HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-03-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Procedure

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (14:54): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended to enable me to move a motion of no confidence in the Speaker forthwith.

The SPEAKER: I have counted the house, and there being present an absolute majority I accept the motion. Is the motion seconded?

Honourable members: Yes.

The SPEAKER: Would the member for West Torrens like to speak to the motion for 10 minutes?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, thank you, sir. I think the opposition has sat through enough of what we have had to endure from the way you have conducted yourself in the house, sir. Today is a prime example of the opposition attempting its very best to offer bipartisan support to a government—

The SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens, at this stage you are only moving to suspend the standing orders, so I ask you to speak to that suspension motion.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Yes, I am just reminding him. Let's not have anyone named. Member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you, sir. We want a vote of suspension of standing orders because we have lost confidence in the way you conduct yourself. We have lost confidence in the way you hold up ministers and especially in the way you conduct yourself when the Premier goes off script and blatantly breaks standing orders in order to try to make a political point.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Even now, while I am speaking, members are interjecting and the Speaker sits silently because the impartiality of the Speaker has vanished. Here we go again.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order: standing order 104. The speaker should address his remarks through the Chair, and I think on this occasion he should have the courage to look at you when he says these things.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I thank the minister for the point of order. I do not accept the point of order but I thank you for your contribution. I am listening to the member for West Torrens' contribution carefully.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you, sir. I will address my remarks directly to the Speaker. Sir, we have lost confidence in the way you conduct yourself in this house. We believe that someone else would be better to conduct themselves as Speaker and we are asking for the house to suspend standing orders to let us have the debate.

There is a long precedence in this house of no-confidence motions being given the ability to be debated in the house by the opposition. Ultimately, what happens is the house will decide, but let us have the debate. Let us have the debate to talk about what we think are the inequities being inflicted upon us by what we believe is the tyranny of the majority and what we believe, Mr Speaker, is your inability to divorce yourself from your friends in your party room and your operations in this chamber.

This chamber is sacred. We are disappointed beyond belief in the way you have conducted yourself over the Sam Duluk matter, over the member for Waite, and the way you did what I believe can be categorised as everything you could do to protect the member for Waite. Sir, we believe that no longer do you have the confidence of non-government members of this parliament. We do not make up all the non-government members, but we wish to test that in the house. Let's see how the government goes.

There is long precedence in this house that if these votes are tied in matters of confidence the Speaker resigns. We will see, if the government has the courage to allow us a vote on confidence, whether this house indeed will be tied and whether it will require your vote to sustain your Speakership. Sir, if that is the case, there is long precedence in this house that requires resignation. It requires resignation for a number of reasons.

We have not done this for two years, despite overwhelmingly, time and time again, members on this side of the house being ejected for interjections when ministers have invited those interjections by blatantly and flagrantly breaching the standing orders to make a debating point. We have sat and watched the conventions of this house be trashed by minister after minister. We have watched as the tyranny of the majority attempts to suppress the minority from trying to do our jobs as parliamentarians.

We do not expect to win every vote; in fact, we accept the outcome of the election. We lost: the government won. They get to govern, but what we get to do is ask questions. What we get to do is shine a light. What we get to do is to use the privileges and immunities of this house for the benefit of South Australia. Good governments do not exist without good oppositions, and a good opposition can ask questions, unfettered, of the government without the protection of a Speaker trying to advance themselves within their party room. Quite frankly, sir, you have failed this test.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You have failed the test, Mr Speaker, of an impartial judge. Even now, while I condemn the way you conduct yourself, government members interject and you allow them to do so. A real Speaker would stand up for the independence of this parliament. A real Speaker would not have conducted his own investigation into his mate, friend, colleague and party room member to try to cover up what is appalling behaviour in this parliament.

It has taken our South Australian police to intervene. It has taken a member of this house to go outside this parliament to try to get an inquiry into what occurred in this building. There are staff, Mr Speaker, who answer directly to you. They answer to you and they have no other recourse than through you. The only protection they are afforded is the numbers in this house, and we are the minority.

But the minority today is speaking up and saying, 'We have no confidence in you. We want you out of that chair and someone else in.' Surely there is someone else on the government benches or someone else on the crossbench who could do the job better. That is why we need this debate today. We sat here asking legitimate questions about whether or not we would be adequately supplied for the largest pandemic to inflict civilisation since 1918. What are we told? That we are playing politics with it. After we offered bipartisan support to rush legislation through the parliament, they still mock us. They still try to make political points, and the Speaker sat quietly and watched this and even smiled.

I have to say that it gives me no pleasure whatsoever to do this, no pleasure at all—none at all. To be honest, I would like to have never, ever been put in this position. But what happened with the member for Waite and your conduct have led us to a tipping point, a tipping point that we can no longer stand. The question is whether the government have the courage to actually have this vote and have this debate, or will they again use the tyranny of the majority to enforce their dictatorship on this house?

If we are serious about this house functioning properly, you allow scrutiny and you allow debate. It makes you better ministers, it makes you a better government because you are on your toes and it actually helps the progress of the state. A poor opposition can lead to a poor government. There is the inverse—where a very good opposition exposes a poor government.

I have to say that today for me was the final straw. We decided before we walked in here today that we would give the government every opportunity to answer their questions unfettered, that we would do our very best to limit our interjections and only respond when provoked and, of course, we were provoked. What occurs is the immediate infliction of the majority on us. Not once are members legitimately called.

In fact, I know of opportunities and I know of times when members opposite are forewarned that they might be thrown out. I know that members opposite receive advance notice that that might be done. That is because the Speaker is attempting to show that he is impartial. Sir, you have failed that test and you have failed it miserably. What we want is a straight up-and-down vote on confidence in your behaviour, in your conduct as Chair and in your Speakership. We will vote as good jurors with our conscience clear that we believe you are no longer fit to hold this high office.

Indeed, sir, you have made public statements that in the event of a tie you will vote according to the practices and precedents of the house. You said publicly that on legislation you would vote according to the precedent and precedence of this house. Well, the precedent and precedence of this house on matters of confidence is that if it is tied the Speaker votes to remove himself from office. That is the precedence of the House of Assembly. That is the precedence of the House of Representatives. That is the precedence of the House of Commons.

Let's have a vote and let's see whether or not this parliament really believes that the Speaker has the confidence. Give us that opportunity, give us a suspension and let's have a straight up-and-down vote.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL (Schubert—Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government, Minister for Planning) (15:04): The government quite clearly does not support the suspension of standing orders in this regard. The member for West Torrens has been in this place for quite a long period of time—I think 23 years at last count—and he would well know that we are talking here about the suspension of standing orders, which actually requires 24-person majority support in favour of a suspension of standing orders. There would have been other opportunities for private members to be able to make motions. That is not what this government has chosen to do.

Can I say from the outset that we have absolute and complete confidence in the work that you have done in this regard in terms of dealing with what has been a very difficult matter and a difficult time for everybody who has been involved in this situation after the events that occurred on 13 December. The reason we have confidence is that you have done things in a methodical, calm and appropriate manner, taking into account advice and also undertaking and preserving the traditions and the precedent that have been set around previous investigations.

What I find galling about the comments from the member for West Torrens is the fact that you are following the exact process that previous Speakers have used when investigating members opposite. We could have used opportunities to air those processes, but we have chosen—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: —to be a responsible government and not to denigrate or degrade the use of this house for party political purposes, especially when something as serious as what is being discussed and as serious as what has potentially occurred is being talked about.

What the opposition is seeking to do here, especially coming out of the mouth of the member for West Torrens, makes it all the more galling, as he is somebody who had his hands over almost every single scandal that the former government presided over, whether that be Gillman, whether that be Festival Plaza, whether that be whatever deal went on with regard to electricity in Coober Pedy. The member for West Torrens had his hands on it all, yet he is the one members opposite get to stand up.

An honourable member: They look up to him!

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: They look up to him, and he gets to stand up and make this argument. Anybody on that side of the house would have more credibility in making this argument than him, but that is because he is actually the de facto leader of the opposition. The Leader of the Opposition cannot control the member for West Torrens and allows him to use this place as a kangaroo court instead of doing what you have done, Mr Speaker, and go through due process, especially now that we are dealing with an investigation being undertaken by South Australia Police. South Australia Police are the ones who are now investigating this matter. They are an appropriate body to deal with this, certainly not the member for West Torrens.

Another thing I find galling is that the member for West Torrens is seeking to undertake this vote at a time when they are refusing pairs for the government. I would like to—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: —recite some sage words:

Why do we have pairs? I will explain it one more time: so the will of the election is reflected in every vote in this parliament, so members who cannot be here do not leave their communities unrepresented because of illness or because they are doing important work on behalf of the state interstate or overseas, so that those communities are not valueless all of a sudden. If the government wins 24 seats—

we won 25—

the opposition wins 23 and two government members are doing Her Majesty's work abroad, does that mean we can just overturn the election result? No.

We have pairing arrangements to make sure that the will of the election is carried out for the term of the parliament—stable Westminster responsible government…

They are the words of the member for West Torrens not two weeks ago in this house. What he is seeking to do now is to move this motion at this time when they are abusing the conventions of this place.

The government has given full account of previous decisions that have been made and we have given full account of where we get things right and where we do not get things right, but what we have seen is petulance from the members opposite in this regard, especially the member for West Torrens, and it has been absolutely disgusting.

Another thing they continually do is bring bogus points of privilege to this place that you have systematically rebutted because they have no basis and foundation, yet they continue to do it—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: —because they are more interested in playing political games than getting to the bottom of the issue. In relation to any potential victims with regard to the incident that is being discussed here, I would have thought that the best way for that to be dealt with is through a process that is secure, confidential, at arm's length and something that can give everybody the opportunity to have their voices heard and understand that that voice is going to be heard confidentially, as opposed to what the member for West Torrens would like, and that is a kangaroo court, where everything gets played out through the media.

I do not think that that is the best way to go about it, and that is why I think that the best way is the way you have handled this matter, sir—appointing an investigator and now having suspended that investigation because South Australia Police are dealing with it, a body that is appropriate to deal with this matter, as opposed to the political game playing that those opposite would prefer to undertake.

Mr Speaker, another point I would like to make relates to the comments that you have made previously with regard to votes of this house, being that where there is a tied vote of the house you would vote to preserve the status quo. That is the situation that we have at the moment. That said, what the member for West Torrens fails to understand is that this is a vote to suspend standing orders, which actually requires an absolute majority. We will not stand here and try to preside over some kangaroo court. We will undertake the processes that we do and the processes that you, Mr Speaker, have in a calm, methodical, independent and arms-length way to make sure that we can deal with this issue seriously.

What I do know is that the member for Waite, who by the way has stood aside from all committees, including paid committees, has moved to suspend his own membership and sit on the crossbench, all consequences that have so far eluded the member for West Torrens in all his dodgy dealings in previous parliaments, a man who could abuse public servants with impunity and still did not lose his job.

The SPEAKER: I caution the minister about making personal reflections on another member.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I think that the member for West Torrens is both pot and kettle. We as a government will not be standing for it. We have complete confidence in the way that you have dealt with this process and we look forward to good, stable Westminster government continuing here in South Australia.

Ayes 22

Noes 22

Majority 0

AYES
Bedford, F.E. Bell, T.S. Bettison, Z.L.
Bignell, L.W.K. Boyer, B.I. Brock, G.G.
Brown, M.E. Close, S.E. Cook, N.F.
Gee, J.P. Hildyard, K.A. Hughes, E.J.
Koutsantonis, A. (teller) Malinauskas, P. Michaels, A.
Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, A.
Picton, C.J. Stinson, J.M. Szakacs, J.K.
Wortley, D.
NOES
Basham, D.K.B. Chapman, V.A. Cowdrey, M.J.
Cregan, D. 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. Teague, J.B.
Treloar, P.A. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Whetstone, T.J.
Wingard, C.L.

The SPEAKER: There are 22 ayes and 22 noes. Pursuant to standing order 180, as the votes are equal I give my casting vote with the noes. I note, however, that in this instance my vote is not of effect, as the motion before the house requires an absolute majority and that absolute majority does not exist. The motion therefore lapses for wont of an absolute majority.

Mr Picton: It's a disgrace.

The SPEAKER: Was that the member for Kaurna who said 'disgrace' after the vote?

An honourable member: Yes, sir.

The SPEAKER: The member for Kaurna can leave for one hour under 137A. He is lucky not to be named.

The honourable member for Kaurna having withdrawn from the chamber:

The SPEAKER: Members, question time will continue, I am informed, for 13 minutes. The member for Finniss is seeking the call.

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