Matter of Privilege

Matter of Privilege, Speaker's Statement

The SPEAKER (12:00): Before I call on government business, I make the following statement with regard to the matter of privilege raised by the member for West Torrens in this house on 23 July. However, before raising that matter, I outline the significance of privilege as it relates to this house and its members. Privilege is not a device by which members or any other person can seek to pursue matters that can be addressed by debate or settled by the vote of the house on a substantive motion.

McGee in Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand—and I have particular regard to the third edition, chapter 48 at page 661—in my view articulates the test as to 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'.

By the matter raised by the member for West Torrens in relation to answers given by the Premier to questions in the house on 1 and 21 July, the member for West Torrens alleges that the Premier deliberately and intentionally misled the house. More specifically, on 1 July the Premier provided the following answer to a question asked:

I thank the member for West Torrens for his question. This is a matter, of course, for the Legislative Council, but what I can say is that I am very supportive of the fact that the President there has referred the country member accommodation entitlements to the Auditor-General. He will look at all members' returns with regard to that matter. More than that, the President has also referred his specific taxation issues to the commissioner for taxation in South Australia.

There have been questions and there have been issues raised. We now have two eminently qualified people looking into this issue. My understanding is that the President has asked for a swift response from the Auditor-General so that we can clarify this matter. I just repeat that if there are issues that are identified in that report, either from the Auditor-General or from RevenueSA and the commissioner for taxation, then we will take the appropriate action.

Further, on 21 July the Leader of the Opposition asked the following question to the Premier:

If members of the Premier's cabinet have made errors that the Premier believes are unacceptable, what recourse or what reprimand has the Premier imposed upon his ministers for wrongful claims of the country members' allowance?

The Premier provided the following answer:

…the government has written to the Auditor-General, and let's not forget for one second that it is indeed the Auditor-General who provides oversight of this parliamentary allowance. It's not a government allowance: it's a parliamentary allowance, and it's the Auditor-General who has responsibility for making sure that members act in accordance with those guidelines.

The Premier then went on to say:

We have asked the Auditor-General to provide a greater level of scrutiny; in fact, we have suggested to the Auditor-General that he may choose—we cannot direct him, but he may choose—to conduct random audits of country MPs' accommodation allowance claims. This will assure the people of South Australia that, when we spend a cent of their money, it is done in accordance with those strict guidelines.

In raising this matter of privilege, the member for West Torrens contrasts the Premier's answers referred to above with the public statement made by the former Independent Commissioner Against Corruption on 23 July and alleges that the Premier has wilfully and intentionally misled the house by implying to the house that the Auditor-General was investigating the matter.

The member for West Torrens quoted the following passage from the former Independent Commissioner Against Corruption's statement:

I have discussed with the Auditor-General any activities he may be conducting relevant to the matter to avoid duplication. The Auditor-General has advised me that he does not intend at this time to investigate the matter in light of his office's statutory responsibilities to audit the financial statements of all statutory public authorities.

I have had the opportunity to carefully read the Premier's answers and compared them to those parts of the former independent commissioner's statement identified by the member for West Torrens. I cannot find any inconsistencies between the two. While the Premier makes reference in his answer on 1 July that the Auditor-General 'will look at all members' returns with regard to that matter', there is no suggestion that the Auditor-General will be investigating the matter.

This is confirmed by the Premier's answer on 23 July, where the Premier makes it quite clear that the Auditor-General cannot be directed to undertake any course of action to look into this matter. In the Chair's opinion, this is not a matter of privilege for the reasons I have set out. Accordingly, I do not propose to give the precedence which would enable any member to pursue this matter immediately as a matter of privilege. My opinion, however, does not prevent any member from pursuing the matter by way of substantive motion.