Matter of Privilege

Matter of Privilege, Speaker's Statement

The SPEAKER (11:02): Before I call Mr Clerk, I rise in relation to the matter of privilege that was respectfully raised in regard to the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government on bus stops. I make the following statement with regard to the matter of privilege raised by the member for West Torrens in this house yesterday. Before addressing that matter, I wish to outline the significance of privilege as it relates to this house and also its members. It is not a device by which members, or any other person for that matter, can seek to pursue matters that can be addressed by debate or settled by the vote of the house on a substantive motion.

As I have referred to on a number of occasions, 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 his or her duty, or which has a tendency, either 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.

I now refer to the matter at hand. I refer to the matter raised by the member for West Torrens in relation to an answer given by the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government to a question in the house on 17 June, where the member for West Torrens alleges that the minister has deliberately and intentionally misled the house. More specifically, the member for West Torrens asked the following question of the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government. He asked:

Where is it publicly available a list of all the bus stops being removed by this government?

The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government provided the following response to the question:

It is clear that they haven't looked at the Adelaide Metro website, which clearly shows where the route changes are being undertaken.

He goes on:

What they are now trying to say is that, under the redesigned routes—where those routes go—they are now trying to ask a question about whether or not there are changes to any of those bus stops. All they need to do is click on adelaidemetro.com.au, head down to the frequently asked questions section—because these questions get frequently asked—and in there it says that all of the stops on existing and redesigned routes are going to be maintained. So, where there are changes, those are clearly highlighted in those redesigned maps, and it provides that information to South Australians.

The member for West Torrens alleges that the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government has misled the house, as: 'The opposition has searched the government website for any list of bus stops slated for closure as a result of the government's policy announcement last Saturday, and no such list exists on any publicly available government website.'

I have had the opportunity now to carefully read the minister's response. The minister goes to some length to indicate how information is presented on the Adelaide Metro website concerning the changes to bus routes and bus stops. I cannot, however, find anywhere in the minister's answer where he indicates exactly the existence of a list of bus stops set for closure.

While the minister's answer does not accord with the specific information request of the member for West Torrens, there is nothing that has been brought to my attention to suggest that the minister informed the house that the information sought by the opposition, namely, a list exactly of bus stops set for closure, was publicly available on the government website.

So, therefore, in the Chair's opinion that is not a matter of privilege for the reason I set out above. Accordingly, I do not propose to give the precedence which would enable any member to pursue this matter immediately as a matter of privilege. However, I make it very clear to members, respectfully, my opinion does not prevent any member from pursuing this matter by way of substantive motion, if it is the will of the house to do so.