House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Matter of Privilege Matter of Privilege Murray-Darling Basin Plan Murray-Darling Basin Plan The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER (17:52): Deputy leader, matters of privilege take precedence. You can resume after this. I make this statement about the matter of privilege raised by the member for Colton in the house today. Before addressing that matter, I wish to outline the rules on privileges that relate to the house and its members. Privilege is not a device by which members or any other person can seek to pursue matters that can be addressed by debate or settled by a vote of the house on a substantive motion. McGee in Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, which I think states the practice on this matter well, makes the test for whether or not a matter is a matter of privilege by defining it as a matter that can 'genuinely be regarded as tending to impede or obstruct the house in the discharge of its duties'. Of course, it is possible for an opposition member to do that, not just a minister, and indeed for a government backbencher to do it. Clearly, a member giving a knowingly and deliberately false statement would have that effect. An essential aspect of privilege is to ensure that each member can speak without fear or favour but at the same time be able to rely on the accuracy of a statement made in the house by a member. It is not designed to punish poor wording or unintentionally inaccurate information. I refer to the matter raised by the member for Colton, where it is alleged that the member for MacKillop has knowingly and deliberately misled the house. The member for Colton refers to the member for MacKillop's personal explanation made in the house on 3 August, when the member for Colton suggests that this statement made by the member for MacKillop has misled the house: 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 member for Colton then goes on to say: I draw your attention and that of the house to an article that appeared online in The Advertiser on 17 February 2012…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...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.' In explanation earlier today, the member for MacKillop indicated to the house that he wished to explain that article but that the Speaker prevented his going further. This is in the course of a personal explanation, of which the member for Colton complains. I must say with personal explanations that there is a danger that they will descend into a diatribe, so it is incumbent on any Speaker or Deputy Speaker to intervene when it appears a personal explanation may become more than a personal explanation and turn into inflammatory remarks. So it was quite natural that the Deputy Speaker would try to cut off the member for MacKillop at that point, but in retrospect it would perhaps have been best if he got a few more sentences out. The member for MacKillop did indicate, however, that, had he had the opportunity to do so, he would have advised the house that it was not what he told The Advertiser. He went on to say: 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… In effect, the member for MacKillop is claiming that he had been misquoted but alas never had the opportunity to explain himself fully. About any action taken by the member for McKillop to repudiate those remarks and to alert everyone that they were not his words, I refer to debate in the house on 1 November 2012, Hansard page 3634, that has been brought to my attention, on a motion on the Murray-Darling Basin. The member for MacKillop is quoted as saying: A meeting was held at Barmera to discuss community response to the draft. Karen Martin, the Chair of the South Australian Murray Irrigators Association, summed up her response by stating that the draft plan was not a Rolls Royce but appeared to be a very good Mazda and she felt that the Riverland communities might be happy to drive a Mazda. My crime has been to accept that feedback from the Riverland community. Further, on 11 July 2012 during question time, the member for MacKillop is heard interjecting to this answer by the Minister for Water and the River Murray at the time, Hansard, page 2406: The Hon. P. CAICA: Thank you, Madam Speaker—what we already know is an inadequate water recovery target because they do not want to offend their upstream colleagues. On 12 February, The Advertiser quotes the deputy leader, when referring to the draft plan, saying: This is obviously not a Rolls-Royce, but it's a very good Mazda and we're quite happy to drive in a Mazda… Members interjecting… Mr WILLIAMS: —I said which I didn't say… Mr Williams: Just because you read it in The Advertiser it doesn't mean I said it, Paul. End of quote, amen. As Speakers have stated in previous opinions, an inconsistency between the words used by a member in the house with those previously used in the house or elsewhere, or words spoken that are inconsistent with the text of any document, is not of itself a deliberate and intentional misleading and therefore not a matter of privilege. On reading the information that has come to my attention, it is clear that the member for MacKillop has visited this matter on more than one occasion, and in particular on 1 November 2012 there is sufficient information to suggest that he has attempted to repudiate the remarks attributed to him. The information also accords with the member for MacKillop's explanation earlier today. In this instance, it is unfortunate that the member for MacKillop was prevented from being unable to more fully explain the circumstances surrounding his misrepresentation last Thursday. Accordingly, I do not propose to give precedence which would enable a member to pursue this matter forthwith as a matter of privilege. We find the defendant not guilty.