Constitution (Appropriation and Supply) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 10 February 2016.)

Clause 1.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I compliment the Chair of Committees on her fine period costume.

The CHAIR: Again?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It was the Deputy Speaker to whom I was speaking previously; it is a different person.

Mr Knoll interjecting:

The CHAIR: The Constitution (Appropriation and Supply) Amendment Bill. We did all of that; if someone would like us to repeat all of that, we can.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think it is great, and I thank the honourable member for their question. It is an excellent piece of legislation and an excellent move. I thank the member for Bragg for her support, and I look forward to its swift passage through both houses in the next few minutes.

The CHAIR: We are actually in committee, considering clause 1, the idea being that we are going to hear from the deputy leader that there is no opposition. Is that the idea?

Ms CHAPMAN: I beg your pardon?

The CHAIR: We are in committee, but there is no opposition to it? I am just trying to establish what is going on.

Ms CHAPMAN: Correct. I do not think this will take very long, but I do want to raise a matter with the Attorney, as he has opened up the constitution bill for the spurious purpose which is contained in the bill, and which, as the Attorney knows, we wholesomely reject. Could the Attorney explain to the house, apart from the referendum process—which of course is necessary to allow this bill to be presented to the Governor—what is the actual voting arrangement for passage through each of the houses (that is, the majority required, etc.)?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As I understand it, the subject matter of these proposals has an impact on the relationship between the powers of the houses. Accordingly, the special matter and form provisions of the constitution are engaged, and that means that instead of the normal two-step process—whereby a bill receives assent in this chamber and then receives assent in the other chamber, and then is conveyed to His Excellency for his signature—a third step is required before the bill is presented to His Excellency, namely, the presentation of the bill, having duly passed both houses, to the people in a referendum. That step is required as an additional step before the matter can be presented to His Excellency.

Ms Chapman: The voting majority is the same?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Put it this way: but for the fact that the subject matter of this particular legislation affects the relationship between the houses, this would be an ordinary amendment to the Constitution Act, which, but for those provisions, is just like any act of this parliament and does not require any special manner and form. For instance, if (as I think has happened in the past) the provisions dealing with the number of ministers is varied from time to time, that does not require anything other than a simple majority in both chambers. My understanding is that it is only the special manner and form provisions which are in any way different.

Ms CHAPMAN: There is nothing in the constitution, if it is amended, requiring a two-thirds majority?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No.

Ms CHAPMAN: While the bill is open, I appreciate why 'His Majesty' is referred to in section 2 and 'Her Majesty' in section 5, to deal with historical events and the recording of them (and of course the gender of the king or queen at the time is obvious), for the rest of the act, particularly section 8, which still refers to 'His Majesty', I am just wondering why we are not tidying that up at the same time. Over the page in 10A it is 'Her Majesty', which is probably as a result of the fact that at the time we made those amendments Elizabeth II was on the throne.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am happy to have a look at that. If it were to be the case that these things would be passing, it might be a useful matter to look, at I guess. However, I gather, from what has been said already, that none of this is going to receive any support, so it is a bit academic, really.

Ms CHAPMAN: In respect of the subject matter of the bill, let me be absolutely clear that we are rejecting it; I am just highlighting the fact that there seems to be some inconsistency as to the descriptor of the monarch, probably depending on the time at which our constitution was amended to accommodate some reform. It might be both appropriate and respectful that we do it, especially as it is International Women's Day and given that Her Majesty is currently on the throne, so that we get it right. I would appreciate some consideration of that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am happy to have a look at that. I would like to think, though, having launched ourselves into the noble pursuit of constitutional reform, it would be somewhat disappointing if all we managed to do was correct some of the definite and indefinite articles in the bill. However, I will certainly look at the matter.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will just conclude on that matter by saying that the constitution is a very significant document. I do not understand why—not just in your administration but even in previous administrations—it has not been attended to because it is not as though we have not dealt with constitutional matters, even in the time I have been in the parliament, and it has not been correct, so I just raise it. I thank the Attorney for indicating that he is prepared to have a look at it and I look forward to his progressing that in the future.

Mr KNOLL: What you are seeking to change in this bill takes power away from the Legislative Council to the extent there is a disagreement between the government and the upper house. Has there been any instance where the Legislative Council has enforced their disagreement; that is, is there an instance where, in the history of South Australia, this clause has been used to block the agenda of the government from a supply and appropriation standpoint?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As always, the member for Schubert asks a very good question. I am advised that it is possibly a little bit before the member for Schubert's time and maybe even before mine, but in 1911 there was an issue where the Legislative Council attempted to deprive the duly elected government of supply and that resulted in the provisions that are presently in there which talk about money bills which came in in 1913.

Mr Knoll: So we fixed that problem.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: What I am saying is that we could be even more thorough in fixing that because you never know when they might get cheeky enough to have another crack.

Mr KNOLL: Attorney, in your second reading speech you talked about—and I am going to quote the phrase:

…since at least 1981, the annual Appropriation Bill provides for appropriations both for previously authorised purposes, and for purposes not previously authorised...

I understand that those two clauses are taken separately—that is, for purposes that have been previously authorised, it is unconstitutional for those things to be blocked—and, if that is the case (and it is what I think I am reading), surely the idea that the Legislative Council can shut down the government is moot because the government could move to split those two bills, as in, there is nothing forcing the government to put those two different types of measures in the same appropriation supply bill. Surely, if there was an issue, you could split those two bills and ensure that previously authorised purposes cannot be stopped.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is an interesting point. Apparently, around the country there are slightly different treatments of those matters and I would probably have to—

Mr Knoll: How about South Australia?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Previous to 1981, I think they might have been done. Prior to 1981, they were done separately, so the consolidated form that we presently use is a post-1981 feature.

Mr Knoll: So there is nothing to stopping things from being split.

The CHAIR: If this is another question, use the microphone so Hansard can hear it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I believe not. I believe there is nothing to stop it being split, but let me check on that.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 6), schedule and title passed.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (12:09): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The house divided on the third reading:

Ayes 24

Noes 19

Majority 5

Third reading thus carried.