HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-07-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Committees

Standing Orders Committee

Debate resumed.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (16:33): Someone who was never afraid of short-pitch bowling! There is a reason that the designers of this building in 1889 did not design it with seats all facing the Chair but had it designed so that we face each other. Why? They wanted an adversarial system, as we have in our courts—an adversarial system where the state has to prove its case against the defendant. Why do we have this adversarial system? Why do we have a system of government that has shadow ministers and opposition leaders enshrined in legislation and in our constitution, giving us protections to question the government powers?

It is because ministers are the most powerful individuals in the state. They carry the power of the Crown at their fingertips. They expend our money, they can raise taxes and they can use this parliament to do as they please. Indeed, given the majority the government enjoys, citizens can be brought to the bar of the parliament and interrogated. That is how powerful this house is. But the foresight of the founders was that they gave us the protections that we enjoy from the House of Commons, the mother parliament. Why? Because we must keep the majority in check.

What happens constantly in this parliament is that, when shadow ministers are asking ministers questions and it is going badly for the minister, shadow ministers are ejected and asked to leave under the cloud of poor behaviour. Then we get contributions from the member for King talking about, 'Well, it's just unacceptable in the public.' What would the public think about silencing democracy? What would the public think about governments being unaccountable?

Some things might shock members of the public. Politicians do not need to answer the media's questions. This government regularly does not, but they are required to attend here every day when parliament sits for an hour and face the scrutiny of the parliament. It is not enjoyable for ministers. I have been the treasurer, I have been the transport minister and I have been the minister who has received a lot of questions on some very difficult days, but that is the job. With great power comes great responsibility, which means you must come here and be accountable.

Let's think about what the estimates process is, for those who are uninformed. The estimates process is the only chance parliamentarians and the public get to have a forensic look at the budget. This year's budget will expend over $20 billion and over the next four years raise $21 billion in debt. We are given one day to go through it line by line, and the government is now proposing legislation and amendments that would say, 'Actually, these questions are getting a bit tricky.' Ministers are not answering the questions. They are being embarrassed. They are being filmed by the media. The easy and cheap solution is just to throw the member out under the pretence of poor public standards and behaviour.

What they are really attempting to do is to cover up their inadequacies as ministers. The reason parliament is not held in secret—we have galleries and we have Hansard who take notes—is that this is all meant to be done in the open and in the public. When we have elections, we elect members to come to this parliament and they are given privileges not for themselves. Indeed, when we speak in this parliament no-one is referred to by their name. Why? Because we are here representing a community. We speak on behalf of our constituents, not ourselves as individuals.

These are lofty principles, and every time the majority in this place attempts to whittle down the ability of the minority to ask questions of the majority you decrease our liberal democratic benefits and that is how tyranny starts. The idea that a minister can just SMS the Chair of a committee and say, 'This is going badly. Throw him out or throw her out,' how is that democracy?

We are going to lose this vote today. We cannot win. This will pass. In these estimates that are coming up, the government will avoid scrutiny. They will avoid scrutiny because, if there is a tough question, they can just refuse to answer it. If they refuse to answer the question and it gets difficult because I start bowling some short ball deliveries, 'Just throw him out. Just chuck him,' and that way—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Underarm.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Underarm? I was not the one investigated by police with the Anti-Corruption Branch, which is why we are here. We are here because the Attorney-General inserted herself into a debate, because the government attended the estimates committee last year with the minister for Renewal SA. He did not turn up with his chief executive. The agency had been raided by ICAC. It is a government business with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of debt and the parliament has a right to know if money had been embezzled and what was the nature of the investigation.

But the government thinks we have no right to know. Well, yes, we do. Is it embarrassing for the government? Yes, it is—that is the point. That is the point of accountability: sometimes you get embarrassed. Sometimes ministers are embarrassed. That is why we have democracies. Otherwise, why do we not just elect one person once and get it over and done with and not have elections and not have the parliament? Why not just pass a motion that we do not need to have question time anymore and the government does not need to answer questions any more? We do not need to have parliament. We could just have the Governor, the Premier and the Executive Council make legislation. Why do we need all this? It is expensive. Let's get rid of it. That is what is slowly happening.

I can see government members smirking and thinking, 'This is the member for West Torrens just trying to create a stunt out of estimates.' That is what oppositions exist for: to ask difficult questions of the government to highlight issues. That is exactly why we are here. For all the power and privilege we are given as members of parliament in this chamber, the opposition can compel the government to do nothing because we do not have the votes.

We will lose every vote we have in this place unless members opposite decide to disagree with the cabinet and cross over and vote with us. It has only happened once, and that was on the mining bill, which will be contemplated later. It may happen again. I am glad that the minister has finally walked into the chamber to hear this debate.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order: members cannot reflect on other members' participation in the room or otherwise. The member is the Grandfather of the House, and he knows that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Minister for Education. I am upholding that point of order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: A nice demonstration of what is going to happen. Whenever—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Perhaps you want to throw me out, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, member for West Torrens. You and I were both at that estimates committee.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We were, sir. We were at that estimates committee with one of the largest government businesses—indeed, the second largest government business in South Australia, the largest being SA Water and the second largest being Renewal SA. The chief executive of that agency was missing. Why? He was stood down on full pay. I point out to the house he is still stood down on full pay, and we are not allowed to ask questions about it. The government refuses to answer any questions. Taxpayers are paying his salary. He is sitting at home. We are not allowed to ask why. Indeed, some have contemplated removing privilege for these matters so that we cannot ask it.

I have been in this place when people have used privilege scurrilously and honourably. The question then becomes: at what point do you say, 'That is the system that we have and we need it to defend our liberties'? If it is all about public disclosure and behaviour, I ask members to reflect on their behaviour when they were in opposition and the behaviour of the current Premier when he was Leader of the Opposition during question time.

Very rarely was he ever asked to leave. Why? The former Speaker would say all the time, 'It's important that the opposition leader be allowed to be the engine room of the opposition and hold the government to account.' We had to sit through interjection after interjection after interjection. Our Speaker, the Labor Speaker, said, 'No, you have to cop it because that is what democracy is: the good with the bad.'

On that day, Mr Deputy Speaker, I thought you conducted yourself exceptionally well. I was a little bit frustrated that you were doing so well and that you were so reasonable because I was trying to highlight what I thought was gross hypocrisy. Why are we given privilege? We are given privilege to raise matters without fear of the state coming into this place and stopping us from asking questions. That is why we are given privilege. It is not for me personally to go and enrich myself. It is not so I can just accuse my opponents of all sorts of awful things, but to ask questions that are in the public interest.

The public needs to start looking at what is happening today and start asking themselves questions such as: is this where we want our democracy to go? Should we allow the tyranny of the majority to rule over the minority and let them just simply throw us out when they do not like the questions? I have seen deputy premiers lose their job over questions in estimates. I have seen politicians' careers ruined because of questions in this place. Some of them have been my friends; some of them have been my enemies. Some of them were my enemies and became friends. Do you know what? That is what this system is.

None of us here is a conscript; we are all volunteers. All of us know what the rules are. All of us know we have privilege and all of us know the responsibilities that come with it. What kind of government wants to limit who can ask them questions? What kind of government thinks that they should have a rule that they can throw out someone inquiring and interrogating a minister, which is their job as an opposition spokesperson? What kind of government is that? So much for openness and accountability.

Just imagine the idea of any other workplace in Australia where the employer disappears because of a police investigation and shareholders are not allowed to ask what has happened. It would be unacceptable; there would be outrage. The ASX has rules about reporting that type of conduct, but the government of South Australia has put a chief executive on leave—almost permanently now; I think it has been over a year since he was put on leave—and we have had nothing from the government about where he is or why he is on leave. All we know is that there is an ICAC investigation ongoing.

The reason we have privilege is so that we can ask questions about it. The reason we have laws that stop the coverage of those questions is to protect people from reputational damage, not so that we cannot ask the questions. The point is: should the people's house have full access to all the information? The answer to that is always yes; hence, unlike the United States Congress, there are no secret sessions—none. All the votes are done out here in the public.

I know that it is disorderly to refer to the gallery, but I suspect that there are people here today to watch the debate that is coming next. When that debate starts, they will want to see how people vote and what they say. They are entitled to that as a democratic right in this parliament. We have taken that right from the mother parliament in England, the House of Commons. You cannot have these things done in secret.

The public can sit in the galleries and see how their member votes. If they cannot make it here, they can watch it online. If they cannot get online, they can get the Hansard. If they cannot get the Hansard, the press are given boxes up here to watch proceedings and report it unfettered. But the government is now moving to throw us out. This is the farcical situation. We get to the point where I start asking questions of the minister in estimates, and the minister does not like the questions and throws me out.

The good thing about the Labor Party is that I am dispensable because there is someone sitting alongside me just as qualified, just as aware of the work that needs to be done, and they will step up. Well, they can just throw them out, too. They can keep on going. There are 19 of us. There is nothing in this rule that says that all 19 cannot be thrown out, so we will have democracy with the government asking questions of itself.

Some backbencher is given a question by the minister's office, saying, 'Here, ask this: minister, can you tell us please how great the Liberal government is? Can you tell us how spending this money is going to make my life better, make the hens lay more eggs, make my life so much more enjoyable?' We get these stupid Dorothy Dixers. All governments are guilty of it, but in between the Dorothy Dixers you get the people's work, the people's business being done. We cannot afford to allow the tyranny of the majority to take that away.

I say to backbenchers, who are not in the executive, that one day you will be in opposition. One day, you will be over here. It is the nature of things; it is inevitable. Trust me, I have tried to stay over there in perpetuity; it is impossible. The public will change. When you are over here, and you are asking questions of the government, and the government is not answering your questions and you get frustrated, and you try to point out the hypocrisy of the minister not answering the questions, so you interject, and then they simply throw you out so that you cannot ask any more questions, tell me then what you think of this decision. Have some foresight.

The current government has got rid of pairs—fine. They have broken precedence by voting against budget measures—fine. They keep on doing this for one man and one man only: the Premier. Now they are doing it for the current cabinet because they are afraid of scrutiny. To other members, who aspire to hold high office one day and perhaps lead an opposition into government, who want to hold a Labor government to account, remember this rule change. How does it serve your communities to have you thrown out because you are asking difficult questions?

Members will say, 'It's not about the questions. We're not worried about the questions: it's the behaviour.' Rubbish. Do not believe it; it is spin. It is pure spin. It is simply that they do not like being held to account because they might get embarrassed. Politicians, above all else, hate ridicule—they hate ridicule. It is one thing to be wrong, but being laughed at is terrible.

The idea of a minister sitting there under privilege and saying 'I can't answer that question legally' is obviously false. The parliament has given us the right to ask these questions and ministers the free legal liberty to answer them without fear of any retribution. That is why we have parliaments. That is why the sovereign cannot enter this room. It is the one room she is not allowed to enter, so she sends her representative here to summons us to the other place. Why? Because of the liberties we have taken and the privileges and rights.

Every session of parliament, we send the Speaker over to Government House to reclaim them—every single time—not for us personally but for the people we represent. But the minister and the member for King are going to say that it is all about public behaviour. It is not; it is about scrutiny. It is like the old debate that if someone says, 'This isn't about money,' it is about money. If someone says, 'This isn't about scrutiny,' it is about scrutiny. It is not about behaviour.

If we boil it all down, the farcical nature of this is that the Attorney-General humiliated herself by putting out a public statement outside of the parliament. That then led to a criminal investigation of her conduct. That criminal investigation hung over her head for a while. The truth is that in any other parliament she would have stood down pending the outcome of that inquiry. She refused. They used their numbers to keep the Deputy Premier and Attorney-General, the first law officer of South Australia, who was under active investigation by SAPOL. It is unprecedented stuff. In any other jurisdiction she would have resigned or stood down pending the outcome of that inquiry.

Then it got even more embarrassing. The Premier spoke to the police commissioner about the outcome of the inquiry at an event at the Adelaide 500. Again, it is unprecedented and, I think, probably breaching a whole series of conventions in this place about how we should conduct ourselves with the independence of the police. Then the case was referred by the Anti-Corruption Branch to the DPP. To avoid all this happening ever again, there was a very simple solution: use their numbers to change the rules to stop us asking questions that could put her in that situation again—problem solved. It is the equivalent of putting an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff rather than a fence.

It is stupid and it does not serve the long-term interests of the Liberal Party or this parliament, because one day they will be in opposition. It is short-sighted thinking. That is the scary part: this government has another two years and nine months to govern and they are thinking only about next week. They are not thinking about the next eight years, 12 years or 16 years. That is what we need in this parliament, not rule changes to try to stop scrutiny and not rule changes to avoid ridicule and embarrassment. We need transparency.

Ralph Jacobi, a former Labor member for the seat of Hawker, used to always say that 'the best disinfectant is sunshine'. What does the government have to fear by answering questions, even ones that are impertinent, even ones that are offensive, even ones that they do not like? That is the nature of scrutiny: you do not like it. That is the point.

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:53): One of the best things that I get to do in this building is school tours. The students come into this chamber and they are overwhelmed by how pretty it is and how slightly over the top some of the decorations are. They get excited to sit in the Speaker's chair and the Premier's chair. Occasionally, they will make their way down to the Leader of the Opposition's chair and they might discover that my name is next to the leader's.

What we talk about in here is what this chamber is for. What this chamber is for is to make laws and to make decisions about spending money, and to scrutinise those two elements. If you just make law and you just spend money and you are the government that has won and has the majority, then you risk dictatorship, and you risk losing the thread of being responsible to the people.

The job of the people who sit on this side is to ask questions of those with all the power, all the money, the numbers to make laws and the budget to spend. It is essential that we have the media here too, unfettered ideally, simply watching and observing for themselves, but it can only work if we are in a freed-up position to ask questions.

I tell them about when I was a minister. I remember well when I was first a minister, sitting with the member for Lee on the curved bench over there at our very first question time and how seriously we took it, because we knew that you cannot mislead in this chamber. If you are asked a question, you should answer it and you must not—must not—say something that is wrong. That is a weighty responsibility.

Now that we are on this side, the weighty responsibility is to ask the questions that the people would have us ask. That is our job as representatives and that is our job in this functioning democracy. But what we get are very few answers. The now government will say that that happened in opposition as well. I have been very disappointed in the number of times an answer is not given to the first question and every subsequent question is answered by referring back to that first question, which was not answered in the first place. So we are not getting the answers that we seek.

What we then have are allegations of our bad behaviour, that our bad behaviour precipitates a need not only to throw us out during question time but also to constrain the way in which we run estimates, the most important series of questions that we are able to ask.

Today, the Premier accused all of us on this side of being slow learners. I do not know if everyone managed to hear that, but he called us 'slow learners'.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner interjecting:

Dr CLOSE: He said there were slow learners on this side of the chamber. Previously, I have been accused by the Premier of having a 'nasty face' when I was not happy that he was taking credit for the submarines being built in Port Adelaide. I have been called 'the token deputy', which I assume refers to the fact that I am female so that is why I get to be deputy because I happen to be a 'token'.

Members interjecting:

Dr CLOSE: I am enjoying the interjections. You are proving my point. I have heard people interjecting from the government side that when women are interjecting they are 'cackling'. I have been accused by the Minister for Environment and Water of 'screaming'. I do not scream. I might use words in interjections. I do not scream, but I am accused of screaming.

I have heard several members over the years refer to the member for West Torrens as not being able to be understood, that they cannot understand what he is saying. I think that is a veiled reference to the fact that he is of Greek-Australian heritage. It happened quite recently. The member for Mawson and I noticed it very recently. We heard that being said.

I do not want to be lectured by that side of the chamber about behaviour. We put up with not only insults, and often very gendered insults for the females on this side, but then when we react we put up with being thrown out because we are the ones who somehow are disorderly if we object to someone saying that some of us are 'slow learners', that some of us have a 'nasty face' or are just 'tokens' and we do not really deserve the role that we are in.

As the member for West Torrens says, this talk of behaviour is a cloak. It is an accusation by that side of the chamber at this side of the chamber that has no substance and bears no question, but it is actually about trying to stop us asking proper questions during estimates. During question time, my frustrations are largely that questions do not get answered, that people get thrown out when they are in the middle of asking questions or that there are so many government questions that we are unable to put all of the questions that we want to ask.

Most of that goes away during estimates. During estimates, we have not only the minister but the minister's most senior public servant advisers. So a minister cannot say, 'Well, I don't know; I'll have to check,' because the person who knows is sitting next to them. We have the capacity to go back and forth. We ask a question, it is not answered and parliament moves on during question time. In estimates, we have the opportunity to ask again, 'You haven't answered. You haven't got the thread of what I'm asking. I ask you again. I would like to know the answer to this question. Ask the person next to you if you don't know it now.'

Although estimates is often regarded as dull—and it can be very dull—they are the most important session for us as an opposition. As the representatives of the people capable of asking questions about the government, they are the most important session that we have. This government has decided to dress up some kind of allegation about behaviour in order to deprive us of having that unfettered opportunity. I am deeply disappointed. I say that because this is not about behaviour: it is about scrutiny, but in fact scrutiny is the proper behaviour. That is our job here. That is what I tell the young people who come here.

I talk about my experience of being asked questions and I talk about my experience of asking them. I explain to them that this is the most important place for them in South Australia. This is the place where their wishes, their hopes, are tested and acted on or not. The power of government is immense. I want them to feel that. I want them to feel invested in government. I ask at the end of every school tour (and I am probably not alone in doing this), 'Okay, so how many of you are going to be going after my job in a few years' time?' I want young people to want to be in parliament because I want them to want to be in government making decisions, but in so doing they must also want to respect the side that does not win, the side that is here to keep the pressure on the government to do the right thing.

It is not fun when you are in government, having pressure put on you. It is not fun being on the front page of the paper. It is not fun when you preside over something when someone else has made a mistake but you are required to be responsible for it; you are required to apologise for it. That is the job; grow up.

Members interjecting:

Dr CLOSE: There it is. The reference to clothing I did not touch earlier, another way in which women are made to feel uncomfortable about who they are.

Members interjecting:

Dr CLOSE: I never overlapped with Kevin Foley. An absence of interjections during this would probably be more fitting. The proper behaviour for people on this side is to ask questions and expect that they be answered. To have that taken from us, threatened to be taken from us, and to have that threat sitting over us for the most important series of questions we can ask is an abrogation of the responsibility of government.

I would challenge any one of these people when they next take a school tour around to explain to the young people why that is appropriate, why it is okay to be able to stop a line of questioning when it gets a bit hard, when it gets a bit embarrassing. I urge this parliament—and I know that it will not happen—to consider what it is doing. The member for West Torrens was right: this decision lasts a long time. You will live to regret it, but I fear so, too, does the democracy of South Australia.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL (Mawson) (17:03): This current estimates process has been in place since 1982, the year before the former member for Bragg Graham Ingerson came into this place and about three or four years before I started coming down here as a journalist observing and reporting on what happens here. I have seen the estimates process from more sides than most over the years as a journalist, as a ministerial chief of staff, as a government backbencher and now as an opposition backbencher, and I think it has always worked very well indeed.

I have seen good behaviour; I have seen not such good behaviour. I remember one day, when Kevin Foley was treasurer and deputy premier, when he grabbed a newspaper and sat there and read it and refused to answer any questions. I am not saying that everything has been angelic on all sides, both those asking the questions and those meant to be answering the questions, so let's just be fair about all that.

What really troubles me about this, as someone who has been a long-time observer of this place, is that this move makes this place look more like North Korea than North Terrace. This is an absolute trampling on our democracy and it is totally unnecessary. I have sat there for five years as a minister and you are asked all these questions. It is part of the job. You just have to answer the questions, and by and large the behaviour is pretty good on both sides.

Estimates is divided up into 15-minute blocks or half-hour blocks. You might have the portfolio of racing, which might go for half an hour; you might have the portfolio for the Entertainment Centre that goes for 15 minutes. What this government is trying to do is have people kicked out for up to an hour. So if someone is asking questions along a certain line and they are thrown out for an hour, where do those questions go? This is the most important part of the year for our democracy. This is the most crucial time of the year for the public of South Australia to have those people who represent them in here on both sides to come in and ask those questions.

The member for King had a solution. She said that she would like to see members ask better questions. Seriously? 'If you don't like the questions, just get some other questions.' Do you want the government of the day to write the Dorothy Dixers for the opposition to ask as well as for government backbenchers to ask? Is the next step to ask journalists to ask better questions? The best questions are those that can expose things that are not right that the government of the day is doing, and to urge members to ask better questions does not make any sense at all.

In the 15 months since this government has come in, we have unfortunately seen it pay absolutely no regard to democracy. We have seen dirty deals done and the ignoring of pairs to get motions through this house. We have seen three Labor MPs denied electoral offices within their electorate. The people who voted for them, and those who did not vote for them but whom the members represent, cannot easily visit their local member and get the services that those local members offer. I cannot remember in my time as a journalist, as an MP or as an adviser, any government of any persuasion being as bad as this government is with their arrogance of power and trampling on democracy.

I would urge everyone on that side, front bench and backbench, to actually think about what they are doing and ask: is that right? Is that right for the present day? Is that right for the future? What sort of message are you sending to this generation and further generations—that if you get enough votes and you get onto the government benches here you can trample all over democracy and do what we want because you are a little bit scared of getting some tough questions? I know some people have said that they are going to cross the floor on a different bill. I would urge enough of you to cross the floor to save your party from further stomping on the democracy of this place and the democracy of our state.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (17:08): I rise to speak on this disgraceful report from the Standing Orders Committee. I was appointed relatively recently as a member of the Standing Orders Committee. This has always been a committee that I believe worked in a relatively bipartisan way to try to improve the standing orders, where need be, and to try to make sure that the running of this house is appropriate. In this report, we have all of that smashed to smithereens.

In this report, we have the government trying to exert themselves over the minority in this house by changing the standing orders in such a way that will advantage them, changing the standing orders in such a way that is going to make it easier for them to protect themselves, easier for them to avoid unwanted scrutiny and easier for them—in the direct words of the Attorney-General herself—to avoid 'substantial media attention', which was one of the issues that was raised directly by the Attorney-General in her letter.

This all came about because the Standing Orders Committee and the Speaker himself received a letter directly from the Attorney-General. I quoted the letter in my dissenting report, together with the member for Playford, which I encourage people to read. I quote the letter verbatim. It says:

To the Standing Orders Committee

Standing orders for Parliamentary committees

I wish to draw to the attention of the Standing Orders Committee an issue of considerable concern to the Government and to seek the Committee's consideration of appropriate changes to standing orders to address this.

A line of questioning was pursued—

How dare it be!—

in the 2018 Estimates Committee examination of the Minister for Planning that, in the Government's view, significantly disrupted the conduct of the hearing and consequently garnered substantial media attention.

Who would expect? What outrageous behaviour by the opposition to do something that attracted 'substantial media attention'. The letter continues:

The Government is concerned to ensure that proceedings of all committees of the Parliament are conducted in a respectful and disciplined manner, with appropriate management tools available to the chairs of committees to continue the orderly management of business and ensure effective debate of the matters under consideration.

In particular, I draw the Committee's attention to the valuable model provided by standing order 137A, which provides for the speaker to direct a disorderly Member to leave the Chamber for up to one hour. This is not available to the Estimates Committee.

The Government invites the Committee to consider the issues raised in this letter and any suitable changes to standing orders to provide for the orderly conduct of business of committees, to ensure continued effective and respectful debate in matters before Parliamentary committees.

Yours sincerely

Vickie Chapman MP

Deputy Premier

Attorney-General.

What did the majority of the government do on the Standing Orders Committee when they had this letter before them from the Attorney-General concerned about the 'substantial media attention' that was drawn to them? Did they begin a process of holding hearings? Did they begin a process of investigating the matter by talking to experts? Did they invite witnesses? Did they invite submissions from the public into this substantial change? No, they did not do any of that. They just ticked off on what the Attorney-General said, despite the significant opposition put up by the member for Playford and me on that committee.

Let's go back to what happened here on this day that so upset the Deputy Premier. She was so upset that there was substantial media attention. Well, it was a pretty incredible day which led to the Attorney-General being investigated by the Anti-Corruption Branch of South Australia Police and which led to the Attorney-General having a report considered by an external counsel considering whether the DPP should have to lay charges on her. This led to substantial embarrassment for the Attorney-General because clearly she did issue a statement that the ICAC commissioner has said did not previously have the ICAC commissioner's statement.

Her response to that is not to try to make it go away, but now she wants to change standing orders because of what happened on that day. It is absolutely incredible. The effect of this is so much more significant than ejecting a member of the chamber from question time for an hour. As all of us know, in the way that question time is conducted, there are many opposition MPs who are able to step in and ask the questions. I have to say that it is starting to get a little bit dicey when up to eight of us get kicked out in one day, which was a bit interesting in some of the recent question times that we have had, but estimates is different.

Estimates is a forensic examination of one particular area of the budget. Take for example my area of responsibility for the opposition, the health portfolio. Health is a $6 billion portfolio. The standard health portfolio got two hours last time to examine it. That is about $50 million per minute that I have to examine the largest portfolio in this state. There I was in the other place with the member for Waite as the Chair of that committee. You, sir, I think, do an excellent job as Deputy Speaker. We do have quibbles from time to time. The member for Waite, on the other hand, is looking to make his mark and rise up the ranks pretty quickly. He is trying to make himself a hero to the government, and I have to say that was pretty evident from the chairing that took place in the last estimates committee.

The job of the opposition is to make sure that we are appropriately questioning the minister, that we are appropriately following up answers and that we are not letting the minister waffle for 20 minutes and filibuster and take up, as in my case, two hours to discuss $6 billion worth of expenditure, but to make sure that we are pursuing a line of questioning. Ultimately, this is about accountability to the people of South Australia about the expenditure of their budget and their taxpayer dollars. This is parliamentary examination and scrutiny, and responsible government in this place occurs through those estimates committees.

If this had been in place last year, I have no doubt that the member for Waite would have ejected me from that committee for one hour. There was nothing new about my interjections, but I would say that there was substantial overactive chairing by the member for Waite in trying to protect the minister. I fear that what we will see, repeatedly, is this being used to kick shadow ministers out of their very limited time for questioning ministers. My minister, the Minister for Health, is in the other place, and I only have two hours every year to question him directly. I do my best to ask questions of the minister representing him in this place, but we know how well he answers those questions.

So those two hours are pretty important. If I am kicked out for one of those hours, I will of course have to try to pass my notes to somebody else who is stepping in. But the public of South Australia are not going to be anywhere near as well served in the scrutiny of the expenditure of $6 billion by somebody who is not across the detail in the same way that the shadow minister is.

Although I said that the Standing Orders Committee did not receive any evidence, did not ask for any evidence, did not seek any witnesses and did not seek any experts, someone did come forward. That was the honourable Clerk of this house, who did provide a recommendation and a statement to the Standing Orders Committee in relation to the Attorney-General's recommendation to it.

The Clerk said a number of important things that the house should listen to very carefully. I see he is nodding. He said, firstly, that this is potentially going to be ineffective because, ultimately, the only response that the Chair of an estimates committee has in relation to somebody who has been kicked out under this new section and who decides not to leave the chamber is to name them. So we are back to where we were in the beginning: to disrupt the whole estimates process and bring back the whole chamber to consider that naming. So, potentially, this does not solve the issue at all.

The other issue that the Clerk outlined in this paper is that there is an existing remedy available to the Chair of Committees that has been used a number of times already to deal with such situations. That remedy is to suspend the sitting of the estimates committee. Take me as an example: in my two hours, I get to scrutinise $6 billion worth of expenditure. Every minute that we are suspended would be eating into that time and would be a significant frustration to me. I think it would be detrimental to being able to examine that budget line properly.

So there is a significant incentive to not have that happen, because that provision is already in place. It is something that has been used already in this parliament, and I recall it happening several times in the previous parliament. Sessions have been suspended and, every time that I can recall, people come back much more agreeable and much more ready to hold themselves accountable to the standing orders, and that is the case for both sides of this parliament.

I have to say that there is something pretty rich going on here, namely, that the Liberal Party are trying to hold themselves out as the doyens of parliamentary procedure and parliamentary behaviour. Anybody who was a member of the last parliament would know how ridiculous that statement is. For anybody who has ever watched one session of question time when the member for Dunstan was the leader of the opposition and saw the carry-on and ridiculous behaviour every single time in question time, it is pretty hard for them to hold that statement.

The member for King, who has appointed herself as the expert on such matters, was not here. She did not get to witness the ridiculous carry-on and behaviour by the then leader of the opposition, the current Premier, the member for Dunstan, but the rest of us were. The rest of us saw what he did and the rest of us have seen how Liberal MPs have carried on in estimates over the past 17 years. When they were in opposition over that period of time, we repeatedly saw their ridiculous behaviour and carry-on.

When we were in government, we held the numbers on the Standing Orders Committee and we held the numbers in this house. We did not try to change the standing orders to benefit us in the government and to damage the opposition's ability to question ministers—we just dealt with it. We dealt with it and we carried on. We did not exert our numbers to carry through the standing order changes that would have allowed, for instance, the member for Elizabeth, when he was Chair of an estimates committee, to kick members of the opposition out at his leisure. We did not do that, and I think it shows a lot about this government that, within the first 15 months, here they are before the parliament trying to change the rules of the parliament to better suit themselves and better protect themselves.

After every estimates, there is a process in this parliament where members are able to stand up and reflect upon the estimates process and give speeches about it. If you look back over those 16 years that the Liberals were in opposition, you will see many suggestions from the Liberal Party about how estimates should be changed, but they are not this. There are many suggestions about getting rid of Dorothy Dixers. There are many suggestions about time limits. There are many suggestions about more time for estimates. There are many suggestions about asking bureaucrats questions directly. None of them are now being examined by the government.

They are not touching any of that. They do not want any time limits. They do not want to get rid of Dorothy Dixers. They do not want to allow us to examine bureaucrats directly because that was then and this is now. Now they are on the defence. Now they are trying to protect their ministers. Now they are trying to give longwinded opening statements in estimates sessions. Now they are using Dorothy Dixers to protect their weak ministers. Now they are trying to protect their bureaucrats from telling us the truth and now they are moving in this house a change that benefits the government and weakens the opposition's ability to scrutinise the government, and all because the Attorney-General had a bad day that led to a bad week and a few bad months that, in her own words, garnered significant media attention.

I hope that this parliament and the government, which obviously controls the numbers in this house, decide that they will not implement the recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee and that they will not move this motion, which I believe would weaken parliamentary oversight of the expenditure of the finances and taxpayer funds of this state. It has come about for a very bad reason. It has come about because the Attorney-General was annoyed. It is potentially not going to solve the issue that was suggested and there is a current remedy available.

I think the icing on the cake of why the government believe that this is just for their benefit is that the recommendation that is being presented in this report is not to make a change to the standing orders of this parliament but to make a change to the sessional orders of this parliament. This makes a change only temporarily during the term of the Marshall Liberal government up to the next election. If they were serious about this, maybe they would make a permanent change, in which case it would be in place no matter who was in government and who was in opposition.

But I have to say that this is more about protecting themselves now than it is about any substantial or beneficial change to the standing orders. This is more about protecting their weak ministers from scrutiny in estimates and rushing it through before that happens. It goes completely against everything they ever said in opposition about the importance of the need to strengthen the estimates oversight process. It is going to be very interesting to see.

Of course, I am sure the government will carry the day in being able to use their numbers, but it will be very interesting to see how this is used. If this is used, as the government say, only in very extreme examples, or if we do see members of the opposition excised from the estimates process for substantial periods of time for pursuing lines of inquiry that are difficult for the government to deal with and not enabling that area to be scrutinised, I think that would be to the detriment of this parliament. I think that that would be to the detriment of our institutions and to the people of this state, who ultimately want as much sunlight as possible shone on what is inside this budget and how their taxes are being used.

I condemn in the strongest possible words this ridiculous report from the Standing Orders Committee. I hope that members will see the importance of dismissing its recommendations and that we can go into the estimates process with the full ability to scrutinise the budget and hold ministers accountable to the people of this state.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (17:26): I might make a small contribution to this debate in speaking against the adoption of this report. I state very clearly that I have had the benefit of hearing the contributions of my colleagues the members for Lee, West Torrens, Port Adelaide, Mawson and Kaurna, so I do not intend to cover the same ground they have covered, because I think they have covered this space very well.

As the member for Mawson has already mentioned, the current rules available for estimates have been in place since 1982. It is interesting to note those same rules were in place for the 16 years that the now government were in opposition, and they did not think at that time that it was necessary to change them. It is also interesting to note that the estimates process has been a robust process. It was last year, it was the year before and the year before that. That is the way it should be. It should be a robust process. It should be a process where the opposition of the day gets an opportunity to scrutinise and hold the government of the day accountable on behalf of the electors and taxpayers of this state.

As I said, for 16 years the current government when they were in opposition found those rules to their liking. Those rules worked for them. It is interesting that they want to change them now, as has been pointed out by my colleagues. Another thing I would like to mention is that, in changing these rules, they effectively are saying they do not have the confidence in the Chair of those committees to properly run those committees without these extra powers. I sat on this committee last year, and I thought that you, sir, did a wonderful job in chairing that committee. As I said, it was robust, but certainly the business of the day that was required to be done was done. I see this proposal as indicating a lack of confidence in those people who at the moment chair those committees.

In 1970, we finally put the electoral gerrymander to bed in this state. The gerrymander that had been in place had kept the Liberal government of the day—or the Liberal and Country League—in power at times when they actually had only 28 per cent of the popular vote. This gerrymander was a stain on our democracy. This rule change, in my view, represents a procedural gerrymander. In other words, it is designed to give the government of the day an advantage over the opposition and to keep this particular government in power by reducing the capacity of the opposition to scrutinise the budget properly and to make the government of the day accountable to the taxpayers of this state.

It is only their second year in government and second estimates process. The fact that they could not handle well the first estimates process should have been a time for reflection to ask, 'What do we need to do better?' Rather than ask what they need to do better, they are actually changing the rules to make sure that what they cannot do, they will not have to do, and that is to make themselves accountable to the people of this state.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question before the Chair is that the first report of the Standing Orders Committee be noted.

The house divided on the motion:

The SPEAKER: While the votes are being tallied, I refer to an earlier point of order that was made today regarding press gallery access by staff. I refer to the point of order raised in question time by the member for West Torrens concerning the presence of a member of the government staff sitting in a press gallery. I have now had the benefit of researching the matter, referring to a number of rulings made by previous Speakers. I have also consulted some local media.

It is clear from the rulings that the press galleries are obviously an important tool for the press to be able to report on the proceedings of the house. However, that does not prevent ministerial officers, advisers and press secretaries from the government or the other side of the chamber from reasonably entering those galleries from time to time to distribute material or other information. It should be made quite clear that the time that they occupy in the galleries should be reasonable, so I will continue to monitor how staff access those press galleries.

Ayes 24

Noes 22

Majority 2

AYES
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.
NOES
Bedford, F.E. Bell, T.S. Bettison, Z.L.
Bignell, L.W.K. Boyer, B.I. Brock, G.G.
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. Piccolo, A.
Picton, C.J. Stinson, J.M. Szakacs, J.K.
Wortley, D.

Motion thus carried.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (17:35): Contingent on the first report being noted, I move:

That for the remainder of the session, standing orders be and remain so far suspended to provide that—

1. The Chair of an Estimates Committee may direct a disorderly Member to leave the Estimates Committee for up to one hour. The direction shall not be open to debate or dissent, and if the Member does not leave the Estimates Committee immediately, the Chair may name the Member.

2. A Member who has been directed to leave the Estimates Committee under this sessional order is excluded from both Estimates Committees and their galleries for up to one hour. However, the Member may enter the Estimates Committee during the ringing of the bells for the purpose of forming a quorum or voting in a division. Once the Chairman of the Estimates Committee has declared the presence of a quorum or the result of a division has been declared, the Member must immediately withdraw from the Estimates Committee for the remainder of the period of exclusion.

In moving this motion, I am mindful of the debate that has immediately preceded and I draw members' attention to a couple of—

Ms Hildyard interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Reynell, please.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —aspects of the motion I have just moved. This is a motion that seeks an opportunity for a Chair of an estimates committee to have what I would consider to be a fence at the top of the mountain, in the analogy used by one of the members opposite. I think it was the member for West Torrens who suggested that this was the equivalent of putting an ambulance or a fence at the bottom of a cliff rather than a fence at the top, to suggest that this was a significant deterioration—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order: I think the member is just quoting Hansard of the current session.

The SPEAKER: I did not see the minister quoting Hansard. He also did not identify any particular member.

An honourable member: Yes, he did: the member for West Torrens.

The SPEAKER: I do not believe he did quote. Did you quote any particular member?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Sir, I was characterising what the member for West Torrens said. I am happy to withdraw the reflection and just—

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens has not taken offence, but in the spirit of what we are trying to achieve here, I just ask the minister to exercise a level of caution in his remarks, please.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I draw members' attention further to the ways in which standing orders and sessional orders can be amended. There is a suggestion that has been put that moving a sessional order amendment first should be skipped over entirely and moved straight to a standing order and that the fact the government is not doing so means that we do not believe entirely in what we are doing here today. I put it to members that it is, in fact, the common practice of this house when adopting a new sessional order to have that as a sessional order, to have it in practice, before the parliament considers having a standing orders change.

There is a perfect example of the way this has been done once in the past. I draw members' attention to a previous session of the parliament. On 29 February 2012, the former premier Jay Weatherill moved a suspension of standing orders, having given notice to the media the day before that he would be doing so, to introduce what was then considered a novel idea of having a four-minute sin bin, an opportunity for the Speaker of the house—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order, sir: I understand we are now debating whether we should suspend standing orders or not. Is there a time limit on this debate, or is it just as long as the minster would like?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Well, actually we are debating a motion that has been given notice of.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for West Torrens, the lead speaker has unlimited time. Thank you.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: In fact, the member for West Torrens draws attention to the very difference here—

Mr Duluk interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Waite is warned.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —because while previous governments, characterised by the Labor government in February 2012, announced to the media on a Monday that they were going to be changing the standing orders, the sessional orders, to have a four-minute sin bin where the Speaker of the house could throw any member out of the house for up to an hour without any debate being entered into, without needing to give a reason, they then suspended the standing orders on the first day back in order to have that motion moved. Then Jay Weatherill immediately proceeded to move a debate and then argument.

Many might remember the deputy leader of the opposition at the time, Mr Mitch Williams, a very fine man, objected to the suggestion that there should be this four-minute sin bin. He said that, in fact, it was a jackboot on the throat of democracy. He said it was something that one might expect if one were visiting the parliament in Zimbabwe. That was Mitch Williams's view at the time of what is now in our standing orders as standing order 137A. I think even Mitch Williams, over the subsequent six years, came to see that the practice of standing order 137A, the sin bin for up to an hour, had merit.

The former government, led by Speaker Atkinson in my view, in terms of the implication of this, had a view that a number of the sessional orders that had been adopted and some of the practices there were unclear throughout the last parliament could be better adopted for posterity in the standing orders. There was a process of negotiation and agreement entered into. I believe that the member for West Torrens may have been involved; I was involved, but it was Speaker Atkinson who led it. That was the change to standing orders that took place.

The idea that a change to sessional orders where a government might potentially want to first consult with the Standing Orders Committee, then have the Standing Orders Committee produce a report that everyone can see, then notice of the receiving of that report be put on the Notice Paper, then a contingent motion, once everybody had had the opportunity to read that report, be put on the Notice Paper by me, then some further time be allowed to elapse and then it be placed on the weekly program so that everyone could be prepared to think about what might be said, could be characterised as anything other than a fair and transparent approach to democracy is laughable, given the approach taken by those opposite. Announcing a new idea that they wanted to put in the sessional orders, suspending standing orders the next day—

Mr Picton interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: It is totally different from what we do now. I am talking about what Jay Weatherill did in February 2012.

Mr Picton interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Kaurna!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The member for Kaurna should pay attention to this because he is the one who has been making outlandish claims—

The Hon. T.J. Whetstone interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Minister for Primary Industries!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —such as that his government never used their numbers to change the sessional or standing orders against the ideas of the opposition. It is in Hansard in February 2012 that that is exactly what their government did. Do you know what? Jay Weatherill was enlightened at the time. I am not just saying this because—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —of the transition to the government. The fact is that the Liberal Party in opposition came to a different view on the standing orders that were proposed by Jay Weatherill in 2012, and that is why we supported the sessional order that Jay Weatherill put in in 2012 with no notice being given. We supported it in 2018 coming into the standing orders because it had been shown through the sessional orders to add value to the parliament. The way in which it added value was that it gave the Speaker of the House of Assembly the opportunity during question time to identify unruly behaviours, to call them to order, to warn them once, a second time, a third time and then remove them under what is now 137A.

Has it made our question time perfect? It has not, but I would submit that it has improved some of the behaviours in question time. That is what the government submits can be done in the estimates process. The idea that these are some of the characterisations that were put on this by members in the previous debate is quite extraordinary.

I invite members of the gallery, the parliament and the community in South Australia to view any of the footage of question time or indeed of the estimates proceedings and form their own views about whether the characterisations put by those opposite are fair. I do not want to delay the house unnecessarily in this speech. I just make the point that it is utterly appropriate for oppositions to hold the government to account. It is utterly appropriate for oppositions to conduct—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my left, please.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: It is utterly appropriate for oppositions to conduct a forensic questioning of the government.

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Leader, please.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The member for Port Adelaide or the member for Light can draw my attention to areas where I have transgressed—I am sure we all have from time to time—but in my time as shadow minister I asked questions in estimates, gave them the opportunity to answer and was sometimes called to order by people such as the member for Florey and others as chairs if I transgressed, but I believe that by and large I was able to ask a large number of questions. I always took the view that if I got into arguments with the ministers it deprived me of the opportunity to ask new questions.

The fact is that members of the opposition believe that is to be characterised as forensic questioning when they are hectoring and shouting and banging on desks and yelling into the microphones in parliament. If they wonder what I am talking about, I invite them to reflect on any of the footage from last year if they think that is what forensic questioning is, or representing their communities, and the need to do that—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —is somehow benefiting their case, or their cause, or the line of questioning they are taking. I invite them to really reflect on that. Asking a series of question does not actually mean that it is an opportunity to behave in an abusive or unparliamentary way. I think that is something that is a critical difference here. What this motion calls for is that disorderly members may be asked to leave the chamber for up to an hour, as indeed happens when the parliament is sitting. The characterisation of that as anything other than an extension of the practices of this house to keep the parliament in an orderly fashion, I think, is fanciful.

I am grateful to the member for Kaurna for reminding us all earlier of the opportunities that the Chair of an estimates committee has at the moment to bring a matter to order. They are, firstly, that they can name the member, which is a disadvantage for the parliament and the opposition asking questions in that the whole thing has to be suspended and everyone has to come back at 9.30 the next morning to name the member and exclude that member for a full day, or three days, or 11 days, depending on whether they have been named previously in the session. That is the opportunity that is available at the moment. Are we seeking to introduce that? We are not seeking to introduce that extreme provision.

The member for Kaurna reminded us of the second provision that the Chair of an estimates committee has at the moment, and that is to suspend the entire committee. He lauds that as a suitable response so that, rather than one unruly member being suspended for the behaviour of one unruly member, the whole thing is suspended, and the people of South Australia, and all members of parliament whose behaviour is not disorderly, lose their time under the member for Kaurna's existing proposition.

They are two extreme remedies currently available to the Chair of an estimates committee if there is disorderly behaviour in the house, in a committee. What the government is proposing, as recommended by the standing orders committee, is a third way, a way that has one-sixth of the impact of the member for Kaurna's preferred model, because only one member, the disorderly member, the offending party, would be removed under this model rather than the whole committee. It is substantially less than the naming requested by some of those opposite as a response to disorderly behaviour because it means that the member is not excluded from divisions, quorums or from coming back to continue their questioning when their behaviour has presumably improved.

This is far from being a fence or an ambulance at the bottom of the hill. This is putting a sign at the top of the hill saying, 'Please don't go over the cliff,' because otherwise those other remedies, the naming and the suspension of the whole session, are the only remedies available to the Chair. There has been a lot of temperature in this debate over what I consider to be a fairly straightforward remedy to a serious situation. There is no proposition trying to curtail or put debate in the shadows. There is no proposition seeking to silence democracy. There is no proposition—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —seeking to have questioning in the shadows, as one member described it. The proposition is that the standards that are applied in question time might potentially be applied in estimates. What I am hoping is that every single member of this house has the opportunity during question time to not have themselves thrown out by complying with the standing orders. The former member for Newland Tom Kenyon, when he was minister for road safety, used to talk about speeding fines as an optional tax. 'Nobody has to have a speeding fine,' he would say, 'If you do not break the speed limit, you will not have to pay the fine.' Indeed, when members opposite suggest that speakers have thrown members out—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —as a result of a member asking questions that the government did not like, that is fanciful. It is an option available to every single member of this house, and I would encourage them to take it—

The Hon. A. Piccolo interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Light!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —to behave in an orderly manner. By behaving in an orderly manner—by not screaming across the chamber and banging on desks and otherwise disrespecting the chamber and the people in it and the people of South Australia—one is able to not get themselves warned or called to order by the Speaker or, indeed, removed under 137A. When Speaker Atkinson was the Speaker, it has been suggested by some that this was a golden era of peace and harmony and that nothing bad ever happened. But the Speaker at the time took the opportunity regularly to throw out the leader of the opposition. He would give the leader of the opposition much more leeway than other members, and I credit him for doing so.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Occasionally, the leader of the opposition at the time behaved in a disorderly fashion. He was corrected on regular occurrence and was thrown out on regular occurrence, as was I and as were other members of the party.

Ms Hildyard interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Occasionally, Speaker Atkinson would even throw out—

Ms Hildyard interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Reynell, order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —a government member for disorderly behaviour. The thing about it was that every one of us knew—

Ms Hildyard interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Reynell!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —that if we wanted to not be thrown out, if we wanted to get to our question, if we wanted to best—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Members on my left and right, let's just quieten down—yes, both of you. The minister has the call.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: If members did not want to be thrown out when Speaker Atkinson was the Speaker, if they wanted to get to their question, if they wanted to have the opportunity to ask as many questions as they wanted, there was a very simple rule: do not interject, do not yell at the people across the chamber, do not disrespect the house and do not disobey standing orders. I invite any member opposite, if they want to ask their questions or not have this rule applied to them by a fair and equitably minded speaker or, indeed, a Chair of a committee if this rule gets up, then do not interject, do not behave in a way that is disorderly. I think that the application of this will be important. It is important that it be applied fairly.

I have great faith in the Chairs of the committees to do so should the house decide to adopt this sessional order, but that goes to why it is a sessional order. If the house formed the view that it should be in the standing orders long term, it can then make a determination to do so. The idea that this sessional order is being introduced in anything other than a respectful way that is transparent, especially when compared to that in 2012, is laughable. I commend the motion to the house.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (17:53): If only we just all did what the government wanted us to do, sir, it would be a perfect, harmonious parliament.

The SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens, are you the lead speaker?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, sir.

The SPEAKER: Thank you.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If only we just listened to the Premier and his ministers and did not ask difficult questions. If only we just were not frustrated at the will of the majority. After all, they are infallible—they cannot make mistakes. After all, how dare we at any stage question or forensically ask questions of the opposition.

If we just had better questions or just asked the government 'pretty please' at the end of it, perhaps then it would be okay. Perhaps if we just bowed to the wisdom of the greats opposite, like the minister for agriculture or the Minister for Mining, if we just understood that we were in the shadows of giants, perhaps then we would understand how lucky we are to be here at all and how lucky we are to be sitting opposite such a talented government they can do no wrong—a government that can find no error in itself.

If only we knew how good they were doing and what a great government they were, we would not have to ask these tricky, difficult questions like, 'Where is your chief executive? Why isn't he here today?' Why have you doubled the debt in only 15 months? Why have you raised taxes by over half a billion dollars? Why is it that four of your members are crossing the floor on the mining bill?'

If we could just not ask these difficult questions, it would be a much more harmonious place. In fact, perhaps it would be better if there were just one party in South Australia. Perhaps it would be better if there were no elections at all and there were just the Liberal Party. Then you could meet with Donald Trump once a year, and he could cross over into South Australia and shake Steven Marshall's hand and show what a glorious future we all have under the leadership of our dear leader, the Premier.

The idea of representative democracy is not something that can be washed away with a clever speech by the Leader of Government Business using a majority. Did members opposite notice that every non-Liberal member voted against what the government wants to do—every single one of them? What does that say? That is pretty rare. I suspect that if there were a poll taken out there in the public on what the government was attempting to do today, it would be very, very unpopular. Then again, all they have to do is just throw us out and we can stop speaking. Just throw us out. That is the easy way. Then the member for King can write better questions for us.

She can tell us how to better investigate her government. She can tell us how to better ask the health minister questions about ramping in each and every hospital. Perhaps the member for King can write better questions for us when questioning child protection and the sacking of 52 child protection officers. Perhaps the member for King can write better questions for the opposition about the debt that is being put on South Australians—debt that the Treasurer himself has said will not be paid off in his lifetime. If only we had better questions to ask. That way, the parliament would work so much better.

Indeed, if only we had better questions to ask of the member for Unley, because we do not understand the genius that is the member for Unley. None of us do. We are in awe of all of you. Let's not go to the police minister. We are talking serious intellect here. Sir, I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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