House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1) 54 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Matter of Privilege Matter of Privilege Public Sector Employees Public Sector Employees The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER (17:03): I can advise members that I rise with regard to the matter of privilege that was raised earlier today. I make the following statement with regard to the matter of privilege raised by the member for West Torrens in the house earlier this morning. Before addressing the matter, I wish to outline the significance of privilege as it relates to the house and its members. As we have heard in the past, 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. We have a test in McGee, in Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, which 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. Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes the house in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such house in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency directly or indirectly to produce such a result, may be treated as a contempt and therefore be considered a matter of privilege even though there is no precedence of the offence. I refer to the matter raised by the member for West Torrens in relation to an answer given by the Minister for Environment and Water to a question in the house on 17 May 201—more specifically, in response to the question asked by the member for West Torrens: Did the minister or any member of his staff request the names of public sector employees from his agencies who had worked in the previous environment minister's ministerial offices over the last five years and who are currently employed in his agency or the public sector? The Minister for Environment and Water replied by saying, 'No, not that I am aware of.' The member of West Torrens has advised the house that, at a meeting held yesterday of the Budget and Finance Committee, the Acting Chief Executive of the Department for Environment and Water advised the committee that he had been requested by the minister's current Chief of Staff for lists of staff who had worked in the former minister's office. Further, the acting chief executive in response to the question: So, no-one from the department made anyone from the minister's office aware that, in fact, yes, this was discussed and that it might not have been a correct answer that was given on 17 May? To which the acting chief executive replied: I advised the minister's Chief of Staff that the minister had given an answer and that he would need to consider whether he spoke to the minister about that matter. The acting chief executive was then asked, ‘When did you advise the Chief of Staff approximately very soon after that 17 May?’ The acting chief executive answered by saying, 'Very soon after that statement was made.' The member for West Torrens alleges that the Minister for Environment and Water has misled the house as his answer to a question on 17 May is inconsistent with information presented to the Budget and Finance Committee. Further, he implies that the minister should have corrected the record on the matter being brought to his attention by his Chief of Staff. The acting chief executive's answer that ‘I advised the minister's Chief of Staff that the minister had given that answer and that he would need to consider whether he spoke to the minister about that matter' suggests that the interaction between the acting chief executive of the department and the minister's Chief of Staff, both in terms of the request for a staff list and need to correct the record, were not known to the minister. In the Chair's opinion, this is not a matter of privilege for the reason I set out above. In the Chair's view, the matter could not generally be regarded as tending to impede or obstruct the house in the discharge of its duties. Therefore, I also decline to give the matter the precedence that would allow the member for West Torrens to immediately pursue the matter. However, my opinion does not prevent any member in this house from pursuing the matter by way of substantive motion.