Motions

Privileges Committee

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (11:02): Mr Speaker, good of you to join us today.

The SPEAKER: Happy to be here.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I move:

That this house establish a privileges committee to examine the allegations set out in Hansard by the member for West Torrens on 12 February in this house regarding the Premier and investigate whether the Premier deliberately misled the house as therein alleged.

I believe that on 12 February the Premier of South Australia deliberately misled the parliament. I am moving a motion in this place to establish a privileges committee to investigate the Premier's wilful and reckless action. I suspect that members opposite will not allow that to occur. I suspect that members will use their majority to stop it, but I am going to lay out an argument that I think proves without question that the Premier deliberately and intentionally misled the parliament. Why? To make a cheap political point.

The question we have to ask ourselves as parliamentarians is: does it matter what is said in this place? Does it matter if something is said in this place in error? If it is said in error without malice and not deliberately, without the intent of misleading the parliament and interrupting the business of the house, then the appropriate and cordial thing to do is to come into the parliament and correct the record by saying, 'I said this in error, and I apologise to the house,' because—as you would know, Mr Speaker, when you claimed our ancient rights and privileges from Her Majesty The Queen—this parliament is supreme and no-one is above it.

On 12 February, the member for Croydon, the Leader of the Opposition, asked this of the Premier in a supplementary question:

…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 SC. With your leave, Mr Speaker, and that of the house I will explain.

Leave was granted. The member for Croydon goes on to say:

The royal commissioner states, on pages 414 and 415 of his report, and I quote:

'…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.'

In response to that supplementary question from the Leader of the Opposition to the Premier, this was the honourable Premier of South Australia's response to the House of Assembly—not to the member for Croydon, not to the opposition, but to all of us combined, the parliament, which is supreme in this land. The Premier says: 'There was, sir, and most of it incorrect because,' and then there are interjections, probably from me. I go on to quote the Premier: 'If there's just some chance I might be able to answer the question,' probably again because I was interjecting. The Premier goes on to say:

…I can explain to those opposite. The Leader of the Opposition said, 'Will you rule out the recommendation of the royal commissioner?'

The Premier then says: 'This was not a recommendation of the royal commissioner.' This is the Hansard. The Premier then goes on to say about the Leader of the Opposition:

And now the guy who wants to be the leader thinks it was a finding…the reality was…I know those opposite, busy with those by-elections—

this is what he said—

had no chance to actually read a report that was so critical to our state…

These are the Premier's words about us asking the Premier a question about a recommendation. He goes on to say 'nor the Australian Productivity Commission report'. Then he claims, 'We did.' Meaning probably the royal 'we', as in himself. He goes on to say, 'The reality is that there are 111 findings.' The Premier says, 'We have read it: 111 findings; none of them related to that issue.' Then he says, 'There were dozens of recommendations; none of them related to that issue.' Then he bellowed out to the parliament, 'Read the report.'

There is a slight problem for the Premier. On page 62 of the royal commission report, under Key Findings, 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 agreed.

That is Key Findings. Further, at page 73, under Responses to Terms of Reference, Key Findings and Recommendations, the royal commission makes recommendation number 11, and I quote:

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.

Well, so much for the Premier's statement to the parliament. In the royal commission report, that is there in black and white, but the Premier told the parliament, 'Never happened. Fake news.'

Mr Speaker, as I told the parliament on the day—and I asked you—I believe that the Premier has deliberately and intentionally misled the parliament and that a prima facie case does exist for the establishment of a privileges committee. I asked the Speaker to give a ruling on that matter and I believe he felt, if I can paraphrase his advice, that he could not give a prima facie case on the basis of the precedent set previously in the parliament but he left it for the house to decide.

It is always very difficult for a Speaker who is attempting to maintain order in the house, retaining our ancient rights and privileges, but who is also a loyal member of the Liberal Party—not that that takes precedence over his role here. I think he attempts as best he can to maintain his independence but, ultimately, finding a prima facie case against the Premier would have been big news—big news—and I do not think the Speaker was prepared to do that without the support of his colleagues.

The question now is whether it is okay for the Premier to get up to make a cheap political point on something that is not true and not accurate and, if it is not, is it a hanging offence? It is not a hanging offence if he comes in afterwards and says, 'Actually, Mr Speaker, I got that wrong. Actually, Mr Speaker, I should correct that.' I also go on to say that this is not the only time the traditions of the parliament have been trampled by this Premier. We had another example where the Premier wanted to have a debate in the parliament on a matter, I think because the Premier was attempting to cover for his Minister for Water—

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order: the member is straying from relevance in relation to the matter of privilege that is currently before the house.

The SPEAKER: I think, for context, I will allow the member for West Torrens some scope here to compare and contrast what is before us, but I appreciate the minister's point of order and I will be listening very carefully.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The point I am attempting to make is that the pairing system has been established in the parliament since its inception. It is an important process. It has been abandoned because the Premier broke a pair, with his Government Whip and his Manager of Government Business complicit, for three hours of benefit for the government.

Now, misleading the parliament, 'Oh, well, it was good in a debate in a question time to fire up the troops. What does it matter if I don't tell the truth? What does it matter if I say it wasn't a recommendation when it was? Does it really matter?' Yes, it does. Why? Because he is the Premier and when the Premier speaks to the House of Assembly we expect it to be with authority.

These are the two options the Premier has: either he deliberately misled the parliament or he is incompetent. I am happy for him to choose either one. I prefer the first one, I prefer that he lied, I prefer that he misled the parliament deliberately to win a debating point rather than being so incompetent that he has not read one of the most important royal commission reports delivered to the parliament. If the second is true, that he has not read the report, then that is a dereliction of duty.

I just point out that the clock has stopped, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much to the Clerk; I will enjoy the extra minute or so in the debate, but I am happy to take a minute off if you like, sir, to be fair.

It really begs the question now of what we do as a parliament, what we do as an opposition when this occurs. Let's face it, when we asked this question the Premier was well within his rights to say, 'Look, I'm not responding ad hoc to recommendations or findings of the royal commission. I will do this in an orderly way. I will respond to all the recommendations of the royal commission in due time after a cabinet process, after a consultation process, after consulting with my colleagues, with the irrigators, with the entire South Australian community, and I will make a decision.' End of story. Instead, the Premier chose a path to attempt to win a debating point with the Leader of the Opposition and fell flat on his face.

So we as an opposition are left with two options: do we raise it, hoping that perhaps members opposite will put some pressure on the Premier to get things right, hoping that perhaps the parliament will have some self-respect and say that we cannot have anyone mislead us in this parliament, or do we allow the majority of the parliament to allow anyone in the majority to do and say as they please?

Premiers have lost their job for less in this place and the reason they have, fairly or unfairly, is because of where it is said. If the Premier had said this in a press conference, there would have perhaps been one day of embarrassment, perhaps one radio article of a journalist pointing out that the Premier got that wrong, but in here words matter. In here, responses to questions matter. Without trying to labour the point, question time is one of the key aspects of our representative democracy.

The Westminster system is the only system of government in the world that has its executive as part of its elected legislature that is required to attend and answer questions of the people. As a head of state, the President of the United States does not have to walk into any elected chamber and answer any questions. Here, our executive representing the Crown is required to answer questions and, moreover, they are required to answer truthfully. If you cannot answer truthfully you do not say anything at all. So did the Premier do it deliberately and does it matter?

Let's look at the precedents set out by the Speaker. Did it disrupt the management of the house? Yes. Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition was told by Her Majesty's government that the royal commissioner made no such finding when plainly it is true. How can we possibly act when there is conflict between the executive and the royal commissioner on a finding in the royal commission report? Who do we believe? The Crown or the royal commission? Of course, we have to believe the royal commissioner because the royal commissioner has published his report, the government has tabled it in the parliament and it is there in black and white.

However, the Premier tells us the opposite. I can only assume that it was deliberately said to attempt to misguide the house, misguide the opposition and disrupt question time to win a cheap political point. Members opposite will not support my motion because they will protect their Premier. They will put their own political interests ahead of the parliament. They will put their own political interests of not embarrassing the Premier ahead of what should have occurred.

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: There is a point of order, member for West Torrens.

Mr TEAGUE: Standing order 127(2): I heard the member for West Torrens reflecting earlier on the motives of you, Mr Speaker, and I hesitated to get my feet. He has now reflected on numerous occasions, most recently a moment ago, imputing improper motives—

The SPEAKER: Imputing improper motives to members.

Mr TEAGUE: —to members on this side of the house.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Heysen. I have the point of order and I thank you for raising it; however, given the type of motion that this is, I am prepared to give the member for West Torrens a little bit of scope. Thank you.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sir, for the good order of the house I withdraw that imputation.

The SPEAKER: Thank you.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Perhaps members opposite will vote for this privileges motion and participate in it. We can call the Premier before the committee and ask him questions about why he said it and whether he had briefing notes that said—

Mr Brown: It could have been a mistake.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It could have been an honest mistake. He could have had a parliamentary briefing note that said it was not a recommendation perhaps, or it was wilful misleading.

Of course, the government will not allow the Premier to appear before a committee. We cannot call him before an upper house committee, nor should we. No member of this house should ever appear before an upper house committee because, well, why should they? It would be outrageous. But he is answerable to this house, and the question is: do we let the tyranny of the majority impose their tyranny on the minority? The answer to that is no.

Mr Brown: It's democracy.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is democracy, the rule of law. Hansard has stated that clearly, as has the Magna Carta. In the end, we have all taken an oath. The question then becomes: what do we say about the Premier saying that there was not such a recommendation when there clearly was? How does anyone reconcile those two opposing statements, other than it being wilfully misleading?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (11:19): I thank the member for West Torrens for his contribution. It started out as Charles 'Bud' Tingwell and then descended to Dennis Denuto at the end, but it was something to listen to.

The SPEAKER: It was on last night, too.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: All members may be interested to know that there was indeed a personal explanation by the Premier on 13 February. The member for West Torrens argues that the Premier deliberately and intentionally misled the parliament to make a cheap political point and suggests that there was a clear statement by the Premier. He paraphrased the Premier to suggest and characterise what that statement was and then identified findings and recommendations in the royal commission that might lead to a contradiction, if indeed his characterisation of what the Premier said was accurate. I would characterise his characterisation as potentially, characteristically, wrong.

The fact is that when the Premier made an explanation of his references to our recommendations and findings, what he was referring to was not necessarily what the member for West Torrens would, conveniently for his argument, suggest it was. There was indeed a lengthy explanation to the Leader of the Opposition's questions, as there was for a time, to a number of members' questions.

The member for West Torrens talked at length; in fact, he quoted. He talked about the interjections that were being made at the time. The possibility that he can see inside the Premier's mind to know that he was definitely talking about the specific thing that would be convenient to his arguments is completely fallacious.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The question was broad. The question, indeed, contained an explanation as well, and the member for West Torrens admitted before that he himself was guilty—guilty, I tell you—of interjecting during the Premier's response. Unparliamentary as it is to respond to interjections, it sometimes happens. It is not the foundation on which to build a case for an alleged breach of privilege, which indeed has not happened here.

The member for West Torrens provided context about the pairing disagreement between the government and the opposition. I rejoin only briefly in that unfortunate disagreement to remind the house of the clear record from Don Dunstan onwards, which the Opposition Whip described as 'fairy stories', where the idea that—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —absolute majority votes do not indeed—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —and as relating to constitutional matters, absolute majority votes do not indeed get treated in the same way. Last year, I acknowledge, the member for Playford found one occasion, and I think there were a couple of others, where pairs were acknowledged on those occasions but they did not need to be. That is my point. It was not brought to anyone's attention because the matter had not arisen.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

An honourable member: You make it up as you go along.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: That is just not true, but we will move on because the point the member for West Torrens sought to make by bringing that into the matter, which they claimed was relevant for the sake of context—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: You made it relevant in your claim to the house.

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Lee, please.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Sorry, I do not know what the member for Lee is talking about.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The member for Lee has distracted me from the course, which was to remind the house that the member for West Torrens' purpose, as claimed, in bringing this matter into his speech was to suggest that there was a context of misleading going on related to the Premier's statements on the Murray-Darling Basin.

The very fact that the member for West Torrens felt that that was relevant I think underlines the weakness in his case for a breach of privilege. The opposition can make their claims. Oppositions are sometimes wont to do so. Sometimes opposition is a frustrating time for members of parliament. I am sorry that you have not found the joy in your job that maybe you once did and that you are filling your days with this instead, but you are not assisting the house in a genuine way by bringing this motion. You are entitled to do so.

The reflection on the Speaker, indeed, in suggesting that it was a matter for the house and something unique to this finding in relation to privilege, was also possibly disingenuous because every Speaker's finding that I have ever seen on a question of privilege has always reminded the house that it is the entitlement of the house for any member to bring a motion and, indeed, for the house to make a finding such as the member for West Torrens seeks to do today. The member for West Torrens is entitled to seek time on the Notice Paper to make the speech he has this morning and to ask the parliament the question, and the parliament is entitled to say no.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (11:25): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to make a contribution on this most grave of matters. Mr Speaker, as you well know, unfortunately this is not an isolated incident, where a member of the house has had to draw the attention of the house to another member—indeed, a minister of the Crown—who has provided incorrect information to the house. There have not been one or two examples, or even three or four. In fact, if one is to cast their eye across the front bench of those sitting opposite, one sees every single member who has been—

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order: the member is completely straying from debate about the specific matter of privilege that is before the house today.

The SPEAKER: I gave the member for West Torrens some scope, in that Barcelona beat Liverpool 3-0 this morning, but I do take the point of order of the Minister for Education that, if the member for Lee starts outlining individual members and what they may have done or not done, that arguably deviates a little bit too far, so I ask him to return to the substance of the debate.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That is not my intention and certainly not what I will be providing to the house, but it is, as you ruled previously on the contribution by the member for West Torrens, important context for the substance of this matter and the substance of my comments to the house about the conduct of the member for Dunstan. We have seen seven of those opposite with this same allegation made against them. As the member for West Torrens has pointed out, there can be no more important responsibility—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —to this house than for any member to ensure the fidelity of the information they provide to this house.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Our job is one of two.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Education is warned—no, is called to order first.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: One is to represent the interests of our constituencies as best we can, which often requires the provision of information to the house about what is going on outside this place, and the accurate information that is provided to this house is important for this house to consider the matters that are raised by those members.

There are a number of members who have additional responsibilities and they, not exclusively but in particular, are those ministers of the Crown who have broader responsibilities than the rest of us. They are responsible to this place for answering for their own actions in the conduct of their duties as ministers, as well as the conduct for those areas of government to which they are responsible in this place.

When we see what can only be regarded, certainly by members on this side, as a relatively casual relationship with these responsibilities by some of those opposite, which leads members, like the member for West Torrens, like me and like the member for Playford to have to draw the attention of the house to the sort of behaviour that we see the Premier, the member for Dunstan, engage in, it is deeply troubling for this place to understand whether we are able to conduct the business of this place as far as is intended.

This goes to the heart of what a breach of privilege means for the conduct of the business of this house. You, sir, have ruled time and again, when presented with information from members raising matters of privilege, and presumably when provided information from those against whom those allegations have been made, that in your view you could, for example, see that there is a genuine difference of opinion or that you do not quite agree with the point being made by those raising the issue.

But the context here cannot be disputed. We have a royal commission report that has been tabled in the house. The royal commissioner makes both a finding and a recommendation about the conduct of a minister of the Crown. He makes a recommendation about what amelioration should occur by that minister or by the government to remedy what has been done by that minister.

In the one hour of the parliamentary sitting day that is allotted to all members to ask questions, principally of ministers of the Crown, about how they have been discharging their duties, the Premier, the first and foremost amongst ministers, stands up and provides incorrect information to this place.

If the assertion is that there was no such finding made—which is what the member for Dunstan, the Premier, said—and we know that the finding has been directly about the conduct of the Minister for Water, that is not only clearly misleading but also serves to obstruct every other member of this place from being able to fully interrogate the issue raised in the report of the royal commission. That is an obstruction of the house. There can be no question about it.

I would put to those opposite, particularly those sitting one row back, what this means for them. If they cannot rely on the information that their colleagues are providing to this place while they have a grave expectation of the fidelity of the information they have to provide to this parliament, if they cannot rely on their colleagues to do the right thing when it is ultimately expected of them in the parliament, how on earth can they rely on them outside of the parliament?

That is why this matter is important to all those members who are sitting one row back or more from the front bench. It should not just be a matter of saying, 'I can understand some of the issues that have been raised by the members for West Torrens and Lee but, you know, he's our Premier.' I think that he probably did not do it deliberately, but the context of this cannot be disputed.

We had a government seeking to protect the actions of the Minister for Water, who was found by a royal commissioner to have sold this state out with regard to its water entitlement, and when the member for Dunstan, the Premier, was asked a question about it he tried to tell this place that there was no such finding. We know there was a finding. We know there was a finding because it was there in black and white. That is a clear attempt to obstruct the business of this house.

It is not as if the member for West Torrens, or even I, had come in here and raised a matter of privilege because in the last sitting week, when I asked the member for Dunstan a question about employment figures, he got the wrong participation rate. We have not sought to trip him up on some technicality, that he said 60-something and it was actually 60-something else. It was not just a figure that he inadvertently got wrong. This is a serious attempt to disrupt the business of the house.

There can be no better reason for this parliament to establish a privileges committee to further investigate this, to understand what the Premier actually did know before he came into this place and gave that advice to the house, whether he had actually read the report and whether he had received briefing material, either from his own department or from the Minister for Water's department or indeed from the Minister for Water, about what was in the report.

As the member for West Torrens said, maybe this is just an accident caused through ignorance. If that is the case, then perhaps the privileges committee established by the house would show some mercy to the Premier. However, if it turns out, for example, that the Premier had been provided a full briefing on the findings and recommendations of the royal commissioner, if it turns out that the cabinet submission to which the Premier referred in his other responses to this house, where cabinet discussed and considered the matter and made a particular decision, had canvassed all these matters and that he was fully cognisant of what was in the royal commission's report and what the findings and recommendations were, that is a most serious offence against the house, and that is the context in which a privileges committee should be established.

I would urge all those opposite to think very, very carefully before they make a decision on how they vote on this matter because if a privileges committee is not worthy of being formed on this sort of matter, well, just how grave does the offence to the house have to be for one to be established? Just how much more badly do the rights and obligations of this place need to be trampled on by the first and foremost amongst us, the Premier of this state? I would urge all those opposite to support the establishment of this committee.

Mr BROWN (Playford) (11:35): It is a pleasure to rise on this very important motion put by my colleague the member for West Torrens. When we all entered into this place, we all made an oath right there. This is not merely—

The SPEAKER: For some, an affirmation.

Mr BROWN: Sorry, or an affirmation, depending on people's particular bent. This is not merely a room in which a bunch of people who represent one political party or another gather to debate things. This is the Parliament of South Australia. We all have an obligation not only to our own parties and those people who have put us here but also to each other and to the parliament as an institution, and there can be no greater breach of the obligations we have to each other than to give wilfully incorrect information to this chamber.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members to my right!

Mr Cregan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Kavel has been doing it all morning, and he is called to order.

Mr BROWN: The member for Kavel might think it is a funny, laughing matter, but I can assure you that I do not.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr BROWN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Whether the Premier has presented incorrect information to this house is without doubt; I am sure my colleagues have very forcefully and correctly put this view. What we need to determine is whether it was wilful or whether it was accidental.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Minister for Education, please.

Mr BROWN: Are you quite finished? Thank you. Whether it was wilful or whether it was accidental can only be established by a privileges committee of this parliament examining the issue.

An honourable member interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr BROWN: For us to gather here and just accept the standard that says, 'Well, if you're the government you can do what you like,' is the height of arrogance and is exemplified not only by the attitude of the minister to this particular motion but also by his casual reference to the pairs arrangements earlier in his speech, when he said, 'Actually, you know what? You might have had some examples that showed that I was wrong, but anyway, we're the government; we do what we want.'

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr BROWN: You would know all about that, wouldn't you?

The SPEAKER: Let's get on with it, please.

Mr BROWN: What we need in this place is a privileges committee to establish whether the Premier deliberately misled the house or not. If you just accept this again as another example of where ministers say what they want and, if they get it wrong, 'Oh, we got it wrong. Who cares? Let's move on,' then the standards in this place will drop, and that will be a responsibility that this government has to wear.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (11:38): I would like to thank everyone for their contribution, especially that of the Manager of Government Business, which I think, quite frankly, was another example of the arrogance that has crept into this government within its first 13 months.

When I was fortunate enough to have a commission to serve as a minister, after every question time the pressure from the premier's office down to correct the record if we made an error, even an inadvertent error, was strong. Why? Because we had been here in this place from 1997 to 2002 when a number of people lost their job because they made remarks in the parliament that were inaccurate.

I have to say, a strong crossbench, a minority parliament, kept this parliament accountable. The deputy premier lost his job and the premier lost his job. Why? Because they said things to this house that were not true. What is said in this house matters. The question is: does it matter to members opposite? I commend the motion to the house.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 16

Noes 24

Majority 8

Motion thus negatived.