Constitution (Deadlocks) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 10 February 2016.)

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (16:57): Without wishing to reflect on the presence of any members in this house—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Which you wouldn't do.

Mr KNOLL: No, I wouldn't, but I might say some not nice things, whether or not some might want to hear them. The intent of these deadlock provisions that are sought to be amended in the constitution bill before us today mirrors, I think, what happened in the Constitution (Appropriation and Supply) Amendment bill that we have also been discussing. I think the intent is the same, and I will not again go over Lord Acton's sage words. I certainly will not again go over the similarities of the Attorney-General to Pope Pius IX, except to say that this is exactly what we are seeking to do here.

It is the intention and prerogative of, and also necessary for, the Legislative Council to review legislation. We say all the time to children who participate in team sport that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, that is, the idea that working together as a team can produce a better result. Somehow the idea that pieces of legislation put forward by single ministers are perfect and without fault and should be pushed through this parliament and both its chambers without dissent or amendment goes against what we tell every single child as they grow up.

Indeed, if we genuinely believed that we did not need an effective and operative second chamber, why do we have a parliamentary democracy at all? Why do we not, indeed, just go for a benevolent dictatorship? Sometimes I think that might not be a bad idea. I think that Tom Playford did a pretty reasonable gig for a lot of years, and he is certainly remembered as a benevolent despot; but, unfortunately, South Australia only gets one Tom Playford and, in the absence of him and the greatness with which he managed our state, a Legislative Council that is effective and has the ability to review and change is extremely important.

It has been suggested that the deadlock provisions that exist here to create, essentially, a double dissolution trigger will mirror what happens in the federal parliament. The difference between the South Australian parliament and the federal parliament is that our conventions are very different. The convention in South Australia is that we do not block, as a matter of course, money bills, whether it be appropriation, whether it be statutes amendment changing tax measures, there is a convention that we do not block money bills, and by and large this parliament does not block money bills in a way that the Senate does, routinely. In fact, there are billions and billions of dollars worth of changes and savings the federal government would like to enact that they cannot because of the Senate.

The government has a lot more free rein in the conventions of the South Australian parliament to be able to govern, so I do not see the same impetus to create or to have, as part of legislation, a trigger for a double dissolution, I just do not see it. Certainly, there will be pieces of legislation that will not be able to pass this parliament. In fact, we have just passed the Surveillance Devices Bill, which is, I understand, the third time that piece of legislation has come before this place. The disruption of the fundamental workings of the government is not something that we undertake here because of this convention. There is also, as part of the Constitution Act, provision that moneys previously authorised will continue to be authorised, and that is protected as part of the Constitution Act, so we do not have a situation where we can shut down the government.

These deadlock provisions are entirely unnecessary, but if they were to be enacted what they would be used to do is to bully the Legislative Council. Make no mistake about that. Minority parties and Independent members in the Legislative Council who have managed to gain their seats without a full quota and who do not enjoy, necessarily, stable political popularity will have this provision used to bully them in order to ensure that there is no early election, an early election that could see them lose their positions within the Legislative Council, and I do not like the idea that this was here to be able to do that.

The second point I would like to put on the record is the fact that South Australians do not want to vote in any more elections than they have to. The idea that we would have a trigger which would, on the whim of the government and based on what could be fairly minor pieces of legislation, mean that we have to go to extra elections simply because the government is having a sook and not getting its way, I think, is something the South Australian people do not want. They want us to grow up, they want us to be able to compromise, they want a government that governs from the centre with common sense, and the current provisions in the Constitution Act provide for that. What deadlock provisions would do is provide a way for a government to be able to impose its will more readily and would, in my view, ensure that we stray from the sensible centre.

The other thing I would like to say is that this house enacted fixed parliamentary terms, the first election of which we had in 2002. They did that because they wanted to provide surety and certainty as to when the election was going to be and allow governments a four-year term to be able to govern and to provide some certainty around the parliamentary cycle. What this provision does is move away from that principle. In the federal parliament an election can be called at any time, either through a double dissolution trigger (if one presents itself) or at the time of the government's choosing. The South Australian parliament (and I was not here at that time) changed that principle so that we moved to fixed terms so that there was some certainty around the parliamentary cycle. This bill goes completely against that and again provides uncertainty, and the South Australian people, in my view, do not want that.

The third point I make is that it is intellectually lazy of a government to seek to diminish the upper house. It basically says, 'Look, we don't want to have to argue our case, we don't want to have to test our ideas in the court of public opinion—test our ideas against the minds and the resources of the Legislative Council—we just want to be able to do whatever we feel like.' It is intellectually lazy and I think it will result in inferior pieces of legislation and inferior outcomes. If the Attorney wants to come back in here and suggest that he is somehow some sort of benevolent dictator above reproach whose pieces of legislation are infallible, then he can come and make that argument, but we on this side of the house will have many examples of where that has fallen short.

The fourth and last point I make is that this bill has absolutely no chance of success. I have never met anyone in a position of influence, barring a couple of exceptions, who has sought to diminish their own power and influence. If you put your hand up to become a member of the Legislative Council, it is fundamentally because you believe in the powers and the role of the Legislative Council, and the idea that the Attorney thought that this would have any chance of success beyond chewing up the valuable time of this chamber and the other chamber is absolutely farcical and absolutely wrong.

Again, I think it speaks very much to a fourth term government who believe in their own righteousness, believe in their own hype, and certainly would like to do away with pesky little things such as the checks and balances that exist within our parliamentary democracy so that they can govern as they see fit and do unto the people of South Australia as they see fit. Unfortunately, that is not the way elections work; it is not the way this parliament was set up; and it is not the way that parliaments generally work.

With the fullness of my heart and the hearts of members on this side of the house, we will oppose this legislation, and we will continue to oppose this legislation. When we return to government, we will not be intellectually lazy in seeking to prosecute the ideas that we bring forward because we know them to be right, just and superior, and we will be more than happy to fight for these ideas and do it using the processes that are currently available.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (17:07): I also rise to oppose the Constitution (Deadlocks) Amendment Bill 2015. I noticed that, in recent times, the government has made comments to the effect that they are looking to reset the relationship with crossbenchers. As we have seen, many pieces of legislation that have been brought forward in recent times, if anything, seek to erode the powers of the Legislative Council and erode the powers of the crossbenchers.

As many on this side of the chamber have pointed out, bills such as the Constitution (Appropriation and Supply) Amendment Bill 2015, the Constitution (Deadlocks) Amendment Bill 2015 and the Electoral (Legislative Council Voting) Amendment Bill 2015 are examples of this. This is an example of where the government is saying one thing but doing the complete opposite.

If the government is claiming to have a better relationship with the crossbenchers, a better relationship with the upper house, you would think that, in the first week of parliament this year, it might go about its business in a different way. We understand on this side of the chamber that two houses of parliament are essential. It is important that we have one house as a house of review not only to scrutinise and analyse legislation but also to make sure that the appropriate checks and balances are in place, and we acknowledge that, as the member for Schubert says.

This government, by these kinds of measures, quite frankly, has done nothing but treat the other place with contempt, and we have seen time and again the height of the government's arrogance. I mean, look at the recent example, the planning bill, whereby so many amendments were brought forward, changed at the eleventh hour and debated in instances where surely that kind of pressure does not encourage the best form of analysis possible.

Mr Duluk interjecting:

Mr TARZIA: Exactly; not many Labor members have contributed to that particular debate. We on this side of the chamber detest that sort of thing. It is simply not good enough. We would consider that these sorts of bills are just absolutely ridiculous. I noticed in my reading that the Labor Party for many years has had a suite of policies either pertaining to the abolition of the Legislative Council or reducing the power of the Legislative Council.

In 2009 I noticed that we on this side of the chamber, also supported by minor parties and Independents in the other place, defeated a similar proposal by the Labor Party. My colleague the member for Schubert has pointed out how a new mechanism for resolving persistent disagreements between the houses is planned and how the bills reduce the power of the Legislative Council potentially.

There are obviously current processes for resolving disagreements and deadlocks, if you will, and this legislation quite simply is not necessary. Furthermore, I also agree with the member for Schubert that this legislation does have the opportunity to be used as a bullying tool for the other place and it is simply not good enough. It is extremely lazy to put something like this forward.

There are obviously a number of benefits that go with fixed terms. That debate has been had and, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, that should not change, and so I cannot support this legislation. We on this side of the legislation cannot support this legislation. The government needs to have a good hard look at itself. To say that it is looking to work more closely with the other place, that it is looking to work more closely with the crossbenchers and then to put something like this forward is completely ridiculous, and I oppose the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Ms Digance.