Matter of Privilege

Pairing Arrangements

Mr BROWN (Playford) (14:00): I rise on a matter of privilege. Yesterday, during the grievance debate regarding pairing arrangements, the Leader of Government Business said:

The government's view was then and remains now that the pairing conventions that have been operating in this house for decades and that have been applied as far as I am aware since I have been here—although the question has rarely arisen—do not apply to votes that require an absolute majority of 24 members any more than they do for quorums.

The Leader of Government Business also quoted no less a personage than Don Dunstan to illustrate his assertion that pairing arrangements have never applied to votes requiring absolute majorities. The Leader of Government Business also said in respect to the question of whether pairing arrangements applied of votes requiring an absolute majority:

To my and the government's understanding, the application has always considered a suspension of standing orders.

Following yesterday's contribution from the Leader of Government Business, I was curious to look at previous votes that require an absolute majority of this house and whether it was correct that pairing arrangements have not applied, as was asserted by the Leader of Government Business, to votes on the suspension of standing orders.

On 3 May 2018—indeed, the first sitting day of this parliament and the first vote in which the Leader of Government Business operated in that role—the Leader of Government Business moved that standing orders be suspended in order for him to change the sessional orders. This motion required an absolute majority. A division was then required. The then member for Cheltenham was unable to be present in the parliament, and a pair was requested by the opposition and granted by the government. Hansard shows that the then member for Cheltenham was paired for this vote with the Premier.

Clearly, it was the view of the government at this time that a pair should be honoured in the vote on a motion to suspend standing orders, yet the Leader of Government Business, with complete knowledge of what occurred on that day, yesterday asserted the opposite had always occurred in this house.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order: the member is presenting that there is a question of privilege in respect of misrepresentation. That does not give the member the opportunity to come in and make a speech about his rebuttal in relation to a proposal.

The SPEAKER: I have the point of order. I respectfully ask the Attorney-General to sit down. I will listen to the member for Playford. I can see it is only a one pager. I will listen to the end of it and I will make a decision.

Mr BROWN: In my opinion, there can be no graver offence than a man who has responsibility for the government business in this house providing information on the operation of this house to members—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I have taken matters of privilege, at least listened to them on both sides of the house, with some scope. I will listen to the entirety of the matter and I will bring an adjudication back to the house.

Mr BROWN: I will start that paragraph again. In my opinion, there can be no graver offence than a man who has responsibility for the government business in this house providing information on the operation of this house to members which is incorrect. It can only be seen as impeding or obstructing the house in the discharge of its duties by misrepresenting the conventions of this house and government policy.

Therefore, I submit that a prima facie case exists for the establishment of a privileges committee. I ask that you give consideration to this matter of privilege and rule if a motion to establish a privileges committee should be given precedence over other business in the House of Assembly.

The SPEAKER: I understand the matter that has been raised by the member for Playford. I ask him to provide me all relevant details that were covered in his deliberation, and I will come back to the house at the first available opportunity to notify the house whether I consider the matter to, prima facie, be a matter of privilege.