Parliamentary Procedure

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (14:41): I move:

That standing and sessional orders be so far suspended as to enable me to move a motion of no confidence in the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government, and the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development forthwith in lieu of the remaining time left for us in question time.

The SPEAKER: Evidently, an absolute majority is present; therefore, I accept the motion. Is the motion seconded?

Honourable members: Yes, sir.

The SPEAKER: It has been seconded. Do you wish to speak? The member for West Torrens is speaking to the motion.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: First of all, the government has indicated they will not be supporting a suspension of standing orders to contemplate a no-confidence motion in two of their ministers—again, using the majority they were given at the last election to protect ministers who do not deserve the protection of this parliament or the Premier. The question that the government needs to answer is: why will they not debate a no-confidence motion in the parliament on these ministers? Why will they not stand up and be accounted for—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —for their defence of two men who have made claims they are not entitled to? Making certifications to the parliament is the equivalent to misleading this place—ministers of the Crown taking money they are not entitled to, putting it in their pocket and only repaying it when they are caught. What a great set of rules if you are corrupt. What a great set of rules if you have a Premier prepared to cover up for you.

What this is is not so much a political party as a crime family, not so much a political party as a syndicate that is prepared to protect and cover up parliamentarians who are claiming that while they are here on Christmas Day they are doing parliamentary business. What a farce! Fancy thinking that you can defend that in this parliament and not allow this parliament to debate no confidence in a minister who claims expenses for staying with mum and dad. I lost my mother this year. I wish I could stay with her, but I would not be claiming any taxpayers' money for it. It is appalling that the minister has put his parents in this situation.

What was he thinking? What was he thinking, other than of enriching himself? What was he thinking, other than of trying to make some money? What was he thinking would happen when the public found out? What was he thinking when he thought it was okay to come to Adelaide to go to a Strikers game on Australia Day? What was he thinking?

He is the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, so he knows and understands that the Northern Expressway, the Northern Connector and the South Road Superway make travelling to and from the Barossa a lot more convenient, courtesy of Labor governments—a lot more convenient. His excuse? 'I had to come down and cancel the key election promise the Premier made at the last election of GlobeLink, so I had to take mum to a Strikers game for the first time in her life. Therefore, I was here on parliamentary business; therefore, pay me. Pay me. I deserve the money.'

When he gets caught, who defends him? The Premier. The Premier should be leading the chorus of outrage. The Premier should be leading the chorus of outrage for all the country members who do the right thing, for the country members who know how important this allowance is for regional representation. Instead, he runs a protection racket. He does not care—

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order: I seek to clarify, given the debate is on the suspension of standing orders, whether the scope of the member's speech is appropriate and, if that is the case, then I look forward to my opportunity.

The SPEAKER: It certainly started off on the straight and narrow—

The Hon. S.S. Marshall: This is about whether we suspend standing orders.

The SPEAKER: Yes, I know what it is about, Premier, thank you. I ask the member for West Torrens to reflect on that and keep to that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If the government had the courage to defend their ministers in a debate, we would not be having this now. The speech would have been over by now and we would be into the no-confidence motion. But this is the problem of the modern-day Liberal Party: the talent is on the backbench. The backbench are the ones who are watching ministers who cannot even defend themselves. The chief law officer of this state defends corruption—corruption and cover-up.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order: that is offensive and inaccurate and I seek an apology from the member and a withdrawal of such a disgraceful allegation.

The SPEAKER: I am going to ask the member for West Torrens to withdraw the corruption—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: It was a substantive motion, sir.

The SPEAKER: It is for the suspension of standing orders, so I would ask you to withdraw that, thank you.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I withdraw the term 'corruption'. I wish the substantive motion, the suspension, to be passed so I can debate a motion about the corruption of members opposite who have taken money they do not deserve and are not eligible for. What a disgrace that the Premier would defend this!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Why will he not get up and allow us to debate this?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order: you have directed the member for West Torrens to withdraw the allegation that the Attorney-General had stood up for corruption and he has refused to do so.

The SPEAKER: No, he did withdraw it. He advised the house of what he wants to do, but I take the point. You are on thin ice, member for West Torrens. You know better.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think what South Australians are seeing now is a Premier who is more interested in his own future than theirs. That is why he will not allow this debate. He will not allow this debate.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: There is a point of order.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do ask the member to do that.

The SPEAKER: The allegation, whichever way it is framed, I ask you to withdraw it—

An honourable member: He did.

The SPEAKER: Yes. But for the avoidance of any doubt, I am going to ask you to withdraw the allegation of corruption and what you are seeking to do to then pursue the allegation of corruption—that is what I am asking you to do, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I withdraw the allegation of corruption, sir.

The SPEAKER: Thank you.

An honourable member: And apologise.

The SPEAKER: Yes, I am going to ask you to apologise to the house.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: For what, sir? I withdrew it.

The SPEAKER: I am going to ask you to apologise to the house.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I apologise to the house, sir.

The SPEAKER: Thank you.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: This is indicative of a Premier who does not want transparency and does not want debate. He wants us to impose the rules of this parliament, just not the rules of fraud, the rules of making sure that you apply to parliament accurately—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order: the disgraceful—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —and that you claim money honestly.

The SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens, you are now talking off the topic of the actual motion. If you continue to deviate, I will remove you.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Mr Speaker, I ask you to enforce your ruling that the member withdraw and apologise. His allegation that I and/or others are standing up for corruption is a disgraceful allegation and I want an apology.

The SPEAKER: Yes, I have the point of order. I am of the view that the member for West Torrens—there were significant interjections, but I believe that he did.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Playford, you are going to leave for the remainder of question time.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Playford will leave for 24 minutes.

The honourable member for Playford having withdrawn from the chamber:

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: He said 'withdraw and apologise'.

The SPEAKER: Yes, he did, and I heard it.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: What is it with your tin ear?

The SPEAKER: Member for Lee, be quiet. If members want to talk when I am talking, they will be named, so be quiet. Member for West Torrens, get on with it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, sir. The opposition seeks to suspend the rest of question time—the most important part of parliament when we seek to question the executive—because we believe there is a more important matter to discuss and debate, and that is whether or not two ministers should be removed from the cabinet. There is nothing more important to the integrity of this place and to the government of South Australia that everyone knows that their ministers are behaving appropriately and that they have claimed appropriately. Either the public have confidence in these institutions or they do not.

What they are seeing now is the government not even letting us debate this. We are not interrupting grievances. We are not interrupting time for bills. We are taking away the remainder of question time and the government still wish to refuse our request to debate of a no-confidence motion in two ministers. Do you know why? Because there is no defence. It is indefensible. It is better to use your numbers to shut down the debate than make the argument.

The Premier does not want to see himself on TV defending these men. Why? Because the public knows it is indefensible. You cannot defend a politician for claiming an allowance and staying with mum and dad. You cannot defend a politician for claiming an allowance while you are in Texas saying that you are in Adelaide. It is indefensible.

The SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens, I will sit you down now. You have crossed the line. Is there is a speaker on my right?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (14:51): There is a process that this house well understands about no-confidence motions. If one wants to move it, one advises members an hour before question time and you get a time to have a no-confidence motion. That is the procedure. That is the consistent procedure that has been observed in the more than 10 years I have been here. It is the procedure that has been observed in the 20,000-odd years that the member for West Torrens has been here.

This is not a new procedure. This is something with which the member for West Torrens is familiar. It enables opposition parties, or presumably Independents if they wish, to make their claim about ministers or other officers. Instead of question time, they are given an hour to have that debate. If they were serious, if they were credible, if they were not disingenuous, then that is indeed the procedure to utilise.

The member for West Torrens would have us believe that the Labor Party came up with the idea as a result of the answers from the questions, presumably the one from the Minister for Primary Industries, in which he articulated clearly, over four minutes, what the purpose of his trip to the United States was and what he was doing while he was there. Indeed, he even reiterated the apology for the expenditure, given that he had had to fix the administrative error.

The member for West Torrens then asked the Speaker a question, which the Speaker took on notice. The member for West Torrens would have us believe that it is at this point, and not before, that he was so aggrieved with those two answers that it warranted a suspension of standing orders—the denial of the opportunity for crossbench members, one of whom I saw was on his feet seeking the call, obviously just slightly after the member for West Torrens, to ask questions of the executive, denying the opportunity for government members to ask questions of the executive—government members with important issues—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —that they wish elucidated, issues to do with the coronavirus, issues to do with the expenditure of government funds, issues to do with jobs that are so sorely needed within our community and economy. The member for West Torrens would have us believe that the answers given by the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development and yourself, sir, were such to the point that it provoked him, not having previously thought that it would be necessary to move a motion of no confidence, to do so now.

Indeed, one, if one were cynical, might think that this was the plan all along, that having had two question times focused on one issue, with the exception of when they ran out of questions yesterday and moved onto another issue—two question times focused on an issue—that they would then on the third day, as potentially oppositions have done in the past when pursuing issues of this nature, move to a motion. But he could not help himself. He had to be trickier. He had to be smarter than everyone else because he is the Grandfather of the House and alleges that he is the smartest person in the room. He walks down the corridors alleging that he runs the place, getting journalists on the phone and abusing them if they print anything against his merits.

The SPEAKER: Minister, I am also going to caution you because you are now starting to deviate.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Sir, I apologise to the house for so deviating from my comments. I was distracted and overwhelmed by the feelings of surprise indeed that it was those two answers that so provoked the member for West Torrens to think of a motion of no confidence at this time regardless of how these things are supposed to be run.

If the Labor Party were serious, if the member for West Torrens had been serious he would have sent an email, perhaps at 1 o'clock, perhaps at 12 o'clock or even earlier. They might have even flagged it in the media. They might have even called some journalists this morning to suggest it was coming to make sure people left some space in the newspaper for the journal of record to be able to report on their condemning critique of how ministers allegedly have let the team down, if that is indeed their critique.

But instead they proceeded with question time, which is of course an opportunity to question the executive about these issues, and we have been providing full answers to questions. I have many, many pieces of information here about the community and education and jobs that I would be happy to furnish the parliament with; instead, the member for West Torrens claims that he is provoked by the member for Chaffey's answers to his questions, by your answer to a question, sir, that that then leads to the necessity for a suspension of standing orders.

It is utterly disingenuous to say that is the case. If the Labor Party is serious, then give notice of the motion. One hour's notice, that is all that is required. That is all the convention expects—one hour, two hours. We used to give two hours, but I am told that it is just one that is required. So that is fine. We will give you your motion at an hour's notice, and that hour required the motion to be given about two hours ago.

It would not have been hard. The speeches were already written. Kevin Naughton had already sent his dot points from wherever he is now trailing. The fact is that this is not a serious motion. It is not worthy of the parliament's support. The parliament should get back to question time for the 17 minutes we have left and then we can get on with the serious business of running the state—supporting the people of South Australia in their economic recovery and future in the time of a pandemic, at a time when we are able to support the people of South Australia in their work.

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens has four minutes left per standing order 405.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (14:57): In listening to the minister's reply about why we should not be debating a no-confidence motion, he pointed out that the government should get back to business. He is right: the government should get back to business, and that business is the people's business—dealing with the highest unemployment rate in the nation, dealing with a stimulus package that has hardly gone out the door, dealing with, I think, one of the worst economic crises to face this country if not the world. Instead, the Premier is in a quagmire of scandal, and that scandal can be sorted out if we debate the no-confidence motion and, if it is successful, by cutting off the limb that is causing this scandal.

If we have this debate, the state can move on. We can get rid of these two members who are taking up so much of the people's time undeservedly—so much time. Rather than talking about the people who have lost their jobs or who are underemployed here in South Australia, people who would deserve all our attention, instead what we are dealing with are parliamentarians who are trying to enrich themselves. That is not the people's business. That is a shame on this parliament.

This parliament should debate this measure. This parliament should get on with the people's business. We should be talking about education, infrastructure, jobs, stimulus, but instead the government spends its entire time defending two men who cannot be defended and should not be defended. Are we really to believe that there is no-one on the backbench who can replace these two men? Are we really to believe that there is no-one else who can do their jobs? Is there no-one else in the Liberal Party who can do what the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure—

The SPEAKER: Point of order, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The member is no longer speaking to the suspension.

The SPEAKER: Yes, that is true.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: You didn't interrupt him. He went well off script.

The SPEAKER: Member for Lee, you can leave for 15 minutes under 137A—lucky not to be named.

The honourable member for Lee having withdrawn from the chamber:

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens will come back to the substance of the motion, please.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There is nothing more important than us getting back to business quickly, and this scandal will go on. This will not go away after today. There are more and more revelations coming out by the day. The thing about this continuing and how we could end it with a debate is that it is not us who are calling journalists: it is them. It is blue on blue. There are Liberal MPs pulling hamstrings to cross the street to speak to me about the latest atrocity.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order: the member for West Torrens continues to defy your ruling.

The SPEAKER: Yes, you are on your last warning, member for West Torrens. I will sit you down well and truly if you deviate again. You have one and a bit minutes.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I really hope we can get back to the business of the people and get back to what concerns them. A debate would have been short and quick. The Premier could have made his argument, if he wanted to, about why these members should stay. We would have made our argument and the parliament would have decided. The parliament, the people's house, would have chosen whether or not we have confidence in these two members.

I think it is indicative that this government does not want to vote to show confidence in these ministers. They would rather avoid a vote of no confidence—and does that not say it all? They will not show confidence in their ministers because they do not have it. Their time is numbered. Their days are numbered. Their time is limited. Everyone knows it. People are sharpening their knives.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 21

Noes 24

Majority 3

Motion thus negatived.