Oakden Mental Health Facility

Mr DULUK (Davenport) (15:00): My question is to the Minister for Mental Health. Can the minister advise the house whether the member for Torrens sought a briefing from her on the Oakden facility?

The Hon. L.A. VLAHOS (Taylor—Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse) (15:00): I liaise with all of my colleagues in the house on issues related to my portfolio on a regular basis.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Point of order: are ministers obliged or responsible to the house for correspondence from members of the house to ministers? Is that in order?

The SPEAKER: Could the member for Davenport give me the question again?

Mr DULUK: Can the minister advise the house whether the member for Torrens has sought a briefing from her on the Oakden facility?

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The deputy leader is warned for the second and final time. It's an interesting point that the Minister for Health raises. If the member for Torrens had written to the minister in connection with a proceeding in parliament, her correspondence would be privileged and therefore the minister wouldn't be able to answer the question. I could be wrong, but I rather doubt, in the absence of further evidence, that the member for Torrens was writing in connection with a proceeding in parliament; therefore, parliamentary privilege doesn't apply and therefore the member for Torrens is in the same position as any other member of the public in South Australia, and my ruling would be that the minister is free to answer.

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of clarification: would you confirm then that question No. 304 of the questions on notice, which reads, 'When will the minister authorise a briefing on the Attorney-General's Department relocation to the GPO building?' as requested on the 7, 9, 14 and 23 November 2016; 23 December; 31 January 2017, 20 February 2017 and 1 March 2017, is in order?

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Wright is warned for the second and final time. Can the member for Bragg tell me what the possible relevance of that remark is?

Ms CHAPMAN: It's a request for a briefing, as is the question directly of whether a member of parliament has sought a briefing. My understanding from your ruling is that it is in order, and I am asking that you clarify that this question is also in order. I want an answer to it eventually—six months we are waiting.

The SPEAKER: That is an entirely bogus point of order with no relevance to anything that has occurred in the house today and the member will leave for the next hour under the sessional order because she is obstructing the proceedings of parliament.

The honourable member for Bragg having withdrawn from the chamber:

The SPEAKER: Member for Davenport. I am sorry for the deputy leader's interruption to your flow.