HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2018-09-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Matter of Privilege

Public Sector Employees

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (11:01): Mr Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. Four months ago, on Thursday 17 May, I asked the Minister for Environment (Hon. David Speirs) the following question:

My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Did the minister or any member of his staff request the names of public sector employees from his agencies who had worked in the previous environment minister's ministerial offices over the last five years and who are currently employed in his agency or the public sector?

The Hon. D.J. Speirs, Minister for Environment and Water, replied at 2.38pm, 'No, not that I am aware of.' Yesterday, the Acting Chief Executive of Department for Environment and Water, Mr John Schutz, gave evidence to the Budget and Finance Committee. The Chairperson asked Mr Schutz:

Since the change of government, has the minister you're responsible for, or his office or any other office, requested lists of staff who worked in the former minister's office—that is, minister Hunter?

Mr Schutz replied, 'Yes.' The Chairperson then asked Mr Schutz who made these requests to him. Mr Schutz then replied, 'The minister's current Chief of Staff.' Mr Schutz continued on to say:

The request was to provide a list of staff and the various roles they may have performed in the previous minister's office to assist them to establish an interim structure for the minister and understand what roles the minister's office required to perform its functions.

The Chairperson of the Budget and Finance Committee then asked, 'Was the request just about the titles or was it about who the individuals were?' Mr Schutz replied to the Budget and Finance Committee, 'It was about the individuals who had performed those roles.' The Chairperson of Budget and Finance then asked if Mr Schutz had sought or received any advice about whether that was appropriate to give to an incoming minister. Mr Schutz replied to the committee, 'Yes, I did.'

The Chairperson of the Budget and Finance Committee then asked, 'What was the advice that was given to you about the appropriateness or otherwise of doing that?' The acting chief executive then replied to the Budget and Finance Committee:

That there needed to be care in regard to what information was being provided and how that information might be used in regard to public servants.

The Chairperson of the Budget and Finance Committee then asked, 'In relation to what? Care given in relation to what?' Mr Schutz replied to the committee, 'The separation of the minister's role and the public sector's role.' This line of questioning in the Budget and Finance Committee culminated in this piece of evidence being given by Mr Schutz to the committee. The Chairperson asked:

So, no-one from the department made anyone from the minister's office aware that, in fact…this was discussed and that it might not have been a correct answer that was given on 17 May—

to the House of Assembly. Mr Schutz replied to the committee:

I advised the minister's Chief of Staff that the minister had given that answer and that he would need to consider whether he spoke to the minister about that matter.

The Chairperson then asked:

When did you advise the Chief of Staff, approximately—very soon after that 17 May question?

Mr Schutz replied to the committee:

Very soon after that statement was made.

It is important to note that the Premier stated only a week ago, on 11 September, that the buck stops with ministers. In a speech to the Institute of Public Administration he stated:

I have told my ministers that they cannot expect to remain in cabinet if they see nothing, hear nothing and question nothing. Ministers have to be inquisitive, inquiring and challenging. Responsibility ends on the minister’s desk, not at the departmental door.

Four months ago, this house was told that the minister or anyone in his office had not requested a list of staff and the previous roles they had performed in the former minister's office. That is false.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order: this is now repetition and debate rather than information for the purpose of a motion on privilege.

The SPEAKER: I have the point of order. Member for West Torrens, I imagine you are starting to wind up.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, I am. Four months ago, this house was told that the minister was asked—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order: again, this is exactly what the member opened on in this privilege matter, that is, the statement of the minister at the time. He is now repeating it for the second time.

The SPEAKER: The point of order is for tedious repetition. I have that point of order, Deputy Premier. I believe the member for West Torrens is coming to a close.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am, sir.

The SPEAKER: I will listen carefully to ensure that he does not repeat what has already been said. In any event, I will be obviously deferring any decision because it is a matter of privilege with quite an amount of background fact, but I will listen carefully. Please do not repeat matters that have already been repeated.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: This house was told that there was not a requested list of staff. That is false.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order: this member is defying your indication in relation to repetition. He is again repeating and trying to put—

The SPEAKER: Deputy Premier, I do have the point of order. I believe what is being attempted here is a summary of the information. The member for West Torrens, I believe, is drawing to a close. If he does not draw to a close relatively soon, I may have a different ruling, but at this stage I will hear him summarise his argument thus far for this matter of privilege. In any event, I will be deferring the matter and I will be requesting these background facts.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The house has been misled. We know the minister's Chief of Staff, Mr Cullen Bailey, was informed by the acting chief executive of the department, John Schutz—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order—sit down!

Members interjecting:

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

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Mr Speaker, I ask you to hear my point of order. This is not a matter for debate. This is a matter that the member is bringing to the attention of you, sir, on a question of privilege. He is bound to put to you the facts as he asserts them, not to have an argument about the debate.

The SPEAKER: I appreciate the point of order. I believe the member for West Torrens is drawing this matter to a close. I will ask the member for West Torrens to please summarise his argument.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The minister has had four months to correct the record that his Chief of Staff, Cullen Bailey, did indeed request the acting chief executive to provide a list of staff and the previous roles they had performed in the former minister's office. It is inconceivable to believe the Chief of Staff, Cullen Bailey—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order: again, the member is raising debate about his interpretation of what is inconceivable and what is not. The matter of privilege has been raised for your consideration. I ask him either be seated unless he has any other facts to put before you for the purpose of consideration.

The SPEAKER: With all respect to the Deputy Premier, I understand the point than has been made. I will listen to the member for West Torrens. He is drawing to a close. We have heard him thus far. I am going to allow him to finish this and then I am going to defer the decision on whether there is a prima facie case for a matter of privilege.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is inconceivable to believe that the Chief of Staff, Mr Cullen Bailey, did not raise with the minister the acting chief executive's concerns about the minister's incorrect statement to the house on 17 May. Mr Speaker, the Minister for Environment has deliberately and intentionally misled the House of Assembly. I ask that you give consideration to my matter of privilege and rule if a motion to establish a privileges committee should be given precedence over other business in the House of Assembly.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, member for West Torrens. I understand the matter that has been raised. I will defer my decision on whether there exists a prima facie case for a matter of privilege. I will defer my decision. I respectfully ask the member for West Torrens to please provide to myself all relevant background information.

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