HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-06-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Members

Member for Hurtle Vale, Naming

The SPEAKER: The member for Hurtle Vale is named. You are named.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I move that the member be given the opportunity to apologise and/or explain her remarks.

The SPEAKER: She is automatically given that opportunity. Member for Hurtle Vale, would you like to do so?

Ms COOK: Thank you for the opportunity to address what has just happened while we were sitting here, listening.

Members interjecting:

Ms COOK: Why don't you just wait. I am explaining what happened and then I will have the chance to apologise. While I was refuting the remarks being made by the Premier, which are not based on any fact that I have heard from people in the community, I was ejected by you. I accept that. But, as I am walking out, if I am going to be provoked by the Premier with my title as I leave the chamber, I am going to turn around and tell him. However, I apologise for doing so and I withdraw that part of the statement.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (14:48): I move:

That the apology be accepted.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Sir, as per the standing orders—

The SPEAKER: Manager of opposition business, there has been a motion. We can proceed in one of two ways. The member for Lee sprang to his feet. I am in the house's hands. The member for Lee has moved that the apology be accepted. Is that seconded?

Honourable members: Yes, sir.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner: Sir, there is a 10-minute debate.

The SPEAKER: Yes, 10 minutes each side.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Irrespective of who moves, there is a 10-minute debate.

The SPEAKER: Would you like to take that opportunity now?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: If you are allowing the member for Lee's motion, then he can speak.

The SPEAKER: Yes, I have allowed the motion. Would the member for Lee like the first opportunity?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, sir. I do not think it will come as any surprise to members that I could characterise this question time as being perhaps a little heightened compared with other question times. I am not sure why. Perhaps that heightened temperature might be the result of a matter that was previously raised before the house that has inflamed some members' anxieties in their approach to question time today. As a result, we have seen a relatively unusual, although not unprecedented, line of questioning to yourself, sir. We have also seen a line of questioning to the Premier about a matter of privilege that was raised. Of course, it was a very grave issue.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order, sir: the rules of relevance as to why the member for Hurtle Vale's alleged apology should be accepted surely apply to this. The member's use of this time to make reflections on yourself is utterly obstructive to the house.

The SPEAKER: I ask the minister to sit down. I will hear the member for Lee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, sir. I will not ask for an extension of time to my 10 minutes. I put it to you, sir, that we have had a level of emotion in this question time that we perhaps have not seen for some time in this place. I note that a number of my colleagues on this side have already been ejected under standing order 137A, perhaps reflecting that heightened sense of tension within this place.

I understand that the member for Kaurna, apparently the Premier and certainly, as we have now learned, the member for Hurtle Vale are most sensitive and most concerned about the issue of mental health funding and whether or not it has been reduced. Certainly, the preceding line of questioning and this particular line of questioning have led to some members feeling so passionate about this. We have already had comments made by the Premier. We have had comments made by the member for Kaurna—disorderly as they were and ruled as such by you, sir—and subsequently by the member for Hurtle Vale.

Mr Speaker, I do not question your capacity and your ruling to choose to eject the member for Hurtle Vale. It is well within your rights and, as we know on this side, unfortunately not unprecedented for you to exercise your right under standing order 137A to make it clear that you believe that a certain level of behaviour is disorderly to the point where a member should leave the chamber. That is exactly how you ruled for the member for Hurtle Vale. I think it is unfortunate that, as she was leaving the chamber, she was in receipt of some—what should we call them—farewell remarks from those opposite to me in this place, what might be referred to in sporting parlance as a send-off.

I can imagine that that does not excuse the member for Hurtle Vale's outburst. In that light, it certainly does not cast any shadow on your ruling that she be named, but I think you can understand the context under which this situation has occurred and the escalation of the tensions that has occurred during question time today. Within that context, I do not think it is unreasonable that this house considers the conduct of the last 50 or so minutes and understands how this situation came about.

For somebody who is, in comparison with many of us, not completely but relatively new to this place—I might be wrong, but to my recollection this is the first time that she has experienced this certain turn of events, if I can put it so euphemistically—while she might have committed the offence to the house, she has sought, at the first opportunity, to make her explanation an apology to this place. I do not think that it is unreasonable, not just from the perspective of members sitting on this side but from the perspective of members sitting on the other side, that the explanation, the apology, be accepted.

I certainly point out to those sitting opposite, particularly the member for Morialta, who I gather is about to make the contribution on behalf of the government, that there have been occasions both within this session of parliament and the previous session of parliament when members have conducted themselves in a similar vein and the apology has been accepted by the government of an opposition member—not always, of course, because I was on the receiving end of a non-acceptance of an apology, but I took my lumps. I do not think those lumps need to be made here, and I do not think the member for Hurtle Vale needs to be made an example of in this manner, Mr Speaker.

I would call on the Leader of Government Business (member for Morialta) and all those whom he represents, to come to a similar mind in understanding how we have got to this place and that the explanation was valid, the apology worthwhile and worthy of acceptance.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (14:55): I oppose the motion for a number of reasons, and I will just go through a couple of them. I want to set out that, when the member for Hurtle Vale interjected continuously, you exercised your right under 137A, having warned her on more than one occasion, as I recall, to ask her to remove herself from the chamber.

She crossed the blood line, which has its own significant traditions, and as per the manner of Speakers across Westminster democracies, and certainly in this parliament, you named her for obstructing the business of the house by interjecting strenuously against the orders and the good order of the house.

Then, as is proper, she was given the opportunity to explain and to apologise. She made an explanation of why she was concerned about the topic. The merits of that notwithstanding, she then did not, in my view, give a real apology. In fact, the clue is that she said that if this matter were to be argued, she would stand up for herself, or words to that effect. She certainly left me with the impression that she would do it again if the same circumstances arose.

An apology to the parliament should be unconditional. It is a matter for the house if the house determines by majority vote to accept an explanation or an apology. In my position here, there was a naming of the member for West Torrens some little while ago, and he gave an explanation which was regarded by some as provocative. Certainly, his behaviour beforehand I do not think anybody objected to or suggested was not worthy of being named, yet I took the view that we would accept his apology.

He did not say in his apology that he would do it again, and that is one key difference. However, even in my nine years in the house, other managers of government business or leaders of the house, in other circumstances which were similar to that, saw members named with their explanations not accepted. That was the lenient end of any government approaching these apologies or explanations for being named.

The member for Hurtle Vale, as the member for Lee says, is new, although I note that there are double-digit members of the house who are newer, who did not conduct themselves in that way, who did listen to the rules when the Clerk explained that you do not not only interject out of your seat but shout across the chamber as you are being ordered by the Speaker to depart. It is an obstruction of the house when you seek to actively undermine the Speaker's authority, and not understanding the rules, for members of parliament who are supposed to be representing their constituencies and holding themselves to a standard as community leaders, is no excuse.

It is certainly not worthy of the non-apology we received from the member for Hurtle Vale being accepted on this occasion. The member for Lee describes this as a suggestion that the member for Hurtle Vale is being made an example of, and I think that it is unfortunate that he suggests that that is the case. There is a simple set of procedures that is followed when any member of this house conducts themselves in the manner that the member for Hurtle Vale did, which I have just outlined, and it is exactly the procedure that is now being followed.

The fact is we all bear upon ourselves the responsibility—the member for King reminded us of this just yesterday in this chamber—to comport ourselves in a manner that our communities can look up to, that schoolchildren who might be visiting in the gallery should not be ashamed of but instead would see us as role models. I think the member for King made an excellent point yesterday. I have a strong sense that across our community all the misbehaviours by people in the conduct of their public duties need to be looked at very seriously. We all need to look at ourselves and do better.

This chamber has a certain robustness that has never accepted the behaviour. Even if we were not thinking that it was appropriate to lift the standard of behaviour in this chamber—which I think we should be seeking to do and which I know, sir, you have been seeking to do—even under the most robust of arguments in this parliament in the past the member for Hurtle Vale's conduct over the past 20 minutes would have resulted in exclusion by a government of any stripe. There is no reason for there to be an exception today.

The member for Lee made further remarks, which again I think were potentially close to the line, about the reasons why members of the opposition had, in his view, been removed from the chamber. The fact is that members of the opposition and a member of the government continued to interject, and in some instances, it is arguable, they undermined rulings made by the Speaker. You cannot do that.

The Speaker has the authority to enforce the rules of this parliament, and he has the support of this parliament to do so. He certainly has my support in his endeavours to lift the standard of behaviour in this chamber. I certainly argue that the member for Hurtle Vale's explanation—I would not characterise it as an apology—not be accepted.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (15:01): I thank the member for Morialta for his comments. He is right, in part, in characterising the member for Hurtle Vale's behaviour as unacceptable and not in accordance with standing orders; hence, you ruled. He cast our minds back to the historical keeping of order in this place, making reference to the fact that the member for Hurtle Vale had committed such a grave offence in crossing the blood line while making these comments. I point out to the member for Morialta that she did so without sword drawn or worn.

That perhaps casts us back to the present day and another comment made by the member for Morialta—that this is a robust place. This is a robust place for the hour of question time, I am pleased to say, not during the other hours of the conduct of our business. It is a robust place because when questions are being asked, and when questions are being answered, there tends to be interjection and there does tend to be byplay on both sides.

I am not in the position that you are, Mr Speaker. I cannot make the same fair judgement about whether there was more byplay on one side and less on another. All we can do is reflect on the fact that you have made your rulings, one of which was to require the member for Hurtle Vale to remove herself from the chamber and then to name her for unfortunately continuing those remarks. Just because she made further remarks after you ejected her under standing order 137A does not automatically mean that she should be named or that when the member for Hurtle Vale seeks to explain, and to apologise for that conduct, the house should not accept it.

I think the member for Morialta, and those opposite who have been around long enough, would remember several instances in this place when a member has been ejected under standing order 137A. If memory serves me correctly, I can remember at least two members in the last session of parliament who were ejected under the auspices of standing order 137A and who made further remarks as they left the chamber. They were not named by the former Speaker (Hon. Michael Atkinson). I am not referring to your conduct; I am referring to the precedent arguably set by the rulings of your predecessor.

One member was the previous member for Morphett. I know that I will face fierce objection in naming the second member, but my recollection is that the member for Bragg was removed from the service of the chamber and deigned to utter some words on the way out that we were all able to hear. In those cases, we did not arrive at the same situation that we are now in.

If it is the government's view that there will be the full imposition of the effect of the letter of the standing orders to be visited on the opposition, and if it is the view of the government that the full effect of the standing orders in this case are to be visited on the member for Hurtle Vale, that is most unfortunate. I have to say that it will likely inform the conduct of this place going forward.

Mr Speaker, you would also be aware that we are in the situation at the moment where we do not have the granting of pairs and we do not have a situation where the opposition—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —will let it stand that this place will conduct business without a necessary quorum for very long, and the reason why—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —is the attempt by this government to assert the dead hand and the full weight of the standing orders out of context and out of convention. If that is the view of the member for Morialta and the view of the government, so be it. The discord and the hardship, which will be inflicted on those opposite who rely on this place to get most of the conduct of government done, I am sure they will find a little rockier than usual. If you want to prove the point—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —member for Morialta and those opposite—fine, absolutely fine. We know how much they enjoy, or should I say do not enjoy, staying after 6 o'clock. We would be more than happy to do that. We would be more than happy to debate your bills, every clause and every letter, if you choose to make such a tepid example of the member for Hurtle Vale.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lee's time has expired. The question before the Chair is that the member for Hurtle Vale's apology be accepted.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 17

Noes 24

Majority 7

AYES
Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K. Boyer, B.I.
Brown, M.E. (teller) Close, S.E. Cook, N.F.
Gee, J.P. Hildyard, K.A. Hughes, E.J.
Koutsantonis, A. Malinauskas, P. Michaels, A.
Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K. Picton, C.J.
Stinson, J.M. Wortley, D.
NOES
Basham, D.K.B. Chapman, V.A. Cowdrey, M.J.
Cregan, D. Duluk, S. Ellis, F.J.
Gardner, J.A.W. Harvey, R.M. (teller) Knoll, S.K.
Luethen, P. Marshall, S.S. McBride, N.
Murray, S. Patterson, S.J.R. Pederick, A.S.
Pisoni, D.G. Power, C. Sanderson, R.
Speirs, D.J. Teague, J.B. Treloar, P.A.
van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Whetstone, T.J. Wingard, C.L.

Motion thus negatived.

The SPEAKER: There being 17 ayes and 24 noes, there is a majority of seven for the noes. The noes have it. The apology of the member for Hurtle Vale is not accepted and the member for Hurtle Vale will depart immediately.

The honourable member for Hurtle Vale having withdrawn from the chamber:

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