HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-05-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

BURNSIDE COUNCIL

The Hon. S.G. WADE (14:34): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for State/Local Government Relations a question relating to the investigation of the Burnside council.

Leave granted.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As the council is aware, the Minister for State/Local Government Relations launched an investigation into allegations of corruption at the Burnside council in July last year. The investigation was then said to be of 12 weeks' duration; it is now approaching 12 months in duration.

The opposition is also keen to be clear about the costs. On 13 May, in answer to a question by the Hon. John Darley in this council, the minister said that the fees involved were already on the public record and that she would provide details to the council. That is two weeks ago. No details have been provided. However, the minister has assured the council that we should refer to her previous statements regarding the cost of the investigation and that that would be an indication of current costs.

I have not been able to find any estimates of cost offered by the minister on the public record. However, the minister's departmental staff attended and advised the Budget and Finance Committee on 14 September 2009 that the investigation was due to last for 12 weeks and would cost $250,000. This included provision for four staff in the department and the fees and costs for the independent investigator, Mr Ken MacPherson. Mr MacPherson was said to be on a contract of $1,200 per day for the length of the investigation.

As I have said previously, the minister has advised the council that the costings previously supplied provide an accurate foundation for the estimates of the expenditure on the investigation so far. So, based on the costings provided in September, and the extensions of time since, the investigation could be estimated to have cost $937,500, that is, if the investigation is finalised and concludes tomorrow.

Given that the natural justice period has not yet commenced, the investigation will no doubt drag on for some time yet at an estimated cost of $21,000 per week. My questions are:

1. Can the minister confirm that the cost of the investigation is already more than $900,000 and is likely to cost more than $1 million?

2. When will the minister fulfil her commitment to the Hon. Mr Darley and this council to provide an update on costs?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (14:36): It is like a worn-out old record, isn't it? What a bone lazy opposition we have. They cannot come back to this chamber with a new or fresh question, they have to keep dragging out the same old, same old.

I have been very clear on this. I have put the figures on the public record, some of which have been read out here in the council today. I have said I will do a cumulative costing on this and bring that back, and I will. This will be a very—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Have we all finished talking? The honourable minister has the call. If you want to waste your question time, it is entirely up to you.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Thank you, Mr President. That's the problem—they don't listen and we get the same question again and again. The honourable member read out the information I have put on the record, and it is there in the public arena. I have agreed to do a cumulative calculation and bring that up to date.

We know that this is going to be a very, very expensive exercise and that a number of staff have been involved from various agencies to provide support in kind to Ken MacPherson. I have already put on the record here that on two occasions I offered extra resources, and the investigator has taken me up on that offer, so on two occasions we have provided additional support and staffing. All of that is on the record, and I have been completely open about what has been involved in—

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Wade will put a sock in it.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Thank you for your protection, Mr President. I have been completely open and transparent about it. It will be an extremely expensive exercise, and if that is the cost of maintaining the integrity of democracy, then so be it.

I do not know what the honourable member is implying. Is he suggesting that I should have put a cap on this and said to Ken MacPherson, 'You can only spend $50,000 on this and that's it'? So, 'I want an investigation that is only going to cost $200,000 and no more—you cannot spend a penny more.'

What is he saying? What is he getting at? He is suggesting that I somehow shackle the work of the investigator and put parameters around his work which would hinder the outcome of this investigation, which could restrict the outcome and affect the quality of this investigation and the report, and which could, in fact, undermine the very integrity of this investigation. So, we get a $200,000 (or whatever he thinks is a fair thing; I don't know) capped report and it is not worth a pinch of salt because it has no integrity.

What does he want? We have had a number of public complaints about the behaviour and conduct of this council and we have had it investigated. We have said that all matters within the terms of reference must be investigated thoroughly and with a high degree of integrity so that any outcomes can be upheld, that I will be able to use them in a way to effect real change, if necessary, so that this does not happen again, and that we send a very clear message to all other councils that this is what will happen if conduct is inappropriate or improper. Of course, that is if the findings warrant such an outcome—I am not pre-empting the report in any way. That is what we need to do. We need an investigation result which enables me to do that.

Of course, it will be expensive—this is going to cost—but the cost is not the real issue. The issue is to ensure that we have a transparent and fully accountable local government: that is what is important and that is what my job is. It is going to be costly. I have been up-front and open about the costs. I have told you what rates we are paying and have put it on the public record. The investigation is not complete so we do not know what the final result is going to be. If you want a cumulative—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: You can do the figures. What are you, an idiot? I have put on the public record the rate that we are paying the investigator and it is there for everyone to see. The investigation has not yet been completed so we do not know what the final outcome will be. However, I can assure you that it is going to be expensive. I can also assure you that it will be worth every cent because we will then be able to rest easy in that the public complaints raised were investigated to the highest level of integrity and that any outcomes that arise will be upheld when and if needed.

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