Parliamentary Sitting Program

The Hon. G.G. BROCK (Frome) (15:13): My question is to the Premier. Would the Premier consider it in the best interests of the people of South Australia if the parliament was to be closed down for five months? With your leave, and that of the house, sir, I will explain further.

Leave granted.

Members interjecting:

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

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Trade and Investment is on one warning.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hammond is warned.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Police is on one warning.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Hammond, I draw your attention to standing order 142.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: If I can just elaborate a bit further. At the last sitting of the parliament, the minister in charge of government business attempted to close down the sitting of parliament until the end of May 2022. With the dramatic increase in COVID cases just recently and the borders having been open for just 10 days, and more cases anticipated in the next few days, I ask the Premier if it is in the best interests of South Australia to close down the parliament.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Premier has the call.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Deputy Premier, Minister for Energy and Mining) (15:15): As Manager of Government Business in the house, it is quite appropriate for me to address this question from the member for Frome. The member for Frome came in in a by-election about 2008 or 2009, I think it was. What that means—

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Chaffey!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —is that the member for Frome will be familiar with the information I am about to share, but it is well worth answering this question and putting this information on the record. The vote of the house the member refers to, from the last Thursday of sitting, was actually a matter that was very straightforward, very normal.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Playford is called to order. The member for Kaurna is called to order. The Deputy Premier has the call.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: It is actually very straightforward. On the last scheduled sitting day of the parliamentary calendar coming up to an election—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

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

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —to move that parliament resumes after the election is completely straightforward and completely normal.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

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

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Just to help those opposite, who pretend they don't know this, back in 2013—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Premier has the call.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —the house rose on 28 November, and the house rose for—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: Order, Deputy Premier. There is a point of order. I will hear the point of order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Standing order 98, sir, requires the minister to answer the substance of the question, not debate it. By reading out his arguments about 2013, and then probably what happened before—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Hammond!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —dissolving the last session of the last parliament, he is debating the answer rather than answering the substance of the question, which is: why should ministers who are paid $350,000 a year take a five-month holiday?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order, sir.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The minister wishes to address me on a point of order. The minister will be heard.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Briefly, the minister was directly responding to the question—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Lee!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —as to why it is appropriate. That was the question, and he was explaining why. The member for West Torrens has made a speech debating the merits of the question itself—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: It is an utterly bogus point of order.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Members, I draw your attention to standing order 142, which prohibits noise or interruption in the course of debate. In view of the number of points of order that have been raised, I'm going to extend the time for question time for five minutes to accommodate the crossbench.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Wise decision, Mr Speaker.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Deputy Premier will be heard.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: When asked if it is appropriate, sharing some history will help. In 2013, a Labor government rose—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —parliament on 28 November for five months and seven days until the 2014 election. In 2017, a Labor government rose the parliament on 30 November for five months and two days.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: In fact, the member for West Torrens—

Ms Cook interjecting:

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

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —in 2017 was the Manager of Government Business at the time. It would seem it was entirely appropriate back then, when the member for Frome was a minister in that government.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The member for Frome, who is keen to know whether I think it is appropriate or not, was a minister in the government when the member for West Torrens was the Manager of Government Business.

Ms Cook interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Hurtle Vale!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: At that point in time—

Mr Picton interjecting:

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

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —it rose for five months and two days. So would it be appropriate, the member for Frome asks hypothetically? History says that the Labor Party thinks it would be appropriate. History says—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —that the member for Frome—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —would think it's appropriate because he was a minister in that Labor government that did exactly that. No doubt he supported that wholeheartedly—cabinet solidarity and all those sorts of things that he would have had. So history tells us that under—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —those opposite, including the member for Frome, it was considered entirely appropriate. We will see what happens this year, but one thing I can tell the house is that, whenever we rise, we will be out of session for less time between this parliament and when we resume after the next election than we were under those opposite—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —in the previous two elections.