Matter of Privilege

Matters of Privilege, Speaker's Statement

The SPEAKER (12:25): Before I call the member for Playford, I rise to speak on a couple of privilege matters that were brought to my attention last week: one regarding the member for Kaurna and the other one regarding the member for West Torrens and the Attorney-General.

I make the following statement with regard to the matters of privilege raised, the first one by the Deputy Premier in the house on 27 November. However, before addressing the matter, I wish to outline the significance of privilege as it relates to the house and its members. It is obviously not a device by which members or any other persons can seek to pursue matters that can be addressed by debate or settled by a vote of the house on a substantive motion.

I have referred to McGee in Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand on the test that applies. Generally speaking, any act or omission that obstructs or impedes the house in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such house in the discharge of his or her duty, or which has a tendency directly or indirectly to produce such a result, may be treated as a contempt and therefore be considered a matter of privilege even though there is no precedent of the offence.

Firstly, I refer to the matter raised by the Deputy Premier in relation to a grievance debate made by the member for Kaurna in the house on 27 November. More specifically, the member for Kaurna in his grievance debate on 27 November stated:

Now today, what we have learnt is another revelation of Dr McGowan lying to the parliamentary committee, this time about Liberal Party fundraisers. Last year, he was asked at his first appearance if he had attended any Liberal Party fundraisers and he said that he had certainly not attended those fundraisers. 'Certainly not' is what he said.

The Deputy Premier, in raising a matter of privilege, quoted from page 108 of the Legislative Council record of the Budget and Finance Committee of 23 July 2018:

The CHAIRPERSON: Have you yourself attended Liberal Party fundraisers in the lead-up to the election?

Dr McGOWAN: Not that I recall.

The Deputy Premier states, and I quote:

I suggest that it is clear from this question—and you have the view of the whole of the transcript relating to that matter, Mr Deputy Speaker—that the election referred to is the March 2018 state election. That, of course, is also supported by the fact that you will see from the questions raised in that committee that they relate to the appointment of Dr McGowan obviously post the March 2018 election, when there had been a change of government.

The Deputy Premier alleges that the member for Kaurna's allegation, that Dr McGowan has lied to the parliament in referring to a fundraiser Dr McGowan allegedly attended prior to the March 2014 state election, is inconsistent with the evidence that Dr McGowan provided to the Budget and Finance Committee.

The Deputy Premier alleges that the member for Kaurna then has misrepresented both the question and response at the committee and has deliberately misled the parliament. I refer to the member for Kaurna's grievance debate and, in particular, his reference to:

Now today, what we have learnt is another revelation of Dr McGowan lying to the parliamentary committee, this time about Liberal Party fundraisers.

I take the member for Kaurna's comment that 'Now today, what we have learnt', when prefacing his comments as part of his grievance debate, equates to the member for Kaurna's reference to information he presented to the house during question time. The nature of the information is further explained in the member for Kaurna's grievance debate, and I quote:

Yet what we find out now is that less than two months after he appeared—

referring to Dr McGowan's appearance before the committee—

he received an email from Tess Meldrum at Silver Chain, which said:

Hi Chris

I have been able to access your calendar to provide the following plus relevant attachments.

The member for Kaurna then goes through the list of events included in the email and then finishes referring to the contents of the email by saying, and I quote:

Then we had another one, which is the latest one, being 23 June 2017: Liberal Party gala dinner, International Convention Centre at Darling Harbour in Sydney.

I have also been provided with a copy of the email with attachments which the member for Kaurna referred to. If, as the Deputy Premier suggests, the question relates to the 2018 and not the 2014 election, it is therefore plausible to accept the member for Kaurna's statement based on his reference to the 23 June 2017 Liberal Party gala dinner.

Having considered the allegation raised by the Deputy Premier and having had the benefit of examining the information that has been provided to me, I am not satisfied that a prima facie case of privilege has been made out. In the Chair's opinion, this is not a matter of privilege, for the reason I set out. Therefore, I also decline to give the matter the precedence that would allow the Deputy Premier to immediately pursue the matter. However, my opinion does not prevent any member from pursuing the matter by way of substantive motion.

On the matter of the member for West Torrens and the Attorney-General misrepresenting the Budget and Finance Committee evidence, I again preface my comments in the usual manner regarding the McGee test. The member for West Torrens claims that the Attorney-General, when raising the matter of privilege against the member for Kaurna, did not inform the house of subsequent questions and answers that were included in the transcript of evidence from the Budget and Finance Committee on 23 July 2018.

More specifically, the member for West Torrens asserts that the Attorney-General, in not referring to subsequent questions and answers that followed on from the Attorney-General's partial quoting of the transcript of evidence, misrepresented the evidence that would otherwise support the member for Kaurna's accusations, which were the subject of the matter of privilege raised by the Attorney-General.

The member for West Torrens alleges that, in not referring to the subsequent questions and answers when initially raising the matter of privilege, the Attorney-General deliberately misled the house by misrepresenting evidence that was presented to the Budget and Finance Committee. I have again examined the Hansard record, together with the transcript of evidence from the meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee held on 23 July 2018.

The information presented to the house by the Attorney-General, albeit only one question and answer, is the same as the evidence presented to the committee. Further, the interpretation of the evidence presented, upon which the Attorney-General has chosen to prosecute the matter of privilege she has raised and which the member for West Torrens has complained of, can certainly be regarded as a debating contention—very much so.

Therefore, on the evidence available to me, it is not clear that a prima facie case has been made out that would amount to, or be intended or likely to amount to, an improper interference that would genuinely be regarded as tending to impede or obstruct the house in the discharge of its duties.