Parliamentary Procedure

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (17:07): I move without notice:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable me to move a motion without notice forthwith to establish a privileges committee to inquire into a matter of privilege related to an answer given on 17 May 2018 to the House of Assembly by the Minister for Environment and Water.

The SPEAKER: An absolute majority not being present, ring the bells.

An absolute majority of the whole number of members being present:

The SPEAKER: Does the member for West Torrens wish to speak to the motion?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, sir, I do, Mr Speaker. It is a matter of urgency that this matter be debated immediately. It is a matter of urgency that this be debated now. Our democracy, our parliament, our Westminster system of government, cannot tolerate the idea that a chief of staff was told that a minister may have given information incorrectly to the house by his chief executive under an inquiry by the Budget and Finance Committee. That minister must now immediately answer to a privileges committee. It cannot wait for private members' time. It must be debated now. We cannot wait.

We rely on ministers to give accurate information to the parliament. We rely on everything they tell us to be true and accurate. Why? Because the people of South Australia have entrusted all 47 of us to their care, to their work and to their endeavour, and we can only do that if we are given information that is accurate.

We know from the Budget and Finance Committee that the minister's Chief of Staff was told that the information he gave to the house was incorrect and that his office asked the agency to provide a list of names to the minister of everyone who had been employed by the former Labor government in the minister's office.

There are other matters by other agencies to investigate here, but it is important that we sort this out now. That is why this motion to suspend standing orders to establish this privileges committee must be done immediately. If this suspension is successful, I will move that this house establishes a privileges committee to examine allegations set out in Hansard by me on 18 September in this house regarding the Minister for Environment and Water and investigates whether the minister deliberately and intentionally misled the house as therein alleged. They are serious allegations that cannot wait for private members' time.

The opposition is attempting to suspend standing orders because the people of South Australia deserve to know whether their ministers are telling the truth. They deserve to know whether or not the information they are giving us is accurate. The government would have us believe that the Chief of Staff did not tell the minister that he gave the wrong answer to parliament. The government would have us believe that a chief of staff has acted independently of their minister. It is unprecedented to believe—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —in any way possible that a minister—

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for West Torrens, this is not debate. We are moving a motion for standing orders to be so suspended to enable yourself to move a motion to establish a privileges committee.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, sir. Thank you very much for your guidance, sir. Wisdom comes with marriage, in my experience.

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: So does suffering.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Spoken like a married man. I am not sure what you are talking about.

The SPEAKER: Let's get back to it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: These allegations were set out four months ago. The reason this needs to be debated immediately is that the acting chief executive told a committee of this parliament that he informed the minister's office immediately—four months ago when the minister gave that answer—that it was not accurate. There can be no more serious allegation of a minister. There can be no more serious allegation.

Other bodies will investigate the lawfulness of asking for such a list. Our responsibility here is to understand why it is that the minister gave that answer, and the only way we can find that out is to have a successful motion. If the Premier is serious about openness and accountability and that the buck stops with the minister's desk and not the department's door, then they will allow the suspension of standing orders to proceed.

They will establish a privileges committee, be open and transparent and allow this house to inquire into whether or not the minister deliberately and intentionally misled the house and whether it is feasible and passes the pub test that the minister's Chief of Staff did not tell him and that the minister did not know his Chief of Staff ordered the agency for the names of public servants employed by the former Labor government in the minister's office.

Quite frankly, if the government really want people to believe that, go out and say so in the electorate. Go out and tell the people of South Australia that it is feasible that the Chief of Staff, who has his office next door to the minister's, did not tell him or that the minister did not know. It is untenable that this house could have that standing on the Hansard without it being rectified. The minister knew this morning at 10.30am that the information he gave to the house was not accurate. He gave comment to the media twice, but has not told the house that the information he gave us was wrong. His Chief of Staff was told by the department that the information the minister gave to the house was wrong and he still does not come in here to correct the record.

The SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: He is laughing at us.

The SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: He is laughing at us.

The SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens, I believe you are debating the motion.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, sir; what I am attempting to do is argue on the urgency of the suspension of standing orders—

The SPEAKER: Okay, please wind it up.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —because, Mr Speaker, unless we suspend standing orders, we will not get to the bottom of the truth. Did the minister know? Did the minister instruct his Chief of Staff to ask for names and lists of all the people who were employed in the former minister's office, and if he did, why did he do so?

He told the parliament that he did no such thing and that he was not aware of any requests. What do we know? There was a request made by the minister's Chief of Staff—not exactly someone unknown to the minister. The Premier gave a speech not three days ago where he said the buck stops with the minister, not at the department's door. Well, the department has lobbed this onto the minister's desk.

Mr Malinauskas: Straight there.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Straight there, Mr Speaker. That is why this suspension must be carried. If it is not carried, the government is not serious about openness and accountability; they are using their numbers to protect a minister who should be accountable to the parliament. In the end, if he has done nothing wrong, what does he have to be afraid of?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (17:15): I rise to make a contribution to this charade to this extent. What is disappointing is that the member for West Torrens has raised a matter of privilege and you, Mr Speaker, have determined how that will progress. Clearly, he is unhappy with that. He wants to relitigate this matter based on that worthy authority of the pub test and other standards he wants to impose. It sounded like some rendition out of The Castle, with whatever the vibe was—

Honourable members: 'It's the vibe.'

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —but the reality is that it is actually an insult to this parliament and to you, sir, that we are being asked to deal with this. That is in the first instance. Secondly, the matter has been—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The matter has been dealt with. We could go into a list of circumstances relating to previous ministers—a former premier particularly springs to mind, in relation to the Debelle inquiry—about what chief executives or chiefs of staff do or do not tell their ministers before they attend a local school. A whole inquiry was given royal commission status of investigation. We could go through those things, but that does not actually resolve the matter. You, sir, have resolved the matter, and it is a disgraceful waste of this parliament's time to have this issue relitigated based on that charade.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 17

Noes 23

Majority 6

Motion thus negatived.