No-confidence Motion

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (14:23): I move:

That this council has no confidence in the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation in light of his incompetent handling of his portfolio generally and in particular the process leading to the introduction of the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights (Miscellaneous) Bill to parliament and misleading statements he made as part of that process.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In moving this motion, it is a sad day. It is a sad day for the parliament; it is a sad day for the community, because this is the second time in just over four months that this minister's sorry and incompetent performance in a portfolio area has led to the need for the Legislative Council to consider a no-confidence motion in the minister's performance.

I said in my contribution to the debate on Tuesday of this week that this minister's handling of his portfolio area over almost two years had been a litany of failure, negligence, incompetence, lack of interest and lack of engagement—in summary, an absolute disgrace. The minister's performance this week leaves a permanent stain on his ministerial record and on the record of the Weatherill Labor government. At the outset can I say that all members in this chamber and everyone in the community, I am sure, would agree that the portfolio the minister has responsibility for is a very challenging portfolio.

No minister or individual will have all of the solutions. Any solution will be a long-term solution and that is why time cannot be wasted. That is why, in the view of Liberal Party members in this chamber, the attitude, the approach and the leadership of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, whoever he or she might be at a time, is critical to the tackling of the issues and critical to the issue of whether or not we, as a community, will make progress on tackling what we all acknowledge are ongoing and continuing problems.

Many of us in this chamber, and I think in the community, will remember with fondness a former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation of Labor persuasion, the Hon. Terry Roberts. Indeed, the Hon. Kyam Maher would and should know him well in terms of his performance in the portfolio. I knew the Hon. Terry Roberts from his time in the South-East but I admired his performance as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs during the period between 2002 and 2006.

He was characterised by empathy, humility and engagement. They were the traits for which the Hon. Terry Roberts was known and they were the traits that he applied in trying to tackle the issues and the problems that confront the Aboriginal community and South Australia. The sad reality is that minister Hunter has none of those and this minister's incompetence, negligence and, sadly, overriding arrogance are actually preventing progress in tackling the problems that need to be tackled.

I am sure others in this debate may well contribute their own views in relation to the problems created by the minister's arrogance as he tackles the portfolio, but I have to say that there have been many I know in this chamber, and not just on this side of the chamber but in the minister's own caucus from the Premier down, who have warned him about the problems of his arrogance, the way he treats people, in particular crossbenchers and minor party representatives, in the shared attempt to tackle difficult problems that might be in his portfolio.

So, it is not as if the minister has not been warned of the problems that his arrogance creates, but what we have seen over a long period of time, sadly, is the minister ignoring the warnings from his colleagues within his own caucus from his broader colleagues, if he wants to describe the opposition and crossbenchers as that, in the Legislative Council and those in the community as to the problems that arrogance has caused in terms of his handling of the issues in his portfolio.

Those of us in this chamber and those who watch the proceedings have seen it on a daily basis in question time. The sneering, snarly, smirky way the minister responds to genuine questions from crossbenchers, in particular, and other members of the opposition on a daily basis is evident for all to see.

On Tuesday I highlighted in some detail—and I will not go through it in this motion today, but let me summarise briefly. In relation to these issues of the APY lands, I have highlighted the fact that there are many challenges—we all acknowledge that—and there have been many accusations raised in the media and in the parliament. I guess the cautionary note I made was that there will be accusations made against many people, on all sides of the debate on the lands.

I highlighted the concerns I had raised, as far back as September and October of 2012, about employees (public servants) of the government and of the minister in a previous portfolio when he was the Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion. I raised concerns about allegations from whistleblowers within the minister's department and on the lands about allegations of rorting of travel and locality allowances by public servants: not by members of the APY Executive, people who might want to be on the APY Executive, or people from the lands themselves, but from public servants who were working on behalf of the taxpayers on the lands.

The minister will know that I raised questions also about significant wastage of taxpayers' money by those public servants on the lands. The minister will know I put on the public record concerns from APY leaders about the wastage of money by public servants when the money was so desperately needed in terms of improving health, schooling and other services on the lands.

These whistleblowers had made decisions, after banging their heads against brick walls within the bureaucracy and elsewhere, to raise their concerns through a member of parliament, as is their right. I raised those concerns on behalf of those constituents in September and October. All we got—and I can put up with the sneering, snarly, smirking response from the minister, but all our constituents got was that dismissive, arrogant refusal from the minister to even respond to the questions.

Two years later, here we are in December 2014, and this minister has chosen to refuse to answer questions placed to him directly as a minister in relation to these serious issues. The only response that I have seen, as I indicated, is that somebody—whether it be the minister, a minister's staffer or a public servant, I do not know—obviously set the ICAC onto whoever it was they thought the whistleblowers were.

As I indicated on Tuesday, the only response I have seen thus far, after two years of raising the questions, is being asked by ICAC investigators as to whether I would indicate who the whistleblowers were who gave me the information and what the grounds were for them giving me the information. I put on the public record my response to that, and I do so again, where in the politest possible way I told the investigators to get nicked and that parliamentary privilege enables me to protect the whistleblowers who provided me as a member of parliament with information which they believed to be in the public interest, which they believed the minister has not responded to and which they believed needed to be aired and investigated.

We have seen others who have asked questions of the minister as well over the last two years similarly being ignored. We have seen issues raised in the media and the minister and the minister's office's dismissive responses to journalists, which are well evident and on the public record in terms of responding to the criticism and issues that whistleblowers have raised via journalists and in the media.

Last night, we saw the minister's arrogance again in the very important Stolen Generations compensation legislation, which has been introduced and was being debated last night. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, one would have thought, might have had a passing interest in that legislation, but for all of that debate last night the minister chose not to attend the chamber or even participate in the debate, let alone listen to the debate. It was left to a sole backbencher, the Hon. Tung Ngo, to desperately try to put a position on behalf of the government.

When the minister was required to move the contingent notice of motion, a procedural matter that only a minister can move, given he was the only minister left in Parliament House at the time, although he was not in the chamber, the only way we could get him was to ring the bills and to drag him into the chamber, into which he sauntered in with his jacket jauntily draped across his shoulder, moved the contingent notice of motion with a smirk on his face and, once that was done, turned around, clicked his heels and walked out the door again.

That is the sort of arrogance, minister, that infuriates crossbenchers, infuriates opposition members and, frankly, infuriates some of your own backbench in terms of the way you treat the seriousness of this particular portfolio. On something as important as a compensation bill for the stolen generations, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation is not even interested to attend, to listen and to participate. Even if in the end, as he has done with others, or other ministers have done as well—indicate for whatever reasons they feel they could not support the bill—he did not have the courage, he did not have the courtesy to stand up, put his position and defend his position on behalf of the government.

In conclusion, in terms of the minister's arrogance, as was revealed earlier this week in the debate, the fact that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has not even visited the APY lands in almost 14 months is again testimony to his lack of willingness to engage in tackling the problems that confront the APY lands. As I turn now to the process of this bill this week, how he can arrive at that, impressing upon all of us the urgency for us to trash all our normal procedures to put a bill through the first, second and third readings all in the one day, and then have the temerity to stand up and say, 'Well, I haven't been there for 14 months to the APY lands. I am happy to prognosticate, to adjudicate and to make my decisions from the comfort of my ministerial lounge. I don't need to visit the lands for 14 months.'

I turn now to the process of the introduction of the bill this week. There was no answer provided from the minister as to why, given that he has been the minister for two years—and I am not privy to the discussions of the standing committee on Aboriginal affairs and the other discussions the minister and others may or may not have had over a period time, but certainly publicly as well but, given these issues have evidently been discussed for some time—the minister chose to leave it to the third-last sitting day (the last sitting week) to introduce what he would know to be a most controversial piece of legislation.

I can sadly only conclude that this was a deliberate and calculated act by the minister. Sadly, I can only conclude that he did this in a way that sought to restrict and limit the scrutiny and the debate, in particular publicly but also within the parliament, of the legislation. That can be, I think, the only reasonable conclusion, because the minister offered no other reason as to why he left it to just the last week to introduce the legislation and insist that it was so urgent that it had to be debated this week.

In his second reading explanation and in his reply to the second reading, after he was asked many questions by a number of members as to what the reasons for the rush were, he offered no substantive reasons in the second reading and in his reply to the second reading. In response to questions from some of my colleagues, I think in particular the Hon. Terry Stephens, he managed to tease out some details of some particular claims and allegations during the committee stage of the debate. Again, as testimony to the disgraceful process this minister has been responsible for, only limited information, even in the committee stage, was provided.

The committee stage was my first active engagement in the debate, and I again concede, as not a member of the standing committee and not like the member for Morphett, the member for Dunstan, the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Hon. Terry Stephens and others who have been actively engaged in these particular issues, my engagement has been primarily in terms of Treasury and Finance over the years and through the Budget and Finance Committee in relation to whistle blowers blowing the whistle on rorting and wastage of taxpayers' money, etc.

During the committee stage, what amazed me was that the minister could not answer many of the questions that were put by members about the implications of the bill and the bill itself. For example, if one refers to the debate, some simple questions were being raised in the early stages of the committee as to what the minister's powers currently were over what is colloquially known as the cattle money, that is, private money, not state government money being earned by the APY people through cattle agistment. Questions were put to the Hon. Mr Hunter in relation to what was the level of control that he had and, in the end, the question that was put to him by me was:

Does the minister concede that he has no authority over that [that is, the cattle money, the private money], that that is a decision entirely for the APY Executive?

The minister's response was stunning. He said:

I am currently seeking crown advice to confirm that view, but that would be a working hypothesis.

Here is a minister, after two years, being asked a simple question; that is, what is his power currently under existing legislation over what I am now told is over $1 million a year of cattle agistment money, private money, being earned by the APY people? Asked the question, 'What is your authority?', and the minister says:

I am currently seeking crown advice to confirm that view, but that would be a working hypothesis.

It is not good enough for a minister who wants to rush a controversial piece of legislation through the parliament to stand up and not be able to answer very simple questions in relation to the bill. The next area where the minister floundered in terms of trying to explain what his bill meant was: what are the powers to be of the administrator he intends to appoint? The minister, during the committee stage, gave conflicting answers. Members in all parts of this chamber were shaking their head at the conflict between the initial responses the minister gave and then ultimately the final responses.

His initial response was that the administrator would be subject to the rules that are passed from time to time by an annual general meeting or a general meeting of the APY and that the act lists the powers and functions of the APY at a general meeting. The minister said that the administrator would be subject to the rules that the APY, at a general meeting, might lay down from time to time. Then I referred the minister, because clearly he had not read the parent act or, if he had, he had not comprehended it, to section 13O(2)(f), which says:

…the Administrator has all the functions and powers of Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara;

That is, when he appoints this person, he or she will have all of the powers and functions of the APY. As I said, I listed for the minister, in the committee stage, all those powers and functions: the ability to enter into contracts, leases, etc. were all there, subject to the rules that they might pass from time to time.

When confronted with that, the minister changed his response from what he said earlier. He was obviously saying earlier that they were going to be subject to the rules, but then we pointed out to them that, if the administrator is replacing the APY, the administrator (he or she) can make the rules and change the rules. If the administrator has all the functions and powers of the APY, then under the act where does that leave us? The minister had, as I said, conflicting answers and ultimately no answers, or no definitive answers, on the powers and functions that will apply to the person that he is going to appoint to administer the APY after he has suspended the executive board. So, there are obvious questions then in relation to what the powers of an APY general meeting and the powers of an administrator would be in relation to all of that.

The next issue the minister had no clear response on was to some relatively simple questions put to the minister in relation to whether or not the current members and chair of the APY Executive board would continue to be paid. I have to say that myself, and I suspect all of my colleagues, assume that if you are sacking/suspending the executive board and employing an administrator then the executive board are not doing anything and are therefore not accruing their $6,000 a year and the chairman is not accruing the $70,000 a year, but the minister's response was:

My advice is that would depend whether the administrator thought it appropriate that he or she could continue to meet with the board and take advice from the board or consult with the board in which case it would be reasonable to pay those attendance fees to board members.

So, the minister is saying that under the scheme of arrangement that he is rushing through the parliament he is envisaging that, potentially, the chair can continue to be paid $70,000 a year, even though the board has been suspended, and the board members can continue to be paid $6,000 a year, even though the board is suspended, for whatever the duration of the appointment of the administrator might happen to be. I think that is an extraordinary situation. There are many other examples where the minister was unable to explain the ramifications and implications of his own legislation, to answer simple questions which one would have thought he should have been briefed on and prepared to respond to obvious questions from members in the chamber.

The final area I want to address is in relation to the misleading statements part of the motion. I know, given questions we have had in question time, that other MPs may well have their own examples, but I want to refer to one specific and very important, in my view, example of where the minister misled this council and has misled the community generally. In the committee stages on Tuesday I asked the question:

Is it correct that on 21 November, when you met with the representatives of the APY, you said to them at that particular time that you intended to appoint a general manager, which would be your choice and they would have to accept it, but that they could publicly indicate the announcement of that particular general manager…

Then there are two pages of Hansard recording further discussions and then eventually I ask another question:

Why did you make the offer to the APY and ask for their support of the appointment of the people you were referring to?

The Hon. Mr Hunter then said:

I did not make any such offer. I said to them—

Hansard records an honourable member interjecting, then the minister continues:

No, I did not make any offer at all. I said to the APY Executive and their legal representatives in the room that, should I proceed down this path, this would be my determination, and should I determine to appoint a general manager, this is how I would expect them to respond.

In my view and on the information provided to me, that is a clear example of where the minister has misled this council and the community. I have been provided with extracts from the notes of the meeting of members of the APY Executive with minister Hunter on 21 November 2014, prepared by a solicitor from Johnston Withers, Mr Graham Harbord, and I have permission to quote from these extracts from the notes of the meeting that relate to this particular issue. The following is a direct quote from the extracts that I have been given:

He—

That is the minister—

said he is being put under a lot of pressure from the Liberal Party and Michael Owen.

I note for the benefit of Hansard that Michael Owen is a journalist from The Australian. It continues:

He said he will choose the next APY general manager. He wants the APY Executive to agree. The general manager will be based in Adelaide and on the APY lands. He or she will report to the minister and the executive. He said that he (the minister) will set the priorities for the next 12 months. It will include training and governance. He said, 'I want the executive to work with the general manager on the priorities one by one.' The minister said, 'I would prefer to work with you and have you support this, but that won't be necessary. Otherwise, changes will be made by parliament, which I will not control, and you won't enjoy what those changes will be. This is only about the executive and how it performs. I will go away and select my candidate. I will inform Bernard. I want you to endorse this and the conditions of appointment. I don't want to embarrass the executive. You may interview the person, but I will expect you to endorse it. From the outside it will look as if the minister and the APY Executive are working together. The time has come to draw a line in the sand.' Trevor Adamson then said, 'My understanding is that this will be an administrator.' The minister said, 'Effectively it will be, but not in name. I do not want to sack the executive. I want to work with the executive to build a stronger executive.'

Further on, as it relates to this particular point, the minister said:

I am adamant that legislation will be brought in early next year. The minister also said that he understood that there was general support for gender equality. He said there will be consultation about the boundaries.

Can I just interpose here that the legislation to which the minister was referring in this debate was legislation that was going to impact on the timing of the elections, 50 per cent of the board being female and boundary issues, as the notes at this meeting seem to indicate. Concluding this particular quote from the extract:

The minister then said that the general manager will be appointed by him. The general manager will report to the minister as well as to the executive. The minister will direct the general manager as to what he wants. This appointment may be for 12 months or more than that. The minister said, 'I feel confident that we can fix this together. You will be surprised by some things. We will consult you when we can. Where I need to consult you I will, where I don't, I won't.'

That clearly is completely contrary to the responses the minister provided to the questions that I put in the council on Tuesday. It is quite clear that what the minister said on 21 November was that he was going to appoint a general manager, he wanted them to go through the pretence of it being their appointment and he would go along with that, but that he would appoint the general manager and that is the way it was going to be and, if they did not want to follow that line, they might not like the alternative consequences.

That is not what the minister said in response to my questions on Tuesday night. He denied that that was the case. He twice denied point blank that that was the case. He made it clear that he did not do that. The extract of the notes from the lawyers make it quite clear that the minister's position does not accord with their record of the meeting they had with him on the 21November. For whatever reason, which we still do not know, somewhere between 21 November and Tuesday of this week, the minister decided to not continue with what he said to the APY Executive and their representatives and proceeded to introduce the legislation.

In concluding, can I say that no-confidence motions are serious issues. No-confidence motions must be based on substance and on evidence. They might be based on significant, critical single events, such as a minister misleading the parliament or some other issue unbefitting a minister. No-confidence motions might also be based on the chamber's general assessment of the overall competence and performance of a minister in their portfolio.

Sadly, in my view, and in the view of my colleagues as Liberal members, on this occasion we have both. On this occasion we have a minister who for almost two years has a proven record of incompetence, negligence and lack of performance in the portfolio, characterised all through that period by, sadly, a stream of arrogance that is seen in the parliament and in the community in terms of responding to questions.

We also have the single event issue, and that is the process in which he engaged in terms of the introduction of the legislation into this chamber and in our view the fact that he misled this committee, he misled this chamber, in relation to critical answers to critical questions that were put to him, as I have outlined on the record.

Liberal members in this chamber have resolved that we have no confidence in minister Hunter, for those reasons, in continuing as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, and we urge other members in this chamber to support the motion.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (14:56): I rise to oppose this ridiculous motion, Mr President. It is just another meaningless political stunt in a long line of similar behaviour that we have seen from the opposition in this place. They are a joke. What we see today on the last sitting day for the year is really what I would consider rather a pathetic attempt to distract from the fact that the opposition, and those on the crossbench who might support this, really have nothing of value left to contribute.

They have no ideas for this state, they have no real desire to work for South Australians and they certainly are not acting in the best interests of Aboriginal people. They are a lazy group of individuals who have nothing of value left to contribute to the political debate. I am pretty sure that they have actually run out of questions for question time. I suspect they have used this motion of no-confidence as a time filler to cover the fact that they have run out of questions for question time, because they certainly have demonstrated throughout the year their poor quality of questions.

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: I just remind members that we have just sat and listened to a motion by the Hon. Mr Lucas. The minister is now responding to that. I think the minister deserves the same respect as was shown to the Hon. Mr Lucas, so if we can listen in silence that is the respectful thing to do. The minister.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Thank you, Mr President. As I said, given the poor quality of their questions throughout the year, they have certainly shown that they lack the will to do any research or really consider their questions for question time in this place. We see that they want to use this place to launch a very cheap political stunt. For weeks the opposition has been saying that they would support the APY legislation. That was before this chamber just—

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Franks, if you don't mind: we have a minister responding to a no-confidence motion. You should have the respect to let the minister complete her contribution. If, then, you want to say something, you have the right to get up and speak.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I object to the minister providing factually incorrect information that runs contrary—

The PRESIDENT: It doesn't matter what you object to; it's part of the contribution. If you want to say something, say it after. The honourable minister.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: So, they had indicated their support for this legislation, I am advised, and it certainly is a fact that the opposition voted in support of that APY legislation. They voted in support of that legislation.

And yet they stand here today and, really, they are hedging their bets. If they really had concerns about that APY legislation, if they really had genuine concerns, if they were genuinely not satisfied with the responses given by minister Hunter during the debate on this bill, they would not have voted for it. Why would they? They did, Mr President; they did support the bill. They did vote for it, but they want to stand here today and hedge their bets in a cheap political stunt.

Yet again, we see the total hypocrisy of this Liberal opposition, trying to have a cheap bet both ways. They are a joke. And what absolutely blatant hypocrisy on behalf of the Hon. Rob Lucas, standing in this place today, singing the praises of the Hon. Terry Roberts—comments which I agree with, the only comments in his address today that I actually agreed with.

The Hon. Terry Roberts was indeed a very good minister for Aboriginal affairs. But the Hon. Rob Lucas stands there singing his praises, when back in 2004-05 the Hon. Rob Lucas supported a vote of no confidence in the Hon. Terry Roberts, in this very place. What an absolute hypocrite! The vote of no confidence in relation to the Hon. Terry Roberts was in relation to his handling of matters on the APY lands. What a joke! What a hypocrite!

For more than a decade, this government has played a key role in supporting many programs and initiatives that have enhanced the wellbeing of Aboriginal people in this state. Most recently, this parliament acknowledged the importance of constitutional recognition of Aboriginal people as traditional owners and occupants of land and waters of South Australia. This government has been very committed to genuine and inclusive dialogue with South Australia's Aboriginal communities and their leaders. We established the South Australian Aboriginal Advisory Council to support the government to develop and implement policies and programs that are appropriate with respect to Aboriginal people.

Over the term of this government, we have handed back conservation parks and established co-management boards for a number of other parks. Now 73 per cent of the state is covered by native title—73 per cent. We have focused on literacy and numeracy in Aboriginal education and worked with communities to lift school attendance. The number of Aboriginal children enrolled in South Australia's preschools continues to increase, from 994 in 2003 to 1,567 in 2013.

There are many more achievements, such as establishing a commissioner of Aboriginal engagement, as well as ensuring that we now have permanent police and social workers living on the APY lands, in stark comparison to what occurred under the previous Liberal government.

Of course, we are fortunate to have minister Hunter, who is a committed, brave and hardworking minister. He has rolled up his sleeves and dedicated himself to many areas, but this policy area in particular, with great passion. He is certainly not afraid to take on the hard issues. The lot sitting opposite me should be in fact congratulating him for making the tough decisions and progressing this piece of legislation. Instead, they are sitting there today moving this disgraceful vote of no confidence.

Minister Hunter has done an extraordinary job in his portfolio, and there are many achievements to be proud of. They include things like updating and modernising the Aboriginal Lands Trust Act, overseeing the redesign of the State Government Reconciliation Action Plans—the largest number of RAPs launched at any one time since the Reconciliation Australia RAP program commenced. This was the culmination of six months' progress overseen by the minister to ensure all state agencies have a RAP in place to guide reconciliation activities. He is also strongly committed to progressing self-determining governance and structures in Aboriginal communities.

He is admired and respected by his cabinet and caucus colleagues for his tenacity in dealing with one of the most challenging policy areas that this government faces. Only those opposite would be foolish enough to suggest otherwise. The minister is a champion for Aboriginal people and is always the first to speak up to progress the interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.

This comes at a time when we see the opposition have chosen to remain absolutely silent when the federal Liberal Party slashes and burns Aboriginal programs to the ground, but we are not surprised about this. After all, this comes from the same mob who failed time after time to stand up for South Australia. When funding was cut to the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples—an organisation that has more than 8,000 members—where were they then? Where were the opposition when the position of Coordinator General for Remote Indigenous Services was axed or when the government slashed Aboriginal legal aid by $13.4 million and slashed more than half a billion dollars from the Indigenous programs? Where were they? Silence.

They talked about supporting remote Aboriginal people but have been silent about the Abbott government's decision to cut funding to South Australia's regional and remote Aboriginal communities and homelands. From 1 July next year, Aboriginal communities will say goodbye to vital funding for roads, power, water and things like rubbish collection—gone. The simple truth is that this will set communities back decades and may even spell the closure of Aboriginal lands.

It has always been the practice in this place to conduct ourselves with dignity, and those opposite and those who are prepared to support this motion must know that they are not doing so today with this cheap political stunt. They have turned this place into a circus, and it is little wonder that some people seek to have this place abolished. Today they have certainly given them plenty of good reason to want to continue to do so.

If the members opposite were truly here to represent the interests of our state, they would stop wasting time with these petty motions and poor behaviour. It is time for members of this place to stop seeking to use Aboriginal people to score cheap political points and to join with the government in working to close the gap that presently exists so that one day Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people will finally be afforded the same opportunities that members have benefited from.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (15:07): The passage of a motion of no confidence is part of a venerable tradition in Westminster parliaments, and it should be used sparingly, when a minister or a government has acted in a way that is improper or has failed in a very profound way. The passage of a motion of no confidence in the lower house means that the minister is obliged to resign. If a motion is carried that the house has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government, then the leader of that government would be obliged to go to Her Majesty or the Vice-Regal representative and inform them they have lost the confidence of the house, and that will precipitate a change of government or a general election. So, it is a very important step for a house of parliament to take to say that they have no confidence in a minister or a government, and I do not believe the case has been made out by the opposition that recent events justify the passage of such a motion today on the honourable minister.

The contribution of the Hon. Mr Lucas, where he referred to the honourable minister sauntering in here with his jacket jauntily over his shoulder, I think demonstrates that the basis of this motion is not about the fundamental conduct or administration of government in this state or in this portfolio. That is an entirely trivial matter to raise, to talk about how a minister enters the chamber or his facial expressions, and that somehow this house should take the very serious step of saying it has no confidence in the minister because we do not like the way he makes facial expressions. That would be an extraordinary, foolish and trivial thing for this house to do.

The opposition has raised the matter of the APY lands bill, which went through this week. I had grave concerns about that bill. It was rushed, it gave excessive power to the executive, and I was not satisfied that it was of sufficient urgency to pass this week. What did I do about those conclusions? I voted against the bill; I opposed it. What the honourable members of the opposition are saying is, 'We are so disturbed by the passage of that bill this week—that we voted for—that now the minister should resign.'

So appalled are those honourable members in the bill—that they voted for—that now the minister who proposed the bill should resign. That is one of the most absurd propositions that could be put to this house and expect honourable members to support. If any honourable member believed that the bill that was proposed to the house this week was of such import and consequence that they could not support it, they had the option to vote against it, and those who chose to support that bill can hardly turn around and now demand the minister's resignation for the bill they supported.

Honourable members have also indicated they believe the minister has misled the house. That is a serious charge, and it is open to any member to seek a Privileges Committee to investigate a matter of the misleading of the house. I think it is a very serious matter for this house to pass a motion of no confidence in a minister. I think this is the third one we have seen in probably as many years, and I believe it does trivialise the significance of Westminster traditions where a house expresses no confidence in a minister or a government for grave reasons, not because of the way he wears his jacket, and not because he moved a bill that they voted for. On that basis, I oppose the motion.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:14): We are here debating this no-confidence motion in minister Hunter for his handling not just of the bill that was rushed through the parliament this week—and I certainly took umbrage at minister Gago's use of the word 'weeks' (plural). It was on Thursday last week that members of this place were briefed on this bill by minister Hunter. 'Weeks' is plural; 'week' is singular. It has been one week since we were briefed on the bill that was rushed through, rammed through this chamber on Tuesday night, some few days later.

In that bill, of course, we see the stripping away of the rights of the APY to control their own affairs, where the minister sought to be able to ride roughshod over them and have an administrator appointed for any reason that the minister sees fit. Currently under the APY Land Rights Act as it stands—because we have not yet received that bill back to this place—the minister can issue a directive under existing section 13N of the act. There are also mechanisms under sections 9D(4), 13A(3) and 13G(4). All these options are open to the minister.

In the briefings on Thursday last week the minister informed us that he had tried everything. I am a member of the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee and I have heard and I have read the witness statements with regard to allegations of corruption. I have received the correspondence. I bring myself to read the pages of The Australian, even though I do not subscribe to it, and I have had great concern that all is not as it should be with the governance of that body, yet what did we get from the minister when I finally got him to table in this place the correspondence between the department and APY Executive, and himself and APY Executive? Eight pages of documents, which to me showed that the APY had been complying.

The APY Executive sought to meet with the Greens on Monday this week. Over the weekend, after the minister's briefing of us on that Thursday, there was a media release put out by the APY Executive, and that caused me to have great concern about what I had been informed and what my honourable colleague Mark Parnell had been informed in our briefing on the need for this bill and the imperative for this bill as a last resort measure, because everything else had failed. That is what we had been told when the minister put to us that need for urgency. I sent an email on Monday 1 December at 12.15 to the minister and to his staff member, cc'd to my staff and cc'd to the Hon. Mark Parnell, stating:

Hi Ian,

We have been approached this morning and intend to meet with the APY Executive later today (tentatively 3.30pm).

I think that is about the time that we eventually met with them. I continue my email:

We've both been sent their media statement dated 28 November which states that the APY Executive opposes the changes you propose to the APY Act.

Specifically of concern were the media release statements that—

and I quote from the media release of the APY Executive:

The minister has not even tried to exercise his current powers under the Act by giving a direction to the Board

The minister told the APY Executive that he wanted to work with them to choose a suitable General Manager. He did not tell the Executive that he was intending to introduce this provocative legislation next week which would effectively strip them of their powers.

I say to the minister further in this email:

Both of which are contrary to the information you conveyed last Thursday.

I ask the minister in my email:

Can you provide us with further written information regarding directions you have previously given and when the APY Executive were informed of your intentions with regards to the changes to the APY Act. This will be most useful for the meeting this afternoon.

I have yet to receive a written response to that email, which is why I then demanded of the minister in the committee stage of the APY bill on Tuesday night that he table the correspondence. As I said, that correspondence was quite scant. It showed that the APY had indeed been complying with the requests made of them by the minister with regard to any allegations regarding payments being made before meeting attendances, spouse's travel and those sort of areas. In fact, the thing that seems to be the bugbear for this minister is, in fact, an entirely different bill that he intends to introduce, one that will come from the Layton report.

The Layton review of the governance of the APY lands, which the Hon. Rob Lucas mentioned, sees a change in those, if you like, electoral boundaries, a change in the composition of that elected body to be half men and half women, and certainly that is quite a seismic event in any governance. I think that if we were to introduce half men and half women into this place, it would certainly take consultation and it would certainly take time. I commend Robyn Layton for her extensive research in ensuring that she met with Anangu many times in preparing that report, and they need time to also consult with their communities.

It has been communicated to me that they have, in fact, agreed to the half men, half women proposition and that they have agreed to the boundary changes. They do want time to consult further, and they have asked the minister for that, and that appears to be the sticking point. Consultation, however, does seem to be the sticking point with this minister.

It also eventuated, in the debate on Tuesday night, that, having been led to believe that this minister had widely consulted and had the support of the APY Executive, as he had informed us, it was to our surprise that the APY Executive then wanted to meet with the Greens. They put a very different case: that they had not been in agreement with the bill that was rushed through the parliament, in this chamber on Tuesday night and that they had grave concerns.

They have since provided many members of this place with the extracts from notes of the meeting of members of APY Executive with minister Hunter on 21 November 2014. The Hon. Rob Lucas read from quite a section of it, so I will not reiterate that too much, but it is quite concerning. In these notes, it states:

The Minister then referred to the Layton review. He said, 'I'm fed up. Time is up. I have seen waiting for a long time for a response.' The Minister said he was going to draft legislation. He will show it to APY first. He will introduce it next year. This will have equal numbers of men and women. He said he would also draft new boundaries for electorates. The legislation will past next year.

Well, that is legislation that we have not even seen before this place, that this place has not even had time to see and debate upon—and, indeed, the Anangu people need time to consult on. So, that is irrelevant to the minister's frustration with waiting. Let's go back to other things that are noted in this meeting. In the notes, it states:

He said he is being put under a lot of pressure from the Liberal Party and Michael Owen. He said he will choose the next APY General Manager. He wants the APY Executive to agree.

The General Manager will be based in Adelaide and on the APY Lands. He or she will report to the Minister and the Executive. He said that he (the Minister) will set the priorities for the next 12months. It will include training in governance. He said: 'I want the Executive to work with the General Manager on the priorities one by one."

The Minister said that, 'I would prefer to work with you and have you support this but that won't be necessary. Otherwise changes will be made by Parliament (which I will not control) and you won't enjoy what those changes will be.'

'This is only about the Executive and how it performs.'

'I will go away and select my candidate. I will inform Bernard. I want you to endorse this and the conditions of appointment.'

'I don't want to embarrass the Executive. You may interview the person, but I will expect you to endorse it.'

'From the outside it will look as if the Minister and the APY Executive are working together.'

I refer the minister to section 251—Abuse of public office of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. I also refer him to section 13D of the APY Land Rights Act. I asked him to take some advice on the fact that, if these minutes are true, whether or not he has complied with those provisions in the act.

I also wonder whether the minister thinks that it is good enough that this is the full extent we were provided as evidence of his attempts to ensure good governance on the APY lands when allegations are flying around not just in the pages of The Australian but, indeed, before parliamentary committees—and I am referring to these eight pages, all of which provide no smoking gun, shows compliance, shows timely compliance and a willingness to work with the minister.

I do draw the minister's attention to advice that has been given to us, and I believe it is by the Clerk of this place, given to the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee. That committee has been advised to take a course of action similar to that taken when there were allegations made with regard to the corporation of Burnside.

Surely, that would be a more appropriate course of action than to ram through wholesale changes to an entire act when the minister has clearly not tried to actually utilise the current provisions of the current act. That report could be made in a way through this parliament that would be respectful not only to the processes of this place but indeed to Aboriginal people, and would not have required the minister to, for the next three years under the terms of the government's sunset clause, ride roughshod over the APY.

Clearly, his attitude, however, in terms of consultation and what he believes is consultation does not just extend to the way he informed the APY that he was going to do what he wanted and that they would have to take it and work with him and they could pretend that they were happy with it or they would certainly have their rights stripped away and the parliament would do, as the minister said to them, something that they would not like.

It came out in the debate that the minister did not even talk to the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement. I find it ludicrous that minister Gago got up and extolled the virtues of this government in creating a position called the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement. Again, symbolic. You had the position but you did not use it in this case. The minister did not consult with the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement. In question time in this place—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

That the business of the day be postponed until the debate in progress has been concluded.

Motion carried.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In question time in this place yesterday, the Hon. Kelly Vincent raised her concern and she stated that she had asked the minister in her Thursday (a week ago) briefing, and certainly it was the same conversation that was conveyed to me by her staff member: had the minister consulted with the Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement prior to producing this bill, and she had been led to believe that that had been the case. Of course, on Tuesday night, in the late hours of the debate of a seven-hour debate, it turns out that the minister not only had not consulted with her, he did not see a reason why he should. That goes to the heart of why this minister has failed this portfolio.

He has not shown a willingness to work with Aboriginal people. He has not shown a respect for Aboriginal people. He has not been on APY lands in 14 months, it eventuated from that debate. He has only been the minister for two years. The idea that there have been seven general managers in five years has been bandied around a lot, but of course there have been four ministers in five years under the Weatherill government as well.

So, by their very own standards, they should be appointing an administrator instead of a new Aboriginal affairs minister to clean up the mess. I think that is actually what did they did try to do with the former minister, Paul Caica, and he was at least prepared to meet with people, to consult with people and to be upfront. That is something that is sadly lacking from the government's current minister's handling of this portfolio. With those few words, and there are so many more I could say, I support this motion wholeheartedly.

Motion carried.