Matter of Privilege

Matter of Privilege

The SPEAKER (15:05): Before I call for grievances, I wish to make the following statement. Since I am on my feet, there will be no interjections, or members will be departing the chamber under the standing order.

I make the following statement with regard to the matter of privilege raised by the member for West Torrens in this house yesterday and note that he also did provide me with information this morning relating to it. However, before addressing the matter, I wish to outline the significance of privilege as it relates to this 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.

As previously mentioned, McGee in Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand in my view 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'. 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 the statement made in the house by any member. It is not a protection from the consequences of misconduct, poor judgement or inaccurate information.

I refer to the matter raised by the member for West Torrens where he alleges that the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government has deliberately and intentionally misled the house as the minister's answers to questions in the house, on 9 and 29 May 2018, are inconsistent with each other. What the member for West Torrens is relying on are the alleged inconsistencies in the answers provided to the house by the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government to the following two questions.

In response to the following question from the Leader of the Opposition on 9 May 2018, 'Does the minister stand by his commitment to deliver the Regency to Pym project by 2020?' the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government responded by saying, 'Yes, when we made the announcement last week.' He was then interrupted by members interjecting, and then the Speaker called for order. He continued, 'We stated that we would immediately go out to consultation with those affected business owners.' Further on in the same answer the minister said, and I quote:

The department is working on refining a design process in relation to a number of elements of the Pym Street to Regency project to make sure that we do have a final design that we can put in place to start construction late next year.

Later in his answer, the minister stated:

We expect to deliver this project on time, but this is the easy project to do it on.

On 29 May 2018, the member for West Torrens asked the following question:

Given the federal Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities confirmed in Senate estimates that just $10 million would be allocated for the Pym to Regency project in 2019-20 and $20 million in 2021, does the minister stand by his promise that the project will be completed by 2020?

The minister answered by saying:

To clarify, like I had to clarify last time I had a question of this nature asked, the commitment that I gave and the question that was asked of me was, 'When will this project commence?' and commence construction, because what I would say is that the project has actually commenced, and that consultation in relation to the compulsory acquisition for those adjoining landowners around the Regency to Pym projects has already begun.

He further states in the same answer:

However, the question I was asked was, 'When is this project going to kick off, in terms of construction phase?' At this stage, late 2019 is when the construction is slated to begin. Construction work will also continue into 2020. In terms of the final completion of this project, that is something that potentially could be longer than 2020, which is consistent with what I have been saying all along; and, in fact, it is an answer I gave two weeks ago if the member for West Torrens would like.

He goes on:

Construction is to start in 2019 and construction is to continue into 2020. When this project will be finally completed is still an open question…

The member for West Torrens asserts that the minister's answer to the question asked on 9 May, 'Does the minister stand by his commitment to deliver the Regency to Pym project by 2020?' is a one word answer of 'Yes'. He then referred to that part of the minister's answer, and I quote:

We expect to deliver this project on time, but this is the easy project to do it on.

What the member for West Torrens is claiming is that the minister's response of 'yes' to the question of 9 May demonstrates that the minister has committed to a delivery date for the Regency to Pym project by 2020. He also asserts that the minister, by stating the project will be delivered on time, is reaffirming what he is asserting to be the minister's commitment to deliver the project by 2020. The member for West Torrens alleges that this is inconsistent with the minister's response to a question on 29 May, where the minister stated:

Construction work will also continue into 2020. In terms of the final completion of this project, this is something that potentially could be longer than 2020, which is consistent with what I have been saying all along, and, in fact, it is an answer I gave two weeks ago if the member for West Torrens would like.

It is clear when reading the entire answer of the minister to the question asked on 9 May that, taken in context, the minister's answer is not necessarily an isolated 'yes' to the question asked. The minister's response is certainly more expansive than a simple yes. In my opinion, the minister was providing a comprehensive response to the broader issue rather than directly answering the specific question. The answer was making reference to information that was contained in an earlier public announcement, and I refer members to the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure's URL link—https://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/nsc/regency_road_to_pym_street—where members can find some of the information consistent with the minister's answer.

Further, there is nothing to suggest that the minister's acknowledgement that the project will be delivered on time is further confirmation that the minister will deliver the project by 2020. The minister's mention of the project being delivered on time, and where he says, ' We expect to deliver this project on time, but this is the easy project to do it on is a general comment that does not specifically refer to any particular delivery date. The nature of the allegation from the member for West Torrens is that the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government has deliberately and knowingly misled the house.

There are three elements in establishing the contempt of misleading the parliament. They are that the statement complained of must have been misleading; it must be established that the member knew at the time that it was misleading; and that it was the member's deliberate intention to mislead the house. In respect to the answers provided to the house by the minister, when taken in context they are more consistent with each other.

The member for West Torrens has provided me with further information this morning to assist me with my deliberations. In particular, he has provided me with a radio transcript of 1 May 2018 of the ABC Breakfast program of an interview between David Bevan and the Minister for Transport. The relevant part of the interview that the member for West Torrens has directed me to is—and I now quote Bevan:

…this deal is for South Road between Pym Street and Regency Road…and it will start when?

To which the answer is '2019'. Bevan goes on:

And it will be finished by when?'

And the answer is given: '2020.'

An honourable member interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens will depart the chamber for half an hour.

Mr Koutsantonis: That was the leader.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Did you interject, member for West Torrens? No? I withdraw that. Somebody interjected and I ask them to leave the chamber for half an hour for breach of 137A.

The honourable member for Croydon having withdrawn from the chamber:

The SPEAKER: In providing me with this additional information, the member for West Torrens is claiming that the minister's public comments are inconsistent with the answers provided to the house. As a number of occupants of the chair 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 misleading and therefore not a matter of privilege.

In providing his answers to the house, the minister has responded by providing a whole range of information on the construction and commencement phases of the project with commentary on completion dates. Alternatively, the answers provided by the minister to questions asked in the radio interview are to direct, specific questions concerning the completion of the project.

While the answers provided by the minister in the radio interview are inconsistent with the answers provided in the house, they are inconsistent to the extent of the context in which the information is being provided. To the extent of the inconsistencies, there is nothing to suggest that the minister intended to deliberately mislead the house. In the Chair's opinion, this is not a matter of privilege for the reasons I stated earlier.

In the Chair's view, the matter could not genuinely be regarded as tending to impede or obstruct the house in the discharge of its duties. Accordingly, I do not propose to give the precedence that would enable any member to pursue this matter immediately as a matter of privilege. This decision does not prevent any member from seeking leave to provide a personal explanation, and it does not prevent the member for West Torrens or any other member from proceeding with a motion on a specific matter by giving notice in the normal way.