CONSTITUTION (NUMBER OF MINISTERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 27 September 2007. Page 940.)

Mr PISONI (Unley) (11:00): The bill before us is about reducing the number of ministers in the government. I refer to the remarks I made previously before the end of private members' time a couple of weeks ago. I support this bill, because the Liberal Party has a philosophy of having a smaller and more efficient government—

Mr Hanna: We should have smaller MPs, too!

Mr PISONI: The member for Mitchell suggests that we have smaller MPs. On our side of the house, as a result of the last election, we have four new MPs who are all more than six feet tall. I am not quite sure how we can deal with that. Perhaps we need a pro-discrimination policy for shorter people at the next election. The member for Mitchell's bill is a sensible one. I believe that the public expects governments to manage their business as efficiently and as effectively as possible.

I refer to my small business experience. When someone is growing a business, they need extra staff, but they do not usually need extra managers. However, with this government, we have seen an increase in managers in the ministry: we have gone from 13 to 15 ministers. One could only think that that may have something to do with the arrangement that the government made with Independent members prior to the last election, for purely political reasons. Each one of these ministers is costing about $2 million a year. They have eight to 10 political staff, who are there purely for the minister's political use, as well as access to public servants in government departments. The Liberal Party has announced a policy that it will have a ministry of only 12, because we believe that governments should be efficient and effective.

One of the striking things that we have seen is a budget that took 170 years to reach $8 billion, yet it took only five years to reach $12 billion after that. The government's reaction to that has been to increase the size of the government, whereas a business that had an increase in revenue of that size in such a short time would have increased its income using other methods and efficiencies in its management and service delivery to achieve that. This government has loosened its belt and fed on the buffet, if you like, of government revenue that has been coming in, and one of its highest priorities has been to increase the number of ministers and the number of jobs, not only for its own members but also for Independent members of the parliament.

I suppose that the increase in the ministry was much easier to manage than the factional deals that are worked out in the back room about which faction gets which ministry. The government was committed to the deal that it made prior to the election and, consequently, it had to make some pretty touch decisions. We know that this government is not good at making tough decisions: it has already backflipped about nine times, I think, this year on some decisions it has made—not necessarily tough decisions; some of them were pretty stupid decisions. It has backflipped on them because it did not have the stomach to go out there and publicly argue for them—just like it could not control its factions to keep its ministry at 13 so that it could cater for the Independent members, because deals had already been done with the different factions for the different ministries.

This goes back to the entire set-up of the Labor Party's structure and system—the Amway system of party politics where, the more you have at the bottom, the more votes you control at the national convention and the better chance you have of getting preselection in a safe Labor seat. Just because someone has preselection in a safe Labor seat does not mean that they need to live in that seat or be out there visiting on a regular basis. We certainly see plenty of examples of that on the Labor Party side of the house. I support this bill. I think it is a good, commonsense bill. It is a good bill for the people of South Australia, because they want efficient and effective government. If 12 or 13 people can do the job, why do you need 15 people? The only reason this government needs 15 people is to placate its factions and the Independent members of parliament it has done deals with.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (11:07): This proposal to cut the number of ministers has been dealt with quite comprehensively by the speakers to the debate. I will recapitulate some of the reasons for bringing this in and this will deal with some of the points that have been raised during the debate. First, some of the ministries which have been created under the Rann Labor government have been gimmicky, having particular ministries for topics which become the flavour of the day, whether it be road safety or mental health. Those issues are important and quite crucial to the wellbeing of South Australians—no question about that. There is no reason why road safety cannot be dealt with within the transport portfolio, just as there is no reason why mental health cannot be dealt with within the health portfolio.

Secondly, there is a considerable cost saving of millions of dollars a year by cutting the number of departments and ministers. Thirdly, it is a really important feature of our democracy that the parliament is in some balance with the executive and, if you have a ministry of 15 or larger in our relatively small parliament of a total of 69 members of whom up to half at any one time are likely to be of one particular party, it is almost impossible for members of parliament other than those in the executive to challenge what the executive decides to do.

When you include other paid positions—and, while I will not say hangers on, I do refer to people paid for example as Deputy Speaker, Parliamentary Secretary, Government Whip and so on—you have other people with a vested interest in maintaining the interests and decisions of the executive, so it makes it very hard to challenge the decisions of the executive. Very often, the decisions of the executive are driven by three or four key players. To me, as a democrat, it is disturbing to think that the South Australian parliament is really run by three or four people. Fourthly, there is a question of—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr HANNA: —the talent pool available. I am suggesting something closer to a cricket team, and I think we probably do have enough talent to fill a cricket team with ministers. Some would say we only have the talent to fill a basketball team, but I do not think we have the talent to fill a rugby union team. You are not going to get 15 top players on the field in our parliament of 69.

The points I have made cover those which have been raised during the debate. I am pleased to have the support of the Liberal opposition and I will be pleased to see this proposal tested.

Second reading negatived.