To inquire into and report upon the following matters:
(1) Whether the Premier or any Minister, ministerial adviser or public servant participated in any activity or discussions concerning:
(a) the possible appointment of Mr Ralph Clarke to a
government board or position; or
(b) the means of facilitating recovery by Mr Clarke
of costs incurred by him in connection with a
defamation action between Mr Clarke and
Attorney-General Atkinson
(The activity and discussions and events surrounding them are referred to in these terms as "the issues".)
(2) If so, the content and nature of such activity or discussions.
(3) Whether the Premier or any Minister or ministerial adviser authorised any such discussions or whether the Premier or any Minister or ministerial adviser was aware of the discussions at the time they were occurring or subsequently.
(4) Whether the conduct (including acts of commission or omission) of the Premier or any Minister or ministerial adviser or public servant contravened any law or Code of Conduct; or whether such conduct was improper or failed to comply with appropriate standards of probity and integrity.
(5) Whether the Premier or any Minister or ministerial adviser made any statement in relation to the issues which was misleading, inaccurate or dishonest in any material particular.
(6) The failure of the Premier, the Deputy Premier, the Attorney-General and the, then, Minister for Police to report the issue in the first instance to the Anti-Corruption Branch of the SA Police.
(7) Whether the actions taken by the Premier and Ministers in relation to the issues were appropriate and consistent with proper standards of probity and public administration and, in particular:
(a) why no public disclosure of the issues was made
until June 2003;
(b) why Mr Randall Ashbourne was reprimanded in
December 2002 and whether that action was
appropriate;
(c) whether the appointment of Mr Warren McCann
to investigate the issues was appropriate;
(d) whether actions taken in response to the report
prepared by Mr McCann were appropriate.
(8) What processes and investigations the Auditor-General undertook and whether the Audtitor-General was furnished with adequate and appropriate material upon which to base the conslusions reflected in his letter dated 20 December 2002 to the Premier.
(9) Whether adequate steps were taken by Mr McCann, the SA Police and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to obtain from Mr Clarke information which was relevant to the issues.
(10) Whether the processes undertaken in response to the issues up to and including the provision of the report prepared by Mr McCann were reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.
(11) Whether there were any material deficiencies in the manner in which Mr McCann conducted his investigation of the issues.
(12) Whether it would have been appropriate to have made public the report prepared by Mr McCann.
(13) The matters investigated and all the evidence and submissions obtained by and any recommendations made by the Anti-Corruption Branch of the SA Police.
(14) Whether Mr Ashbourne, during the course of his ordinary employment, engaged in any (and, if so, what) activity or discussions to advance the personal interests of the Attorney-General and, if so, whether any Minister had knowledge of, or authorised, such activity or discussion.
(15) Whether Mr Ashbourne undertook any and, if so, what actions to "rehabilitate" Mr Clarke, or the former Member for Price, Mr Murray Delaine, or any other person into the Australian Labor Party and, if so, whether such actions were undertaken with the knowledge, authority or approval of the Premier or any Minister.
(16) The propriety of the Attorney-General contacting journalists covering the Ashbourne case in the District Court, during the trial, and the nature of those conversations.
(17) With reference to the contents of the statement issued on 1 July 2005 by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Stephen Pallaras QC:
(a) what was the substance of the "complaint about the
conduct of the Premier's legal advisor, Mr
Alexandrides";
(b) what was the substance of the "telephone call made
[by Mr Alexandrides] to the prosecutor involved in
the Ashbourne case";
(c) what were the"serious issues of inappropriate
conduct" relating to Mr Aleandrides;
(d) whether the responses of the Premier, the Attorney-
General or any Minister or Mr Alexandrides or any
other person to the issues mentioned in the Direcotr
of Public Prosecutions' statement were appropriate
and timely; and
(e) whether any person made any statement
concerning the issues referred to in the Director of
Public Prosecutions' statement which was
misleading, inaccurate or dishonest in any material
particular.
(18) Whether it would be appropriate in future to refer any credible allegation of improper conduct on the part of a Minister or ministerial adviser (that has not already been referred to the police) to the Solicitor-General in the first instance for investigation and advice.
(19) If the reference of such an allegation to the Solicitor-General would not be appropriate (in general or in a particular case) or would not be possible because of the Solicitor-General's absence or for some other reason, who would be an alternative person to whom it would be appropriate to refer such an allegation in the first instance for investigation and advice.
(20) Whether Mr Alexandrides assisted in framing the Terms of Reference for the Inquiry proposed by the Government in the resolution of the House of Assembly passed on 5 July 2005.
(21) What action should be taken in relation to any of the matters arising out of the consideration by the Inquiry of these terms of reference.
The Select Committee must not, in the course of its inquiry or Report, purport to make any finding of criminal or civil liability.