HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-09-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Committees

Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee

The PRESIDENT (15:26): I have to advise the council that at its meeting held yesterday, the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee was unable to come to a decision as to who is to be its presiding member. Therefore, pursuant to section to 15N(4) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the matter is referred to the council for its determination. I call on the Treasurer.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (15:26): I move:

That the Hon. D.W. Ridgway be appointed Presiding Member of the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee.

In moving the motion and speaking to it, as I recounted just over two years ago, I am disappointed that I am having to move this particular resolution or a similar resolution to one that we moved two years ago. That particular motion in the end resulted in the government-nominated appointee being appointed but I am advised that that may not be the case in relation to this particular motion that is before the chamber at the moment.

In speaking to the motion and in speaking in support of my colleague being appointed, I do want to make the point and make it quite strongly; that is, there has been from the government and the opposition, whether that be a Labor government or a Liberal government, for many decades a longstanding convention that the standing committees of the parliament have been chaired by the government nominee.

There has been, over the last 10 or 20 years, a longstanding convention that in the Legislative Council select committees have been chaired by non-government members, and that has been accepted by the former Labor government and the former Liberal government unless, of course, the non-government members decided they did not want to chair a particular committee. There have been some isolated or rare exceptions. So that has been the practice in relation to the arrangements in relation to standing committees.

I accept the view that the Hon. Mr Parnell, for example, is on the record as saying that he did not subscribe to that particular view, and given that he is not a member of the government or the alternative government and with great respect is highly unlikely ever to be so—

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: You short-changed me.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, given he has announced that he is about to retire before the next election, it is highly implausible—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —it's highly implausible that that is going to be the case. My criticism in relation to what looks like being a breach of this longstanding convention is directed—because this has only occurred since the 2018 election—to the Leader of the Opposition in another place, Mr Malinauskas, and the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber, the Hon. Mr Maher.

It is quite clear that those two gentlemen have led a charge to tear up longstanding conventions that have governed the operations of the parliament in relation to standing committees. I want to make it clear that it is my view that if at some stage in two years, six years,10 years or 14 years, when the Labor Party manages to find itself back in government, all bets are off in relation to the longstanding convention regarding government leadership of standing committees.

The Labor Party cannot expect, as they are seeking to do, that when in government for the 16 years prior to 2018 they could say, 'There is this convention and we expect you to abide by it as the alternative government'—which the Liberal Party did—but then in 2018, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Malinauskas, and the Leader of the Opposition in this particular chamber, the Hon. Mr Maher, can decide, 'What the heck. We will just tear up those conventions. There is a different rule when there is a Liberal government and a Labor opposition.'

As I said, in the unfortunate circumstance for the people of South Australia that in two, six, 10 or 14 years' time there is another Labor government, all bets are off because the precedent the Labor Party are now establishing will come back, and come back to their particular cost. These issues are important issues. The Crime and Public Integrity Committee has important work to do. The chair of that particular committee has always been a government member—in the past Labor, in recent times a Liberal member, because that has been the colour of the government of the day.

In the event of there being a tied vote at some stage in the future, the chair has two votes, a deliberative and a casting vote. The actions that are being contemplated today are actions that mean that for the first time this particular committee will be controlled by non-government members. The actions, as I understand it, potentially will mean that the person who has both a deliberative vote and a casting vote will actually be a member of the crossbench, the Hon. Mr Pangallo.

With great respect to the Hon. Mr Pangallo, there are a number of issues where we are in furious agreement and there are a number of issues where we are in furious disagreement. Having observed and read some of the transcripts of the Crime and Public Integrity Committee, some of the views and some of the approaches the honourable member has adopted with witnesses before that particular committee, particularly in relation to issues that might have related to investigations at the Sturt Police Station, and indeed others, and general approaches that he has indicated in relation to the work that he believes ought to be done in relation to looking at specific cases, as opposed to a general oversight of the operations of integrity bodies in South Australia, I am in furious disagreement with.

I respect the fact that he is entitled to his particular view in relation to these issues, but as a member of the government—and even if I had been a member of the alternative government at this particular stage—that is not an approach that I would want to see being adopted in terms of governance of the committee which has oversight of something as critical as the integrity bodies in South Australia.

That is the contention I put to the chamber today. I know that the Hon. Mr Parnell, when he spoke on this issue a couple of years ago, pooh-poohed the idea of conventions. I quote his words—

The Hon. M.C. Parnell interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I quote:

To suggest that there is some unwritten rule—and that it is really all a convention is: some sort of unwritten rule—that says that the government that we are seeking to hold to account somehow has a right to run the committee and to have a deliberative and casting vote on the committee that holds the government to account is, I think, an absolute nonsense.

As the Hon. Mr Parnell interjected, there are some conventions he wants the government and the parliament to abide by. He sent an email today in relation to a convention we abide by, when the Labor Party came to us and said, 'The government and the opposition want to jam the sentencing bill through today,' on 24-hours notice.

We were being criticised in the media by the Labor Party because we were not prepared to jam the bill through, and how many paedophiles or other criminal offenders were going to be let loose because we were refusing to jam the bill through without notice today. I maintained the convention and position, on behalf of the government, that if the opposition and all the crossbenchers were prepared to debate the bill today, I was prepared to debate it.

The Hon. Mr Parnell I have defended to my lower house colleagues who do not understand the conventions of this chamber perhaps as well as upper house members do. However, in the interests of good government and good governance, there are unwritten rules that help govern the sensible operations of our committees, our parliament and our procedures. They are for the good, and that is the reason we generally abide by them. On behalf of government members I refused—

An honourable member interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —when we were advised at, I think, 2 o'clock today that the honourable member, consistent with the position he adopted last evening, was unprepared or unwilling to proceed. He indicated in a note to both whips that he was pleased that the convention, which we had abided by, had been adopted by the whips.

These unwritten rules are not some arcane tradition to be laughed at or scoffed at, they are important mechanisms to ensure the proper operation of committees, the parliament and procedures in this particular house. We can pick and choose and say, 'That's a good convention because it suits me,' or 'That's a bad convention because I don't happen to agree with that,' and that is fine.

However, my major criticism here is not directed to the Hon. Mr Parnell because, frankly, this particular convention is one that has existed between the government and the alternative government. There are other conventions in relation to it in terms of how we constitute the committees: the government and the alternative government negotiate in terms of the numbers, in terms of the chairing of those committees. All those things are longstanding conventions that the government and the alternative government have acknowledged and abided by.

However, for some reason the Leaders of the Opposition in both houses have torn up those conventions and said, 'Stuff it, it doesn't matter. We are now in opposition and if there is a Liberal government there are different rules we're going to abide by, and that's going to be the case.' If that is going to be the case when the vote is taken today, then let it be quite clear that if at some stage in the future a Labor government says, 'Now that we're back in government we want you to abide by these conventions,' it will certainly be my earnest entreaty, if I am still alive, to my younger colleagues to tell the Labor government to 'Stuff it.' If the conventions are going to be torn up by the Labor opposition, the same rules will apply if there is a Labor government at some stage in the future.

I urge members in this chamber to reconsider this particular position for the reasons I have outlined. I certainly urge members, particularly members of the Labor Party, to abide by what has been a worthwhile and longstanding convention that has served us well, in particular in relation to this critical position, which is an oversight of the public integrity bodies in this state. I believe there had been some views shared by members of the Labor Party and the opposition in relation to reform of the integrity bodies in South Australia, but who knows what the position of the Australian Labor Party is in relation to these particular issues from this day forward.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (15:39): I move to amend the motion as follows:

Leave out the words 'the Hon. D.W. Ridgway' and insert the words 'the Hon. F. Pangallo'.

I will speak to this amendment. The Treasurer speaks of longstanding conventions. Quite frankly, we will not take that from that man. I will briefly go through the litany of offences committed by the Treasurer's party in the last two years against what he says are longstanding conventions.

I will start with perhaps the most fundamental convention we have in the operation of not just this parliament but Westminster parliaments around the world and that is the operation of pairs, which allows good governments to function, allows oppositions to function and allows the democratic will of the people to be reflected in the parliament when a member, for good reason, cannot be in the chamber.

There is nothing more fundamental to how we work and how the public expect us to work than the trust that is built with the operation of pairs. Well, the Treasurer's party said 'stuff it' to the longstanding operation and the longstanding convention of pairs. In the lower house, on a critical vote—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: —they said 'stuff it'. In the Treasurer's words, they said 'stuff it' on pairs. They did not abide by the longstanding convention on pairs. They deliberately and sneakily hid one of their own, who was not supposed to vote, and then brought them into the chamber on a vote. There has been no bigger breach of trust and faith in the South Australian parliament than the sneaky, devious way the Treasurer's party broke the convention on pairs earlier in this term of parliament.

Then, after the apology, after the Treasurer's party had to come grovelling into parliament and apologise for their huge breach of trust on pairs—I think it was the very day—they refused leave and pairs were off again in the lower house. Fortunately, that was not visited upon us here, but I will not have the Treasurer lecture and I will not have the Treasurer tell us that we are breaking convention when they have broken the most fundamental convention there is for the operation of parliament. We will not be lectured by this man about how parliament operates. They have made the most fundamental breaches of trust we have seen in this parliament in living memory, and even in the Treasurer's living memory.

Let's go back and have a look at when it is convenient to do things that the Treasurer would have said, if it were the other way around, were huge and the most fundamental breaches of convention ever. We remember when we were debating in this last parliament the tax on banks that was introduced as part of budget measures. The now Treasurer thought at the time it was politically expedient to break a convention by doing what he did then. At the time, he thought it was great politics.

Today, the Treasurer is talking about the opposition—myself and the opposition leader in the other chamber—breaking with convention when he personally has great form for this in this chamber. As I have said, the most fundamental breach of convention we have seen in living memory has occurred under his government with pairs in the lower house.

We will go further and talk about things people have regarded as longstanding ways of operation in this chamber. When there have been joint committees administered by this chamber, the very longstanding operation had been that the mover of the committee chaired the committee. This party decided not to do that earlier in this term of government. They said 'Stuff it, we don't believe in that. We'll put up a government member to chair a select committee.' That is something the Treasurer just moments ago claimed never happens. Well, that is what his party did.

Let's have another look at what has been said are conventions: the mover in this place of a select committee has first right of refusal to chair that committee. Very recently, with the COVID-19 committee, the Hon. Stephen Wade decided to get involved and put someone else up as chair of that committee. It is coming home to roost now when they break pairs. The Hon. Stephen Wade thinks he has sneaky little political tactics that will do well. There were discussions between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party when the Hon. Stephen Wade thought he was being very clever with that, things like the voting for President. There was no agreement that the government-endorsed representative would be the President, and we saw that play out, sir, and you are now the President.

The Liberal Party had been on notice for breaches—what they have done—the breaking of pairs and the rolling of chairs of select committees, which the Treasurer uses as a defence that it has never been done. We will not be lectured to by that man. We will be supporting the Hon. Frank Pangallo as the Chair of this committee.

Mr President, because I do not have the benefit of Hansard, I wonder if I might ask that you read out the statement you read about the Liberal's proposed chair and an investigation by ICAC so that we can understand again—

An honourable member: Why didn't you listen?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have the Hansard. We are being asked to vote for the Hon. David Ridgway as the chair of a committee that has oversight of a body that was referred to in a statement that you made earlier, Mr President. If I could ask for your indulgence to read that statement out again so that before members vote, they can understand what is going on with one of the candidates for this position.

The PRESIDENT: It is not my inclination to read that statement out again. I read it out less than an hour and a half ago. I think it was fairly evident what was in that statement so I do not intend to read it out again. Are there any other speakers?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:46): I am not rising to amend the motion, I am rising to support the amendment to support the Hon. Frank Pangallo. I did not intend to speak, but I have been so moved by the Treasurer's speech that I feel compelled to address some of the issues he has raised. I am sorry that he finds it disappointing that democracy was exercised in this place two years ago. As the person who broke convention and put themselves forward to chair a committee, I deeply apologise if I somehow brought democracy into this place. I would have thought that it would have found a home here.

I find it extraordinary to be told that some 10 to 20 years of an agreement between Labor and Liberal parties in this place is somehow a convention not to be breached. This is a place of democracy and the government has not held the numbers in this council for well over that 10 to 20 years. The people of South Australia have not given the government the final say on any of the matters that are voted on in this place for that period of time, and it is democracy that I will listen to.

I am also utterly bemused that the Treasurer decided to impugn the behaviour of the Hon. Frank Pangallo in his beseech to crossbench members and the Labor opposition to perhaps change our indicated support by reflecting upon his behaviour in a committee. I imagine that the Chair would have been beholden to address that behaviour if it was inappropriate at the time, and for us to actually have not just conventions about standards in committees but the right for witnesses to be treated fairly and processes in place—not conventions, not unwritten rules but actually written rules given to witnesses before they present evidence so they can take recourse when there is ill-treatment of them.

I note that so many times the Labor Party and the Liberal Party have colluded and rushed through bits of legislation in this place, contrary to the convention that was raised in some sort of lecture to my colleague, the Hon. Mark Parnell, in the last 20 minutes. Most notably, I think the first experience I had of this was when the media was in a budget lock-up, and the Labor and Liberal parties suspended standing orders to raise their own pays. We opposed that, but the opposition at the time seemed very happy to support the government of the day to push that through in a few hours, completely unannounced prior to that, for their own personal benefit. To me, that would have seemed to break not only convention but the standards of decency.

Many times I have sat here on the crossbench as Labor and Liberal have rushed through pieces of legislation that have been controversial, when they wished to be shielded from the proper processes of democracy by ripping off the bandaid.

I will not be lectured to by the Treasurer either today. I note that the Treasurer also indicated his concern that perhaps, as the Chair, Mr Pangallo might not be able to be trusted with both a deliberative and a casting vote. I point out to the Treasurer the numbers on this committee will always have a majority of government and opposition members. The Chair, in and of himself, will not be able to influence a decision where, as usual, Labor and Liberal agree, as they more often than not do.

I find it quite extraordinary that the debate on this matter was made quite personal by the Treasurer, somebody to whom, each year now that he is the Treasurer, we give leave to attend the other place because he is in the upper house, which is actually not in keeping with convention or the tradition of a parliament. I put him on notice that, again, another convention of Westminster government is that the upper house participates in budget estimates. We give leave for ministers to participate in budget estimates because we do not. There are many conventions in this place that deserve an overhaul. I look forward to the Hon. Frank Pangallo getting the support of this council, I hope, in the next few minutes to assist that process to progress.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (15:51): I would like to thank the honourable Leader of the Opposition for the nomination. I will accept the nomination and I thank him for his words. I also thank the Hon. Tammy Franks for her address in relation to this matter.

The definition of 'convention' is a general agreement or consent. It is not a formal, legislated undertaking that this place must adhere to old, cosy, accepted practices just because it suited the two major parties over history. I welcome the refreshing change of attitude by the Labor Party, particularly in this matter.

Parliament undertakes democratic reforms as part of its functions. As far as I am concerned, this is no different. I do not think this position should be exempted in this way in this parliament. I really cannot see any logical reason why a crossbencher, an Independent, cannot act as a presiding member of a standing committee. It is really no different than the role of a presiding member on a select committee.

I also believe it would be appropriate that a member of a committee reporting on crime and public integrity who is subject to an integrity investigation should perhaps stand aside until that inquiry is completed. We had that with the member in the other place, Mr Fraser Ellis, who decided that it was in the best interests of the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee that he stand aside pending that investigation. Now we learn that ICAC has also raised an issue with the Hon. David Ridgway. My comments are in no way a reflection on the Hon. David Ridgway. I have a great deal of respect for him, as I do for all members in this chamber.

I want to move to the references made by the Treasurer in reading the Hansard transcripts of the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee, having a crack at my line of questioning in that committee. He is perhaps referencing my line of questioning to the previous ICAC commissioner and also the police commissioner about some very important matters that actually involve the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee.

The Treasurer mentioned the issue of police officers at Sturt's Operation Mantle, which was the subject of one of the most expensive investigations perhaps in ICAC's history and which ended up being totally bungled: millions of dollars of taxpayers' money were wasted. The reputations of eight good police men and women were destroyed, and I really find it objectionable that the Treasurer would think that I should not stand up and ask some questions about the conduct of that type of investigation to that committee. It is ridiculous for him to suggest that I was out of order in trying to get some answers.

I think this is the issue that perhaps parliament and this committee will need to address with ICAC, because before the country allowances issue even blew up many matters relating to the conduct of that integrity body have been brought to my attention—quite serious matters. I will not go into them here, but let me say that one of the things parliament overlooked in the ICAC Act is appropriate oversight of that integrity body, and that is something I am quite passionate about and something I will be working for, if not on that committee then elsewhere, and it is my intention that perhaps there be even a select committee of inquiry into the conduct of that agency and other anticorruption agencies. It is vital that we do that, but that is for another time.

I wanted to make clear that I found the comments by the Treasurer absolutely objectionable, that somebody would have the temerity to ask some hard questions to the previous ICAC commissioner and the police commissioner about the conduct of an investigation that involved millions of dollars of wasted taxpayers' money.

It is important that an independent eye is on a committee such as the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee. I have worked closely with all members in the two years I have been on it. I pay tribute to the outgoing presiding member, the Hon. Dennis Hood. We have had a very good working relationship with Mr Hood and I was sorry to see Mr Hood go because of the fine work he has put into that committee.

However, it is time that this parliament and this chamber appreciated the fact that there are actually other elected members of parliament who could also contribute to the conduct of committees. I think that I could do a good job on that committee because I have an extreme passionate interest in it, I have worked hard on it and I will continue to work hard on it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (15:58): I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate. Let me address a number of issues. The Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. Ms Franks complain about being lectured to by 'that man', and about personal abuse. To quote a very famous phrase from a very famous film: frankly, I don't given a damn about the views of the Hon. Ms Franks and the Hon. Mr Maher. It is about time they toughened up.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If they object to being lectured to or, in their view, be characterised by personal abuse—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! This debate has been heard largely in silence and I would like that to continue.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Then I think it is time to toughen up, because this is a place for free and frank exchange and if you cannot take the criticism then too bad in relation to these debates. In relation to the position of the Hon. Mr Pangallo—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Conversations are out of order. I am listening to the Treasurer.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —as I indicated in my contribution, I will defend to the end the entitlement of the Hon. Mr Pangallo to prosecute whatever views he wishes to prosecute. Equally, I am entitled to express a view where I differ with him. It is not outrageous for me to express a view which is different to his; I hold it genuinely. I do not believe in the approach that he adopted.

He has highlighted again—and I think he has already flagged this on a previous occasion—that he is looking to, in essence, reprosecute certain cases of investigation by integrity bodies through a separate select committee. I think he has discussed this previously, and he has highlighted again that he is still contemplating a separate select committee to reprosecute various cases that integrity bodies might have investigated in the past.

That will be an interesting development if the Labor Party and the Hon. Mr Pangallo go down that path, either through a separate select committee or with their numbers, potentially now, through this particular committee because the Labor Party and the Hon. Mr Pangallo will be in a position to be able to reprosecute, reinvestigate, various issues in whatever fashion they so choose with the numbers they now have on this committee.

The Hon. Mr Pangallo has made it clear what his intentions are; he confirmed them again today in his contribution in the chamber. He previously placed on the public record what he would like to do and what he intends to do, and now, with the support of the Australian Labor Party and potentially others, is in a position to follow those intentions through to fruition.

Can I also say, on behalf of my colleague the Hon. Mr Ridgway, that I reject completely the smear that the Hon. Mr Pangallo placed across the Hon. Mr Ridgway by saying 'a member who was subject to an inquiry by ICAC' and similar words in his contribution. Mr President, the letter, which was only read to this particular chamber, as you indicated, an hour and a half or so ago, made it quite clear that somebody else has made a complaint to the ICAC. I am not sure whether we are aware of who exactly made that complaint, but anyway it was made.

The ICAC commissioner—both former, and the letter you read was from the current one, Mr President—has in essence said, by inference, that this is not an issue for them to resolve; it is an issue for the parliament, if it is to be resolved by anybody in terms of where this might go. To indicate that my colleague the Hon. Mr Ridgway is somehow unsuited for this particular office because he is the subject of an ongoing inquiry by the ICAC is a disgraceful slur and a smear on my colleague, and I will defend him in relation to the allegation made by the Hon. Mr Pangallo. I would hope that he might check the Hansard record and perhaps on reflection correct the public record at his earliest convenience.

In concluding, as the Hon. Ms Franks indicated in relation to various committees in terms of who managed them in the upper house, one of the committees that I sat on for many of the 16 years when we were in opposition was the Statutory Authorities Review Committee. Opposition members, or non-government members, had a majority on that committee for 16 years.

There were two Liberals and one Independent member. At any stage, we could have taken the position of president of that committee. There were only two government members on that committee, but we chose not to do that. We allowed one of the two minority government members on that committee to chair it for most of the 16 years; I think was established soon after 2002 or around about then.

In relation to the supposed atrocities of which I am meant to be guilty, I was waiting for it. In all of my period in this chamber, both in opposition and in government, more often in opposition than in government, we have respected the convention of pairs in this particular chamber.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In this chamber we have, and it is an absolute nonsense—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order, the honourable Leader of the Opposition!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —for the Leader of the Opposition to seek to claim—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition know well they should not be pointing at each other or in any form.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Leader of the Opposition knows that in the past—

The PRESIDENT: No pointing.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: There is nothing in the standing orders that prevents me from pointing in this direction; I am not pointing at any individual member. The Leader of the Opposition knows that in this particular chamber we have abided by the conventions of pairing—not just for Labor members, whether they be in government or opposition—but even as of today some members of the crossbench have been away for understandably extended periods, or for occasional periods, and we have in this chamber abided by those particular principles.

The Hon. C.M. Scriven interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Scriven!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The inference from the honourable Leader of the Opposition that in some way as Leader of the Government in this chamber—indeed, when I was Leader of the Opposition, or another member of this chamber—I was complicit in breaching those longstanding conventions in this particular chamber is an absolute nonsense. The Leader of the Opposition knows it is a nonsense. It has no basis in fact at all in terms of the chamber.

In terms of select committees in this particular chamber—select committees of the Legislative Council—we have respected that convention in relation to non-government members if they so choose to chair those particular committees.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The joint select committees require an agreement between the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council and we, the members of the Legislative Council, do not control those particular issues in and of ourselves. We are part of the joint party room.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: But in relation to the Legislative Council, in relation to the many select committees over many years that have been established in this Legislative Council, we have abided by the principle when opposition, or indeed when in government, that non-government members, if they have so chosen, have chaired the particular select committees in the Legislative Council. So the nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition—

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order: I seek leave to make a personal explanation just to—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That is not a point of order.

The PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order. I think you can—

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Alright, I go back to the point of order. The Treasurer is currently saying that the government members have not supported another member for a select committee in stark contrast to the truth, because they supported me—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: What standing order?

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: —for the Hon. Kyam Maher's recent COVID select committee.

The PRESIDENT: I will listen to the Hon. Tammy Franks conclude her point of order.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I point out that the government members supported myself instead of the Hon. Kyam Maher.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: No. The honourable Leader of the Opposition knows better than that. It is a bit hard to actually hear what the Hon. Tammy Franks has said. I take the point that she has contention with what the Treasurer has said.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Indeed.

The PRESIDENT: The Treasurer wants to take a point on the point of order. I think we have covered the issues involved in this matter, which is an important matter, at some length, and I think it is time that we got to the point of determining it. But I will allow the Treasurer to make a point on the point of order, or he could conclude his remarks.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr President, I will take up your invitation to make a point on the point of order. It is not a point of order in my view. She has not quoted a standing order. If the member wants to make this a personal explanation, there is a process for doing so—not in the middle of a particular debate—and that was not the contention she was making.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: What is the point of order?

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It is not a point of order. I am contesting it.

The PRESIDENT: I am not going to rule that there is a point of order. What I am going to say is that the honourable member can, at the conclusion of this debate, seek leave to make a personal explanation. The honourable Treasurer to conclude the debate.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: To conclude the debate: as I said, we reject in their entirety the false accusations made by the Leader of the Opposition in a feeble attempt to defend the indefensible. The Leader of the Opposition knows that for him to seek to justify occurrences in this place on the basis of occurrences that have occurred in another place has no basis in fact.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: For those reasons, I make it quite clear, as I said, that should in the end this motion go the way that members of the Labor Party have indicated, then all bets are off if at some unfortunate stage in the future there is ever a Labor government in this place again.

The council divided on the amendment:

Ayes 11

Noes 8

Majority 3

AYES
Bourke, E.S. Franks, T.A. Hanson, J.E.
Hunter, I.K. Maher, K.J. (teller) Ngo, T.T.
Pangallo, F. Parnell, M.C. Pnevmatikos, I.
Scriven, C.M. Wortley, R.P.
NOES
Centofanti, N.J. Darley, J.A. Hood, D.G.E.
Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I. (teller) Ridgway, D.W.
Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G.
PAIRS
Bonaros, C. Lee, J.S.

Amendment thus carried; motion as amended carried.

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