Parliamentary Procedure

Sessional Orders

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Health, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Health Industries) (15:41): I move:

That for the remainder of the session, standing and sessional orders be so far suspended as to enable parliamentary secretaries to act on behalf of ministers, and reference to ministers in the standing and sessional orders shall be taken to include reference to parliamentary secretaries, except in respect to the following standing and sessional orders:

Sessional orders—

Extension of sitting beyond 6pm

Motion for adjournment

Time limit for answers to questions without notice

Standing orders—

No. 11 Inform the house when the Governor will receive the house with its new Speaker

No. 13 Inform the house when the Governor will give reasons for opening of parliament

No. 34 Address in reply, nominating mover of address

No. 49 Adjournment of the house

No. 55 Extend sitting beyond 6pm

No. 56 Next meeting of the house

No. 57 Early meeting of the house

No. 80 Arrange government business

No. 86 Referral of petitions to ministers

No. 96 Questions to ministers

No. 107 Ministerial statements

No. 114 Limitation on debate

No. 194 Orders of the day (government business)

No. 198 Orders for papers

No. 213 Messages communicated

Nos 232 and 362 Money bills, increase tax

No. 255 Clauses in erased type

No. 265 Grievances appropriation bills

No. 267 Referral to estimates committees

No. 268 Consideration in estimates committee

No. 277 Question proposed estimates committee reports

No. 278 Time limits appropriation bills

The proposed sessional order would enable parliamentary secretaries, acting on behalf of ministers, to give notice of, introduce and have carriage of government business. It should be noted that the role of parliamentary secretaries in federal parliament has changed considerably since their introduction in the early 20^th century. In the federal parliament, parliamentary secretaries are authorised to exercise the powers and perform the functions conferred upon ministers, with some important exceptions, including:

Parliamentary secretaries are appointed to assist or represent ministers in various aspects of their work, including parliamentary responsibilities.

In the proceedings of the house, they can act in place of a minister in all respects, except for answering questions.

A number of interstate parliaments also allow for parliamentary secretaries to introduce and take carriage of bills, including New South Wales and Western Australia. It should be noted that the additional authorisation proposed by this sessional order is restricted to the introduction and carriage of bills in the House of Assembly, and includes the following exclusions:

It does not provide for a parliamentary secretary to answer questions in question time.

It does not provide for a parliamentary secretary to appear and answer questions in estimates hearings.

It does not provide for a parliamentary secretary to appear and answer questions in the examination of ministers in matters contained in the report of the Auditor-General.

It is envisaged that parliamentary secretaries will use these additional powers to take carriage of specific legislation in which they have particular expertise in order to aid the government's busy legislative agenda. These measures are not permanent. Of course, that is why we have sessional orders for matters worth exploring between parliaments. I think most of the current sessional orders adopted by the House of Assembly have been welcomed and have provided for the effective business of the house. I commend the proposed sessional order to the house.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (15:43): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 20

Noes 24

Majority 4

The SPEAKER: Before I mention the result of the division, it has become an unfortunate practice of the house for members to interject reflecting on the decision that has just been taken in the aftermath of a division. If anyone does that today, they will be named.

Adjournment thus negatived.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Schubert, are you the lead speaker for your side?

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (15:51): No, Deputy Speaker, I am indicating that I am not the lead speaker. I rise to make as expansive a contribution on this motion as I need to. The motion as it is presented on the Daily Program is:

That for the remainder of the Session, Standing and Sessional Orders be so far suspended as to enable Parliamentary Secretaries to act on behalf of Ministers and reference to Ministers in the Standing and Sessional Orders shall be taken to include reference to Parliamentary Secretaries, except in respect to certain Standing and Sessional Orders as detailed on the Notice Paper.

It is an interesting idea that we elevate non-ministers to ministers. As is normally understood, we have two parliamentary secretaries that are recognised, and they receive an added stipend to their otherwise base salary. We have two at the moment—the member for Reynell and the member for Kaurna—and they are the two people we are talking about today, as this motion is intending to give them increased powers.

I did note in the member for Playford's contribution that he talked about the fact that this is necessary because the government has such a busy legislative agenda. I do not want to take focus away from our lead speaker, but I wonder how busy the legislative agenda was between 12.30 and 1pm yesterday.

It is interesting whether or not adjournment grieves were taken yesterday or whether they are going to be taken today or, indeed, tomorrow. The government program for today's proceedings came through rather late, seemingly because other things that we may have talked about have already been talked about, and maybe someone needed to make up their mind as to what it is we are actually doing today.

It would seem to me, in my simple sausage-making mind, that if there was such a significant backlog we would have these bills backed up like a substandard toilet, and we would be rushing through to complete these things, but unfortunately I do not think that is the case.

Essentially, some of the research that I have been doing of late has taken me to look at the numbers of ministers around the country and how many constituents are represented by each minister. In South Australia, we have 14 ministers, which is roughly the same as a number of other states but, interestingly, our population is far less, and so on that score South Australia has many ministers. In fact, back in the days of Sir Thomas Playford, he ran this state with only five ministers.

Members interjecting:

Mr KNOLL: In fact, when it comes to the number of ministers that are required and the number of departmental staff who are required, there was a great quote from Sir Thomas Playford who, after he retired, went to Mrs Dunn, who was his long-term secretary (this was years after having finished in parliament) and he said, 'I feel so sorry for you. I would like to apologise to you for all the things I put you through,' and she said, 'Sir Playford, what are you talking about?'

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: I think she might have said 'Sir Thomas'.

Mr KNOLL: He was never that informal.

Members interjecting:

Mr KNOLL: Okay, there you go, thank you. He said, 'Now, when I look at the Premier's department, which used to be three people and now I see a department with hundreds of people, I feel I have overworked you to the bone, to see how many people it now takes to do your job.' I thought that was quite an apt quote on the growth of government. And certainly Sir Thomas was able to double the size of South Australia with five ministers. Sir Thomas was able to oversee an unprecedented expansion of the South Australian economy. He was able to oversee a change from an agricultural-based state to a manufacturing-based state, with only five ministers.

It seems odd to me that, here we are these days with 14 ministers, up from 12, and that this motion becomes necessary. With those few words, pertaining completely to the substance, I would like to call myself out as the team player that I am and I look forward to intently listening to the next speaker as the next speaker prosecutes very strongly our case on this matter.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:57): I rise to speak on the motion—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And you are the lead speaker?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, thank you. I rise to speak on the motion presented by the Minister for Health which, essentially, is to suspend standing and sessional orders of this parliament, for the first time ever, to allow for, in certain areas, parliamentary secretaries to conduct business of the house that would otherwise be within the purview of ministers, most specifically:

1. to allow them to sit in the front seat;

2. to provide for advisers to be able to sit adjacent to them and provide advice during the conduct of debate on a bill; and

3. to have the benefit of the unlimited time limit as the lead speaker for the government in progressing the bills.

That is what is being asked of us, for the first time in the history of the parliament. And why? It is because we have parliamentary secretaries, two of them, nominated by the government, who I am sure do important work in aiding the Premier and the Treasurer. In this instance, they have been appointed in those two roles—not to any other ministers generally, just to those two. There are going to be some questions raised as to whether they should have responsibility for anything else other than bills introduced by the Premier or the Treasurer—which, frankly, is not very much. There is not too much actually introduced by those two roles in this parliament.

What I am about to say does not have any reflection personally on the two persons who are currently parliamentary secretaries in those roles—one to the Premier and one to the Treasurer. Tomorrow, the Premier might announce that he is going to have six parliamentary secretaries, or give the whole backbench a parliamentary secretary role and trot them all over to Government House and swear them in and give them all higher salaries and the roll will continue. We have, what is it, 15 ministers? We have two extras in the group, of course, who have added a couple of spaces and a few million dollars a year for the member for Waite to be a minister.

Mr Knoll: That's $2.1 million a year.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, $2.1 million a year to be able to come in here. Never before have we had so many ministers so often able to deal with the work of the day of ministers. So, for these three requirements, to have the right to sit in the front row, to be the lead speaker and to be able to have an adviser sit next to them, the government is saying, 'We're all so busy. We have got such a huge parliamentary agenda.' Well, I mean that is laughable, of course. Of course it has not got a huge agenda, as has been aptly pointed out by the member for Schubert.

We have had adjournments even before lunch; it was half an hour before lunch yesterday. We have just spent last week dealing with legislation on the constitution bill, which has no hope of getting anywhere in this parliament—wasting time again in the parliament. We have had a situation where the Minister for Planning, the Attorney-General as the Minister for Planning at the time, introduced a Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill without going out to consultation and it has wasted days and days, and it will probably be weeks in the other place of the parliament, because the government has been so incompetent in not actually addressing the amendments that should have been looked at before a bill comes to the parliament.

That is done by the simple process of going out and consulting with stakeholders before so that when a minister walks in with a bill and is able to present it to the parliament it is in as good condition as it possibly can be consistent with what the government is prepared to support and to sponsor through the parliament. So, it has an unprecedented number of ministers. We are sitting less time in the parliament. We never sit here at night anymore.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Even the member remembers that we would be sitting here at night and early hours of the morning—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Oh, that squeaking from the other side. Thank you.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members on my left need to be mindful, too. I do not need their assistance. It would be remiss of me not to draw the attention of all members to standing order 131. We must hear the deputy leader in silence. The deputy leader.

Ms CHAPMAN: We have an unprecedented number of people to do the job. They have less sitting times to actually be in here, so they have plenty of other time to do their work. There are a number of reasons why you would ask: what is the real reason why the government wants to be able to send bills across to a parliamentary secretary, to delegate that responsibility to a parliamentary secretary? One, ministers want to have more time at home, doing what they like, partying. Well, that is one option. I would not say it is likely but it is an option. They can just have a sleep, go to a party, whatever. The second—

An honourable member interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: No, indeed it is not, because you see the government is asking to relieved—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: —of the responsibility for being here in the house to promote a bill and to take it through the passage of parliament.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is room for another whole group of ticks here so don't worry.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you. The second consideration which I think is more likely is that the government wants to be able to avoid the responsibility of dealing with bills that are just a little bit difficult, the ones that are a little bit ticklish, the ones that are a little bit sensitive, the ones that cause some friction amongst groups, whether it is the Liberal Party or Labor Party, or other political parties, where they just do not really want to be quite next to it, and one of them is before the house as we speak in relation to the gender equity legislation.

It is topical; it is a little bit controversial. I personally am supporting it, but each of the political parties has made a determination on that bill that they are not going to have a party position on it and that each can come in and vote independent of any commitment to their political party's position. So, what does the government do? The Premier comes in, grandstands with presenting it to the parliament and then wants to flick it to somebody else. In this case the Minister for Education has taken the responsibility and carriage of managing that bill, and ably, too. I cannot see any reason why she would not.

If leadership from the cabinet is not available then there are other ministers who can competently take on that role. However, we were informed that the government decided that they wanted to move it to one of the parliamentary secretaries; so that is what we are actually here for. We are being asked to support a motion to cover a circumstance that allows somebody else to come in and deal with controversial issues. I do not doubt for one minute that the Attorney-General has run away from this at 100 miles an hour. He is responsible for the South Australian Law Reform Institute, which has done the legwork on this, prepared documents to deal with gender equity, provided the report, and published it.

The Attorney-General has been responsible for preparing the draft, the legislation around it, and suddenly the Premier has come in, made the big announcement of introducing the bill, and then runs 100 miles away from it, having been exposed. This was in a flurry of trying to be the great protector of a person who was holidaying in South Australia in January when his same-sex partner sadly died and there was an issue about registration on the death certificate. There is fanfare when it suits the Premier, but in this instance, bring in somebody else who can take all the flak in dealing with it.

There is a fundamental reason why it is not practical for just anybody—a parliamentary secretary in this instance—to have the management of the bill. Whilst the advisers are available to give assistance to a minister in answering questions (and ably they do), the parliamentary secretary is not privy to what has been discussed in cabinet, because they did not attend cabinet, they are not a member of cabinet, they are not participating in it, and nor do they have any contribution to make about cabinet decisions. Therefore, they do not know what has happened in the inner sanctum of government, save and except what cabinet determines it will issue in a public statement. So, they are as much in the dark as all the rest of us in relation to cabinet decisions and, of course, the confidentiality that sits around that.

It is very important that we have the minister who is responsible for the legislation, who is privy to the progress of it through the cabinet, who understands the decisions that have been made in cabinet, who is responsible for the implementation of the bill, has an understanding (we would expect) of how the machinery of the bill operates, is familiar with briefings of the advisers (and is able to get some supplement to that but otherwise is familiar with the bill), and not have someone brought in to deal with it in isolation of being fully informed about the proposal, the effect and the operation of the legislation they are asking us to pass. That is the reason why it is important that the minister, any one of them, is responsible and ought to continue to be responsible here in the parliament to progress the bill.

One aspect that has been raised by the Minister for Health is that other jurisdictions have considered this, and in other jurisdictions it has been permitted. He did not elaborate on this, but I am familiar with, for example, the opportunity in the federal parliament for parliamentary secretaries to have the carriage of a bill. They are not, in this instance, there to answer questions in question time or to move adjournments on debates, or any other things; that is true. They do have, however, limited power to progress a bill.

The fundamental difference that the Minister for Health failed to tell the parliament about is that they have a totally different practice. It is quite a good one that they have over there. They have debates in the chamber as to the contribution, effectively, on the second reading of the bill, and then outside of the chamber they progress the committee. Instead of having the Minister for Health and shadow minister here, or the Attorney-General and myself, standing here (with lonely contributions from others who have made contributions to the debate) going through the bill in detail, it is done outside of the chamber. It is a bit like allowing committees to continue to proceed in other formats in the parliament, to be able to convene and conduct their business while the parliament continues.

It is a very different procedure. If the government says, 'We want to have a look at what operates in the commonwealth jurisdiction,' I am happy to look at that. I am happy to consider whether there are some merits in doing that, but do not just pick out the bit that suits. What is important is that the government comes to us and says, 'Let's look at the whole practice that operates in the commonwealth parliament,' and if it is of merit we will have a look at it and consider it.

Finally, I say this: it is absolutely rude and presumptuous of the government to come in here and issue a motion, demand against all precedent that we be expected to debate this and to deal with it without the requisite precedent period of seven sitting days (a full week) to elapse before we be asked to progress it. From time to time we are asked to advance bills, pass motions, deal with circumstances that reasonably need to be tidied up or some pressing matter of state which requires us to deal with it.

Last year, for example, we were asked to deal with a special indenture bill in a hurry to deal with Arrium, a very topical issue at the time, having relief from EBA supervision and that we be able to continue to operate under the supervision of the Department of State Development. We were asked because of the time expiry that was about to occur on the indenture and the conditions of that indenture to deal with it in a much more timely manner. We acquiesced. We were not happy about it.

We are not happy about pushing things through but from time to time it is necessary and we are prepared to accommodate that. In this instance, the government has just come along and said, 'We want to press this now. We have said our bit, we do not want to adjourn as we normally do, we require you to make a contribution now if you want to, speak now or forever hold your peace. We are going to push this through anyway.'

There are no parliamentary secretaries in the other place, so there is apparently no similar motion or proposal to deal with their sessional orders or whatever relief they would be seeking to deal with it. There has been and there could be again; we need to deal with this issue of whether the government intends to appoint more than two and we need some answers on this about whether the two who have been appointed are going to be interchangeable irrespective of whether they are parliamentary secretary only to the Treasurer and the Premier. If the Minister for Health is not here, can they tap into one of the minister's parliamentary secretaries, bring them on down, let them sit in the front seat? That is relief number one. Let them have an adviser—that is relief number two—and, of course, to have no time limit.

I do not mind listening to a time-limited speech from either of the two current parliamentary secretaries in the parliament, but I say this: we have all of these ministers here, we have hardly enough work to fill up the government space as it is, it is already puffed up with bills that frankly should never be brought back in before the parliament on the way to a kiss a death but which the government continues to pursue.

These ministers are paid a lot of money to do a job. They are privy to the information from cabinet. They have a special responsibility with that knowledge to be able to provide support for each other, if one is not available, and particularly if the leader or deputy leader are not available. That is enough. There has been no persuasive case put to us to suggest that this is acceptable. We do not accept it. We think it has been done for political reasons and it is not acceptable to us. However, if there is a wholesale reform proposal going to be presented, then let us look at the whole of the picture consistent with other jurisdictions and we would consider that on its merit.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 24

Noes 20

Majority 4

Motion thus carried.