House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2) 54 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Matter of Privilege Matter of Privilege Matter of Privilege, Speaker's Statement Matter of Privilege, Speaker's Statement The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER (16:50): I make the following statement concerning the matter of privilege raised by the member for West Torrens in the house on 16 November. Before doing so, I wish to briefly outline the significance of privilege as it relates to the house and members. Privilege is not a device by which members or any other person may seek to pursue matters that could be better addressed by debate or settled by the vote of the house on a substantive motion. In Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, McGee expressed the view that the test for whether a matter is a matter of privilege might be determined by asking whether it could, given its proper construction, genuinely be regarded as tending to impede or obstruct the house in the discharge of its duties. That test has been adopted by other Speakers. I adopt that test. I turn to the matter raised by the member for West Torrens that relates to a ministerial statement tabled by the Deputy Premier on 16 November concerning the Select Committee on Conduct of the Hon. Vickie Chapman MP regarding Kangaroo Island Port Application. The member for West Torrens claims that the ministerial statement contains reflections on members that breach standing orders. Further, the member for West Torrens indicates that the tabling of the ministerial statement as opposed to it being read by the Deputy Premier was a device to prevent members from exercising their right to withdraw leave to not allow the alleged breach of standing orders to occur. The standing orders as they apply to debate are not applicable to ministerial statements and ministers are also entitled by the standing orders to table ministerial statements, something, of course, they also do on a regular basis for ministerial statements made in another place. Accordingly, there is nothing in the claims made by the member for West Torrens that touches on matters of privilege as the standing orders are presently promulgated. In the Chair's view, the matter could not genuinely be regarded as tending to impede or obstruct the house in the discharge of its duties. I therefore decline to give the matter precedence. However, my opinion does not prevent any member from pursuing the matter by way of substantive motion in the usual manner. I also emphasise earlier comments made in relation to the promulgation of the orders.