Parliamentary Procedure

PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (16:22): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to allow me to move a motion to establish a privileges committee to investigate whether the Treasurer has deliberately misled the house in relation to his knowledge about the cost increase of the Adelaide Oval upgrade prior to the 2010 state election.

During the proceedings of the house today the opposition raised a matter of privilege, and in your response to that matter of privilege, Madam Speaker, you invited the opposition to take up the matter by substantive motion having ruled that there was not a matter of privilege associated with the issue. The opposition is doing that, Madam Speaker, at your invitation through this mechanism.

The reason standing orders should be suspended so that we can debate whether a privileges committee should be established to investigate whether the Treasurer has deliberately misled the house is because this matter goes to whether the truth has been told to the parliament. It is important that standing orders be suspended so that this committee can be established as early as possible so that the truth can be established as early as possible.

Madam Speaker, the government would have you believe that standing orders should not be suspended because the Treasurer has given a response to the house, but the difficulty the house has is that the Treasurer has consistently told the house, through a number of ministerial statements, that what he tells the house cannot be relied upon. He continually corrects the record; in fact, I think on three different occasions in relation to this matter this Treasurer has had to correct the record.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I have a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: There is a point of order. The member for Davenport will sit down. The Minister for Transport.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Shall I get you a book? It is 401. Standing order 401 requires that the debate on the suspension of standing orders be addressed to why they are being suspended. I recognise the cleverness of the member for Davenport, but he is seeking to stray into the substantial matter for debate, that is, he says, whether the Deputy Premier is telling the truth. They have quite a number of opportunities under our standing orders to give proper notice of such a substantive debate, but he cannot debate the substantive matter in—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: 401. You must debate—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Madam Speaker, can I deal with one Speaker only?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is required that the debate on the suspension of standing orders be about the need for the suspension of standing orders, not the substantive motion you wish to move if you succeed. Let me read it to you.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Standing order 401 says 'limited to ten meetings' and, in the debate, 'in stating the reason for seeking the suspension'. Okay? Have you got it? It is 401. Now, I can get you a book. It says there in 401, 'stating the reasons for seeking the suspension'. You cannot debate the substantive matter.

The SPEAKER: Minister for Transport, you have made your point. I uphold that point of order. It is about the suspension. If we agree to that, the member for Davenport can go on from there. At this stage we are talking about the reason for the suspension.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The reason the opposition argues that we need to suspend standing orders so that we can debate this motion today is so that the parliament and public can get to the truth of the matter as early as possible. That is the reason the standing orders need to be suspended today, so that the parliament can address this issue as a matter of urgency today.

This principle of urgency of the issue, to reinforce my point why the standing orders should be suspended, was highlighted in the minister's own statement when he claims to have made the statement to the parliament at the earliest possible time so that the parliament could deal with it. It follows, therefore, that, if the parliament is going to deal with this issue, we should deal with it at the earliest possible time. Therefore, the opposition is bringing this to the house at the earliest possible time, at your invitation, Madam Speaker, following the raising of the matter of privilege this morning, so that the parliament can deal with the substantive issue about establishing a privileges committee to establish whether the Deputy Premier told the truth.

The reality is that the opposition believes standing orders should be suspended so that we can debate the motion so that the public can get the truth of the matter about what emails were sent, what staff were told and what briefings were given to the minister. None of that information can be tested as well as by going through a privileges committee. It is in the interests of the parliament. It is in the interest of the Deputy Premier, who is the second-most senior minister. It is actually in his interest that this be cleaned up at the earliest possible time. It is in the cabinet's interest that this be tidied up at the earliest possible time. It is in the parliament's interest that this be cleaned up at the earliest possible time.

This is a government that came to the public and parliament after the election promising to be open and transparent, and we are seeking to suspend standing orders so that it can show at the earliest possible time that it indeed believes in those principles or whether it was simply rhetoric.

Madam Speaker, you invited us to move this by substantive motion, and we have done that. The public deserves to know at the earliest possible time the actual truth of this matter. The problem the parliament has is that, unless we suspend standing orders today and establish a privileges committee (and the intention of the standing order is to allow the debate about establishing it), how does the parliament establish the truth at the earliest possible time?

We cannot establish the truth at the earliest possible time unless we suspend standing orders so that we can have the debate. This motion that we are moving goes to the credibility of the government and whether they will support the suspension of standing orders—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: I think the member for Davenport has made his point actually. Would you like to wind up?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Let me reinforce it one more time: this is the earliest opportunity the parliament has to deal with this issue. It is in all the cabinet's interest—and, indeed, all the caucus' interest—to have this matter cleaned up at the earliest possible time and, therefore—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: We know caucus has an interest in this, minister, because they moved a motion about this very matter to try to control the Treasurer. The parliament should deal with this at the earliest possible matter, and I seek the government's support.

The SPEAKER: Before the Minister for Transport replies, I point out to the member for Davenport that I didn't actually invite the opposition to move this: I merely pointed out that it is within the realms of possibility to pursue it by substantive motion, but it wasn't an open invitation. Also, was that motion seconded?

Honourable members: Yes, Madam Speaker.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (16:32): The member for Davenport, in seeking to suspend standing orders, either demonstrates a regrettable misapprehension about the standing orders or, instead, is using subterfuge to subvert your ruling, Madam Speaker. The reason I say that is all this talk about dealing with it at the earliest possible time. The standing orders deal with that and, in fact, the original motion of the member for Davenport did deal with that. He wants two bob each way. He asked the Speaker to rule on whether there was a prime facie case, and why do you ask for that ruling? So that the matter will have precedence. Having failed in that, he is seeking to subvert your ruling, Madam Speaker, and say, 'Even if you don't think it should have precedence—

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of order, Madam Speaker: the leader of the house is reflecting on the comment that you made to the house when you said that there are other avenues open to the opposition and he is reflecting on your ruling and the comments that you made to the opposition.

The SPEAKER: I don't uphold that point of order.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Let me come back to it. I've got to say, you're not allowed to use this to debate substantial matters, and you are also not allowed to create massive inventions like that last little jibe about some motion in caucus—a massive invention.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I think I'm entitled. You want to invent it, I'm entitled to respond. Let me come back to this.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: The motion in caucus, was that an invention?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: What motion in caucus?

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Transport will not respond to interjections from the other side.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Let me explain again. The member for Davenport came into this place and what did he do? Did he put this motion on the Notice Paper? No, he asked you, Madam Speaker, to rule.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: They have been discourteous all day and it remains. He asked you to rule on whether there was a prime facie breach of privilege. I repeat: why do you ask the Speaker to rule that? So that the matter will be given precedence over other items of business. It is all there in the standing orders. What I say to the member for Davenport is having sought to go down one path and get precedence one way, it is now not open to him to subvert your ruling by seeking—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is open to you to try. What it is not open to you to do is to succeed. Can I say, Madam Speaker, the only reason I do this is because of regard for the orders of this house because, let's face it, if we were going to have a debate on a substantive matter, I reckon this is the perfect time for it. Have a look. There is no-one here. Let me say: the only reason that I oppose this is to uphold the proper use of standing orders in this place. You cannot go down one path and, being unhappy, then go down another. We do note that they have already set up their kangaroo court in another place anyway. It is not open to the member for Davenport, having decided to play one game, to try to play another one. We will oppose this suspension of standing orders even though it breaks my heart, but what a lovely time for a substantive debate it would have been.

The house divided on the motion:

Majority of 9 for the noes.

Motion thus negatived.