HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-07-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MURRAY-DARLING BASIN

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (15:47): Never in the history of this state would I think that a government has been so gutless and so disgusted with its own performance that it would run away from a debate. After the Premier of this state told the people of South Australia on the pages of the morning newspaper, The Advertiser, that he would debate with the leader and the opposition—

Mr Pengilly: Shonk.

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes, he is a shonk—his efforts on behalf of the state in regard to the River Murray, he refused to have a worthwhile debate in this house. He runs away from it. I can well understand why the Premier would run away from it, and I will illustrate what this Premier has done on behalf of this state.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr BIGNELL: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for MacKillop is saying that the Premier has run away from the opportunity to debate: he has not at all.

Mr WILLIAMS: No—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for MacKillop! Take your seat.

Mr BIGNELL: The debate has been agreed to. The debate will go ahead. The member for MacKillop knows that what he is saying is a lie.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has some point of order. The member for MacKillop was disorderly in mentioning whether persons were in the chamber or not in the chamber. The other comments are on the record.

Mr WILLIAMS: I understand that the member for Mawson has just said that I am a liar. I ask him to withdraw and apologise unreservedly. I also ask, according to standing orders, that the clerks reset the clock, because I believe that his point of order was frivolous.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The chair has control of the clock, not the clerks. There is no point of order. I did not hear the member for Mawson's comments in the way that the member for MacKillop has suggested and—

Mr WILLIAMS: Madam Deputy Speaker, if I may have your indulgence for a moment. My understanding is that the normal procedure is that, if the chair did not hear what was said, they invite the member, if the member did say what it was alleged they said, to withdraw and apologise unreservedly, because I can assure you that every member on this side did hear the member for Mawson and his unparliamentary performance.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member's point was not in order. The member for MacKillop may resume his comments.

Mr WILLIAMS: Madam Deputy Speaker, are you saying that your ruling is that you did not hear the member for Mawson call me a liar and, therefore, you are not going to give him the opportunity to withdraw and apologise? Is that your ruling?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for MacKillop will take his seat. There is no debate with the chair's ruling, and your interpretation of my comments was not correct. I did not say that I had not heard the member for Mawson use the word 'liar'. I said that that was not, indeed, what I had heard. Your point of order was that the member for Mawson had called you a liar. I did not hear the member for Mawson use that term. I distinctly heard the member for Mawson use another phrase. You may resume your comments.

Mr WILLIAMS: Madam Deputy Speaker, can you please explain to me what your ruling is?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down.

Mr WILLIAMS: Because I am of a mind to move to disagree with it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The words I heard the member for Mawson use were that the member for MacKillop had told a lie. The member for MacKillop raised the point of order that he had been called a liar. The two points are different, and my ruling was based on the difference between those two points. If the member for MacKillop wishes to crave the indulgence of the withdrawal of that comment he may, but it is not disorderly. Calling someone a liar is disorderly. He did not. What I heard the member for Mawson say was that—

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The leader will keep silent. The time for the member's grievance has now expired. I will invite the member to speak for two minutes on his grievance.

Mr WILLIAMS: Madam Deputy Speaker, you are suggesting that you heard the member for Mawson say that what I said was a lie. I am alleging that I heard the member for Mawson say that I was a liar. He at least intimated that I was a liar or that what I said was a lie, and I call on you to invite the member—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: —to withdraw—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: —and I seek that you make a ruling on that. I want you to make a ruling, which will then give me the opportunity to accept your ruling or to disagree with it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for MacKillop, I have explained my ruling on more than one occasion. I heard the member for Mawson quite clearly say that the member for MacKillop had told a lie.

Mr WILLIAMS: And you are saying that that is not unparliamentary?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am. If you would like, I will consult—

Mr WILLIAMS: Madam Deputy Speaker—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for MacKillop will resume his seat while the chair is speaking. I am offering to consult with the Clerk. However, my advice so far is that my ruling has been in keeping with the traditions of the parliament. I have consulted with the Clerk, and he has indicated that it is appropriate for me to invite the member for Mawson to withdraw, but that is as far as it goes. Member for Mawson, would you like to withdraw?

Mr BIGNELL: Madam Deputy Speaker, I think, with the perilous state of the Murray and the way this state government and the federal government are getting on with the job of fixing the Murray, for someone from the opposition to ask me to withdraw and argue for five minutes over whether I called him a 'liar' or whether I told a lie—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members on my left have had—

Mr BIGNELL: —or whether I said that he had come in here and told a lie—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Mawson, do not the repeat the issue. I simply ask you whether you are prepared to withdraw whatever comments caused offence to the member for MacKillop.

Mr BIGNELL: No; if it is not unparliamentary, I will not withdraw. He came into this place and said that the Premier was—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: You sit down. You have set the precedent.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: Mark my words, this word will appear again and again.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for MacKillop, take your seat. The Speaker will resume control of the chair.

The SPEAKER: I think the best thing is simply for the member for Mawson to withdraw his remark, and I direct him to do so.

Mr BIGNELL: Thank you, Mr Speaker, I withdraw.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, and that ends the matter. Member for MacKillop, we will resume the clock at three minutes.

Mr WILLIAMS: Mr Speaker, may I crave your indulgence? I had began my comments. I had definitely spoken for less than a minute. The clock was still on four. I would contend, with what I have had to put up with, that the clock should start from five and I should start my comments from the beginning, and I would crave your indulgence.

The SPEAKER: I was not here at the time. My advice is that it was about three minutes. I am not going to stay here arguing over one bloody minute. If four minutes makes the member for MacKillop happy and allows us to progress things, I am happy to give him four minutes.

Mr WILLIAMS: I am not too sure that I am happy with four. The reality is that today we have seen a gutless government which will not stand up for its own record. Month after month for over 12 months, we have heard the Premier of this state say that he wants an independent authority. He has been telling everyone that he has an independent authority, but I refer members to the intergovernmental agreement that he signed on behalf of the people of South Australia.

I direct members to page 41, appendix A, which talks about the amendments that will have to be made to the Water Act; that is, the commonwealth act that was already passed by the federal government. They have to make amending provisions relating to the development of the basin plan to provide for a review by basin state ministers. The independent authority will have to change the commonwealth act, which has already been passed, to allow for a review by basin state ministers. We are going backwards.

I can understand why the Premier does not want to debate this. His record is paper thin: it is a tissue. I refrain from using the language that the member for Mawson used, but his language does remind me of some people in this place. The Premier is very flexible with the truth. When he was questioned about Menindee Lakes, he said, 'No, that water is for critical human needs for South Australia's future needs.' Wrong. Read the intergovernmental agreement. When you get to the section on critical human needs, it does not provide for critical human needs water for South Australia or anyone else: it does provide for what is known in today's parlance as dilution flows.

There is no change. That is what we already get. The worst thing about this agreement is that South Australia is the laughing stock of Australia. Why is that so? It is because this government has done nothing to help itself.

My father taught me when I was a small boy that God helps those who look after themselves. This state has done nothing. The minister keeps claiming that we recycle 20 per cent of our wastewater. We do that, but not one extra drop has been recycled since this government came to power. I am sure, when Morris Iemma read that we recycle all this water and we are so good, that he said to some of his bureaucrats, 'Find out more detail about this. South Australia is performing well.'

When they were nutting out this intergovernmental agreement, Morris Iemma would have said to Mike Rann, 'Thank God the Liberals are not still in power because I would have had some sympathy for South Australia. It would have had a desal plant and it would be recycling a lot more water and it would have done something about stormwater capture and its clean up and storage. The government would have done something to look after the people. But you, Mike Rann, and your government have done nothing for seven years yet you come over here craving our sympathy.'

That is the problem. We talk about the Victorians and the food bowl project. Well, the intergovernmental agreement is the pièce de résistance. When I keep asking the Premier about page 23 of the intergovernment agreement, he says that due diligence will be done. Clause 14.12.5 states:

Should due diligence of priority projects conclude that the priority project is not economically, environmentally, financially, socially or technically viable or feasible, the parties agree to enter into discussions about possible reconfiguration.

Time expired.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I have a point of order, sir, in relation to standing order 23 and the powers of the deputy. I draw your attention to the ruling made by the deputy in your absence, prior to your return to the chair. If my understanding is correct, the deputy ruled that the use of the term 'liar' in regard to the member for MacKillop was in order.

The matter was not resolved by her before you returned to the chair but, in relation to standing order 23, which confers considerable power on the deputy, I ask you to consider the Hansard and look at the deputy's ruling in order to advise the house whether she has erred. I am concerned that a precedent may have been set, and I think it needs clarification if we are to trust the judgments of the deputy.

The SPEAKER: Order! I do not appreciate what the Leader of the Opposition seems to be trying to do in trying to establish some conflict between us when in fact none exists. The member for MacKillop asked the member for Mawson to withdraw his remark—which the member for Mawson has done. That is the end of the matter as far as the chair is concerned.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: In relation to the same standing order, it is important for all members of the house to have confidence in the powers conferred upon the deputy under standing order 29.

The SPEAKER: Order! That is no point of order. If any member disagrees with a ruling made by either me or the Deputy Speaker, then there is an appropriate way of dealing with it. That is by motion of censure or no confidence in either of us. If those are the points that the Leader of the Opposition wishes to make, there is an appropriate way in which to do it, but raising points of order with me is not an appropriate way. I have dealt with the matter and it is closed.

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