House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Matter of Privilege Matter of Privilege Matter of Privilege MATTER OF PRIVILEGE Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Deputy Leader of the Opposition Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:36): I now raise a matter of privilege. The matter refers directly to the statements made by the minister in this debate. During the course of the debate—again, while you were absent, and we do not have the benefit of direct Hansard—the minister, in his presentation in response on behalf of the government, having identified himself as the minister responsible to conclude the debate, indicated the genesis of the project (and the topic we are talking about here is the raising of funds for a hydrotherapy pool in Mount Gambier), and he tabled a document, which I now have a copy of, to suggest that the purpose of this fund was other than as had been presented in my contribution to the debate. I am happy to hand you a copy of this document. On page 5 of the hydrotherapy pool appeal, which is the document the minister has tabled and referred to, under the heading of 'Who can benefit from hydrotherapy?' Mrs Anne Mulcahy clearly stated: The pool will be available for the use of hospital inpatients, community health clients and community members of the South-East region under the care of health professionals. It then goes on to list a group of people with respect to access to the pool which had incited my comment and which was the subject of a matter that you have just ruled on. I am happy to forward a copy of that. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: I take it that the deputy leader is seeking a ruling that it is a matter of privilege in order to enable her to move a motion forthwith. Is that what the deputy leader is seeking? Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: Yes; I should have formally said that. Thank you, sir. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Yes. I do not rule that the matter be given precedence. As I have said on previous occasions, the threshold for something being a matter of privilege is an attempt by a member—or any person, whether they be a member of parliament or outside the parliament—to, in some way, pervert the decision making of the parliament. If there is some inconsistency or apparent inconsistency between something the minister has said and something in a document elsewhere, that does not of itself make something a matter of privilege. If there is an inconsistency between what the minister has said and a document that has been tabled there is ample opportunity for a member who believes that there is an inconsistency to raise it in the course of the debate and for the minister to perhaps account for that inconsistency. An inconsistency of that nature does not constitute a matter of privilege.