Australian Craniofacial Unit

Mr KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (11:14): I move:

That a privileges committee be established to examine the allegations set out in Hansard by the member for West Torrens on 24 July 2018 regarding the minister representing the Minister for Health and Wellbeing and investigate whether the minister deliberately misled the house as therein alleged.

I have been in parliament 20 years, and to the best of my recollection—

An honourable member: That's outrageous.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, that's what my wife says, too. To the best of my recollection, only two ministers have had prima facie cases found against them that would accord precedence being given to this house for a privileges committee. From my memory—I could be wrong, and I stand to be corrected—one is John Hill and the other is the member for Stuart. The Speaker said:

If I were considering this matter prior to the minister's personal explanation, I would be of the view that prima facie the matters raised by the member for West Torrens touch on privilege and should therefore be accorded precedence for a motion which would enable the house to determine if there had been a breach of privilege.

The Speaker, of course, did not give that precedence because, in the Speaker's determination, the member made explanations. There is a requirement in this parliament that when a member gives inaccurate information to the house, they correct it at the earliest possible opportunity when they knew that they had, either inadvertently or deliberately, misled the house.

We know from radio transcripts that Professor David David AC, South Australian of the Year, was accorded the courtesy of a phone call by the cabinet colleague of the member for Stuart immediately after reading the transcripts of what occurred in question time on the day that I alleged the minister deliberately misled the house. Professor David said on radio that what the minister said in the parliament regarding an independent inquiry and Professor David's ability to contribute to that inquiry was wrong. The cabinet reacted immediately: they called Professor David.

At the conclusion of question time, at the conclusion of grievances, did the minister come in to correct the record? No. He waited, and then corrected half the record, despite his cabinet colleague calling Professor David immediately. In the answers the minister gave to questions, it was very clear that he walked into question time that day with a deliberate tactic. He knew he was going to be asked questions about the Australian Craniofacial Unit; it had been in the media. He got up, he answered questions—prepared—and he said that Professor David knew that there was an independent inquiry and had had every opportunity to give effect and assist that inquiry.

He went further. He implied to the house that the Premier had announced it and that all of us were aware of it, and we should have known better than to ask these silly questions because the house was fully informed. Of course, none of that was true—none of it. The minister representing the Minister for Health deliberately and intentionally misled the house not once but twice, and while doing that he impugned the reputation of a great South Australian, a man who quite frankly has done more for South Australia than the minister ever will, a man whose reputation goes beyond the borders of this state and indeed beyond the borders of this nation. He has been given our nation's highest accolade, a Companion of the Order of Australia.

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: This is the Jon Blake show.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Again, he just can't learn the lesson. The hubris and the arrogance is beyond measure as heard on radio this morning—Icarus, with wax wings, flying close to the sun. The minister told parliament that he, Professor David, 'is well aware of it and has had every opportunity'. He even talked to the house about the intelligence of Professor David and how could he possibly not know these things? Because it was a tactic. It was a debating tactic that he was using. He even looked to his phone and read out a briefing. Even after he corrected the record, he said to the parliament in answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, when he was asked what advice he relied on:

I'm not sure what sort of fishing expedition this is, but let me answer that question very, very directly. What advice did I rely on? I relied on the advice—

and he read out the advice—

'The Minister for Health and Wellbeing has advised that his office received a copy of the independent review today.'

Unrepentant.

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Interject all you like.

The SPEAKER: I ask members not to interject.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: You're the only minister to have been found in 20 years to have deliberately misled the house, had it not been for your corrections.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Could members not interject? You will have your response soon.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: This is Wednesday 25 July after the minister corrected the record.

Members interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Again, interjecting with something that is not accurate—hubris and arrogance again.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: The minister said:

'The Minister for Health and Wellbeing has advised that his office received a copy of the independent review today. The minister will consider the review. Following this consideration the Minister will make a statement.' That is the advice I received, and that's the advice upon which I answered the question.

But we know now, despite having corrected the record, despite the Minister for Health having called Professor David and saying what the minister said was all wrong, he repeated it again yesterday. He repeated it again. It is a tactic. The man cannot accept he got it wrong. This inaccurate and misleading answer given by the minister representing the Minister for Health, in my opinion and in the opposition's opinion, was a deliberate attempt to mislead the people of South Australia. The other point that I want to make very clear to the parliament is that, in representing the Minister for Health, he speaks to this parliament on behalf of the cabinet. He said this:

…one of the most important things that clearly the opposition has forgotten—

impugning the opposition's credibility—

is that we were going to undertake an independent review.

Why would you say that? You would say that because it is a debating point and a point to try to deflect from questions being asked of the government by the opposition—prepared, probably discussed in his office before he came into the parliament. It did not just pop into his head, because we know that even after he corrected the record he has told the parliament again the advice he relied upon was from the Minister for Health, despite the Minister for Health telling Professor David that was not true.

Mr Picton: Deliberate strategy.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: A deliberate strategy by the minister. He went on to say:

I don't know why the opposition would pretend that didn't happen…

He is asked a question and now he is saying, 'Why are you asking these questions when you know full well there is an independent review?' He made the correction the next day. Later that day, he repeated, I think, another falsehood to the parliament that he relied on advice which the Minister for Health disputes.

There is no public record of the government announcing an independent review into the Craniofacial Unit to the House of Assembly—none—because it did not happen; Mr Speaker, as you found, that it touches on privilege, had it not been for the minister's correction. In no statement to the parliament has the minister representing the Minister for Health corrected the record that the government, in fact, did not undertake an independent review.

The minister has also refused to explain to the house what information he relied on to make these claims, further proving he deliberately and intentionally misled the house. The Premier's excuse for the Minister for Energy's conduct in the house is also appalling. The Premier stated on ABC radio this morning that it was reasonable for the Minister for Energy to assume that Professor David had been consulted on the review.

This is the parliament of our state. It is not reasonable to assume anything in your answers to this house. It goes to the heart of the arrogance and entitlement that this minister thinks he has. There are other concerning developments related to the Craniofacial Unit. We have received an email from SASMOA today, dated 25 July, addressed to the Minister for Health. It states:

Dear Minister,

Thank you for contacting SASMOA about this important issue. In brief, the association holds concerns about reports of what equates to cartel-like behaviour and nepotism by senior management of the Australian Craniofacial Unit which could amount to maladministration and has grave impacts on patient care including on overseas patients who are not being treated by Australian specialists which has already resulted in unnecessary deaths.

These concerns include a lack of transparency and failure to follow proper merit-based selection processes in relation to recent recruitment of key roles within the Australian Craniofacial Unit, allegations of bullying and harassment by members and staff against senior surgeons within the ACFU and the Women's and Children's Hospital and changes to the services and the standard of model of care provided by the Australian Craniofacial Unit without any consultation.

At this point, SASMOA has not yet raised its concerns with the Executive of WCHN or SA Health. However, SASMOA understands that these issues are adversely impacting the current and former ACFU staff, thousands of patients, including particularly vulnerable overseas patients and various other stakeholders, bearing in mind the multidisciplinary set-up of the unit.

That is a damning email by the people representing surgeons in this state, the salaried medical officers. What is worse, though, is that a minister, with hubris and arrogance, thinks he can tell the parliament whatever he pleases, who thinks he can come into the parliament and use the parliament as if it is a debating point to win a political point, rather than give factual information to the house so it can conduct its business.

This house conducts the people's business, not the business of the Liberal Party. This house is established in form—as the Speaker reads out in the prayers before the parliament begins—for the betterment of the people of this state. We cannot do that when ministers give us false information. We cannot do that when ministers walk into the parliament to deliberately mislead the parliament, to deliberately mislead the opposition and to mislead the public. Do not believe me, believe the Speaker. The Speaker found that he had done this.

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: The minister doesn't like it. He does not like his hubris and arrogance being raised in the parliament—that he can come in here and say whatever he likes. Even after he corrects the record, again in question time yesterday he pretends it did not happen and says, 'I did nothing wrong. I followed the advice of the health minister.' Well, which one is it? Did you get it wrong or did you get it right? Which one? Of course, he will not tell us.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Point of order. The member for West Torrens will be seated for one moment.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: You, sir, are not under any allegation in this house, and it is totally improper—

The SPEAKER: What is the point of order?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —for the member for West Torrens to—

The SPEAKER: What is the point of order Deputy Premier?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —shout out to you in respect of alleged conduct by you.

The SPEAKER: I will listen carefully.

Mr Mullighan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Lee! Member for West Torrens, please stick to the motion before us.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Sure, sir. Irrelevant points of order to try to chew up time show a government that is worried about exposure on this.

The SPEAKER: Please stick to the motion, member for West Torrens.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Showing that—

Members interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: So much for the openness and accountability—

The SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens, please do not respond to interjections; please stick to the motion. You have two minutes left, member for West Torrens, thank you.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you, sir.

An honourable member interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: At the very least, the government should strip the minister of responsibility for the portfolio of health in this house. We have no confidence that what the minister tells this parliament is accurate—no confidence whatsoever.

Mr Mullighan: He assumes it all.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: He assumes it all, just makes it up as he thinks, comes up with debating points and deliberately misleads the parliament. And then, not at the earliest opportunity but when it suits him politically, he comes in to correct the record.

The one point that I just cannot understand is how is it that the Minister for Health can immediately call Professor David after question time when the minister misled the parliament and tell him everything the minister said was inaccurate, yet it took the minister two occasions, separated by days, to find the truth? Why is it—

An honourable member: Days.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, days. Why is it that he did not correct the record immediately after the Minister for Health contacted Professor David? Why? Why the delay? Why was the parliament not told immediately? Why did the Minister for Health call Professor David immediately, apologise to him and tell him everything that the minister said was wrong, yet the minister did not correct the record completely until the following day? Why? Why did the minister not do it? He has an obligation under standing orders to do it immediately. There should be a privileges committee into this man to investigate what he has told the parliament. If the government have nothing to hide, they will agree with the motion for a privileges committee.

The SPEAKER: Before I call the next speaker, I remind members that they should not be interjecting when another member is speaking. I expect members on my right also to be afforded the same courtesy.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (11:30): The member for West Torrens has failed to outline a case as to why the minister has deliberately and intentionally misled the parliament. He insisted on a dozen or so occasions that that had happened. The body of the motion insists and the member for West Torrens says that the privileges committee should be established to examine the allegations—the allegations, in his raising the issue with you in the first place, sir, were that the minister deliberately and intentionally misled—then goes on to say 'investigate whether the minister deliberately misled the house' and then in 15 minutes fails to identify a single item of evidence as to why there was any deliberate nature or intent in providing information to the parliament. This is further backed up by the fact that the minister corrected the record on two occasions when matters were drawn to his attention.

The member for West Torrens holds, as he considers, a smoking gun the idea that Professor David David was contacted after question time by the Minister for Health, who obviously had a deep understanding of every aspect in his portfolio because he is an extraordinarily good Minister for Health. The Minister for Health, of course it is understood, would naturally know the matters that are cogent to the detail of the portfolio for which he has day-to-day responsibility.

This is actually relevant to the point that the shadow minister raises in relation to the John Hill case. In the John Hill case, the parliament decided that there was to be a privileges committee—with the support of the government at that stage—because the government of the day was unable to explain why a minister of the Crown would be unable to be aware of issues in their personal portfolio responsibilities. That is not the case on this occasion.

On this occasion, we have a minister who is representing a minister in the other place who has tried to provide the house with immediate information to assist the house and then, when being advised that there were inconsistencies, corrected the record. The minister holds, as a smoking gun in his mind—

Mr Koutsantonis: Shadow minister.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Sorry, the former minister.

Mr Koutsantonis: Shadow minister.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I was thinking of it in the US sense, where one maintains a title forever. Maybe we could consider that. The shadow minister, as he will be until the community of West Torrens decides he is no longer needed here, holds as he considers to be a smoking gun the idea that the Minister for Health has provided immediate advice to Professor David. Then, of course, it is only natural that the minister in this house provides himself with the opportunity to seek information to provide accurate information to the house in the nature of the personal explanation. And that is exactly what happened. On that basis, the Speaker made a ruling that was entirely consistent with the expectations of the house, and I am confident that members of the house will find in this case that to be so.

In the shadow minister's dénouement, in his conclusion in between accusations of hubris, intention and deliberateness, he concluded with this crescendo that the minister was apparently in the wrong because he had assumed something and then deliberately misled the house. The shadow minister himself alleges—and I think this was probably the closest he came to the truth in his whole 15 minutes of rhetoric—that there was an assumption in the answers given by the minister on Tuesday. The minister, I am absolutely satisfied, and I am sure this house is satisfied, did believe what he said to be true as he said it. There was no intent to mislead the house. There was no deliberateness in providing information to the house in that way.

The shadow minister said it was a deliberate tactic, that it was something that the minister allegedly chose to do. This is where the shadow minister's argument is clearly preposterous. What is the alleged benefit of this tactic? What is sought to be achieved, when the Minister for Health clearly calls Professor David immediately after it has happened? A deliberate tactic? This is nonsense. This is nonsense from an opposition that does not have anything better to do.

The issue related to the Craniofacial Unit is clearly an important matter, and that is why the Minister for Health is taking it very seriously. The minister representing in this house attempted to assist the house by providing information immediately so that we could have that information, and when he understood that clarification needed to be made, he did so. That is the expectation this house has and that is why this motion should not be supported.

There is no case that the shadow minister made that was not dealt with entirely satisfactorily in the Speaker's ruling. The Speaker found that there was no need to give precedence to this motion. Today, when the motion has been moved and offered through the opportunity that the opposition has in the house, they have made no case as to why this house should support it.

The minister, advised of the breach, sought information and provided that information to the house in correcting the record. The allegation that the minister, having sought information from the health minister—and this was repeated twice by the shadow minister, and it was in relation to a question in Hansard from yesterday and that is what he got his advice for—was in relation to a different question and I do not see that there is any relevance for that being raised.

Clearly, the Minister for Energy and Mining, representing the Minister for Health in this house, seeks information and presents it as he can. I think he does a tremendous job doing that. On this occasion, some incorrect information was provided inadvertently, an error, but it was not an intentional error. The idea that an intentional error was made is utterly preposterous. The idea that an intentional error was made as a debating tactic is utterly preposterous.

I hope this house will not see fit to delay deliberations too much. It is reasonable for a discussion or debate to take place on this motion, but once this motion comes to a vote I am confident that it will be defeated, and this motion should be defeated because the opposition has made no case that the minister intentionally or deliberately misled the house. Repeating it time and time again is not a substitute for an argument. It is not a substitute for providing evidence, and there is none. I urge all members to oppose this motion.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (11:37): I rise to support this very important motion that this house should be supporting so that we can get to the bottom of this matter, so that we can properly investigate what you yourself, sir, have ruled were prima facie cases of privilege that the member for Stuart raised.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner: That's not what he said.

Mr PICTON: Check the Hansard—

Mr Mullighan: Don't interject; we didn't while you spoke.

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Kaurna, I ask you to qualify that statement. I know what you are saying, but please just qualify it.

Mr PICTON: I know in the end you decided not to give it precedence as a motion; however, this is pretty startling. If we look at what was said by the Speaker yesterday, these were findings that have not been found regarding a minister in a very long time. I believe you could probably go back to 2003 to find the last time that a minister was in so much trouble about allegations of misleading the house.

This is about a very serious issue. This is about a unit in a hospital that South Australians are very proud of, and they should be proud of, because it has had an amazing 44-year history in this state of providing care for young and old people here and also around the country and around the world. Very serious claims have been raised repeatedly, not just this week, but over the last month, about the management of this unit. We have raised important questions in this house about the management of this unit. What we saw this week was the minister representing the Minister for Health in this house time and time again misleading the house. If we go through everything that he said, there are four areas where, in our view, he deliberately and wilfully misled this house.

Firstly, he said that there was a review that was announced, that the opposition should have been aware of it and that everybody was aware of it. In doing so, he was reading from notes that he had been provided. These were premeditated notes that had been provided for him to say that there was an announcement that had been made about a review into this matter. There was no such announcement. We have gone through the Hansard—you yourself, Mr Speaker, have gone through the Hansard—and we have gone through all the VOD clips. No-one has ever been able to point to any previous announcement of a review being undertaken. That premeditated statement to the house was clearly wrong.

The second issue was that the minister claimed that this review was independent. He held it up and said, 'There's an independent review underway into this matter.' Clearly, it has come out that this review was not independent. This review was undertaken by a mid-level public servant in the Department for Health. The Minister for Health's own agency undertook this review; it is not independent at all. I believe trying to tell this house and the public of South Australia that this was an independent review is strongly misleading the house, and I believe that that was a deliberate tactic to try to deflect the controversy away from this issue.

Thirdly, the minister said that David David was clearly aware of this matter. In fact, we questioned the minister about this during question time after he had said it and asked whether he was sure that David David was aware of this, as we had been told that we was not aware of this. He mocked those questions and said, 'Well of course he's aware of this.'

Mr Koutsantonis: 'He's a smart man.'

Mr PICTON: 'He's a smart guy. He's South Australian of the Year; of course he should be aware of this.' It belittled the South Australian of the Year in his answering of those questions to say that he should have been aware of a review that there was no way he could have been aware of. He had never been told. The minister had never discussed it with him. In fact, it did not turn out to be an independent review at all, but of course there was no way.

That was the opportunity for the minister to immediately correct the record and say, 'Well, I said that, but I had no idea what I was talking about and it is completely false. I take your advice that he must not have known about it.' Instead, he dug deeper into his hole by declaring it to be true. Fourthly, he said that Professor David David, South Australian of the Year, had every opportunity to contribute to this review. What we now know, of course is that he had zero opportunity—absolutely no opportunity—to respond to this.

These were clearly devised in the minister's briefings notes and also in the text messages and emails that the minister was reading from during the debate of this house as a deliberate tactic to avoid and deflect criticism of the government during this matter. We believe that this deserves the proper investigation of this house. We believe that the prima facie evidence is that this should be investigated, and only a privileges committee will get to the bottom of it. I think it is very disappointing. If the government does not think that they have anything to hide, why would they not support this motion?

If the government thinks that the Minister for Energy is totally clean, then they should be supporting this committee, and would be happy to examine all the documents and evidence, and get all that off the table because they believe that he would be cleared. The only reason that they would not support this is if they believed that there are things that we would not want to find out about what was discussed beforehand, about what was in the briefing document, about what was in those text messages the minister was receiving during question time. That is the only reason you would not support this committee inquiry to get to the bottom of this matter.

We also know that after question time the minister did not immediately come back to the house to explain. We know that was not immediate because we know that between him coming to explain and question time, the Minister for Health was on the phone to Professor David David saying, 'Don't worry about what that Minister for Energy was saying in question time, it's all wrong. All of that's wrong. He got it all wrong—completely wrong.' So how was Professor David David able to be updated by the government that the statements by the minister were completely wrong—

Mr Koutsantonis: But the house wasn't.

Mr PICTON: —but the house was not? The house should be updated as soon as possible by the minister. Clearly that was not the case here. In fact, the minister took many, many hours after that to come to this house and give a statement. That statement did not even cover all the areas in which he had misled the house. He had to come back the next day as well and clear up even more of these matters, clearly trying to clear them all up before the Speaker could rule on this case.

These are areas that deserve scrutiny. They deserve to be scrutinised by a committee of this parliament to get to the bottom of this matter because we know this is a very serious issue. Today, we have heard serious allegations about this issue. We have heard allegations that there is cartel-like behaviour and nepotism going on in this unit. We have heard allegations that they amount to maladministration. We have allegations that they amount to grave impacts on patient care, even leading to unnecessary deaths. These are serious allegations and the government did not deal with these matters at all seriously.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PICTON: They did not deal with these matters at all seriously. We know that there are allegations that there were failures to follow proper merit-based selection processes, allegations of bullying and harassment, and allegations that it is adversely impacting current staff, patients and vulnerable overseas patients. These are the sorts of very important issues that allegations are continuing to come out about, but what we saw from the government was a deliberate attempt to try to cover this up, a deliberate attempt to try to mislead this house, and this deserves to be scrutinised by a privileges committee of this parliament to get to the bottom of this matter.

We heard the Premier come out on radio this morning and say that it was reasonable for the minister to assume facts in relation to this matter. I have checked the standing orders and I cannot see anywhere there or in Erskine May or in any of the procedures where it says that ministers can assume facts in relation to their answers to this house. They need to give the house proper information. The house needs to be able to rely on cabinet ministers to give it accurate information. That is part of the privilege we all have of being a member of parliament and that is why breaching that privilege is a very serious offence and why it should be investigated by this parliament.

Mr MULLIGHAN (Lee) (11:46): I also rise to speak in support of this motion put by the member for West Torrens and supported by the member for Kaurna. It is extraordinary that we are here, three months into parliamentary sitting times in this year, and we are now debating the third matter of privilege that has been raised in this chamber. What an extraordinary performance by this fledgling new government. The member for West Torrens is absolutely right: this whole situation has come about because of a callous disregard for minister's obligations to this place during question time.

Privilege, of course, is one of the most sacrosanct rights of this parliament, but I would argue that it is no more important than when it is exercised during question time—the one hour in each parliamentary sitting day when the executive is held to account on behalf of the people of South Australia by the opposition. On three occasions now, matters of privilege have been raised in this place because of the poor behaviour of ministers in not furnishing accurate information to this place.

First of all, we had the callous disregard of the Minister for Transport, airily recommitting to completion dates for projects that are not even funded until beyond the forward estimates. It was only because he was yanked up on radio and asked subsequent questions in here, again by the member for West Torrens, when he reconfirmed his poor advice to this place, that a matter of privilege was raised. What was the result? He scurried into this place and gave an explanation that perhaps he was incorrect the first two times around with the dates that he provided to this place.

Then we had the Minister for Police telling us that, yes, of course he would table documents, and of course he withheld those documents again until a matter of privilege was raised and they had been tabled. Now we have the third matter of privilege within three months, the gravest of these examples, this time in relation to the Minister for Energy.

In all three of these matters, there is the same consistent behaviour and treatment of this parliament with absolute contempt by these ministers in how they behave and how they answer legitimate questions put by the opposition on behalf of the people of South Australia. They treat this hour every sitting day carelessly—absolutely carelessly.

The Hon. A. Piccolo: Recklessly.

Mr MULLIGHAN: The member for Light is right: it is reckless. There is a tactic that permeates through all these ministers as they answer, in this callous and reckless way, legitimate questions that are being asked.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order.

Mr Mullighan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Lee!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think some licence can be given, but the reference to the joint conduct of other members of the cabinet in relation to prior conduct in this house is hardly relevant to this motion, which is in relation to the wilful misleading of the house—

Mr Mullighan: What's the standing order?

The SPEAKER: The point of order is for relevance, Deputy Premier?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —by the minister, not by every other person of the house.

The SPEAKER: Relevance? It is for relevance.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Thank you.

The SPEAKER: I will listen attentively. I do ask the member for Lee to strictly speak to the motion before us. I will be listening carefully. Thank you, member for Lee.

Mr MULLIGHAN: The behaviour that we saw from the Minister for Transport, and the behaviour that we saw from the Minister for Police, is exactly the same behaviour that we have seen in this instance with the Minister for Energy.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order: the minister again flagrantly goes into conduct in relation to other ministers—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —which has nothing to do with the relevance of this motion.

The SPEAKER: Member for Lee, I understand that you have touched on the other matters of privilege. I do ask you to bring it back to this matter before us, please.

Mr MULLIGHAN: The most extraordinary event about the Minister for Energy and his behaviour—in fact, more than one event actually—is that he waited nearly two hours after a matter of privilege was raised by the member for West Torrens to come back into this place in an effort to correct the record. Even that was insufficient.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MULLIGHAN: He then had to come back nearly 18 hours later and have another crack at correcting the record. In your own ruling, Mr Speaker, as you look at the two very well set out, very well documented examples of where the Minister for Energy deliberately misled this house, in your own words, both of those examples touch on privilege. The only exoneration that can be found for the Minister for Energy was the strength of those explanations to the house. The first one was given late, only after a matter of privilege that was raised, and incomplete. The second one was given 18 hours later when, after the benefit of being hauled over the coals publicly, on radio, he comes in and has another crack.

What would have happened, Mr Speaker, if you had ruled immediately? What would have happened had he not come in and made those explanations? The facts of this matter are crystal clear and beyond debate. He deliberately misled this parliament. Relying on those two explanations, the first late and insufficient—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MULLIGHAN: —and the second one having to clarify the first—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MULLIGHAN: —is not good enough. Even the member for Adelaide, the Minister for Child Protection, had the wherewithal to come into this place and correct the record about the alleged charity day. You cannot even meet that standard. Two explanations: insufficient. This is absolutely crystal clear. Of course, it is important that this parliament, that this house, supports this motion because this may be the only way, of course, as the member for Kaurna says, that we can get to the bottom of this matter about why the Minister for Energy behaved in such a callous, disrespectful way to this place.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MULLIGHAN: But it also might mean that we see an end to this completely disrespectful behaviour, this treatment of this parliament, this abhorrent conduct that we see within question time where we have ministers misleading the house, we have a Premier bellowing out across the chamber, 'Oh, you have run out of questions!' as if issues were not important. It is an absolute disgrace.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order: we are now straying far from relevance.

The SPEAKER: Please stick to the substance of the motion, member for Lee.

Mr MULLIGHAN: I will, Mr Speaker. I will with great pleasure. The Minister for Energy finds himself in a situation where his debating tactic in this place has now found himself not so much in hot water but in the most serious and significant breach of a minister's responsibilities to this place.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MULLIGHAN: The Premier calls out across the chamber again because he has not learnt that he is meant to behave like a leader of this state. We have repeated points of order from the member for Morialta and the member for Bragg, trying to delay time—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Please do not respond to interjections.

Mr MULLIGHAN: —and trying to knock us down. In fact, I think I was reflecting on the member for Morialta, not on him.

The SPEAKER: Member for Lee, please stick to the substance of the motion. The clock is ticking.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr MULLIGHAN: Well perhaps you should stand up and make a contribution—

The SPEAKER: Member for Lee, do not—

Mr MULLIGHAN: —rather than hiding up in the back rows too scared to get up on your feet.

The SPEAKER: The Member for Lee will not respond to interjections.

Mr MULLIGHAN: It's no wonder you are not on the front bench and no wonder you will not be! Luckily, we have your colleague—

Mr Cregan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Kavel! Member for Lee, please stick to the substance of the motion, thank you.

Mr MULLIGHAN: It says a lot about this matter and this motion that those opposite still do not realise how serious this is. They still do not realise the gravity of their responsibilities to this place.

The Hon. S.S. Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Premier will not interject.

Mr MULLIGHAN: They still do not understand what the penalty is for continuing to behave like this. It is an absolute outrage. While the behaviour is bad enough from the Minister for Energy, what it also reflects is a gaping vacuum of leadership from the Premier in how his ministers should be behaving in this place.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Not one shred of argument.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MULLIGHAN: We have all known for more than five years that he is not cut out for this place, and now we know the example he is setting for his colleague.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: Point of order. This is for relevance, Minister for Education. Member for Lee, I will not ask again. Are you finished?

Mr MULLIGHAN: I am done.

The SPEAKER: Thank you. If the member for West Torrens speaks, he closes debate. Member for West Torrens.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (11:56): Sir, I remind the house of your finding, and I quote from the Speaker:

If I were considering this matter prior to the minister's personal explanation, I would be of the view that prima facie the matters raised by [me] touch on privilege and should therefore be accorded precedence for a motion which would enable the house to determine if there had been a breach of privilege.

Mr Speaker, the standard you walk past is the standard you accept. The Premier this morning accepted the standard of sloppiness, hubris, arrogance and, even worse, wilful disrespect for the institutions that ministers represent.

An honourable member: Get out the thesaurus, Tom, and keep going.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Interjections like that show exactly what contempt the government is showing for the House of Assembly. The member for Kaurna put a point to government members that I think is very important: if the minister is innocent, what do they have to fear from a privileges committee investigating the minister? Nothing, not a thing.

If he advised the house accurately in his corrections, the minister has nothing to worry about. There is an old saying: if you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about. The principle that members brought to the parliament—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: —at the most recent election was that they would be different, that they would be open and that they would be accountable.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Deputy Premier will not interject.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: We will see how they behave now.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Education will not interject.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: I commend the motion to the house.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 19

Noes 24

Majority 5

Motion thus negatived.