Matter of Privilege

MATTER OF PRIVILEGE

The SPEAKER (15:13): Earlier today the member for Davenport rose on two matters of privilege. In the first, the member for Davenport alleged that the Deputy Premier had deliberately misled the house in relation to the matter of when he was first made aware that the estimated cost of the redevelopment of the Adelaide Oval was going to exceed the then publicly stated government contribution of $450 million.

The second matter relates to the Deputy Premier's statements made to the house about the size of the footprint of the proposed Adelaide Oval redevelopment and the allegation that the statements of the Deputy Premier are inconsistent with the information from the Stadium Management Authority in relation to the project's design.

I will address the second matter of the footprint first. A difference in the presentation of information about the size of the footprint of the redevelopment by the Deputy Premier that is not strictly in conformity with the words that the member for Davenport draws attention to in the Stadium Management Authority's design briefing fact sheet are matters of interpretation and points for debate. Such an inconsistency is not of itself a matter of privilege.

I return to the first allegation of the member for Davenport. The Deputy Premier, in response to a series of questions asked on 12, 13, 25 and 26 May and in two ministerial statements made on the 25 and 27 May, confirmed that he had attended meetings with representatives of the proponents of the project before and after the state election held on 20 March, as well as having received advice on design aspects of the project from the Stadium Management Authority both before and after the state election.

However, the Deputy Premier maintained throughout that he had been provided with no advice by the proponents on the possible increase in the costs of the redevelopment prior to the state election. His ministerial statement, made earlier today, makes clear that he was informed of possible variations to the preliminary costs in the period prior to the government entering the caretaker period prior to the state election.

To that extent, it is reasonable to conclude that, in answering the questions put to him on 12, 13, 25 and 26 May, and in his ministerial statements of 25 and 27 May, that the house has been misled. The house is entitled to have an expectation that as an experienced minister he should know better.

That brings me to the Deputy Premier's ministerial statement made this morning to correct the record and the correspondence that I also received from him earlier. In both the ministerial statement and his letter to me, he has conceded that a serious but unintentional error was made.

There are three elements in establishing the contempt of misleading the parliament. They are:

that the statement complained of must have been misleading;

it must be established that the member knew at the time that it was misleading; and that

it was the members deliberate intention to mislead the house.

Nothing the member for Davenport has put to me, and I thank him, would lead me to conclude that the error was, as he alleges, knowing and deliberate.

I have thought long and hard about this and done much preparation, but in the Chair's opinion, there is no matter of privilege, as the matter could not genuinely be regarded as intending to impede or obstruct the house in the discharge of its duties. This is the standard in matters of privilege that the house has consistently applied. However, my ruling does not prevent any member from pursuing the matter by way of substantive motion.