Matter of Privilege

MATTER OF PRIVILEGE

The SPEAKER (16:19): Earlier today, the member for Morphett rose—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will take their seats and be quiet. The member for Morphett this morning rose on a matter of privilege in relation to remarks made by the Minister for Transport, representing the Minister for Health, during question time on 7 July 2011.

The member for Morphett alleges that while answering a question from the member in relation to taxi vouchers for renal dialysis patients, the minister referred to a statement the member for Morphett made in debate on the Appropriation Bill the day before, which was 6 July, in which he told the house that:

In the Women's and Children's Hospital today, there is one poor little kid who has been waiting more than 24 hours for a bed.

The Minister for Transport advised the house that in relation to the allegation made by the member for Morphett, his advice was that the waiting time for the patient alluded to by the member for Morphett was one hour and 20 minutes.

This is clearly a situation where the minister has sought to correct what he regards as a misinterpretation or misrepresentation by the member for Morphett. However, the member for Morphett refutes the minister's advice to the house but is unable to now access information to substantiate his original statement.

The member for Morphett, however, has provided me with a number of screen shots of the emergency department dashboard from the South Australian health website, which indicates days on which a number of hospital patients have waited up to 24 hours or more for a bed. Based on that evidence, his general allegation of waiting times for beds may be supported. However, as the member concedes, he has not been able to provide a screen shot of the dashboard for 6 July 2011 to support his specific statement.

I remind members, as previous occupants of the chair have, that raising a matter of privilege is not a device by which members can pursue issues that can be addressed by further debate or settled by a vote of the house on a substantive motion. McGee in Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand sets the test that this house has recognised as defining a matter of privilege. It is a matter that can 'genuinely be regarded as tending to impede or obstruct the house in the discharge of its duties'.

The member for Morphett's allegation is that the minister has misled the house. However, the test for such an allegation is that the minister must have deliberately (that is, knowingly) misled the house. I have not been provided with any material that would allow me to conclude that this may be the case in this matter, or that the matter could 'genuinely be regarded as tending to impede or obstruct the house in the discharge of its duties'.

I do not accept that it is the role of any privilege inquiry to find the evidence that would allow the member to make such an allegation as he suggests. Therefore, I decline to give the matter the precedence that would allow the member for Morphett to immediately pursue the matter.