Sammy D Foundation

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:30): I rise on this important matter of interest to put on the public record some concerns that have been brought to me by constituents. I noted some time ago that after minister Weatherill became Premier he put out a press release allocating $1 million to the Sammy D Foundation. The Sammy D Foundation has good intent and I, as everyone in the state, the nation and the world for that matter, feel for the family, as no-one would ever want to lose a child. However, I did at that time think that that was a huge amount of money to give to one organisation.

A few weeks ago an informant contacted me over concerns about the process of providing the $1 million. After consideration, further meetings and examining documents, I believe it was incumbent on me, through the parliament, to raise this very serious issue and what was told to me by the informant. After consideration, I would say that this is the appropriate venue for me to raise this matter, and I will now put a formal request through my MOI for the Budget and Finance Committee to investigate this matter.

I am advised by sources that when the Premier was still the minister for education he did finally agree to meet with Ms Nat Cook. It was actually just before the announcement of the new Premier. I am advised that during that meeting there was much disruption due to the number counting going on in minister Weatherill's office before he became Premier.

I am further advised from solid sources that Ms Cook had advised people that she was actually annoyed with the disruption at the meeting, and I understand that the now Premier understood that it was very disruptive and may have shared some of what was happening with her and advised her that he would look after her request in the future, once he became Premier.

Approximately one year later media stories occurred about alcohol-fuelled violence, embarrassing the government. Through a press release on 12 September, the government advised on the Premier's press release letterhead that Ms Cook's foundation would receive a $1 million grant.

The Attorney-General's Department was working across government with a plan, as you would expect it would. I am advised that at that point in time no specific money had been appropriated and the Attorney-General's Department was ordered to find the money. My informant advises that the Attorney-General's Department was unaware of any tender process, background research or assessment that took place prior to the decision by the Premier to allocate $1 million of taxpayers' money.

Mr President, you cannot grant an amount of this size without tender and open and transparent processes, and taxpayers expect this government, as indeed any government, to work within proper guidelines and probity. It appears that this did not happen and therefore I call for an investigation. I again say that I believe the best way to do that is through the Budget and Finance Committee.

I see in a transcript in this documentation allegations that the Premier has further committed—if the Abbott government does not—$297,000 to that foundation. Coincidently, soon after my informant met with me, it was reported that the Premier had leaned on Ms Cook to be the Fisher candidate.

This is an issue that must be investigated. We are in a desperate situation in this state and, if we are to have a new start, if we are going to be prorogued, and if we are to believe this government at all, then we need to see proper accountability, proper transparency and proper processes. I know the Attorney-General's Department and the people who work there because I worked there for some time. They are sticklers for wanting to have that probity. My informant—and I believe my informant is very reliable—told me that those processes certainly did not occur.

It does not matter whether your a minister or a Premier, you still have to abide by the processes. In conclusion, I also ask that the Budget and Finance Committee look at the appropriation lines in the foundation's 2013 financial statement, as in 2012 and 2013 government grants at $808,908.70 are shown as being provided, and it is important that adequate appropriation of that grant funding is examined.