State Government Concessions

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (14:48): My question is to the Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion. Will the minister inform the house how she plans to recoup the concession payments made to 4,350 dead people?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay—Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers) (14:48): I thank the member for this question. It is important that when government assistance is distributed it is both fair and responsible. I realise that the focus has been today about those people who have been ineligible, some of whom have been deceased. Let us remember that over 200,000 South Australians receive their energy concession each year. It is not paid to an individual but it is paid to their energy retailer who then has that discount on their bill. As we discussed yesterday, the Auditor-General had a six-year deep dive into this concession and looked at some of the concerns that are there.

One of the issues that we have raised is keeping accurate records. I am the first to say that what we have been doing is not acceptable. When the Auditor-General has spoken to us before—we worked together with him in both March 2015 and December 2015—we have changed the way that we validate and how we reconcile. So, when we look at those people who were considered ineligible at the time of payment, which is what the Auditor-General looked at, we saw there were about 2 per cent of energy payments in 2009-10. That has now fallen to 0.2 per cent, and it was about 18,000 last year.

When we looked into the situation that the member for Morphett has talked about, in the vast majority of cases there was a surviving spouse. In most of those cases, they will continue to be eligible for the concession.

Mr MARSHALL: Point of order, sir.

The SPEAKER: Point of order.

Mr MARSHALL: I ask that you direct the minister to answer the substance of the question, which was extraordinarily tight and just asked how the minister was going to recoup the money paid to 4,300 people who were dead?

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I call the Premier to order for interrupting the Leader of the Opposition's point of order. I think the minister is being germane.

Mr MARSHALL: To how the money is recouped?

The SPEAKER: Yes, the minister has been talking about how the department audits its accounts.

Mr MARSHALL: But that wasn't the question. The question, sir, was specifically about what the government's plans are to recoup the concessions given incorrectly.

The SPEAKER: If at the end of the minister's answer the opposition or the fourth estate is dissatisfied by her answer, it will draw its own conclusions, but at the moment the minister seems to be close enough to the substance of the question. Minister.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In many cases, the bill was in one name, or it might have been in two names but the concession was attached to that person. We know that there have been times when people have received—

Mr Wingard interjecting:

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

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: —concessions when the accuracy of the application has not been thorough. We continue to seek back payments in this sort of issue with energy retailers. As I have spoken about, this has been estimated, through some of the studies we have done previously, $366,000 has been recovered. We expect that there is more to be recovered, and we will seek to do so.

The SPEAKER: In response to earlier points of order, my attention has been drawn to page 304 of the Manual of the Practice, Procedure, and Usage of the House of Assembly, which reads—

Mr Marshall: Is that the Blackburn one?

The SPEAKER: Yes; Blackmore. It states, 'He'—a member, because they all were he when this was written—'may not read his speech, but may refresh his memory by notes, and may read extracts from documents.' If the member for MacKillop and the opposition wish me to apply that, I will.

Mr Marshall: Just to the ministers, sir.

The SPEAKER: I thought that might be the case. Unfortunately, my application of standing orders is normative. On the question of offensive words, my attention has been drawn to page 516 of House of Representatives Practice, which quotes with approval the ruling of Senator Wood as acting deputy president of the Senate in 1955:

…in my interpretation of standing order 418 [similar to the House of Representatives standing order 90 in relation to Members] offensive words must be offensive in the true meaning of that word. When a man is in political life it is not offensive that things are said about him politically. Offensive means offensive in some personal way. The same view applies to the meaning of 'improper motives' and 'personal reflections' as used in the standing order. Here again, when a man is in public life and a member of this Parliament, he takes upon himself the risk of being criticised in a political way.

I interpret shouting at a minister, 'Tell the truth,' to carry the imputation that the minister is deliberately misleading the house. Moreover, on the same page:

In accordance with House of Commons practice, for many years it was ruled that remarks which would be held to be offensive, and so required to be withdrawn, when applied to an identifiable Member, did not have to be withdrawn when applied to a group where individual Members could not be identified. This rule was upheld by distinct votes of the House.

Mr Gardner: So, it's okay to call the Labor Party a bunch of liars?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I think that is a difficult one. However, I thank my friends at the Estonian club for buying this volume for me.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: You have to say, 'All of you except one.'

The SPEAKER: The member for Newland speaks wisely, but I warn him for doing so out of his seat. The member for Colton.