Sittings and Business

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (17:13): I move:

That at its rising today the house adjourns until Tuesday 3 May 2022.

The SPEAKER: Order! Debate will follow. The member for West Torrens wishes to debate the motion.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (17:14): I move to amend the motion as follows:

Delete '3 May 2022' and insert '30 November 2021'.

So the house, at its rising, recommence on Tuesday 30 November 2021. May I speak on this?

The SPEAKER: Tuesday 30 November, the first day of the optional sitting week?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes.

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

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There is a new definition of cowardly, sir. What a brave government we have before us, so fearful of scrutiny, so fearful of actually trying to govern. How many bills are on the list here, which the government said to us were urgent, will now be abandoned? Child protection—apparently, it is not important anymore. Look at the other government business they are going to abandon now—our brave Premier—a long, long list. Here we are—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Of course, we have the Civil Liability (Institutional Child Abuse Liability) Amendment Bill: gone. We have Criminal Law Consolidation (Abusive Behaviour) Amendment Bill: gone. We have the petroleum and geothermal act to encourage hydrogen activity here in South Australia: we do not need it, apparently. We have associations incorporated, suicide prevention, driver training and assessment. Apparently, they are worried about child sex offenders and corruption in driver training but they are happy to defer it until May next year. Of course, the Premier's pet project—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —the Aboriginal Representative Body Bill, which of course will never see the light of day this year.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Why? Because the government is mired in scandal.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The government is on its knees. The government has lost its majority. The Deputy Premier, the first minister of the house of government, since responsible government was introduced in South Australia, has been found by a select committee to have misled the parliament on three occasions, breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct and has a conflict of interest. We passed a no-confidence motion on her, and the parliament is about to debate whether or not we should censure her or suspend her from the house for those offences—

Mr Brown: Quick, shut that down.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —and what do they want to do? Shut it down. You can walk out on me, Premier, but you cannot walk out on the people of South Australia. They want a representative government. They want a parliament. They elected one. The parliament should be sitting and it should be sitting to do the people's business—and we have business to do. Why would the government shut it down? Because they do not want questions asked. The transport minister, not knowing he employed his sister-in-law—he did not know who she was when she was working in his office.

Then, of course, there are other matters we want to debate. We want to talk about the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman's inquiry. Of course, we found out in the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee that the Premier, the Premier's office, has been referred to the Ombudsman by Office for Public Integrity. Why? Not only do we have one investigation by the Ombudsman into the government, the Premier and the deputy leader but we have two—two. That is why they want to shut down the parliament. I know the Deputy Premier thinks this is funny. She is the only minister—

Mr Brown: It's all for her.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It's all for her. The only reason we are not sitting is that she cannot face any more questions, questions about how she misled us deliberately—not once, not twice but three times—telling this parliament things she knew were not true to cover up and conceal her conflict. And here she is now trying to delay the parliament sitting again until after the next election. Governments that are not afraid of scrutiny are not afraid of parliament. When parliament sits the people have scrutiny and the people's business is done.

Today is the day the Premier has told every South Australian he cannot face scrutiny. Today is the day the Premier has told every South Australian he is afraid of the parliament. Today is the day the Premier has told the people of this state that his government is so riddled with scandal, so paralysed by fear, it cannot act, it cannot govern, it cannot sit in parliament. A government that cannot sit in parliament should not govern. If you are not up to governing, quit and let someone else do it.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (17:20): I move:

That the time available for this debate—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members to my left! The Leader of Government Business has the call.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I move:

That time remaining for this debate be limited to three more minutes.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 23

Noes 23

Majority 0

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Standing order 141 prevents quarrels between members across the chamber. There being 23 ayes and 23 noes, the ballot is tied and I cast my deciding vote with the noes.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Not only are they cowards, they are incompetent cowards. They are afraid of debate, afraid of parliament and then they try to cut the debate about cancelling parliament until May next year to three minutes. What does that say about the government? We have Minister Tarzia's Auditor-General's examinations to come soon, and of course they are afraid of it. Why? What is there to be afraid of? Are you waiting, are you? You are trying to adjourn the house. You just voted for it; you might have noticed.

Mr Odenwalder: Let's do it in May next year!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: 'Let's do it in May next year,' he says. The idea that the Premier would come in here with the audacity to say, 'I'm going to shut down parliament for four months before an election'—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —five months: sorry. The members opposite are correcting me—five months. It is longer: no scrutiny for five months.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: And here they are, attempting to tell us that they are ready to take on the future. Well, if you are not ready to take on the present, how can you take on the future? If you cannot govern now, how can you govern after the election? If you cannot run the parliament, how can you run the state? If you cannot run your party, how can you be Premier? These are all fundamental questions the Premier cannot answer and the scrutiny has overcome him.

The cowardice of this act will go down in the annals of history in this place alongside the first no-confidence motion on a minister of the Crown in the house of government. It is unprecedented that the government would attempt to shut down the scrutiny here. There are many matters that we need to consider, many matters that we need to debate. Emergency powers will be expiring soon. They need to be considered here, but the government does not seem to care about that.

Have they consulted Professor Spurrier? Have they consulted Commissioner Grant Stevens about the fact that they were about to silence the parliament? Have they? Have they informed anyone else that they were planning on silencing the parliament? The real question the people of South Australia need to ask themselves is why would the government not want to sit? What is the motive that they have for not wanting to sit? I will tell you what it is, in my humble opinion: it is that they are cowards.

They are frightened. They are frightened of this house. They are frightened of the justice that is coming the Deputy Premier's way for deliberately misleading this house on three occasions and committing a contempt of parliament. They are frightened of independent statutory officers having the protection of parliament to table reports into maladministration and misconduct. We now know of two inquiries into the Premier, one referred to the Ombudsman by the Office for Public Integrity into the office of the Premier and the Liberal Party. No wonder they do not want parliament to sit because the Ombudsman requires the protection of this place.

Then, of course, there is the referral from our committee, the select committee on the maladministration and misconduct of the Deputy Premier. The committee wanted to interview the Premier, but of course he was too afraid to come and answer questions of the committee. The advice we received is that, because the Premier refused to accept our invitation, we could not make any findings about what the Premier knew, what he did, how he acted and so we should refer to the Ombudsman. So the Premier has been referred to the Ombudsman by a committee of this parliament and by the Office for Public Integrity.

I think that is why the Premier does not want parliament to sit—because he knows what questions he might have to answer: 'Have you been interviewed by the Ombudsman? Have you engaged legal counsel? Who is paying for that legal counsel? What questions have you asked? Have you invoked legal professional privilege over documents that the Ombudsman needs to have to see whether or not the Premier's office committed maladministration, misconduct or potential corruption in public administration in the way they handled the data scandal?'

But of course we will not get to ask questions because the government wants to suspend the parliament post the election. I think that speaks volumes about what it is this government stand for—nothing. They believe in nothing, they stand for nothing, they have nothing to say, they have nothing to do, they have nothing to legislate. All they are doing is running a protection racket for the ministers. That is all they are doing.

The sessional order, which I thought was an excellent sessional order and which was just revoked, was the first of its kind to remove the Crown's reserve powers to call the parliament. Why? We are in a unique situation during the global pandemic. The parliament may need to sit. Who else would be better placed than our Speaker, our independent Speaker, to tell us when it is in the public interest for us to sit and meet?

Of course, when we meet what are the requirements of the executive, the cabinet? They must front here for an hour and answer questions—scrutiny. In any democratic institution scrutiny is the most important tool we have. When you are the minority, it is the only tool you have. Had it not been for scrutiny we would not have found out that the Deputy Premier had misled the parliament on three occasions because the former Speaker ruled there was nothing to see, despite an independent member of the bar, using the proof of evidence required of people who practise at the bar, finding that the Deputy Premier misled the house. That is just stunning.

Ask yourself this: perhaps the reason they do not want to sit and not come back on 30 November, on that Tuesday, is that we might ask questions of the Deputy Premier about what interactions her office had with the then Speaker's office, who wrote that opinion the Speaker happily read out exonerating her and how it is that all that advice from Ingo Block and the Speaker's office was blocked out for legal and professional privilege.

It is almost as if there were some sort of—what is the word I am looking for?—cover up, conspiracy, collusion. Well, I have felt a bit of guilt about moving the motion that removed the former Speaker, a little bit of guilt—after all, I had employed him once a long time ago to be my lawyer.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: Did you win?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, I didn't win. However, I felt a bit of guilt, but after I was reading those papers that we summoned from the Attorney-General's Department and I saw that advice blacked out backwards and forwards from the Speaker, I thought, 'That's appalling.'

I do not know what it said, but I will give the former Speaker the benefit of the doubt. It might have been, 'Mind your own business. I'll come to an independent mind of what I'm going to find.' Maybe the advice said, 'Yes, I know the Attorney-General said she didn't have land near or adjacent to a KIPT contracted forest, but she does.' Maybe it said, 'Mayor Pengilly's house is directly alongside freight routes,' maybe it did say that the government did commission a secret report to evaluate the sites of a potential port—all those things the Deputy Premier told this parliament never actually happened but are all factually true.

Maybe it also said that the assessment reports did have recommendations and that those recommendations did recommend an approval, but the former Speaker said there was no case to answer. So maybe this tactic is about that, or maybe it is about what we read in InDaily today about how the Deputy Premier told the parliament yesterday that she does not operate an Airbnb, yet InDaily found caches on the internet that that property at Gum Valley, directly opposite a KIPT forest, had been operated as an Airbnb since 2013.

It is almost as if there is a pattern of behaviour here. It is almost as if misleading the parliament is just routine for some people. I will give you another example of a question we might ask if parliament sits again on Tuesday. The Deputy Premier, in the committee, said that she has 3,000 trucks go past her house every day on Portrush Road. Portrush Road? 'I am used all that traffic. Those trucks do not bother me.' There is only one problem: the Deputy Premier does not live on Portrush Road. She lives in a quiet suburban street.

But of course when there is a pattern on misleading the parliament, when there is a pattern of just not telling the truth, you can get away with it. Perhaps we would have asked questions next week on the Premier's declaration of register of interests, where for every year he was in opposition and did not control the numbers in this house, he declared the Steven Spence Marshall Family Trust and everything in it. Now he does not. Perhaps we would have asked him questions about what was in that trust. Perhaps we would have asked him questions about his interests in business. Perhaps he was concerned that there might be matters that we would ventilate that might embarrass him in the lead-up to the election.

Perhaps we would have asked him about the October ramping figures. Perhaps he is worried about us getting the November ramping figures. Perhaps he is worried about the ramping figures over December and January and perhaps he is really worried about the ramping figures in February. So, of course, if parliament is not sitting, he does not have to hold a press conference. He can hide in cowards castle in the state administration building and not answer any questions.

That is why we are going to move an amendment that this house come back on Tuesday 30 November to ask the government questions again. Perhaps we will ask questions: why the adjournment, why the rush, why the fear? Perhaps shadow ministers and community groups will ask: why is it now no longer important to have an Aboriginal voice to parliament? Perhaps we will ask that. Perhaps we will ask why driver training reforms are no longer necessary.

Perhaps we will ask about the COVID powers that expire on 1 December 2021 and may need to be extended. Perhaps they can tell us and we can ask the Premier's suicide prevention representative—which is the Premier, because he cannot find anyone else to do it because they keep on sacking him, to be fair. To be fair, it is the other way round.

Dr Close: They keep leaving him.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: They keep on leaving him. So apparently that is not important, but let's talk about driver training for a moment. The government has told all of us in our briefings that they believe there is corruption in driver training and there need to be cameras installed in cars to protect minors from sexual predators in their cars. They said it was urgent. Now they do not care. Now the government could not give two stuffs about it. They do not think it is important.

The government claim that they care about hydrogen. They care about it so much they have spent $1 million on it for the last 3½ years to come up with a regulatory framework. That regulatory framework is before us, and they are so worried about it and they want to pass it so quickly that they want to come back and do it next year. The abusive behaviour amendment bill in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act—

Ms Hildyard: I have had that on the agenda for a year and they have just moved it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There you are.

Ms Hildyard: That's how much they care about it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Of course, there is the Mutual Recognition (South Australia) (Further Adoption) Amendment Bill. It is clear to me that this government now has serious issues. A commentator asked, 'What is bugging the Premier? Why is he always so angry?' I think Mike Smithson said, 'What is up his nose?'

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: What has got up his nose?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What has got up his nose?

I do not know what is up his nose. I do not know why the Premier is always angry and grumpy—grumpy at pesky questions about being Premier.

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, there are two extreme moods we get from the Premier: the moody, angry, non-combative, dark, surly Premier to the really up and about, positive, 'How are you going? How's Anthi? How are the kids?' Premier—the two extremes. I do not know what it is, but something is in the air. I do not know if it is something he caught at a Jonas Brothers concert. I do not know if it is something that is bothering him, but something has changed the mood of the Premier.

It could be that his deputy has been found guilty of misleading the parliament. It could be that the man he said would be a future Premier is leaving. It could be that his closest ministerial colleague, the member for Chaffey, had to resign in disgrace. It could be that there are a series of independent statutory officers who are about to make adverse findings about his government. It could be that the polling is just bad. It could be that people just never really liked the Premier. It could be a whole series of reasons.

What I think it really is is that he is up against his worst nightmare. He is up against a Leader of the Opposition who is everything the Premier is not, and I mean that in every aspect—every aspect of leadership, of governance, of vision, of decency, of honesty, of ethics, of courage, of plans and of leadership. Can you imagine a moment at any stage where our leader would be afraid to front parliament? Can you imagine at any stage that he would let us stay in our roles if any of us had deliberately and intentionally misled the parliament?

Do you think he would let any of us get away with what the Manager of Government Business is attempting to do today by the stifled debate for three minutes? No. Do you think he would abandon what ministers have told us is important legislation just because he is afraid of scrutiny? No. Do you think he would just leave the police commissioner hanging about an extension in December? No. Do you think he would leave the Chief Public Health Officer hanging about the powers to make sure they can keep South Australians safe in place? No.

Our leader would not do any of that. Our leader is ready to govern. Our leader is ready to lead, and leaders are born in the parliament. The parliament is where they are tested and the parliament is where the public gets to see how leaders react to things. It is how they test them. That is why our founding fathers, the people who designed the Westminster system, made it an adversarial system. It is a U-shape so we can face each other. They even call us the opposition. They call us shadow ministers for a reason—so we can shadow the government. Why? So the public can hold up the two to the light and look at them and say, 'Okay, that's what the opposition leader is like under pressure. That's what the Premier is like under pressure' and they can choose at an election.

What have they seen today? A Premier who is gutless and afraid of parliament and a Premier who has thumbed his nose at 150 years of Westminster conventions—

Ms Stinson: The South Australian people.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —and the people of South Australia. Tom Playford, looking down upon the Premier, must be thinking to himself, 'What is going on with my party?' He was never afraid of an election. Yes, sure, he had a hand on the scales slightly, but he was not afraid of the people. He had to convince fewer of them of course, but that was different. Nevertheless, he was not afraid.

Don Dustan was never afraid. In fact, in 1968 the then Premier Don Dunstan lost an adjournment debate. He lost the debate. The Premier at the time said, 'I consider this a matter of confidence. I'm not afraid of parliament. I'm not trying to run away.' He lost and Steele Hall became Premier—courage, absolute courage. That was a member for Norwood you could be proud of. That was a member for Norwood we venerate.

I know it has become popular to put up one-term Premiers' portraits in the parliament. I understand that the costs are quite significant. I understand that the costs of two one-term premiers is more expensive than parliamentary justice through the Kangaroo Island select committee, but apparently that is a good expense of money. Perhaps we ought to ask those questions.

This is a childish, postgraduate attempt at politics, and every single commentator watching this, watching the Premier say, 'I do not want parliament to sit again until May,' must be thinking to themselves, 'What is he thinking?'

Mr Szakacs: What's he hiding?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, indeed. What is he hiding? More and more his judgement, the Premier's judgement, is coming under criticism, and that is why he is grumpy, and that is why he does not like questions, and that is why he does not like us asking questions, and that is why the Leader of the Opposition scares the hell out of him.

That is why he does not want to be here because of the contrast, because parliament is the great equaliser and they are alongside each other, and it is the Leader of the Opposition standing up asking good questions and the Premier giving terrible answers.

I will give an example of one of those terrible answers the Premier gave. He said to us that he would have done exactly the same thing that the Deputy Premier did with KIPT, yet all the evidence we have is that his department supported the development, and when it was knocked back his then chief executive asked for an urgent briefing from the department about what the hell was going on.

We were also told that evidence was due to go to cabinet and that was pulled at the last minute. We also heard that the Minister for Environment and Water supported, the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure supported and Minister Patterson supported. They all supported this.

I would have asked the question of the Premier when we came back, 'What basis would the Premier have to oppose the development? What advice would he have followed?' Of course, the one thing that the government is confusing is that we do not say the approval of the port was meritorious. That is entirely within the scope of the development minister.

What we say is that she was conflicted and then lied about that conflict to the parliament. That is what we say, not that the port should or should not have been approved. I have to say perhaps that is why the Premier is fearful because we would have asked, 'If you had made the same decision, on what advice would you have made the same decision?'

This is truly a very sad parliamentary tactic to fear the scrutiny of parliament. It is sad because the government, quite frankly, has lost, I think, its moral compass, and the moral compass is when a minister is found guilty of misleading the parliament and a no-confidence motion is passed they resign. That is the honourable thing to do.

John Olsen, honourable. Graham Ingerson, honourable. Joan Hall, honourable. The Premier said, 'But Ian Hunter had a no-confidence motion passed on him.' Well, I will give the Premier a lesson in civics. This is the house of government; it is the house of review. Governments are formed in this house, not the other house.

The Labor Party could have the majority in the Legislative Council and it would mean nothing in terms of Executive Council or government. This is the house that forms government, and the idea that this house can pass a no-confidence motion in the minister and they not resign is abhorrent to the Westminster traditions. There is not a Westminster parliament that would not think this is appalling.

The only example in Australia of a government that did not accept the will of the parliament in passing a no-confidence motion is the Queensland parliament—not a bicameral parliament, a single house parliament. The Borbidge government at the end of its time had a no-confidence motion passed on their minister. They refused to resign. That government was roundly defeated at the election because the people know. They can sense something is wrong. They can sense something is up. They can sense something is dodgy.

They can smell it. They can feel it. They know that this government is up to no good and that is why they do not want to sit. That is why they do not want to be here and that is why they are afraid of scrutiny. That is why they are afraid of being asked questions, questions that are at the heart of our democratic process. Nothing is more important in our democracy than holding those decision-makers to account, forcing them, compelling them to sit here and answer our questions. As I said in the no-confidence motion debate, we cannot force them to answer the question. We cannot do what a judge does and direct a witness to answer the question.

We cannot do that. There is only one rule we can enforce so they cannot lie to us: you do not have to answer but you cannot lie. That is a fundamental tenet of our democratic system. You cannot lie to this place. Anyone who lies to this place does not belong in this place, especially not on those benches, because not lying is at the heart of our democracy. I fear for the South Australian government, not in terms of the Marshall government but as an institution, because if this is how they are treating the parliament, how are they treating the public sector?

I have heard horror stories of rage. I have heard stories of cuts. I have heard stories of work not being done, and it concerns me. The only place we can ventilate those concerns is here. It is the only place that we can do that. If we do not do that, we are not doing our jobs. I do not know how any minister can take a salary between now and the election if they are able to adjourn the house until May. It is just appalling. So all we have left is our agency to get up and argue on behalf of our constituents.

I can tell you without fear or favour, for those who vote for me and against me in my electorate, the people of West Torrens want me here doing my job, holding the government to account. I can say that for every man and woman in the opposition. They want us here doing our jobs and they want the Leader of the Opposition putting up alternative policies. They want the government answering for their policies. They want accountability. They want it and they demand it and they deserve it and we have to give it to them.

If we do not, we have let them down, we have let the parliament down, we have let our democracy down. The idea that the government can just shut us down because they are afraid of the Deputy Premier—how much of a hold does this person have on them? I have never seen anything like it. It is remarkable. It is like she is going to hold onto all of them as they sink to the bottom and they are fine with it. It is like Stockholm syndrome. It is remarkable.

It is clear she has misled the parliament. There is no doubt about it. It is clear that she is guilty of contempt. There is no doubt about it. It is clear that she breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct. There is no doubt about any of this, but they are clinging to her like a life vest. I have to say I also enjoy the fact that I live rent free in most of their heads whenever they make a debate about no-confidence motions, about what it is that I do to all of them. What I do to you is simple: I bring you to parliament and make you do your jobs.

I know it is difficult, but come here, sit down and answer the questions. That is why you are paid $350,000 a year. That is right: $350,000 a year and you want to take a five-month holiday. Five months! Five months before the election, they want to have a holiday and they are paid $350,000 a year. We get lectured about wasting taxpayers' money to find out if the Deputy Premier lied to parliament and whether they had a conflict of interest. I can tell you what the public would say. The public would say spend the money on their wages and make them sit there and answer our questions every day. That is what the public would want. Absolutely.

What would the public say about letting the government go on a five-month holiday, not sitting in parliament for five months? Great move, Dan. Great move. It will go down well in Port Augusta and Port Pirie, trying to shut down the parliament. The member for Frome is ready to stay here and do his job. He is ready to turn up every day. The member for Stuart is so worried about his seat that he wants to go home and doorknock, and God knows he needs to. He needs to after what he did on Christmas holidays. He has to explain to all those workers why he thinks why they should not get paid public holiday rates on Christmas Eve.

Let them all know why he thinks it is no good and then he can explain, as a basketball great, why a basketball stadium is the best thing for the people of Port Pirie and Port Augusta on the Parklands of Adelaide. That will go down well in Port Pirie and Port Augusta. In fact, I am going up to Port Pirie next week—great place. I look forward to telling the locals up there about what their Liberal candidate wants to do: take a five-month holiday on $350,000 a year. Not bad, not bad work if you can get it, not bad. I can tell you, if there is a change of government, our leader will make us work every single day.

Mr MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Leader of the Opposition) (17:55): Well, it is truly amazing, isn't it? What an extraordinary day in the life of the history of the South Australian parliament: not only do we have the day reveal the true nature of this Premier and this government to the extent that they do not have the confidence of the house in respect of the Attorney-General and not only now do we have the Premier saying, 'So what? Hundreds of years of tradition within the Westminster system, let's dispense with it all.' That is how much this Premier believes in due process.

The irony of those opposite complaining earlier today about due process and then subsequently ignoring hundreds of years of due process by seeking to ignore a motion of no confidence in the Deputy Premier for none other than misleading the house. Not only is that the case but now they seek to foist upon the parliament a five-month adjournment—a five-month adjournment. I mean, give me a break. The fact is that today this parliament is seeking to resolve the question about whether or not workers should be getting recognised for working on Christmas Day and Christmas Eve: these guys want to go on leave for five months.

I will tell you what is most extraordinary: the question about how serious this government is when it comes to managing COVID. We know that the Premier's course of action in respect of COVID has been to relinquish all their responsibility to others. I tell you what, that is a decision that has been an astoundingly good one. Handing over responsibility to Grant Stevens and Nicola Spurrier has served our state incredibly well because today we have learned a little bit about the alternative. Today, we have learned a little bit about what the world might look like if Steven Marshall, or the Premier, was actually in charge of running the COVID response.

They would seek to hoodwink the South Australian public into believing they are serious about COVID management, but of course the Leader of Government Business' attempt to adjourn the parliament until May means the government does not care too much about the current state of affairs of the powers that are invested in the State Coordinator.

I would draw the attention of the house—I would draw the attention of all South Australians—to the fact that the COVID-19 Emergency Response Bill fundamentally changes the powers invested in the State Coordinator. Without the COVID-19 Emergency Response Bill, the powers in the State Coordinator allow the State Coordinator the extraordinary authority to direct a person—to direct a person. What this parliament has had the wisdom to do, with the unqualified bipartisan support of the opposition in respect of this question, is to confer on the—

The SPEAKER: Does the Leader of the Government Business rise on a point of order?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: No, sir. I rise to move:

That the house sit beyond 6pm so that the leader can continue his remarks.

Ayes 24

Noes 22

Majority 2

Mr MALINAUSKAS: As I was explaining to the parliament, none other than the Deputy Premier told this house, and presumably when she did this she was telling the truth, that it was absolutely necessary that the Emergency Management Act be amended to clarify the powers of the State Coordinator. For the purposes of clarity for South Australians, the State Coordinator has the authority, under the Emergency Management Act, in a declared emergency to issue directions to a person.

During the course of COVID, it became evident that there was a potential live legal question about whether or not the police commissioner's powers extended to a direction to a whole class of people as distinct from a person. The government, in their wisdom, came into the parliament, sought to amend the Emergency Management Act through the COVID-19 Emergency Response Bill to make it clear that the police commissioner's powers do not apply to a person but, rather, an authorised officer may provide an instruction to a whole class of people. The act provides:

The State Co-ordinator (or a delegate of the State Co-ordinator) may give a direction or make a requirement under this section that applies to persons generally throughout the State.

The COVID-19 Emergency Response Act, set to expire on 1 December, confers a power on the police commissioner to provide a direction on all people throughout the state. That expires on 1 December.

If I cite Hansard, the Attorney, when we were discussing these powers, made it clear on 24 August that extending these provisions is necessary for the ongoing management of the risk of COVID-19 in South Australia, and I quote:

By extending these provisions, we will ensure that the State Coordinator has the power he needs to issue the directions required to keep South Australians safe.

Those powers expire on 1 December, which means that, on the Attorney-General's logic, assuming she was telling the parliament the truth on this occasion, there is a necessary extension to those authorities for the police commissioner, yet the Leader of Government Business has walked into this chamber today and said, 'Let's all go home for five months.' How can the government have any credibility when it comes to honouring its obligation to ensure the police commissioner has the powers he needs in order to manage COVID. They have no credibility—no credibility whatsoever.

Of course, this is, in my assessment, an incredibly significant revelation because what all South Australians know is that the only thing that this government have going for them with any political effect is their COVID management or, I should say, the police commissioner and Nicola Spurrier's COVID management. Without that, this government is nothing but an absolute basket case—a basket case that is riddled with division, with ineptitude, with no semblance of a moral compass when it comes to telling the truth, with no empathy towards those people during their time of need, with no empathy to low-paid workers, no empathy towards emergency services workers, and with no empathy towards patients in our hospitals who are ramped at 500 per cent more than was the case in 2017.

Apparently, they have no particular interest in a plan for the state past COVID. The only policy vision they have on the table for the people of South Australia at the next election is a basketball stadium that very few people seem to want or actually need. What this state does need, however, is a thoughtful, progressive vision about realising the undeniable opportunity that we have as a people as we emerge out of the COVID crisis.

Instead of having a debate, whether it be in this forum or at Business SA tomorrow where the Premier and I were expected to debate—apparently the Premier has run away chicken from appearing at what should be his home turf at a Business SA debate—not only is the Premier not willing to debate me at Business SA, Master Builders, the Property Council, the nurses federation but he is not willing even to debate us here.

He is not willing even to face the scrutiny of legitimate questions on behalf of the opposition here, and that is telling. But, of course, what we all know, and anyone paying attention to the events of today knows and understands, is that we have a Premier who is deprived the function of leadership. He does not have the ability to exercise the authority that is vested him. Every time this Premier is called upon to use good judgement and use the authority of the state that the people have vested in him, he tries to find someone else to hand responsibility to—every single time. But, of course, today he has been found wanting because there is no-one to hold his hand now.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: The Leader of Government Business on a point of order.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I move that the question be now put.

The house divided on the question:

Ayes 24

Noes 22

Majority 2

Question thus agreed to.

The house divided on the amendment:

Ayes 23

Noes 23

Majority 0

The SPEAKER: There being 23 ayes and 23 noes, the ballot is drawn. I cast my ballot with the ayes.

Amendment thus carried.