ECONOMIC AND FINANCE COMMITTEE: ANNUAL REPORT

The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT (Lee) (11:06): I move:

That the 73^rd report of the committee, entitled Annual Report 2009-10, be noted.

I present to the house the 73^rd report of the Economic and Finance Committee. Madam Speaker, 2009-10 was a year of transition for the Economic and Finance Committee, covering as it did a state election and a change in membership. The presence of new members on the committee in 2011 demonstrates this process of renewal is ongoing. Nevertheless, 2009-10 saw the committee undertake a full range of oversight obligations and conduct inquiries into activities and issues that play a significant role in the local and national economy.

In terms of membership, following the 2010 state election, the sixth Economic and Finance Committee was appointed following the opening of the 52^nd parliament in May 2010. Of the seven members appointed to the committee, the member for Newland was appointed presiding member at the first meeting. With regard to its oversight function, the committee considered the emergency services levy proposal for 2010-11, the application of grants under the sport and recreation fund, and passenger service tenders in the Gawler and Angle Vale areas. Consistent with its obligations under the Health and Community Services Complaints Act, the committee also discussed the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner's budget for 2010-11. During this period, the committee completed inquiries into warranty protections for farmers and renewable energy.

In December 2009, the committee tabled its 70^th report, Consumer Protection for Farmers: Reaping a Fair Harvest. The inquiry was initiated on a self-referral in September 2009. The terms of reference instructed the committee to inquire into the efficacy of current warranty and related laws to ensure they provided farmers with appropriate product protection and means to effectively address any grievances. The committee received 37 written submissions and saw 10 witnesses over three hearings in preparing its report, which was tabled on 3 December 2009.

The committee took evidence from government agencies concerned with consumer protection and workplace safety, the South Australian Farmers Federation and individual farmers. In addition, the committee received submissions from manufacturers and dealers, as well as a number of individual farmers, many from interstate. Some of the individual stories were harrowing and underlined the substantial financial and personal risk borne by many on the land, the narrow margins between viability and failure, and the devastating consequences of not being able to rely on the purported warranties and protections attached to these critical and often extremely expensive machines. At the end of this report, the committee made five recommendations, as follows:

1. the creation of a mediation scheme for disputes in the agricultural sector;

2. that this scheme be voluntary;

3. extending current state-based consumer protection to farm machinery;

4. creating a code of practice under new national consumer protection legislation for farm machinery, which would apply to purchasers, dealers and manufacturers; and

5. improving regulations surrounding the safety and resale of farm machinery.

Ministerial responses to the report indicate support for a South Australian Farmers Federation voluntary mediation scheme and the inclusion of these recommendations regarding extending consumer protection and enhancing resale safety regulations to the relevant national ministerial bodies working towards national consumer and workplace laws.

The committee also tabled its interim report on renewable energy (report No. 71) in December 2009. The terms of reference instructed the committee to inquire into barriers to investment and regulatory impediments to the positioning of South Australia as a leader in renewable energy.

The committee took evidence from South Australian government agencies directly involved in supporting the development of renewable energy projects in South Australia and received written submissions from industry. The committee received submissions from a variety of renewable energy operators—wind, geothermal, biofuel and landfill gas, among others—in which issues such as infrastructure building and capacity, regulation and the kinds of investment required to make various power sources viable were raised.

The first report of the current committee, Emergency Services Levy 2010-11, was tabled in 2010. The committee noted the total expenditure on emergency services for 2010-11 was projected to be $218.1 million. The committee noted total expenditure for 2009-10 was expected to exceed the original estimates and was estimated to reach $225.5 million. There were to be no increases in levy rates either for owners of fixed property or for owners of motor vehicles and vessels in 2010-11.

Throughout the changes in membership over the reporting period, the committee enjoyed the support of the executive officer, Dr Paul Lobban, and the committee's administrative officer, Mr Shannon Riggs. On behalf of all of the members, I thank them both for their efforts. I commend the report to the house.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (11:13): I, too, am pleased to speak to the motion brought to the house by the Presiding Member of the Economic and Finance Committee, the member for Lee, in relation to noting the annual report for 2009-10 of the committee.

Having been a member of the Economic and Finance Committee for a number of years, I think I am perhaps the only member on this side of the house who has been a member of the committee consistently throughout that reporting period, the 2009-10 year, because we had some members on this side of the house move in and out of the committee during that time.

As the presiding member outlined in his motion, the committee deliberated over a number of issues, and the member opposite has outlined those, including looking at some consumer protection for farmers in relation to warranties and the like on machinery—that was a self-referral. We had a number of witnesses appear before the committee to provide evidence on, I guess, the anomalies and the shortcomings of the existing system, and I certainly note the recommendations that were made in the report.

We also investigated the 71^stReport—Renewable Energy: Release of Evidence. It is my understanding that a final report has not been tabled in relation to that investigation; however, an interim report which summarises the evidence taken to that point has been produced and all the submissions have been publicly released. No recommendations were included in that interim report, as the inquiry remained ongoing. I will just quote from the report:

The committee took evidence from South Australian government agencies directly involved in supporting the development of renewable energy projects in South Australia and received written submissions from the industry. The committee received submissions from a variety of renewable energy operators—wind, geothermal, biofuel and landfill gas among others—in which issues such as infrastructure building and capacity, regulation and the kinds of investment required to make various power sources viable were raised.

It is interesting to note that, in terms of renewable energy and energy sources in general, we have had the debate concerning nuclear energy reignited by members opposite. Particularly, two prominent front bench members of the government have come out publicly obviously supporting further investigations into establishing a nuclear energy industry here in Australia.

Mr Pengilly: Two to the right or the left?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Indeed. There is certain speculation within the political sphere, if you like, on the reasons for that, and I think some of that was articulated very well by the deputy leader, the member for MacKillop, in his speech to the house yesterday. There are clear divisions within government ranks on the debate concerning nuclear energy and nuclear fuel. We saw that in question time yesterday, where a number of questions were put to a number of ministers. It is abundantly clear that they are divided on the issue. The Premier does not want to have anything to do with it; he does not want to talk about it, but the Minister for Mineral Resources Development and the Minister for Defence Industries certainly do want to talk about it. It is my understanding that the left of the party does not want to go anywhere near the debate. So, it is a further example of the divisions within the government ranks.

The emergency services levy report comes to the committee for its perusal and report, and it was noted that the total expenditure for the 2009-10 year was expected to exceed the original estimates. It was estimated to reach $225.5 million. Also, the committee noted that the cash balance in the Community Emergency Services Fund was expected to reach $1.5 million by the end of the financial year 30 June, but there were no increases in levy rates for either owners of fixed property or owners of motor vehicles and vessels in the 2010-11 year. There has been some discussion out in the community, given that some parts of our emergency services are looking for an increase in their budgets. Perhaps the gross amount of funds collected through the ESL needs to be increased, but that matter is for further consideration.

The committee also investigated a number of other issues. All in all, I think we had a reasonably successful year; however, I want to make the point that members of the opposition moved a number of motions to investigate certain issues, which were voted down by government members. What we are seeing is that the government is stifling investigations that can be taken by the Economic and Finance Committee. We see a lot of that role being taken by the Budget and Finance Committee in the upper house, because the government obviously does not have a majority in the upper house and does not have control, particularly of what the members in the other place do. I think that is to the detriment of the Economic and Finance Committee.

I know it is not in the reporting year that we are discussing in relation to this report, but the member for Davenport has moved a number of motions wanting the committee to investigate significant public works projects in this state. The member for Waite has also raised issues in relation to the rail yards hospital. That should either come to the Public Works Committee or the Economic and Finance Committee, but we see the government stifle those investigations.

For a government that says they are transparent, accountable, open and not a closed shop, the reality is something different from their rhetoric. We have come to understand how the government actually operates; it is big on rhetoric, but small on action. So I think it is to the detriment of the Economic and Finance Committee that we do not receive support from the government members to look at some of these vitally important major capital works infrastructure projects. Having said that, as I indicated at the outset, I am happy to support the motion brought by the member for Lee.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (11:21): I rise to speak on this matter because I was a member of the committee from 14 July 2009 to 13 May 2010, and had been on the committee for quite a number of years prior to that. I must say to the house that I think this report is an embarrassment, an absolute embarrassment. It is an embarrassment to the committee, it is an embarrassment to the parliament and it is an embarrassment for every one of us who have served on it.

The fact that the minister has had to stand up and point out the highlights of the report, and has had to reveal that the highlights are: a report by the committee into consumer protection for farmers—reaping a fair harvest, and the Sport and Recreation Fund, important though these matters may be for the parliament to inquire into, is a disgrace. The reason it is a disgrace is that this is the public accounts committee of the parliament. This is the economic and finance committee of the parliament. It should be looking into very, very important matters to do with fiscal management, and the budget. That is what it was intended to do it, and that is what it does in every other state, but it does not do it here.

The only time I have seen this committee work as it should was from 1997 to 2002, when I was on it, with the good member for Fisher, and other members still present in chamber. We had a hung parliament and we had a minority government. The opposition was able to use the independent members to ensure that the committee did look into a wide range of matters. Since then, this committee has virtually become nothing more than a pillow full of feathers.

The Hon. R.B. Such: A lame duck.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: It is a complete lame duck. The fact that it is the highest paid committee in the House of Assembly means that there is a long line-up of people wanting to be on this committee ahead of all other committees—to do virtually nothing. That in itself is an embarrassment.

Some years ago I had the benefit of being able to attend at Westminster a CPA seminar, during which the committee system was a major point of inquiry. Yes, it is a much bigger parliament, with well over 600 members, but can I say that the House of Commons values the role of lower house committees. Backbenchers, whether they are in government or opposition, use those committees to make their mark and to represent the parliament, not the government.

I just remind members opposite who have silenced this committee (and I admit that, were we to be in government after March 2014, the same thing may well occur, because it is a temptation for governments of the day) that, by neutering this committee, what you have done is neuter the House of Assembly. You have weakened this house. You have weakened this house to a point where the other place has had to form the Budget and Finance Committee to do the sorts of things that this committee should be doing.

In so doing—and this is the stupidity of this tactic for the government—they have handed over the role of interviewing CEOs of key departments, of delving into budget matters and of exploring controversial fiscal issues to the other place where they do not have control of the numbers in the Budget and Finance Committee and where the opposition and the Independents can roam free and create whatever havoc they want for the government without any reports having been modified by a majority of government members. This is the absolute stupidity of the current government's approach.

Were they to enable the Economic and Finance Committee to do its job, yes, the opposition would be able to create merry hell and, yes, they would be able to cause public scrutiny, but at least in the final reports the government, through having a majority of members, would be able to have some influence on measuring up the outcomes and on adding whatever balance the government feels needs to be added to those outcomes. I think it is madness. I think slowly, bit by bit, the House of Assembly is giving up its role.

We are also seeing this with the increasing trend for bills to be simply rubber stamped through this house in their debate and for amendments to be made in the other place later. Again, this house is, in my view, abrogating its responsibilities and handing them over to the other place. I have great respect and admiration for the good work done in the other place by our colleagues; they do a fantastic job. I bring this to the attention of the house, because bit by bit this house is giving up its role.

I think the next question that will be asked by the media and by the public is, 'Why do we need an Economic and Finance Committee?' Why are these people drawing salaries for attending a committee if all it can look into are the sorts of things that have been mentioned earlier by the member for Wright? It completely fails to do its job, which is to delve into the public accounts.

That leads me to the next point that I would make, and that is that on pages 9 and 10 of the report it refers to the Industry Development Committee. This most important subcommittee of the Economic and Finance Committee is charged by statute with looking into loans the government may be making to private companies. Many of them are interest-free loans and some of them have clawback facilities, etc, but this government has been completely abrogating its responsibility to refer matters to that committee.

I note that on page 10 it says, 'There were no research resources required by the committee during this period,' but it also says, 'During the reporting period the Industry Development Committee did not meet.' It did not meet. For this entire period the Industry Development Committee has not met, and yet the government has dished out millions of dollars worth of loans and grants to private companies, most of it in secret, from a basket of funds. Some of that money may have been lost to the taxpayer, and it is all being kept secret.

I have raised this publicly and I have raised it with the minister. I have written to the minister. I have written to the Auditor-General. The minister claims to have legal advice to say that he does not need to put those grants through the Industry Development Committee but, just like the legal advice they have, supposedly justifying that the hospital does not have to come through the Public Works Committee, his legal advice is secret. It is secret; we have not seen it. As Mike Rann, the Premier, said to this house when he was Leader of the Opposition, all the crown law officers are are the government's lawyers. They are not judges; they are not courts. Sure, you might have a legal opinion; let it be tested.

I see the Attorney is here, and I ask him to participate in this debate in cabinet. Let it be tested. If the government is going to come in here and say they have legal advice that tells them they do not have to comply with statutes, do the decent thing and at least put that legal advice on the table, because, I tell you what: we can then take it and get an independent legal opinion and see if it stacks up. It paints a picture of a government that is a secret government that is dispensing the taxpayers' money—possibly irresponsibly—and does not want to be held to account.

So, this committee should have been looking into tax reform, and it should have been looking into levies and charges far more thoroughly. It should have been examining the public accounts, and it should have been calling CEOs forward to justify their spending and their savings measures. It should be monitoring things like Shared Services and other programs the government is running, and it should be advising the parliament—not the government but the parliament—on what is going on.

The reason that these committees were formed—most of them in the aftermath of the State Bank—was to ensure that the disasters we saw in the late nineties never happened again. The idea was that members of parliament, acting responsibly regardless of party government or opposition, would hold the executive to account. The committee system is failing. It is failing, and it has failed for nine years in this house because the current government is telling its members on those committees to toe the minister's line, to toe the government's line.

We have two responsibilities in this place: we have one to our party, but we have a far more important responsibility and that is to the people of South Australia and to this parliament. We are MPs first, we are members of a party second, and we should be looking after the public's money. It is their money not ours and not the government's, and the Economic and Finance Committee should be making sure that the Industry Development Committee is doing its work and that this committee works. Quite apart from the issue that our Westminster system is being dumbed down by this process at the expense of the House of Assembly, I think this report is a disgrace to this government and a disgrace to the parliament.

Time expired.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:31): I have a lot of sympathy for the remarks made by the member for Waite. I think he is on the money in what he is saying. I believe a review of the committee system in this house is long overdue. It has just been allowed to continue on, and it is not delivering for the people of South Australia and it is not delivering for the parliament. As the member for Waite said, we are in here to represent the people of South Australia, but in the committee system—and not just the Economic and Finance Committee—I think there needs to be—

Mrs GERAGHTY: I rise on a point of order: I have been listening quite carefully to what the member is saying, and I do not think that he is actually speaking to the motion we have before us. His remarks seem to be more of those of a grievance debate and more general than speaking to the report, and I ask that he comes back to the report.

An honourable member interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I will listen very carefully to what the member says.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: The member obviously was not listening: I mentioned the Economic and Finance Committee. That is but one committee, but it is part of a bigger problem and, as the member for Waite highlighted, the committee system is not delivering. We are one of the slowest parliaments to reform ourselves, and that includes the committee system. We are so far behind other parliaments that it is embarrassing.

Last week, I was in Queensland and I met with people in the Queensland parliament and went there on several occasions. They have just undertaken a complete review of their committee system. I have not digested all of their report yet, but I urge members to look at what they have done in terms of how they deal with and run their committees.

The government here consistently opposes select committees, unless it sees them as having little political impact for them, and that is why the government supports the grain industry select committee, because it is not going to upset its core focus. But when it comes to other select committees, it opposes them, which means that the only real avenue for inquiry is through the standing committees of this parliament.

They have become toothless tigers, in my view. They are under-resourced, and they are not going to be resourced at the level of the federal parliament, which can produce very significant reports very, very quickly. Our committees are under-resourced, and that comes back to the government providing enough resources for parliament to do its job. We know that in the past there have been moves for parliament to have independent funding, which would help ensure that the committee process was adequately and appropriately funded. Currently, it is not. We have different pay rates for people on committees. Some chairs get chauffeur-driven cars. I can tell you why a car and chauffer is allocated to the Economic and Finance Committee. It is because years ago a member missed out on being a minister and got the booby prize, which was chair of the Economic and Finance Committee.

Now, that is ridiculous and that practice has continued ever since and no government since—Liberal or Labor—has had enough spine to deal with giving the chair of a committee that might meet for an hour a week, if you are lucky (or unlucky), a chauffeur-driven car 24 hours a day seven days a week. You have people out in the community struggling to pay their basic living costs and yet we pamper some people in here by giving them a chauffeur-driven car for chairing a committee, as I say, once a week for an hour, if you are lucky. It may be even less than that.

It is time that the system be reviewed, not just in terms of what the committees do but their remuneration. All those aspects need to be looked at. I have been on committees where some of the members have never attended or rarely, if ever, attended. They still get paid. You try that in any other walk of life, if you do not participate, if you do not turn up for the committee for which you are paid and then still claim that entitlement.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: The other point I would make in relation to the committees is—and the Economic and Finance Committee is in the same category as the others—they are normally looking at what has happened rather than trying to look at what may happen. I have argued for a long time that, following the lead of other countries, we should have a committee that I call a 'foresight committee'. It is not crystal ball gazing, but it is knowing that you are going to have an ageing population, knowing that technology is changing, knowing that you could have natural disasters, and you get in before the critical time and plan and prepare for something like that. What we tend to do is look at what has happened, events of the past, and that, in my view, is not sufficient.

Some of the members opposite obviously suggest that I might not always be in here. That is true: I go out to the electorate because a lot of the time in here is not in the best interests of my constituents. They are the judge of what I do, and not the members sitting opposite. They determine whether or not I get re-elected. I just point out to the members opposite that if they have any concerns about whether I am in here for every minute of the day that we sit, that is a matter for my electorate to judge and, thus far, none of them have raised any concerns about that because if I am not here I am out in the electorate and working for them, and they know it.

I conclude by saying that this report will not change the world, but it is just another example of a process continuing on that is outmoded, needs reform and is not delivering for the people of South Australia.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Premier.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Tourism, Minister for Food Marketing) (11:38): I just wanted to say a few words about this. First of all, I think many of the members who have already spoken have not given appropriate recognition to the good work that the committee has done, and I commend the chair and the other members of the committee for the work they have done.

That work has been useful, and it has been very good work, involving (as, I think, the member for Waite mentioned) areas such as farm machinery and so forth—extremely important areas for the people involved, and these were people who had never previously had a hearing before a parliamentary committee. So, I think it is regrettable that some members do not fully value the work that the committee has done.

The second thing I would like to say is that those opposite are really crying crocodile tears about this because, of course, when they were in government, they had a view that was far less inclusive than that of the present government about the use of committees and, in particular, that one. They have actually created in the other place a committee, which is chaired by the Hon. Mr Lucas, as I understand it, which basically goes about doing exactly what the member for Waite is on about. If the member for Waite is not happy with the way the Hon. Mr Lucas is conducting himself on his committee, I suppose he could have a chat to him about it. I would just—

An honourable member interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I would just like to say, too, that I have had—

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Waite!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have had the privilege of serving on a couple of committees since I have been in this parliament. The Natural Resources Committee, now chaired by my friend the member for Ashford, has worked extremely well over many years, with people of all different political colours on it. At one point there were Democrats, members of the Liberal Party and members of the Labor Party—it is a joint house committee—and, from memory, I think every single report from that committee was a unanimous report. I do not think anyone would suggest that that committee was not interested in exploring issues or taking up matters that came to it—it has always done that. It did so before I was on it and it has continued to do so since I have left.

The Hon. S.W. Key: Even more diverse.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Even more diverse, quite right. It is quite unfair and uninformed, in a way, for people to paint parliamentary committees with a broad brush. Another thing I would like to ask those who are really distressed about the way parliamentary committees are performing is: if your distress is limited to parliamentary committees presently, why don't you get yourself really distressed and have a look at what is going on in this chamber? The contempt with which the opposition is treating this chamber presently is absolutely breathtaking, and I will explain why. I will give you one example which illustrates it extremely well.

On 11 November 2010 the government introduced into this chamber a bill called the Summary Offences (Weapons) Amendment Bill. The second reading debate occurred in this chamber. Guess how many amendments the opposition moved in this chamber? Have a guess. Silence. The answer is zero—not one. A couple of members made a few general remarks about being slightly uncomfortable about things but were not able to particularise them so, as a result, the government in this chamber did not have an opportunity to consider, hear or debate one single amendment from those who sit opposite—not one. Guess what? Yesterday, the opposition in another place had 56 amendments.

So, before you complain too much about parliamentary committees why don't we see a demonstration of good faith by members of the opposition being prepared to do what the member for Fisher does, which is to debate anything as and when it comes on and offer his contribution on that, and put an amendment up if he has one. When you are prepared to treat the House of Assembly as part of the parliament then some of the complaints that the member for Waite and others have made today might have a little bit more credibility, but this is certainly not the way to conduct yourselves.

I know that the member for Bragg is perfectly capable of moving all of these amendments and is perfectly capable of arguing them. For the life of me I cannot understand why the member for Bragg is not given the opportunity to do so. She is a perfectly competent member of this house.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is not as if she is not able to do it. The idea that it all has to be kept away from the member for Bragg and she cannot be allowed to touch it is, I think, very disrespectful to the member for Bragg, quite honestly. Another thing I would like to say—which is a more important matter and I would like to finish on it—is that I understand the honourable member for Adelaide is having a special day today. I would like to say, certainly on my behalf and I am sure on behalf of all of those here, that we hope today is a magnificent day. We are not going to explore the question of how many days like this you have had because that would be ungentlemanly. In any event, congratulations on achieving yet another milestone, and we trust that you will have a splendid day today and that you will be able to use the euphoria of your day to convince your colleagues to start debating matters in this chamber.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order, ma'am. I think it is quite erroneous of the minister to congratulate the member for Adelaide on her birthday and not congratulate the member for Mount Gambier on his yesterday!

The SPEAKER: Yes, I will uphold that point of order.

Motion carried.