HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-05-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Address in Reply

ADDRESS IN REPLY

Adjourned debate on motion for adoption.

(Continued from 25 May 2010.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (21:25): I rise to support the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply, and in doing so I thank the Governor for his speech. I also take this opportunity to thank the Governor and his wife for their service to the state and, in particular, I appreciate their tireless work with the charitable and voluntary sectors offering, on behalf of all South Australians, encouragement for this vital work.

I congratulate the President on his first four years in that role, and I look forward to continuing to work with him and with all members of this chamber to ensure that this council effectively discharges its responsibilities for the benefit of the people of the state. In an earlier motion on the first day of sitting I took the opportunity to welcome new members to the council, and I reiterate those comments today. I wish them all the best for their time in this place, a time which is both personally enriching and for the benefit of South Australia.

The Address in Reply is an opportunity for this parliament to reflect on the message that the community sent us on 20 March at the general election. I am delighted that the South Australian community responded so warmly to the vision offered by the Leader of the Opposition, Isobel Redmond, and the South Australian Liberal team. After eight years of Labor, they rejected a government which was tired and untrustworthy. On a two-party preferred basis, the Liberal vote in the House of Assembly increased by 8.3 per cent to 51.5 per cent.

I accept that, in accord with the conventions of the Westminster system, the government has remained in office. However, this government is not the preferred government of the majority of South Australian electors. I accept that it is constitutionally legitimate, but I consider it lacks a popular mandate for its policies and platform. In this regard, the moral primacy of the popular will over the parliamentary majority has also been the focus of recent elections in both Tasmania and the United Kingdom.

I note that since 1970 the Liberal Party has received the majority of votes at four elections, when it either did not win a majority of seats or did not form government—what is commonly called 'a wrong outcome'. In 1989 changes were brought in to the Constitution Act to seek a prospective lack of bias in electoral boundaries. The process was founded on the presumption of the uniformity of swings and used redistribution as the tool. In most elections since the fairness test was introduced, the number of seats that changed hands at each election was very similar to the number of seats that would have changed hands on the basis of the swing achieved.

The 2010 election was unusual: less than half the number of seats that were expected to change hands on the swing achieved did change hands. The 2010 election produced a wider range of swings than previous elections had done—from a 1.5 per cent swing to the Liberals in marginal Labor seats to a 11.2 per cent swing to the Liberals in safe Labor seats.

In the other three elections that I have looked at since 1993, the average range of swings is 2.5 per cent compared with a range of 9.7 in 2010. The lack of uniformity of swings highlights, in my view, that we need to look again at how our electoral system reflects the popular will. Is there a viable mechanism to ensure a majority of electoral votes produces a majority of seats in the parliament? These issues are about the design of our electoral system. No participant can be blamed for a wrong outcome; everyone knew the rules.

However, the same cannot be said for other actions by Labor in the recent campaign. The Labor government claimed that its amendments to the Electoral Act in 2009 would prohibit bogus how-to-vote cards but then used bogus how-to-vote cards in the election, stimulating broad community outrage. Labor distributed a range of misleading electoral material which it deliberately and knowingly set out to use to mislead the people of the state.

In a range of seats, a letter from a person called Danielle Maguire was distributed which incorrectly claimed that the Liberal Party intended to abolish the family home visiting program. Personally, I found that claim particularly bizarre because the Liberal disability services policy, for which I was spokesperson, specifically promised to build a peer visiting program on the foundation of the home visiting program. In the seat of Reynell, the member for Reynell distributed a letter which misstated the Liberal policy on public housing.

I think it is important for this council to consider, in particular, the vote for this chamber. In the vote for the Legislative Council, the primary vote for the Liberal team increased by 13.4 per cent to 39.4 per cent. This is a very strong increase in support, well above the statewide swing in the House of Assembly. In spite of this increase in support, the Liberal team in this council has been reduced by one as a result of a particularly poor showing at the 2006 election.

I note that while the crossbench representation has increased by a net one member in the 52nd parliament, the minor parties and Independents achieved 23.3 per cent of the vote this election, which is 14.1 per cent down on the 2006 vote and the lowest vote since 1993. Non-major parties are an enduring presence in the Legislative Council and I believe are a vital part of this council's distinctive dynamics. However, it is important for all members of this place to hear the message of each poll and acknowledge the respective mandates that we bring to this council.

I turn now to my shadow portfolio responsibilities, they being attorney-general and justice. The Rann government is unprecedented in the state's history in terms of its disregard for the legal profession and the judiciary. We have had premier Rann declaring, 'I'm not interested in what some mullet-headed lawyer has to say.' The Premier showed a disregard for the role of defence lawyers when he told parliament, 'I hope that when you drive your BMWs to the court you feel proud that you are living off the earnings of those who murder and try to sell drugs.'

As the corrections spokesman in 1994, the now Treasurer criticised a Liberal minister for defending doubling up of prisoners in cells, referring to racking, packing and stacking them in prisons, yet 14 years later, in 2008, treasurer Foley dismissed claims of prison overcrowding saying, 'What we're making very clear is that if we've got to [rack, pack and stack them], we will.' In April this year, Supreme Court Justice Timothy Anderson criticised deputy premier Foley and police minister Wright's comments in relation to a protest at Beverley with the following words:

It is my view that both ministers in making these statements have acted with a highhanded and contumelious disregard of the plaintiffs as citizens of the state with the right to protest and with the right to be treated according to law if they did protest.

The Supreme Court awarded $15,000 in exemplary damages to nine of the 10 plaintiffs, including consideration of comments made by treasurer Foley and minister Wright, costing the state $135,000.

During the 2010 state election campaign, the Labor Party distributed fliers and ran TV and internet advertisements implicitly criticising the Parole Board, every single member of which had been appointed by this Labor government. The ads depicted pictures of convicted murderers, implying that without Labor they would be on the streets. The chair of the Parole Board, Frances Nelson, said on ABC radio that the implication of the material was that the board was either incompetent or not doing their job properly. 'I think the manner in which this has been portrayed and the purpose for which it's being used is regarded as deeply offensive,' she said.

A range of Rann government ministers have shown disregard for the law, and I have not even mentioned the hoon in cabinet, the member for West Torrens. Judges and lawyers may expect rougher than usual treatment from politicians but they do expect the Attorney-General, the first law officer of the state, to better understand their role and to provide leadership in the government on matters relating to the legal system. I accept that the role of the Attorney-General in Australia has developed in a very different way to the way that role has developed in the United Kingdom.

In Australia an attorney-general is primarily a politician. They head a government department and are vested with various statutory powers. However, even in the Australian tradition, the Attorney-General is expected to be more than a politician. Incumbents are seen as having a hybrid role, bringing together a policy function, a legal service function and a public interest function. In case I be accused of preaching Liberal fantasies, let me quote a former Labor Attorney-General of South Australia, the Hon. Len King QC CJ, who described the role in the following terms:

The Attorney-General—

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: —in the year 2000 it was written—

has the unique role in government of being the political guardian of the administration of justice. It is the special role of the Attorney-General to be the voice within government and to the public which articulates and insists upon observance of the enduring principles of legal justice and respect for the judicial and other legal institutions through which they are applied.

After eight years of Labor and eight years with the member for Croydon as Attorney-General, it is timely to consider how well another Labor attorney-general has been a political guardian of the administration of justice. The Hon. Mr Atkinson's antipathy to the legal profession is longstanding. In 2003 he said:

They live in leafy suburbs, drive late model cars...

When opposition leader Isobel Redmond was referring to the Criminal Law Committee of the Law Society, Mr Atkinson interjected:

The usual suspects—enemies of the people.

That last reference stimulated the President of the Law Society to reflect that that phrase is the common mantra of totalitarian regimes of both the left and the right. Lawyers were not safe when they were elevated to the bench, either. Late last year, the government paid a $210,000 bill in relation to defamation proceedings against the member for Croydon by Deputy Chief Magistrate Andrew Cannon after the then attorney-general described the magistrate as 'daft and delusional'.

Far from being the political guardian of the justice system, it is the attorney-general launching the attacks. During a formal meeting with Chief Justice Doyle, the then attorney-general was himself studying the racing form guide—so much for respect for the law. In October 2009, he described a gang, including juveniles, as 'pure evil...some of whom are beyond rehabilitation'. The long catalogue of Mr Atkinson's failings include his involvement in the stashed cash and Ashbourne/Clarke affairs, his unwarranted attacks on the DPP, his attacks on the chair of the Parole Board and his attacks on the President of the Law Society and others.

Put simply, the then attorney-general failed dismally to encourage community respect for the law and its practitioners. Writing recently in The Advertiser, former head of the Law Society John Goldberg welcomed the former attorney-general's resignation, and he referred to 'his monumental unpopularity and his accident-prone manner in which he handled his portfolio'. He declared:

He was the wrong person for the role of the Attorney-General in the first place.

It is an indictment on the Premier and the whole cabinet that the member for Croydon was kept in such a sensitive role for so long. In the context of this record, I was surprised to hear comments on 13 May 2010 in the House of Assembly when the former speaker, the Hon. Jack Snelling, paid tribute to his political mentor in glowing terms and claimed:

The member for Croydon was the victim of a campaign of vilification against him from the very early days he took office as the attorney-general. Despite everything, I think that he will go down in the state's history as one of the greatest attorneys-general—an incredibly reforming attorney-general.

Let me pose that as a question: one of the greatest attorneys-general in the state's history? I do not think so. I think that the incoming Attorney-General does not think so, either. In his recent address to the Supreme Court on the occasion of presenting his commission, attorney-general Rau listed a line of his distinguished predecessors in the attorney-general's role, including, might I say, a Liberal attorney-general, yet he did not even mention former attorney-general Atkinson.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: He didn't use the 'A' word.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In fact, he did not mention the member for Croydon at all in his whole speech. As one of my honourable colleagues reflected, he dare not mention the 'A' word. Perhaps it was out of embarrassment for his predecessor's legacy. The member for Croydon failed in the core responsibility of an attorney-general as laid down by the former chief justice, a former ALP attorney-general, that the role is to be the political guardian of the administration of justice. In my view, the government as a whole has failed in its collective duty to support the administration of justice.

To draw this retrospective to a close, I will quote Appleby and Williams from the Don Dunstan Foundation publication State of South Australia 2009. They start their reflection by referring to an exchange of letters between the Chief Justice and the Premier. As I am reading this, I would ask members to reflect on how extraordinary it is that the Chief Justice needs to engage the Premier about the need for the legal system to be supported. I quote as follows:

In July 2006 letters between the Premier and Chief Justice Doyle revealed the latter's concern that the Premier's comments were undermining public confidence in the court system. The Premier responded that he would not be 'censored'. The Premier rightly highlights that the government he leads is responsible to the public for the quality of law in the state. However, if the impression is allowed to develop that the judiciary or lawyers are not operating in compliance with the laws of the parliament as enacted, then the public's confidence in the judicial system will inevitably be eroded. Such a result highlights the need for reasoned commentary by parliamentarians. Andrew Harris QC noted: the Premier and the attorneys-general of this state deserve criticism for failing to adequately support the administration of justice.

Later in the same article on law and order, Appleby and Williams in the State of South Australia reflective state that in many respects the reform agenda has been welcomed as it 'has updated antiquated principles no longer appropriate in the modern era or it closes proven loopholes in the law'. It continues:

However, many of the reform attempts show a government unwilling to falter in the pursuit of its policy at the expense of other well thought out measures. The examples illustrate a persistent refusal by the government to listen to advice—from academics, legal professionals, the judiciary, the Director of Public Prosecutions, civil liberties campaigners, political opponents and non-government organisations—but a determination to pursue its agenda at all costs.

This observation reflects the arrogance of the Rann government and the fact that public relations, rather than outcomes, drives the agenda. The former attorney-general acknowledged this publicly on 1 July 2005 when he said on Channel 10 News:

Yes, there have reductions in the crime rate in South Australia since our government came to office, but my suspicion is that it doesn't have much to do with our policy.

In The Advertiser of 2 April, Greg Kelton reported that Labor sources had told The Advertiser that the government would have a range of social reforms at the top of premier Rann's third term agenda. The article states:

The Premier plans to use his third term in the same way Don Dunstan did, press ahead with sweeping reforms, especially in the area of social issues.

What a joke! Can anyone who knows anything about Don Dunstan really believe that he would wait eight years before he would turn his attention to social reform? Would Don Dunstan have wasted eight of the state's best years of revenue before he turned to social issues? Premier Rann and his ministers have had ample time to deal with social issues but, like their counterparts in the federal parliament, they have proven themselves to engage in nothing but talk.

I am reminded of the 2006 Australian Democrats campaign for Norwood which was run by David Winderlich, a former member of this council. In fact, he walked through Norwood with a banner that stated 'Rann's Labor has corrupted Don Dunstan's legacy'. The Premier responded, asserting that that observation was offensive, which stimulated political commentator Dean Jaensch to say that the Rann government is 'on the way to the right' and that it could not be considered 'traditional Labor'. Mr Jaensch reckoned that Mr Dunstan would not be a happy person if he could see South Australian politics today.

In relation to the law and order issue we do not need to speculate about Don Dunstan's views: we have Don Dunstan's words. In March 1997 in The Adelaide Review Don Dunstan wrote about:

...state politicians who seem intent on climbing aboard the populist bandwagon of the 'hang them, bash them, castrate them, shut them up at public expense forever—retribution is what we are all about' brigade…The courts are in the best position to have all the relevant facts of a criminal case and, provided that there is adequate legal representation before them (which is being endangered by the cuts to Legal Aid), the best opportunity to decide appropriate sentencing with the primary aid of preventing further crime.

It continues:

As Len King (then Chief Justice) said cogently in 1979: 'Public concern about crime, however understandable and soundly based, must never be allowed to bring about a departure from those fundamental concepts of justice and mercy which should animate the criminal tribunals of civilised nations.

Don Dunstan went on to say:

I did not, as a former Attorney-General, responsible for significant law reform in this state, anticipate that the day would come when I should be defending the position taken on the criminal law by the present Attorney-General, but I do...While the Government believes penalties need to be tough but fair, ratcheting up penalties alone will not solve the crime rate. Imprisonment will punish a specific offender, but increasing penalties and locking up offenders does not result in less crime and increased public safety.

Amen to that.

That is an article written by the Hon. Don Dunstan, a former premier of this state and a former Labor attorney-general of this state, and I think it highlights the fact that this government cannot be said to be in the Labor tradition in relation to law and order.

The newly appointed Attorney-General, John Rau, the member for Enfield has committed to a more respectful relationship with the legal profession and the judiciary. In a speech to the Supreme Court, he said:

The courts and the legal profession are the arbiters of civil disputes, the gatekeepers of liberty of the individual, a bulwark against bad government and independent auditor of executive action.

I pledge myself to open, respectful communication with the judiciary and the profession.

However, our state needs more than a change in tone, and on key policy issues there are already worrying signs that attorney-general Rau either does not have the courage or the political influence to effect change.

For example, on the issue of law reform, South Australia remains the only state or territory without a law reform commission or institute. When the Director of Public Prosecutions made a submission to the Kapunda royal commission, he suggested that a law reform commission should be established to review and coordinate changes to the law. That earned him a quick rebuke from the Premier who said:

We do not need a law reform commission—another expensive lawyers' talkfest. What we need is people's law, not lawyers' law.

The Sunday Mail recently highlighted that attorney-general Rau has 'rejected the need for a law reform commission amid continuing criticism from the legal community about lack of consultation concerning the framing of some laws and that others have been made hastily to suit a political agenda.'

Likewise, the Attorney-General seems to be falling into line with the government's opposition to an ICAC. Members of the council would remember that, in May 2008, 80 of the state's most senior lawyers, including Queen's counsel, petitioned the government to set up an ICAC. Immediately, the Premier and the Attorney-General rejected the calls. There were other calls for an ICAC, including from former Queensland Labor premier Peter Beattie, who said that an independent anti-corruption fighter is essential in South Australia. Former New South Wales premier Morris Iemma insists that South Australia is 'crazy' not to have one.

Other supporters include former senior Labor senator Chris Schacht, former auditor-general, Ken MacPherson, and all political parties in this chamber other than the government. With all due respect, I do not think that the Hon. Kelly Vincent has had a chance to address that issue, so we look forward to hearing Dignity for Disability's view on an ICAC in due course. Yet it was disappointing that, on the first day in parliament in his new role, the new Attorney-General went out of his way to make a ministerial statement to reiterate that, under him, the government would not have an ICAC.

In terms of the Rann government's broad law and order agenda, the new Attorney-General has made clear that it is business as usual. The Independent Weekly of 7 to 13 May reported a statement by the Attorney-General:

The Government program hasn't changed in any way because I'm the Attorney.

One of the early tests for the new Attorney relates to the urgent problem of resources for the justice system. In his speech to the Supreme Court, attorney-general Rau acknowledged that we are already in crisis. He said:

Yet, integrated solutions to the pressing problem of lengthy court waiting lists, high levels of custodial remands, mental health and substance abuse issues, have yet to be fully conceived and implemented. This issue is pressing. Being tough on crime, means being smart on crime.

So here we had an incoming Labor Attorney-General saying that he had inherited lengthy court waiting lists, high remand, a series of mental health and substance abuse problems and that responses had not even been fully conceived and implemented.

We had evidence of the government's failings in this area even today when the morning Advertiser carried revelations in relation to problems in the Supreme Court complex as custodial officers are being trapped in dodgy lifts with unhandcuffed defendants. We also had further evidence today when the annual report of the Coroner was tabled. It was interesting to note that that report was provided to the former attorney-general on 30 October. Here we are, more than six months later, and it has been made available to the parliament. One hopes that it was not merely being buried for the sake of an election.

That report shows that it can routinely take up to three years for a matter to go to the Coroner's Court. There are 32 outstanding inquests and the annual throughput is about 42. Two of those outstanding matters go back to 2005. The inquests concluded this year have taken an average of 33 months from the date of death to completion. In his report, the state Coroner expresses grave concerns about this:

Such lengthy time frames cause me much concern. I am aware that the time frames cause families heartache and, at times, hardship. I regret that the time frame contributes to a family's grief and anxiety. With current resources and planned budget cuts, I cannot see the time frames improving in the near future. In fact, the reverse is likely to occur.

Later in the report, he reiterates these concerns:

Recent cuts in the Coroner's Court budget are likely to exacerbate the situation. These cuts have come about as a result of the general savings required of the Courts Administration Authority.

In relation to law and order, what is very clear coming out of the last election is that the community is no longer willing to tolerate more spin and more press releases. What the community insists on is outcomes on the ground. They want to be safe and they want to feel safe, but under this government they do not. According to ABS figures, between 2002 and 2008 homicide and related offences increased by 22.6 per cent, armed robberies increased by 10.4 per cent and assault has increased by 3.9 per cent. At the end of the day, what really matters to the community is not tough talk: it is actually taking real action that has real outcomes on the ground.

The Liberal Party is committed to outcomes but believes that a strong legal system is an important part of delivering good outcomes for all involved. A good, strong legal system avoids miscarriages of justice, promotes quality policing, increases the prospect of rehabilitation and therefore reduces the prospect of future crime and also provides timely and reliable verdicts for victims of crime.

I look forward to serving as the shadow attorney-general for the honourable Leader of the Opposition, Isobel Redmond. I am proud of the campaign that she ran, particularly in the law and order area, focused as it was on common sense and outcomes.

I am proud of the fact that it was the Liberal Party that was providing innovative suggestions in the justice area. The honourable Leader of the Opposition was a former member of the juvenile justice select committee and has continued to have a vigorous interest in innovation in the juvenile justice area. I also note that it was the Liberal Party that promised a problem-solving court in the child protection jurisdiction, while the government is, if you like, still thinking about it with the work of Peggy Hora.

The Liberal Party will continue to have a strong commitment on outcomes. In that regard we will still have a particular focus on the police because we believe that having police on the ground is the most important contribution to community safety. That is not just a matter of police numbers: it is also a matter of police resources. It was the Liberal Party that stood shoulder to shoulder with the police association and the police community insisting that tasers be provided to our police.

It was also the Liberal Party that had a strong commitment at the last election to crime prevention. In contrast with the government—a government that abolished the crime prevention program—we had a commitment to introduce a program this year. The Leader of the Opposition, Isobel Redmond, has a particular interest in communities and police working together. In fact, she has visited the United Kingdom to explore ways in which that is done over there. We will continue in our law and order work to do what we can to support our police and to provide safer communities in South Australia.

I wish all members well in the four years that we have ahead of us. As a number of members have mentioned in their contribution, it is a privilege to serve in this place and to work with other members to do the best we can for the good governance of the people of this state.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management) (21:56): I thank all members for their contribution to the Address in Reply. I also begin by congratulating the Governor and Mrs Scarce on the outstanding job they do for the people of South Australia. The Governor is in China as we speak, leading an important delegation, and his service to the state has been invaluable in so many different ways.

I congratulate you, Mr President, on your re-election, and I also congratulate the members in this place, particularly the three new members who made their initial speeches, the Hon. Jing Lee, the Hon. Kelly Vincent and the Hon. Tammy Jennings. I think from each of their speeches we can conclude that all those members will make an invaluable contribution to this parliament over coming years. I congratulate them on the beginnings of their political career.

The Governor, of course, outlined the government's program for the coming four years, and we do that in challenging economic times. The country has just come through the global financial crisis in remarkably good shape, but I do not think that one should necessarily overlook some of the clouds on the horizon, particularly in Europe at the moment with some of the financial challenges facing the countries particularly in southern Europe—Spain, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Ireland and even the UK and France. Unquestionably, there are challenging economic times ahead, and as a state we will have to come to terms ourselves with the consequences of the economic downturn. That will be the government's challenge leading up to the coming budget.

I do not want to say too much about the speeches that were made, just a couple of things in summary. There were those members who seemed to challenge the election result. The reality is this government set out to be re-elected—and re-elected it was. It sought to win, as one must do, 50 per cent plus one of the vote and 50 per cent plus one of the seats, and the government achieved that by winning 26 of the 47 seats in the House of Assembly.

Whatever some members might say about it, the reality is that it was just like when John Howard was elected with the less than 50 per cent of the vote in 1998. I did not notice too many members of the Liberal Party complaining about that. He did what he had to do: he won a majority of seats in the House of Representatives, just as this government has won the majority of seats in the House of Assembly. That is what you need to do under our electoral system.

It is interesting that the Hon. Mr Wade just referred to the Legislative Council and the results in the Legislative Council. Can I suggest that the Hon. Mr Wade has a look at what would have happened had some of the government's changes been introduced, in particular the four year term, and what that might have done to the results in this council.

The composition of this parliament would have been not only more contemporary but also quite different in composition. We used to hear members say that the Legislative Council had the most democratic election system of any parliament. I think it was the Hon. Sandra Kanck who used to try to make this claim. I think the election result this time would rather bring that into question if one looks at the relative representation.

Nonetheless, just like the Liberals might complain about the final outcome in the House of Assembly, this government is not going to complain about the outcome here. We do not have a majority here but we will live with it for the next four years as we have done in the past and we will get on with the job of doing our best for the people of this state.

Finally, the Hon. Stephen Wade spoke about the subject of law and order. He was particularly critical of my colleague the member for Spence, the former attorney-general. As someone who has been a—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: For Croydon.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Sorry, the member for Croydon. As someone who has served as Attorney-General of this state during the last eight years, I believe that it is important to support the administration of justice in this state. However, one does not, I would suggest, best serve the administration of justice by agreeing with everything that the legal profession or the judiciary does.

I am not sure whether it is an achievement, but one of my more notable moments as Attorney-General was to become the only Attorney-General in this state who directed the Director of Public Prosecutions to appeal. That was in the Nemer case. I can assure the honourable member that that was an extremely difficult decision to come to, but I took the view in taking that decision that, to protect confidence within the judicial system, it was necessary to take that action. The subsequent decision of the Court of Appeal, which with a 2:1 majority overturned that decision in the Nemer case, I believe showed that sort of action was necessary to protect the administration of justice. It is certainly why I took that decision and I would suggest that my colleague, the member for Croydon, would also have had that as his motive.

I would just like to point out to the honourable member that some of the achievements of my colleague included the hoon driver legislation with its various elements and the introduction of DNA legislation. When I was police minister I was very pleased to work with the honourable member on that. This state leads the country in DNA legislation, which has been very successful in solving some of the crimes that have been outstanding for many years. I think it put this state at the forefront of law reform and has probably done a lot more for justice, I would suggest, than other areas.

There was also firearms prohibition legislation. I think that we have in many ways led the country in that form of legislation. There was legislation dealing with unexplained wealth and the control of bikies. In the social area, we have also had the domestic violence reforms and some equal opportunity reforms as well under the member for Croydon.

It is just simply erroneous, I would suggest, to say that this government has over the past eight years not had some very significant law reforms—some of it to do with the criminal system certainly, but also in social areas as well. I certainly refute the suggestion made by the Hon. Mr Wade that Don Dunstan would in any way have problems living with this—

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well I don't think he would turn in his grave at all because Don Dunstan was very much a contemporary politician who addressed the issues of his day. When he came in, this state had 6 o'clock closing; it did not have any lotteries; it was a very closed society. Indeed the Hon. Mr Wade in many ways has actually tried to oppose and also restrict some of the reforms in many respects. I think that the Hon. Mr Wade, if I recall correctly, over the last eight years, has tried to oppose some of those reforms that were in the direction in which Don Dunstan tried to lead this state.

The honourable member mentioned a number of other issues which we will debate in other forums. I do not wish to spend any more time on that other than to conclude by congratulating the members elected to this parliament, particularly our new members. I look forward to the coming term of this government to implement the policies that were set out by the Governor in his speech.

Motion carried.

The PRESIDENT: I would like to advise honourable members that His Excellency the Governor will be pleased to receive honourable members of the Legislative Council at 4.15pm on Wednesday 23 June 2010 for the purposes of presenting the Address in Reply.

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