HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-09-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

No-confidence Motion

Speaker

Mr MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Leader of the Opposition) (14:17): I move:

That this house no longer has confidence in the Speaker of the House of Assembly.

The SPEAKER: Do you wish to speak to the motion, leader?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Yes, sir. Mr Speaker, only moments earlier today, immediately upon your election to this important role as the Speaker of the House of Assembly in the state of South Australia, I immediately congratulated you on your election and elevation to this esteemed role and welcomed your public commitment to be impartial and independent in the role.

Seconds later, you then embarked on an unprecedented hyperpartisan statement to this chamber, ridiculing the opposition and my leadership without any consideration of the basic facts that have brought us here today. That statement and the timing of that statement have immediately called into question your impartiality within the opposition and, indeed, have called into question your judgement and ability to perform the role.

It is worthwhile this chamber considering exactly what it is that has led to us being in the circumstance that we now find ourselves. It is worthwhile contemplating how we got here, so let's cast our minds back to late July when the Premier of the state called a press conference where he outlined for the people of South Australia that the parliament would be availed with claims that had been made available by the former Speaker, the member for Hartley, regarding the country members' allowance and the claims subject to it.

The Premier, in that press conference, said to the people of South Australia that there were a few administrative errors—a few administrative errors—and that they were being reconciled and there was nothing to see here, and everyone should simply move on and go back to their ordinary lives. Under further examination, Mr Speaker—

An honourable member interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The leader will resume his seat. I may have misheard but, to my hearing, the member for Mawson has now uttered the word 'crooks' on two occasions. Those words being uttered in the chamber is unparliamentary, and I invite the member for Mawson to withdraw.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I withdraw, sir.

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Mr Speaker, I remind you that there is currently a criminal investigation into the corruption of Liberal members of parliament. The Premier said to South Australians that there were administrative errors. Indeed, he was partly right: there were a number of claims for the country members' allowance that were wrong and that may well be characterised as administrative errors. However, it is also true that there were a number of claims for the parliamentary country members' allowance that could not be categorised as administrative errors: indeed, they could only be characterised as fundamental wrongdoings on the part of those Liberal country members.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Energy and Mining rises on a point of order.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Mr Speaker, I ask you to bring the leader back to the substance of the motion, which is actually about you, Mr Speaker. The substance of their motion is about you.

The SPEAKER: With respect to the Minister for Energy and Mining, I think the Leader of the Opposition is placing in context the circumstances within which he seeks to advocate for the motion. I will keep that in mind. I understand the Leader of the Opposition will be addressing the question in due course, and I am listening with interest.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I said, the member for Hammond, for instance, would have the people of South Australia believe he was in Adelaide on parliamentary business on none other than 25 December—Christmas Day—not once but twice. It seems like an extraordinary administrative error. Then, of course—

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Education rises on a point of order.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order: without disrespecting your earlier ruling, sir, the leader now seems to be directly imputing improper motive to another member.

The SPEAKER: I accept the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will need to be careful not to impute improper motives which, as he well knows, is unparliamentary. He should stick to the facts.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Very well, Mr Speaker. I draw the house's attention to the fact that the member for Hammond claims to have been in Adelaide on parliamentary business on Christmas Day not once but twice. The member for Chaffey, upon his return from the United States of America, only days later, claimed to be in Adelaide at the same time as he was in the United States of America.

Then, of course, the member for Schubert would have South Australians believe it is an appropriate use of the country members' allowance to claim $234 a night to spend it with mum and dad, and then refused to tell South Australians what constituted the range of expenses he claims have arisen as a result of that stay with his parents.

These examples, amongst others, led to an extraordinary sequence of events where, only a few days after the Premier told South Australians these were administrative errors, all those individuals resigned after handing back thousands of dollars—in some cases tens of thousands of dollars. That in turn, on 23 July from memory, resulted in the ICAC commissioner issuing a public statement declaring that he was conducting an investigation into the country members' allowance—and, indeed, specifically looking at a number of MPs.

Fast-forward approximately one month—indeed, I understand that the next ICAC statement came out in August, as you noted in your earlier remark—the ICAC commissioner put on the public record that a number of MPs who were under his investigation were claiming or were seeking to claim parliamentary privilege. That in turn raised a live question about whether or not it was appropriate for the parliament to bestow parliamentary privilege over documents or information that the ICAC wanted in their pursuit or in their investigation of those members of parliament.

The moment that the ICAC commissioner referenced 'parliamentary privilege' made it a judgement of this parliament about whether or not that was appropriate—this parliament; not you, sir, not any other individual, but we collectively had to make a determination about whether or not that was a legitimate claim or use of parliamentary privilege. That was a moment that we took seriously on this side of the house and I certainly took seriously as leader of the parliamentary Labor Party.

That is why, immediately upon that statement being issued by the former ICAC commissioner, I called a press conference where I set a standard, where I decided to show leadership to the parliamentary Labor Party to make it clear to them that my expectation was that all members of the parliamentary Labor Party would comply with all reasonable requests of the ICAC for information, and if any of them decided to hide behind the cloud of parliamentary privilege so as to subvert or impede that ICAC investigation I would seek to kick them out of the parliamentary Labor Party, as is my right, as is my solemn obligation, not just to protect the good name of the parliamentary Labor Party but, indeed, to represent the best interests of the South Australian people.

The Hon. S.S. Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I would have the Premier know as he interjects that I am in charge of the parliamentary Labor Party, unlike you being in charge of the parliamentary Liberal Party. I understand—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will take his seat. The subject matter of the motion is an important subject matter. The Leader of the Opposition is entirely entitled to be heard in silence. There is noise on both sides, and I direct members on my right and my left to maintain order and to listen to the Leader of the Opposition's contribution to the debate.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Mr Speaker, I set standards for my party. I show leadership for my party in a way that the South Australian public would reasonably expect of a senior office holder within this parliament. I do that in the full confidence that my team is united, that they will not be ratting on any votes within the parliamentary Labor Party and that we stand united very conscious of our solemn commitment to the people of South Australia and South Australian taxpayers that we have an obligation to uphold their interests.

It is astonishing, given that a claim of parliamentary privilege was made, given that I decided to exercise the function of leadership about what I believed to be appropriate in regard to parliamentary privilege, that you would see it your role, sir, to call into question my job and my exercise of leadership over the parliamentary Labor Party. You have been elected to be the Presiding Officer of this chamber. You are here to uphold the standing orders of this chamber. You are not a judge, you are not a jury and you are certainly not an investigating officer. You are not here to cast judgement over an interpretation of the ICAC Act. That is the solemn obligation of the ICAC commissioner, which leads me to a second point.

Your statement, Mr Speaker, calls into question the very independence and impartiality of the Hon. Bruce Lander, the former ICAC commissioner. I arranged a meeting with the ICAC commissioner because I wanted to ensure that when I was passing judgement on the use of parliamentary privilege I was doing so from the most knowledgeable position possible. I would have thought that is something that every member within this place, particularly the Premier of the state, would feel an obligation to do.

I met with the ICAC commissioner specifically for the purpose of trying to ascertain his interpretation of parliamentary privilege so as to inform our judgement on parliamentary privilege, which is an entirely public matter, being a matter for the parliament. So how, sir, you can come to the conclusion, from your relatively uninformed position, that somehow that was inappropriate on our behalf is completely absurd—completely absurd.

The only thing crazier, Mr Speaker, was the fact that you elected to give a statement from that chair only moments upon your election, as somehow an act of pouring petrol on the fire at the very time that this chamber is looking for a degree of confidence in your ability to uphold the interests of the people of this state.

Parliamentary privilege is not there to run a protection racket. Parliamentary privilege is not there to impede a criminal investigation. Parliamentary privilege is there as an extraordinary privilege bestowed upon members of parliament to ensure that we can speak fearlessly on behalf of our constituents' interests. It is not there to run contrary to the interests of taxpayers or people who look to us for leadership.

Mr Speaker, it is impossible for this opposition to continue to have confidence in your ability to be impartial when you have already decided to weigh in on a range of issues that are not within your purview, that are not within your ability to cast judgement on. What we look for on this side of the house is impartiality, independence and a calming force within the parliament so that this body can get on with the job of representing the best interests of this state, rather than the opposite.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL (Dunstan—Premier) (14:31): I woke up early this morning; I usually get up pretty early. I got up at about four o'clock this morning and I knew that one thing was going to happen today: the sun was going to rise, and as predictable as the sun rising was the predictability of this motion today. We know that there is only one motivation from those opposite—only one motivation from those opposite—and that is to spoil: to spoil the good proceedings of this house at every single opportunity, to put politics at every opportunity above good parliamentary procedure. Today, not one person can be in any doubt about the motivations of the Leader of the Opposition and those opposite. They are absolutely outrageous.

The SPEAKER: The Premier will take his seat. The member for West Torrens is on his feet with a point of order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you, sir. The Premier is imputing improper motives to the opposition, rather than defending you.

The SPEAKER: Can the member for West Torrens refer to a particular standing order?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Imputing improper motives to the Leader of the Opposition, sir.

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens will need to be more particular in relation—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I wasn't sure you weren't familiar with the standing orders, sir: imputing improper motives.

The SPEAKER: —to a member.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I can provide you with a copy of it, sir. The Clerk will give you the number; you will be after the number, sir.

The SPEAKER: And the member—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Imputing improper motive to another member, sir. I am quoting it directly.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I will listen to a point of order if it is appropriately raised. The Premier.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Thank you very much, sir. The Labor opposition has wasted no time in coming into this chamber today to mess up the good order and proceedings of this parliament, and it is absolutely shameful.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: But it was so predictable. It was so predictable. The only problem was, of course, that the Leader of the Opposition's entire speech was on a different motion, which he could have had the opportunity to debate, but they actually voted against that one proceeding only an hour or so ago. He did not address the fundamental points of his motion, where he is asserting that you, sir, have been partisan in your first minutes in the chair. Nothing—nothing—could be further from the truth.

Sir, you have come into this chamber and you have provided advice and clarity to the government and to the opposition from the moment that you have taken the chair. You have made it clear that you will not stand for the bullying and intimidation that we have become used to here in South Australia.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: And you have stood up for the rights of every member of this parliament that they should be free from bullying and intimidation, which the Leader of the Opposition may have become very familiar with when he was a member of the union movement, and now he seeks to bring it into the South Australian parliament.

Let me say, I have now been in this parliament on three separate occasions when a new Speaker has been elected and installed: first of all with the Hon. Michael Atkinson, the second elevation was the current member for Hartley, and then of course, earlier today, yourself. This is usually a day of great dignity and celebration. What did those opposite seek to do?

I want to make it very clear to this parliament that I am not complaining for one second about a legitimate election for the role of Speaker. This is a coveted position and it is a very important position, presiding over this house, especially at this particularly crucial time in terms of where we are as a state. We do not in any way condemn anybody for putting their hand up. In fact, on this side of the house we love democracy, we love having a vote, and I made it very clear in my remarks earlier to this house—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —that the member for Florey has had very longstanding service to this house. I must say, it is curious that those opposite are so aggrieved by their candidate not being selected today. That is what this is all about. That is exactly and precisely what this is all about. Did they support the current member for Florey to be their candidate for Florey? No. In fact, the new director of strategic directions, Rik Morris, was their candidate. He was the one the Labor Party actually anointed to run against the member for Florey.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Today, they are coming in here with all the faux outrage that their candidate was not selected.

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Deputy leader!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Can I just say that it is very important, and today's election was very important, because we have incredibly important work before this house this year and, in fact, this afternoon. We are currently looking at the Notice Paper and we are going to be continuing the debate on the COVID-19 Emergency Response (Expiry Amendment) Bill and other important pieces of legislation. That, sir, is why it is so important that you were elected today: a firm hand on the tiller of this parliament through these very tumultuous waters that are engulfing the world at the moment.

We need to make sure that we are here every single day—every single day—to represent the people we come here to serve and to act as good government during this very, very difficult time. You come to this role, sir, with outstanding pedigree, outstanding academic qualifications and a great history in practice before you came to this place. You were elected by the voters in Heysen to represent them for four years and, may I say, for many years thereafter I hope, but certainly for this four years. I know that you will do an outstanding job in this parliament at this time.

What you provided to this house from the very first minutes was clarification about a very important issue. It is a very important issue. It is a crucially important issue—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —and that is the issue of parliamentary privilege. Let me tell you, sir, I thought it was very interesting when I was reflecting on parliamentary privilege. I have to say I did not always agree with the former attorney-general and the former Speaker of the house the Hon. Michael Atkinson, but he did say in this house on 4 April 2005, and I quote:

There is no doubt that parliamentary privilege is fundamentally important to the proper functioning of parliament. The principle has been well established since it was promulgated as Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688.

This has been around for some time.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: This is why we have made it very clear—

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The leader is warned.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —that we respect this important convention in this parliament. There are plenty of circumstances where we have information that comes to us, conversations that occur with us as part of our parliamentary role, that should not be disclosed to any others. The parliament is absolutely crucial in this circumstance. In fact, the former ICAC commissioner made this point himself in the statement that he issued on 21 August when he said 'the privilege is that of parliament', and he went on—

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: We are in parliament at the moment. This is the crucial point of clarification that you have—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will take his seat for a moment. I have called the house to order in the course of the debate and particularly in the course of the Leader of the Opposition's contribution to the debate. I thank honourable members for returning to a quieter state. The Premier is entitled to be heard. Premier.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: Thank you very much, sir. The former ICAC commissioner went on and said, on radio on 1 September, it is for parliament to decide, not individual parliamentarians, whether parliamentary privilege would apply. This is the point of your statement to this parliament earlier today.

It is actually the parliament's decision, and no member, whether they be the Leader of the Opposition—the big man saying, 'This is what's going to happen'—it is not up to individuals to bully and intimidate individual members of this parliament: it is actually up to the parliament. It is up to the parliament. This is a guy—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: This guy thinks he is above the ICAC Act. He thinks he is above the parliament. He thinks that he is the man—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Playford!

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL: —in charge. But in doing so he diminishes parliament with that stance that he took. Only the parliament can take this position. I thank you, sir, for making it clear from day one—from minute one—and the faux outrage from those opposite will not move me one single iota. They have already consumed 11 minutes of the time in this debate. I am yet to hear one single, solitary cogent opinion or offering from the Leader of the Opposition and I doubt we are going to hear it from any of the speakers who may or may not follow.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (14:41): On a day when the Treasurer threatened the Hon. John Dawkins with expulsion from the Liberal Party if he stood for President—and I can inform the house he has now been successful. Anyone sitting on this side of the house who saw the look on the Premier's face when the first round of voting was announced and it was a draw, to know what he was thinking about one of his members exercising the democracy he loves so much, would have thought perhaps the Premier was not being entirely accurate.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order, sir: the member's comments have nothing to do with the motion and he is—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —personally attacking the Premier.

The SPEAKER: It is a point of order that has been raised in the course of the debate. The member for West Torrens has just started and, as I understand him, he is providing some context. I will listen carefully, but I remind the member for West Torrens to stay with the matter that is before the house.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, sir, I will. Mr Speaker, we do not believe that you have the impartiality required to remain as Speaker. We believe, sir, that you should resign immediately. If you do not, the house should take your future into our hands. Of course, unfortunately, we will not succeed. We will lose this vote because the Premier has been humiliated twice today and he cannot be humiliated three times. The cock can only crow twice, not three times, because we know how that ends.

Mr Speaker, when you were elected as Speaker on the second ballot, because you failed in the first attempt, you had an opportunity to bring this house together. You had an opportunity to overcome the partisan differences to your election as Speaker and to bring everyone together to try to get on with the people's business. Instead, you chose, in pre-prepared remarks, to attack the Leader of the Opposition for exercising his function as Labor leader.

I have news for you, Mr Speaker: we are a caucus. We are a caucus of members elected under the banner of the Australian Labor Party. We caucus together in solidarity. We vote as one. We speak as one. When one of ours decides to leave that solidarity—to leave our caucus—we do not expel them from the parliament: we expel them from our party, and that is our right.

We are the oldest political party in Australia, and we will not be lectured by you about how we conduct ourselves. We will not be lectured by a Liberal, trying to tell us that we cannot enforce solidarity after you threatened John Dawkins with resignation if he stood—on the same day. I wonder whether the brave member opposite who abstained in the first election for Speaker will face any consequence, whether he or she will face the fury of the Premier that has become so apparent to those members who have been at the receiving end of phone calls from the Premier over the last couple of weeks.

They have all contacted us and told us exactly what it is the Premier says and how he behaves. We know he has a temper. We know how he behaves, but to have you, sir, come in here and tell us that the Leader of the Opposition somehow should not have in any way instructed—

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

The SPEAKER: Order, Minister for Education! The member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The idea that we can be told, if we are told by our leader to cooperate with a police investigation or to cooperate with an ICAC investigation into corruption, that somehow that is controversial, speaks volumes about what the Premier thinks about accountability to the parliament and, sir, more importantly, what you think accountability stands for in this parliament.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Quite frankly, how dare you raise that, sir. You should be ashamed to have uttered these words. Sir, if you had any dignity, you would stop defiling that chair and you would resign immediately so we can elect a new Speaker who will uphold the office of Speaker and not turn it into a partisan attack moments after you took office. Sir, you should be ashamed of yourself and you should resign.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (14:46): We all know the Leader of the Opposition likes to get what he wants. He likes to boss people around. He is the one who told former premier Rann, 'On your bike.' If former premier Weatherill had been successful at the last election, God forbid, he would have told him, 'On your bike.'

This man likes to get what he wants. He is used to getting what he wants. He wanted his own Speaker, a different candidate. He did not get what he wanted. He says that he wants to have the solemn right to sack members of the Labor Party, yet the member standing right behind him says, 'We're a solid caucus. We make all these decisions together.' The Leader of the Opposition likes to get what he likes to get, to the point where the Leader of the Opposition thinks that he can tell his members whether they are entitled to parliamentary privilege or not. We have heard him say that he is going to tell his members whether they will use parliamentary privilege or not, and simultaneously he has said—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: We have heard the Leader of the Opposition say that he is going to tell his members when they use parliamentary privilege or not and simultaneously say that he believes parliamentary privilege in that decision actually belongs to the parliament. He likes to get what he wants, and it is not happening. He likes to have it both ways, and it is not happening. Let's have a look at—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for West Torrens!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —what members opposite say they are so aggrieved about. I have here the early copy of the Hansard of your statement.

Mr Odenwalder interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Elizabeth!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Without actually reading the words, you can read down and there is text, text, text, and then you can see 'Order!' and interjections. Let's just see what happens right before. This is the bit that they object to. I quote your words, Mr Speaker:

…the Leader of the Opposition directed members of the Labor Party in respect of the investigation. That direction is accompanied by his threat that he would issue a sanction from that party upon any member who would not comply with his direction and recommended that such a member ought to be expelled from their party.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: What I have just read out is exactly the truth. I am not sure why they are so upset about it. It is the truth. The Leader of the Opposition does not dispute it, but that is when they started to get a bit twitchy because that is when they knew they were skating on very thin ice.

Mr Picton: Keep reading.

The SPEAKER: Member for Kaurna!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: So it follows in Hansard immediately after that statement:

A direction to any member the subject of an ICAC investigation is problematic and usually unlawful.

I think that is true too. That is the next line. It seems to be self-evident that what you said is accurate, Mr Speaker. Then it follows, immediately after that:

A direction to do other than to act in accord with the law, let alone when accompanied by any form of coercion, risks constituting among other things: first, a contempt of the parliament…

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, leader!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: What we have here, having just read that word for word from Hansard, is the bit that the opposition said they were so aggrieved about. When I read it out, they say, 'Yes, that's all true.' They cannot have it both ways. The reality is that they have absolutely nothing to be aggrieved about. Everything you said in your statement, which they say was so egregious to them, is absolutely accurate, absolutely fair, and everything that they are attempting to say in this motion is, to quote former Speaker Atkinson, completely bogus.

This is a waste of the parliament's time. It is a waste of the opposition's question time to suggest that after minutes in the job you had participated in 'unprecedented political partisanship'. It is absolutely absurd to suggest that that is the case. Members opposite know it. This was written. There would have been a version for the opposition—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: There would have been a version written for your election; there would have been a version written for another member's election. These people are just working on their own scheme, off their own bat. They are wasting everybody's time and they actually have no argument whatsoever, even by their own account because, when your statement is read back to them, they actually say, 'Yes, it's true, it's fair, it's reasonable.'

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (14:53): I cannot really thank the member for Schubert for warming up the crowd, can I. Mr Speaker, when you accepted the nomination for your position, you said:

It is vital that the Speaker is fair, impartial and acting in accord with our rules-based system in this house in the interests of all members. I will do that.

And then upon being elected, Mr Speaker, you stood up there and you told us:

Fairness to all members is at the core of this role, and I will do my best faithfully to do fairness to all members…

Mr Speaker, not only have you failed at the first hurdle—not just that—but you have failed to get out of the blocks. Your first act was to indulge in a contribution designed solely as a partisan attack on the Leader of the Opposition, and, as we have already heard, an attack without basis and without merit, and also an attack on those parliamentary standards you told us you would uphold. The fact that your attack was scripted and carefully read also demonstrates the premeditated nature of your contribution.

You stood there first and you stood there second telling us that you would be fair to all members and act in the interests of all members while you clutched to your bosom a contribution which could completely undermine your commitment to us, sir. Sir, you deceived us when you told us that you would act fairly. You deceived us, sir, and now we are left with no option but to take the only course of action that is available to us and remove you from your position.

Mr Speaker, do you not think this parliament and its reputation have been through enough in the last nine months? In the public's mind we have gone from arse grabbing to cash grabbing to power grabbing, Mr Speaker. It is simply not good enough, and you, given the unique opportunity, the sole responsibility, of re-elevating the standards of this place, at least in the minds of the public, have taken that opportunity and you have screwed it up and you have thrown it into the gutter.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Dr Close interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, deputy leader!

The Hon. S.S. Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, Premier!

Dr Close: I wasn't even looking at you. You just cannot bear it, can you?

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lee will take his seat for a moment.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! When there is silence, I will ask the member for Lee to continue. The member for Lee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is remarkable to think, sir, what must have motivated you to make that contribution. There was no basis for it in the standing orders. There was no merit to the argument. Your contribution was so contrary to parliamentary standards and parliamentary procedures, and so patently wrong in its assertions, that we have all come to the conclusion that it could only have been drafted by the Deputy Premier, Mr Speaker.

We wonder what you hope to achieve by your remarks—yet another moderate faction member who seems to have put down the ceremonial moderate faction shiv that gets wielded in the Liberal party room, and instead brought it in here in an attempt to try to intimidate the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition. Well, we will not stand for it.

We have had a proud history in this place of appointing people to that role who have been willing not only to commit to being impartial, not only willing to commit to being fair, but actually demonstrating that. The Premier looks back fondly—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, Minister for Education!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —on the election to the Speakership of the former member for Croydon, and they were much better days, I can say, when it came to parliamentary standards. Of course, we all remember those times when the opposition of the day was—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —afforded the first 30 minutes of question time in order to try to put a minister under pressure, to try to extract some answers for the benefit of the community. There were never any acts of partisanship or—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

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

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Education is called to order.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: They all take umbrage, don't they? They all take umbrage after telling us for the last 20 minutes of their contribution how terrific a Speaker he was. Well, if you thought that he was a good Speaker then why did we not—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —appoint the Speaker this place should have had, the honourable member for Florey, someone who would act with impartiality, someone who would not have walked up there—

The Hon. S.S. Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —telling us one thing with a contribution that said the exact opposite.

The Hon. S.S. Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will cease interjecting.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I know the Premier loves yelling at me, small bar owners, industry representatives—

The SPEAKER: Member for Lee, the Minister for Education rises on a point of order.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —but it will not cut it anymore.

The SPEAKER: The member for Lee will take his seat.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: At least we can be thankful there is no profanity in this yelling.

The SPEAKER: The member for Lee will take his seat. The Minister for Education on a point order.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: If you cast your mind back 20 seconds ago to the member for Lee's comment on the election of yourself, the reflection on the vote of the house—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —is standing order 119.

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell: It’s one set of rules for us and one for them.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mawson is warned.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I repeat myself: standing order 119. It is a reflection upon the vote of the house when the member for Lee says that the house should have voted for a person in a ballot taken in this house. That is a reflection on the vote of the house and against standing order 119.

The SPEAKER: I uphold the point of order to the extent that the member for Lee reflects on the vote itself. The motion is directed towards what has occurred since, and the member for Lee will direct his remarks to the substance of the motion.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you for your guidance, sir. Indeed, we should not be reflecting on your election and the vote which caused it. We should be reflecting on your poor performance since your election.

The SPEAKER: Indeed.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you for bringing me back to the task at hand. Mr Speaker, if this is how you start, if this is how you have commenced your tenure, sir, how can we possibly have any confidence in what you are going to bring to that role from hereon in? How can we have any possible confidence that you will conduct yourself fairly and impartially, particularly when it comes to question time?

How can we have any confidence, sir, when a matter of privilege is raised in this place on yet another occasion when a minister of the Crown is misleading the house deliberately, that you will rule fairly and impartially? The fact is, sir, we cannot have that confidence because of your own actions.

Sir, you are not fit to be in that chair, and if you do not resign the only option left to us is to remove you by a vote of the house. I would encourage all members to take advantage of that opportunity so that we can have a decent Chair, a decent adjudicator of this parliament's proceedings, and we can have fairness and impartiality for all members.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (15:00): I rise to note in the first instance that I think you have had six rulings so far on objections and that five have gone in favour of the opposition; if that is not impartiality, I do not know what it is. Can I commence by saying that I utterly reject this motion and state in the presence of all the members here the pride I have in working with you as a colleague. Your experience, both at the bar and in the profession generally, is of a depth we are grateful for.

The parliament's determination today that you be the Speaker of this house is something which I welcomed. I think you have already demonstrated today your capacity to exercise this responsibility in a calm demeanour, to ensure that there is consideration in the counsel that you have given and, further, that you continue to be able to articulate as counsel in advocacy in a calm and clear and considered manner. That is something that always must be present in the responsibility you undertake as Chair in chairing the meeting here, which is a difficult responsibility from time to time.

Understandably, people are passionate and obviously they do want to present their arguments. Sometimes they get a bit overexcited and they interject and act in a disorderly manner, and you are called upon to be able to deal with those situations. The display today of the member for West Torrens—as he was required to leave the chamber for, I think, 20 minutes—and his shouting abuse at you as he left, was disorderly, and I thought you exhibited an enormously calm demeanour in being able to resist the temptation of naming the member, which clearly he deserved.

Nevertheless, I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on being able to consider in a measured manner how this house will be conducted. You have already fairly determined, five times I counted, against the government side in relation to these matters. I do not know how much fairer you could have been.

The behaviour of the member for West Torrens I suppose is only outdone by the behaviour in this debate of those who are making the contribution—and they clearly are objecting to a statement you made post your election—within the envelope of screaming, of shouting, of exhibiting all the bullying tactics that we have seen in this house over and over and over again.

For you to bring the Leader of the Opposition into the spotlight in the contribution you made, identifying how important it is that there will be difficulty in conducting statements and/or threats that were made within that envelope, that is very difficult when it comes to the enforcement of the proper process under the ICAC Act. The circumstance—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I don't need to be lectured by the member for West Torrens, who I know is an expert on the ICAC Act, but I do need to make sure—

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In fact, the Leader of the Opposition should be grateful for your counsel and advice to all members on what standards are not acceptable and which can bring to the brink of causing offence to other legislation. It is important we remember what our obligations are, and the Premier has repeatedly indicated that in his view all members of the house should comply with the ICAC Act.

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The Leader of the Opposition calls out, 'What's the difference?' Obviously he has a standard in relation to how he operates, what he dictates, the standard he allows, the standard he imposes, the standard he displays—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —and that is utterly unacceptable in any circumstance. That is the position he has identified he is prepared to threaten to achieve and on which you have wisely given him some counsel. If he does not take it, there is nothing you can do. There is nothing any of us can do if he is going to be completely ignorant of that and dismiss it as though it were some kind of threat to him, rather than accepting the counsel he should be appreciating—

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, Leader of the Opposition!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —and being grateful for. Clearly he is not. That is the behaviour he exhibits. That is the standard he imposes.

In relation to the matter that is important—and that he seems to be completely ignorant of—it is the Speaker of the house, a person who will give calm and considered determinations, who ultimately makes decisions on behalf of the parliament on whether a circumstance, fact, information or document is within the purview of parliamentary privilege.

You, sir, are the person who is responsible, on behalf of the parliament, to receive a motion of privilege that is to take precedence over the rest of the business of the house. It is the position of Speaker that makes that decision, not the Leader of the Opposition, not even the ICAC commissioner. It is a decision of this parliament. Let me make it absolutely clear—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No. If the decision is made by you that precedence is accepted—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —then, of course, the Privileges Committee can be convened, etc. That is the process we have, and it is very important that it be maintained. This is not the domain, this is not the decision-making, of the Leader of the Opposition.

I want to draw members' attention to the fact that in 2016 we passed a motion, a positive advance by the government of the day—at that stage led by the Hon. John Rau, who was the then attorney-general—supported by the then opposition, for the adoption of those statements of principles, and that all new members of parliament should sign up to them at the time of their swearing in here in the chamber.

The importance of that should not be overlooked. It took 12 years for the committee that the Hon. John Rau and I sat on, under the leadership of the Hon. Bob Such, to develop the principles that were finally adopted—12 years before they learned about transparency and accountability on that side of the house. In any event, it was after the former commissioner the Hon. Bruce Lander QC had made a statement in October 2014 that the parliament should have a code of conduct or statement of principles. He made that position very clear, and Mr Weatherill, the former premier, came out and said, 'We'll endorse that.'

It took them until 2016 to actually advance that motion and for it to be passed. He made it very clear that we should have one in correspondence that I have already read into the parliament back in 2016, both in correspondence from the then attorney-general, Mr Rau, to me and from Mr Lander to me, in which there was permission given to advise parliamentary colleagues of the same. His clear view was that the conduct of members of parliament was a matter for the parliament, so it is unsurprising that within the envelope the opposition pretend to be offended. I know they are licking their wounds after this morning's events, but the reality is—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Premier will not bait the opposition, please.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Notwithstanding that the Australian Labor Party, through the then attorney-general—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Lee!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —supported by premier Weatherill, signed up to this statement of principles, they clearly are not going to abide by them under this regime. Under this Leader of the Opposition that standard has been smashed. I ask the Leader of the Opposition—at least the members in his team—to reread that statement of principles and understand the dignity that should be followed in this house. There are a lot of lessons learned in it. It is a bit like The Ten Commandments: you need to be able to understand the important fundamental principles that are there.

I take the opportunity to point out the significance of the statement of principles and what Mr Lander made very clear on that occasion. He wrote to the Attorney-General on 2 December and in the interests of time I will skip over him. It is on the Hansard. Commissioner Lander, as he then was, on 9 December, wrote:

Dear Ms Chapman

Statement of Principles for Members of Parliament

Thank you for your letter [etc.]

He confirmed that he had appeared before the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee. He outlined some transcript that he had given in relation to that. He said:

[n]othing in this Act affects the privileges, immunities or powers of the Legislative Council or House of Assembly or their committees or members.

I am obliged by Section 24 of the ICAC Act to deal with potential issues of corruption, misconduct and maladministration in public administration in particular ways.

He then set out the referral arrangements that he would make. He then said:

I cannot envisage a matter concerning potential misconduct by a Member of Parliament that I would refer to an inquiry agency. Similarly, while I cannot foreclose the possibility, I think it highly unlikely that I would exercise the powers of an inquiry agency to investigate the conduct of a Member of Parliament. Certainly if it was a matter of potential misconduct or maladministration that was already being considered by Parliament, I would not be minded to interfere.

He made it abundantly clear. I will not read the whole of the letter, but he made it very, very clear as to what he expected. He then concluded by saying:

Accordingly, even if I were to refer a matter or potential misconduct or maladministration concerning a Member of Parliament to the relevant House, I could not give any directions to the House concerning that matter. The action to be taken (if any) would be entirely for the House, including the question whether or not the matter ought to be taken to the Privileges Committee.

So, on this matter, I think Mr Lander has made it clear since in his interviews publicly prior to his retirement that these issues are a matter for the parliament. He cannot and would not intervene. Since then, it seems to have slipped the attention of the Leader of the Opposition that we actually have a new ICAC commissioner—a new Independent Commissioner Against Corruption—the Hon. Ann Vanstone QC, who has been appointed.

She has issued a public statement no earlier than yesterday to make very clear what she was doing. The word 'criminal' is not mentioned in that statement, and I would urge the Leader of the Opposition to reread it given his continued rant about this being a criminal investigation because the—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is not defined in what she has stated. She has made very clear what she expects—that notice was given on Friday to three members of parliament—in relation to that. She also makes it very clear that she acknowledges the questions of cooperation, and that is now a matter of public record.

But I would urge the Leader of the Opposition to have a look at that again because he clearly seems to me to have completely misunderstood the significance of what she has done. She has withdrawn the previous notices, she has issued new notices and she has made a public statement. I think it is important that we are reminded, in conclusion, of what the Premier said, and that is that he expects all members of this house to comply with the ICAC Act.

If there are matters that this house needs to consider ultimately in relation to parliamentary privilege or any other matter in relation to the privilege of this house, or indeed contempt of the parliament, then they are matters for us. They are matters for you, Mr Speaker, to deal with initially, and they are matters for this parliament to deal with ultimately. I have every confidence, from the measured way in which you have conducted yourself already in this house, that you will undertake that and you will do it well. I commend you for and compliment you on your appointment. I reject the motion utterly.

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:16): I will not repeat the congratulations offered by the leader of our side of the chamber and of our party on your elevation to this role, but I will reflect that they were sincere, despite the fact that there had been an awkward but ultimately legitimate election that led up to your installation. I would reflect, however, on the disappointment that I felt, as an observer, in the Liberal party room making a decision to advance with a nomination, having had the offer of not only an Independent—so, on principle, a good person to stand—but also the merits of the member for Florey, who has—

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

The SPEAKER: Order, Minister for Education!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The deputy leader will be heard in silence.

Dr CLOSE: —enormous experience and would have done an excellent job. However, I note that the member who is now installed—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Dr CLOSE: —as the Speaker had pre-prepared notes at two ends of this process, notes that were given as part of the nomination—the member for Lee has given some quotes from that—and then the speech that we will be returning to shortly. Immediately before sitting down, he appeared to give an off-the-cuff, heartfelt expression of what he wanted to do in sitting in that chair. He concluded with, 'I will preserve the utmost reputation, strength and solidarity of this place.' Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, in uttering those seemingly sincere words, he had in his pocket a pre-prepared speech that showed a lack of judgement in content and a lack of judgement in the timing of presenting that sentiment.

There was no discussion with this side of the house and no discussion with the leader who was being criticised in that statement—a statement done immediately after a vote that had installed him in a position in which he ought to perform in a way that is beyond reproach, independent and not partisan. The first act, having taken that chair, that august and important chair, having sat down after giving the prayer and the acknowledgement of country, was to give a speech that demonised and criticised one-half of this chamber and the leader of this party.

No standing order asked him to do this. It was in response to no question. There was no order of procedure that required him to make that statement. There was no request for clarification that required it. Nothing prompted it. That is a problem because it was a decision to make that statement, but it is also a problem because it gave no room for a right of reply by the leader of the Labor Party—no room for the leader of the Labor Party, who had been criticised in that speech, to be able to express his views. Indeed, it used privilege to make a statement about privilege.

The Speaker could easily have gone outside and made a statement in a press conference, could easily have gone out onto the front steps and criticised the Leader of the Opposition, but he chose to do it under the cover of privilege with no right of reply and no input from this side. In fact, the only means for a right of reply, the only means for an input—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Dr CLOSE: —has been this motion of no confidence in the Speaker, one that we were reluctant to proceed with on the very first day, but could not let pass—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Dr CLOSE: —such an egregious and partisan statement. The Speaker has chosen to protect the Premier and to defend the Premier's lack of leadership, overtaking leadership of this chamber. That is a decision that this Speaker has made. We will lose this motion, but we will not forget that that is the way this Speaker has chosen to start his term here.

I go back to the original prepared speech that was given on the point of nomination when the Speaker said:

We live in a time when democratic systems are in retreat in many parts of the world and when public faith in democracy is in decline.

I agree with that sentiment. What I do not agree with and what I am appalled by is that the process that then followed was a decision to take a deliberately partisan act, to let down what I think might otherwise have been a good Speakership by this member of parliament and to start it on the wrong foot through an unfair, unprovoked, unrequired and unhelpful statement.

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has a right of reply.

Mr MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Leader of the Opposition) (15:21): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in regard to a right of reply on this important motion. There are a number of elements that have been raised by those opposite that are a complete misrepresentation of the events that have transpired ever since this sorry saga regarding the country members' allowance commenced.

I principally want to refer to this issue of privilege, which a number of members opposite referred to consistently throughout their remarks and what they have interpreted as our view of the way privilege should be applied. There is no doubt whatsoever that those on this side of the house believe that parliamentary privilege is something that is important, to be treated seriously and to be applied where appropriate.

We believe that parliamentary privilege is an essential tenet of parliamentary democracy, particularly within the Westminster system, so as to ensure that we can all fearlessly advocate on behalf of our constituents. That has never been in doubt or in question. The only context where parliamentary privilege has been raised throughout the course of the country members' allowance saga is so as to subvert and delay or deny the ICAC access to information in regard to the country members' allowance current inquiry.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The Premier says that he has consistently expected his members of parliament to comply with the ICAC Act. So, the suggestion that I, as Leader of the Opposition, have somehow done something wrong or inappropriate or in contempt of the parliament by seeking to ensure that every member on this side of the house complies with that act is something that is beyond absurd. It is completely extraordinary.

All I have done on this side of the house, in my role as leader of the parliamentary Labor Party, is to ensure that everyone on this side of the house complies with the ICAC Act and does not impede the investigation.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my right!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I take a—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The leader will take his seat for a moment. The Deputy Premier is warned. The Minister for Education is warned. The Leader of the Opposition is still entitled to be heard in silence. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I take what I thought was a rather orthodox and conventional view of the way the law should be applied. I and those of us on this side of the house believe that the law should be applied equally to all members of the community, regardless of whether or not they are in the privileged position of being a member of parliament.

Those people in the public sector who have been subject to an ICAC investigation are not bestowed with the privilege of claiming parliamentary privilege; they must comply with each and every direction of the ICAC. We simply take the view that that standard should apply to everyone in this place too. If the Speaker—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —has a problem with the fact that those of us on this side of the house seek to comply with the law, and if the Speaker has a problem with the fact that I have a different view about the function of leadership than the Premier, then I welcome him elevating it. However, he should not be doing it from the position of the Speakership, particularly immediately following his election.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The time for the debate has expired.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 19

Noes 25

Majority 6

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

Motion thus negatived.

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