Personal Explanation

Member's Remarks

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (10:32): Just before we commence proceedings this morning, I seek the leave of the house to make a personal explanation.

Leave granted.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It had occurred to me to raise this initially as a matter of privilege but I thought it would be more expediently dealt with if I dealt with it as a personal explanation. Yesterday in question time, the member for Stuart, also the Leader of Government Business, made a false and misleading statement regarding comments I was alleged to have made during a talkback radio interview last week. In responding to a government question from the member for Colton, the member for Stuart—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: The member for Lee will resume his seat. The Deputy Premier on a point of order.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The assertion that the statement was misleading must come with a substantive motion, so I would ask the member to remove the word 'misleading' or that you rule that he not be able to continue with his personal explanation and that he put it in its proper form.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: Another attempt to silence dissent. I am just about to substantiate it. Why don't you just let someone else speak in the chamber?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: You know the rules.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: I know the spotlight is not on you and that aggrieves you greatly.

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Lee! I think the Deputy Premier has made her point. Member for Lee, the opportunity to make a personal explanation extends to identifying where you feel you may have been misrepresented, not to debate the nature of the matters that have been raised by others beyond that point. You can identify where you feel you have been misrepresented.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, and I will correct it.

The SPEAKER: The member for Lee has the call.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you. Yes, I will substantiate it and I will correct it as is my right according to the standing orders, as offensive to the Deputy Premier as that may be.

The SPEAKER: Member for Lee!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: In responding to a government question—

The SPEAKER: The Deputy Premier on a point of order.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am offended at the suggestion that I am offended by this aspect of his contribution. You have ruled on the matter and advised the member how he might proceed, and I would ask him to withdraw and apologise.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No. I am sorry, sir, but there will not be one.

The SPEAKER: Order! There will need to be somewhat greater particularity.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to do that. The member asserted that he would be proceeding with this matter notwithstanding my being offended by that process. I have accepted—

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: No, he said 'offensive'.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, absolutely.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! If there are words that the Deputy Premier takes personal offence at that are directed to the Deputy Premier, then the Deputy Premier might identify those words.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not have the transcript, but it is words to the effect 'notwithstanding that the member is offended by my right to do so'. Words to that effect are what he said. I am not offended by the determination that you, sir, have made, or by the right of the member to make a personal explanation.

But he was brought into order, I suggest, by you to explain that he is here to identify a circumstance where he may have been misrepresented, not to make assertions that the member for Stuart or anyone else has made false or misleading statements. That is the crux of how you have assisted him, to remind him about what his obligation is. I take no offence at that, but I do take offence at him suggesting in some way that I am in any way wanting to impede his right to make a personal explanation.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my left! The Deputy Premier now has those matters, I think, quite substantially recorded on Hansard in relation to both the characterisation and the Deputy Premier's view about them. The member for Lee has the call in circumstances where he has sought the opportunity to make a personal explanation. I will be listening carefully. The member for Lee has the call. The member for Lee will continue a personal explanation. There will be no gratuitous reflection—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would never do so, sir.

The SPEAKER: —on members in the course of a personal explanation. The member for Lee has the call.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will particularise my grievance against the member for Stuart—

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

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —and I do so thus.

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

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The member for Lee has just made it very clear that, while seeking to make a personal explanation, he is not going to make a personal explanation because his own words were: 'I will particularise my grievance against the member for Stuart.' That is inadmissible in a personal explanation.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The point of order is well made. If the member for Lee has matters that are relevant to the scope of a personal explanation, the member for Lee may make them. The member for Lee may not debate the matter nor particularise the nature of his grievances against members in this house. The member for Lee has the call, again, for the purposes of a personal explanation.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, sir. In responding to a government question from the member for Colton, the member for Stuart stated that I had participated in a radio interview last week on radio FIVEaa. This much is correct. However, he also said, and I quote, 'It seems the member for Lee'—

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

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —'had a case of temporary amnesia during his FIVEaa interview'.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lee will resume his seat. The Minister for Energy on a point of order.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: A personal explanation is for a member to explain what he or she has done that he or she wants to correct, not what somebody else has done.

The SPEAKER: For the moment, there is no point of order. The member for Lee is identifying the relevant events. The member for Lee has the call.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Ms Cook interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Hurtle Vale!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The minister continued reading to the house from a prepared document and claimed that I said, and I quote from the member for Stuart's words:

I also suspect that this interconnector is a strategy by SA Power Networks which you remember…used to be ETSA before it was privatised by John Bannon.

Those were the words the member for Stuart claimed that I said on radio FIVEaa. I thought that odd yesterday. I reviewed the transcript of last week's interview. It confirmed that I said no such thing. I have also reviewed the audio recording from the interview. It confirms that I said no such thing. Mr Speaker, in seeking to make his point to the house yesterday, the minister misrepresented the comments I made on the radio. What I actually said in the interview, in response to a question about what my view on the interconnector was, was this:

We think this is a terrible idea, we've got the State Government here in South Australia the Liberal Government wanting to build this interconnector to basically change what we have at the moment which is in South Australia we've got a huge amount of solar and wind renewable electricity being generated backed up by South Australian gas-fired generators, they want to change that so that we keep our solar and our wind and we're backed up by the coal-fired generators in New South Wales and it's not necessarily an argument about whether coal or gas is better, if we're reliant on coal-fired power when our renewables aren't producing well what do you think the New South Wales generators are going to do to the prices they charge for that power, they're going to skyrocket through the roof and as Bruce Mountain said it costs a lot of money to pump electricity hundreds and hundreds of kilometres across the New South Wales border to get to consumers here.

What we would rather see is rather than spending $1.5b—

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: Is this still part of the personal explanation?

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —on this interconnector…an alternative solution where South Australia is self-sufficient and self-reliant on its own electricity production, we've got the greatest amount of renewable electricity generation in the country and we should be using that as an advantage, renewable electricity when it's produced is absolutely dirt cheap and that's what we should be benefiting from as consumers.

I also suspect this interconnector is a strategy by SA Power Networks which used to be ETSA before it was privatised by John Olsen and Rob Lucas…

Not John Bannon, as the member for Stuart claimed.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Mr Speaker, the interview went on—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lee has risen, seeking the call to make a personal explanation. The member for Lee has identified the relevant matters by which he is explaining a matter of a personal nature that I presume he views reflects on his honour or integrity, to use the words in the practice. The member has provided a quote from a relevant media report. Should the member wish to debate the matter, there are opportunities to do so in the course of the proceedings, including the grievance debate and other matters. This is not an occasion to do so. Unless the member for Lee has something of a very specific and brief nature that he would wish to conclude on, I would ask him to conclude his remarks.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Mr Speaker, perhaps I would ask, on a point of clarification: I have sought to take advantage of what opportunities the standing orders provide me to correct false statements that have been made about me. That is the ability that a member has under a personal explanation. I have sought to do that and, every five to 10 seconds of my commencing that task, I have been interrupted, contrary to standing order 131, which provides that interruptions by other members are not to be allowed.

You have heard those points of order and you have repeatedly found that there are no points of order. You have sought to constrain my ability to correct the record and the offence that it has given me and my reputation in this place. Sir, all I am asking for is to make use of standing order 108 for a brief, five-minute personal explanation. I do not see why that needs to be (a) continually interrupted, or (b) unnecessarily curtailed.

The SPEAKER: Order! To the extent that any clarification may be appropriate, I note, for the benefit of all members, that a personal explanation is designed to enable a member to explain to the house matters of a personal nature that, as have I said, the member might consider reflect on the member's honour or integrity, according to the practice, or otherwise of some personal emotional import to the member.

It is not unusual for a personal explanation to be in circumstances where a claim of misrepresentation arises from media reports or the preceding question time or debate. The member for Lee has had that opportunity. The member for Lee has made a point, at least to me, very clearly. I understand the point that has been made and the correction to the record. I make those observations in response to the member for Lee's seeking clarification and for the benefit of all members. To the extent that there is any point of order that is raised by the member for Lee, there is no point of order. I think the personal explanation might be concluded. If that is so, then we will move on. The Minister for Energy on a point of order.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: No, not on a point of order, just a point of clarification. I am 100 per cent confident that what I said in question time yesterday was completely in line with the transcript that I had of that interview. If it turns out that the transcript was incorrect or there were some other error connected to this issue, then I will correct the record.