Paddy's Law

The Hon. C. BONAROS (14:48): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Treasurer a question about Paddy's Law—LPG gas cylinders.

Leave granted.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Earlier today, and at the 11^th hour in the other place, this government decided to gag debate on Paddy's Law, a bill I introduced earlier this year to have warning labels stuck on all LPG bottles sold or refilled in South Australia. As members would know, that bill is in honour of Port Lincoln teenager, Paddy Ryan, who died tragically of heart failure minutes after inhaling LPG gas at a party in February this year.

The bill is about saving lives and is above politics. I have been working with the member for Wright in another place to introduce my bill in the lower house after it was passed in this place, and it was due to be debated today after he secured the support of the crossbenchers (or at least most of the crossbenchers) and the member for Flinders. To mark the milestone, Paddy's father, Adrian, and his family travelled from Port Lincoln and elsewhere to witness firsthand the bill being debated in the house. You can only imagine their devastation and anger when the government brought on a vote to gag the debate and one of the members of the crossbench decided to vote with the government with absolutely no explanation. My question to the Treasurer is:

1. When were you personally first made aware of today's actions by the government and the gagging order?

2. Do you think this is proper parliamentary behaviour?

3. Did the government decide to gag debate because it knew it has members of its own party prepared to cross the floor and support the bill, despite you saying the government is opposed to it?

The PRESIDENT: Order! I was going to allow the member to complete her explanation but I should remind—

The Hon. C. BONAROS: That's not an explanation, Mr President, that's a question.

The PRESIDENT: Sorry?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: That was a question to the Treasurer. It's not an explanation.

The PRESIDENT: It was an explanation because you sought leave, and I gave you leave.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Yes, and I just asked the question.

The PRESIDENT: So what I am doing is about to quote to you standing order 188:

No Member shall quote from any debate of the current Session in the other House of Parliament or comment on any measure pending therein unless such quotation be relevant to the matter then under discussion.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: It is relevant to the matter under discussion, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: We won't have an argument. I am going to allow you to complete your explanation and question quickly, and then if the Treasurer wishes to respond he can, but he is not obliged to.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can I get some clarification as to why he is not obliged to, please?

The PRESIDENT: Because I have just read out that standing order which is really putting some doubt into whether you are able to do what you have done. Now, I am giving you—

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Well, can you explain to me, Mr President, what part of the question is out of order?

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Bonaros! I am speaking.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: We will gag the debate in this place, too, shall we?

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Yes. Wonderful.

The PRESIDENT: I have just indicated to the honourable member that I will allow her to complete her explanation and question.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I have finished my explanation, Mr President. This is a question. I am up to question 4. The last question is: have you the courage, Treasurer, to share with this chamber the comments you made to Adrian, Paddy's father, in a private conversation with him over the phone?

The PRESIDENT: I will give the Treasurer the opportunity to respond, if he wishes to, but at no stage is this Chair trying to gag anything. I am, however, adhering to the standing orders. I am pleased that we are going to have a meeting of the standing orders committee fairly soon, which is—

The Hon. C. BONAROS: It'd be the first in a long time.

The PRESIDENT: —one which hasn't happened for a very long time. But at no stage is this Chair trying to gag any debate. The honourable Treasurer.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Mr President, I simply asked what part of the question was in breach of the standing order that you read out, just so that I understand it.

The PRESIDENT: The whole—

The Hon. C. BONAROS: The whole?

The PRESIDENT: Look, I think I—

The Hon. C. BONAROS: The whole? So what—

The PRESIDENT: Look, if the Hon. Ms Bonaros would allow me to answer. You will resume your seat. I have given you the discretion of going on and asking all of that because I felt that there was some grey area in 188, but I think if I had read it out properly I probably could have stopped you. I am going to ask the Treasurer to respond if he wishes.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (14:52): I am always happy to, within the standing orders of course, respond—

The Hon. C. Bonaros: Well, answer the last one, Treasurer.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I beg your pardon.

The Hon. C. Bonaros: Answer the last one.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If you let me—

The PRESIDENT: Order! We won't have a conversation. The Treasurer has the call.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am always happy to answer questions, but in compliance with the standing orders. The government's position on this particular bill has been quite clear and the Hon. Ms Bonaros and other members, indeed, are clear on the government's position. In relation to a private conversation that I have had with a number of individuals, I am happy to defend anything I have said to any particular individual.

If a particular individual, a family member, wants to put on the public record what they believe I have said to them in a private conversation, I am happy then to respond as to whether that's an accurate view of what I said or I didn't. But there is nothing that I have said to anybody in relation to this particular issue that I am not happy to defend if it's placed on the public record.

I am not sure what the Hon. Ms Bonaros is inferring. If she wants to place on the public record—she will have plenty of opportunities on any other occasion—matters of public importance, or whatever else it might happen to be, she can indicate whatever it is that she believes. But unless she actually indicates what the private conversation was and what a person's version of that private conversation was, then I am not in a position to respond. But I know that what I have said to individuals in relation to this issue I am more than happy to defend publicly, because it would have been entirely consistent with the views I have expressed in this house publicly and also to other members.

I am well aware of the views of my friend and colleague the member for Flinders on this particular issue, and I have had any number of conversations with him as well. Indeed, as late as last evening, when I was informed that a family member might either have been here yesterday or was coming today, I provided further information via the member for Flinders to provide for that family member in relation to work that I see, and that the government sees, as the potentially permanent solution to this issue—not the issue of whether or not we put a sticker on a cylinder but the issue of a permanent solution, which is the valve.

In the discussion I had with a particular family member they expressed some view about whether or not that was going to be a potential solution. I then made further inquiries and got further information, and I asked the member for Flinders—given the close association he has with the family and that, as I understand it, he was going to either be speaking or meeting with a family member yesterday or today—whether or not he was prepared to pass on the information. He indicated his willingness to do so. Whether or not that has occurred, I don't know.

It is entirely up to the other member of the private conversation to share that private conversation publicly if they wish, but I can certainly indicate to the Hon. Ms Bonaros that if she thinks there is some 'shock, horror' revelation, that I have said something to someone in relation to this issue that is contrary to what I have said publicly, I reject that completely. Anything I have said to a number of individuals about this issue is entirely consistent with the position I have adopted in the house—and I that I am prepared to defend publicly as well.