Matter of Privilege

Matter of Privilege, Speaker's Statement

The SPEAKER (23:21): I also rise to speak in relation to a matter of privilege regarding Kangaroo Island visitor numbers. I make the following statement with regard to the matter of privilege raised today. Before addressing the matter, I wish to outline the significance of privilege as it relates to the house. It is not a device by which members or any other person can seek to pursue matters that can be addressed by debate or settled by the vote of the house on a substantive motion. We have seen the relevant test that has been quoted in McGee in Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand.

I refer to the matter raised by the Attorney-General in relation to a speech made by the member for Mawson on the Appropriation Bill on 2 July 2019. As part of the member for Mawson's speech, he expressed his views on the impact of government decisions on the people of Kangaroo Island and, in particular, made an assessment of the effect of the visitor economy spend in South Australia of there being no visitor centre. The Attorney-General refers to that part of the member for Mawson's speech where he says, 'It has taken (referring to the government) away the visitor centre it has taken away the number of tourists who are going to Kangaroo Island.'

The Attorney-General then refers to published reports on the website of the Department for Trade, Tourism and Investment of which she has provided me with extracts on the visitor numbers to Kangaroo Island. Based on the information provided, the Attorney-General notes that however the figures are viewed, there has been an increase in visitor numbers to Kangaroo Island. The Attorney-General alleges that the member for Mawson has deliberately provided inaccurate information to the house, if relied upon by members, which would materially mislead them. Deliberately misleading the house is one of the matters that can be found to be a contempt. To establish that contempt has been committed, it needs to be established that:

1. a statement had in fact been misleading;

2. the member knew at the time the statement was incorrect; and

3. the misleading had been deliberate.

In addition, to amount to contempt, the action would need to genuinely be regarded as tending to impede or obstruct the house in the discharge of its duties.

I have examined the Hansard records and the information provided to me by the Attorney-General. The information contained in the member for Mawson's speech, of which the Attorney-General complains, can be regarded as debating contentions. I note that this is by way of general debating points without the interpretation of specific data. For these reasons, on the evidence available to me, it is not clear that a prima facie case has been made that would amount to, or be intended, or be likely to amount to, an improper interference that could genuinely be regarded as tending to impede or obstruct the house in the discharge of its duties.

Accordingly, I do not propose to give the precedence which would enable this matter to be immediately pursued as a matter of privilege. However, it does not prevent the Attorney or any other member from proceeding with a motion on the specific matter by giving notice in the normal way.