No-confidence Motion

Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation

Debate resumed.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (14:46): That contribution from the Hon. Mr Malinauskas is the defence you give for a colleague when you do not really want to give a defence: you ignore the substantive issues, you talk about everything else. However, he obviously drew the short straw, someone had to stand up and defend the indefensible in this particular chamber, the appalling, outrageous and contemptible behaviour of his minister, not just in relation to this incident but in relation to how he treats people generally—colleagues, staff, departmental staff and others—in and around this chamber.

So, instead of defending that, it is 'a few trivial words' and it is not substantive issues in relation to swearing. It was the same defence that we saw yesterday from the Leader of the Government, who said it was robust language. The former champion of women's issues, the Hon. Gail Gago, said it was overzealous language. It was the state Labor Party's tweet on social media which was, 'We stand with Ian. Who doesn't like ice cream?'

They are trivialising and laughing at the issue, at the contemptible behaviour of a minister who treated female colleagues and female staff and others in a contemptible and vile way in a public place and in a private room, and all we have seen is the Labor Party laughing at it. A minister standing up in this chamber today, dismissing it as, in essence, trivial, in terms of what one of the substantive issues of this particular motion happens to address. As I said, colleagues who stood up yesterday, one after another, saying it was either overzealous or robust language that was used.

It was not overzealous and it was not robust; it was disgusting, it was disgraceful, it was despicable, it was contemptible, it was hypocritical. They are the words that should have or could have been used, and if you were not prepared to use those words in describing the attitude and the behaviour of the minister on this particular occasion, you should have, as the Hon. Michelle Lensink said, shut up shop and not said anything at all.

It is a sad day, standing up in this chamber and having to address this particular motion because, if this motion is passed, minister Hunter will be the first person, I think, in the history of not only the Legislative Council but the House of Assembly, to have had three successful no-confidence motions moved against him or her in the South Australian Parliament, if that occurs this afternoon. It was bad enough that two of them were successfully moved in a short period of time with regard to his handling of the environment portfolio and the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio back in 2014.

Here we are, two years later, making a judgement as to whether this minister actually learned from some of the lessons that he surely should have received from colleagues and others who spoke at that particular time in this chamber. I said, at that particular time on one of those no-confidence motions, that:

The sad reality is that minister Hunter has none of those—

I was referring to the traits of a former minister, the Hon. Terry Roberts—

and this minister's incompetence, negligence and, sadly, overriding arrogance are actually preventing progress in tackling the problems that need to be tackled.

I went on to say that there are 'many I know in this chamber, and not just on this side of the chamber', and on the other side of the chamber as well, 'but in the minister's own caucus from the Premier down, who have warned him' previously, and this was in 2014, 'about the problems of his arrogance, the way he treats people', the way he treats staff, colleagues and other members of this chamber and another chamber, and he ignored those particular warnings.

This was a warning in 2014. It is not as if this minister had not been warned in 2014 of the problems he was creating for himself, his party, his government and, more importantly, the people of South Australia, in terms of his contemptible behaviour and arrogance in the way he treats people and colleagues. He had those warnings in 2014 and, sadly, in 2016, we are here again today addressing not just the incident. I will turn to the incident in Rigoni's, that is one issue, but it is so symbolic. It is emblematic. It symbolises the problems that this minister has in terms of his arrogance, his behaviour and the way he treats people.

Business SA is relatively conservative in terms of the way they run their operations and have sat down and done deals with the Hon. Mr Malinauskas when he was a former union boss and union heavy in the SDA. They stood together arm in arm, patting each other on the back about various deals that they did. This is an organisation that tries to work with governments, Labor and Liberal, and oppositions, Labor and Liberal, but after the Rigoni's incident they felt compelled to come out and give their own example of problems with the minister's arrogance and how he treats people who try to put a different point of view to him on a particular issue. All they were asking was to be heard and to be treated with respect and some civility and they did not get it.

Not long after Business SA, we had the Law Society of South Australia. A lot of members in this chamber would have dealt with the Law Society on a whole variety of issues. The Law Society of South Australia prides itself on working with Labor and Liberal parties and Labor and Liberal governments and oppositions, and they felt compelled to come out and give their example of their treatment by minister Hunter and the way they had been treated when they had tried to raise particular issues.

These are big organisations used to lobbying. I know the complaints I have heard from individuals and others (minor party representatives, present and past) who have spoken to the Hon. Mr Hunter and been offended or disgusted by the contemptible behaviour and the arrogance with which they have been treated by him in their dealings because they had a different view to him on a particular issue.

There has to be a way for ministers to be able to, with respect, listen to those conflicting views and put their point of view with passion if they want to. The defence we got again today from minister Malinauskas and the defence we got from minister Hunter for days after the Rigoni's incident—and this was the excuse—was that if you feel passionately about something and strongly about something, that excuses the vile, obscene and contemptible language that you use to describe colleagues and staff in a private or a public place, and that because he felt passionately about a particular issue, that, in some way to him, justified his behaviour, his language, his arrogance and his treatment of colleagues and staff.

Minister, there is nothing wrong with you feeling passionately about a particular issue; indeed, on the Murray, we all feel passionately about the issue. We have a shared goal. There is actually a legislated agreement which locks in what everyone has agreed to. In fact, when Steven Marshall, the Leader of the Opposition, went to fight on behalf of South Australia directly to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister guaranteed that the legislation is there and that he was going to stick by the legislation.

We have the temerity of minister Malinauskas, who stood up in this chamber and instead of condemning and moving against minister Hunter for his clearly contemptible behaviour in a public place and the way he has generally mismanaged his overall portfolio, saying that we should really be moving a motion of no confidence in the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition got off his backside, boarded a plane, went to Canberra and lobbied directly to the chief decision-maker in the commonwealth government, that is the Prime Minister, and got a guarantee. He got a guarantee much earlier than the Premier of South Australia, Senator Xenophon or, indeed, anybody else who was able to get that guarantee—and credit to him for fighting for South Australia.

However, if you feel passionately about something, it does not excuse arrogance; it does not excuse disrespect; it does not excuse contemptible behaviour; it does not excuse vile and obscene language being used in a public and a private place to describe women, and women colleagues and staff. That is the defence that minister Hunter, over a number of days now, has endeavoured to mount to defend his contemptible behaviour.

As I did yesterday, I want to read something on to the public record that minister Hunter, before he was a minister, said in November 2008 in relation to these issues, these power issues for men and the way they treat women and others in particular. I want to point out the contemptible hypocrisy of minister Hunter in relation to this particular issue, who prides himself and pats himself on the back because he is a champion in this particular area. This is what he said back in 2008 about the White Ribbon campaign:

We all know it is unacceptable, but we must be more vocal in expressing our disgust about the actions of men who use intimidation, violence and control in their relationships with their wives and partners, mothers, sisters and friends. We must make sure that these men are completely aware of how unacceptable we think their behaviour is, because on some level these men are of the belief that what they are doing is okay and it is somehow acceptable to use their brute force to dominate the women in their life…

Make no mistake: in no instance at all is any form of violence acceptable. It is abhorrent that violence is so normalised, and we must recognise that it is normalised through popular song lyrics, through casual jokes, and through language that reduces the woman's part in sexual intercourse to that of an orifice only. Men demean women and in doing so devalue them, which, so the warped logic goes, makes violence against women okay.

That is the man who said that in 2008 and yet that same man, that same contemptible hypocrite, in 2016 described a female colleague using the f-bomb and the c-bomb and then walked out into the public restaurant and told staff to eff off and to leave the restaurant. So, they then proudly went off and had their ice-creams, and their cheer chasers in the Labor Party proudly tweeted on social media, 'Who doesn't love an ice-cream? We stand with Ian.'

That is the Labor Party in South Australia. That is the problem, because we see this sort of behaviour not just from minister Hunter but as reported by the ICAC Commissioner in terms of minister Koutsantonis and the way he spoke to and treated public servants within his employ, and the language that he used—similar language with f-bombs and c-bombs going off left, right and centre, as was described—in face-to-face meetings with public servants in his particular portfolio.

We are on a slippery slope because Premier Weatherill excuses the behaviour of minister Koutsantonis and he has to excuse the behaviour of minister Hunter because he is a left factional colleague, one of his few remaining cheer chasers and supporters within the caucus at the moment from the left. When you look around the backbench, sadly, if they got rid of him who would they put there? Former minister Gago is on the way out, Mr Gazzola is ready for holidays and retirement, and then you have the right faction members left on the backbench. There is nothing left to replace him if they got rid of him. That is the problem that Premier Weatherill has.

However, he defends the slippery slope. You defend it with minister Koutsantonis, you defend it with minister Hunter and you take no action at all; you describe the language as robust and overzealous and trivial and not the main issue and you should be moving motions of no confidence against Steven Marshall because he went and fought for South Australia and went right to the top.

That is the sort of trivialising and that is the approach of the Labor Party, from the top down to the social media operators, indicative of a government which after 15 years is sadly out of touch with community attitudes, sadly out of touch because of their arrogance at sitting on their big fat backsides for a long time period of time in white cars, enjoying the perks of office and treating colleagues, members, staff and anyone else with contempt. As I said, minister Hunter stands condemned, not just for his behaviour in Rigoni's last week, but for the way he treats people and has treated people for a long period of time.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:00): First and foremost, I must say that I am astounded that at the onset of this debate on this no-confidence motion the government tried to gag debate by calling a division. It is not that often in the big picture that there is a debate around a vote of no confidence in a minister. I have seen it in another place, where at times it is used for base political pointscoring, but we are supporting this motion and supporting the intent of this motion, because this is not about base political pointscoring; this is about a fundamental basic structure of the executive of government.

When you have a look at this situation, as the Hon. Rob Lucas pointed out, this is the third censure motion, vote of no confidence motion, in this particular minister in the time that he has been a minister. The reality is that we could have been here now debating the pros and cons of what the Hon. Barnaby Joyce, the federal minister, was talking about. We could have been here now signing a multipartisan letter to the Prime Minister, because if you take the politics out of it, the reality is that there is not one member of this parliament, that I know of, who is not absolutely passionate about the River Murray.

Those of us who are food producers, in particular, and the constituents that Family First represents, know the importance of that passion for the River Murray, because it is the blood source of life for food production in this state, and it is the essence of the food bowl. Let's stop the nonsense. You freak out, you are badly behaved and you put South Australia into a disadvantaged position and your excuse is because you are passionate? That is an absolute nonsense, minister, and that is not an excuse.

A man should stand up and say he is wrong, that he lost control of the situation, that he let words go that no executive member of council should ever let go, and apologise profusely to the people of South Australia, to the Acting Prime Minister, the Hon. Barnaby Joyce—he was the Acting Prime Minister—and to his fellow colleague, a Victorian minister and a lady. She is a lady, who had to accept, I am told, a four-letter word that starts with a 'c'. If you want to use those words, use them in your backyard and hope you do not offend your family or your neighbours. But to use them in a public place, when you are a minister of the Crown, an Executive Council member of the South Australian government, is totally inexcusable.

On top of that is the fact that many of us come into this house, day in day out, asking questions mainly of the environment minister, because the feedback we are getting out in the electorate is that this minister is failing to listen to the people that he should represent. I will give you just a few basic examples of this. Ever since minister Hunter has been minister for the environment, I have been asking him questions. I get filibustering and 10 and 15-minute answers (or supposed answers) from page number 93 of the minister's briefing notes that do not even, most of the time, give a relevant answer to the specific questions that I have asked, not on behalf of myself as a member of parliament, but on behalf of the people out there that we represent.

Those people expect a minister to answer properly. Collection with local government with NRM, 150 per cent increases in NRM fees, and cost shifts of up to $12 million coming out of the NRM are legitimate reasons for people to want questions asked in this parliament. There is the South-East Drainage scheme, such a vital scheme for looking after the South-East and the environment of this state. The minister does not agree with the people and the constituents down there, so he instructs $100,000 to come out of the NRM Board for a citizens' jury.

Then when the citizens' jury does not come up with the answer that suits the minister, he totally ignores that, in absolute arrogance. The waste levy is another one. We are seeing that go through the roof; we are seeing a massive budget opportunity there, and local government continually saying to us, 'Ask the minister why we can't access that fund.' We do not get the answers. There is the dingo problem, which is very much a looming problem, a legitimate problem to the pastoralists, and farmers generally, and the real threat that those dingoes could end up coming through the Adelaide Hills, and we will never be able to control them.

People have legitimate questions about trappers. Three trappers is all they want. What happens when you ask the minister a question? You get no specific response, and you certainly do not get any confidence that this minister is in there fighting in cabinet and fighting in his department for those constituents of South Australia. The water plans, the absolute massive increases to the water licensing arrangements, these are legitimate questions that deserve legitimate answers. Of course, there is the major importance of the River Murray, as I said earlier.

When a minister of the Crown, a member of Executive Council, goes to a dinner, prior to a ministerial meeting, you expect him to be forceful in his debate, you expect him to be representing South Australians with all the vigour, all the energy and all the experience that he has to put forward, but what you do not expect is to have one of our ministers of the South Australian government using F and C words to the Acting Prime Minister of Australia, the C word to the Victorian water minister, and, I am advised, F and C words to senior public servant bureaucrats, probably only informing the minister of the things that they had to inform him of.

To summarise, when you have the privilege of becoming a minister of the Crown, and when you sign that document over there in government house, you are signing a very special document. You are taking on one of the highest offices and highest privileges that you can have bestowed upon you as a South Australian citizen, more than the rest of us as members of parliament.

In return for that, we expect three basic things from those ministers. We expect them not to be arrogant and not to take for granted the many years they have been given the privilege of being in government. We expect them to build rapport with other states and the commonwealth to get the very best outcomes for South Australia. Can I say, that when you start, in a public place—bad enough if you do it in your office—to use F and C words to the Acting Prime Minister and other ministers and public servants, to damage that rapport, you are then working against the best interests of the best outcome for the River Murray for South Australia. That is grossly unacceptable and that is why we support this motion.

The minister needs to apologise and heal the wounds that he has personally created between the Victorian state government and the commonwealth government in the interests of the long-term protection of our rights to a healthy River Murray, from the Murray Mouth back upstream. At this point in time he has clearly damaged that relationship.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (15:09): I rise to oppose the motion before us. Mr President, I can agree with the Hon. Michelle Lensink that a line has been overstepped. However, it is the Hon. Barnaby Joyce who overstepped the line when he tried to renege on a deal which involved increasing flows to the lifeline of this state, the River Murray. I can agree with the Hon. Robert Brokenshire that the River Murray is a lifeline to this state. There is little else in his contribution that I can agree with, as per usual. Most of his contributions, including this one, are laced with inaccuracies, pure and simple.

I can also agree with the Hon. Rob Lucas that there is hypocrisy going on here today; however, the hypocrisy is coming from those opposite. Those moving this motion are nothing but hypocrites. Those opposite have never stood up against misogyny and, in fact, have perpetuated it. They did nothing when the Liberal member for Finniss made outrageous comments in the other place, saying that a female member ought to be put down and comparing our first female prime minister to a dog. They did nothing when the Liberal member for Unley, one of their frontbenchers, sent out an extremely sexist media release.

Now they come in here with half-baked accusations and move this motion, a motion that will go absolutely nowhere. This motion will not go anywhere, it will not make any difference to anything. It will do absolutely nothing. Even if it is passed in this place, it is a completely useless action to take. It is a complete waste of what could have been a useful and productive question time, but the opposition have never been very good at strategy, they are too lazy.

It is clear that the minister did not make sexist remarks to the Victorian minister, as some of the outlets have reported. It has been clear that he did use robust and inappropriate language towards the deputy minister. He has acknowledged the inappropriateness of his language. He has apologised for that unreservedly and he has not used this as an excuse. He has never used it as an excuse for what was inappropriate and poor behaviour which he has apologised for.

This is a man who has fought all his life for equality and social justice. He is someone who understands what discrimination is and what it is like to be prejudiced, a man who has always had the courage of his own personal convictions. His record, whether as a minister or as an advocate, is one I would proudly contrast against any one of those opposite me, and it is one that South Australia very much appreciates. Many have written backing this minister. On 20 November, a member of the public emailed to say, 'Just to let you know that you have my support. Do not let them get away with it.' Another on 21 November said, 'Thank you for standing up and defending the Murray River. Stand strong. Do not resign.' Another wrote:

I am writing to tell you that I believe you and your team are doing a fantastic job with your portfolio, particularly the environment. It is understandable that when faced with political leaders who will not be so reasonable that you lose composure after all. You are a person with so many responsibilities that you genuinely care about. Thank you for your leadership. Many people do care about what you are trying to achieve.

There is more. Another wrote:

Thanks for sticking up for South Australia and demonstrating that Barnaby Joyce, Victorian minister Neville and some South Australian senators are not committed to the basin plan target of 2,750 gigalitres plus the 450 gigalitres. I want you to continue to advocate for South Australia, the Murray River and the basin plan so that we have certainty that the federal government is also committed.

One more said, 'I thank you so much for sticking up for the environmental flows in the Murray-Darling Basin. Keep up the good fight.' Lastly, I promise, one person said, 'I will gladly stand beside water minister Ian Hunter, supporting him in his quest to keep the bastards honest.'

This minister has support because we know that he, unlike those opposite, understands water, the River Murray and will fight. He has the courage of his convictions to stand up and fight to protect this state's interests. He is also someone who will help protect our state's environment. Under his leadership, the EPA delivered its first annual compliance plan. There is an almost 80 per cent return rate for containers for a refund. The state leads waste and resource recovery, including achieving almost an 80 per cent recycling rate. This achievement means that we are preventing almost one million tonnes of carbon emission into the atmosphere this year. We are recognised internationally for our action on climate change. As one leading IKEA executive told the audience in Paris:

To build low carbon growth and jobs, we need common sense, long-term policy making, like that in South Australia.

Or, as David Suzuki remarked publicly after meeting this minister:

You are at 40 per cent renewable energy now, on the way to 50 and possibly 60 per cent. South Australia should be boasting to the world about what you are doing here, and I certainly intend to when I go home.

The minister could have also told Mr Suzuki about our marine parks. Under this minister, almost 44 per cent of the state's waters are now marine parks, and recreational fishing has been largely unaffected. Under this minister, there has been more than 1.8 million hectares of land that now has wilderness protection status. It was this minister who recently proclaimed the first national park in our state in more than a decade. South Australia now has the largest percentage of land area in both public and private protected areas in any Australian mainland jurisdiction: a total area of almost the size of Victoria.

It is this minister that helped develop and release a fire management strategy for our parks. It is under this minister that the first trials of coordinated back-burning by government agencies is occurring on private land in the Adelaide Hills. This is the same minister who has seen better animal protection, including major reform of dog and cat management for the first time in 20 years. These are just some—just a bare few—of this minister's achievements. What is very clear is that this motion is a motion about this record.

By voting for this motion, members will be voting against South Australia being a clean, green state. By voting for this motion, members will be voting against renewable energy and against action to combat climate change. By voting for this motion, members will be voting against national parks and against marine parks. By voting for this motion, members will be voting against improved animal welfare. By voting for this motion, members will be voting against a courageous and fearless advocate for South Australia and our lifeline, the River Murray. That is why this government will be voting against this motion and voting to support this very strong, brave and capable minister.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (15:18): The last time we debated a motion of no confidence in this minister was in December 2014 and, prior to that, in July 2014. The December 2014 motion concerned the minister's performance as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation. My colleague Tammy Franks, as the relevant portfolio holder, spoke to and supported that motion on behalf of the Greens. The July 2014 motion was in relation to the minister's incompetent management of the investigation into the chemical contamination and threats to residents' health in the environs of Clovelly Park and Mitchell Park.

I supported that motion on behalf of the Greens, and in doing so I canvassed a wide variety of failings on the part of the EPA and, ultimately, the minister, which is where the buck stops. In addition, I raised other important issues, such as the decimation of the environment budget over many years, and as a consequence, we supported the no confidence motion. In relation to the December 2014 motion, the Hon. Bernard Finnigan said:

The passage of a motion of no confidence is part of a venerable tradition in Westminster parliaments, and it should be used sparingly, when a minister or a government has acted in a way that is improper or has failed in a very profound way.

I did not always agree—often agree, in fact— with the honourable member, but I think he is right in respect of both the frequency of these calls and the test to be applied. It has been almost two years to the day, so I do not think frequency is an issue here. So, the test is whether the minister has acted in a way that is improper, or has failed in a very profound way. In my view, the test covers both personal attributes as well as professional ones.

The motion before us now is based on the minister's behaviour in the conduct of his duties, rather than based on any particular failing of administration or oversight of his ministerial responsibilities. The incidents that triggered this motion have been described well by others, and I will not repeat them, but they include the 17 November incident at Rigoni's restaurant.

The minister has admitted to using some inappropriate language, and has apologised for that. He has not admitted other words that have been attributed to him, and so he has not apologised for those. I was not there, so I do not know personally what the minister said, but others have reported what the minister is alleged to have said on this occasion, and on many other occasions.

In considering this motion, we do need to have some regard to the context. As I understand it, and as government members have described, the context was the apparent revelation that South Australia was, yet again, to be dudded by the upstream states in the Murray-Darling Basin over water—and that should make us all angry. It obviously made the minister angry, but that is no excuse.

I am sure all of us have, at times, thought of what we would like to say to certain of our political opponents, or things we would like to say when we are disappointed, or when someone has lied to us, or reneged on a deal. In the cut and thrust of debate and the contest of ideas, it is easy to think of examples where even the eternally optimistic and polite Pollyanna herself would have been tested. However, while all of us might think of what we would like to say, the big difference is that most of us leave it at that. We leave it as an angry or frustrated thought. We might say it in our minds, but we do not say it out loud and we certainly do not say things like the minister said in a public place.

As a White Ribbon Ambassador I have an additional duty to set an example, and as we often say at White Ribbon events, 'The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.' On that basis, I believe that a professional minister, in whom I have confidence, would not have behaved as the minister did. So, the Greens do not have confidence, and we will be supporting the motion.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (15:21): Everything one does in life has to be taken in context of the issue. Events happen in a context; you cannot divorce the issue from the event. This motion is more than just about a few words, it is about an issue, it is about support for the future of the River Murray. The issue of this motion is the River Murray. If you vote for this motion, you are not just voting about the use of a number of words, you are voting against the issue, you are voting against the River Murray.

This is a transparent attempt to distract and not deal with the issue at hand. Minister Hunter was standing up for South Australia and the River Murray. He used inappropriate language. He should not have used it, and he has apologised for it. He was standing up for South Australia. The Hon. Robert Brokenshire effectively said that he used inappropriate language, he should apologise to those concerned, as he has.

I seek leave to table a letter that the minister referred to yesterday from the minister to the Deputy Prime Minister apologising for the language used and restating the issue. I now seek leave to table that correspondence.

Leave granted.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The minister, as I said, was standing up for South Australia, unlike those opposite who are entirely incapable of doing so. Those opposite sat on their hands, sat silent, when their federal colleagues chased Holden out of this country some three years ago, and they sat silent when the submarines were about—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The Hon. Terry Stephens interjects. We have had the decency, particularly in the context of this debate, to listen to all of you in silence. You would think you would have the good sense to do the same here.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Address the chair.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Those opposite sat in silence when the federal Liberal Party chased Holden out of this country. They sat in silence when it looked like the submarines were not going to be built in South Australia. They are doing exactly the same on this issue. I am very concerned, as I think are most South Australians, about the position being put forward by the state Liberal Party on this issue. They have never supported this plan.

On 17 February 2012, on this issue of the plan to try to get the full 3,200 billion litres, the spokesperson for the Liberal party, the member for MacKillop, shadow minister for water, said:

This is obviously not the Rolls-Royce, but it's a very good Mazda and we're quite happy to drive in the Mazda.

Their position has always been to settle for second best: do not stand up for the interests of South Australia, take what you can get even if it is not what the state needs. We would not do that. The state Labor Party and Premier Weatherill would not do that. They would not settle on driving in the Mazda; we pushed for and we got what South Australia deserved in terms of this basin plan. Those opposite were more than happy, as they have done again and again, to dud South Australia.

Even more recently, the member for Chaffey, the now shadow minister for water, seemed to fundamentally misunderstand what the plan was, if, in fact, he understood the plan at all about the commitment to return 3,200 gigalitres to the river. In his interview just this month, on 19 November on ABC Riverland radio, he called the extra 450 gigalitres that takes it up to 3,200 gigalitres, not a commitment but a 'side deal'. He went on to further suggest that that 450 gigalitres is separate from the basin plan.

Those on the other side are very keen to say what we have to answer for. Here is a challenge for the spokesperson in this chamber, the Hon. Michelle Lensink, the acting leader: do you support the member for Chaffey? Do you support him when he says that this 450 gigalitres is not part of the plan? Is that a Liberal Party policy or was he freelancing? If this is going to be raised as an issue, there is an onus on them to state their very clear views on this matter. South Australians deserve better than what they are getting from the Liberal Party. I think you will find that South Australia has had a very strong voice on this. The Premier defied his own federal party to get the deal that we got. He was not content to sit and drive in the Mazda. This agreement is absolutely vital for the future of the state. Our state relies on the River Murray.

South Australians understand just how precious this is and understood why, in 2012, we were so keen to fight for the full 3,200 gigalitres. As minister Malinauskas pointed out, as minister Hunter pointed out yesterday, we were very concerned when Deputy Prime Minister Joyce was appointed as water minister, concerned that he would do all that he could to support his rice and cotton growing mates upstream, the farmers in Queensland and New South Wales. So, when Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce wrote to minister Hunter saying that he was not committed to the full basin plan, it was a fundamental breach of trust with the South Australian people.

Implicit in any agreement is good faith. That good faith was thrown out the window by the Deputy Prime Minister. Even yesterday in question time he said that this was just orchestrated by the Labor Party. He went further than that, he called the whole Murray-Darling Basin Plan 'a Labor Party plan'. He does not even take ownership of it at all. He does not believe in it, the Liberal Nationals do not believe in it, and that is why we hear nothing from those opposite standing up for the River Murray. It was evidenced earlier this decade, on 19 June 2010, when Barnaby Joyce told The Advertiser in relation to our water in South Australia:

We have got two choices. We can move the water from where it is to where it is not which requires massive infrastructure to take water from the north and move it into the Murray-Darling Basin. Alternatively, we can give the motivation for people to move where the water is.

That was the Deputy Prime Minister's solution to this problem. He said to South Australians, 'Pack up and leave. Move to where the water is.' You can understand why we are so concerned on this issue.

As the Hon. Gail Gago pointed out, minister Hunter has spent his whole life and particularly his whole public life campaigning for social justice. He has apologised for his choice of words, as he should have, and he is getting right back in there in supporting and standing up for South Australia.

The Hon. Gail Gago pointed out the shameful record of members of the state parliamentary Liberal Party when it comes to their choice of words, particularly their choice of words describing women. We heard about the member for Unley's choice of words, the member for Finniss has been a repeat offender on this, and we heard nothing from any of those opposite when their colleagues used these words and these phrases. We heard nothing from them, not a thing from them.

In The Advertiser on 26 November, Gloria Jones, wife of Clayton Bay fisher and Murray-Darling campaigner, the late Henry Jones, said:

…although Water Minister Ian Hunter’s tirade at Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce and Victorian Water Minister Lisa Neville…was not ideal, it had woken up South Australians to the issue.

I reckon that is a pretty fair summary. It has woken up South Australians to this issue. As I have said, events happen in a context—you cannot divorce the issue from the incident. The context here is the Minister for Water from South Australia standing up for South Australia and standing up for the Murray. If you support this motion, make no mistake, you have abandoned the Murray. We will be dividing on this, and we will have it in black and white, and I can guarantee you that the Labor Party will be campaigning on this.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I know that those opposite and some of those in minor parties might try to say that this was about the language, not the issue. Well, go for it. Go for it. Let us see us campaigning on this issue. If you want to try to finesse it like that, we invite you to do that. Bring it on. We would love to see you in black and white in Hansard, not standing up for the Murray, like everyone knows you do not. We are very keen to see that, and I can guarantee that we will be campaigning on that. I can almost see the people in the ALP head office already starting to print the material, once it is recorded in Hansard how all those opposite have voted on this issue.

It will reflect upon the minor parties too. We have heard what the Xenophon Team Party had not achieved for the River Murray. I am sure it will give those that devise campaign material something else to do, apart from the penalty rate campaign against the Xenophon material, should the Xenophon representative here vote against the Murray today. We will absolutely and without any doubt be using the vote on this today to highlight the Greens' view on this, should they support this motion. Make no mistake, this is about the issue. The issue is the River Murray. You cannot divorce the event from the issue, and we will be campaigning on this issue.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (15:31): Given the time, I do not intend to speak very long. I wish to indicate that Dignity for Disability does support this motion. Usually, when I take the floor to support something on behalf of Dignity for Disability, I do so with a sense of joy and with a sense of accomplishment, and it is very rare that that is not the case. However, on this occasion, it is not the case. I am disappointed that we have to talk about this issue still in 2016 in this place.

When I was thinking about the words that I wanted to find, I thought back to a particular phrase which, as a teenager, was always the one phrase that I would dread to hear from a parent or any person or authority in my life. It was when they would look me in the eye and say this phrase—and I cannot believe that, in 2016, I am about to look an adult man in the eyes and say this phrase: I am not angry, I am just disappointed.

We are not talking about the River Murray here. Nobody is denying that the River Murray is of vital significance—

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Vincent, we need an extension of time.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

That the business of the day be postponed until the debate in progress has been concluded.

Motion carried.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I thank the council for its indulgence, and undertake not to hold it up too long. Nobody is denying that the River Murray is of vital importance to this nation and, indeed, particularly to this state. What we are simply asking is that the minister defend the River Murray on behalf of this state with the dignity and maturity that that debate deserves. The other day, just by pure coincidence, I was reading a very interesting text in a book called Growing to Maturity, which is quite a fitting title, as it turns out. In this text the author talks about the importance of behaving with reasonableness, in a reasonable manner.

I am afraid that I do not recall the author's name, but they talk about the fact that it is important to behave in a reasonable manner, not only because it respects the people with whom we are interacting, with whom we are talking, but also because it respects ourselves—it sets ourselves higher standards for the way that we communicate and conduct ourselves. Quite frankly, I think that not only has the minister brought this parliament into disrepute, I think he has insulted his own intelligence by behaving in this manner and that he needs to set himself higher standards.

Am I saying that anyone in this place is a perfect person and that I am a perfect person, and that there have never been instances where I have felt that I could have conducted myself better? No, I am certainly not, but I am also saying that I do not think it is extremely helpful to sit here and shoot blame across different sides of this chamber about whose conduct was worse.

As members of this place, as leaders in our community and as leaders of this state, we should be taking every opportunity to set the highest standard for everyone in this place and in this community and criticise any behaviour where it is not appropriate, no matter which side of politics it comes from, and that is certainly what I intend to continuing doing, even being critical of myself when necessary.

I am sure those instances will continue to arise, but just because someone may have conducted themselves in a similar manner in the past or the present, does not make that behaviour any more right. It does not make that behaviour any more correct. I think it is really a waste of this parliament's time, and an insult to the intelligence of the South Australian community, to sit here shooting blame, rather than addressing the actual conduct that has occurred.

When it comes to the reaction of, not only the minister but also his colleagues, to quote the words of my dear friend Oscar Wilde, 'A friend stabs you in the front'. I have been very disappointed to see the way that the minister's colleagues have really trivialised his behaviour and his words by saying, 'Well, he's apologised and he's moved on.' That may well be the case, and I acknowledge that the minister has apologised, but to me a true apology exists not only in words but in action.

Unfortunately, given the minister's reaction to this debate today and also further allegations that have come out since, I do not see any change in his actions so far, but I will certainly hold out hope that he will 'grow to maturity' and that we will see a change in his actions in the very near future. I hope it is, in fact, right now, because being a leader in this community, particularly being a minister, requires good judgement, calm judgement and the ability to prosecute sensible and well-researched arguments with some level of diplomacy. Swearing at or about colleagues or counterparts is not in line with the Ministerial Code of Conduct or any standard that I think any member of this community would set themselves as professional conduct.

The minister may well have received letters, phone calls or emails in support of his defence of the Murray. I do not think anyone here would criticise any member of this place for standing up for the Murray. It is so vitally important. But I do not recall any of those emails that the Hon. Ms Gago read out saying that they really enjoyed the bit where he swore and stormed out on a federal colleague. We are not asking the minister to stop standing up for the Murray. Nobody should do that at this point—at any point, in fact. We are simply asking him to do that with the dignity and maturity that this issue deserves.

I am particularly disappointed to see this incident coincide with a week where we have done some really great work in this place on some issues that I know minister Hunter is very passionate about: the issue of gender and sexual orientation equality reform. I think it is very much a shame that that could have been somewhat tainted by this behaviour. It is on all of us to pull up this behaviour wherever it exists, including from ourselves, and to continue to be focused on conducting ourselves in a way that is deserving of the privileged positions that we hold.

I, for one, will remain focused on the essential work of improving the lives of everyone in our community, whether that be people with disabilities, family carers, people who experience discrimination because of social barriers, gender identity and so on, but I will continue to always strive to do so in a manner that is deserving of the role that I hold. I do not think that is too much to ask of a minister.

I think that we, as a parliament, have the duty, responsibility and privilege to address both of these issues at once. I, for one, would hope we have the maturity as a parliament to address both the issue of the River Murray, a vitally important issue for this state and, indeed, this nation, and also the way that we conduct ourselves and the standards that we set for the South Australian community and beyond, particularly for future leaders of this state. With those words, on behalf of Dignity for Disability, I wholeheartedly support the motion.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (15:38): As a member of the Nick Xenophon Team, I will also be supporting this motion. I did not hear anything in the motion that referred to the River Murray. We are not talking about the River Murray. We are talking about how we address people and how we speak to people. If I can take some words from my late mother, she said, 'When the chips are down, you can think what you like, but you don't say it.'

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:39): I will be brief as we have well and truly exceeded question time. When this issue hit the media I suspected that we might be here looking at a third no-confidence motion in the minister. I had hoped that the minister would come to this place with an apology. Of course, we know the Premier is making an apology tomorrow about a very different issue, and so I was looking at the Miss Manners advice, would you believe, on what makes a good apology. The advice was, 'Do not sully a good apology with excuses.' Unfortunately, all we have heard is excuses.

I do give some credit to the minister for indicating yesterday that he had written to Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce and had apologised. I asked him at that point to table the letter but clearly there was some confusion because the letter that was tabled was dated 9 November. I alerted the minister's staff to that during this particular debate and we now have the actual letter of apology. It is indeed an apology to the Deputy Prime Minister, which starts:

I write in response to your letter of 17 November 2016 and our meeting in Adelaide on 17 and 18 November 2016. Firstly I would like to apologise for the strong language I used at the ministerial dinner and any offence caused to you and your staff who were in attendance.

I accept that that is an apology to the Deputy Prime Minister. It is not an apology, as I thought it might be, to the public servants who were at that meeting and it is not an apology to any of the other ministerial members of that dinner. I say that because it was an apology with excuses.

It was an apology that should have come in the form of a ministerial statement or some sort of public document put strongly and clearly to this place, not tabled as the document that it was not even meant to be—a letter from the wrong date rather than the right date—a document that we have only received now in these last 20 minutes. There should have been a ministerial statement on this matter and the reason is because this is a fight worth fighting and a fight for the Murray that has been faced with massive distraction.

What is happening is unacceptable and I think most South Australians would applaud when the minister says that he will fight for the Murray. What they will not applaud is somebody who claims that standing up and fighting for the Murray can be equated with storming out of a restaurant and getting an ice-cream. Storming out is not standing up. What do we do when we are under attack, is the union cry? We stand up, we fight back, we stay in the room, we debate, and we do it because we want to get the best outcome for our state. Storming out is not standing up.

There should be no excuses and we should not hear from the minister's colleagues that this was robust language. That reminds me of an episode of Veep. Seriously, robust: the dictionary definition of robust is healthy and strong. There was nothing healthy and strong about the language. The language was not inappropriate, it was unacceptable and it should not have been accepted, it should not have been excused. We will not, as the Greens, stand by and let the Murray suffer because of the behaviour of those who are there to fight for us.

The PRESIDENT: Are there any further speakers? If not, the Hon. Ms Lensink, do you want to close off?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (15:43): Enough said.

Ayes 12

Noes 5

Majority 7