Matter of Privilege

Pairing Arrangements

The SPEAKER (17:15): Before I call the next speaker, I rise in relation to a privilege matter regarding the Leader of Government Business in relation to pairing. I refer to the matter of privilege raised earlier today in the house by the member for Playford. The member for Playford alleges that the Leader of Government Business has provided incorrect information on the operations of the house which has misrepresented the conventions of the house.

However, before addressing that matter I wish to outline the significance of privilege as it relates to this house and 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. McGee, to which I refer regularly, in Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand 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 or her 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 Playford where he asserts that the Leader of Government Business has provided incorrect information on the operation of the house and this can only be seen as allegedly impeding or obstructing the house in the discharge of its duties by misrepresenting the conventions of this house and government policy. In raising this matter of privilege, the member for Playford refers to the following statement made in the house yesterday by the Leader of Government Business.

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.

In asserting that the statement made by the Leader of Government Business was incorrect, the member for Playford referred to a division that took place in the house on 3 May 2018, on the suspension of standing orders to change the sessional orders. I quote the member for Playford:

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.

The member for Playford then goes on to say:

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.

While I note the apparent contradiction between the position proposed by the Leader of Government Business and the reality of what took place in respect to the division on 3 May 2018, I further note that, on that occasion, the government had sufficient numbers to reach an absolute majority without having to dispense with the pairing arrangement. Finally, I refer to Blackmore's Practice of the House of Assembly, at page 103:

The practice of 'pairing' on a Question is one which is resorted to…for mutual convenience…

There can be no Parliamentary recognition of this proceeding, which is [a] private arrangement…

Therefore, in the Chair’s view, I believe the information provided to the house by the Leader of Government Business could not be genuinely regarded as tending to impede or obstruct the house in the discharge of its duties.

Accordingly, I do not propose to give the matter precedence, which would enable any member to pursue this matter immediately, as a matter of privilege. However, my opinion does not prevent the member for Playford or any other member from proceeding with a motion on the specific matter by giving notice in the usual way.