Parliamentary Procedure

Sessional Orders

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Health, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Health Industries) (16:22): Without notice, I move:

That standing orders be and remain so far suspended as to enable me to move a motion for the adoption of sessional orders relating to a direction to leave the chamber and a time limit for answers to questions without notice.

The SPEAKER: I understand there is an absolute majority present. I accept the motion. Is the motion seconded?

An honourable member: Yes, sir.

Motion carried.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Health, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Health Industries) (16:23): Pursuant to order, I move:

That for the remainder of the session, sessional orders be adopted so as to provide a direction to leave the chamber and a time limit for answers to questions without notice as detailed in the draft sessional orders circulated to members.

The SPEAKER: Is that seconded?

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (16:23): I wish to speak against the motion as moved by the minister. In doing so I remind the house that I spoke strongly against this when this house first adopted these measures and I now wish to bring to the attention of the house the way that I believe these powers that are conferred upon the Speaker of the house have been abused. I refer to the Hansard of 18 November last, page 2915. On that afternoon during question time the member for Torrens asked the following question:

My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier inform the house of the effect of the proposed federal government cuts to ABC operations in Adelaide?

Sir, the Premier started to answer the question to which I rose and called a point of order. Hansard has me saying:

I'm struggling to understand what responsibility the Premier has for this—

And that's all that is recorded in Hansard, sir. At which point, the Speaker ruled:

It's a bogus point of order. The member for MacKillop will leave the house for an hour.

Sir, what I was trying to bring to the house's attention, of course, was that the Premier had no responsibility to the house for ABC operations—no responsibility to the house. I contend that it, indeed, was not a bogus point of order. I refer to Erskine May, 24^th edition 2011, page 360, with regard to questions, ministerial responsibility of questions:

Questions to ministers must relate to matters for which those ministers are officially responsible.

It goes on for several pages. I will not bore the house with all of that, but it has always been the convention of this house in the time that I have been here that questions were ruled out of order which did not relate to a minister's responsibility to the house. It may well be pure coincidence that the very next day there was a major feature article in The Advertiser newspaper quoting from the Premier's statement that he made in answer to the question after I was ejected from the house, and that is but one example.

I contend that this sessional order has done nothing to promote the use of this house for the good of the people of South Australia. It is indeed being used, in my opinion, to stifle full and open debate on numerous matters and it has been aimed at quelling the opposition doing its duty on behalf of the people of South Australia. For those reasons, I argue that the house should reject these sessional orders.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (16:27): This is an important matter. The tone and civility of the house is an important issue which goes to the heart of one of the central issues which I think is at stake in politics at the moment, and that is people's regard for politics and politicians. One of the central images that is often transmitted from this place is of an unruly house, with people squabbling amongst each other in a way which creates a very unfortunate impression about the nature of the political process. The truth is 90 per cent of the things that we do in this place are agreed and only a very small proportion of those things that are advanced here are not agreed; but the impression that is created through the media because of the event that we created in this house is the impression that is created to the broader public.

I said when I first took on this role that I wanted to introduce higher standards of civility. I know that is a quaint notion, and it was ridiculed and laughed at in some quarters, but the truth is it is important. I fully accept that there was a period in the life of this government where we did not properly respect those standards, and I probably participated. My voice is not as loud as some, because I am not as well equipped, perhaps, to participate in it as well as others; but, the truth is our side of the chamber was as much to blame as those on the other side of the chamber. The truth is that these particular measures, these standing or these sessional orders that do provide greater powers, there is no doubt, for the Speaker to exercise control of the house have to be exercised with some degree of care and forbearance.

I must say that since, sir, you have ascended to the Speaker's role you have performed your function, I think, with great distinction. I think those opposite, if they were really honest with themselves and analysed the way in which the house is conducted, even they would say that they believe they are treated fairly, and of course through your own particular prism of fairness, which I accept has its own particular take but nevertheless there is a consistency. I think the house has been better run and is all the better for the way in which you have exercised your authority. It is probably appropriate that the honourable members—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, we are not meant to reflect on people not being in the chamber, it is disorderly to do so. I think it is not an unimportant issue. We all transgress from time to time, but I think more civility than less is better for the institution. More civility than less is better for our reputation. More civility than less is better for some of the arguments, if we are to advance them, about us being respected and properly remunerated for the work that we do in this place. These are important matters. I do not want to come in and be a part of an institution that has a low reputation.

I must say that, strangely enough, I found to my distress that when I changed professions I actually went backwards in status and also in pay, but I went backwards in status because I chose to come into this place. I do not believe that is right. I think this should be regarded as the highest calling. What higher calling could there be than to represent your own community and try to govern for their benefit? The way we conduct ourselves in this place will have a large bearing on how we are seen in the world.

The Speaker needs to have the powers to be able to control this house. He needs to (obviously) exercise those powers carefully. I think he has and we should support him in that by passing these sessional orders.

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, Minister for Child Protection Reform) (16:31): I just want to add a couple of thoughts to this as well. If we were in the position where we got to the point where these sessional orders did not proceed, I would like to remind honourable members that would put us back in the position where, basically, the only remedy for misbehaviour was a naming exercise. I have been here sufficiently long now to remember what that used to be like when it was the only option. In other words, you had the admonishment or you would break the glass, press the big red button, get out the codes and away you would go and the person was named.

I also remember that there were occasions—and I am sure it would not happen with anybody in the chamber today because nobody here would behave in such a way—there were people, who I will not name and who are not here now, who thought the idea of being named addressed an attention deficit problem they perceived at the time and it actually became an encouragement for more outrageous behaviour because the more outrageous you got the more chance there was of being named and then you could really have a theatrical exit from this place and waste more time of the parliament in being told why you should not be here. So, the idea that we have a graded scale which is available to the parliament and at the lesser end of that scale the exercise of discretion is yours, I think, with the greatest of respect, Mr Speaker, is eminently sensible.

Let us think about what these things are used for, too. Invariably, whilst there are many things that might conceivably be the cause of a problem, in my experience there are two things that are the main cause of this. Cause number one: interjection. We all know interjection is disorderly. You have reminded us of that many times and I think those who have sat in that chair before you have told everybody back to the time of whenever it was that there was first a Speaker.

The SPEAKER: The year King Uzziah died.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Indeed. For a long time it has been disorderly. Everybody knows it is disorderly. For those of you who like to quote numbers as if you are reading out a Chinese restaurant menu, you know that the fact is that disorderly behaviour includes interjection. Interjection is completely within the control of members. If they are concerned about the inadequate or inappropriate exercise of the power to send people off to cool down, all they have to do is cool down by themselves or take themselves out to cool down without having to be removed to cool down.

The other use, of course, is insult. Again, insult is disorderly. Using unparliamentary terms is disorderly. We all know that. The point is, if you do not interject and you do not use unparliamentary language, the chance of falling foul of such a serene individual as you, Mr Speaker, is almost zero. I have to say that, again, during the period that these sessional orders have been in place, I have noticed you, Mr Speaker, being subjected to extreme provocation by the members for Kavel, Schubert, Hartley and Bragg and you have maintained equanimity almost entirely throughout all of that.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: Serenity.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Serenity, indeed. I have absolute confidence that, in spite of the provocations that you have received and, no doubt, if we are pessimistic, may receive in the future, this is the best way forward for us and it means we do not have either nothing or the nuclear remedy. We have a graded response to misbehaviour in the parliament.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Health, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Health Industries) (16:35): There is little I can add to what has been said by my learned colleagues—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: —so I will speak briefly. It is not my fault that the member for MacKillop went off the reservation and went off on his own, but nonetheless, I am happy to respond. I certainly take some umbrage at the suggestion from the member for MacKillop that somehow these sessional orders have been used inappropriately or unfairly. They have been used very fairly. Members on both sides of the house have found themselves at the wrong end of these sessional orders including myself, and that is entirely appropriate.

I have to say, as a former Speaker, the old naming process was not only disruptive to the house but also almost never, ever—in fact, probably in the entire history of this parliament—

An honourable member: Well, hardly ever!

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Thank you for Gilbert and Sullivan—would never have been used against a member on the Treasury bench. It is only because of the sessional orders and the scope it gives to the Speaker to provide a circuit-breaker that these standing orders can be applied as fairly as they can be. They have worked very well.

I should also say that the sessional orders also provide for time limits for answers to questions, which has also worked very well. I remember, when I first came into this house, the most number of questions the opposition could hope for was 10 and we almost never got 10. It was more likely to be seven and sometimes as low as three or four because the government of the day would ask government questions—Dorothy Dixers—and the minister would drag on their answer over the very large expanses of question time in order to provide protection to another minister who might have been under some scrutiny. I well remember those days.

These sessional orders prevent that from happening, and you only need to look at the number of opportunities the opposition has had over the last five years to have questions. It has been enormously more—

Mr Gardner: How about some answers?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Look, they whinge and say, 'What about the answers?' If you cannot ask some decent questions despite being given every opportunity to ask decent questions, you have no-one to blame but yourselves and your weak, weak leadership—absolutely weak leadership.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Listen to them. The cockatoos, the flock of galahs—here they go.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Is the Minister for Health trying to garner support for these sessional orders?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I might keep on going, Mr Speaker. These sessional orders—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Coming from the Leader of the Opposition, that's a joke. These sessional orders work very well. If the opposition have any problems with question time, they should be looking at themselves and not trying to blame the sessional orders.

Motion carried.