Parliamentary Procedure

Speaker's Ruling, Dissent

The SPEAKER: I will give the member for West Torrens the opportunity to address the requirements as to form.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (10:55): I move:

That I dissent in the Speaker's ruling.

The SPEAKER: I have the motion in the following terms. The member for West Torrens moves dissent in the Speaker's ruling. It is in such spare terms. I will accept the motion. Is it seconded?

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: Yes, it is, sir, wholeheartedly.

The SPEAKER: Does the member for West Torrens wish to address the motion?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sir, yes, I do. I do this reluctantly.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my right! The member for West Torrens has the call. The member for Wright will cease interjecting.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Parliamentary tactics are acceptable in this place in their nature. What is not acceptable is the judgement of the Speaker participating in those parliamentary tactics.

There is nothing wrong with the member for Hammond attempting to delay debate, as we know members opposite just voted to try to end this debate because they do not want it voted on. That is despite the interjections from the Attorney-General telling us, 'Just get on with it. We want to go into committee and get this over and done with,' having just divided to end the matter altogether. So spare me the lectures.

Then, completely unprepared, the member for Hammond was being urged to stand up. The Speaker was looking longingly towards the member for Hammond to stand up. Of course, he was unaware he had to get up. The member for Wright was up on his feet, ready to take the call, to have the debate. The Speaker told the house, 'If the member speaks, he closes debate,' and the member began his debate.

Of course, finally, the member for Hammond rose from his slumber, realising what his role is, to get up and start speaking on something—in fact, he was so passionate about it, he had to look it up in the Notice Paper. I know the member for Hammond. He comes in here prepared. He always has written notes. He was not planning on speaking. This is a parliamentary tactic. But that is okay—

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Mawson!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —to have a parliamentary tactic. What is not okay is when the independent Speaker inserts themselves in that tactic. Why? Because the government is in minority and the government has lost control of the agenda of the House of Assembly. All we wanted was a debate on—wait for it, Mr Speaker—putting a warning label on liquid petroleum gas so that people do not die—

An honourable member: Saving some kids.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —to save kids. The government attempted to adjourn it. One member of the government had the decency of their convictions to cross the floor and voted with the opposition and the crossbench to keep the debate going.

Time has come for us to act. Time has come for us to do something. So what has the government attempted to do? Talk out private members, talk it out so the member for Wright's proposal cannot be agreed to because we know the government do not want to do it. But, sir, what has surprised me was your involvement in this ruse by the government. Quite frankly, sir, you are better than that. Quite frankly, sir, you should be above the day-to-day partisan politics of the house. You should be above this. And, sir, I have to say that generally in principle you have adhered to the principles of the house.

The reminder I have is when the government attempted to adjourn a debate on Armenian independence and you, sir, voted with the precedence of the house to continue the debate. We applauded you for that, sir, and I thought we were about to embark upon a new era of independent chairing in the House of Assembly. I applauded you. Indeed, sir, you told me personally that wherever you go if there is an Armenian standing near they come up nearly pulling a hamstring to thank you for allowing that debate to continue because you exercised the independence of the Chair despite whatever personal political cost it would have been to you from the government.

But for you to search for a Liberal speaker when there was none there, searching over and over and over again overtly trying to find someone to speak just because they were not organised, betrays, sir, the independence this house thought you had. Your ruling is wrong, sir. Your ruling is wrong. The member for Wright was on his feet. The member for Wright was speaking. Hansard will show that he was speaking.

You erred, sir. You made a mistake. You did not fulfil your oath during this ruling. And the house wants you, sir, to know that we dissent from your ruling. You are wrong. You are wrong to have made that decision. You are wrong to have erred this way. You are wrong to have tried to insert yourself in the day-to-day political machinations of this house. That is not what we want from you, sir. We want you to remain Chair. We want you to remain Speaker. We want you to be an independent, impartial Chair imparting impartial justice and enforcing the standing orders.

We do not want you to resign, but we want you to know that dissent, sir, is the last resort of the opposition. I think it has only been done three times in three years, from memory. I could be wrong on that; it might be one more. But the idea that the Speaker would insert themselves in the political machinations of the party of his affiliation to try to continue a debate after the government had tried to adjourn it simply to try to run the clock down is offensive to the house. It is offensive to the house and the Speaker knows it—and the Speaker knows it.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: The cameras will show it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The cameras will show it. My colleague the member for Lee is absolutely right: the cameras and the evidence will show that the Speaker of the House of Assembly knew what the game was and wanted to participate in it, and they should not.

So, Mr Speaker, I am sad to say you are wrong. You are wrong in your ruling. You are wrong in the way you have conducted yourself. The member for Hammond I bet does not even know why he is called up in this, does not even know how this has happened to him. He is just as much a victim as the member for Wright is, just as people who do not know that liquid petroleum gas could be fatal are. Let's get back to the core of this debate: should we put the warning labels on LPG containers? And the answer is, yes—

Mr Odenwalder: Yes, obviously!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —obviously we should. But the government tried to stop it then tried to talk out the debate.

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

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

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I ask you to bring the member back to the substance at hand, which is his suggestion of dissent. He is actually trying to move on to actually debate the bill itself.

The SPEAKER: Well, the context in which the motion is moved is clear enough. I think the member for West Torrens is entitled to make some observation about the context. I am not sure about imputing any particular motives, but I do not uphold the point of order. The member for West Torrens has the call.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The victims here, Mr Speaker, are parliamentary procedure, the standing orders and the good order of the house, which you are entrusted to uphold. I note the former Speaker giggling away. Mr Speaker, you and the former Speaker both know your job is hard. I do not for a moment think that the Speaker's job is easy. It is a difficult job, especially when you have a government reeling from being forced into minority through its own actions. That must be difficult to cope with, but it is not your role, Mr Speaker, to assist the government in its political tactics. It is not your job.

Your job is a job that the Premier cannot give you again. Your job is in the gift of the house, and the house wants you to remain Chair and remain independent, and you have erred by straying from that path you took when you first voted against the government to continue debate. Somehow you have had a lapse. Maybe it was a bad morning, a bad breakfast—who knows. I do not know what it is, but I will not be lectured to by the Attorney-General, who just voted in a division to end debate and is now crying wolf saying, 'We just want to get on with this,' despite having voted to adjourn it.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the leader!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The front!

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the Deputy Premier! The member for West Torrens has the call.

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is almost the same audacity as putting NationBuilder Liberal Party links in government websites to harvest data—that sort of front. So, Mr Speaker, we do dissent from your ruling. We ask that the house consider this dissent, not on the basis of your removal as Speaker but as a lesson to the house that we want a signal to the house that we want impartial justice from the Chair, not to insert yourself in the day-to-day political machinations of the Liberal Party—as desperate as they are now that they are in minority—to alleviate the burden on the member for Hammond, who is being forced to speak on a bill he knows little about. He was asked to do so as a political tactic. We all saw it plain as day.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: As did the cameras.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: As did the cameras, as will Hansard, as did everyone in here. I know it, the government knows it, you know it, everyone in the building knows exactly what happened: the Speaker searched for a Liberal Party speaker to talk it out. Why? Because the move to adjourn lost, which means they will lose in the house, and they do not want to. They have been humiliated enough, but yet one more humiliation for the Liberal Party.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (11:07): I rise in opposition to the dissent motion. There is absolutely nothing inappropriate in what you did. I find it very strange that the member for West Torrens would find it acceptable and include in his recent speech the fact that, when an adjournment motion is tied, there is a convention that has the Speaker opposing the adjournment so that debate can continue.

He is comfortable with that convention, but he is not comfortable with the convention—which happens week in and week out—that the Speaker says that if the particular member who moved the motion speaks he will close debate. As is always the case, that is a signal for anybody else who might like to contribute to the debate to stand up and do so.

Whether the potential closer is on his or her feet or not, it is always the case that the Speaker reminds the house that if that particular member speaks they will close the debate. When the Speaker gives that reminder to the house, there is always an opportunity for any other member who has not already spoken to come to his or her feet to make a contribution. So the member for West Torrens is happy with one convention but is not happy with another convention, and that is completely inconsistent.

The member for West Torrens talks about parliamentary tactics. In fact, the very first words that came out of his mouth when he rose to speak on this were parliamentary tactics. It is actually the member for West Torrens who is attempting to use parliamentary tactics, Mr Speaker. You have been perfectly consistent with regard to your respect for and your delivery of convention in this place, and to allow any speaker who has not already spoken the opportunity to do so before debate is closed is a time-honoured convention, and that is all you did.

We did move for adjournment, and the house did not support the adjournment, so that puts us in the position of being ready, willing and able to continue debating. It is not to seek adjournment and, if the house does not adjourn, then do nothing: it is seek adjournment and, if the house chooses not to adjourn, then we are back to business, and that is exactly where we are. The member for Hammond has made it very clear that he would like to speak on this bill.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The Attorney-General has made it very clear that, if it is the will of the house to move on to committee, as I understand it is, because I believe that the opposition has some amendments, we are ready to do that as well.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: There is nothing inconsistent with seeking an adjournment and, if that adjournment is unsuccessful, let us get back to work.

The SPEAKER (11:10): I will make some further remarks pursuant to standing order 135(3). First, I reject the assertion as to knowledge of any particular parliamentary tactic. The chain of events just now was as follows: the house divided on a motion to adjourn.

The result of the division was that the house resolved to continue debate. In those circumstances, in exercising my role as the Chair I extended the courtesy to the house, and that is to all members who might wish to participate in the debate. I am very conscious that members on all sides may well wish to contribute to the debate.

So as to be abundantly clear, I would just indicate that I had no prior knowledge or notice of any particular speaker or intent in relation to this matter. In seeing the member for Wright on his feet following the adjournment motion, it was brought to my attention that, in the circumstance, should the member for Wright commence speaking then he would close debate. In those circumstances, I looked diligently across the chamber with a view to giving any member who chose to participate the opportunity to do so.

That is the relevant chain of events in terms of the exercise of the granting of the call and in relation to the disposition of business in circumstances where the house had just voted not to adjourn debate. As far as I was concerned, in circumstances where the house has just voted not to adjourn debate, it might be expected, from the perspective of the Chair, that there may be members in the house wishing to continue that debate, so my focus and concern with respect to all members were simply that: to give all members who might choose to do so an opportunity, perhaps an ample opportunity, to take that chance to contribute to the debate.

So the ruling was made in those circumstances. I will now go ahead and put the question that the motion of the member for West Torrens of dissent in my ruling be carried.

Motion negatived.