State Government Services

Mr BOYER (Wright) (15:20): There will come a time when all of us in this place are tested in our roles as members of parliament. Those challenges can be myriad in their origins and often they are completely out of our control. But as sure as night follows day, there will come a time in all our careers, whether they be short or long, when somebody comes knocking, seeking to take things away from the communities that we represent, telling us that it is in their best interests and therefore worthy of our support.

Sometimes, the person who comes knocking is from our own party. These are some of the toughest tests of character that we will face as members of parliament. To stand up to your own party and tell them that you will not sit idly by as they strip services away from your own community is, I acknowledge, a difficult thing to do. Some members of parliament choose to take a stand publicly. Others fight behind closed doors. Then there are those members of parliament who just do not fight at all, members of parliament like the member for King and the member for Newland, who take as gospel whatever snake oil the minister is selling and become willing accomplices.

There was no fighting behind closed doors when the Minister for Transport came knocking in 2018, telling the members for King and Newland that closing their local Service SA centres in Modbury was a good idea.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

Mr BOYER: There was no fighting behind closed doors when the Minister for Transport came knocking again in 2018, telling the member for King and the member for Newland that not progressing with the new park-and-ride at Tea Tree Plaza was a good idea. There was definitely no fighting behind closed doors when the Minister for Transport came knocking yet again on the doors of the member for King and the member for Newland, telling them that closing 85 bus stops in their communities was a good idea. In fact, there was no fighting at all from the members for King and Newland on any of these cuts.

Ms Luethen interjecting:

The SPEAKER: There is a point of order.

Ms LUETHEN: I would like to make a point of order that the member is imputing improper motives. I take offence to the statements that he is making and I ask him to withdraw and apologise.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Mr Speaker—

The SPEAKER: There is a point of order on the point of order.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —there was no imputing of any motive whatsoever.

The SPEAKER: What I will do is caution the member for Wright. I was dealing with matters pertaining to other issues that are being discussed widely and thoroughly in this place and the other place. I will listen carefully to the member for Wright. He should have a fair scope on what is or is not acceptable. I will listen carefully.

Mr BOYER: It is true that the members for King and Newland have been presented with more challenges by their own Liberal Party colleagues in their first terms of parliament than they could have foreseen. It may forever remain a mystery to everybody in this place, at least on this side of the chamber, why the north-east has been targeted by this government, but this is no excuse. This is absolutely no excuse for not standing up for your community.

We were all elected to this place to stand up for our constituents and, by my reckoning, the members for King and Newland have been tested three times now with cuts from their own party and three times they have failed that test to stand up for their constituents.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Point of order: this is an improper reflection on a member of this house.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: On a point of order, this is a grievance debate and the member should be free to reflect on the decisions of the government and how it affects different parts of the metropolitan area.

The SPEAKER: That is true. Minister for Environment and Water, if someone takes offence then it is up to the member who takes the offence at the time to make that point of order. Standing order 125 states:

A Member may not use offensive or unbecoming words in reference to another Member. Subject to Standing Order 137, if the Member referred to takes objection to what he/she considers to be offensive or unbecoming words, the Speaker requests the Member uttering the words to withdraw them.

However, this is a grievance debate and I will need to allow some political argy-bargy. I believe it is within that scope at the moment, but if the member for Wright does step out of line then I will be forced to intervene. I ask the member for Wright to perhaps consider his comments and the way that he makes them to ensure that they are, as I am sure they will be, within the standing orders.

Mr BOYER: Do not be fooled: doing nothing, smelling the breeze and then waiting to see what the reaction is from one's constituents before belatedly sending out a survey to them asking what they think is not standing up for your community. Some government MPs in this place did stand up.

Ms LUETHEN: I raise a point of order again because I object to the comments that the member is making, because his comments are not true and he has no evidence that I did not stand up. It is very clear to my community that I have stood up on all these issues, so that is my objection.

The SPEAKER: A point of order on the point of order: if there is an impromptu speech—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: If the member for King wishes to make some contribution on this matter, she can do so by way of a grievance contribution, or she can seek leave to make a personal explanation. But, without that, these repeated bogus points of order constitute a breach of standing order 131 about unnecessary and repeated interruption to the house.

The SPEAKER: I have the point of order. What the member for King can do is she can also make a grievance contribution to counter anything that is raised. I will listen carefully. My former statements do apply. The member for Wright has the call.

Mr BOYER: Some government MPs in this place did stand up. The members for Davenport and Kavel played a genuine role in forcing this government to abandon these cuts. They chose to represent their constituents in the most forceful and powerful way that they could. Some of the saddest words a member of parliament can hear from a constituent are, 'What's the point because it won't make any difference?'

I admit that is something that I heard on more than one occasion over the past month as we waged our campaign to stop these bus cuts. But yesterday morning, as the leader and I met with residents of the north-east on Bicentennial Drive in Golden Grove at one of the 61 bus stops that were set for the chop in the seat of King, it was heartwarming to hear those residents express their delight that their own actions had so clearly and swiftly forced this government to back down. I genuinely hope that the contributions that those local residents made to that very successful campaign motivates them to stay involved in our democratic system and remain community activists.

I hope, too, that the next time people complain about the major political parties being too alike they pause and reflect on these past weeks. They say you never know the full value of something until it is taken away and, sadly, thousands of South Australians who rely on their bus stop to get to work, to school and to the shops had to face that realisation. I am reminded of an immortal quote by Richard Neville, the editor of the counterculture magazine Oz, who said, 'There is only an inch of difference between us and the conservatives, but it is an inch worth living in.' It is decisions like this—decisions to disenfranchise South Australians from our public transport system—that prove that that inch is worth fighting for.