Matter of Privilege

Matter of Privilege, Speaker's Statement

The SPEAKER (17:58): I rise to make a statement regarding the privilege matter regarding the Premier on the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission Report. I can advise the house that I have listened to what the Premier has had to say about the matter of privilege raised earlier today, and I do note the personal explanation that has been made by the Premier.

I have also considered the first matter of privilege—not the second one; I will get to that one—raised by the member for West Torrens earlier today and make the following statement. However, before addressing that matter, I wish to outline the significance of privilege as it relates to the house and also 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 the vote of the house on a substantive motion.

We are reminded of McGee in Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, in my view, which 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 precedent of the offence.

I refer to the matter raised by the member for West Torrens in relation to an answer given by the Premier to a question in the house on 12 February 2019. More specifically, the Leader of the Opposition asked the following question:

Supplementary question to the Premier: given the Premier's previous answer, will the Premier rule out reversing the deal his minister agreed with the upstream states, as called for by the royal commissioner, Bret Walker QC? With your leave, Mr Speaker, and that of the house, I will explain…

'…no Minister acting reasonably could consider these changes to the criteria to be anything but totally antipathetic to the interests of South Australia, and the South Australian environment. South Australia's agreement to these changes should be immediately reversed.'

The Premier provided the following response:

If there's just some chance I might be able to answer the question, I can explain to those opposite. The Leader of the Opposition said, 'Will you rule out the recommendation of the royal commissioner?' This was not a recommendation of the royal commissioner.

Further, the Premier went on to say:

I know those opposite, busy with those by-elections, had no chance to actually read a report that was so critical to our state, nor the Australian Productivity Commission report. We did. The reality is that there are 111 findings…There were dozens of recommendations; none of them related to that issue. Read the report.

The member for West Torrens alleges that the Premier has deliberately and intentionally misled the house in his answer to a question. The member for West Torrens, in raising this matter of privilege, relies on the following extracts from the Murray-Darling Basin royal commission report to substantiate the allegation. On page 62 of the royal commission report in Key Findings, titled Chapter 9: Efficiency Measures & the 450 GL, finding 9.10 states:

The recent criteria agreed at the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council meeting on 14 December 2018, at the behest of the Victorian and New South Wales Governments, is another example of the lack of commitment by the Commonwealth, New South Wales and Victoria to delivering the 450 GL. The South Australian government's agreement to changes to the socio-economic criteria for efficiency measures is antipathetic to the interests of South Australia and the South Australian environment. It is doubtful that much of the 450 GL of upwater will ever be actually recovered for the environment through efficiency measures and especially under the new criteria.

Further, the royal commission then, in response to the terms of reference, key findings and recommendations, on page 73 makes recommendation number 11:

11. If efficiency measures are retained as a means of recovering water for the environment, including the 450 GL, no changes should be made to the test for determining neutral or improved socio-economic outcomes in sec 7.17(2)(b) of the Basin Plan. Insofar as the criteria agreed at the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council meeting on 14 December 2018 alter that test, they should be abandoned as they will likely result in the failure to recover that water.

I have noted the Premier's answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question and I have also noted the extracts from the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission Report provided by the member for West Torrens. While some may believe that at first glance there has been a contradiction between those positions, I have listened to the Premier's personal explanation and, in my opinion, the matter does not warrant precedence being given to a motion allowing the house to continue on this path. However, my opinion does not prevent any member from pursuing the matter by way of substantive motion, if they wish.