Parliamentary Committees

Standing Orders Committee

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (15:52): I move:

That the first report of the committee be noted.

I will make some longer remarks when we get to the contingent notice of motion, assuming that the house is inclined to note this report, which is the usual practice, so I might limit my remarks on this part of the motion to that. I commend that we note the report.

Mr BROWN (Playford) (15:53): I am happy to support the noting of the first report of the Standing Orders Committee. I indicate that I do not support the change in standing or sessional orders that was considered by the committee, of which I am a member. I invite members to consider the report in detail. I invite them to consider the following questions when considering the report. From whom did the committee consider evidence? Were members surveyed on their views? Were former members who perhaps are experienced or have been experienced in estimates committees' processes asked their views?

As a member of the committee, I can perhaps provide the house with some information for the benefit of members. Firstly, no members of the estimates committee where the atrocities were alleged to have occurred were spoken to by the committee—not one. The committee did not even call you, Mr Deputy Speaker, who was the person who was alleged to need more tools to do their job properly.

The Minister for Transport, who was the one who was alleged to have been so traumatised by this experience that he requires extra protection, was also not spoken to by the committee. If no-one who was present on that fateful day was spoken to, then why did the committee feel the need to consider changing the standing or sessional orders at all? It was because the Attorney-General asked us to. This proposed amendment to standing orders has come about due to one thing and one alone, and that is the embarrassment of the Attorney-General of this state having potentially acted unlawfully as a result of her public comments following an estimates committee hearing. It was not her own hearing, mind you.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order: I was just thinking the member was imputing improper motive.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Playford, you will have to be very careful here. I do not think you should be casting aspersions on any particular member.

Mr BROWN: That was certainly not my intention, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It certainly was close to that.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: If she's taken offence, she can come in and express it to the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, member for Lee, there was a point of order raised by the Minister for Education. I am dealing with that. I am suggesting the member for Playford be very careful with how he phrases his comments.

Mr BROWN: Thank you. I am guided by your wisdom, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was not her own hearing, mind you, but that of the Minister for Transport. Having failed rather spectacularly in her last year's attempt at post-estimates spin, this year she has taken the view that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Any impartial observer of last year's estimates committee with the Minister for Transport would have concluded two things, in my opinion: firstly, that there was a passionate but respectful exchange between the member for West Torrens and the minister, with each being equal to their task; secondly, that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, were more than capable of using not only your considerable presence and skill but also standing orders to control proceedings to your satisfaction.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am blushing, member for Playford.

Mr BROWN: How do I know that you were up to the task, Mr Deputy Speaker? Because, with your years of experience in opposition, there could be no doubt that you are acutely aware that the Chair may suspend proceedings to restore order whenever they wish and that this causes the opposition to lose valuable questioning time. This is worth considering by members because the very reason we are told that the current standing and sessional orders need to be changed is that they are so deficient that you were unable to maintain a reasonable level of discussion during a particular estimates committee and that the rights of all of us now need to be diminished in order to restore a reasonable level of order.

If the existing rules contain enough provisions to properly maintain order, then why was the Standing Orders Committee asked to consider introducing a so-called 'sin bin rule' for estimates committees? We can only conclude that it is yet another attempt by this government to tighten its grip on this parliament to allow it to implement its agenda in the shadows without scrutiny. There has been some talk lately in this chamber of standards of behaviour and of setting an example. We on this side of the house will continue to question the government and to told it to account. We will continue to do so with passion and with respect. That is what our constituents expect us to do.

Some members opposite may have made the decision that their constituents expect them to meekly sit and wait to see if the Attorney-General and others in this government deign to give them information. That is a matter for them to answer to their constituents. I urge those opposite who still believe in robust questioning and those on the crossbench to stand up for their constituents and to oppose the attempt to amend standing orders.

Ms LUETHEN (King) (15:58): I rise to talk about the first report of the House of Assembly Standing Orders Committee on directing a member to withdraw from an estimates committee from June 2019. I would like to acknowledge the members of the Standing Orders Committee: the Chair, the Speaker, the honourable member for Hartley; the member for Newland; the member for Playford; the member for Kaurna; and the secretary to the committee, the Clerk of the House of Assembly.

I would like to provide some background to the standing orders to anyone who reads this speech, as I must say I had limited knowledge of the importance of these orders before becoming part of this house. The standing orders are the rules that are used to manage the work of the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council. These are rules that have developed over many years. The standing orders guide the way the chambers operate each day. The standing orders are a mechanism that we as members can call upon if a member of parliament disagrees with something that has happened in the chamber, as we can call a point of order.

This means drawing a specific standing order to the attention of the Speaker—for example, incessant interruptions, yelling, misleading statements, personal reflections and unparliamentary behaviour. The honourable Speaker then has the opportunity to interpret the point of order and decide if it is valid. The Clerk sometimes assists with this because they have detailed knowledge of the standing orders. It is important to note that a vote of the members of parliament in their chamber can change a standing order at any time and suspend standing orders for a period of time. This is where the Standing Orders Committee can play a key role.

From time to time, the Standing Orders Committee reviews and makes recommendations on the House of Assembly's standing orders. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, since its appointment the committee has met four times. This report relates to the application of standing order 137A, direction to leave the chamber, to the estimates committees. The committee received correspondence from the Deputy Premier (Hon. Vickie Chapman), dated 3 April 2019, inviting the committee to consider appropriate changes to the standing orders to address the behaviour of members in committees.

More specifically, the Deputy Premier was concerned about the recent behaviour of members in estimates committees and how standing order 137A, direction to leave the chamber, did not apply to estimates committees. The estimates committees work best when all members respect the process and recognise the rights of each other within the process. In recent times, there has been a shift in certain members' behaviour to sometimes intentionally disrupt the operation of estimates committees by members constantly interjecting, loudly expressing outrage at answers and generally ignoring the direction of the Chair. This places the Chair in a difficult situation.

The Chair is unable to direct a member of an estimates committee to withdraw, as standing order 137A, often referred to as the 'sin bin provision', does not apply to estimates committees. In fact, standing order 137A does not apply to the Committee of the Whole or any other committee of House of Assembly members. While the Chair can name a committee member for persistently interrupting or disrupting the business of the committee, it has a significant impact on the operation of estimates committees.

Upon naming, the estimates committee is immediately suspended and the Speaker is required to recall the house at 9.30am the next day for the house to determine if the member should be suspended. Obviously, naming is not an action to be taken lightly, as it totally disrupts the estimates committees process and is extremely inconvenient for all other members, who would be required to attend the sitting of the house at very short notice.

Past practice has been to avoid naming at all costs—no member has been named since the inception of estimates committees in 1980—and for the Chair to suspend the sitting of the committee for a short period of time to enable tempers to cool. An extension of standing order 137A to the estimates process could be considered as a solution to this problem, a way to address the unparliamentary and unacceptable disrespectful behaviour we have seen in recent times.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a point of order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, sir, there are a number. I will stick with 127: personal reflections on any other member. The member for King is making remarks about members of the estimates committees, and I think it is appalling. She should withdraw and apologise.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a further point of order. We have the first one. Could you cite the number again, member for West Torrens?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is 127, sir, personal reflections on members, page 35.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Sir, traditionally, the house has held that when a person makes a specific reflection on a specific member, that would be the point of order to make. I do not recall the member for King doing so.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I uphold the Minister for Education's point in relation to this, member for West Torrens, because there were no specific members referred to in the member for King's comments. I will leave it at that. The member for Lee looks like he has something to say.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Perhaps we can take standing order 128 for a drive around the block. I submit to you that this is tedious repetition of information already provided to the house, a verbatim reading of a report that has already been tabled before us.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Lee, the member for King has the opportunity to contribute to this debate. She is on her feet.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Sir, the contribution has already been presented to the house. This is a verbatim repetition of the report of the Standing Orders Committee.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not believe that to be the case, member for Lee. I am happy for the member for King to continue as she is. Others will have an opportunity in due course, I am sure.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sir, I ask for a point of clarification. The minister raised a point of order about when reflections are made, that the member would rise immediately to take offence. That is standing order 125; I am talking about standing order 127. For the benefit of the house, I will read it to you: 'A Member may not…make personal reflections on any other Member.' It does not say 'individual member': it says 'members'. The estimates committee is made up of a committee of the house. These are reflections on members of those committees.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I do not believe it is the case in this situation, member for West Torrens. I understand the point you are trying to make, but I do not believe you are correct in this instance. Member for King, you have the call.

Ms LUETHEN: Thank you. The Deputy Premier in her correspondence was referring to the application of standing orders to the behaviour of members in all committees of the parliament. In this instance, the Standing Orders Committee has restricted its inquiries to the estimates committees. The committee will, however, maintain a watching brief over the behaviour of members in the Committee of the Whole and select committees.

As standing order 137A does not apply to estimates committees, for the Chair of an estimates committee to have a comparable power to that bestowed on the Speaker to direct a member to withdraw as a result of disorderly behaviour, there is a requirement for a sessional or standing order to be adopted to that effect. The majority of the committee supports the implementation by way of a trial of the adoption of a sessional order that applies to the estimates committees that replicates the provision of standing order 137A.

It is clear that the change proposed by the committee to apply to estimates committees is a departure from practice in the past that has applied to any committee made up of members of the House of Assembly. It is for that reason that our committee recommends the change be implemented by way of the sessional order in the first instance. If the change is successful, it can then be included in the standing orders or, if necessary, modified in the light of practice.

The committee's proposal is to set out in the draft sessional order the direction to leave estimates committee: (1) the Chair of an estimates committee may direct a disorderly member to leave the estimates committee for up to one hour, and (2) the direction shall not be open to debate or dissent, and if the member does not leave the estimate committee immediately, the Chair may name the member. A member who has been directed to leave the estimates committee under this sessional order is excluded from both estimates committees and their galleries for up to an hour; however, the member may enter the estimates committee during the ringing of the bells for the purpose of forming a quorum or voting in a division.

Once the Chair of the estimates committee has declared the presence of the quorum or the result of the division has been declared, the member must immediately withdraw from the estimates committee for the remainder of the period of exclusion. The committee recommends the adoption of a draft sessional order for the provision of a procedure that enables the chair of an estimates committee to require a disorderly member to withdraw from the estimates committee for up to an hour.

A dissenting report was submitted by the member for Kaurna and the member for Playford. They noted that they do not support the proposal for the adoption of a sessional order that applies to the estimates committee that replicates the provisions of standing order 137A. Their argument, as I recall it in the committee meeting, was a concern that they would not get to ask the questions that they wished to ask.

I debated that their ability to ask questions continues. What we are asking them to do is ask questions in a respectful and orderly way instead of members perhaps frequently interrupting another member or even yelling at them. This would be the expectation in any other workplace: respectful behaviour. We agree that robust debate can be necessary and is welcomed, but disorderly conduct is no longer in line with community expectations. Interrupting and yelling is not acceptable in any other workplace and should not be accepted in parliament. This is where I will just stop and talk again about respectful behaviour. We read in the paper every day that there is violence in our community. This morning, I was watching the news with teachers talking about violent and disrespectful behaviour from students in their schools and how hard their job is becoming. Frequently, we have children sitting in our gallery, watching our behaviour, and it must improve. Community expectations have changed. They are demanding better from us than they have seen in the past. We are community leaders and we should set an example for respectful behaviour. It starts with us.

The majority of the committee agreed that it was time to advance the tools available to the Chairs of committees to ensure that proceedings of all committees are conducted in a respectful and disciplined manner. I personally welcome this proposal, as it is so much in line with my recent calls in this House of Assembly for members to improve the standard of behaviour within this house, which is exactly what we have seen on this side of the house. This was in response to the behaviours I had observed over the past 15 months, as a member of this house, and in response to observations shared with me by so many people in my community.

The Attorney-General asked the House of Assembly Speaker to grant the Chairs, who control the budget estimates committees, the right to consider the removal of disrespectful MPs who may disrupt proceedings. The Standing Orders Committee is an important bipartisan committee, which plays an important role in enabling the standards of behaviour to continue to evolve in line with our community's expectations and perceptions of our parliament. This is important in the rapidly changing environment in which we live.

To summarise, the draft sessional order for the House of Assembly is that, for the remainder of the session, standing orders be and remain so far suspended so as to provide the direction to leave estimates committees: (1) the Chair of the estimates committee may direct a disorderly member to leave the estimates committee for up to one hour, and (2) a member who has been directed to leave the estimates committee under this sessional order is excluded from both estimates committees and their galleries for up to one hour.

However, the member may re-enter the estimates committee during the ringing of the bells for the purpose of forming a quorum or voting in a division. Once the Chairman of the estimates committee has declared the presence of a quorum or the result of the division has been declared, the member must immediately withdraw from the estimates committee for the remainder of the period of the exclusion.

I thank the committee members and our Speaker of the house and look forward to our continuing to work across both sides of this house together to review ways in which elected members can advance the respectful standards of behaviour in parliament in line with our community's expectations. My hope is that this respectful debate will deliver better outcomes for our community.

I hope that more respectful behaviour will encourage people to ask better questions, to seek common ground and to collaborate on better community-focused outcomes. It takes dedication to identify common ground and this process can be enhanced by respectful behaviour. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this update to the house.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (16:13): I think it is important to contemplate the context of this before the house reaches a decision. We have had correspondence from the Deputy Premier, the member for Bragg, to the Standing Orders Committee of the House of Assembly suggesting that the committee consider whether any changes needed to be made to standing orders given what she herself—herself and no-one else—thought was a certain type of behaviour during one estimates committee hearing that occurred last year.

There are two contexts that I think are worthy of consideration: firstly, when the letter was communicated from the Deputy Premier to the Standing Orders Committee, which I understand from the report—and it should occur to me instantly because we have just had a verbatim recital of it—was in April of this year, and that of course came during or, in fact just after, some weeks of an investigation by the DPP as to whether any criminal charges needed to be considered regarding the behaviour of the Deputy Premier arising out of the estimates committee hearing.

We saw yesterday in question time that the Deputy Premier is not one given to criticism. The equal opportunity commissioner certainly felt the brunt of that from the Deputy Premier's remarks to the house during question time about what she perceived to be the inadequate performance of the equal opportunity commissioner. That is the first context.

The second context that is worth considering is what actually happened in the estimates committee last year. You yourself, sir, would be well placed because you were presiding over that committee. The rest of us were spectators; at least, some of us were spectators, given the parliamentary broadcasting facilities that we now have.

We had a member, the member for West Torrens, who was asking a minister, the Minister for Transport, about where his chief executive was for the purposes of presenting before the estimates committee of parliament. The minister refused to respond to that question. In fact, he continued to refuse to respond to that line of questioning, which is unusual. It is unusual that a minister answering a question from another member, opposition or otherwise, in parliament would say that they were unable to respond—not unwilling but unable to respond.

There was the inference from the Minister for Transport that he was legally prevented from doing so, that he was legally prevented from providing information to this house, which I found curious at the time. My understanding was that the house and the members within the house enjoyed full and unfettered privileges and immunities in this place while conducting the course of our responsibilities as members of parliament. So, in that context, the Minister for Transport was incorrect to provide the inference to the estimates committee that he was unable to, for legal reasons, provide information to the house.

The member for West Torrens was not asking anything unusual, anything tricky, anything devious. He was merely asking why the Minister for Transport presented himself to an estimates committee without the chief executive of his department. There was some uncertainty, not just amongst us but in the media and the public of South Australia, about what the circumstances of that chief executive were at that time. It is not an unreasonable question. For the minister, in my view, to answer inaccurately to the estimates committee that he was legally unable to answer those questions was plain wrong—plain wrong. In fact, there is a specific legal provision in the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act itself under section 6:

Nothing in this Act affects the privileges, immunities or powers of the Legislative Council or House of Assembly or their committees or members.

So members of parliament are free to say and do as they will, protected by those privileges and immunities, in particular when before a committee of the parliament, as the estimates committee of course is.

You can imagine the frustration, Deputy Speaker, of a frontbencher of the opposition going into an estimates committee—the first estimates committee, no less—of this session of parliament, and of this government for their first budget, to ask entirely legitimate questions which the minister should have been free to answer, indeed, was free to answer. That minister refused to answer those questions because he bogusly claimed he was legally prevented from doing so. You can imagine the agitation that you yourself might have felt, Deputy Speaker, had you been in the shoes of the member for West Torrens. In that context, you can understand why the estimates committee hearing got quite heated.

Here we had a member of the opposition asking entirely legitimate questions of a cabinet minister—a member of the government. As we all understand, under the basic tenets of responsible government, it is the responsibility of this place to hold ministers to account for the performance of their own actions and the performance of the agencies for which they are responsible, and that was being thwarted by the minister in his answers.

I do not think it is unreasonable for the member for West Torrens to express, as he did to the committee, bewilderment and frustration and, after a sustained period of the minister digging in his heels and continually refusing to answer questions to the estimates committee of the house, some anger because the estimates committee process was being thwarted in this way by a minister. What is the solution for the conduct of that estimates committee, which has been available to estimates committees for the last 38 years, since their inception in 1980?

As the member for King just outlined, the Chair—if he or she feels that things are starting to slip away from control—can pause the estimates committee hearing and in doing so urge all members of the committee, on both sides of the place, to take a breather and cool down for a while and then resume. Certainly, that is the way I can remember all these disputes being resolved in the period of time that I have been observing estimates committees, which may not be as long as the 39 years that they have been in existence; nonetheless, it is still a reasonable chunk of it.

We now have a claim by the Deputy Premier that the Standing Orders Committee should choose to impose some more punitive action on members who refuse to comply with what the government-appointed Chair of the estimates committee believes to be a reasonable standard of conduct. That is no inference of your impartiality or otherwise, Deputy Speaker. Here we are setting a rule which does not just apply to a committee that you may chair or that the member for West Torrens may be a part of or that the member for Schubert may be answerable to.

We are looking to impose a rule that will extend for the rest of the session of the parliament and, indeed, perhaps set a precedent far beyond that. We are looking to change the rules which have prevailed for the past 38 going on 39 years because of one incident that managed to embarrass the Deputy Premier in the end. I also find it curious that the member for Bragg, the Deputy Premier, did not actually ask that it be changed, but just that the Standing Orders Committee consider whether a change was necessary. Maybe that is a euphemism. Maybe that is a nudge in the right direction for the government-appointed members of the Standing Orders Committee: that they should not just consider but do.

So I find it curious that the Standing Orders Committee has chosen to recommend to this place that opposition members or other members of an estimates committee, when asking questions of a minister responsible for answering to the committee, can be thrown out for a period of up to an hour. That is most disconcerting because as you would know, Deputy Speaker, for many portfolios there are a range of different agencies and a range of different responsibilities that that estimates committee seeks to traverse.

Some estimates committees and some ministers appear before these committees for most of the day—for example, the Premier and the Treasurer—but most do not. Most only appear for a few hours or half the day. So now we are being asked to approve a change in practice where somebody can be kicked out of an estimates committee and therefore stop the opportunity for questions to be asked, particularly by a shadow minister, who is conversant with the details and the operations of the particular agency, for the entire time that is set down for the questioning of that particular part of a minister's responsibilities. That is not good enough.

It is fine, I think, if a Chair absolutely thinks that the breaks need to be tapped for 10 minutes or so for everyone to calm down and for perhaps some direct personal encouragement of all members of that committee during that break, that is, 'Let's get things back on track.' That is fine. That is the way it has operated for decades, but to have a situation where a member can be thrown out for up to an hour and potentially miss an entire line of questioning I think—the member for Playford is absolutely right—is a direct attack on the ability of members to hold a government minister to account during the estimates committee process.

The estimates committee process, for those people who may not be familiar with it or for those people who have not had the misfortune of having to sit through one or tune in to one as a casual observer, is meant to be our version of the federal parliament's Senate estimates committee process where it is perhaps the best opportunity to hold a minister and their agency to account for their performance in the past and their intentions going forward. That now is under threat.

Unfortunately, it is not an isolated behaviour by this government in seeking to constrain the ability of this place to hold the government to account. It is not the only time that we have seen this government manage the operations and the business of this place in a particular way that places them at a significant advantage over every other member of this house—opposition and crossbench members included. It is remarkable.

We should all cast our minds back to the time when a pair agreement between the government and the opposition was deliberately broken in an effort to win a vote. Most members identify that point in time as being when relations between the government and the opposition really started to denigrate in this place, and indeed relations between some members of parliament who previously had got on well really started to denigrate in this place, but unfortunately that is not an isolated incident.

Not only did we have the breach of a pair agreement but we had the Leader of Government Business come into this house and try to claim that it was standard practice that pairs not be granted for votes involving suspensions of standing orders. The very first vote in this place in this session of parliament was a suspension of standing orders where a pair was granted by the Leader of Government Business. He tried to pull the wool over everyone's eyes to try to cover up for a grievous insult to the customs and practices of this house.

A year after the 2018 state election and the commencement of this session of parliament, we had the government shambolically trying to run the business of this house. We were promised a sitting schedule within a week of the state election, but we did not get one for a month. The sitting schedule was changed twice without notice last year without letting the opposition know. The estimates schedule last year was changed twice without letting the opposition know.

Bills were introduced without notice to the opposition and immediately debated, which thwarted members of the opposition (a) getting briefed on it and (b) having the opportunity to put some remarks together to give to this place, as well as form a position on whether or not we supported that bill.

We constantly see every Wednesday Private Members Business, both bills and motions, voted to be deferred by the government in order to silence this side of the house in favour of government members being able to put their private members' bills up and get their private members' motions up. What it actually means in practice is that, in my capacity as the member for Lee, I have to spend a four-year period telling my constituents that I probably cannot raise in parliament the matter that they are most passionate about because the government silences me during Private Members Business.

I cannot get a motion to be heard and I cannot get a bill before the house because they just continue to adjourn them off. If they are prepared to silence the opposition in that way, if they are prepared to ensure that private members cannot raise matters of interest to their constituents in this place, is it any wonder that we feel some suspicion that the Deputy Premier, who was so embarrassed after last year's estimates hearing processes, and who also was the subject of a criminal investigation as a result, then chooses to change the rules or asks that this house changes the rules so she is not put in that position again.

I am not overbeating this in saying that we are here, at the end of hundreds of years of customs and conventions hard fought and won, to make sure that we have this place, the House of Assembly, and the place next door, the Legislative Council, as the public's protection against tyranny. That is the whole purpose of the parliament. That is why we have privileges and that is why we are immune to any legal threats or legal recourses outside this place. It is why we have these conventions and customs, and at every point this government has chosen to wipe its feet on them during this term of the parliament, during this session of the parliament.

Now they ask for this further step. They say, 'This works well in question time, so why don't we kick members out for up to an hour during the estimates committee, like we can in question time?' I notice they do not ask for the time limit on answers, like we have in question time, which stops ministers running down the clock and running down the opportunity for the opposition to ask questions of them.

I noticed even as shadow treasurer, when I was asking the Hon. Rob Lucas questions during his estimates committee process, that as a minister I did not want, seek or take government questions. I did not have Dorothy Dixers. I thought it was appropriate to open myself up to the scrutiny of the parliament. But even he, who had been in parliament for 36 years, felt the need for the protection of Dorothy Dixers, and he spent up to 15 minutes answering Dorothy Dixers. This government is terrified of scrutiny, and I am not surprised, given the performance of some of their ministers.

To have it enshrined in standing orders to ensure that people can be booted out because they get a bit uncomfortable with a line of questioning—because they do not like the short-pitch bowling, to use a metaphor—I think is outrageous. That is the whole purpose of the parliament. We are here to represent the public of South Australia and find out how these ministers have been doing their jobs, if they have been administering their departments properly. Because they did not like a first line of questioning from their first budget and first estimates committee process, we have to change the rules.

The rules that applied to the Tonkin government, to the Bannon government, to the Brown government, to the Olsen government, to the Rann government and to the Weatherill government are not good enough for the Marshall Liberal government. They are not good enough for them. They need more protection, presumably because they cannot reach the lofty heights of the Tonkin government. They cannot reach the lofty heights of the Brown government or the Olsen government. They need more protection from opposition scrutiny because perhaps they believe they are not up to it. This is outrageous and it should not be supported.

I also think that it is a shame on those opposite for bringing this forward to this place just before the budget estimates process to try to make sure that, if they get any criticism or any tough questions or any of the short-pitch bowling I made reference to before, they can shut it down and kick somebody out—just outrageous.