PARLIAMENTARY STANDARDS

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Minister for State Development) (11:02): I move:

That standing and sessional orders be and remain so far suspended so as to provide that—

1. Direction to leave the chamber

1. The Speaker may direct a disorderly member to leave the chamber for up to one hour. The direction shall not be open to debate or dissent, and if the member does not leave the chamber immediately, the Speaker may name the member in accordance with standing order 138.

2. A member who has been directed to leave the chamber under this sessional order is excluded from the house and its galleries for up to one hour. However, the member may enter the chamber during the ringing of the bells for the purpose of forming a quorum, an absolute majority or voting in a division. Once the Speaker or Chairman of Committees has declared the presence of a quorum or the business for which an absolute majority was required has concluded or result of the division has been declared, the member must immediately withdraw from the chamber for the remainder of the period of exclusion.

2. Time limit for answers to questions without notice

During the period for asking questions without notice, an answer to a question must not exceed four minutes. The Speaker has discretion to extend the time for a minister's answer if the answer is interrupted.

I might just clarify at the outset that this is a procedural motion and I understand that there is one speaker each side, although if the opposition would like a different process, the government is more than happy to suspend standing orders.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We are happy to proceed with the process that is set down in the standing orders, which is that this is a procedural motion with 10 minutes each side. If the opposition has a different point of view about that, we are more than happy for that to be known and we are more than happy to suspend standing orders.

Mrs Redmond: You can't do that.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I can suspend standing orders any time.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier has the call. It is a procedural motion, and we will deal with it, 10 minutes each side. Premier.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: When I first was given the privilege of assuming this role, I made some points about the way in which the community views this parliament and, indeed, us as parliamentarians and the effect that has on public confidence in our public institutions. It seems to me that the view of politicians, politics generally, is a very sad one at the moment, and I do not think that assists any one of us. I do not think it assists any one of us who actually thinks this is—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —an honourable profession that we aspire to, to act in the public interest. It should be regarded as an elevated vocation where we come in this place to debate the big issues which are about the purposes and the interests of the South Australian community. Instead, what they see on the television is disruption, abuse, petty politicking, the very things that have the effect of reducing public confidence in our institutions.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think the community expects more of members of parliament than this, and that is why I have sought to elevate the debate in this chamber to be a debate about ideas rather than descending—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —into a bearpit of abuse.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Premier, can you just hold on for a moment. Members on my left, the Premier is speaking. One of you will get an opportunity to speak afterwards. You do not need to constantly interject—this is what this is about. This is about upholding standing orders as they stand now and introducing something that would make it easier in this place for people to be able to hear and talk. So, you will listen to the Premier in silence. The Premier.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Madam Speaker, I have been routinely interrupted in my earlier remarks by the Leader of the Opposition, and it surprises me because I do not even think she thinks that this is the way in which we should be conducting ourselves in this place. I think she probably has been told—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —that somehow this is how it has to be done, we have to muscle up. I do not know what was said—

Mrs REDMOND: Point of order: on what basis is the Premier able to make comments about what I may have been told, or anything else, in addressing the question that he has put before the chamber?

The SPEAKER: I do not think there is a point of order there. You did not mention standing orders. Premier.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will return to the substance of this point. The substance is this: when the community looks at the way in which we seek to resolve disputes in this chamber, they are given, I think, a very poor role model for how disputes should be resolved in the balance of the community. I think that we owe it to the rest of the community to show that we can debate the big questions that face our community in a constructive way and resolve those disputes in the most constructive way possible, rather than the most destructive way possible. I make no bones about this, but I think the federal parliament has descended into probably one of the most destructive phases that I have witnessed in all of my period of observing politics.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think those opposite have decided to—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —use the same play book. They think that somehow by disrupting question time, by employing the tactic of escalating their interjections to the point where you, Madam Speaker, are forced to use the processes that you have available to you—that is, having a number of opportunities where you call members to order and then attempting to bring people to order by warning them—they realise that extended process allows them to upset and destroy question time somehow in a—

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Davenport, you are warned.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —way to provide an advantage to themselves. All that is being sought here by these changes is that we give you the authority to uphold standing orders. All of the things which are the obstructive behaviour which you can act upon are, in fact, themselves already in breach of the standing orders of this house, standing orders we have all agreed to. All we are simply doing is giving you the capacity—

Mr MARSHALL: Point of order, 104: the Premier is lecturing us on standing orders. There is a very specific standing order (104) that says that all remarks should be addressed through the chair. All his remarks today have been made directly to the cameras.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Norwood. The Premier is talking and he is addressing his remarks through the chair.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: All of the conduct that is complained of—the interjections, the frivolous points of order—are all matters which are contrary to standing orders, and so the capacity for you to enforce order in this house will be enhanced by these changes. These new sessional orders will strengthen your authority to deal with disorderly behaviour during question time.

Can I point out, Madam Speaker, that there is nothing revolutionary about these changes. Indeed, exactly the same procedures have existed in the House of Representatives over successive governments of both persuasions since 1994. We are putting these in place in this parliament until the next session in the hope that it will affect the conduct of proceedings in this house. It will still require those opposite to cooperate—we realise that—but we are giving you the authority to enforce, we believe, a better standard of order in this place.

I should point out that the member for Croydon put forward a similar motion in 1998 during the debate on a standing orders report. The amendment was defeated by the then Liberal government, so this is not a matter that is without precedent or has not even been considered in this place. The new sessional order will provide the Speaker with a disciplinary procedure of lesser gravity but of greater speed of operation. It will be a means of reducing a source of disorder rather than as a punishment, enabling a situation to be diffused quickly without disrupting proceedings to a great extent.

I will also briefly mention the time limit on the four-minute answers to questions. This limit will apply in respect of answers to both government and opposition questions. Under this proposed provision, the Speaker will have the discretion to extend time if a minister is interrupted. We recognise that one of the complaints of those opposite is that sometimes the answers go on for longer than they feel is appropriate. Hopefully, that will assist in reducing some of the unrest of those opposite.

As I mentioned in my first ministerial statement last year, we should all make a commitment to focus on debate about policy, about—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, you are warned. You will have an opportunity to speak later if you wish.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will leave my remarks there and reserve myself a few moments to respond to that which might flow from those opposite.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:13): Let us make no mistake: this is the jackboot of tyranny on the throat of democracy. This is what one would expect if—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: —visiting the parliament in Zimbabwe. This is what happens—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: —in every tyranny across the planet: the opposition is silenced. The opposition is silenced by tyranny, and that is what this is about. Let me come back to the beginning. This is a new Premier who has preached bipartisanship, yet he chose to ambush the opposition yesterday and this morning.

I understand that the Premier and his government actually consulted with the member for Fisher but did not consult with the opposition or the other Independents. He did not consult with us, notwithstanding this has been a plan of attack upon the opposition and upon this parliament by this Premier since the day he first rose in this place as the Premier. He on that occasion talked about behaviour as so robust; robust question time was something that did not occur under the Westminster system.

We work in a form of government known as responsible government. Why is it called responsible government? Because the ministers—the executive government—are responsible to the house. How are they responsible to the house? Through question time. That is the only time they are responsible to the house. They are only responsible to the house if they answer questions.

If time permits, I will give some examples of why question time becomes unruly. It is not because the opposition does not want to participate in question time: it is because the government and the ministers do not want to be responsible to the house. They do not want to participate in question time, because that is where they are held accountable. That is where they are held accountable to the people of South Australia—by being responsible to the house.

Under the previous premier, the opposition was guaranteed 10 questions per question time. Since the new Premier has sat in the chair, that regime has gone. One might ask why. Maybe the Premier recognises that he has a very weak front bench and he does not want them to be subject to 10 questions each question time. Under the previous premier, if we ran short of the 10 questions, he would extend question time. I argue that that might be one way of appeasing the opposition and keeping the level of noise and interjection slightly lower.

Another way might be by the Premier instructing his ministers to do what he said he would do on the first day he stood up in this place as Premier, that is, to answer serious questions with serious answers. I will now give an example. Yesterday, the last question asked by my colleague, the member for Kavel, in question time concerned mainly young South Australians who have gone out and worked hard to improve themselves and be qualified in a trade. He asked the minister responsible why were we being told that it was taking months and months for the qualifications of these young South Australians to be recognised through the licensing system administered by this minister. It was a very important question, a serious question. Did we get a serious answer? No.

The minister knew about this question a fortnight before, and he claimed, by way of an answer, that he could not answer it because he was not given the details. Why did he not go back to his department and say, 'What the hell is going on?'—because he did not want to answer the question because it was going to embarrass him. That is why the opposition gets a bit rowdy during question time.

In the last sitting week—the sitting week the government claims brought this on—the minister responsible for manufacturing, small business, energy and trade was asked a Dorothy Dixer. He entered straight into a tirade of debate against the opposition. Question time is not about debate, because it is one-sided. If you are going to have a debate, both sides have to enter into it. That is why the opposition gets rowdy during question time: because the government ministers enter into debate.

On that particular occasion, I rose to call a point of order no less than seven times, I think, over a period of some minutes. Eventually, Madam Speaker, you sat the minister down. If the minister had been sat down—as per standing order 98—the first time I raised the matter, it would not have been a problem.

The SPEAKER: Member for MacKillop, I think you are reflecting on my position as Speaker; you are reflecting on a decision made by me. I ask you to withdraw that.

Mr WILLIAMS: Madam Speaker, with all due deference, I in fact said that you made the decision at the end of my raising it a number of times.

The SPEAKER: The implication was there that I should have done it earlier. I ask you to withdraw that.

Mr WILLIAMS: Madam Speaker, if I reflected on you then I certainly withdraw it. However, and with all due deference, any opposition in the world would only countenance this sort of measure if there were a truly independent Speaker. The reality is that in this parliament the Speaker has a partisan allegiance to the government benches; that is the reality. I have been a student of human nature for many years, and I know that—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is a point of order. Minister for Transport.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I ask you to consider whether the statement that you have partisan allegiance is a reflection on you as Speaker.

The SPEAKER: I will allow that comment to pass at the moment. I think the member is reflecting in general; however, I will listen very carefully. You will not reflect on the Speaker.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I point out to the Leader of Government Business that in the parent parliament, in Westminster, the Speaker leaves the party room. They do not enter the party room of the party they come from. That is the sort of thing that, as a very minimum, should be considered before we even take this measure.

This state achieved responsible government—and I have already talked about that—in 1857, many years ago. Not one premier in all those years needed the protection of applying the jackboot to the throat of the opposition; not one premier needed the protection because he had such a weak front bench that he needed to put the jackboot on the throat of the opposition. That is what this is about. Let's not fall for this nonsense that limiting questions to four minutes has anything to do with this. The Premier at any time could say to his ministers, 'Enough of this nonsense, enough of these 10-minute answers to Dorothy Dixers. Four minutes is all you're going to get and I don't want you to go over that.'

Mrs Redmond: In fact, he could say, 'Let's not have Dorothy Dixers.'

Mr WILLIAMS: That's right; he could indeed say, 'Let's not have Dorothy Dixers.' That would improve question time. There are a significant number of improvements that could be made to question time in this place, and that is one of them. However, as my leader points out, the most important thing about question time is accountability: it is about ministers giving serious answers to serious questions.

The Premier suggested that if we ask a question that might have some political connotation it should be ruled out of order. Goodness gracious, Madam Speaker! If we ask a question about the fiasco down at the tourist information centre, maybe that has some political connotation. Maybe we should be banned from asking those sorts of questions. The escape of 25 per cent of the inmates at the Cavan correction centre would have some political implications, I would have thought; the Premier would have this house believe that the opposition should not be allowed to ask questions about that.

I have never seen such a pathetic proposal put forward. I can count, the opposition can count, and we understand that the government is going to roll this through, but I say to the government: do not expect cooperation from the opposition from this moment forward. This is a dastardly thing you are doing not to the opposition but to the people we represent—and that is the people of South Australia.

Not one serious question is asked on behalf of the people of South Australia by backbenchers of the government, posed as Dorothy Dixers, not one. They are there for the self-aggrandisement of the ministers. That is what Dorothy Dixers are about. It is only the opposition that holds the government of the day to account, and all you want to do is throttle us. This is a disgrace and, Premier, you will go down in history as the only premier in this state in 157 years who needed the protection of applying the jackboot to the throat of the opposition.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Minister for State Development) (11:25): All we are simply asking those opposite to do is to abide by standing orders. That is—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: I am somewhat disturbed, Madam Speaker, that it seems that the Premier is reflecting on you, and suggesting that you are not upholding the standing orders of the house.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! That is a nonsense. Premier.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Frivolous points of order, such as the ones we have just heard, are precisely the sort of things we are seeking to guard against. I actually do believe that governments are stronger when you have strong oppositions. I think the—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —quality of debate in this place will assist us to be a better government. I think there are people on your side of the house who do not have confidence in the way in which you are seeking to promote this campaign of disruption in relation to the parliament. I think it is obvious by the looks on their faces when they see the way in which you conduct yourself during question time.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Precisely, I can. Madam Speaker, can I say this—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —when you want to fill the air with noise and fake laughter, it is just a demonstration that you have nothing positive to offer for the people of South Australia. That is what this chamber should be about. It should be about a debate of ideas about—

Mr Pederick: It should be about getting answers.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —the future of South Australia and I will not rest until—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my left, I cannot hear the Premier. This is about standing orders. You will listen in silence. Premier, have you finished? Thank you.

The house divided on the motion:

Majority of 9 for the ayes.

Motion thus carried.