HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-09-10 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE ATKINSON/ASHBOURNE/CLARKE AFFAIR

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (16:40): I move:

That the committee have power to sit during the present session and that the time for bringing up the report be extended until Wednesday 26 November 2008.

There has been some debate about this committee, as opposed to some of the other select committees. Without obviously traversing matters that have been discussed within the committee (which would be contrary to standing orders), I indicate that, as has been previously discussed, a report has been presented to the select committee by the chair. That mysteriously found its way into the Adelaide Advertiser, and there was a debate about that issue.

I indicate that other members of the committee have been working pretty hard in relation to possible amendments to the report. There is no further evidence to be taken by the committee, and that is publicly known, so it is now just a question of finalising either an agreed report or a majority/ minority report and presenting it to the parliament.

If this motion were not successful today, all the evidence heard, the work of the committee and, indeed, its final judgment, could not be presented to the parliament. I understand that, potentially, some claims will be made in relation to endeavours to have the committee sit during the recent break. I concede that earlier than that there was an attempt to get the committee together, but other members of the committee (including me) had not finalised the proposed amendments to the chair's report and were unable to meet.

However, we understand that there was a flawed recent attempt to meet. Evidently, the chair of the committee insisted on having a meeting with himself and, possibly for a very brief time, one other member, even though three members of the committee indicated that they were not in town and two were sitting on another select committee—that is, the property tax select committee—at the time the chair had selected. To put it politely, that endeavour by the chair did not follow the normal practice, namely, before a meeting of the committee is established there is agreement of at least a majority of members that it will meet at that time. There may well have been other occasions when that might have been possible, but I do not know.

I understand that this needs to be brought to a conclusion. I have indicated to some members who have asked me when it might conclude that, certainly from our viewpoint, we will ensure that this report is presented no later than Wednesday 26 November, which is the subject of this motion, because that will be the end of the parliamentary sittings for 2008.

With that, I urge members to support this motion. As I said, all the evidence has been taken, and, without offering an opinion, I think it is very important evidence. In addition, the conclusions, whether agreed or differing, are important and ought to be tabled in this chamber and subsequently debated by members, irrespective of their perspective.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (16:44): This select committee was first established on 7 July 2005. It started taking evidence on 15 July 2005, and the last witness appeared prior to the last election, that is, on 12 January 2006.

Since the last election, there has been some resistance. The government opposed the establishment of this committee for the simple reason that all the evidence that had been presented during the hearings had been very well publicised in the media—radio, newspapers and television—and the people of South Australia had read all about and it had been done to death.

At the end of the day, the people's reaction was to punish the Liberals by voting only three members to this chamber and getting rid of two of the Democrats and returning none at the last election. So, the people of South Australia considered that the evidence had been done to death; the evidence had been very well reported. The committee was re-established, with the promise that it would hear more evidence and that a report would be forthcoming. However, that did not happen. The Labor Party opposed the committee 12 months ago, but the Liberal Party gave the same assurances to the Independents that a report was pending.

I handed down a draft report on 23 July 2007, which is nearly 13 months ago. I made numerous attempts to try to call a meeting to discuss the report, but on no occasion could I get any of the non-government members of the committee to meet. On both the past two occasions when we tried to call a meeting (23 June and Friday 15 August 2008) we were unsuccessful.

A very wise man once said to me that there are two sorts of select committees: those that go out and look at issues that are for the benefit of South Australians (and we have a few of those), and then you have the witch-hunts, the political tools of the opposition. These are used by the opposition to go on a fishing expedition and a witch-hunt. The Atkinson committee was purely in the latter category. The Liberals have had its fun with it; it is well and truly past its use-by date. The media and the people of South Australia have no interest in it, and it has been done to death in the media.

I think it is about time this chamber treated these select committees with a little more respect. The whole credibility of select committees is put in jeopardy when they are used by some people only as a witch-hunt or a fishing expedition. So, I ask the Independent members on the cross-benches to treat these select committees with respect. The only select committee we are looking to oppose today is this one and, hopefully, the Independents on the cross-benches will support our opposition.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (16:48): I have made my view known privately and in parliament to members of the government and the opposition that I think select committees that are not making progress should probably be removed from the agenda.

I supported the continuation of this committee, which was established before I joined the parliament, because of the assurance of unfinished business. It seemed to me to be a poor use of taxpayers' funds to prematurely end a committee that had not yet reported. I have supported the committee's continuation until today. I think the government is reasonable in its push to say that we need to wind up this committee, but I have had assurances from the Liberal Party that it will rapidly conclude an alternative report, which I understand it is preparing, and that the report will be prepared by the last scheduled private members' sitting day on 26 November.

On the basis of the assurances that I have been given that those members will have finished their work by then, I am happy to see this longstanding committee finally finish. However, I do put the opposition on notice that this is the last time I will support the continuation of this committee. If the matter is not resolved on 26 November, I will support the winding up of the committee. However, today I support the motion before the council.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (16:50): As a member of the committee until now I support its continuation. My view of the report, which was prepared by the chair and which was released publicly, is that it was intended as a joke. We do need to consider a more serious option, as the Hon. Mr Lucas suggested, by either substantially amending the chair's report or coming up with an alternative. I indicate that, if we are not successful in doing that by 26 November, I will resign from the committee anyway. I think we will get it done in the time frame stipulated in the motion.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (16:51): I correct a point made by the Hon. Russell Wortley when he described this select committee as a witch-hunt. The terms of reference of this committee are almost identical to the terms of a judicial inquiry proposed by the government to be conducted into this affair. I remind the council that the government promised—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: The government promised an inquiry but sought to make it a secret closed-door inquiry. The parliament did not accept the government's proposal. This was not a witch-hunt but, rather, an inquiry into matters which the government itself said warranted a judicial inquiry. It is important that this committee report.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (16:52): I rise to oppose the motion moved by the Hon. Mr Lucas.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: This select committee was established three years ago. It was re-established after the 2006 election. I was a newly appointed member at that point and I made a fairly detailed speech about why I thought the continuation of this committee had no merit. It remains my view that the committee has no merit. However, it was the will of the council at that time that the select committee continue. That was over two years ago.

We have had protestations from non-government members of the committee today suggesting that they want the opportunity to put forward amendments to the draft report or prepare their own report—whatever it is they are seeking to do. I remind members that it has been 14 months since the Hon. Mr Wortley (as chairman of this committee) tabled his draft report. I am not doubting the capacity of members opposite, but if 14 months is not enough time for them to draft amendments to a report then I think they ought to consider themselves unqualified to sit in this place.

This committee has continued to bring the Legislative Council into disrepute. Members opposite continually protest how important the council is, yet they want to turn the work of this chamber into a farce by continuing these committees which have been going for over three years and which are designed entirely to suit a political purpose which has now passed. Let us be honest about that.

In fact, the Hon. Mr Lawson moved to extend the terms of reference of this select committee on the select committee itself—and did so. Essentially, he wants a select committee on the Hon. Michael Atkinson. Whenever something comes to the attention of members and they would like to investigate it, they say, 'Well, we can just extend the terms of reference of the select committee.'

That puts paid to the suggestion that this committee is investigating important matters which must be investigated and which are critical to the good governance of this state and the integrity of public office holders. Already they have extended the terms of reference—after setting up the initial committee—because it was an opportunity to slot in a couple of other things that gained their attention; so that is what they did.

This committee has exhaustively dealt with all the matters that have come before it. As I outlined in some detail in my contribution over two years ago—one of the first speeches I remember making in this place—the evidence has been discredited. It has been clearly shown in relation to the terms of reference set up for this committee to deal with that there is no basis to any of those accusations. It has been investigated numerous times and it has been the subject of a criminal trial.

There is simply no more that this council can do. It has been 14 months since the draft report and two years since we set up this committee again. It is three years and three months, I think, since the committee was first established. It is time to act with integrity in this place and restore the reputation of the Legislative Council by going on with important, realistic and sensible committees.

I consider myself a diligent committee member. I serve on quite a number of standing and select committees, to which I believe I give proper focus and attention. What I do not accept is other honourable members expecting us to waste our time extending the time for this select committee with a view—we hear—to producing a report by November, three months away. So, despite having had 14 months, two years and over three years, another three months is what will clinch it! It is a nonsense argument and a nonsense committee, and it is time to bring it to an end.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:57): As you know, Mr President, I have been here for nine months, and I understand that not much progress has been made on this committee in that time. I read all about it before coming into this place. Having heard honourable members' contributions today, I oppose the motion.

The council divided on the motion:

AYES (9)

Dawkins, J.S.L. Kanck, S.M. Lawson, R.D.
Lucas, R.I. (teller) Parnell, M. Ridgway, D.W.
Schaefer, C.V. Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G.

NOES (10)

Brokenshire, R.L. Darley, J.A. Finnigan, B.V.
Gago, G.E. Gazzola, J.M. Holloway, P.
Hood, D.G.E. Hunter, I.K. Wortley, R.P. (teller)
Zollo, C.

PAIRS (2)

Lensink, J.M.A. Bressington, A.


Majority of 1 for the noes.

Motion thus negatived.

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