HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2017-02-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Election Day Material

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:02): My question is to the Premier. Was the Premier or his office consulted regarding versions of the election day materials and/or the television advertisements by One Community?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (15:02): No. There is only one issue at stake here and that is the sensitivity of the federal Liberal Party, and they whistle up their mates here in South Australia and get them to do their bidding. It is as simple as that.

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order: the Premier has actually answered the question.

The SPEAKER: Has the Premier finished?

Ms CHAPMAN: In which case, the answer—

The SPEAKER: I'm sure the Premier will come to the substance of the question soon.

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, he actually answered no straightaway, so he's answered my question and everything else since then is debate.

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Colton is called to order.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Maybe those opposite could give details of the telephone conversation that occurred from Senator Birmingham when he requested to be rescued by the local Liberal Party.

Ms CHAPMAN: What has this got to do with the One Community advertising campaign, of which the Premier has said he has had no conversations?

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Newland is called to order.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The federal Liberal government felt the heat in the last election campaign because a community—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Well, you asked about an election.

The SPEAKER: I would like the Premier to develop his answer and then I can make an assessment.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The deputy leader asked about the election campaign and how-to-vote cards. Ultimately, the sharp end of this debate occurred in the context of an election campaign, an election campaign where contending points of view were put by community groups about public policy issues. The Liberal Party federally could have saved itself some grief in relation to this issue if it had simply kept its promise to honour the Gonski funding. If it had reversed the $335 million cut, it could expect that community groups who represent the interests of educators would stop campaigning against them.

Don't complain about the fact that people are campaigning against an idea in circumstances where you continue to advance policies which act against their interests. That is the definition of a glass jaw. If you are going to cut $335 million, expect that somebody is going to get a bit angry about it, expect that they are going to raise a campaign against it and expect this government to back them.

If those groups decide to put pressure on federal Liberal candidates, then that is their judgement about achieving their goals, just as they put pressure on us in relation to gambling issues, just as we put pressure on our federal Labor counterparts in relation to questions concerning the River Murray. The difference here is that we act in South Australia's interest and those opposite get whistled up by Canberra to do the bidding of their Canberra mates.

Ms Chapman: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: Yes, the Premier has finished. Had the point of order been made, I would have upheld it.

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