Legislative Council Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Matter of Privilege Matter of Privilege Matter of Privilege Matter of Privilege The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI Legislative Council Leader of the Opposition The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (14:31): I rise on a matter of privilege. On Thursday 8 September, the Hon. Emily Bourke was asked a question by the Hon. Stephen Wade in relation to the government's policy for specialist support in schools. The question asked specifically if: …the 100 additional specialists equate to 100 additional full-time equivalents over and above the staff that were already budgeted prior to the election, or does it include the 55 specialists announced by the former government? The parliamentary secretary replied: The government has committed an additional $50 million over four years to employ 100 additional mental health and learning support specialists. She then went on to describe matters such as qualifications and identified that 25 had already been recruited. The Hon. Stephen Wade followed up with a question of clarification: Could the parliamentary secretary address the issue of whether the additional specialists are in addition to the 55 already committed by the former government and in fact the addition is only 45. The parliamentary secretary replied: As I stated earlier, the government has committed an additional $50 million over four years to employ 100 additional mental health and learning support specialists. This information, provided on two occasions to the council by the parliamentary secretary, is contradicted by evidence given to the council's Budget and Finance Committee by departmental officers, according to the Hansard of the meeting on 9 November, which was made public during the last sitting week. Starting on page 248, the Chair of the Budget and Finance Committee is recorded as asking: Is the $50 million for 100 additional health and learning support specialist in schools all new money, or was that already in the budget? The department's chief executive, Professor Martin Westwell, replied: The money for the 100 mental health and learning support specialists is $50 million within our budget, within the context, of course, of our $4.5 billion overall budget. The Chair went on to ask: So that's existing; so that's not a new announcement. Does it include funding for 55 mental health care specialists that was funded and announced by the previous government, according to the strategy released by the department prior to caretaker mode? The chief executive replied: Yes, that's right; and we have put additional funding in to make that to the 100 mental health and welfare specialists. The Chair went on to provide some detail about the previous information provided to the council on this matter and received the following further response from the chief executive: We want to make this clear: there was the original 55, we expanded it to 100, and the extra cost was existing money from within the department's budget. Both of the statements of fact in that last answer clearly and directly contradict information provided to this council by the parliamentary secretary on 8 September. In almost three months since then, the parliamentary secretary has made no attempt to correct the record despite the fact that the supplementary question from the Hon. Stephen Wade should have drawn her attention to the issue that her statements were incorrect, and despite this evidence being provided several weeks ago there has been no attempt to correct the record. The parliamentary secretary was asked if the government's policy was for 100 additional staff or just 45 additional staff. She replied 100. The chief executive of the department has clarified that the correct answer was 45. The parliamentary secretary also stated twice that 'the government has committed an additional $50 million over four years to the project'. The chief executive of the department has said that 'the extra cost was existing money from within the department's budget'. The parliamentary secretary has misled this council. She has provided no qualification in her answers. She has made no attempt to correct the record in almost three months. I submit that a prima facie case has been established that a Privileges Committee should be established to investigate the matter. I therefore give notice that on the next day of sitting I will move that a Committee of Privileges be established to inquire into and report on whether the parliamentary secretary to the Premier misled the Legislative Council whilst answering a question without notice on 8 September 2022.