Question Time

COVID-Ready Road Map

Mr MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Leader of the Opposition) (14:18): My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier confirm that the secret modelling relied upon for his 200-word road map is reliant on 24 ICU beds being fully operational at the Royal Adelaide Hospital?

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL (Dunstan—Premier) (14:18): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. As I stated yesterday, we will be receiving further information. I have a detailed interim briefing tomorrow and there is a further meeting on Tuesday next week. We plan to consolidate that modelling. I don't plan to go through it in this chamber piece by piece because the Leader of the Opposition thinks that he has some knowledge about what has been provided to the government. We have committed to providing that in a consolidated way. That was done by Professor Nicola Spurrier.

Quite frankly, it's a regrettable situation that on a daily basis now we have the opposition going out trying to undermine the excellent advice that we have for the people of South Australia. The Chief Public Health Officer has asked—

The SPEAKER: Premier, there is a point of order. A point of order has been raised.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Standing order 98: the minister must answer the substance of the question. The Premier is now debating the answer by making false allegations about the opposition.

The SPEAKER: I am not sure that's necessarily made out, member for West Torrens. I will listen closely to the Premier.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Thank you very much, sir. The Chief Public Health Officer in South Australia, Professor Nicola Spurrier, has on many occasions suggested that she is prepared to provide this modelling, but some further detailed modelling is still coming in. It works in a fairly iterative sort of fashion. I don't know why it is that the Labor Party have been out there, shouting from the rooftops, 'What has the government got to hide?' That to me doesn't suggest that they are trying to—it suggests to me quite unequivocally that they are trying to undermine the credibility that the people of South Australia place in the public health advice that we have received.

I for one believe that it has been excellent. I for one believe that South Australia has done extraordinarily well. I don't know what would be the motivation of those opposite to continually undermine—

The SPEAKER: Premier, there is a point of order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Again, standing order 98:

In answering a question, a Minister or other Member replies to the substance of the question and may not debate the matter…

The Premier is now implying a motive to our questions, sir. That is debate.

The SPEAKER: There is a point of order to the point of order.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The opposition, in framing the question, chose to use the word 'secretive' or 'secret' in relation to the advice and the Premier's answer has been entirely in relation to the choice that the Leader of the Opposition has made in using that term to undermine health advice.

The SPEAKER: I am going to give the Premier some latitude because he is the Premier. I will be listening carefully to his answer.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: As I was saying, South Australia has done extraordinarily well with regard to the management of the COVID-19 global pandemic. Much of that has been based upon the excellent advice that we have received from SA Health, the cooperation that we have had across government, whether it be the South Australia Police or the government departments more broadly, but mainly our partnership with the people of South Australia, who trust the advice that they have received.

It is extraordinary to me that during a pandemic there are those who seek to undermine the credibility of the advice which is being provided. When those opposite are saying, 'Secret advice: why won't you reveal it?' to me, that undermines the confidence that the people of South Australia would have in this advice at the very time that people need to have that confidence. I can't see that motivation. This is why I say we need to refer—

The SPEAKER: The leader on a point of order?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Thank you, Mr Speaker, under standing order 127: a member may not impute improper motives to any other member. The Premier has consistently throughout his response thus far to this question suggested that members of the parliamentary Labor Party, including myself I think on one occasion, seek to undermine the health advice. The opposition wholeheartedly rejects that assertion. In fact, the very suggestion that members of the Labor Party are undermining the health advice, indeed, undermines the bipartisan approach—

The SPEAKER: There is a point of order to the point of order. Leader of Government Business, I will hear out the point of order and then I will come to you for a response.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: It undermines the bipartisan approach that has been applied to health advice and I ask the Premier to withdraw.

The SPEAKER: A point of order on the point of order, the Leader of Government Business.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes, the point of order is that the member was not raising a point of order: he was just making a speech.

The SPEAKER: There may have been elements of it which extended beyond the reference to the point of order but, nevertheless, there has been a suggestion that an improper motive may have been imputed. I will consider that matter.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Standing order 127 refers to individuals, not to collectives. The Leader of the Opposition wasn't actually sure whether any individual—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: 'And I think including myself' is what he said. So standing order 127 does not apply to what this member is trying to raise.

The SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, it is a point well made. Standing order 127 of course provides a prohibition on members from digressing from the subject matter of any question under discussion—a matter I will keep close watch on during the course of question time—or imputing improper motives to any other member or making a personal reflection on any other member.

As I understand it, and I will take clarification from the Leader of the Opposition, the suggestion has been put that an improper motive has been imputed to him. There was then a reference to a class of people, in this case members of the Labor Party. I am not sure that I can act in relation to the class, but I am happy to hear any member out on that point. As I understand it, there's a complaint in relation to the member himself, personally.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: That's correct, Mr Speaker. The Premier impugned the motive of myself, suggesting that I was undermining health advice when not once have I done that, sir, and I ask him to withdraw.

The SPEAKER: Perhaps I will hear from the Premier in relation to this matter. Premier, do you wish to withdraw or do you maintain—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: That would be a matter for you to instruct me, sir.

The SPEAKER: Perhaps that will be the easiest.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: You can check Hansard and, if you think there has been an infringement—

The SPEAKER: I am eager for us to—

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —then that's your decision. But I certainly won't be withdrawing it without your instruction.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, Premier.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! It's a subjective test, of course, as to whether a member is concerned about any matter that might impute an improper motive and I think the best course here, Premier. I invite you to withdraw and then we can continue with question time.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: I withdraw that comment, sir.

The SPEAKER: Very well.