Matter of Privilege

Member for Heysen

The SPEAKER (20:10): Before the member for Morphett rises, and now that the member for Heysen and I are together in the chamber for the first time today, the—

Ms Redmond: I've always been here all day, sir.

The SPEAKER: Yes, I'm sure that's right. It would be my fault. The member for Heysen during the Address in Reply made an allegation that the Electoral Commissioner, an independent statutory officer, was—she considered her 'utterly corrupt' which I take to be an imputation that she was guilty of an offence against part 7 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. In the fevered political atmosphere of the past 10 years it has become common in our political discourse to say of someone with whom one disagrees about a matter or matters that she or he is corrupt.

Now, I should have perhaps raised the matter with the member for Heysen when she made the remarks on the Address in Reply when I was in the chair, but I let it go under Article 9 of the Bill of Rights. It seems to me that it would be fairer if the member for Heysen were to particularise what the alleged crime was or, failing that, withdraw or apologise, so I now invite the member for Heysen to do one or the other.

Ms REDMOND (Heysen) (20:12): Sir, I am happy to particularise it, but I would like the chance to go and get my notes about that matter, because I have been preparing to make a speech in response to why I say that the Electoral Commissioner is in my view utterly corrupt. I had always intended to come back to the issue and provide to the house a fulsome explanation, but I will only do so in the house. I was in fact wanting to speak to a couple of other people about that before making that statement.

The SPEAKER: Member for Heysen, it seems to me that the debate on the Supply Bill, where there are really no boundaries of relevance, would have been an ideal time to do that, and I was looking forward to you doing it in the course of your 20 minutes. Does the member for Heysen guarantee that before the house rises tonight she will come back and particularise the matter?

Ms REDMOND: To the extent that I can. I have several issues that I wanted to chase up further with various other people, but I am happy to come back and particularise so far as there are issues affecting me.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will come to order. It seems to me that, if one makes an allegation that an independent statutory officer is 'utterly corrupt', one must be prepared to particularise the indictment forthwith. One can't retrofit it or reconstruct it, so—

Ms REDMOND: I am happy to do it off the cuff at the moment if you wish me to.

The SPEAKER: I would invite you to do that.

Ms REDMOND: Okay. Well, sir, before I start could I say that I have been applying my mind to the issue of whether in fact the allegation is something that I consider to be under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act or indeed, as the Attorney sought to point out to me in his letter, under the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act, and I am not going to make a comment any further than that about that issue.

However, I have taken the view that the Electoral Commissioner, over a period of years, has made decisions which, to my mind, speak to someone who is approaching her position with a great deal of bias and favouring one side. I have long held the view that our public servants, be they statutory officers or any other minor clerk, have a duty to behave without fear or favour.

To begin with, the issue which might be the most obvious, I suppose, is that of the 'put your family first' T-shirts at the last election. I know that the Electoral Commissioner claims to have obtained legal advice that she was unable to interrupt the use of that particular charade by the Labor Party at the last election. Nevertheless, no action was taken, and that clearly fell in favour of the Labor Party at the 2010 election.

More importantly to me personally at the last election, however, were a number of things that happened. Firstly, the Labor Party registered my name, Isobel Redmond MP, as a reply paid address to the ALP, then proceeded to issue a DL which said, 'Tell Isobel what you think', or 'Let Isobel know what you think'—I am paraphrasing because I have not got it in front of me, but 'Let Isobel know what you think'—and that was directed back to that reply paid address to the ALP. I take the view—

The SPEAKER: Member for Heysen, just to be clear, you say the ALP registered a reply paid facility—

Ms REDMOND: Yes.

The SPEAKER: —and printed a DL addressed to Isobel Redmond care of this reply paid facility? That's what you mean by registering your name?

Ms REDMOND: Yes; just into the period of the 2010 election. So they issued that, and what is more, the Electoral Commissioner not only failed to intervene in that action, either the registering of my name or the sending of that DL, but then would not intervene to make sure that that information, which was supposed to be 'Tell Isabel what you think', obviously intended for me, but the Electoral Commissioner failed throughout to do that.

The Electoral Commissioner failed to intervene when the ALP put out a letter to young women in a number of electorates (I am not sure how many) in which it was alleged that I was going to dismantle a program introduced by the ALP called 'Every Chance for Every Child'. Now, not only was that entirely untrue, but it was extremely offensive to me, because on a number of occasions both in this chamber and in public I had made it very clear that I congratulated the Labor Party for having introduced that particular program. So, it was complete untruth to have put out such a letter, and yet again the Electoral Commissioner failed to offer any assistance in dealing with that.

In the most recent election, of course, we had the 'Can you trust Habib' appallingly racist DL that was put out and, again, the Electoral Commissioner fails to act. I know of another member who put in an FOI and was told he could not have the information because it was trade secrets of the ALP. In the case of the member for Morphett, I know that—

The SPEAKER: A member put in an FOI to the Electoral Commissioner?

Ms REDMOND: To the Electoral Commissioner. I know that the member for Morphett also tried to raise the issue of the president of the Housing Trust Tenants Association, who was putting out absolutely false allegations about policy things which were in no way, shape or form ever part of a policy held by the Liberal Party of this state. Never, ever was a part of our policy and—

The SPEAKER: I don't want to interrupt the member for Heysen unnecessarily, but I have a letter from the Electoral Commissioner saying that no complaint had been made.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: It was your policy.

Ms REDMOND: The member opposite says it was our policy, and it simply was not our policy. It was never our policy, and it was completely false.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of order, Mr Speaker: this a very serious matter and I think it should be heard in silence.

The SPEAKER: Yes; I agree, and I call the Minister for Education to order, especially as she is out of her seat. Member for Heysen.

Ms REDMOND: Thank you, sir. So, over a period of time I watched these decisions, which seemed to go in a remarkably one-sided fashion; they were always found against the Liberal Party and in favour of the ALP. Now, I have been applying my mind as to whether that amounts to corruption in any definition—in the colloquial sense, in an ICAC sense—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Members on my right will hear the member for Heysen in silence, because I have invited her to make this statement.

Ms REDMOND: —or, in a sense, under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. I have not reached a concluded view on that; as I said, I was still gathering some information and there were also some things I wanted to speak to the state director about, from some difficulties that he had discussed with me during the election campaign. I will not go into details of that now because I do not have enough detail in my head about it to even canvass it, but it was to do with the fact that a complaint was made which I believe was completely legitimate on the part of the Liberal Party and it was, again, rejected by the Electoral Commissioner.

I consider that there was a considerable litany of legitimate complaints about the bias shown by the Electoral Commissioner in the way she had conducted herself. I point out, Mr Speaker, that in the case of the 'Put your family first' issue, for instance, the Electoral Commissioner in New South Wales stopped that happening in that state—at an election just later than ours—within a couple of hours of it starting.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Different act.

Ms REDMOND: It was absolutely stamped on. The Attorney calls out that it was a different act. Exactly, and that is why—

The SPEAKER: The Attorney-General is called to order for interjecting out of his seat. Perhaps he could rise and allow the Minister for Education to sit in her seat and he could sit in his.

Ms REDMOND: They could sit on each other's lap, sir. It was always my intention to come back into the house with chapter, verse and detail of each of the things I considered illustrated a profound bias on the part of the Electoral Commissioner, a bias I considered so profound that it had a tinge of corruption. As I say, I was also considering the legal nicety of whether—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Education is warned a first time.

Ms REDMOND: —one can look at the term 'corrupt'—and I accept that I used 'utterly corrupt'—

The Hon. P. Caica: Utterly corrupt.

Ms REDMOND: Utterly corrupt; that is absolutely the term I used because it is utterly the term I think fits the commissioner. I do not resile from it at all. I want her to explain why it is that all these decisions have so consistently been found by her, in the face of all legitimate bases, to go against the Liberal Party. I think that can amount to corruption, but, on its best reading, I would think the corruption could only be that if a Labor government was displaced and a Liberal government got in she might not retain her position, and therefore her only offence—

An honourable member interjecting:

Ms REDMOND: I have been looking into those things, Mr Speaker. As I said, I had intended to come in and provide a chapter and verse, extremely fulsome, detailed argument as to why I used that term. The one thing left out of my response to the Attorney-General was that not only did he not need to remind me of my obligations under the ICAC act but that I am very conscious of the particular provisions of section 6 of that act.

The SPEAKER: So in short, the member for Heysen maintains that she considers the Electoral Commissioner utterly corrupt, and those are the particulars?

Ms REDMOND: To the extent that I have been able to deliver them to you off the cuff, without notice, yes.

The SPEAKER: So the member for Heysen will return to the house and give us further particulars?

Ms REDMOND: In due course, sir, as I said. I had intended all along to do that, but there are some people I wish to speak to.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (20:24): Can I just make this point? I am not quite sure where we are, but you are indulging us so I am graciously accepting the opportunity. I want to make a couple of very brief points. To come into this place, where one stands clothed in the ancient powers and privileges, as a former occupant of your office used to frequently remind us—

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Hang on—

The SPEAKER: The point of order is what?

Mr WILLIAMS: I am wondering what the debate is that we are having.

The SPEAKER: Yes, it is a fair point. I am trying to adjudicate a matter of privilege and the member for Heysen has assisted me in doing that. Now I am indulging the Attorney-General in reply.

Mr WILLIAMS: Are you going to indulge every member, sir?

The SPEAKER: If they are pertinent to the point.

Mr WILLIAMS: Sir, on what basis are you making that judgement before they have spoken?

The SPEAKER: I am deciding whether it is relevant to the point of privilege.

Mr WILLIAMS: Is that before or after they have spoken, sir?

The SPEAKER: During. Attorney.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I simply make this point: every person in this chamber is able to say things in this place that no other citizen can say with impunity. The member for Heysen has virtually explained to you now, Mr Speaker, that (a) she does not resile from the use of 'utterly corrupt', (b) she has yet to assemble the facts upon which she will base the assertion of 'utter corruption' and (c) in terms of the particulars that have so far been provided, she has done nothing more than to raise matters which go to the interpretation and application of an act of parliament over which the Electoral Commissioner, who is a statutory officer, has no control. We do. She is but an officer discharging a statutory function.

I make this point, Mr Speaker. Earlier today I raised with you the question as to whether or not this amounted to—I cannot remember the exact formulation of my question to you, Mr Speaker, but the gist of it was whether or not this amounted to a misleading of the house. In light of the honourable member's contribution, in light of what we have heard today, this evening, right now, I would like to ask you also to address your mind as to whether or not it is a misleading of the house, whether it is in addition or in the alternative an abuse of the privilege that is granted to all of us in this place to deliberately, without evidence, defame a public statutory officer in the most vile fashion under privilege in circumstances where we have now seen there is no fundamental basis upon which such an assertion could be made.

The SPEAKER: Obviously that is your opinion.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Mr Speaker, my particular point is: I ask you to broaden your inquiry.

The SPEAKER: So you are taking a second point of privilege?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am.

The SPEAKER: Thank you. Member for Davenport.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (20:27): I think the first question that needs to occupy the mind of the house and the Speaker is whether the member for Heysen's comment actually falls within the matter of misleading or, indeed, a breach of privilege. This house has dealt with this issue previously, where members have come in or have threatened to come in and make particularly strong comments about individuals. During the term of this government there was an individual who held a very important place—in fact, your position, sir—who threatened to come in and name certain individuals, MPs current and past and past police officers, if my memory serves me right, who were involved in some criminal acts. The then speaker was going to allege that those MPs, former MPs and private citizens (ex police officers) had committed certain grievous crimes.

The government of the day, and indeed the Attorney-General of the day—and no disrespect, Mr Speaker, that was you—was so offended by this particular proposition the member had flagged in the Sunday Mail, if my memory serves me right, the weekend before, that it brought in a bill to take away on a temporary basis the privilege of members of parliament so that they could not come in and make allegations of a serious nature. The quote was that members would be able to make the accusation but they would have to stand by it.

So the government brought in a bill to take away the privilege, to stop people doing what some would say the member for Heysen has done, and that is to make serious allegations against an individual who in this case holds a high position within government. That to me signals something to the house, and it signals something to the government; that is, that at that point of time (April 2005) the government was of the view that you could use parliamentary privilege in that way. If the government was not of that view it did not have to move legislation to take away the privilege.

So, the government was of the view in 2005 that longstanding parliamentary privilege does give members the opportunity to come in and make certain statements. While they are protected within the house, they are not protected outside the house, and the media and the public will deal with them as they see fit. There was another famous case more recently of Mr Xenophon in the Senate. He made some rather strong comments but, to my memory, he was not taken to a privileges committee or called for misleading of the house about those comments.

My view is that, regardless of your view of the member for Heysen's comment, the longstanding matter of parliamentary privilege dictates—and the government held this view in 2005—that a member of parliament can do it even if it is distasteful to some members. If the government were of the view that privilege should not be used in that way, they would have continued with the bill.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Not removing privilege.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: You were removing privilege.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Not now.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No, but in 2005—for the benefit of members, let me just explain further. The reality is that before you establish the issue you first have to establish whether it is actually a matter of privilege. I am arguing that it is not a matter of privilege because parliamentary privilege is given to us for that exact reason. One of the first things you are taught when you come into the parliament is that you have this rather unique position within society, that by being voted into the parliament you are awarded privilege which allows you to come in and say whatever you wish, but ultimately you will be held to account for it through the fourth estate, the media.

What the government tried to do in 2005 was restrict that privilege in certain circumstances. That is an admission by the government that privilege exists and that privilege existed to the point that members could come in and make comments about serious matters and make serious allegations, and it was not going to be a breach of privilege because they were taking the privilege away. The government's own action confirms that in this chamber, unlike in some other chambers around the world, the government has decided, and the practice has always been, that it is not a breach of privilege. I know that in some other chambers they have taken it a different way, but this parliament debated the matter in 2005, and this parliament decided that we would not accept the idea that we would take away members of parliament's privilege.

I argue, without passing a view about the member for Heysen's position, on behalf of all members of parliament that this is not in fact a privilege matter. Being MPs, we are given parliamentary privilege for the exact reason that some members use it—that is, to bring up difficult issues that we can bring up in this chamber that we cannot necessarily bring up in a public arena. Not everyone supports members of parliament in having that privilege, but I think it is crystal clear that this is not a matter of privilege.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Health, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Health Industries) (20:33): Without wanting to prolong the debate unnecessarily, I think there is an important distinction to be made between what happened in 2005 and what has happened now. The fact is that former speaker Mr Lewis, the then member for Hammond, had made a threat to use privilege in order to, as he said, expose certain members of parliament and others, and what the government was attempting to do at that time was prevent that from happening.

In the case of the member for Heysen, she has now said those remarks and they cannot be unsaid, short of her standing in this place and withdrawing those remarks and apologising, which clearly she has said she is unwilling to do. There is a huge distinction between what happened in 2005, when the government of the day was trying to prevent an abuse of privilege, and what I would argue is an abuse of privilege that has already happened.

With regard to members abusing privilege and what the house decides to do with that, I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to the deliberations of the Legislative Council in New South Wales on former member Franca Arena. If my recollection serves me well, Ms Arena went into the New South Wales parliament and made allegations of paedophilia (or at least the covering up of paedophilia) by very high ranking officials in New South Wales—very senior political officials. The parliament there, if my recollection serves me well, did deem that to be a matter of privilege and there was in fact, if I recall correctly, a motion to expel Ms Arena from the New South Wales Legislative Council.

It may or may not be the case that the member for Heysen's remarks are as damaging as allegations of paedophilia or covering up for it, but nonetheless the principle still stands that it is within the remit of the house to deliberate over what members have said, how they have used—or, indeed, misused—privilege and to take appropriate actions. I think it is entirely appropriate for you, sir, to make a deliberation over whether a matter of privilege does exist and whether to give precedence to a motion.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (20:36): There are two matters I wish to raise. Sir, in your consideration of the question of whether there has been a breach of privilege and whether in fact there should be consideration to go to a committee in relation to that, I ask you to consider two matters; one is that in the envelope the privilege is actually there in the parliamentary sense for the benefit of the constituency, so that it is not something as a protective barrier for members of parliament against defamation actions, but in fact is there to ensure that we represent our constituency without fear or favour and bring those issues to the parliament.

The purpose of having a process to ensure that we can have a consideration by you as Speaker as to whether there has been a breach of privilege and a committee process to follow, I think is clear in a number of the authorities, and no doubt you will consider those. I address two aspects, and one is that the fundamental test of whether there should be consideration of a breach of privilege is to ask whether the conduct or inaction under consideration could not be dealt with in another manner or in another way—by a motion of the house or by an invitation, for example, to an aggrieved person to present to the parliament and have some right to speak in response to any matter that has been raised.

There are a number of different ways that is dealt with, including a motion, obviously, which has been referred to in the other debates. That is the first thing and, if you consider Magee's references in the New Zealand consideration of the question of privilege, I think you will find—and that has oft been quoted here in this chamber in attempts to bring matters of privilege myself against other members that have been unsuccessful—that it has been clearly identified as being a necessary threshold for that not to be able to be dealt with in another way in the chamber.

If there is a concern that is raised about information that is asserted to be incorrect, and there is a means by which that can be dealt with otherwise in the house, then that needs to be considered in the first instance. I think the Attorney-General has in whatever we are calling this—some kind of rebuttal or extra submissions to help your consideration, or whatever we are calling this bit of process we are having tonight—

An honourable member interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: No, definitely not that—the Attorney seemed to change his case a little to being another challenge now, to belatedly pleading the alternative, to suggest that there has been, I think clearly, an attempt to mislead the house, which has been the second plank of his now alternative pleading.

The SPEAKER: No, I think you will find misleading the house was his first plank. His second plank is different.

Ms CHAPMAN: He has attempted to replace it. If his first case is thinning, then he wants to be able to rely on misleading. I make this point: there has never been a situation where it is more obvious that even the courts protect the right of privilege to make statements. The classic example that I can think of, which I hope you would have front and centre of mind at the time of your consideration, where a statement has been made, on the face of it to be quite defamatory about an individual, third-party extraneous—it does not matter whether they are important person or an average person, whether a statutory officer or a public servant or anyone. We are talking about a statement that has been made that, in the absence of further and better particulars, or some kind of submission that you have for further and better particulars of the member for Heysen, is seen to be a statement that is at best distasteful.

That example was in fact by the Minister for Health, who stood here in this house and made a very serious allegation against a number of members of the legal profession in response to their outrage, apparently over some decisions that you had made as the then attorney-general. That so outraged them that they took proceedings in the Supreme Court to—

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: It is hardly defamation to criticise the Attorney-General anyway.

Ms CHAPMAN: No. You are not listening. You stood in this house as a minister—not you, Mr Speaker, of course; you were sitting over there at the time. The Minister for Health was sitting up the back, not reading a book this time. He was sitting up the back and he stood up and read out a letter and made statements in respect of a number of lawyers. They had made certain statements—

The SPEAKER: Whether they were members of the gang of 14.

Ms CHAPMAN: That's correct. I think they were then colloquially called the 'gang of six' or 'gang of seven' as a group of lawyers. Nevertheless, they were complaining about certain government policies—I do not need to go into the detail; you remember it well, I am sure, Mr Speaker—and as a result of that statement made in the house, these members of the legal profession were sufficiently outraged to take proceedings in the Supreme Court to seek damages arising out of what they claimed to be a defamation of their good character.

The opposition actually joined in supporting the government members—including the hapless then member for Playford sitting on the back bench, who was being deluged with petitions against him for his scurrilous statements in the house—that they were defamatory and that they ought to have some compensation. We actually joined—

Members interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: No, no; he made a statement in the house. You were busy over there reading your book.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Education is warned for the second and final time.

Ms CHAPMAN: In fact, we joined with the—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I am sorry; did the Minister for Education say something further?

The Hon. P. Caica: It was me sir; I said you were being unfair and I withdraw that comment.

The SPEAKER: The member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: Whilst the now Minister for Health was being deluged with all of this legal action against him, the opposition joined in the proceedings. In fact, the parliament—I think the then speaker, Mr Lewis—took charge of the matter. He intervened, I think, on behalf of the parliament, but we certainly had counsel representing us as opposition and joined in a submission with the government counsel of the day to oppose the claim on the basis of parliamentary privilege. And we won!

I know that the member for Playford wanted us to pay all his legal fees and all sorts of other issues; we had a few issues about paying all that. I think we even helped out, to be honest, but he had to pick up a bit of it on his own. The reality is that the Supreme Court endorsed the position of this house having parliamentary privilege in a situation where a statement was made. Clearly we had multiple aggrieved parties out in the public, in that instance members of the legal profession in respect of those statements. There is—

The SPEAKER: I think it was slightly different. I hesitate to interrupt the member for Bragg, but I think the action was to compel, was it not, the—

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: To disclose my source.

The SPEAKER: —to disclose the member for Playford's sources.

Ms CHAPMAN: That was canvassed at the time, but there was also the question of defamation, on my recollection.

The SPEAKER: No, I don't think it was, actually.

Ms CHAPMAN: We all knew where the statement came from that the member for Playford read out.

An honourable member: Where was that?

Ms CHAPMAN: The issue was—

Members interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, I won't put that on the Hansard, but I make the point that this is a privilege, the basis upon which the application failed and of which judgement was duly presented. I just say that, for your consideration, as to the question of whether there has been a breach of privilege, you have to be satisfied that other measures in the house are not open to remedying any concern about a statement that is made, apart from elections and the like; and, secondly, the wise words of McGee on the New Zealand procedural provision in relation to privilege.

So, whatever we are calling this kind of extra contribution, I hope that helps you in your deliberations. It is not a matter, I will just say in closing, for you to determine whether you consider the statement of the member for Heysen to be with or without merit—that is actually irrelevant. I would ask you to consider on the basis of the rest of the submissions and dismiss it.

The SPEAKER: The member for MacKillop.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Deputy Premier is called to order.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: Is that for speaking Latin in the house?

The SPEAKER: The member for Newland is called to order.

Mrs Vlahos interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Taylor is called to order.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (20:46): Mr Speaker, I have been in this place for—

The Hon. P. Caica: Too long.

The SPEAKER: The member for Colton is called to order.

Mr WILLIAMS: —a little while and I do not think that I have experienced a matter which, in my opinion, is so serious for the consideration of yourself and possibly the house. This house enjoys rights which are enjoyed by very few parliaments in the Westminster system. When we elect the Speaker, from time to time, one of the first actions of the Speaker is to, with members of the house, go across the road to Government House and claim the rights and privileges of the house and those of the members.

One of those privileges enables us to come in here and, as the deputy leader said, without fear or favour, to represent our constituents—that is a very powerful tool. It is a very powerful tool and one which I think needs to be protected with every fibre that we can muster.

This morning, I was in my office and I heard the Deputy Premier make his plea to you. I thought, 'This is an interesting thing to occur today.' The member for Heysen, by my reckoning, made a statement to the house on the last Tuesday of sitting. Did it miss the Attorney-General's notice on the Wednesday and the Thursday of that week?

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: The member had the opportunity to come to the house and, as he claims, he may have done the nice thing. But, sir, it interests me, not just on that level, but on another level. In my experience, the request to the Speaker to make a ruling that there is a prima facie case to answer with regard to privilege is made from somebody who does not enjoy the confidence of the house; that is, the opposition, or somebody representing a minor party.

Sir, the effect if you found in favour of the request of the Deputy Premier that there was a prima facie case to answer would be that the matter would then take precedence over government business. The very reason for bringing to the attention of the Speaker a case such as this is such that we can bring it on as a house and do what the house might do: establish a privileges committee, etc. That is only a necessary tactic from somebody who does not control the numbers in the house.

If the Deputy Premier believed that this was a serious matter and should be looked at by a privileges committee, why did he not move so this morning? Why did he go through the charade, sir, of bringing the matter to your attention and calling for you to make a ruling? A number of very strange things have happened here today; this is but one of them. I question the motive, but, sir, I urge you to think very carefully on what the outcome might be if the house decides to go down this path to a destination unknown, because we may very well undo something which is, at least in my opinion, very important to this house. We may very well undo—

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Deputy Premier is warned for the first time.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Treasurer is warned for the second time.

Mr WILLIAMS: I think the member for Davenport made some extremely important points. May I add to that that some years ago, this house also went to the length to establish a process and a procedure to allow, for want of a better term, a 'stranger' who believed that they were defamed in the house to bring a statement to the house and seek redress through a right of reply. Sir, I put to you: what would be the purpose of establishing that process if we were not to retain the privilege of which the Deputy Premier complains?

The SPEAKER: I would like to wind it up now and make three points in reply. The practice of upper houses was cited to me. In my view, upper houses (federal and state) have become like the Wild West, and there are just no standards anymore. One can say absolutely anything in an upper house of parliament and not be contradicted by the presiding officer or by a privileges motion. This is particularly so in select committees.

The second thing is that back in 2005 the allegations proposed to be made by the Speaker were of such a nature that once made they could never be satisfactorily withdrawn; that is not the case here. Thirdly, I think it is preferable that the member for Heysen has now particularised those matters that form the substratum of what she says is fact, of her allegation that she considers the Electoral Commissioner 'utterly corrupt'.

We have reached a better place because of the member for Heysen particularising, because I do not know where the Electoral Commissioner would have started in making a right of reply available to a stranger on the basis of the member for Heysen's original allegation. Now the Electoral Commissioner has some substratum of fact that she can reply to. I will continue my deliberations on the matter and I thank everyone for their indulgence to argue that one out.