Parliamentary Procedure

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (16:28): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable the Leader of the Opposition to move a motion without notice forthwith.

The SPEAKER: I have counted the house and, as there is an absolute majority of the whole number of members of the house, I accept the motion. Is the motion seconded?

An honourable member: Yes, sir.

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens, you would like to speak to the motion?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I would, sir.

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens has the call.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There is no more important matter for this house to now deliberate on than whether or not this house should consider a motion on whether or not the Attorney-General should immediately step aside from her functions as Attorney-General of this state pending the outcome of the deliberations of the Director of Public Prosecutions or his delegate.

As to the idea that this house would go on debating other legislation and other matters before it without considering one of the most profound and unprecedented events that has occurred in South Australia's legal history, the Attorney-General of this state, the first law officer of this state, has been investigated by anti-corruption officers of South Australia Police and that matter has been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Director of Public Prosecutions has had to forward this on to an independent party. Why? Because the Attorney will not resign and because he answers directly to her. Who has set the budget for this independent officer to assess whether or not the Attorney-General should be charged? The government. We have seen the Attorney's form on this matter with the most recent royal commission. The royal commissioner asked for extra time and the Attorney-General intervened. Why? Because one of her members was having adverse findings found against him.

This house must suspend standing orders. The rule of law must apply equally to South Australians, from the Attorney-General down, no matter who it is. This house must stop what it is considering and immediately consider whether or not the Attorney-General should have this house consider her future while the DPP is considering these matters. There is nothing more serious than the idea that we may have an Attorney-General who could be facing criminal charges—criminal charges, yet in the parliament, pretending it is all okay to stay on in her position, pretending there is nothing to see here and it is just a matter of process.

If it were a matter of process, we would not have got this far. If it were a matter of process, South Australian anti-corruption officers would not have forwarded their brief to the Director of Public Prosecutions, let alone the fact that, quite controversially, our DPP was not reappointed. Again, there are further questions to be asked. If this house thinks that matters the government had before it are more important than this matter, then it goes to the very core of the rottenness of this government. How can there be anything else that this government should consider right now than whether or not the Attorney-General—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my right!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —should remain in her position. Think of the agencies that answer to her. The justice department, the Director of Public Prosecutions—

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Industry and Skills is called to order. The government will have its opportunity to speak to the motion. The member for West Torrens has the call.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The idea that somehow there is nothing inappropriate about the Attorney-General staying on quite frankly stinks. I think that most South Australians will realise that anyone being investigated by anti-corruption officers of the South Australian police force know that those people are of the highest integrity and that those officers work to serve the people of South Australia. They have deemed their brief worthy—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —to forward to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Why? While they have considered that, the director now is forced into the unenviable position—

The Hon. S.K. Knoll interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Minister for Transport, be quiet.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —of having to have this matter considered independently of him. Why? Again, because the Attorney will not stand aside. There is precedent here. When the current Attorney-General was a shadow minister, she asked questions in 2003 of the then attorney-general that led to that attorney-general standing aside pending an investigation. Nothing is different. What the government would have us believe is that the parliament should go on and pretend there is nothing to do here and nothing to see here because, even though anti-corruption officers think there is something there that should be discussed, debated and sent to the DPP, she stays in place.

Once the DPP thinks it merits further consideration, the Attorney-General remains where she is. At what stage does the Attorney-General realise her responsibilities to the high office she holds and does this parliament the dignity of standing aside pending this investigation? Doing the right thing has never been in the DNA of members opposite. Indeed, what they are saying is that civil investigations by the Ombudsman are exactly the same as a criminal investigation by the anti-corruption branch. Really?

The Hon. T.J. Whetstone: Oakden. Gillman.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Really? Oakden and Gillman—Ombudsman's inquiries.

The SPEAKER: Minister for Primary Industries, the government will have an opportunity to speak in reply to this motion. The member for West Torrens has the call.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We all know—

Mr Picton interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Kaurna, be quiet.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —that the DPP is a man of the highest integrity. It is a loss to the people of South Australia after he was not offered reappointment by the Attorney-General and now we find, and the parliament was told today, that the Attorney-General, who made the decision not to reappoint the DPP, has had a referral from the Anti-Corruption Branch to that office.

The Attorney-General says that it is a nonsense, that it is all okay, that there is nothing to worry about here and that it is perfectly reasonable that the Attorney-General remains in charge of the institution in deciding whether she should be charged or not. That is perfectly reasonable—Caesar judging Caesar. Of course it is okay. It is not as if the Attorney-General controls the budgets of the DPP. It is not as if the Attorney-General controls the budget of the officer appointed by the DPP to decide whether or not the Attorney-General should be investigated. These are all at arm's length. Well, they are not—they are absolutely not.

This house cannot go on debating other matters without considering whether or not this house thinks that the Attorney-General should step aside pending the outcome of the DPP's inquiries. Perhaps then, if the Attorney-General stood aside, the DPP himself—the person the people of South Australia have unanimously entrusted with deciding who gets charged and who does not—can consider this for himself. But while the Attorney-General remains in that position he cannot because of the direct line of responsibility between the Attorney and the DPP.

Mr Kimber has acted with the highest integrity. He has referred this matter to an external party because he still answers to the Attorney-General. Importantly, a decision to prosecute or appeal could be influenced by the employer of that person and the statutory office holder. The Attorney-General cannot in any way possibly believe that she can do anything other than stand aside. If the government do not want her to stand aside, they can explain that to the people of South Australia. The best way to explain it to the people of South Australia is to allow a debate on the issue, allow the people of South Australia to use their house to ventilate this issue. We are all here sent by the people of South Australia—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —all of them, and we need to know right now: is the house's priority whether or not our Attorney-General—the person entrusted with upholding the laws of this state and potentially facing charges by the DPP—can remain the person in charge of that organisation while they consider whether or not she should be charged? Any reasonable, right-minded person would say that this parliament should immediately—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —debate this matter and allow the parliament to decide and express its view about whether or not the Attorney should stand aside. The executive have decided that she should not. They have circled the wagons to save their Deputy Premier. You have to ask yourself: what kind of process is this when the executive remains in charge of the institutions that are deciding their fate? What kind of independence is that in our justice system?

Not only must justice be seen to be done but we must all know that the Attorney-General, who is the principal character in this play, is nowhere near the decision-makers, especially the Minister for Police, especially the Premier, especially meeting with the Chief Justice regularly, especially with the DPP deciding, as we know, budgets that are being compiled right now. As we speak, the internal organs of the government are working out the next budget. Meanwhile, the DPP is considering whether or not to charge the person who is deciding that very budget. How can they possibly stay in the cabinet?

There must be a debate today. I urge members, whether they support the ultimate motion or not, to allow this debate to occur. Allow the parliament to ventilate these arguments. Allow democracy to do its job.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (16:39): The member for West Torrens is happy to go around this building saying that he runs the place. He is happy to behave with extraordinary behaviours within this chamber. I am glad that the government—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —earlier today decided to allow him to have that excuse—

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens has never said that; he wouldn't dare.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —for an apology earlier to the offence of obstruction against the house that he committed to be accepted.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Try to.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: We actually had nothing to fear from what he might possibly say today, and he has shown the reason for that to be true. Any possible reason upon which—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —a suspension of standing orders could possibly be made must start with a reasonable—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for West Torrens, you have had your go. Let's hear the reply.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —case being made. The member for West Torrens made a series of assertions over his 10 minutes that were just figments of his imagination, an expression of the bullying behaviour he takes towards individuals in this chamber—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —and in this building, things that he would never say outside, because he is smart enough to know that that is just not something he could do, that speech he just made. He spent about a minute and a half talking about anti-corruption officers—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —within the South Australian police force, a group of people whom he says has been working hard and investigating this matter.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: They have.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The member for West Torrens makes an assertion.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my left! It is chewing into the time.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The member for West Torrens makes an assertion that is not contained in the ministerial statement made by the minister today, that is not provided in the information to the government. The person who is saying this, making this case—

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Leader, please!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —is the member for West Torrens. He has not established it. He is making up the case. He is asserting as fact things that have in no way been established. I know the member for West Torrens is very embarrassed as he wanted to get the Attorney-General—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Lee!

Mr Duluk interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Waite, be quiet.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —to the point of putting forward her case. The Attorney-General was very happy to do that and she sought leave to do that, and the member for West Torrens said no. The member for West Torrens declined to allow the Attorney-General to explain all these facts in front of everybody. The member for West Torrens—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —is the one who has been encouraging leave to be withdrawn. There was only one voice and his was the voice. The member for West Torrens is familiar with matters relating to corruption investigations. The member for West Torrens is familiar with ministerial responsibilities. He may well be the expert in some things, but that does not mean that he is not making things up in this circumstance.

He has a set of experiences relating to the matters, but he has cast aspersions on the Attorney-General, he has cast aspersions on the DPP and he has cast aspersions on the Commissioner of Police. All those opposite say that these are facts, but if they put them in a tweet and send them out, then I will encourage them to reflect on that sort of behaviour. If they say them out there, then I encourage them to reflect. This is why it is the generosity of the government to allow—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —the member for West Torrens, whose behaviour would not be allowed in any other workplace in the community, to continue behaving the way he does. He can stay in here this afternoon to put forward the so-called case that he just has. He has failed to make a case as to why there should be a motion. He has failed to make a case as to why there should be a suspension of standing orders. The referral of prosecution, facing charges—all these terms used by those opposite—are not terms that have been put forward. There has been a question, an assessment of a matter and there has been a—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Those opposite were talking about referral for prosecution. It is just not true. They have made it up. There is a question of assessment of a matter.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Members on my left, I have allowed a tolerable amount of political argy-bargy, but I will ask members to depart if this behaviour continues.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: There is a ministerial statement, which updates the house—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —as to the matters in question. It was provided this afternoon. It was offered to be read out. Those opposite did not want it read out. They did not want to talk about it before question time—

Dr Close interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Deputy leader, please! He will be over soon.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: They are embarrassed about it and I would be embarrassed, too, if I were them, because they refused to allow the matter to be put forward clearly earlier. Now they realise they made a mistake and they have asked for it to be brought on again. They had their chance for a discussion; they declined it earlier. They have failed to make a case and this motion—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: We allowed the member for West Torrens to talk unimpeded for 10 minutes during which he made up—

The SPEAKER: I would not go that far.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Mostly unimpeded for 10 minutes.

The SPEAKER: Yes. If this continues, I will be asking members to leave. They can come back for the vote.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: He failed to make the case. He made up a lot of stuff. He certainly does not deserve the priority of this house for the suspension of standing orders. He now seeks to obstruct the house again. He is now seeking to obstruct the house for the second time in a day.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: Minister for Education, sit down. You should sit down. Member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No member can accuse a member of misleading the parliament without a substantive motion, sir.

The SPEAKER: I do not think he said 'misleading the parliament'. He said you had made up a whole heap of stuff.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Please stop the clock. If this continues, I am going to ask the member for West Torrens and the Minister for Primary Industries to step out until the vote. Let's get on with it. There are five minutes left. The Minister for Education has the call.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The case has not been made. The house's time has been wasted long enough by the member for West Torrens. It is time to say no to him.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 21

Noes 24

Majority 3

Motion thus negatived.