No-confidence Motion

Member for Bragg

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (14:13): I move:

That this house—

(a) no longer has confidence in the member for Bragg to continue in her role as Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government and as a member of the Executive Council, for deliberately and intentionally misleading the House of Assembly and breaching the Ministerial Code of Conduct;

(b) calls on the Premier to immediately advise Her Excellency the Governor to revoke the member for Bragg's commission to serve as minister of the Crown; and

(c) calls on the Speaker of the House of Assembly to present Her Excellency the Governor with a copy of this motion, if adopted, expressing this house's will that the member for Bragg no longer serve as Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government and as a member of the Executive Council.

It should not have come to this. The simple truth is that by now the member for Bragg should have already resigned as a minister of the Crown. The situation and the facts could not be clearer. The facts have been investigated, they have been established, they have been corroborated and they have been reported on to this place.

Those facts show that the member for Bragg, in her capacity as a minister, has not only misled this parliament on three separate occasions on three separate topics, all regarding the application by Kangaroo Island Plantation Timbers for a deep sea port, but she had a conflict of interest and she failed to declare or manage that conflict of interest when she exercised her ministerial functions as a decision-maker.

Not only has the member for Bragg misled parliament and done it repeatedly but she has now put us in the position where, having done so, none of us can have any confidence in what she tells us from now on. How can we possibly take the word of the member for Bragg in her capacity as a minister when she is answering a question in question time, when she is managing a bill, on anything that she advises the house? She now is tainted. She now has a proven reputation for misleading this house and we can no longer have confidence in her for that reason. Worse, in her performance as a minister she has failed to recognise, declare and manage her conflict of interest when making a decision as a minister.

We know from what has been investigated and reported back to us that it was not just a perceived conflict of interest: it was an actual conflict of interest. This of course means that she has clearly and obviously breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct. How can South Australians have any confidence in her conduct as a minister, in her conduct as a decision-maker? When she has such an obvious conflict of interest, she keeps that to herself, she fails to declare and manage it, and she continues to make decisions despite it. This is simply not good enough. This does not meet the standards of this parliament. This does not meet the standards that the Ministerial Code of Conduct requires. She must resign as minister.

Parliamentary convention and parliamentary history dictate that she must resign. Only recently, in the last Liberal government, former Liberal Premier John Olsen resigned for misleading parliament; former tourism minister Joan Hall resigned for misleading parliament; former Deputy Premier Graham Ingerson resigned for misleading parliament. The Deputy Premier should be aware of this. She replaced Graham Ingerson as the member for Bragg. This is the standard that this parliament expects of ministers.

Even her current colleagues have established that she should resign as a minister of the Crown. We have had the member for Schubert and the member for Chaffey resign as ministers over the country members' accommodation allowance scandal. We have had Terry Stephens of the other place resign as President of the Legislative Council over the country members' accommodation allowance scandal. We have even had the member for Hammond resign as Government Whip due to the country members' accommodation allowance scandal, and we had a former member of the other place David Ridgway resign as tourism minister for filling out blank time sheets. That is the standard that parliaments past and present have set for a minister and the standard that the member for Bragg fails to meet. She must resign.

These are the facts that have been established and reported to the parliament. We know that the Deputy Premier, as Minister for Planning, already had a view against this project before it even got to her. We know that she turned up unannounced to a meeting between former member of parliament, now Mayor of Kangaroo Island, Michael Pengilly, and Kangaroo Island Plantation Timbers and told them that they had their proposal in the wrong location on Kangaroo Island.

Some three years later, when she finds herself in the position of Minister for Planning after the ministerial resignation of the member for Schubert—and I might say, one wonders whether she insisted on getting the portfolio of planning, knowing that this issue remained unresolved—she finds herself as the decision-maker. She had a conflict, not just a perceived conflict but an actual conflict of interest.

We know that other members of the Liberal Party were aware of this conflict and they resolved to raise it with her. We know that members of her own department, her own officers in her own department, were aware of this conflict and they raised it with her. We know that her own ministerial staff raised this conflict with her. They even went to the point of preparing the necessary paperwork so the Deputy Premier would refer this matter away from her to another minister so that it could be decided without a conflict of interest. What did the Deputy Premier do? She ignored all that advice and she went ahead and made the decision.

Everybody perceived the conflict and took steps necessary to avoid it—everyone except the member for Bragg. She deliberately and knowingly made that decision despite that conflict of interest. The conflict is obvious. It has been obvious to the media and it has been obvious to this parliament. Of course, it has been obvious to Kangaroo Island Plantation Timbers and it is now obvious to the community.

Anyone who has seen that graphic, showing the proximity of her rental property to a forest which was contracted to be felled by Kangaroo Island Plantation Timbers, realises that there is an obvious conflict. The Deputy Premier, who has assured this house that she thoroughly read that report, would have seen that same evidence. She was aware of her conflict and acted despite it—absolutely extraordinary. Despite her department actually recommending that this project be approved, what did the Deputy Premier do? She went ahead and did not approve it. She denied that project from proceeding. She withheld her ministerial approval, contrary to the advice of her department.

It gets worse. Once it became obvious to everyone that this is how the Deputy Premier had conducted herself, when she was questioned about it in this place on different occasions, she misled the house—not once, not twice, but three times: once about her own interests in the project, once about the now mayor, former member of parliament and factional colleague of the Deputy Premier, Michael Pengilly's interest in the project, and once about whether the government had done any work on alternative locations. She did it knowingly, she did it deliberately and she did it repeatedly.

Her defence? Her defence to these charges of misleading the parliament and having a conflict of interest is laughable. Her defence to having a conflict of interest, despite everybody raising it with her, despite everybody showing her the written documentary evidence that she had one and despite the steps that were taken to try to mitigate her conflict of interest, she says, 'Well, I assessed whether I had a conflict of interest and I reached the judgement that I don't.' As if that is good enough.

On the charges of misleading parliament, not once, not twice but three times, she says that this has already been raised as a matter of privilege by the opposition, that it has already been furnished to the former Speaker, the member for Heysen, factional colleague of the member for Bragg, and he assessed that she had not. As if that is good enough. We now know that not only did she mislead the parliament on three occasions, but that ruling by the member for Heysen, when he was Speaker, is completely wrong—absolutely wrong.

If it is not worse that she has misled the house three times and she has failed to manage her conflict of interest, her conduct through these recent weeks has been absolutely appalling. In an effort to try to deviate these efforts to uncover her behaviour, she has issued a threat of defamation against the member for West Torrens. She has claimed that issuing this threat means that the matter is allegedly sub judice and that would prevent the parliament from getting to the bottom of this matter. What a joke! She writes to the member for West Torrens and says, 'You better deposit $100,000 in a nominated bank account within two weeks, or else.' I have seen more persuasive Nigerian scam emails than the conduct by the Deputy Premier. It is laughable.

If that was not bad enough, then she and the Premier had their ministerial staff, their ministerial advisers run around to the media backgrounding all sorts of slanders and aspersions against the counsel assisting the select committee, the member for West Torrens and the member for Enfield. It is absolutely appalling behaviour. The fact of the matter is, she is not fit to be a minister. She has misled this house deliberately and repeatedly. She has failed to manage her conflict of interest. The standard has been set by her current colleagues and former Liberal ministers. She must resign.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL (Dunstan—Premier) (14:25): I think we have had a lot of bluff and a lot of bluster from those opposite but no cogent argument whatsoever which would support the motion. The member for Lee of course moved this motion yesterday. I do not support it one iota, but it is very instructive that he moved it yesterday before the select committee report was even tabled. Magically, he had some sort of insight into what was going to be provided to this house today.

That is what we are basically left with at the moment, to consider a motion which I do not support and I do not think many members in this house will support because the reality is it is not based upon facts. In fact, the member for Lee has outlined that 'now we have the facts before us'—I dispute that completely and utterly.

If we look at the evidence that has been provided, we now have a report which has been tabled only hours ago in this chamber and which supposedly we are meant to have considered by the time we got to the member for Lee's pre-emptive motion, which was provided to us yesterday. We also now have a dissenting report. This was not a unanimous decision of the select committee.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier has the call.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We have a dissenting statement, which has been included in the documentation, which has been provided to this house. It was not a unanimous decision.

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell: Did you write it or Vickie?

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Mawson!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: And, of course, we now have a decision by the select committee to refer this matter to the Ombudsman. This is something that the government actually supports and the reason why we support it is that there are issues which have been raised and we do need to have this dealt with once and for all. But I do not support that the select committee has had the time to consider this. The parliament has not had the time to consider this before it comes to this motion which is before the house—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —at the moment. The motion that the member for Lee moved yesterday says that the house has lost confidence in the member for Bragg because she deliberately and intentionally misled the House of Assembly. This has not been established. In fact, previously—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier has the call.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —this was asserted by members opposite—I think the member for West Torrens and the member for Enfield. This was a matter which was considered by the former Speaker. He provided his advice and his decision to this house, which was dealt with very disparagingly by the member for Lee—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for West Torrens and member for Playford!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —but the advice and the decision were very clear: that was not something which occurred. There was no deliberate, there was no intentional misleading of this house. The three reasons for which those opposite will ultimately be seeking a sanction against the member for Bragg just do not stack up in any way, shape or form.

It goes on to say that there has been a breaching of the Ministerial Code of Conduct. The reality is that we can all see what is written in the Ministerial Code of Conduct. It provides that a minister needs to form an opinion as to whether or not there has been an actual conflict of interest or perceived conflict of interest.

The Deputy Premier has made that assessment. She has my 100 per cent support. I do not believe for one second that there has been any breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct and there is absolutely nothing which has been provided in evidence to the select committee which would make me change my mind whatsoever—nothing whatsoever.

It is then we have the second paragraph that suggests that, if this motion passes, I now need go and see the Governor, Her Excellency the Hon. Frances Adamson AC, and ask her to remove the commission for the Deputy Premier. This will not happen. I will not be doing this. I will not be told that this is a reasonable course of action because there is no basis for this whatsoever, especially when we consider that this is a matter which is now referred to the Ombudsman, the right person to be making this assessment, not the select committee cobbled together, making hasty decisions, not providing full evidence to be provided and only considered by this house earlier this morning. I will not be travelling there.

The third paragraph, sir, provides that you will then be heading to Government House to advise the Governor that the house has lost confidence if this passes. Well, again, as you would be aware, as I am sure Her Excellency is aware, she does not take advice from the Speaker of the House of Assembly. She takes advice from the Premier and from the cabinet, and I will not be providing that advice. I simply will not be providing that advice.

The member for Lee then, out on a limb, suggests what should happen is for the member for Bragg to resign. He thinks that she should resign and he states precedents. He states the precedents that have occurred in this parliament. I will tell you the most recent precedent, and that is the successful no-confidence motion that was passed in Ian Hunter. There was not one—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —successful no-confidence motion, not two successful no-confidence motions: there were three successful no-confidence motions. In fact, when these decisions were being debated, none other than the Leader of the Opposition was in the other place defending the Hon. Mr Hunter. There is only one person in this entire chamber—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: Well, who wouldn't want to swear at Barnaby Joyce?

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Lee!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —who has had any experience whatsoever with regard to a successful motion of no confidence, and that is the Leader of the Opposition himself who actually defended Ian Hunter, lost the debate—three times. Did he resign? No. Was he sacked by his leader at the time? No. That is the most recent precedent that we have to deal with.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Lee!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The reality is that I am not going to be lectured on integrity by those opposite. I am not going to be lectured on what I should be doing as the Premier of South Australia. I have to form my own opinion as to whether or not the member for Bragg is worthy of continuing in this role and enjoying the confidence of myself and my cabinet—and the answer to that is unequivocally yes. She enjoys my 100 per cent confidence.

I have known the member for Bragg since before I came to parliament. I have been impressed by her aptitude, her capability, her intelligence, her compassion in every single decision that she has made. She works night and day. When I became the Premier of South Australia there was nobody better to be the Deputy Premier and Attorney-General in South Australia than the member for Bragg.

We have worked together as a leadership team now for almost nine years. I think this is now the longest leader-deputy leader relationship in the history of the Liberal Party in South Australia and, as I may have remarked to the house the other day, it is a relationship which is about twice the length of my marriage. It is a very long relationship and it is one that I have enjoyed, and I have always had extraordinary confidence in the member for Bragg as the Deputy Premier, as the Attorney-General in South Australia and, in more recent times, as the minister responsible for planning and also for local government.

The reason for that is that I can see her judgement. I see her judgement every single day of the week. Our cabinet meets twice per week. We meet on Mondays. We meet on Thursdays. Every member of the cabinet needs to work very hard to prepare themselves for the decisions that need to be made. I do not think anybody works as hard as the Attorney-General. Her breadth of understanding across the portfolios that exist in South Australia is unparalleled. Her application as the Attorney-General driving important reforms in South Australia, like the establishment of an appeals court in South Australia, is excellent. She has reformed many areas of important—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Playford!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —legislation, including in the area of domestic and family violence, with the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme, the intervention order reforms, leading our charge in terms of the National Redress Scheme. Then, of course, as well as in other areas recently driving the necessary reforms in terms of local government, driving the necessary reforms in terms of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act in South Australia.

This is a reform that was not without its controversy, not without its opponents. It was put in place under the previous government—in fact, it was led by the then Attorney-General who was also acting as the planning minister—but it is being delivered in full by this government and by the Deputy Premier. There is absolutely not a single, solitary shred of evidence that has been provided to the select committee that moves me one iota from where I was prior to that select committee—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Trumpesque, this is Trumpesque.

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

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —being put into place.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Lee.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Earlier this week, we heard the spurious argument from the Leader of the Opposition that perhaps because the Deputy Premier had a property that she occasionally rented out somehow some logging across the road would diminish her capacity to earn an income from that was a reason why she should move away from that decision. I have never heard such poppycock in my entire life.

In fact, most of the time the people who are on that property are people who have found themselves in a difficult situation, like we saw when people were allowed to use that accommodation when they were rebuilding their lives after the recent bushfires on Kangaroo Island.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for West Torrens!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: The reality is that the Deputy Premier is doing an excellent job. There is no way whatsoever I will be going to Government House to ask for her commission to be removed.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: You can't do without her.

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Lee!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: In fact, sir, I expect to continue to serve as the Premier with the member for Bragg as my deputy to get through this extraordinarily tough time that we have over the next two or three months.

There were many occasions on which the deputy and I had to work night and day, especially during the early days of the coronavirus. There were some weeks where we held cabinet four, five or six times in a single week. At every opportunity, when there were complex legal issues to be dealt with, legislation changes to be dealt with, planning changes, local government changes, to make sure we could optimise our performance as a state through the coronavirus, the Deputy Premier, the Attorney-General, the planning minister, the local government minister, was by my side.

She has served her state, she has served her seat, she has served this government with distinction, and I completely and utterly reject the comments from those opposite.

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:37): The Premier has eloquently given me the frame for the beginning of my speech today. I fear he has not had the opportunity to read the report because he appears to be a little short on the detail of the very serious errors of judgement that the committee found the Deputy Premier has committed.

I will just go through some of the edited highlights. There are so many it would take too much time to go through all of them, but these are the ones that particularly struck me as being concerning. First of all, there is the problem of having deliberately misled the parliament, and two of those examples I found particularly egregious when I was sitting here listening to them. The first was in a ministerial statement the minister read out: 'Neither the minister nor any family member owns property near or impacted by KIPT forests.'

We know that is not true. You have even said that is not true because you know, Premier, that there is a property owned by the Deputy Premier adjacent to KIPT forests.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Dr CLOSE: The second one, 'near or impacted by' and this one particularly struck me when I was sitting here—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier is called to order.

Dr CLOSE: 'It's not adjacent, it's not adjacent.'

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Premier is called to order.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Transport is called to order.

Dr CLOSE: The second one—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Hammond is called to order.

Dr CLOSE: No—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Education is called to order.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Premier is warned. The deputy leader has the call.

Dr CLOSE: The second one was the suggestion that there is no proposed truck route going near the mayor's house. The Deputy Premier said, 'There is no proposed route past the house for loads of trucks.' I knew sitting here that that was wrong because I had been on Kangaroo Island a few months earlier with the Natural Resources Committee and been past the mayor's house and was told on that bus, 'This is the proposed route for the trucks when they go up to Smith Bay, and there's Michael Pengilly's house.' So I could not understand why she would even say that and must have known that it was wrong, so not only misleading but deliberately misleading.

Then we move to the conflicts. Now there is an actual conflict because of the property owned by the Deputy Premier and by her family. That is an actual conflict. You cannot wish it away by saying, 'I don't mind trucks.' You cannot wish it away by saying, 'One day maybe those trees were going to be knocked over anyway.' If you own property that close to an area that is going to be affected, then you have an actual conflict and there is no other way to find.

But I find more egregious the perceived conflict because that matters to this institution that we act not only appropriately but above question, that people cannot wonder if you made the wrong decision. The Deputy Premier has a longstanding family history on Kangaroo Island, is aware that this is a divided community over that proposal and has been for a long time about those forests, is a very close—although I find that inexplicable—friend of the mayor, Michael Pengilly, and is an owner of extensive properties, as is her family, across the island. The department raised this because they could perceive it was a problem yet the Deputy Premier does not perceive that that could be seen to endanger a government decision.

I have admired the Deputy Premier for a long time. She has been a very senior female member of parliament and she has been a senior Liberal female member of parliament at a time when it was even harder for women to be sitting on those benches than it appears to be now. But I am disappointed that the Deputy Premier is letting down this institution by not acknowledging her error of judgement and not putting the interests of this institution above her own.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (14:41): I move that the motion be amended as follows:

Delete paragraph (b):

(b) calls on the Premier to immediately advise Her Excellency the Governor to revoke the member for Bragg's commission to serve as a minister of the Crown

therefore, current paragraph (c) becomes a new paragraph (b).

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

Honourable members: Yes, sir.

The SPEAKER: The motion is in order. As I understand it, there is a call from the floor to make plain the terms of the amendment. The Leader of Government Business might assist.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Remove point (b).

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: No.

The SPEAKER: As I understand it, the substantive motion seconded is to remove paragraph (b) of the motion now before the house. Perhaps the Leader of Government Business might address us on the amendment.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point (b) is not going to happen regardless. It is frivolous to have it in there. I certainly submit to this house that it should be removed from this motion.

But, back to the main motion, let's look at the history of what is going on here. For the last 3¾ years, we have been subjected in government to frivolous, imaginative attacks from those opposite, trying to create motions of no confidence, trying to do anything they can to just throw mud, hope something sticks somewhere—all nonsense and all rubbish. Yet, when those opposite were in government and motions of no confidence were moved against their ministers, they just ignored them. They pretended they did not happen, they pretended they did not matter, but now they become one of, in their minds, their best methods of attack. They have just completely changed their spots. They are not to be trusted. They are not to be believed.

I remember that, when I was in opposition and those opposite were in government, I heard the member for West Torrens say to a colleague of his when the member for Bragg was on her feet contributing to a debate, 'I would have her on my team anytime.' He said, 'I would have her on my team anytime.' But that was okay when the member for Bragg was in opposition. Now the member for Bragg is in government, it is a completely different perspective: just attack anybody on this side of the chamber—just attack anybody.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: They are changing their spots from being in government to being in opposition.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Wright is called to order.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Mr Speaker, have no doubt: this has got nothing to do with Kangaroo Island Plantation Timbers. This has got nothing to do with Smith Bay. This has got nothing to do—

The Hon. Z.L. Bettison interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Ramsay!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —with the state's economy and nothing to do with the planning system. This is just an attack on the member for Bragg, the Deputy Premier, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Planning.

Mr Picton: What a joke.

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kaurna!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: It is just a personal attack led by the member for West Torrens—a politically motivated, mudslinging fishing exercise, just hoping that they can get something to stick somewhere. What I would say to those opposite, what I would say to anybody who is thinking about supporting this motion, is beware—beware of the member for West Torrens because he used to say that he would have the member for Bragg on his team anytime, and guess what? Any one of you is in line for the same treatment one day if that is what he decides.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Guess what? You know it. You have seen it. You have seen it in action over the last 20 years. So, you people, I suggest you be very, very careful—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the leader!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —about what you ask for. There is a presumption by those opposite that the member for Bragg—

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The leader is called to order.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —is guilty. There is just a presumption and it starts with the public attacks even before the committee began taking evidence. The member for West Torrens had accused the Attorney-General—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —of deliberately and intentionally misleading the house even before starting to take evidence. The member for West Torrens said, and I quote, 'Vickie Chapman has no option but to resign.'

Dr Close interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The deputy leader is called to order.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: It goes on and on and on. Somebody who wanted to be in an apparently objective parliamentary committee had made some very serious attacks before even seriously contemplating what was going on. Now the committee not only wants to do the investigation but wants to do the sentencing as well. The committee has decided in a majority that it thinks there are questions to be answered. The committee has referred this matter to the Ombudsman, to a higher authority—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —to have a look at, but before the Ombudsman starts the investigation, before the Ombudsman comes back with findings, those opposite want to execute the member for Bragg. They think it deserves another look by the Ombudsman, but they do not actually want to wait to see what the Ombudsman has to say. They want to jump straight to the chase, which is the personally motivated political attack.

That is all there is to this, except of course the fact that the committee is made up of five people and consistently three of them had one view and two of them had another view, so it is true to say that in a majority the committee came to findings, but it is also true to say that 60 per cent of the committee had one opinion and 40 per cent of the committee had another opinion.

So 60-40 is hardly a damning outcome, so much so that annexure E in the report is actually a dissenting statement by 40 per cent of the committee. Forty per cent of the committee disagrees with the findings, yet those opposite want this chamber to just roll along with their personal attack as if it is fact, as if it is united, that just because they say so it ought to be believed. Because they say so, it ought not to be believed.

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens has the call.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (14:49): Thank you, sir. I remember reading a book in high school that stuck with me most of my life, and it was Nineteen Eighty-Four, and I remember this quote:

…if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth.

The Attorney-General would have us believe that she did not know an assessment report, which she told this house she had thoroughly read, would show that freight routes went past her close personal friend's house. Yet she told this house for a reason that it did not. Why? Why would the Attorney-General not tell us that she knew the proposed freight routes would go past Mayor Pengilly's house? Do you know why? There was not a single piece of advice before her telling her to reject this development.

On the basis of all probabilities, every piece of advice from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, from Minister Patterson's department, from Minister Wingard's department and from the Department for Environment and Water—every agency—recommended approval. So why would the Deputy Premier not tell this parliament about the freight routes and trucks laden from 6am to 6pm—two trucks every six minutes—that would go past his house? Why would that be?

Why would the Deputy Premier not tell this house that she owns land adjacent to the contracted KIPT forest to be felled and that there would have been diesel trucks, diesel generators and chainsaws from 6am in the morning to 6pm at night for a period of one year to 18 months? Why would she not tell us that? Why would she tell the parliament, 'No, I have no property adjacent or adjoining any KIPT operations'?

Why would she tell us that when she knows full well that it was not true? When she got that assessment report there were maps, there were routes, there were diagrams. Is anyone going to tell me in this house that, when she opened and saw those maps, she did not know where her house was?

The Premier said 'some property the Deputy Premier owns, some piece of land she occasionally goes to'. Well, it is interesting what the Deputy Premier herself says about this property and how much it means to her, because after becoming Deputy Premier after a long 16-year wait in this parliament, this is what the Deputy Premier told a media outlet about her Kangaroo Island home and the property directly adjacent to the KIPT contracted forest:

When I return, I still feel like I'm coming home,' Ms Chapman said. 'It will always be home to me and I hope to return permanently when my career is finished.

This is the home she does not care that trucks are going by. This is the home she does not care that there are chainsaws and diesel generators across the road. The Premier can scream and shout as much as he likes, until he is blue in the face. I do not care. The truth is this: the Deputy Premier has been caught misleading the parliament.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Mr Speaker—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Chaffey is called to order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —the important thing about this parliament since 1856, since responsible government, is this: we give the executive extraordinary powers either by statute or by cabinet declarations, or by ministerial decisions, whatever it might be, that require them, whenever parliament is sitting, to present to the chamber for one hour to answer questions from all of us.

We cannot tell them like a court. The Speaker cannot hold a minister down and tell them, 'No, no, answer the question.' A minister can answer as they see fit, and it has been that way forever. The one rule they all have to abide by, the one rule that they cannot break is that they cannot mislead us. They do not have to answer the question. They can avoid answering the question, they can divert from the topic and offer us background detail, they can talk about something else, but they cannot mislead. When they get caught misleading—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —when you get caught taking money—

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Chaffey!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —when you get caught doing something wrong, you resign. That is what happens.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Chaffey is called to order.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Transport is warned.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The truth is that when—

Members interjecting:

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

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —a secret report was commissioned by the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, called the Wavelength report, that was commissioned to find an alternative site for the port. We heard evidence from KIPT executives that in 2017 the Deputy Premier walked into a meeting and said that she thought the proposal for the port was in the wrong place. Smith Bay was the wrong place. That might have been true. It might be the wrong place, but she showed to the proponents that she had an apprehended bias. They said, 'Well, if we move somewhere else—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —there's a marine park there.' The Deputy Premier apparently told the representatives from KIPT: 'I can move that. I can just change that.'

Why the intense issue with Smith Bay? Could it be it would ruin the views of her close personal friend, the Mayor of Kangaroo Island? Could it be? Could that be just the issue? Or could it just be that no-one else on the island or no-one else in government can have any say about what happens on that island unless the Chapmans and the Pengillys decide it? Let's go even further. Let's dig a bit deeper here. The Premier—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of Government Business is called to order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —has told this house he would have made exactly the same decision as the Deputy Premier. He would have rejected that port. The truth is this: every piece of advice before the department, every single department gave advice to approve the port.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Police is called to order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The reason the Deputy Premier could not delegate this to anyone else is that if it had gone to any other minister it would have been approved. There would have been no basis for them knocking it back, no piece of advice from an independent officer saying, 'Do not approve.' Not one. Planning and infrastructure: support. Investment and trade: support. Premier and Cabinet: support. Environment and water: support.

On what basis could any other minister with an unbiased mind turn to the recommendation and say, 'Despite all the recommendations to approve this port, I'm going to say no'? That is why the Deputy Premier did not delegate this decision—because she knew what would happen. That is why she is guilty and that is why she has to go. She had a bias, she is conflicted, and to cover that conflict she misled us.

And when you mislead the parliament you cannot govern because all the people have is the parliament to hold the executive to account. We have nothing else. This is it—question time. This is all we have to hold the parliament to account. I will also point out that when the former Speaker gave his exoneration, wasn't it amazing that all of those emails to and from the Speaker's office, the Deputy Premier's office and the department were all blacked out? Something about legal professional privilege, despite the Attorney-General telling us she never sought any legal advice about this. I wonder what that advice was saying? Yet here we are.

Evidence: she owns a property adjacent KIPT-contracted property, the mayor's house is on a freight route and there was a report for alternative sites. There were those reports. There was a fourth case that we could find that the Deputy Premier misled the parliament, but the Queen's Counsel recommended that we not do that point because there was an attempt at clarification in the committee that was not really a clarification, but it was open to us to find.

It is clear as day: the Deputy Premier has got to go—got to go. People have gone for less. But the reason she will not go is that the Premier does not have the backbone to do it because his government is on its knees. Why is it on its knees? Because it is about to lose a no-confidence motion in a minister.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (14:58): I have listened to the speeches from earlier today. I have listened to the contributions from the member for Lee, the Deputy Premier and the member for West Torrens. I find it stunning that the member for West Torrens is talking today because he himself personifies the reason why the committee's report should not be given weight by this parliament and why the parliament, indeed why this chamber, should not support it. Its findings should have no bearing on the decisions of this chamber.

He demonstrated before, during and since a bias that is personal, nasty almost to the point of being deeply problematic. Throughout this entire debate today—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —he has not stopped shouting. No matter what is going on, no matter what the nature of the contributions being made, as every day in this parliament, he keeps on shouting. He keeps on shouting. He has an aggression that he cannot seem to constrain himself from sharing. And he did it in the lead-up to the presentation of the proposal for there to be a privileges matter, and he did it during the select committee inquiry and he did it in public. He has done it in this building, and it is absolutely inappropriate. It actually undermines the integrity of what we can take out of this report.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I urge all members to reflect on that because it is no small thing to have bias before the committee even starts sitting when considering the matters that are being dealt with. The parliament has before it a motion that is quite significant in its dramatic terms, to the point where it behoves this parliament to take very seriously that consideration. I bring the parliament's attention to the words of Dr Gray QC in talking about the importance of members of the select committee taking no bias into the matter, where she said:

…it is…important for each member of this committee to bring an unbiased mind to this inquiry…to engage in the fact-finding functions of this inquiry free from any preconceptions.

I contrast significantly the member for West Torrens and, potentially, other members of the Labor Party in their perceived bias and their actual bias with the diligent manner with which the Attorney-General, the Minister for Planning, conducted her considerations in relation to this matter. There are three key matters—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for West Torrens!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —that I think are really important for all members of this house to seriously consider when forming a position on the vote in front of us. Did the Deputy Premier mislead the parliament? Indeed, the select committee alleges that she did, and not just that she misled the select committee; it also alleges—and it is beyond me how they can reach this assessment—that she did so knowingly.

The second question goes to whether there was a conflict. The third question is that which I have started to address and will come back to again later: does the committee inquiry's statement that she misled the parliament amount to any real evidence that she did or is there the possibility—and I encourage all members to think very seriously on this—that members of this select committee, prior to suggesting that there be a committee, prior to putting forward their arguments, had already formed the view on what they would find should they be a member of that committee? If that is the case, you cannot give ground, you cannot give weight to the findings of the committee, and we know very strongly that that is the case. The question comes across: what about Dr Gray?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Playford!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Dr Gray is not a member of this parliament. Dr Gray has not been elected by the people of South Australia to serve in this parliament. Indeed, in the Westminster tradition we have quite a different way of going about our business to that which is in America. I heard the member for West Torrens, amongst his other shouts earlier, saying that this is like Donald Trump. America has a tradition where people are appointed to investigate, prosecute and aggressively try to bring down political opponents.

This morning, we heard the member for Enfield allege that the way that this select committee had gone about its business in a novel way, where a QC had been instructed by solicitors at who knows what expense—sir, I assume you know what expense; was it $90,000, or was it more?—to the people of South Australia by solicitors and informed by, I think, four members of this parliament's staff.

It is an extraordinary body of work at great cost to the taxpayers, all with one purpose in mind, set up by the Labor Party of South Australia: to try to bring down the Deputy Premier of South Australia for the political gain of the Labor Party.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Mawson!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: That is why the Labor Party put forward this motion. That is why the Labor Party convinced—I think unfortunately—members of the crossbench to set up the inquiry, to support the inquiry. Its consequence was in effect an American-style investigation that was supported with taxpayers' funds for the pure political motive of bringing down the Deputy Premier. At its heart, at its core of being, is there a member in this house who does not believe that the member for West Torrens had that in mind when he was conducting negotiations with members of the crossbench in relation to the establishment of the inquiry?

Does anyone in this house not believe that caucus was discussing this, maybe even again on Tuesday when caucus was so long extended that many of them missed an appointment that they promised to have with me and Healthy Harold, the giraffe? Is there a single member of this parliament who does not think that this is exactly what they had in mind all along?

If you do believe that there was bias and if you do believe that the member for West Torrens and the member for Enfield went into this committee inquiry with a preconception, with prejudgement of what the outcome would be, then you cannot give weight to the committee's findings. You simply cannot if you believe that they prejudged the matter.

As to the questions in relation to whether the Deputy Premier misled the parliament, I will address the comment made by the member for Port Adelaide. The very opening statements of her remarks included this suggestion, this allegation of fact that the Deputy Premier owned property opposite KIPT property.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I am corrected, sir. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition tells me that she said she owned property opposite KIPT timber.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Hammond is called to order.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Port Adelaide is called to order. The member for Playford is called to order.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I will accept that. If I am incorrect, then I will accept her correction that it was opposite KIPT timber. The fact is—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the minister for Transport!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —you have to establish more than the opposition has, or indeed more than the committee inquiry found, because you have to establish first that there was a knowledgeable—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, minister for industry and skills!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —conflict, indeed that there was any conflict at all. The Deputy Premier has stated that she did not know that it was KIPT timber, as was said, then the Labor Party in their committee and in today's evidence has not established—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: So she didn't read the report.

The SPEAKER: Order, member for West Torrens!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —that there was a KIPT property—because it was not; it was privately owned forest—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Ramsay!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —that was always going to be logged at some point because that is the purpose—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: It was in the report!

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens is called to order.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —of a privately owned forest. The Labor Party—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Kaurna!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —in saying that the Deputy Premier misled the parliament also has to establish that she did knowingly do so. I would submit that she neither misled the parliament irrespective or knowingly.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: And certainly not knowing that KIPT had some sort of contractual arrangement, whatever the details of them are—the member for West Torrens seems to be—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Playford!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —very deeply of the understanding of the timing and everything else of the contract with KIPT; he can advise the house. But the critical thing is that the Labor Party needed to establish that the Deputy Premier knew that KIPT had a contract over that timber to even bring forward the perceived conflict that it has alleged, let alone the actual one.

On the actual one, there is a very serious statement to be made in relation to actual conflicts of interest. Somebody is not disqualified purely by being a member of a broad class or a member of the public, otherwise, anybody on Kangaroo Island would be incapable—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Anyone who owned property—

The SPEAKER: The minister has the call.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —or lived on Kangaroo Island would be incapable of making a determination in relation to any property matter on Kangaroo Island because it is only—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The leader is called to order.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —as a member of such a broad class that the Deputy Premier would have to answer such a claim. The Hon. Russell Wortley would be prevented in such a case from answering a claim. The Hon. Frank Pangallo would be prevented in such a case from answering a claim, as indeed would property owners on Kangaroo Island.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The idea put forward by the Labor Party that because—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: It was repeated by every speaker so far that because the Deputy Premier has, and I quote, 'a close personal friendship—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Waite!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —with the former member for Finniss, Michael Pengilly', that somehow makes it a conflict and there are certain areas there. Deep personal friendship does not amount to a familial relationship. It does not amount to a personal relationship of a spouse or a loving couple. It was put forward in evidence to the committee inquiry that the Deputy Premier did not go to school with the member for Finniss. She knew him, obviously, as a member of the island. There are very few people on Kangaroo Island the Deputy Premier does not know. He was indeed a member of this chamber. He was a colleague. He was significantly older than the Deputy Premier.

It must be said, and this is something of which I have some knowledge, that the Deputy Premier did not even necessarily support the Mayor of Kangaroo Island in each and every one of his political endeavours. There was at least one occasion that I am very familiar with when she was supporting somebody else—unsuccessfully.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: It is absolutely no evidence of the fact that there is a relationship of any sort with the Mayor of Kangaroo Island that would be relevant to the committee's inquiries or the opposition's statements, yet they have each mentioned it as if this is a salient point.

I think that there is a piece of property on Kangaroo Island that was the subject of obviously a very tragic set of circumstances. It is very unfortunate that that set of circumstances was brought into the debate in the chamber, and I will clarify. It is very unfortunate that the outcome of that set of circumstances was brought to this chamber as part of the debate as some of the reason why people felt that there was a conflict. That is tawdry, that is inappropriate and it is deeply unfortunate.

The fact is that the Labor Party, its members, its arguers, the people who have put forward the propositions in this debate, have continually said that there was a clear recommendation, that this approval needed to be offered. The fact is that we know from the evidence to the inquiry that it was not so clear-cut. We know from evidence to the inquiry that even the provisional recommendation with conditions that was recommended was even then a lineball decision and, further, that any decision was a matter for the Minister for Planning. According to the legislation supported by those opposite, that was the outcome.

The fact that there was a recommendation, the way it was put by the Labor Party is not accurate and the way it was put has no bearing on this case. There was no misleading of the house, there was no conflict of interest and the committee report's findings should be given no weight by members of this house. I urge all members to oppose this ridiculous, frivolous, politically motivated, nasty motion.

Mr MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Leader of the Opposition) (15:11): There can be no misapprehension about the significance of the vote that is about to be cast. Regardless of the outcome, this is going to be a historic moment.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: Just talk into here.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Innovation and Skills!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The parliament is now at the precipice, the precipice of choosing maintenance of a basic standard—

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: What's behind your tie?

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Innovation and Skills is warned.

The Hon. S.S. Marshall: You're all miked up!

The SPEAKER: Order! The leader has the call.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —the precipice of choosing to maintain a basic standard that has been fought for and won over hundreds of years of parliamentary democracy, or choosing the abyss of deliberate acquiescence—

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: Does it flash when it's on?

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —of parliament deceit. Let there be no doubt: the Attorney-General is a formidable woman. She is confident, strong and steadfast. She is articulate and informed—

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: So you're reading this, Pete? You're the only one reading it.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —which begs the question: how has the Attorney let it come to this? How is the government of South Australia—

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: Even Susan Close didn't have to read it!

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Innovation and Skills is warned for a second and final time.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —in now such a state of complete political paralysis?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Playford! Member for Wright!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: We are all human. We each have our failings, but it has become clear the Deputy Premier suffers the greatest dose of pride one has ever seen. Unfailing pride denies the Deputy Premier any sense of self-awareness. Pride blinds the Attorney from the realisation that her actions alone are now suffocating the Marshall Liberal government. Pride renders the Attorney incapable of seeing the forest from the trees—in this case, both literally and metaphorically.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Transport is warned.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The parliamentary committee has laid bare the evidence. There is no doubt—

The Hon. S.S. Marshall: There was a dissenting statement!

The SPEAKER: Order, the Premier!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —the Attorney-General did have a conflict of interest. The Attorney-General did not declare the conflict of interest. The Attorney then acted in accordance with the conflict and rejected a private sector development despite official advice recommending otherwise. Then, as a pièce de résistance, she knowingly misled the house, which is code for 'the Attorney-General—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Hammond!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —the first law officer of our great state, lied to this house'.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Education is called to order.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: For those observing these proceedings today, and ultimately in time immemorial, they must understand that this is not a victimless act of political belligerence. The consequences of the Attorney's actions are grave. The report to the committee itself finds, and I quote:

The existence of a conflict or bias also has the potential to undermine investor confidence in the State, with associated negative consequences on employment and development.

At a time when this state for the majority of this calendar year has had the highest unemployment rate in the land, at a time when this state is suffering wages growth—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —below the rate of inflation, à la a real wage cut—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the Premier! The leader has the call.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Now more than ever we need investors having confidence in due process.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Hammond is warned.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: There are consequences also of knowingly misleading the house. The propriety of what we say in this house is underpinned entirely by the value of our word. If we accept ministers walking into this place and knowingly misleading the house, then everything we say in this place has the potential to become redundant.

And then why are we here? At that point we must ask: what is the point? How can question time serve its legitimate and critical function within a parliamentary democracy to hold the executive to account if the opposition and crossbench members can ask questions of the government and they knowingly mislead the house without consequence? At that point, our whole system fails. Now more than ever it is critical that our system of government, our parliamentary democracy succeeds.

It remains true that this state remains in a declared state of emergency. The words that we say must be honest. The words that we speak in this place, more than any other, must remain true so that the people of this state can have confidence that when their leaders ask them to make sacrifices in an emergency, that those words are based in truth. The moment the test of truth fails at any point, let alone during the course of a declared emergency, then people's confidence in government erodes, then people's capacity to show faith in their leaders in their time of need diminishes.

It is telling that throughout the course of this debate, that during the course of the 30 minutes of defence of the Attorney-General's actions, we have heard complaints about process, we have heard about Harold the healthy giraffe, we have heard the member for Stuart and the Premier seek to issue slurs against the member for West Torrens as they have been backgrounding against the member for Enfield, participants in the process—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —but what we have not heard—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members to my right!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —for 30 minutes from the government is any explanation about how the Attorney did not have a conflict of interest.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The Ministerial Code of Conduct—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Chaffey!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —refers directly—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Premier, you are called to order.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Minister, you are called to order.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The Premier's actions, the Premier's conduct speaks for itself. The Ministerial Code of Conduct says very clearly that a conflict of interest does not only encompass actual conflicts of interest—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The leader's time has expired. If there is only one sentence to go, I will hear it.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I have just one sentence and I would like to be able to say it with a degree of protection from the Chair.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members to my right! The remarks are about to conclude. We will hear them.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: A conflict of interest does not only encompass actual or direct conflicts of interest between a minister's public duty and private interest: a potential or perceived conflict of interest may also constitute an actual conflict of interest. The case is clear. The minister must resign.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Chaffey, you are testing the patience of the house.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Members are called to order.

Ms LUETHEN (King) (15:18): I rise to speak against the motion and make a contribution and support—

The SPEAKER: Member for King, as much as I would wish to indulge you, and I do recognise you, I see that the time for the debate has, in fact, expired. The question before the Chair is that the amendment be agreed to.

The house divided on the amendment:

Ayes 26

Noes 19

Majority 7

Amendment thus carried.

The SPEAKER: The question is now that the motion as amended be agreed to.

The house divided on the motion as amended:

Ayes 23

Noes 22

Majority 1

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members! Members, I bring your attention to standing order 141. There will be no quarrels across the chamber as the count continues.

Motion as amended thus carried.