House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2) 54 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Matter of Privilege Matter of Privilege Matter of Privilege, Deputy Speaker's Statement Matter of Privilege, Deputy Speaker's Statement The Deputy Speaker House of Assembly The DEPUTY SPEAKER (12:10): Before I call the member for Ramsay, I am rising in my place to make a statement with regard to the matter of privilege raised by the member for Lee in the house on 6 February, which was referred to me by the Speaker. However, before addressing that matter, I wish to outline the significance of privilege as it relates to this house and its members. Privilege 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. McGee in Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, in my view makes the test for whether or not a matter is a matter of privilege by defining it as a matter that can 'genuinely be regarded as tending to impede or obstruct the house in the discharge of its duties'. Generally speaking, any act or omission which 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 their 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 for the offence. I refer to the matter of privilege raised by the member for Lee as it relates to a statement made to the house by the Speaker on 5 February concerning an independent investigation into the conduct of the Member for Waite, comments made by the Speaker in the house and comments attributed to the Speaker in the news outlet InDaily. The member for Lee refers to the Speaker's statement to the house on 5 February, and more specifically, the following words: I wish to advise the house that on becoming aware of allegations concerning alleged inappropriate conduct by the member for Waite within the parliamentary precinct, I have engaged an independent investigator to inquire into the alleged behaviour. The member for Lee contrasts those words with the following comments attributed to the Speaker from a newspaper article: Near the end of December I was made aware of allegations concerning the conduct of a Member of the House of Assembly towards other people, including a Member of the Legislative Council, at a Christmas function held in Parliament House. On becoming aware of the allegations, I arranged for preliminary inquiries to be undertaken to ascertain the circumstances surrounding the alleged inappropriate behaviour. The member for Lee asserts: It is clear from these two conflicting statements that the Speaker learnt of the allegations against the member for Waite, according to his own words as quoted in this news outlet's article, in late December. From what the Speaker told this house yesterday, he did not convene or procure an independent inquiry into the conduct of the member for Waite until several weeks later on 17 January. I also refer to an answer provided to the house on 5 February by the Speaker to the following question asked by the Leader of the Opposition: Why did it take more than four weeks from the events of Friday 13 December 2019 for the government to launch an investigation into the member for Waite's conduct? To which, the Speaker answered: Obviously, what has occurred is well set out and that is to date. Obviously, I became aware of the allegations in a personal capacity probably towards the end of December. I would have thought that the party of the worker would realise that there is this period of time between Christmas and new year where a lot of government agencies are closed, a lot of staff are on leave. I have had to put in calls over the break, myself and my office, and some of those agencies were actually closed at the time. It is a time when obviously a lot of organisations do not have all staff accessible at that time… I was in correspondence over the break, over the Christmas/new year period, so I do not accept that it has taken— and then members interjected. The Speaker's statement that 'I have engaged an independent investigator' was general in nature and did not specify a time at which this engagement took place. The answer provided by the Speaker to the leader's question indicates that the Speaker learned of the allegations concerning the member for Waite towards the end of December and that some time had passed between the Speaker becoming aware of the allegations and an independent investigation being launched. Having had the benefit of reading the Hansard and referring to the material supplied to me, I cannot identify any inconsistencies or inaccuracies in the comments attributed to the Speaker. In the Chair's opinion, this is not a matter of privilege, for the reason I have stated above, therefore I also decline to give the matter the precedence that would allow the member for Lee to immediately pursue the matter. However, of course, my opinion does not prevent any member from pursuing the matter by way of substantive motion.