HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2018-11-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Question Time

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (15:33): Not the only thing to run over time in recent days. I rise to talk about what we witnessed today not an hour ago, and that was the dreadful and deplorable performance by the Deputy Premier and Attorney-General, the member for Bragg, repeatedly refusing to answer legitimate questions put to her on behalf of the absent minister, who, of course, has just erroneously claimed that he was granted a pair by the opposition. I am happy to correct the record on that: that is not correct.

The Hon. C.L. Wingard interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: And if he complains about what I have just said, Mr Speaker—

The Hon. C.L. Wingard interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —he should stand up and move a matter of privilege, but of course—

The Hon. C.L. Wingard: You are a disgrace.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —we know the composition of his spine would not be strong enough to allow that to happen.

The Hon. C.L. Wingard: You're a disgrace.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The fact that repeatedly questions were refused to be answered—

The Hon. C.L. Wingard interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Lee and the Minister for Police are interjecting.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —by the Attorney-General is not good enough. These are exactly—

Mr DULUK: Point of order: it is not appropriate for the member for Lee to reflect on the member for Gibson. I am offended and I ask the member for Lee to withdraw that last statement.

The SPEAKER: Would the Minister for Police like the member for Lee to withdraw any of those comments?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would be pleased to if I could understand—

The SPEAKER: One moment. Stop the clock.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —how the member for Waite was offended by how I offended the member for Gibson.

The SPEAKER: Would the Minister for Police like those comments to be withdrawn?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes, I would, sir.

The SPEAKER: The member for Lee withdraws. I ask that 30 seconds be—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No. He did not rise. He did not take exception to them; another member did, and you have warned—

The SPEAKER: Yes.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —repeatedly that that is insufficient.

The SPEAKER: Yes, I have the point of order. The member is correct. The member for Waite, the objection must be taken to from the point. However, it was thereabouts, member for Lee. I have then asked the Minister for Police if he—because there were some interjections back and forth—has taken offence. Do you take offence to those words that were uttered?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes, I do. Yes, sir.

The SPEAKER: He has taken offence, member for Lee. I will add 30 seconds to the clock, member for Lee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would appreciate it if you do add that time.

The SPEAKER: Thank you.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I withdraw, and I will come to this in a minute, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Lee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: This is an absolute outrage, how this house is being treated during the hour of question time. Today, we had the Deputy Premier repeatedly refusing to answer questions by bogusly claiming that the questions were being put in a manner to threaten some sub judice behaviour of this parliament. That is just wrong, and we know it is wrong because the Deputy Premier herself put these same questions to a government during a question time previously in regard to the Hillier matter.

We know that her point today was bogus because even in her explanation about why she would not answer these questions and why it was somehow separate from the Hillier matter, she tripped herself up with our own reasoning. She claimed today that the Hillier matter was different because her questions then related to the behaviour of departments and government agencies. Well, today there was question after question after question about what the department of corrections had done, what the Parole Board had done and what other agencies of the government had done, namely, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Police—for the short time that he was here.

It is not the only occasion when we see the government thumbing its nose at the most critical part of the parliamentary sitting day—that is, question time. Just for one hour a day we expect those ministers to perform the basic tenet of responsible government and they repeatedly refuse to do so. They do so for varying reasons. It is clear obfuscation by the Deputy Premier, and we have become used to that. It is almost like after 16 years in opposition she has become so verbose and so prolix that she cannot even engage in any plain speaking and answer a question that is put to her.

As for the Minister for Police—well, he keeps his own counsel on why he is incapable of answering questions. I am sure we could all put a theory as to why, but I am sure it will go straight through to the keeper, to use one of his sporting analogies. Time after time today, we have had questions about what these ministers knew, what these ministers did, what their departments did and what the Parole Board did. None of those matters is sub judice—none of them whatsoever. We were not down there trying to ascertain what happened at the crime scene. We were not asking questions that went to the accused killer's character. We were asking about the behaviour and the performance of this government in light of this event happening—precisely the same line of questioning about the Hillier matter.

Unfortunately, it is not the only way that this government continues to obfuscate question time. They refuse to answer questions. They are protected from answering questions by the number of Dorothy Dixers and government questions that are taken. Even those are usually out of order. They are usually the read repetition of material that has been published by the government in media releases, especially from the Minister for Energy. Of course, when the opposition raises points of order, there is nothing really to see here. When the government continues to interrupt proceedings by raising points of order—and I have to say that the extraordinary point of order raised by the member for Heysen was beyond the pale. To say that any proceeding of this house, should it so differentiate from his understanding of what happens in the House of Commons, must therefore be out of order is an outrage.

We have one hour a day when we expect the responsible ministers of this government to answer questions and they continue to refuse to do so. It is not good enough, and it is not good enough on this matter, and I am sure the behaviour of departments, agencies and perhaps even ministers may have contributed to what happened at Noarlunga Centre.

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