Ministerial Statement

Matter of Privilege

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light—Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (15:15): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Earlier today the member for Morphett rose on a matter of privilege about information I had provided to the house. More specifically, the honourable member is of the opinion that I may have misled the house about whether I issued a statutory direction to the board of SAFECOM to do a trial that is currently taking place with the Mount Barker Country Fire Service Brigade. The Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005 in section 7(2) states:

A direction given to the Commission under this section must be in writing.

I reassure the house that I issued no such direction. I repeat: I have issued no such direction. By way of background, on 11 February 2015 I attended the SAFECOM board meeting where I discussed the opportunities to improve the urban fire and rescue capability in the Mount Barker area. This has been a continuing issue since the Mount Barker brigade provided a submission to the then minister for emergency services, the Hon. Michael O'Brien, in 2013.

At no time during the meeting did I direct the board orally or, more importantly, in writing. A written direction would be required for the purposes of section 7(2). This is reflected in the minutes of that meeting, a copy which I now table. My office has recently provided the member for Morphett with documents under freedom of information about the trial in Mount Barker that has since been initiated by the board.

In a letter dated 6 October 2014 to Mr Chapman, captain of the Mount Barker brigade, I used the word 'directed' in its generic rather than in its legislative sense. It is unfortunate if the use of this word has been construed as a direction under section 7(2). This is not meant to be the case. I was simply asking my agencies to provide me with advice on what might be possible in Mount Barker under the circumstances. Mr Speaker, I table a copy of that letter.

I offer my apology for creating a semantic confusion by using the word 'direct' in my letter to Mr Chapman in its generic sense but certainly not in its statutory meaning.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Mr Speaker, just a point of clarification, have you—

The SPEAKER: I am not really fond of points of clarification.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Well, on this matter of privilege, have you ruled on the matter of privilege, Mr Speaker?

The SPEAKER: Sorry?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Are you making a ruling on the matter of privilege?

The SPEAKER: Yes, I am.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I am new to this place—I have only been here nearly 14 years—but I would have thought that you would provide your adjudication before the minister was able to provide his excuse.

The SPEAKER: That seems me to be a reflection on the Chair. I have been working assiduously, together with the Clerk, morning and afternoon on the member's point of privilege, and I will come to the house within the normal timetable for a ruling on that. The suggestion that somehow I am derelict in my duty by not ruling on it before the minister came in to make a ministerial statement or personal explanation is not justified.