Thursday, 23 March 2023

Integrity and Oversight Committee

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (09:43): Today we have seen again this government deny the opportunity for the community to have the access that it is entitled to in full, in clear, by the tabling of a document in the chamber – the extraordinary revelations in the IBAC letter, the letter from Robert Redlich, in the last period of his time as Commissioner. I want to put on record that I think he by and large did an extremely good job. The truth of the matter is that the Integrity and Oversight Committee has not covered itself in glory. The truth of the matter is that committee has blocked access through the cutting of the feed. The committee has not allowed Mr Redlich to say many of the things that he ought to have been able to say. I have confidence that Mr Redlich knows the law. He is actually an eminent jurist, as we well know – all of us in this chamber – and could carefully and properly step through the challenges of dealing with live investigations and could deal with the challenges of making commentary at a parliamentary committee. It is extraordinary that the members of that committee were not able to hear all that they needed to hear from him and nor could the community hear all that they needed to hear. The IBAC letter dated 15 December should be in the public domain in a proper and formal way. I think it is extraordinary that the Minister for Water has tried to deny that.

Harriet Shing: On a point of order, President, Mr Davis has yet again reflected on a member of this chamber. Further to your ruling seeking that he withdraw his previous statements, I would ask that he withdraw the last sentence of his members statement.

The PRESIDENT: Mr Davis, a sitting member has taken offence at something you have directed at her. Can you please withdraw.

David DAVIS: On a point of order, President, we seem to be setting a new standard here –

Members interjecting.

David DAVIS: I am just seeking some assistance on the ruling. We seem to be setting a new standard where any offence taken by a member – it needs to be objectively offensive, it needs to be clearly offensive. What I said was in no way objectively offensive, and if the member takes it so, that is just extraordinary.

The PRESIDENT: Mr Davis, it is not up to you to determine whether the member has taken offence. It is up to the member it was directed at who has taken offence. There are rulings that if a member has taken a point of order and asked a member to withdraw because they felt what was directed was offensive, the member that has made the statement or called the person a word or made an accusation needs to withdraw. I would ask you to withdraw, please.

David DAVIS: I withdraw.

On a point of order, President, I think we need to think carefully about this in the longer haul, and I would ask you to talk to the clerks at some length about this, because it cannot be that a member who has the slightest offence –

A member interjected.

David DAVIS: No, no, I am deadly serious about this. It cannot be that the distribution of Minties in the chamber offends someone and they must –

Harriet Shing: I didn’t do it.

David DAVIS: Well, whoever did. I am just saying that the most trivial thing could cause someone the most minor of offence. There is a threshold on this, and it is about objective offence.

The PRESIDENT: In response to your point of order, Mr Davis, I think a lot of things can be explored in the Procedure Committee, but I am going on previous rulings that this has been the standard that has been set before. But I am happy to have conversations, and as always I am not going to pretend that I am the fount of all knowledge of the standing orders or the procedures or previous rulings. I am always open to commentary, emails and discussion at any time when someone thinks that my ruling might not be completely on point.