Parliamentary Procedure

Speaker's Ruling, Dissent

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (14:57): I move:

That the Speaker's ruling be disagreed to.

The SPEAKER: It is moved. It is a 10-minute debate.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Sir, it is with the greatest reluctance that I find myself in this position making this point—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —to the house. Over the last two days, we have had members who have been asked questions who do not usually receive questions, starting with you, sir. It is highly unusual, although not unprecedented, for a Speaker to be asked a question in this place, and you in answering that question, or indeed those questions, obviously took the view under standing order 96 that you were sufficiently responsible to the house for that matter and you furnished the house with answers. Certainly, that was much appreciated by the opposition.

At the commencement of question time today, sir, unsolicited and unexpected and pursuant to the regular order of business at the commencement of question time, you made statements reflecting on a contribution that the member for King had made, and I would put it to you, sir, elevating that to a matter of public interest by introducing those comments, or further commenting on the member for King's contribution at the beginning of question time, arguably, perhaps, the most public of all of our proceedings during the course of a parliamentary sitting day.

And then further questions were put today to members who are not ministers, pursuant in the mind of the opposition to standing order 96, starting with the member for King, about the basis of the comments that she made earlier in the week, and then my question (in the singular) that I asked the member for Hammond, again clearly about a matter of public interest, and that is the dishonouring of a pair agreement, which is a very, very significant convention of any parliament.

Indeed, I am aware of only one other Australian jurisdiction where this has occurred. This occurred in Victoria, where the then leader of the opposition, Mr Matthew Guy, dishonoured a pair agreement reached with the Andrews government. That was such a matter of public interest that it was reported in Victorian newspapers. Not only was it reported in Victorian newspapers but it was such a matter of public interest that the Premier of South Australia retweeted the fact that his Liberal colleague had undertaken this action in the Victorian parliament.

So I put it to you that questions regarding the member for King's comments and questions regarding the granting or dishonouring of a pair agreement are in the public interest, sir. It is not so much that the opposition and I question your ruling about whether a member is responsible to the house for answering those questions, but it is the inconsistency in the treatment, sir, of your rulings, between your choice to answer the questions put to you and your decision on the rulings not to allow the answering of the questions by the members for King and Hammond that so aggrieves us.

As I said at the commencement of my contribution on this matter, it is with a heavy heart and great reluctance that I find myself doing this because, unfortunately, towards the conclusion of this parliamentary sitting week things have become so significant and so grave that we feel on this side that we must draw a line in the sand because this seems to be a growing pattern of behaviour, where we feel, sir, on this side that we do not receive equal treatment from you when it comes to the interpretation of standing orders on this side.

I raise this matter of dissent, and I do so in preference for raising this grievance in any other form according to standing orders. Let me make that clear—that I have chosen this way rather than either of the other avenues available to the opposition to raise a grievance about this. It has become clear to us, through this pattern of behaviour principally around the conduct of question time, that we do not receive the same treatment on this side of the chamber as those do opposite. Only earlier today, sir, during the course of question time did we have you exercise your authority under standing orders to complain about the member for West Torrens providing commentary during the receipt of a point of order from those opposite.

In the 15 or so months since the last state election, there has rarely been a point of order made in this place without additional commentary made principally by the member for Morialta and, failing that, the member for Bragg. You have never taken umbrage at that, sir. You have never taken umbrage at that, let alone disciplined a member to the extent where you felt that they needed to leave the chamber. That is clearly iniquitous, sir—that is clearly iniquitous.

I appreciate your making the point to us earlier that you would like to see better conduct in this place, particularly during the course of question time, as we all would, sir, and I am sure you would see it if we were all treated equally. But the fact is that you only need to look back at some of the statistics that can be borne out of question time to note that it is a regular occurrence for the majority of question time to be given over to the asking and the answering of government questions rather than opposition questions. That understandably chafes at members on this side of the chamber.

We have one hour per day of parliamentary time to hold the government of the day to account, and when half that time or more—and, indeed, going back to last year, in May it was 43 minutes—of the hour of question time was dedicated to the asking and answering of government questions, we are unable to do our job properly. We are prevented from doing our job properly, and when we are removed from the—

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order, sir.

The SPEAKER: There is a point of order. Member for Lee, be seated. The member for Heysen.

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order: pursuant to the standing order 135, paragraph 1—

The SPEAKER: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: —if a member elects to adopt a course of this nature, the member ought do so at once and identify the decision to which he has dissented. What has emerged in the course—

The SPEAKER: I believe, respectfully, the member for Lee has done that, member for Heysen.

Mr TEAGUE: What has emerged in the course of the remarks of the member for Lee is that this matter has been premeditated. It appears to have been caucused—

The SPEAKER: Member for Heysen, with all respect, that is a bogus point of order and you can leave. But if there is a vote, obviously any member who is ejected can come back for a vote, but you can leave for the remainder of question time.

The honourable member for Heysen having withdrawn from the chamber:

The SPEAKER: Member for Lee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I gratefully appreciate your making that particular ruling because certainly when points of order or contributions have been made by members opposite in all contexts of the proceedings of a parliamentary day, whether it is during the time of the making of a point of order, whether it is the asking of a question, whether it is making a second reading contribution, or whether it is even during the committee stage of a bill, those on this side of the chamber are constantly subject to bogus points of order.

The remedy for that meted out by your predecessor, the former member for Croydon, was just the punishment that you meted out to the member for Heysen, yet in my mind, in my recollection, this is the first time that we have seen that. It does not feel that we are getting equal treatment on this side of the chamber—at least until this occasion, until right now.

It may be of some comedy to those opposite to see members of the opposition repeatedly ejected under standing order 137A. It may even be a matter of some comedy for those opposite to see their colleague the member for Kavel ejected from this place under that same standing order. Combined with some of the other treatment that members of the opposition receive in this house—

The Hon. S.K. Knoll interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Transport, please.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —for example, during the time which is allocated to private members' motions and private members' business, repeatedly members of the opposition, except for the crossbench of course, having all their business almost every single day adjourned when it comes up for contributions in a manner—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —which I have never witnessed before—

The SPEAKER: Member for Lee, you are starting to digress.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, sir.

The SPEAKER: You are starting to digress.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —in near 16 years of my time in this place.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: So, Mr Speaker, contrary to the contribution from the member for Heysen, not only have I placed my motion of dissent on your ruling in context but I have placed it in the broader context of the treatment of members on this side of the chamber since the election.

It is no small matter of importance to us when we have to return to our electorates and explain to them why we have had minimal or no opportunity to raise the matters of import that they have sought us to raise because at every single juncture members opposite use whatever means possible to silence us and to use, unfortunately in this case, the powers of the Chair to ensure that we have little opportunity to do our job, either in holding the government to account or in representing our electorates.

That is why I ask all members now to draw this line in the sand, to make sure that we do not have a repeat of the behaviour on all sides that we have seen in the last week and to behave with a little more equity and a little more fairness and a little more reasonableness.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (15:08): Sir, your ruling was wise, of course, and the government supports your ruling and your continued role in the job of Speaker. I think you are doing a great job. I think that one of the key things that the member for Lee failed to do was make a case in relation to the specific ruling that was made just before. Instead, he spent almost all his time traversing a range of what he described as context grievances from the opposition. Therefore, in that spirit, I think it is reasonable that we reflect on some of the points he has raised that are slightly broader.

I want to start with this idea that he has done so with a heavy heart, this feigned reluctance, this appearance that he is so aggrieved—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: There is a point of order. Member for Lee, I did give you some scope. I hope that this point of order is a good one.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: He said that I made my remarks with a feigned sincerity. I take great offence at that. This is a most grave matter, which I have already made clear to the house I have raised with great reluctance.

The SPEAKER: I ask the minister to not personally reflect as heavily on the member for Lee.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I withdraw the term 'feigned'. I think I said 'feigned reluctance' or 'feigned sincerity'. At any rate, I withdraw whatever term it is that the member for Lee was clearly deeply personally offended by. I am very sorry for that offence. The fact is that the member for Lee said that he has been in this house for 16 years, and for many of those years he was obviously part of a government that was. When he was in Mr Foley's office, learning the standards of the house that Mr Foley thought were most appropriate, I am certain that he learned those lessons well at the feet of Mr Foley.

The line in the sand that the opposition so objects to is the fact that the Speaker today has said that the member for King raised some important points earlier in the week: the idea that standards in this house need to be raised, the idea that standing orders should be respected and the idea that the schoolchildren who come to observe us in this house should have role models and representatives in this house they can look up to and not be ashamed of, thinking, 'If my mates in the class were doing this, I wouldn't be very proud of them.'

That is the standard that is expected of us all as role models and members of parliament. That is the line in the sand that the member for Lee seems to be concerned that you wish us to stick to, sir. The member for Lee, and previously the member for West Torrens, expressed great concern that the member for King had suggested that behaviours in this house that she had seen demonstrated were of concern, without, to my recollection, identifying any specific member. I am sure that other people have witnessed those behaviours as well. I have certainly witnessed some of them over the years.

She did not make an accusation against a single member. She instead took the opportunity to call on us all to raise our standards, to reflect on behaviours and to ensure that our community can be proud of our conduct. As Speaker, sir, you have decided today to make a statement that raising standards is worthy, that standing orders are worthy of being considered, and you asked members on all sides of the house to reflect on that. I note that, during your comments, some members said that it was outrageous, or words to that effect, that you were asking for these things. You, sir, in an act of benevolence in my view, decided not to pull them up at that stage, although you would have been well within your rights to do so.

The member for Lee reflects on rulings of former Speaker Atkinson. I thought that Speaker Atkinson comported himself during his time in a manner that was certainly of interest. There were novel rulings. The term 'bogus point of order' I think has its genesis in rulings of Speaker Atkinson. I did not hear it under Speaker Breuer or others beforehand during my time in the house. Speaker Atkinson had an interesting time. Sometimes he would give the opposition 10 questions in a row and then the government of the day four questions in a row.

The question of how many questions we have had was brought up by the member for Lee. My notes say that the opposition has had 20 questions today. It is possible that I am off by one or two; a couple were ruled out of order of course. If they want to ask yes or no questions, then they are obviously going to get shorter answers, if that is the level of questioning that they wish to pursue. But the idea that somehow the time allocated for question time under this Speaker has been anything other than considerate to the opposition and the crossbenchers is absolutely laughable and does not stand the scrutiny of any comparison with previous regimes at all.

There were days when Speaker Atkinson would allow 10 questions. There were days when he would allow 35. There were days when he would give over the first half an hour of question time to the opposition and most of the second half to the government. Indeed, I fell foul of Speaker Atkinson on one occasion because I took umbrage at the idea that he had allowed what I thought were five or six questions in a row from the government. It turned out it had only been three or four in a row from the government at the time.

In my observation, the Speaker we have today has offered the opposition more or less three questions to every government question in a consistent fashion so that the opposition may prepare their question time accordingly. They may prepare their tactics without interference from the Speaker, without the Speaker deciding that he has a particular minister who he does not mind receiving more questions in a row than before.

I am sure that all former members of cabinet would have noticed that procedure. When certain ministers were under pressure, they maybe had fewer questions offered and certain ministers were allowed further questions, as long as those questions were to that minister. Some members observed this. From the opposition benches, we were potentially more concerned that some of our members would not be given the call at the callous whim of the Speaker if that was what he wanted to do. If we wanted to give the member for Unley a question, we tried to give him the top two or three questions to make sure that he would actually get that question in before the end of question time if we wanted to give him a run. Those were the ebbs and flows—the tides—of debate.

I quite enjoyed Speaker Atkinson's time in the chair. He and I had a mixed relationship. He threw me out quite a lot, but I did not take it personally because that was how the parliament was going. The fact that the member for Lee claims that the opposition has been unfairly treated does not bear scrutiny compared to previous parliaments.

You, sir, I think have been fair in your application. It hinges on one particular statement that the member for Lee made that I think bears further concern and that was his suggestion that disorderly behaviour has been equal between both sides of the house but the response to it has been unequal. I challenge that significantly because the opposition know in their heart of hearts that, when they come into this chamber, they are encouraged by their colleagues, I am sure, to be boisterous and rowdy. You see these orchestrated activities taking place. There are occasional interjections from government members—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —and sometimes members of the opposition say very, very funny things and people laugh. Sometimes people say shameful things and, in accordance with standing orders, people might say 'shame' or they might agree with something that is said and they say 'hear, hear'.

Sir, I have noted you call to order or warn government members when they have strayed from those standing orders, as you have for members of the opposition. The difference is that members of the opposition do so after almost every question that they ask; they do so repeatedly, and it seems sometimes that they do so in a coordinated fashion. Sometimes we have members who have written speeches. They put those speeches into interjections and then claim concern when they shout on the way out. Those are the behaviours that I think should be reined in and that you have been reining in, and I welcome the fact that you do so for government members as well as opposition members.

I dispute the suggestion that there has been any inconsistency in treatment. I think it is an outrageous suggestion and I do not think the facts bear it out, which brings us back to the ruling in question. The Speaker has determined that pairs are a private matter. That is a matter that is certainly my understanding of the case.

We researched the issues relating to whether public statements put on the record previously about constitutional votes requiring absolute majorities not attracting the same pairing arrangements any more than quorums have, combined with the fact that the federal Labor Party has written letters confirming that they do not consider absolute majorities—required votes—to be ones that pairs are relevant for. That was my understanding, to be very clear about the question.

It is one that has not been universally applied because sometimes, when the matter of whether the absolute majority or not would be determined by a pair has not been in question, the government has granted pairs on those occasions. There were a few last year that have been ventilated by the house. There was one that was brought up by the member for Playford and a few others that were identified.

My understanding, on the advice of the Clerk, is that standing orders are not relevant when it comes to pairs and that they are a private arrangement between the parties. It is obviously desirable if the parties can come to agreement on that, but at this stage we have not. We may in the future. We may not. That is a matter for those opposite, but for the moment the parliament is functioning and it is functioning well.

Those opposite are seeking to raise the temperature of the debate at every turn and I do not think you have seen that response from members of the government this week. I think members of the government this week have behaved to a standard that, whilst not perfect, has been, by and large, in accordance with standing orders. Most members of the opposition have done so as well, although some have not, and you have warned them or called them to order and, when necessary, applied sanctions under 137A. Sir, the government and I believe that your rulings have been fair, equitable and reasonable and should stand. We certainly oppose this self-serving motion.

The SPEAKER: The question, as I wrote it down, is that the ruling of the Speaker be disagreed to as it is inconsistent with previous examples. It has been moved by the member for Lee and it has been seconded.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 19

Noes 24

Majority 5

Motion thus negatived.