HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-10-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Procedure

DEPUTY SPEAKER'S RULING, DISSENT

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Leader of the Opposition) (12:49): I move:

That the Deputy Speaker’s ruling be disagreed to.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The leader has brought up his reasons for disagreement in writing. Is the motion seconded?

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have moved dissent from your ruling not to allow the motion to be put. I do so because I rose to my feet. A clear majority of members in the chamber could see I was first to my feet. In my view, the government is filibustering on this motion and does not want it to be put. It is dealt with by standing order 151, that the question now be put, and you would know, Madam Speaker, that that requires that I be given an opportunity to close the debate. The motion speaks for itself: there has been an abject failure by the Premier to show leadership on our water crisis. It is most serious—

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: I have a point of order.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: —and that is why—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The minister has a point of order.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: We now have a remarkable situation where the Leader of the Opposition is starting to argue the case in terms of closing the debate. This debate is not about that at all. This is a debate about the right of an individual to speak to this motion, which the opposition is trying to gag. Can we at least stick to that debate at this stage?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The essence of the point of order was that the leader was entering into debate on the substantive motion rather than the dissent motion, and that is correct.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. They desperately do not want this motion to be put, because the government has been exposed for its failure to act on our water crisis in the drought. That is why they are trying to nobble debate and that is why they are trying to stop this being voted on. I rise to my feet and call that the motion be put. It needs to be put because the people of South Australia need to understand that Mike Rann and his Labor government have failed them on the drought, and they have failed them on the water crisis.

Mr RAU: I rise on a point of order.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: They have produced glossy brochures—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: They have nobbled—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Enfield has a point of order.

Mr RAU: The point of order is clear, Madam Deputy Speaker. The member is arguing his case again. We are talking about whether the motion should be put. We do not need to hear all of that other stuff regurgitated. Let us get on with it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I uphold the point of order.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Madam Deputy Speaker, I appeal to you to allow this matter to be put. That is why I have indicated dissent from your ruling. We can vote on that, but the government must be held to account. You cannot avoid voting in the house. Let the people of South Australia know where you stand.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (12:53): What I hope is that I will be heard without the hysteria that has just been going on.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: And off they go immediately. Madam Deputy Speaker, my understanding is that you called a speaker on this motion. The Leader of the Opposition, for what we know was signalled to the media in advance for a stunt, does not want anyone on this side to be heard. I am not surprised by that—not the least bit surprised. I would not mind speaking on it later myself, because some of the nonsense we have heard on this issue from the Leader of the Opposition is simply that—nonsense.

If the Leader of the Opposition is so desperate to argue his case he can do so, but it is not appropriate for him to prevent others answering those arguments. What I know from my many years in this place is that, if there is ever a question of doubt, if there is ever an argument, it should always fall to hearing the debate, not closing it down. The rules about closing a debate in this place are fairly rigorous. What is absolutely transparent about this is the lack of genuineness. This has nothing to do with informing the public of South Australia and nothing to do with the debate, otherwise they would not be seeking so dramatically to close it down. It has to do with a fellow who does not do well in question time and does not do well in debate and who sneaks into private members—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is a point of order.

Mr WILLIAMS: The question before the house is one of dissenting from a ruling and the minister is straying from the question.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The problem that all occupants of this chair have is that, when one person strays from the rules, there is a need to give liberty to another person. I did draw the leader back to the point, not as rapidly as the time in which the minister has had, but I will ask the minister to uphold the standing orders.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will, but simply make the point that, if you want to put on some hysterical childish performance and not follow the rules of debate yourself—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Listen to them all; what a bunch of children. The truth is, if ever there is a doubt either way, we should always lean towards keeping the debate open and members of parliament being heard. That is why they were elected; they were elected to be heard. If the leader is so angry, perhaps he can bring this debate into the chamber at question time when the frontbench is here, when all of us are here—not childishly sliding away from his responsibilities. After all, this is a man who describes himself as the 'alternate Premier'.

Perhaps in an alternate universe I would say, but he does describe himself as the 'alternate Premier'. Instead of performing stunts in private members' time, can he allow private members to have their debate, which is something we have always observed on this side. Do not gag private members, and if you have a fight to pick, do it in question time when other leaders of the opposition always have.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Williams interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for MacKillop will come to order! Thank you. I am also entitled to make a statement in support of my ruling. The previous speaker was to my left. I looked to my right is, as is the tradition of this parliament, to identify whether there was a speaker on their feet. There was. I therefore acknowledged the member for Enfield and saw the leader only when loud voices called my attention to his being on his feet. The tradition of the parliament is to take speakers from either side alternately. I upheld that tradition. The question is that the chair's ruling be dissented from.

The house divided on the motion:

AYES (12)

Chapman, V.E. Goldsworthy, M.R. Griffiths, S.P.
Gunn, G.M. Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J. (teller) McFetridge, D.
Pederick, A.S. Pengilly, M. Pisoni, D.G.
Redmond, I.M. Venning, I.H. Williams, M.R.

NOES (26)

Atkinson, M.J. Breuer, L.R. Ciccarello, V.
Conlon, P.F. Foley, K.O. Fox, C.C.
Geraghty, R.K. (teller) Hill, J.D. Kenyon, T.R.
Key, S.W. Koutsantonis, T. Lomax-Smith, J.D.
Maywald, K.A. McEwen, R.J. O'Brien, M.F.
Piccolo, T. Portolesi, G. Rankine, J.M.
Rann, M.D. Rau, J.R. Simmons, L.A.
Stevens, L. Thompson, M.G. Weatherill, J.W.
White, P.L. Wright, M.J.


Majority of 14 for the noes.

Motion thus negatived.

Debate adjourned.

[Sitting suspended from 13:03 to 14:00]

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT