HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-11-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Matter of Privilege

Matters of Privilege, Speaker's Statement

The SPEAKER (11:01): Before I call Mr Clerk, I wish to rise on a couple of privilege matters in no particular order. On the first one, regarding the Minister for Innovation and Skills, I make the following statement with regard to the matter of privilege raised by the member for West Torrens in this house on 14 November. However, before addressing that matter, I wish to outline the significance of privilege as it relates to the house and its members.

It is not a device by which members or any other person can seek to pursue matters that can be addressed by debate or settled by the vote of the house on a substantive motion. McGee in Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand in my view makes the test for whether or not a matter is a matter of privilege by defining it as a matter that can 'genuinely be regarded as tending to impede or obstruct the House in the discharge of its duties'.

Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes the house in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such house in the discharge of his or her duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such a result, may be treated as a contempt and therefore be considered a matter of privilege, even though there is no precedent of the offence.

I refer to the matter raised by the member for West Torrens in relation to an answer given by the Minister for Innovation and Skills to a question in the house on 14 November 2019, more specifically, in response to the question asked by the member for West Torrens:

Given the Premier's previous answer, can he explain to the house why he vetoed a visit by the Leader of the Opposition to Stone and Chalk?

The Minister for Innovation and Skills' response to the question, which was peppered with interjections, was as follows:

There was no veto for the…I personally wanted to be there so I could give…the Leader of the Opposition the full treatment. I am a very hospitable man. There has been no cancellation…My office has said that I wasn't available at that particular time, and I wanted to be there…to take the Leader of the Opposition on the tour of the Startup Hub and, as far as I understand, our officers are working with each other to find out a mutually agreeable time.

The member for West Torrens has advised the house:

I have checked with the Leader of the Opposition's office and his electorate office. There has been no communication from the minister's office to arrange an alternative time. A time was scheduled for the Leader of the Opposition to visit with Stone and Chalk. That was cancelled at the request of the minister.

The member for West Torrens alleges that the Minister for Innovation and Skills has deliberately and intentionally misled the house as his answer to a question on 14 November is inconsistent with the information he acquired as a result of his inquiries to the leader's offices. I refer to the minister's answer and, more specifically, to the following words:

…as far as I understand, our officers are working with each other to find out a mutually agreeable time.

What can be inferred from the minister's response is that his understanding, and I emphasise 'understanding', is that communications were underway between the minister's staff and the leader's staff. Further, there is nothing that has been brought to my attention to suggest that the information provided to the house was anything other than the minister's true and honest understanding of the situation. While the minister's understanding does not accord with what the member for West Torrens found out on making his inquiries, this does not equate to the minister deliberately and intentionally misleading the house.

Therefore, in the Chair's opinion, this is not a matter of privilege, for the reason I set out above. In my view, the matter could not genuinely be regarded as tending to impede or obstruct the house in the discharge of its duties. Therefore, I decline to give that matter the precedence that would allow the member for West Torrens to immediately pursue the matter. However, my opinion does not prevent any member from pursuing the matter by way of a substantive motion.

On the second matter, regarding the member for Kaurna and the alleged sacking of Ms Kaminski, I make the following statement with regard to the matter of privilege raised by the Deputy Premier in the house on 14 November. I provide the usual preamble to this. I refer to the matter raised by the Deputy Premier in relation to a grievance debate made by the member for Kaurna in the house on 14 November. More specifically, the member for Kaurna, in his grievance debate on 14 November, stated:

One of the first things that this Premier did when he came into office was to sack Vickie Kaminski, who was the head of SA Health, and put in his own hand-picked chief executive of SA Health, Dr Chris McGowan.

The Deputy Premier advised the house:

On or about 25 May 2018, Ms Kaminski is reported in ABC News announcing that she would be leaving her position in respect of the head of SA Health and returning to Canada.

The Deputy Premier then went on to refer to a response to a question asked in another place by the Hon. Kyam Maher of the Minister for Health, the Hon. Mr Wade, which was published in Hansard on 25 July 2018. The Deputy Premier, in referring to the early end of Ms Kaminski's contract, quoted the following from the minister's reply:

The terms of Ms Kaminski's early resignation are subject to a confidentiality deed between her and the government.

The Deputy Premier alleges that the member for Kaurna's reference to Ms Kaminski being sacked from her position is incorrect and false. I have been provided with a copy of the ABC News article she referred to, titled 'SA's health system one of the most expensive in Australia, outgoing boss says', updated Tuesday 27 March 2018 at 7.23pm, together with a copy of the minister's reply to a question with notice, titled 'Re: SA Chief Executive Appointment'. I now quote the ABC News article where it says, referring to Ms Kaminski, 'She now plans to leave at the end of November, after a meeting with Premier Steven Marshall where she said he told her he wanted her out of the top job.'

The article then goes on to quote Ms Kaminski as follows: 'Clearly the Premier wants new leadership at SA Health in the top job,' and goes on to say, 'Ms Kaminski said, adding that Mr Marshall asked if she would consider staying and doing', then quoting Ms Kaminski again, 'some other things' and ending with 'inside health'.

I have now had the opportunity to consider the limited information that has been provided to me. What I can infer is that the Premier may not have wanted Ms Kaminski in the top job. I assert this by reference to the news article, where it is reported, 'After a meeting with Premier Steven Marshall she [Ms Kaminski] said he told her he wanted her out of the top job.' The article then quotes Ms Kaminski as saying, 'Clearly the Premier wants new leadership at SA Health in the top job.'

On reading the article, while the Premier may not have wanted Ms Kaminski in the top job—and I emphasise 'may'—the news article does not provide any clear information on the circumstances surrounding Ms Kaminski's departure from her position. In support of the proposition that Ms Kaminski resigned from her position and was not sacked, the Deputy Premier refers to the minister's response, which states:

The terms of Ms Kaminski's early resignation are subject to a confidentiality deed between her and the government.

While it is possible to infer from the minister's response that Ms Kaminski resigned, not being privy to the exact terms of the confidentiality deed it is difficult to ascertain those terms. I am not satisfied that a prima facie case of privilege has been made out.

In reaching this conclusion, I am not confirming or denying the accuracy or otherwise of the member for Kaurna's statement. In the Chair's opinion, this is not a matter of privilege, for the reason I set out above, and in my view the matter could not genuinely be regarded as tending to impede or obstruct the house in the discharge of its duties. Therefore, I also decline to give this matter the precedence that would allow the Deputy Premier to immediately pursue the matter. However, my opinion does not prevent any member from pursuing the matter by way of a substantive motion.

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