PARLIAMENTARY REFORM

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna) (15:32): In my last ever grievance in this place I wish to raise three issues about potential reform of the workings of this parliament that the next parliament might like to consider. They are in the areas of the way question time works, the way the conscience vote system works in this place and, finally, how our Legislative Council works. Firstly, in relation to question time, I think it is clear to all members that question time is a fiction.

In theory it is supposed to be an opportunity for members without political colour to ask questions of ministers and for answers without political colour to be given. In practice, of course, it is the exact opposite to that. It is the place in the parliament—the fulcrum—of debate in the parliament, yet we maintain the fiction that this is a session which is not about debate.

Earlier this year, I attended the Prime Minister's question time in London, and I saw the way their question time works. From whatever background, I am not sure, they now have debate during question time. What I observed was the Leader of the Opposition asking a question of the Prime Minister with debate, with political matter attached to it.

The Prime Minister answered with debate, with political matter, and then the leader of the opposition was able to respond to that and then ask another question. The Prime Minister answered, and so it went on backwards and forwards in a reasonably controlled way so that debate was allowed. What we try to do is suppress debate during question time, and I think that is one of the things that leads to the hostility and tension in the place. If we allowed debate to come to the surface, I think we would manage question time in a much better way.

There are plenty of opportunities for members of parliament to get answers to questions; questions in the Notice Paper is one, estimates, FOIs. So they do not need question time because it is not used, really, for getting answers to questions; that is not the purpose from the opposition's point of view. What they are really trying to do is make political points, and the government is doing the same; so I think it would be sensible get rid of the fiction and allow that to occur.

The second matter I wanted to talk about is the issue of conscience votes. In the 16 years that I have been a member of this place, I do not think a single conscience issue of any substance has got up. There have been a couple of minor issues, but the more substantial issues around prostitution law reform, euthanasia and so on have not been able to get up. They have not even got to a place where they could be properly debated.

My observation of it is that it is because it is left completely in the hands of individuals. Because it is a conscience matter, governments and major parties do not take them on. It is unreasonable to expect an individual—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: You get up and have a talk if you like, Vickie. The structure of the place is such that it is impossible, I think, for a conscience matter to be properly thought through. The individual member does not have the background, the skills or the departmental advice to help work out a proper policy. My suggestion to the parliament would be that in the first six months of any new parliament, all the members who have conscience issues should bring them forward. Some government time should be set aside and there should be restricted debate to decide whether or not the parliament wants to deal with the principle. Should there or should there not be reform in the area of X, Y or Z?

If the parliament agrees there should be reform, then set up a select committee of those members who are interested in the reform, go away and do the proper work, with some support, and then come back and have a proper debate over a bill which has been worked out through a sensible process. I think that would lead to resolution of the issues, rather than this ongoing, perpetual bringing forward of the same kind of issues year after year. I think if it were done that way we would be able to advance these issues in a much more thoughtful way, rather than the ad hoc ways that we have at the moment.

The third issue that I wanted to talk about briefly is the reform of the upper house. I know there are reform proposals before the house, which I will not comment on, and I don't not support them, but it seems to me there is another way of reforming the upper house which I think would be beneficial to our community and that would be to reduce its power so it cannot block legislation. It would have powers similar to those of the House of Lords, but more people would be allowed to become members of the upper house. I would have all 22 members elected at the one time, so the quota would be very small, so you would get a broad diversity of opinion being elected to the place.

In fact, I would go one further and double the size of the Legislative Council and not pay them on a full-time basis but, as the House of Lords does, pay them on a sitting fee basis. Ministers could still be chosen from the upper house, but they would be a broad community group, so that we could have a large focus group in our upper house which could properly consider all the measures that come up from this place without having the ability to block them. I think that reform would make a lot of sense.