Parliamentary Privilege

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (15:59): Parliamentary privilege is something that we, as parliamentarians, should all fight for and cherish. It is something that is granted to very few Australians. In the commonwealth parliament, in the House of Representatives, about only 1,200 people have had the benefit of parliamentary privilege and there have been even fewer in the Senate. In this place, there has been a slightly longer period of assembly and slightly longer periods of privilege, but privilege has been something that we have fought for. Of course, with privilege comes responsibility.

I was stunned today, Mr Speaker, to hear your opening statement before question time, and I make no reflection on you or your rulings, other than through the appropriate methods that standing orders allow. On Tuesday, the member for King made some rather remarkable accusations, I would say, about members of the House of Assembly, which led to the Speaker making a statement to this house basically, I think, verifying those statements.

I attempted today to ask questions. The Speaker ruled that questions of members regarding statements they have made in this house they are no longer responsible for, which I think is a unique situation in our Westminster parliamentary democracy, but I accept that ruling.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Point of order: I believe the member is reflecting on your decisions.

The SPEAKER: It is a fine line, minister, but I am prepared to allow the member for West Torrens to get it off his chest. If I would like to respond, I will, but thank you, minister.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am not getting it off my chest, Mr Speaker. I am simply stating a fact that we are now the only parliament in the federation that says parliamentarians are not responsible for statements they make to the house.

Those statements were extraordinary. Attempting to link the scourge of family violence to behaviour in this chamber to make a partisan political point, which was then reinforced, I think demeans us all. In fact, I will go further. If the member for King is prepared to back up those statements, she should walk out of this parliament, without the protection of privilege, and make those statements again and accuse her colleagues in this house of the very thing she has accused them of here under privilege—of threatening behaviour, of feeling unsafe in the chamber while the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker or his representatives are in the Chair.

I have never once seen a member threatened in this parliament. Indeed, the house is established with a blood line to ensure the safety and protection of parliamentarians, but apparently the member for King has evidence—I have not seen that evidence—evidence that is so overwhelming that it led the Speaker to make something of it today.

The member for King said that people in this chamber thump the table. Well, thumping the table is the only accepted practice we have to show acceptance of a matter, but she says it has been done in a threatening way. I have never seen that once in this parliament. She also mentioned non-verbal behaviour—whatever that means—such as indicating hanging or slitting throats when a person is speaking. Most alarmingly, this disrespectful behaviour is occurring when there are large groups of children sitting in the gallery. Who is thinking of the children? Apparently, not the opposition.

I think these accusations are completely offensive to the house and the good governance of the house. They are a poor and immature way of making your point, but the member for King has provided no evidence to the house—none. I was not in the chamber when she made these accusations, otherwise I would have risen to my feet and asked her to withdraw.

I have been here for 22 years. There has been robust debate across the chamber, but I have never seen a Liberal MP, a Labor MP or an Independent MP threaten anyone. Every member who comes to this house comes to this house with the best of intentions. Every member who comes to this house comes wanting to do the right thing by their community, but the member for King has passed judgement on all of us because she claims these things have occurred, yet provides no evidence.

Making these accusations under privilege is scurrilous and cowardly. The member for King should make them outside this chamber and name the people and provide the appropriate evidence that these things have occurred. I would be fascinated to know what process anyone has gone through to try to verify these things before any statements were made to the house, but of course we will not ask any questions of that. No member in this house has acted disrespectfully. I have never seen it and we have rules to govern the house.