Parliamentary Procedure

Speaker's Ruling, Dissent

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (14:45): I move:

That the Speaker's ruling be disagreed to.

The SPEAKER: It has been moved. Is it seconded?

Honourable members: Yes, sir.

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens will be heard for 10 minutes in accordance with standing order 135.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you, sir. Sir, I moved a point of order previously on a question asked by the member for Elder about fast-tracking, and you said that did not involve argument. When the member for Enfield asked a question saying, 'Why has the Premier not provided greater and more urgent stimulus?' you said that did involve argument. Throughout the entire proceedings of question time—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for West Torrens will be heard in silence.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you, sir. Through the entire proceedings today, I have to say I have never seen such a level of bias as I have seen today.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is the hubris and arrogance of the Premier using his majority in this parliament to stifle what is one of the most important hours in the day in parliament. It is because when we attempt to ask questions, when we attempt to ask legitimately framed questions under the standing orders, the government is using its majority to stop that or frustrate that, or to try to ridicule people who are asking questions, demanding points that quite frankly try to stop the flow of question time because they are frustrated they dare to be asked questions.

Members opposite in their answers openly attack the opposition and make flagrant statements like we don't care about creating jobs on this side of the house. They impute improper motive on us as if we are somehow callous and want to hurt the people of South Australia, and we raise that they are debating answers, that they are imputing improper motive.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order, sir: I ask you to bring the member back to the substance of the motion, which was your specific ruling which he is dissenting—not anything else that may or may not have happened during question time.

The SPEAKER: The motion is dissent in my ruling in relation to the member for Enfield's question, and I ask the member for West Torrens to address the subject matter of the motion.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is clear to me, sir, that your ruling on that question and your rulings on all other questions today have been cloaked and soaked and bathed in bias, and I have to say, sir, it does you no service to do this. It does you and the parliament no service to behave in this way. The parliament could be flowing a lot more freely. The questions that we ask on behalf of the people of South Australia are for the benefit of all South Australians. There is an old adage that a good government needs a good opposition. We are a good opposition, hence the littered ministers on the backbench now who were the first to resign in disgrace.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for West Torrens will address the motion.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, sir.

The SPEAKER: The motion specifically relates to dissent in a particular ruling just now—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sure, sir.

The SPEAKER: —and the member for West Torrens will address the subject matter of the motion.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you, sir. Sir, you have erred in your ruling. You have got this one wrong, and horribly wrong, sir, and you are doing it deliberately. I accuse you of motive, sir, and your motive is plain and obvious for all to see: it is political. It is not because you are trying to assist the house. You are not attempting to help the member for Enfield. What you are trying to do is to humiliate her. What you are trying to do is to aid and abet ministers who are not equipped to answer the question, so you are using your office, sir—your office—to attack a member who is asking a question. It is just not necessary, sir.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is beneath you. It is beneath you, just the way the Premier behaves is beneath him. But we have to endure it, but what we will not endure, what we cannot endure—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —Mr Speaker, is you ruling that the member asking for more urgent advice, more urgent assistance for business is somehow debate.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner: Have you ever looked at a video of you answering in question time?

The SPEAKER: Order, Minister for Education!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Again, Mr Speaker, it is quite obvious that warnings on this side of the house for interjections completely outweigh the warnings for members opposite.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Any casual observer of the Premier's behaviour—shouting, name-calling, the way he looks at people, the way he behaves, the way he shouts at people—is ignored whilst all of our transgressions are brought to the fore.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sir, you have erred here. You have made an error here, sir, and your behaviour today—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my right!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —quite frankly, sir, is unbecoming for a Speaker.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There they are, screaming again.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Minister for Transport and Infrastructure!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Not a warning in sight, not a warning in sight, sir.

The Hon. S.S. Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Here it is again, sir: the Premier interjecting with no warning from you whatsoever. Members from across the chamber are yelling out—no warning from the Speaker. Why? Because they are Liberals. It is that simple—for now. Wait until the charges are laid to see what happens then. But, of course, Mr Speaker, on this ruling—

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order, sir.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —the reason we have done this—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for West Torrens will resume his seat. Minister.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I ask that you ask the member to withdraw and apologise for that absolutely disgraceful statement suggesting that any charges are going to be laid against any member in this chamber.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I have made a similar ruling in relation to a point of order raised by the member for West Torrens earlier this question time. I will listen carefully to the member for West Torrens. The member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you, sir. Consistency—I am very impressed. Thank you, sir. That is a—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —very good ruling. Sir, I have to say, the reason we are raising dissent on this issue is because we have been led to this point through a series of rulings throughout this question time, and this is your first question time, sir. So I have to say it was the straw that broke the camel's back, which was already heavily burdened—heavily burdened. Because, as question time was playing out, you could see, sir, the path that you were taking, and the path you were taking was hyperpartisan. Quite frankly, I think that is unnecessary, and that is why we are moving this dissent motion: not because we want to but because we need to; we have to. It is the only thing we have.

We do not have the numbers in this house. Anyone who knows how this house operates, knows it can be a dictatorship unless you have impartiality and goodwill, and there is no goodwill from the government to allow the opposition to ask its questions because the ministers answering them are not up to the answers, so they need the protection of the Speaker, and the Speaker obliges by trying to stop questions.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order, sir.

The SPEAKER: The minister on a point of order.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I ask you to bring the member back to the substance of the motion, which is a specific ruling on a specific question.

The SPEAKER: I accept the point of order. The member for West Torrens has been brought back to the subject of the motion. It relates to dissent in a particular ruling. I give the member for West Torrens one last chance to do that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Even as we raise dissent we are being threatened. Even as we raise dissent we are threatened by the government with their majority and you, sir, with the position of power you hold. We cannot even raise dissent without being threatened. We cannot even defend ourselves without the threat of expulsion, because it might offend the sensibilities of the Manager of Government Business and the Speaker. This is getting pathetic. It is getting pathetic and becoming pathetic. Let us ask the questions and let the government attempt to answer them.

Sir, like any good umpire you should be invisible, but, sir, like the AFL you are out here with your fluorescent jumper on, running around yelling, 'Look at me, look at me, look at me,' trying to be involved in the debate. You should be invisible, sir. We are big enough and ugly enough to look after ourselves, as are members of the government. Let the house have its question time. Let us ask the questions. Let the government answer them. Stop running a protection racket for people who—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my right!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —are not capable, like the Minister for Infrastructure. When he gets up everyone holds their breath.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Shut him down.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Here we go, the Attorney-General yells, 'Shut him down,' and you oblige.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for West Torrens has been given ample opportunity to address the subject matter of the motion of dissent. The member has repeatedly strayed from the subject matter of the motion of dissent to a more generalised assessment of the state of the house.

I have given him now three opportunities to bring his address back to the subject matter of the motion. If the member for West Torrens has anything to add on the subject matter of the motion, then I invite him to do so in the time that is remaining, otherwise he will not be further heard.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, you cannot stop me from speaking, sir. You can invent standing orders, but you cannot actually do it without a vote of the house. I am doing exactly what the Premier did when the Leader of the Opposition asked him, 'Why hasn't major construction started on TQEH development?' and the Premier spoke about everything else but, and the Speaker ruled it was context. I am following your ruling sir—

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order, sir.

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Energy and Mining on a point of order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —on the context.

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens will take his seat. The minister on a point of order.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Exactly the same point again, sir. I ask you to bring the member back to the substance of the question.

The SPEAKER: I uphold the point of order. The member for West Torrens will come back to the subject matter of the motion that is before the house.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, sir, and I again point out to the house that every time I attempt to make the argument that the Speaker's ruling is unfair, that the Speaker's ruling is biased and wrong and the way it has been interpreted is wrong and not in keeping with the practices and customs of this house, the government simply moves a point of order. The example I provide is that the Attorney-General just sat back with her arms crossed and said, 'End this,' and the Speaker obliged, intervened even without a point of order.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: And here we are again—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —more members interjecting, and the Speaker is silent—silent! Here we are again, the bias on display. And, sir, this ruling of yours is the final straw and we will not take it anymore. We are not going to accept you using your numbers in the house to just try to stop debate, to protect ministers who cannot protect themselves. It is not my fault. We cannot put in what God left out. It is not my fault. It is not my fault that he cannot do it on his own, that he needs you, sir. What I say is: let us ask the questions and be invisible.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the ruling of the Speaker be disagreed to. Before I call on the Minister for Energy and Mining, I call to order the member for Unley. I warn for a second time the Minister for Education, and I call to order the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. The Minister for Energy and Mining.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (14:58): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The member opposite could not put together a cogent argument about the motion that he himself moved. The member opposite said that he disagreed with your specific ruling on that specific question, and then talked about all of his other grievances, and his other grievances could very easily be repaired by himself, his leader and his deputy leader.

The member went to a great deal of trouble to tell us things like, 'Just let us get on with question time. Why don't we get to ask questions?' Well, the opposition gave up its question time yesterday and the opposition has interrupted its own question time today. The opposition are scared of question time. The opposition, by its own actions, is avoiding its opportunity to ask questions—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —by making up—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Minister for Energy and Mining, the question is that the ruling of the Speaker be disagreed to. I call the minister back to the subject matter of the question, and I ask that the minister be heard in silence as he addresses the subject matter of the motion before the house.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes, Speaker. The reason that the opposition is doing this—this faux outrage about this one instance of one question asked by the member for Enfield—is clearly incorrect. I am sure many people who advise members in this chamber have already checked Hansard, and in offices—Liberal, Labor and Independent—around the building they are shaking their heads, wondering why the member for West Torrens raised this motion.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: When Hansard is re-read, it will be very clear to everybody that the first time the member for Elder asked the question it offended standing order 97 twice. Speaker, you generously allowed the member for Enfield to ask again, and I think your words were something like, 'The member may ask again and might like to adjust the wording of the question.' The member for Enfield removed the end of the question, removed one of offences of standing order 97, but kept the offence of standing order 97. That was in the first part of this question, which is essentially saying, and I will paraphrase, 'Why hasn't the government done enough on stimulus spending?' That is essentially—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Kaurna is on two warnings, as is the leader. The minister will be heard in silence.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Thank you, Speaker. So that is clearly an offence of standing order 97. It is clearly an inappropriate question. It is clearly an opportunity, attempted to be taken by the opposition, to assume something to be correct when it is not necessarily correct. That is the substance of what was done. It was done twice the first time the question was asked, it was done once the second time the question was asked and you, Speaker, were entirely within your rights to call it out of order the second time. You would have been entirely within your rights to call it out of order the first time, but you were very generous to the opposition, as I am sure you will continue to be.

Why is the opposition bringing this forward? They already nailed their colours to the mast yesterday with their motion of no confidence, Mr Speaker. There is nothing that they could say about you that could be taken on face value from now on because they have already disclosed their bias against you as Speaker. They have disclosed their bias against you—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will be heard in silence.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: They have already disclosed their bias against you as Speaker, and this is just another cheap attempt to try to undermine you and to undermine the government, without wanting to work through question time. The opposition has a golden opportunity every sitting week to go through question time, to ask questions.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The minister has been directed to the subject matter of the motion now on one occasion. Numerous points of order were made in the course of the member for West Torrens' contribution to the debate. I ask that the minister come back to address the subject matter of the motion, and that is that the ruling of the Speaker in relation to this particular question be disagreed to.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes, Speaker, and I think in question time today you accepted a couple of points of order from me, you rejected a couple of points of order from me and you have given me that instruction. You could not be fairer or more impartial, Mr Speaker, clearly by the way you are treating me at the moment. Let me just say that another excuse—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Another excuse the member for West Torrens tried to use in an effort to attempt to say that your ruling was incorrect was that you somehow would just do anything you wanted because the government has the numbers. The problem for the opposition is that while we have the numbers that does not make them right. It does not make them right just because we have the numbers.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The Leader of the Opposition would have people believe that you are misusing your role in the chair and that somehow, if we win a vote in the chamber, we must have been wrong because we only had the numbers—absolutely ridiculous reasons. They have accused you of—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, leader!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: They have accused you of making your ruling as an attack on the member. They have accused you of being partisan, politically partisan. They have accused you, through this motion on this ruling, of giving advantage to the government. They have accused you, through your ruling on this motion, of completely taking advantage of your position in an inappropriate way.

When those opposite go home tonight with cooler heads and have a look at Hansard, they will see that the words spoken by the member for Enfield in this chamber twice were completely out of order with regard to standing order 97 and it was very generous of you to give the member for Enfield a second chance.

The SPEAKER: I note that my ruling is in relation to the question as put on the second occasion by the member for Enfield, consistent with practice. It is possible for a member, in asking a question, to introduce facts or argument but only by leave of the house. It is in those circumstances that the question is ruled out of order.

Motion negatived.