromised the criminal proceedings against Ashbourne. The Premier and other ministers acted improperly by not promptly reporting matters to police and by ordering an in-house inquiry (the McCann inquiry) into allegations that Ashbourne and Atkinson had abused their public office.

The McCann inquiry was so grossly bungled that the jury in Ashbourne's trial was prevented from hearing the full facts of the matter. Moreover, the seven month delay between the time the Premier became aware of the issues and the time when they were reported to the SAPOL Anti-Corruption Branch (the ACB) jeopardised and compromised both police investigations and the subsequent trial.

As we know, the select committee had the advantage of hearing evidence from Ralph Clarke, a vital witness whose testimony was central to the affair but who, prior to the establishment of this select committee, had not had an opportunity to tell his side of the story.

In summary, they were the major findings of the select committee, but I want to concentrate to a degree on the critical issue of the credibility of Attorney-General Atkinson's position and his denial of any knowledge of discussions about board positions. One of the crucial questions examined by the select committee was the issue of whether Attorney-General Atkinson was aware of discussions involving Clarke being offered positions on government boards and/or committees as part of a deal to abandon his legal action against Atkinson. In particular, the critical question is whether this issue was discussed in early November 2002 at a meeting between Atkinson, Ashbourne and Karzis (Atkinson's trusted former political adviser, George Karzis).

Atkinson's position has been that he was not aware, and that when he met with Ashbourne there had been no mention of the question of board appointments. Atkinson's evidence at the Ashbourne trial was unequivocal. This is his evidence at the trial. The question was put to the Attorney-General:

There was never any mention during any discussions you had with Randall Ashbourne about the litigation that suggested that as part of the resolution of litigation Ralph Clarke was to be offered some government board or position?

Attorney-General Atkinson's response was: 'Yes, that's correct.'

Significantly, Atkinson's evidence is in conflict with the position of his own adviser, George Karzis, and also Randall Ashbourne's evidence to the original McCann inquiry (which was later changed at trial). Karzis in his statement to the Anti-Corruption Branch confirmed he attended the meeting (this is the meeting with Atkinson and Ashbourne) and he heard Ashbourne state that Clarke wanted positions on government boards and/or committees as part of the settlement deal. The record of interview shows Karzis as saying:

...what he said was, Ralph wants Boards and Committees to withdraw his action, Ralph wants a couple of Boards and Committees.

Question: Okay, and you're fairly certain of the events of that?

Answer: Yes.

Question: What was Mick's response [Mick Atkinson] to that?

Answer: Am flabbergasted. I mean...

It is clear that, far from Atkinson being unaware of the fact, as he claimed, Karzis, his own trusted political adviser, who was in the meeting, confirms that Atkinson was aware of and was flabbergasted by the request. In sworn evidence at the Ashbourne trial, Karzis confirmed his earlier statements. He said: Randall (that is, Randall Ashbourne) said that Ralph was willing to withdraw the defamation action but that he wanted some boards and committees.' Karzis said: 'Well, that's got nothing to do with us. [Atkinson] looked at me with a "what the hell" sort of expression on his face.'

Ashbourne told the McCann inquiry he attended the meeting and that he told Atkinson about Clarke's request for board appointments. In fact, the record of interview describes Ashbourne's recollections of Atkinson's response to the request for board appointments:

Ashbourne: Mick made it clear that he wouldn't have Ralph anywhere near him but he would speak with others about areas where he could use Ralph's talents—not in legal—in areas of IR and jobs.

Question: Did the Attorney-General use his best endeavours?

Answer: Mick said he would chat with others. Mick said, 'I won't have him anywhere near me.'

So, this evidence from Atkinson's own trusted adviser and Ashbourne, the two other people who attended these critical meetings in November 2002 with Attorney-General Atkinson, directly contradicts the claim by Atkinson that there was no discussion about board appointments at the meeting.

Evidence given in a statement to the Anti-Corruption Branch by Cressida Wall, Chief of Staff, to Treasurer Foley also does not support the position of Atkinson on the issue of board appointments. Her statement makes it clear that Ashbourne told her at a meeting with him about the settlement deal involving board positions and that Atkinson was aware of this:

Ashbourne: As part of the settlement we had agreed to offer him some board memberships.

Wall: Does Mick know about this?

Ashbourne: Yes. Obviously the boards couldn't come from within the Attorney-General's portfolio so they'll have to be found elsewhere in government. The Attorney-General is going to speak to his colleagues but as you know, he's a bit vague—

we all know that—

so we need to [offer him] something about it as well—can you get onto it and see what Kevin [Kevin Foley] can offer—he would be suited to something in the jobs area given his background. Ralph would expect at least one—

that is, board appointment—

sooner rather than later.

That was the end of the evidence in relation to what Ashbourne had said to Cressida Wall, the Chief of Staff to Treasurer Foley. As the statement from the majority of members of the committee outlined, the evidence given by Ralph Clarke to the committee also does not support the position of Attorney-General Atkinson on the issue of board appointments. In addition, the evidence given to the committee by former Labor senator Chris Schacht, former Labor MP Murray De Laine, former Labor Party activist Gary Lockwood and Edith Pringle does not provide any support to Attorney-General Atkinson's position.

The statement of the majority of members summarises all the evidence of some seven individual witnesses where in detail their evidence contradicts the evidence of Attorney-General Atkinson. I have highlighted Mr Ashbourne's and Mr Clarke's but, for example, Senator Schacht's evidence, if I can summarise it, supported Ralph Clarke's evidence. He said, amongst other things, that in November 2002 Ralph Clarke had rung him on a number of occasions outlining the details of his discussions with Atkinson about a possible deal with Atkinson.

Murray De Laine, a former Labor MP, again supported Ralph Clarke's evidence and said, in general terms, in November 2002, Ralph Clarke had rung on three occasions outlining details of his discussions with Ashbourne about a possible deal with Atkinson. Gary Lockwood, who was a staff member for Labor member Robyn Geraghty and also a staff member for Labor member Frances Bedford, supported Ralph Clarke's evidence. In summary, he said that, in October and November 2002, he was present when Ralph Clarke took a number of phone calls from Randall Ashbourne. Ralph Clarke told him that Ashbourne was acting as a go-between for Atkinson and Clarke over the deal involving Clarke withdrawing his legal action and Clarke receiving board appointments in return.

Then, finally, Edith Pringle, a former Labor Party member, staff member for Frances Bedford MP and de facto partner of Ralph Clarke, in her evidence said she had agreed to a request from Atkinson (and I will return to this later) to be a witness in his court case with Ralph Clarke. That is, Attorney-General Atkinson had asked Edith Pringle to be a witness for him in the defamation proceedings and she had agreed to that request. Her evidence was that, on 15 November 2002, she rang Attorney-General Atkinson at a number that he had given her in his ministerial office and that Atkinson told her she was no longer needed (that is, as a witness) as a deal had been done to stop the case, and that the deal involved Atkinson not paying any money to Clarke because Clarke would be given some board positions.

In summary, the only support for Attorney-General Atkinson's position materialised when Randall Ashbourne was able to change his evidence at trial; that is, the evidence that Randall Ashbourne had given to the earlier McCann inquiry and the police investigations. The reason he was able to change his evidence was that the secret inquiry, the McCann inquiry, that Premier Rann had instituted into this affair in November 2002 had been conducted in such a fashion that the evidence collected by Mr McCann was unable to be used at the subsequent trial of Mr Ashbourne, which, of course, meant that Mr Ashbourne was able to change completely the story he had earlier given to the McCann inquiry at the subsequent trial.

Just to remember the sequence of these things, these issues became known to the government in late 2002 and it was not until mid-2003 that, for the first time, questions from the opposition in parliament raised publicly what had been going on privately for some seven months. If it had not been for the questions raised by the Liberal Party in the parliament, we may well never have found out about the sordid details of this particular affair. It was only when the questions were raised in the parliament in mid-2003 that the police were subsequently brought in by then acting premier Foley (because the Premier was interstate or overseas at the time) and advice from the Crown Solicitor was sought. The Crown Solicitor said, 'It is an allegation of corruption. It must go to the Anti-Corruption Branch of police immediately.' It was only at that stage, after it had been publicly raised, that the police were subsequently involved.

And so, because of the way the Premier conducted this secret inquiry, this evidence—again I repeat: this critical evidence—from Mr Ashbourne was unable to be used at the subsequent trial, and therefore Mr Ashbourne's position at the trial could be changed to support the position of the Attorney-General; that is, there had not been any discussion at this particular meeting in November. As this statement indicates, all the evidence from all those other persons, including Randall Ashbourne in his earlier evidence, contradicts the statements of the Attorney-General. Let us call a spade a spade in relation to these issues. What this statement of the three members of parliament is saying is that in his, Atkinson's, evidence at the trial, where he denies that there was any discussion, that statement in our view, having listened to the evidence, is untrue and, certainly on the legal advice to me, would indicate that Attorney-General Atkinson stands accused of perjury in relation to the evidence he gave at the Ashbourne trial. That is the concluded view—and it can be read no other way—of the majority of members of that select committee. His evidence did not accord with anyone else's evidence.

As I said earlier, anyone who knew the close relationship between Mr George Karzis and Attorney-General Atkinson would know that Mr Karzis was the most loyal of advisers to Attorney-General Atkinson for a significant period, and for Mr Karzis, his most trusted adviser, to actually contradict and disagree with the Attorney-General's evidence in relation to what was discussed would obviously have been a most significant step for Mr Karzis, who I note is no longer working for the Attorney-General—I think he is now in private practice. So, it is a significant issue when one looks at the evidence of all others who gave evidence to the select committee.

I referred earlier to the evidence of a number of people, but in particular I refer to some of the evidence given by Edith Pringle, who had a most unusual background to all of this. She was the former de facto partner of Ralph Clarke, had been asked by Attorney-General Atkinson to actually be a witness for him in the defamation trail and she had agreed. She had been a former staff member for two Labor members of parliament—Robyn Geraghty and Francis Bedford—and also a former member of the Australian Labor Party. In her evidence she said—and I will quote a number of aspects of it:

Michael Atkinson asked me whether I would be willing to appear in court to give evidence as to what had transpired. I made it clear that if I were to be subpoenaed I would have very little choice in the matter. I undertook in those circumstances that I would do then as I do now and tell the truth. My role as a witness in the defamation action, as I understood it, was that Michael Atkinson was running the defence of truth on the domestic violence issue. I was willing to testify because this action would have brought into account not only the three original charges of assault against me that the police had laid against Ralph Clarke, but also other incidents, including my time in a domestic violence shelter in Broken Hill whilst on an official visit there with Ralph Clarke.

Knowing both Ralph Clarke and Michael Atkinson, as I have done, it was no surprise to me to learn that others were more aware and concerned about the political fall-out from litigation than the main participants seemed to be themselves. When the issue of criminal action was first raised, Mike Rann had put me under considerable pressure to assist in the withdrawal of charges, and Michael Atkinson supported that process. It was therefore self-evident that there would be others who would wish to see a private resolution of this very public stoush over mutual litigation.

Edith Pringle was asked a series of questions by the then chairman of the select committee and myself in relation to her evidence about Mr Rann and Mr Atkinson, and she said:

Mr Chairperson, what I said was, when the issue of criminal action was first raised Mike Rann put me under considerable pressure to assist in the withdrawal of the charges, and Michael Atkinson supported that process. When I said that Michael Atkinson supported that process—and I do not use the word pressure because I did not feel pressure from Michael Atkinson because I thought at the time that he was trying to help. On reflection when I look back, the assistance in that process was providing a vehicle and a staffer from his office to drive me down to the police station in order to withdraw the charges.

That was Edith Pringle saying that Michael Atkinson's assistance had been to provide a vehicle and a staffer from his office to drive Edith Pringle down to the police station in order to withdraw the charges in that particular case. Ms Pringle went on to say:

It is exactly as I said in court, that when Mike Rann directly, and also indirectly through Frances Bedford, and others, talked about how I should withdraw the charges—that, if I said nothing, nothing would happen, and things to that effect. I had spoken to Michael on the phone and I had complained that I had felt under pressure from Mike Rann that I had to withdraw the charges in the morning. I felt under pressure, and Michael had said to me not to worry, that doing it by sundown would be fine.

Then further on in her evidence Ms Pringle said:

There was a telephone call and conversation that I had with Mr Rann on the morning after the charges had been laid. It is some time ago so my memory is less fresh than it would have been back then, but there is a record of that conversation. I remember some of the things that were said that stuck in my mind. Without even inquiring how I was or whether I was okay or needed medical help, he said something to the effect that timing was important, that we could write this off as a lovers' tiff within the media, so the sooner the charges were dropped, effectively, they could do a spin on it. You have to remember that at that time my entire life was tied up with the Labor Party, and that was known.

It was my career, my job, my income, my social life, my spare time, and also I was in that relationship with Ralph Clarke. It was a very difficult time for me and it was a time when I felt quite vulnerable. In addition to that, there were two meetings that I had, one with Frances Bedford at the Royal Oak in North Adelaide, where she expressed to me some things that Mike Rann had said to her. I took the gist of that being that, if I did not testify, nothing would happen.

That was the nature of Edith Pringle's evidence relating to this issue. That is why I say—when I listed earlier the seven or so people who gave evidence contradicting Attorney-General Atkinson's position on this—that Edith Pringle's position is quite interesting. As I said, she held those unusual positions within the Labor Party. At a request from Atkinson she had agreed to be a witness for him in the case against Clarke. Her evidence is quite clear, that on 15 November she rang Atkinson, on a number in his ministerial office that he had provided to her, to ask about the case and he had told her that she was no longer needed as a deal had been done to stop the case, and that the deal involved Atkinson not paying any money to Clarke because Clarke would be given some board positions.

There is much more in relation to the evidence tabled in that statement of majority of members of that select committee, but it all, in varying degrees, supports the essential case that the majority of members of that committee just did not believe the evidence that Attorney-General Atkinson had given at varying stages, right through to the trial. As I said earlier, that was evidence not just from two Liberal members of this chamber, but also former Democrat member Sandra Kanck, who was the Independent member of the select committee.

The final general area that I want to touch on in the quick run-through of the evidence is that, clearly, one speech this evening cannot do justice to the length and breadth of the evidence that was presented, which damns not only Attorney-General Atkinson but the secret inquiry of Premier Rann and the manoeuvrings of Premier Rann right from the word go in relation to this particular issue.

As we see from the evidence of Edith Pringle from many years ago, to the evidence that we have received, the true nature of Premier Rann in relation to these issues is revealed. Where he can keep something secret, he will do so. If he can have a secret inquiry rather than an open inquiry, he will do so. Where he can get away with anything that he can, he will seek to do so. He was only flushed out on this issue, as I said, when he happened to be overseas and the issue got raised in the parliament by the Liberal Party and his government was forced into a position of having to refer the issue to the Anti-Corruption Branch of the police. Again, ultimately, the secret inquiry meant that evidence could be changed at that critical trial which was held subsequently.

Of course, the select committee was not just looking at issues of criminality: the select committee was looking at whether or not improper actions had been taken or actions which were inconsistent with the ministerial code of conduct and the code of conduct required of staffers working for ministers of the government. This seems to have been an issue that escaped many Labor members and the Labor members of the committee and, sadly, I have to say, also the former auditor-general in his evidence to the select committee.

That is, it was not just an issue of criminality, because ultimately that had been determined by the criminal trial that had been conducted. This committee was not there to revisit the issue of criminality: it was there to look at the issues of breaches of the ministerial code of conduct and whether or not improper actions and improper behaviour had been engaged in by the Premier, the Attorney-General and others within the executive arm of government. Clearly, when one looks at the evidence this committee collected, one cannot but conclude that from the top down this government was rotten to the core in terms of the way it handled the process of the Atkinson/Ashbourne/Clarke affair.

The last area I wanted to turn to was the evidence given by the former auditor-general Mr MacPherson, and there was a series of questions which sought to get from him an explanation as to why—and members will recall that this secret inquiry from Mr McCann that the Premier had conducted had been run past the former auditor-general, and the former auditor-general had evidently at the time given it the tick of approval to this effect: 'I think that is an appropriate process in terms of handling these issues.' This was despite the fact that, as soon as it became apparent to the Crown Solicitor in the middle of 2003, the Crown Solicitor said words to this effect: 'This is an issue of corruption. It should have been referred to the police back in November and, now that it is public, it must be referred to the police in June-July of 2003', which, of course, subsequently happened.

The former auditor-general was subjected to a series of questions in relation to the issue of why he had signed off on this process and why he had taken the view that something as serious as corruption allegations should not have been reported to the parliament at the conclusion of even the secret inquiry and the auditor-general's sign-off of that secret inquiry. Not that I am sure that any members will, but I want to read all the evidence of the former auditor-general. It is illuminating in relation to the former auditor-general's position in relation to defending the Premier and the government's handling of this issue.

A series of questions was put to the auditor-general saying, 'When you had a look at this, shouldn't you have raised the question that, if there are three people at a meeting—that is, the Attorney-General (Mr Atkinson), Randall Ashbourne (the Premier's key adviser) and George Karzis—shouldn't you or someone have spoken to all three people who attended that meeting? The auditor-general's evidence, which I found extraordinary, was that he believed that, no, the McCann inquiry was not deficient in that it had not spoken to Mr George Karzis and that the McCann inquiry was not deficient in that it had only looked at the statements from Attorney-General Atkinson and Mr Ashbourne.

I find that extraordinary because, as we find subsequently, Mr George Karzis gave evidence directly contradicting the position of the Attorney-General. Yet, we had the former auditor-general, in his evidence to the committee, defending the fact that there was no particular need for Mr McCann and others to have spoken to a critical third witness, a third member, who was present at these vital meetings in November 2002. The questions that were put to him were as simple as:

...Did you inquire when you received the documentation from Mr McCann as to whether there were other witnesses at the meeting between Mr Atkinson and Mr Ashbourne?

Mr MacPHERSON: No, I didn't.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If you had known that there were other witnesses—Mr Karzis and whether or not there were others—would you have asked for a statement of their recollections of the meeting between Mr Atkinson and Mr Ashbourne?

Mr MacPHERSON: No, I wouldn't have...

There is further evidence and a question to Mr MacPherson:

...do you believe that a third party witness to the discussion between Ashbourne and Atkinson should have been interviewed and—

Mr MacPHERSON: By me?

The HON. R.I. LUCAS: No, by Mr McCann; you didn't conduct the inquiry.

Mr MacPHERSON: No.

As I said, there is a whole series of questions where Mr MacPherson indicates that he did not see the need for Mr Karzis to have been spoken to at that particular time. Further on in the former auditor-general's evidence, we asked the question:

...whether or not you believe that at the time it should have been advised to the parliament in any way at all.

That is, a question was asked of the former auditor-general:

Okay. You have serious allegations of corruption, the Premier conducts a secret inquiry through Mr McCann, you as auditor-general are asked whether or not that has been appropriate in terms of the way it was handled.

And the question was:

Do you believe that at that time it should have been advised to the parliament in any way at all?

Mr MacPherson's reply was:

Absolutely not. It is no different from any other disciplinary process that occurs anywhere in government involving ministers of the Crown down to the lowest public servant. Where it is characterised as a disciplinary matter, there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for publication of that.

He then later went on:

No, I think the Premier acted quite appropriately in the whole thing, to be quite blunt; he couldn't have done any more than he did. Can you tell me, if you were sitting in his position, what more would you have done? You can sit there as if you have a mortgage on righteousness. He couldn't have done any more than he did.

The Hon. Mr Lawson said:

The Crown Solicitor had a different view.

Mr MacPherson said.

And he was dead wrong.

Mr President, as you probably recall, the auditor-general was very defensive of the Premier and the Attorney-General in the evidence that he gave to the select committee. Ultimately, he is obviously answerable for the evidence he gave, but I have to say that, as a member, in all my time in this parliament, and having worked with a number of auditors-general over the years, I found his evidence there and in another select committee some of the most extraordinary evidence that I have ever heard from an auditor-general.

I cannot even conceive of the circumstances where, in something as critical as a corruption allegation against a senior minister in a government, an auditor-general would so trenchantly oppose any disclosure at all; that is, the permanent secrecy of a serious corruption allegation against a senior minister in the government. How on earth can an auditor-general defend a position that there should not have been some public revelation? It did not have to be by the auditor-general: it could have been very strong advice from the auditor-general to the Premier, 'Hey, you believe you've acted appropriately. This ought to be the subject of some public disclosure in one form or another.'

As I said, they were the major issues that I wanted to address. I will just briefly respond. At the time of the Hon. Mr Lawson's initial speech on this issue, he and the Liberal Party were roundly attacked by the wholly owned subsidiaries of the Attorney-General. It will not surprise you, Mr President, that the Hon. Mr Finnigan was the first to his feet with a defence of his boss and colleague, the Attorney-General, and making accusations of extraordinary abuse of parliamentary privilege, etc.

This was a select committee. It took evidence and members reached a conclusion. It might not have been a conclusion with which the Hon. Mr Finnigan agreed, but tough! That was the evidence. If the Hon. Mr Finnigan, instead of fits of vitriol and spleen-venting and whatever else it is that gives him pleasure, would like to look at the evidence and stand up on some occasion and challenge the evidence, rather than just screaming vitriol across the chamber, then I challenge him to do so.

The only other thing of substance he did was challenge the Hon. Mr Lawson and the Hon. Sandra Kanck, who spoke at the time, to go outside and make those particular statements outside. These statements had been made as a result of a determination and conclusion of evidence received by members on a select committee. Of course, not every member of parliament has the advantage of having legal friends, as the Attorney-General has, who can provide pro bono assistance to him, as we have seen in relation to previous cases in which the Attorney-General has been involved.

As we know from his declaration of interests, Mr Chris Kourakis, who is now a judge appointed by the state government to the bench and, prior to that, appointed by the state government as solicitor-general, was generous in terms of his donation of time to the Attorney-General. We also know that another solicitor was generous in his donation of time and subsequently has been appointed to another senior position on the Parole Board. I am a very generous person and I would certainly never suggest that the two issues were connected. However, there are other less generous people in the community who certainly take a different and less charitable view than I take in relation to those particular issues.

It is easy for the Attorney-General who, as I said, is in a position through his legal connections to get pro bono advice to defend. We have seen a whole variety of cases: the defamation action in relation to Ralph Clarke; the defamation action in relation to Deputy Magistrate Mr Cannon; defamation actions in relation to Colin James, a senior journalist at The Advertiser; and we now have a court case involving the disengagement from the public sector of Kate Lennon, one of Mr Atkinson's former chief executives. There has been a whole series of legal actions and in a number of those, of course, across the board the Attorney-General has had his costs met by the taxpayers of South Australia.

On another occasion, I will be delighted to remind the Attorney-General, the Premier and others of their various statements over the years in relation to whether or not ministers, former ministers and current ministers (I would assume) should have their defamation actions met by the taxpayers of South Australia. They certainly made a number of very interesting statements over the years in relation to that issue. Of course, when it came to $200,000 (or whatever the number was) in relation to Mr Cannon's successful defamation action, their previous statements went straight out the window.

As I said, it is cute for the Hon. Mr Finnigan not to respond to the details of the evidence provided by the Hon. Mr Lawson and others, and to rely on the general spray principle and, as I said, vitriol and spleen-venting. However, the challenge remains there for the Hon. Mr Finnigan or, indeed, the Attorney-General, because he has been unable to produce a defence to a number of the specific allegations that have been made in the evidence to the select committee.

He obviously did not want to present evidence to the select committee and did not want to subject himself to questioning in particular by my colleague the Hon. Mr Lawson QC. I am not surprised that the Attorney-General would not want to subject himself to the questioning of my colleague and others on that particular select committee.

In supporting the motion this evening, I say that, whilst I know that members will certainly not going back to the many hundreds of pages of evidence, I hope tonight I have been able to at least summarise the flavour and the importance of some of that evidence. Certainly, the key message I leave in my contribution this evening is that the evidence of Attorney-General Atkinson is not to be believed because the evidence that was produced by so many other witnesses directly contradicted his claims on this issue.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

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