Matter of Privilege

Matter of Privilege

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (10:31): Mr Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. Yesterday, I raised a matter of potential contempt of parliament with the Clerk during the course of proceedings for the election of a new Speaker of the house. To remind the house, during the first ballot the result was tied at 23 votes for each of the two candidates, with one informal vote. As a second ballot was in progress, it became apparent members of the Liberal Party were showing their ballot papers to each other in what is colloquially known as a show-and-tell. There could be no other purpose for this practice other than to enforce party discipline.

Indeed, it seemed one member in my direct line of vision was being closely scrutinised by two members on either side of him in his seat and therefore not at a COVID-safe distance. I was not the only person who observed this and other similar behaviour, and at the time I was dismayed and shocked, so much so I raised this unfortunate development—in what had otherwise appeared to be a respectful debate and vote—with the Clerk as a potential contempt of parliament. I note that the show-and-tell style practice was also mentioned in several media reports.

The Clerk at the time acknowledged the issue was raised, and the Hansard records me raising the matter at the time. I raise it now because of the unique and historic nature of yesterday's circumstances. Prior to the conduct of the ballot, I sought advice and clarification from the Clerk on how the standing order relating to the process of the ballot could be interpreted and therefore conducted to maintain the integrity of the secret ballot.

Indeed, I note the practice in the House of Commons, where standing orders oblige the house to follow a secret ballot to be had in a separate lobby from the main chamber, partly, I presume, because of the large number of members to be accommodated. I also note the Commons has had a separate review to ensure the integrity of the principle of the secret ballot.

The salient point, though, is the provision of confidentiality, which exists in other state jurisdictions—the same standard for which our own standing orders or practices seem deficient. This standing order enables members to cast their ballot in private, which is a necessary precondition for a secret ballot. Indeed, this is an entrenched practice in Australian electoral law because we have long recognised that without privacy a voter's choice cannot be said to be truly freely exercised.

I am familiar with the existence and enforcement of the practice of show-and-tell during a ballot and have always decried it—always decried it. I consider it appalling and abhorrent the opportunity for members to exercise their right to a conscience vote can be removed here in a chamber purportedly devoted to democratic processes. The fact that members in this chamber were denied the unencumbered right to exercise their free will—as was the case for members in the Legislative Council, mostly because of the representation of different political parties in that chamber—means the result of the second ballot in this chamber must be in question.

Such a flagrant disregard of the spirit of the secret ballot concept merely reinforces, for the entire South Australian public, that the opportunity to reset our behaviour and attitude and to focus on the people of this state—their problems, their issues and their futures, rather than our own—has been disregarded, trampled and lost.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: Straight out of the Trump book. Donald Trump would be very proud of that.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Point of order, Mr Speaker: I am deeply reluctant to interrupt the important contribution that the member for Florey is making, but unfortunately she is persistently being interrupted by the abhorrent behaviour of the member for Unley seeking to interrupt her contribution—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —and I ask that you direct it cease, sir.

Ms BEDFORD: And there will be another point of order because he is obviously impugning that I am giving you fake news.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Florey might resume her seat just momentarily. I have the point of order from the member for Lee. From where I am sitting, and without the benefit of microphones being turned on for all members, I cannot hear exactly what has transpired. I am aware that some words have been exchanged across the chamber and I direct all members to maintain silence as this important matter is being raised by the member for Florey.

Ms BEDFORD: Thank you for your protection, sir. A preliminary investigation about these circumstances suggests any attempt to improperly coerce a parliamentarian may be a contempt of the house and an abuse of procedure. Apart from the politics, this is actually a serious issue of constitutional propriety, and as such the Governor should be advised and may need to seek his own independent advice. In short, it has been suggested to me that what happened could be illegal and unconstitutional, as well as a contempt of parliament.

Indeed, sir, I note your own statement to the chamber shortly after your election on this point in connection with another matter, and I quote in part: 'any form of coercion, risks constituting among other things…a contempt of the parliament'. This very point was reinforced in the ensuing debate by the Premier, who endorsed your position, Mr Speaker, on principle of privilege on several occasions in the subsequent debate by saying, and I paraphrase merely because the quotes were all slightly different but made the same point: 'every member of this parliament…should be free from bullying and intimidation'. I return to the circumstances surrounding yesterday's ballot. What consequences—

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Florey, I note, pursuant to standing order 132, this is not the occasion to debate the point. The matter of privilege is raised, and I just raise that at this point—

Ms BEDFORD: Okay, well, we will get to the nub of it then, if that is what you wish.

The SPEAKER: —and would invite you to draw your comments to a conclusion.

Ms BEDFORD: Noting the secret ballot has been a longstanding practice in the election of Speakers in Australian parliaments and parliaments beyond, noting that coercion of a parliamentarian is an affront to the ancient privileges of the parliament and noting the general law may also have application to some acts of coercion, I now ask you to investigate this matter and provide a detailed report to the house. If, prima facie, this matter does involve a potential breach of privilege, I look forward to working with you and all members of the house to determine appropriate sanctions and remedies.

The SPEAKER: I have the matter and I have also to hand a note of Hansard yesterday. I refer to the member for Florey's contribution yesterday. If there are any further materials that the member for Florey would bring to my attention, I invite the member for Florey to do so. Otherwise, I will consider the matter and return to the house with a considered response.

Ms BEDFORD: Thank you, sir.

The SPEAKER: I advise honourable members, by reference to the Notice Paper, of an administrative error. Members will note that Private Members Business, Bills, Order of the Day No. 35, second listed on the Notice Paper, should be listed as Order of the Day No. 36.