Parliamentary Procedure

Standing and Sessional Orders Suspension

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (11:59): I move:

That standing orders and sessional orders be and remain so far suspended as to enable the introduction of a bill without notice and passage through all stages without delay.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Cowdrey): An absolute majority not being present, ring the bells.

An absolute majority of the whole number of members being present:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Cowdrey): There being an absolute majority present, the question can be put. Does any member wish to speak to the motion?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I will be brief because I think this motion does speak for itself. It is no secret that small businesses in our state are hurting. As a result, people are losing their jobs, employment and incomes. Local communities are hurting as well. But the strongest case for the urgency of this motion, and I will quote from a media statement issued by Business SA, the official spokesperson for business people—

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Point of order: debate on the suspension of standing orders needs to relate to the reasons for a need for the suspension of standing orders, rather than debating the substance of the matter that they are seeking to suspend standing orders for.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: If the member listened for a moment, I was going to put the case—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Cowdrey): Member for Light, if you could please direct your remarks to the motion.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes, I will. The case why this is a matter of urgency, as I was trying to explain, can not be put better than by Mr Haese, who speaks on behalf of the business community in this state. I will quote from a media release issued by him just two weeks ago. That is why we need to support this motion today and get this action today and not tomorrow or next month or wait for conversations to occur in one place and the next place. We need to have this debate today in this place to ensure that the remedies available for small business in our communities happen now. I will quote from this statement:

With the Federal Government and State Government doing much of the heavy lifting, it is now time for the local government sector…

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Could I just be allowed to finish?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a point of order.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: The member is seeking to debate the issue rather than—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just wait, minister. Member for Light, there is a point of order. You will need to take your seat while I hear the point of order.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: A debate on a suspension of standing orders needs to relate to the suspension of standing orders, rather than debating the substance of any bill that might be introduced as a result of the suspension of standing orders.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am going to uphold the point of order because the motion is to suspend standing orders. That is what we are talking about. That is what we are considering. Further to that, I will add that the government's opportunity to debate this will come as well.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: If I was actually allowed to finish one sentence without interruption—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, member for Light—no, no.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I will repeat, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will get to the point.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: You will have your chance.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Light, concentrate on the job at hand.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order in the house!

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Lee, order! Member for Light.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: And I will quote—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Lee, you are called to order. Member for Light.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It should not be this difficult.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: You are quite right; it should not be. I quote Mr Haese, 'With the federal government and state government doing much of the heavy lifting, it is now time,' and that is the emphasis: it is now time 'for the local government sector to step up to the plate to help'.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, let me finish. Let me finish my sentence!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, member for Light; I am anticipating the point of order here, which is exactly the same point of order as before. You are moving to suspend standing orders.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That is correct.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Regardless of what you want to talk about later, you are suspending standing orders.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: But I am trying to justify the suspension of the standing orders. I am trying to justify why I am doing it. How can I do it if I do not talk about it?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: All we are talking about is the suspension of standing orders. Just quickly move through this—what you have to say. The government will have the opportunity to speak, and then we will vote. We understand why you are looking to suspend standing orders.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Well, I am trying to actually make the case, Mr Deputy Speaker—if I get an opportunity to do so uninterrupted.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Alright, well, let's hear that case.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The media release goes on to say—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Why? This is the case that the business community put to this state as to why local government should be doing something now, and that is the case I am putting to this chamber—why you should do something now. The members across laugh. I am not sure why you are laughing when small businesses across the state are hurting. It is quite disgraceful that you sit there and try to stop this debate from occurring. It is disgraceful.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is another point of order. Member for Light, take your seat again, please.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The situation has really spiralled into ugly accusations across the chamber—in fact at you at the moment, sir, about what you are trying to do. The clear position at the moment in yelling across the chamber at what we are supposed to be doing, which of course is actually being addressed to you, sir, is not a submission on the urgency of this parliament dropping all of its business and immediately hearing an application. So I would ask you to bring the member—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Attorney. So really the point of order relates to the behaviour in the house and interjections. In essence that is what it is. So interjections will cease from now on; they are disorderly. And the member for Light in his address will not respond to interjections either. Member for Light, you have the call.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I go on to say this is why this matter is urgent in terms of discussing it now. Mr Haese goes on to say in the media release, 'The urgent need for commercial rate relief was one of the loudest messages to come out of our recent'—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a member—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am talking about why we need to do this urgently and why we need to suspend—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a point of order .

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: This is a procedural debate, not a debate on the merits of any bill that may or may not be introduced subsequent to the suspension of standing orders.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Look, you have made this point of order three times. I upheld it in the first instance, but—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I rise on a point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment, member for Lee. I will deal with this point of order raised by the Minister for Transport. I understand his particular point in relation to the suspension of standing orders being a procedural motion, but in all honesty the member for Light is making the case for that suspension, I think, and I am happy up to a point to let him go. I know he is not going to be much longer. I know he only has one page in front of him, so let's hear him out.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thank you for your wise counsel.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just keep going, member for Light. Charge on.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Thank you. I will quote from the Business SA media statement. It goes on to say that:

The urgent need—

'urgent' is the important word there—

for commercial rate relief was one of the loudest messages to come out of our recent Virtual Industry Summit held with more than 40 industry leaders.

Commercial tenants and landlords need support right now—

The emphasis is on 'right now' and that is why we need to suspend standing orders and debate this today, right now—

and councils need to play their role and take on some of the heavy lifting to help get businesses through this…crisis.

The case has been made by the business sector. We should listen to that case and suspend standing orders.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL (Schubert—Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government, Minister for Planning) (12:09): At 8.45 last night, I received an email from the member for Light in relation to a copy of a bill that he seeks to introduce, with a single phrase that states: 'Here is a copy of a bill that I am going to seek to introduce tomorrow.' At no point did the member inform the government that he was seeking to suspend standing orders—not once—a courtesy that we have provided—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: —well in advance for the times that we have needed to do that to ensure the proper functioning of this house. Secondly, I thought that maybe the member was mistaken. He has been here since 2006, but what I—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a point of order.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: A personal reflection on a member and their length of service in this place is wholly irrelevant as to whether we proceed with the suspension of standing orders. This is a petty political point being made by someone who should know better—a minister of the Crown, no less.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Lee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: By his own repeated points of order—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Lee, I have your point of order. Thank you. Your point of order really is about relevance to the debate, which was exactly the same point of order that the minister made earlier. I allowed the member for Light, ultimately, to finish what he wanted to say, bearing in mind the point of order that you raised yourself, Minister for Transport.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: You will notice, Mr Speaker, that I have not even made reference to any topic that may or may not be discussed, but merely the process by which we on this side of the house have asked for and received consent for suspension of standing orders, as has been the practice while we deal with this COVID pandemic.

Nowhere was it actually asked for there to be a suspension of standing orders. I thought maybe the member was misinformed. As the email states 'a copy of the bill I will be seeking to introduce tomorrow', I thought potentially he was mistaken in the fact that there was private members' time that was available today. Essentially, what the member for Light is asking for—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: —is for us to use government time to debate a private member's bill, which is extremely out of what is the normal practice. In fact, I cannot think in my time here—and I am sure that members who have been here longer cannot think of a time—besides on social conscience issues, when a private member's bill was given time in government time without asking the government to use said government time to be able to debate the bill.

If this was a genuine attempt to debate an issue, it would not have been sent to me at 8.45 last night. It was not even asked whether or not we could use government time to debate the bill or ask for a suspension of standing orders, something that the member for West Torrens has asked for and received every single time that we have sought to do it in this chamber, after having had the courtesy of actually sitting down and discussing each and every one of the bills we have sought to progress in an urgent fashion through this chamber.

This is a stunt that has massive holes in it. The opposition has not made the case—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: —for why this needs to be urgent. More than that, what is very clear is that they have not even consulted the very people that the bill they propose to introduce will affect. I think that that is a case for why we should not suspend standing orders—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a point of order.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: —to actually allow for there—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, could you take a seat, please. There is a point of order.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Now we certainly are at the point of relevance because, as we have heard you rule already on multiple occasions in the course of this debate, this is to be confined to the need to suspend standing orders, not what work may or may not have been done about a particular bill or its content. He cannot even abide the strictures of his own points of order. I think we have heard enough.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Of his own point of order. Minister, you are wrapping up your argument?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I was, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The leader will come to order. Minister, you are wrapping up your debate—

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I am.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: —in opposition to the motion.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: That is right.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excellent.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: It is highly improper to debate private members' bills in government business. The opposition has not made the case for why that needs to be the case. The government will be opposing this motion and calling this out for what it is: a stunt to get attention, as opposed to working cooperatively with the government, which is doing everything it can to deal with a global pandemic.

Ayes 12

Noes 13

Majority 1

The SPEAKER: Honourable members, while I have your attention I wish to make a point of clarification regarding my comments at 2pm yesterday. I wish to make it very clear that I was not imputing any improper motives on any member.