Matter of Privilege

Matter of Privilege, Speaker's Statement

The SPEAKER (17:21): I wish to address four matters which I took in from members. First, I make the following statement concerning the matter of privilege raised by the member for Heysen. Before doing so, I wish briefly to outline the significance of privilege as it relates to the house and its 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 the test. I turn to the matter raised by the member for Heysen in relation to a matter of privilege raised by the member for West Torrens in the last parliament on 25 August 2021, and the member for West Torrens, now the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport's answer to a question from the member for Hartley in the house. More specifically, the member for Heysen refers to a response in question time by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport to the following question from the member for Hartley:

Following the Ombudsman's report, will the minister withdraw the allegation of corruption he made against the former Attorney in this house on 25 August last year?

The minister responded by saying:

I don't think I ever made an accusation of corruption. I might have asked the question, but I don't think I ever said the member was corrupt. I would not do that, even with privilege.

The member for Heysen contrasts this response with the following words used by the member for West Torrens when raising a matter of privilege in the house on 25 August 2021:

Sir, I ask you to examine the questions and the explanations inserted into Hansard by the member for Enfield and the answers given to questions by the Deputy Premier to the estimates committee to determine whether a prima facie case exists to establish a privileges committee to investigate whether the Attorney-General deliberately and intentionally misled the Parliament of South Australia to cover up her corruption.

The member for Heysen suggests that the member for West Torrens has misled the house by denying that he ever alleged that the former Deputy Premier was guilty of corruption. I form the view that the words used by the then member for West Torrens, now the minister, in raising a matter of privilege, were to invite the Speaker to determine whether a prima facie case existed for a matter of privilege. 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. I add, for completeness, that the member for West Torrens also said in the house:

…I do not think that the member for Bragg is corrupt, and I don't think I ever made that accusation. I might have posed the question: is it corrupt? But if the member for Hartley has evidence that I said that she was corrupt, yes, I will withdraw that because I don't think the member for Bragg is corrupt. I do think she had a conflict of interest and I do think she misled the parliament, but I don't think she was in this for the money.

Second, I am informed in relation to the Select Committee on the Conduct of the Member for Bragg Regarding the Kangaroo Island Port Application that the costs paid by the house for solicitors' professional fees incurred by the committee pursuant to a motion of the house were $71,222.10 plus disbursements of $252.64. Professional fees for Queen's Counsel were $71,500.

Third, in reply to questions from the member for Elizabeth, I am informed that three quotes were received for the installation of art in the car park tunnel: a quote in the amount of $222,080, which did not include the cost of prints; a quote in the amount of $72,110; and a quote in the amount of $30,500. It is not clear whether the lower quote included all works contemplated by the project. In any event, I elected to cancel the project. Separately, I am informed that the cost of upgrades to the balcony room were $30,445.60, excluding GST.

Fourth and finally, in relation to the matter of the balance of questions in question time as between opposition and government members, I add to the remarks I made in response to the member for Hartley's inquiry by observing that the question time immediately following the member's inquiry did not include questions from government members. I emphasise, however, the relative disparity in the number of members as between the government and the opposition and the natural interest of all members, including government members, have and will continue to have in asking questions.