Personal Explanation

Labour Force Data

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Treasurer, Minister for Defence and Space Industries) (17:20): I rise, pursuant to standing order 108, to seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Leave granted.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Earlier this afternoon, I was alarmed and surprised to see that the member for Morialta raised a matter of privilege concerning remarks I had made yesterday in the house about labour force data produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. In that matter of privilege, the member for Morialta said, 'It is clear that the Treasurer has knowingly and intentionally misled the parliament,' which is a grave allegation to make against another member. So I thought I might take the earliest opportunity to clarify what has happened here.

The member for Morialta says that I had said that the unemployment figures for South Australia had had a 3 in front of them 13 times in the last two years and that that is the only time they had been such. He went on to quote labour force statistics from December 2021, which he claimed showed the unemployment rate in that month as being 3.9 per cent, which would be inconsistent with the information I gave to the house. I was puzzled by that because both my office and I had checked those statistics before I gave that information to the house yesterday. So, after I heard the member for Morialta's contribution this afternoon, I checked again.

Of course, when the ABS releases this data, they also release an Excel spreadsheet, called Table 7, which provides labour force status by sex for South Australia in seasonally adjusted, original and trend terms. I went back and had a look at December 2021, and the figure that was there was 4.0 per cent, not the 3.9 that the member for Morialta had alleged and upon which he based his serious allegation that I knowingly and intentionally misled the house.

I thought, 'Hang on a minute, surely the member for Morialta has just made a simple error,' because imagine a former Minister for Education confusing the third and the fourth positive integer—a man who had a policy of numeracy when he held the office of Minister for Education. I thought not even he could be so inept.

So I went back and had a look at the ABS data. Those of us who are familiar with using the ABS datasets, particularly seasonally adjusted data, know of course that when a month's data is released it quite often can be revised in the next month, or in the month after that, or in the month after that. In fact, there is a disclaimer at the bottom of each ABS data release when it comes to seasonally adjusted data, and it draws the attention of the reader to the fact that of course this data is subject to change. In regard to seasonal adjustment techniques used by the ABS, they note in their methodology section in the report:

This process can result in revisions each month to estimates for earlier periods. However, in most instances, the only noticeable revisions will be to the seasonally adjusted estimates for the previous month and one year prior to the current month.

Where does this get us? From what I can deduce, the member for Morialta has gone back and looked at what was happening under the previous Liberal government when the December 2021 data came out, which of course would have been in January 2022. He had a look at their release, or had a look at the information they had at hand then, but of course completely ignored the fact that this data is subject to change and it has, of course, been changed within that first 12-month period since that data was first released.

So who is right? Well, as of yesterday and as of today, of course, the information I have provided to the house is correct, and the allegation that the member for Morialta has made to this place today that I knowingly and intentionally misled the house is wrong. Before I leave it there, I just thought I would remind the house what the test is of a matter of privilege being upheld in the house.

As the member for Morialta's close colleague and immediate superior, the member for Hartley, a former Speaker, has advised the house, the test, of course, comes from McGee in Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand. It sets out what is regarded to be the best encapsulation of the test for whether or not a matter of privilege is, defining it as whether it is genuinely being regarded as tending to impede or obstruct the house in the discharge of its duties.

I think the test now is, in the childish, schoolboy, tedious way that the member for Morialta came into this place this afternoon and made an allegation that I knowingly and intentionally misled the house: was it my behaviour, now demonstrated to be factually correct, which has done that, or is it the tedium and the pettiness of the member for Morialta? I think the rest of us can be judges of that.