House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2) 51 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Tram and Train Derailments TRAM AND TRAIN DERAILMENTS Mr HAMILTON-SMITH House of Assembly Waite Leader of the Opposition TRAM AND TRAIN DERAILMENTS Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Leader of the Opposition) (14:32): My question is to the Premier. If the full report into the rail and tram accidents in 2007 indicate that the Minister for Transport misled the house when he told parliament 'the driver ran a red light'— The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I have a point of order, sir. If the leader wants to introduce the concept that the Leader of the House has misled the house, he must do so by way of substantive motion. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The question is out of order, either because it is making an allegation against the Minister for Transport, which has to be moved by substantive motion, or, failing that, it is hypothetical. Mr HAMILTON-SMITH House of Assembly Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I will rephrase the question, sir. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! I am happy for the Leader of the Opposition to rephrase the question, but I would not be happy if he makes a habit of deliberately asking questions in a disorderly form so as to get it on the record, only then to rephrase it. I would not want the Leader of the Opposition making a habit of that. Mr HAMILTON-SMITH House of Assembly Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I direct my question to the Premier. Does the Premier stand by his requirement, in accordance with Westminster practice and his own Ministerial Code of Conduct section 2.4, which deals with— The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I have a point of order, sir. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: The Westminster tradition to which the Leader of the Opposition is clearly referring is that of misleading the house—and it is the same question. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! I will hear the question and then make a determination. Mr HAMILTON-SMITH House of Assembly Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Does the Premier stand by Westminster practice and his own Ministerial Code of Conduct section 2.4, which deals with honesty and which requires the dismissal of a minister? Will he guarantee that the Minister for Transport will table forthwith the full, unedited reports of both the tram and rail accidents? The Hon. M.D. RANN House of Assembly Ramsay Premier Minister for Economic Development Minister for Social Inclusion Minister for the Arts Minister for Sustainability and Climate Change The Hon. M.D. RANN (Ramsay—Premier, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Social Inclusion, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability and Climate Change) (14:34): The requirement on members of parliament to tell the truth applies to both sides of this house. If we go through the transcripts of the Leader of the Opposition's variety of positions on a range of subjects, including that classic day when he opposed our climate change legislation because it was not— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The house will come to order. The Hon. M.D. RANN House of Assembly The Hon. M.D. RANN: It includes that day when he opposed the climate change legislation— Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order, Mr Speaker: climate change has got absolutely nothing to do with the question seeking the Premier's commitment. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. M.D. RANN House of Assembly The Hon. M.D. RANN: It is actually— The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will just wait for me to give a ruling. The question was about the government's adherence to Westminster traditions. That is a fairly broad question. The Hon. M.D. RANN House of Assembly The Hon. M.D. RANN: Yes; it is exactly relevant, because on that day—and this is a question of the truth and about whether the Leader of the Opposition means what he says or says what he means, and which, of course, even members of his own party are increasingly beginning to doubt. He opposed our legislation on the grounds that it was not tough enough and then the next day opposed the legislation because it was too tough. How does anyone take this man seriously? So, he thinks he has the field marshal's baton in his knapsack, but I do not think he is quite qualified for that. But if you want to talk about the Westminster tradition, I am happy to apply the rules that go back to the 16^th century, and I will do so with a great deal more rigour than the Leader of the Opposition applies to himself.