House of Assembly Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 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 Kavel The SPEAKER (11:01): I make the following statement concerning the matter of privilege raised by the member for Morialta in the house on 22 February. However, before doing so, I wish to briefly outline the significance of privilege as it relates to the house and its members. Privilege is not a device by which members can seek to pursue matters that can be addressed by debate or settled by a vote of the house on a substantive motion. In Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, McGee expressed the view that the test of 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 also adopt the test. I turn to the matter raised by the member for Morialta in relation to an answer given by the Treasurer to a question asked in the house on 8 February. More particularly, the member for Morialta referred to a question asked by the member for Hartley to the Treasurer concerning the state's credit rating. The Treasurer replied to the question: …which, of course, was downgraded under the watch of the former Treasurer, Rob Lucas. That's right—downgraded. The member for Morialta then referred to evidence given to the Legislative Council's Budget and Finance Committee at a meeting on 13 February. At that meeting, the Chair asked the following question to a departmental officer: 'Was the credit rating downgraded during the period of the last government?' The departmental officer replied, 'Standard & Poor's had put us on a negative outlook, but the rating hasn't been downgraded.' The member for Morialta alleges that the Treasurer has misled the house because the Treasurer's answer on 8 February purportedly directly contradicts the information provided by a departmental officer and official credit ratings advice. I have taken in and deliberated on the information provided by the member for Morialta. As well, I have received information provided by the Treasurer. The gravamen of the matter concerns the interpretation of the term 'downgraded' in the context of credit ratings and in the context overall of the Treasurer's remarks. I make the following observations. On 27 November 2020, S&P Global Ratings revised its credit outlook for South Australia from AA+ (stable) to AA+ (negative). On occasion, a change in a rating outlook has been referred to as a downgrade; see, for example, Hansard, 28 September 2011, page 5165 or The Advertiser on 10 October 2012, by way only of example. There are many other examples. The argument being put is that a change in the rating outlook is not, in fact, a change in the rating itself. That may be; however, the ambiguity in the language often used to describe a change in the outlook or the rating itself as a downgrade means that, as Chair, I must accept that a reference to a change in a rating outlook from stable to negative is, given its ordinary meaning, a downgrade. Put another way, the Treasurer's answer, in particular his choice of words, is consistent with how those words have been previously used in the context of a change or downgrade of the state's credit rating or outlook. As well—and this in my mind determines the matter—there is nothing to suggest that the Treasurer has deliberately misled the house. Taking these matters as a whole, 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 the precedence that would allow the member for Morialta to immediately pursue the matter. However, my opinion does not prevent any member from pursuing the matter by way of a substantive motion.