Vickie Chapman’s political career hangs by a thread after historic vote of no confidence and scathing report findings

There’s been chaos in parliament after it passed a historic vote of no confidence in the Deputy Premier, following a scathing report – and it may now not sit next year before the election.

Deputy Premier and Attorney-General Vickie Chapman’s political future hangs by a thread after state parliament’s lower house sensationally passed a no-confidence motion against her on Thursday afternoon.

Under parliamentary convention, a minister who has a motion of no confidence passed against them in the House of Assembly is expected to resign.

However, Premier Steven Marshall told parliament this afternoon he maintains “100 per cent confidence” in Ms Chapman and would not sack her.

The motion – which passed 23 votes to 22 – has caused chaos, with the government trying to shut down parliament until after next March’s state election

The government’s bid failed and parliament will sit again on November 30.

However, it was successful in pushing to seize back powers from Speaker Dan Cregan to set sittings, making it unlikely that parliament will sit next year.

This would make the three days from November 30 the final days before the March 19 election.

Independent MP Fraser Ellis, who plunged the Liberals into minority government when he quit the party in February, abstained from the no-confidence motion.

The motion stated the lower house “no longer had confidence in the Member for Bragg” to continue as Deputy Premier, Attorney-General and Planning and Local Government Minister.

It also called on Mr Cregan to present Governor Frances Adamson with a copy of the motion expressing the lower house’s will that Ms Chapman no longer serve in these roles.

Deputy Premier Vickie Chapman and Premier Steven Marshall in state parliament on Thursday. Picture: Keryn Stevens

Mr Cregan is expected to decide later whether sanctions against Ms Chapman, potentially including a suspension from parliament, were warranted.

It is likely he will find there is a prima facie case on the privileges issue, which is likely to result in Ms Chapman being suspended from the house for nine days.

This would mean Ms Chapman would be suspended from sitting in the lower house until the election.

Opposition Leader Peter Malinauskas said if Mr Marshall did not take action against Ms Chapman, he would be delivering “a constitutional crisis that is unprecedented”.

“All of this can be avoided by the Premier acting with integrity, showing leadership and dismissing Vickie Chapman,” he said.

“She now is tainted,” Labor treasury spokesman Stephen Mullighan said.

“She now has a proven reputation for misleading this house and we can no longer have confidence in her for that reason.”

Mr Marshall defended his deputy, saying the inquiry was “not based upon facts” and there was “no way whatsoever” he would dismiss her.

“I do not believe for one second that there has been any breach of the ministerial code of conduct and there is absolutely nothing which has been provided in evidence whatsoever to the select committee which would make me change my mind,” he said.

DAMNING REPORT

The no-confidence motion followed a scathing report that found Ms Chapman knowingly and intentionally misled state parliament and should be suspended for nine days.

The inquiry into Ms Chapman’s conduct in rejecting a seaport proposal on Kangaroo Island also found her guilty of breaching the ministerial code of conduct, and making the decision despite a clear conflict of interest.

It insisted she issue a public apology – but the government branded the inquiry a partisan “kangaroo court”.

The report has now been referred to state ombudsman Wayne Lines, who has greater powers than the committee to investigate Ms Chapman and other members of the government and public service.

Branding Ms Chapman’s conduct as “Trump-esque”, committee chairwoman Andrea Michaels tabled the report in the lower house at 11am and issued a scathing summary of its findings.

She said evidence “identified concerning shortcomings of governance practices in the lead-up to and the actual decision by the honourable Vickie Chapman MP”.

Ms Michaels said ministers of the crown hold a great deal of discretionary power and they must accept and uphold the highest standards.

“She did not do that,” she said. “South Australians deserve better. It must be stated that blatant denialism of objective evidence and plain truth does the Attorney-General no favour. Trump-esque at best, simply repeating that one has done no wrong does not make it so.”

A spokeswoman for Ms Chapman said she maintained she did not have a conflict of interest, nor did she mislead parliament.

Mr Malinauskas said the “damning report” left Ms Chapman with no choice but to resign.

Defending Ms Chapman, Liberal MP and former barrister Josh Teague told parliament the committee “appears not to have inquired in any meaningful sense into the facts of the matter”.

Vickie Chapman before the vote. Picture: Keryn Stevens

THE FINDINGS

The committee comprised two Labor MPs, two Liberal MPs and ex-Liberal independent Sam Duluk. The two Liberal MPs issued a “dissenting statement” that was censored from the final report.

The committee’s report recommended that the house find Ms Chapman acted in a position of conflict of interest, both actual and perceived, in relation to the development application by Kangaroo Island Plantation Timbers.

That finding is based both on her “property interests” on the island and her friendship with KI Mayor Michael Pengilly, who Ms Michaels called “an outspoken critic of the proposed port”.

Ms Michaels said the committee’s recommendation was to reprimand the Attorney-General and insist on a “public and unreserved apology”.

She said Ms Chapman also breached the ministerial code of conduct because she failed to disclose the conflict, which she said also warrants an apology

The 324-page report recommended the lower house find Ms Chapman guilty of contempt for misleading parliament in relation to three statements she made about the proposal.

As a penalty, it recommended the house orders Ms Chapman to issue a public apology for each breach and be admonished by the speaker. If no apology is forthcoming, it recommended Ms Chapman be suspended from parliament for no more than 11 days.

Regardless of this, it further recommended Ms Chapman be suspended from parliament for nine days – three days for each finding of misleading the house.

The report also recommended:

THE house finds Ms Chapman had a conflict of interest, both actual and perceived.

THE house finds Ms Chapman breached the ministerial code of conduct and considers the breach of sufficient severity to amount to contempt.

THE house refers the legislation governing how major developments are dealt with to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee for inquiry and reporting.

THE DISSENTING STATEMENT

Peter Treloar and Matt Cowdrey, the two Liberal MPs who sat on the inquiry committee, steadfastly back Ms Chapman and “dissent to the entirety” of the report.

Mr Treloar and Mr Cowdrey said, in their view, Ms Chapman complied with the ministerial code of conduct in determining whether she had a conflict and did not mislead parliament.

They said the Attorney-General dealt with the proposal “rigorously, properly and honestly”.

“Our view is that the Attorney maintained an open mind on the matter during the whole time she had responsibility for making the final decision,” they wrote. “That decision was ‘finely balanced’ and the Attorney did not act as a rubber stamp. She applied an inquiring mind, seeking further information on a range of issues to inform that decision.”

The statement lashes the committee, chaired by Labor MP Ms Michaels, for being “politically motivated and engineered throughout”.

“The consequence is that public perception of the committee is that of a politically tainted undertaking driven by malice and partisanship rather than any genuine inquiry,” it says.

THE BACKGROUND

Kangaroo Island Plantation Timbers wanted to build a seaport at Smith Bay on KI, which would have allowed it to ship wood off the island.

In August, acting in her role of Planning Minister, Ms Chapman rejected the $40m proposal.

She is a sixth-generation local on Kangaroo Island, where she remains a landholder and farmer, which forms the basis of the conflict of interest claim.

In August, she was asked in parliament if she or any family member owned land “in an area near or impacted by the KIPT forest or a proposed port at Smith Bay” to which she replied “in short, no”.

But the inquiry heard Ms Chapman owned a property, which was leased as a private rental, across the road from a forest from which haulage trucks would have collected timber to take to the proposed seaport.

Kangaroo Island Plantation Timber's plans for the Smith Bay seaport.

On Monday, counsel assisting the inquiry Rachael Gray QC told MPs that Ms Chapman was “in a position of not just perceived conflict but actual conflict” when she rejected the seaport proposal.

Ms Gray said this was a “significant departure from proper governance practices”.

Ms Chapman has consistently denied any wrongdoing. “I reiterate I had no conflict of interest – actual or perceived – in this matter, nor did I mislead the parliament,” she said after Monday’s hearing.

She has threatened to launch defamation action against Labor frontbencher Tom Koutsantonis unless he apologises and pays $100,000 over tweets relating to her conduct.