HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-10-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Liberal Party Candidates

Mr MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Leader of the Opposition) (14:52): Does the Premier believe that South Australians are entitled to know whether the Premier is okay with members facing criminal charges being candidates at the next election?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order, sir: exactly the same response as the Attorney-General just made. The question is completely out of order.

The SPEAKER: Minister, I have given consideration to the question. It invites a wider answer in relation to all members, and I would be open to receiving submissions as to whether, nevertheless, the matter might traverse sub judice matters, and so I will hear you out on that point. Leader, I will hear out the Leader of Government Business first and then I will turn to you.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: In that case, in response to your comments, it is a hypothetical question.

The SPEAKER: Leader, do you wish to address me on that point?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I make no reference to any specific matter. I am simply seeking—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The first question was out of order. Members, we are now considering the second question as to why the leader's question ought be put and is not beyond the standing orders.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: My question is simply asking the Premier if he is okay with having people charged with criminal offences being Liberal Party candidates. It goes to whether or not the Premier thinks it is ethical to have people facing criminal charges as members of the Liberal Party standing as candidates at the next election. It's a basic question of standards that the Premier should be held to account on.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Members, I will draw the house to order. That was—

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Chaffey, you are warned. Leader, the initial question appeared to be directed at any member. It didn't specifically mention—or rather the subsequent question is reformulated, which—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Chaffey, you are warned. Please don't respond to interjections. We are going to resolve this matter before the house. The second formulation appeared to be a much wider formulation. I foreshadow that I might be inclined to accept that question if it were put again, but the answer that the Premier or Attorney or any other minister might give may be well informed by the sub judice rule.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Do you want me to re-ask the question?

The SPEAKER: I understand that there was a second formulation, which is why it didn't relate to any specific matter and it didn't relate to any specific member and it didn't seek to impugn or—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The leader.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: My question is to the Premier. Does the Premier believe that South Australians are entitled to know whether the Premier is comfortable with having members of his Liberal Party team as candidates for the next state election facing criminal charges?

The SPEAKER: The Leader of Government Business.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Again, Mr Speaker, it is a completely hypothetical question for which the Premier is not responsible to the house.

The SPEAKER: I am going to allow the question. As I say, refer to the sub judice rule and that may well inform the answer.

The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL (Dunstan—Premier) (14:55): I have nothing to add to my previous answers.

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