Commissioner for Public Sector Employment

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:51): My question is to the Minister for the Public Sector. Now that the minister has had 24 hours, has she asked why Ms Ranieri told staff of the Office of Public Employment and Review and the Public Sector Workforce Relations Agency prior to the convening of the senior management council's selection panel that she would be taking over as the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment from 1 July 2014?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for the Public Sector) (14:51): As I said yesterday, I have absolutely no evidence that what you are saying is correct. I asked if the Leader of the Opposition had such evidence if he could furnish it. I do not believe that there is any.

The SPEAKER: Does the Leader of the Opposition vouch to the house that such evidence exists?

Mr MARSHALL: We are asking the minister to clarify. This is a person who reports to the minister.

The SPEAKER: The practice of the house is that if a conjectural fact is used in a question, the questioner must vouch to the house for its accuracy. Does the leader so vouch?

Mr MARSHALL: That's certainly the information that we have received, from multiple sources, sir.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Well, I'm just asking.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I'm asking the leader—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER Order! Does the leader vouch to the house for the accuracy of the assumption on which the question is based?

Mr MARSHALL: We certainly believe it to be true and we're asking the minister to clarify. We asked the minister yesterday. She's had 24 hours and she should be able to provide this house with an update.

The SPEAKER: All I am saying is, if the leader proves to be wrong, there are procedural consequences.

Mr MARSHALL: We are asking a question for the minister to clarify.

The SPEAKER: Well, no; you're asking a question on an assertion of fact.

Mr MARSHALL: Well, it's on an assertion that information has been provided to the opposition, from multiple sources, and we're asking the minister to clarify whether it's correct or not.

The SPEAKER: I'm afraid information 'provided from multiple sources' isn't good enough. You've asked a question based on—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member—

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Point of order.

Mr WILLIAMS: Are you about to move a substantive motion?

The SPEAKER: No, I'm not, but—

Mr WILLIAMS: Well, Mr Speaker—

The SPEAKER: What I'm doing—I'll answer the point of order, on what the point of order is: that where a question contains an assertion of fact the practice and procedure of houses of British origin is that the questioner vouches to the house for the accuracy of the fact. So you can't say, 'A little bird told me.'

Members interjecting:

Mr Williams: What about a flock of little birds, Mr Speaker?

The SPEAKER: Neither a flock. And before the leader resumes questioning, I warn the member for Hammond for the second time, and I call the member for Adelaide to order. Leader. I am taking it that the leader is now vouching for the accuracy of the fact.

Mr MARSHALL: I am happy to rephrase the question, sir. I will rephrase the question if that helps, sir: will the minister undertake to find out whether or not Ms Ranieri was telling people, in multiple agencies of this government, prior to her appointment, that she had been promised that job?

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Education is warned for the first time. I am going to rule the question out of order because it is customarily out of order for a question to be: can the minister comment on the accuracy of a rumour? You just can't do it. The member for Torrens.