Matter of Privilege

Murray-Darling Basin Plan

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (12:04): Sir, I raise a matter of privilege.

The SPEAKER: Stop the clock. The member for Colton rises on a matter of privilege.

The Hon. P. CAICA: During the debate last Thursday on a resolution to determine this place's position on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, the member for MacKillop said the following:

During the debate that just ensued, the member for Mawson attributed to me comments that I had made at some stage that it was not a Rolls-Royce but a Mazda, and I was happy for us to drive a Mazda. The Premier made a similar assertion just now. I have never made that comment.

The SPEAKER: Was that said during debate or as a personal explanation?

The Hon. P. CAICA: That was made as a personal explanation. I draw your attention and that of the house to an article that appeared online in The Advertiser on 17 February 2012 at 11pm headed 'Libs' Murray plan a glass half empty'. Halfway down, the member for MacKillop is quoted in this article. He says, or the journalist says he says:

'This is obviously not the Rolls-Royce, but it's a very good Mazda and we're quite happy to drive in the Mazda,' Mr Williams, the Opposition's water spokesman, told The Advertiser yesterday. 'The reality is we're not going to get everything we want and this is a very good start.'

Sir, I ask you to investigate this matter as a matter of privilege.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (12:06): If I may assist the house, I made a personal explanation last week and I wished to explain that article in The Advertiser, but the acting Speaker prevented me from going further. I acknowledge that The Advertiser did print that. I protested to the journalist, Daniel Wills, at the time. It was not what I said. After I had attended a meeting, which was arranged at Waikerie a few days prior to that article being published, Daniel Wills asked me to give him some comments regarding the meeting.

I gave him that quote, which came from the then president of the Murray irrigators' association, Karen—her surname escapes me at the moment. That was a direct quote from her. I said, 'This is what the Murray River irrigators' chair said to me, that they are reasonably satisfied.' The Advertiser printed that article attributing that comment to myself. I have protested ever since that they were not my words but the words of the chair of the River Murray irrigators' association. I have never said those words myself. They do not reflect my thoughts—they never have—notwithstanding that the government has, on numerous occasions, sought to paint that both on me and on the opposition. That is just not the case.

The SPEAKER (12:08): Of course, it is one thing to say in the course of debate that one has never said these words; it is another to bring the issue to a head by making a personal explanation in which one says that one has never said these words and yet not canvassed all the matters that the member for MacKillop now relies upon, namely, that he was misquoted. It would be relevant to my deliberations on the matter of privilege to see evidence of what steps the member for MacKillop took to repudiate those remarks.

I will reserve my position on this matter and come back with a ruling on whether it is a matter that needs to receive priority of debate. If it is not a matter that needs priority of debate, it might be referred to a privileges committee, but I will hear representations from the member for MacKillop and, in particular, what steps he took to alert everyone that they were not his words in the five years between his being quoted and the current day.

Ms Redmond: Do you expect The Advertiser to correct themselves?

The SPEAKER: The member for Heysen interjects, 'Do we honestly expect The Advertiser to correct themselves?' They would rather cut off their right arm with a rusty knife than admit they got something wrong.

Mr WILLIAMS: Exactly. I think I protested this matter previously in the house. Whether I can find those comments—

The SPEAKER: 'Mazda' is a fairly easy word to search on in the house.

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes. I will do a search of the Hansard and see if I can find it, but I can assure you, sir, that those words were never said as my thoughts on the matter.

The SPEAKER: But it might have been useful in the member's personal explanation that he shared with the house.

Mr WILLIAMS: I indeed last week sought to do that. Even after the Deputy Speaker prevented me from doing so, I went and sought further advice from the Clerk of the House, who relied on a ruling you had previously made that I could only state that I had been misrepresented and point out the misrepresentation, and could go no further.

The SPEAKER: I see.

Mr WILLIAMS: I did endeavour, sir.

The SPEAKER: That is a matter I will consider.

Mr WILLIAMS: I am sure the Clerk will—

The SPEAKER: An extenuating circumstance.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you, sir.

The SPEAKER: The member for Hartley.

Mr TARZIA: Thank you, sir.

Mr WILLIAMS: Just on a matter of clarification, sir—

The SPEAKER: I am not very keen on matters of clarification. The member for MacKillop can be enlightened by approaching the Chair. The member for Hartley.