House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1) 54 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills South Australian Productivity Commission Bill South Australian Productivity Commission Bill South Australian Productivity Commission Bill Final Stages Final Stages The Legislative Council insisted on its amendments Nos 2, 3, 7, 8 to 16 and 18 to which the House of Assembly has disagreed and agreed not to insist on its amendments Nos 5 and 6 and agreed to the alternative amendments Nos 1 to 3 made by the House of Assembly without any amendment. Consideration in committee. The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I note the Legislative Council's insistence in relation to the message returned on the South Australian Productivity Commission Bill, and accordingly, for the reasons set out by the Premier, pursuant to section 294(3) I move: That the bill be laid aside. Mr MULLIGHAN House of Assembly Mr MULLIGHAN: I will speak briefly on this to say that I understand the Deputy Premier's comments. The Premier foreshadowed that it may come to this last night. Indeed, before that, on Tuesday in the other place, the Treasurer, the Hon. Mr Lucas, also foreshadowed that may be case. That threat was reiterated to the other place during the course of the consideration of the bill again today. Can I say briefly—which I am not given to normally—that it is extraordinary that the government would choose to set the bill aside merely because it has not had its way, in an unfettered sense, with legislation that it has taken before the house of review of this state's parliament. The opposition, but more particularly the crossbench MPs in the other place, have a role, indeed a right, to consider and review and make amendments to legislation to improve it. In this case, the opposition as well as all crossbench MPs repeatedly made it clear to the government that what they were seeking in the consideration of this Productivity Commission Bill was not to knock the bill off and not to oppose it. I think all members of parliament, in both places, are supportive of the concept of a productivity commission. The issue was how transparent the work of the commission would be, who the chair and the commissioners comprising the commission would be and its relationship with the parliament. As to the amendments that the opposition moved, extensive in number, and the crossbench MPs moved, smaller in number, both the opposition and all crossbench parties have given way very significantly to the government in an effort to reach a compromise so that we had the most workable and most transparent productivity commission as a result. Now, in a petulant huff, we hear this government saying, 'We haven't got what we wanted. We cannot bring ourselves to listen to the legitimate wishes of the crossbench MPs of the other place and so we are not going to proceed with this bill.' The threat, the sword of Damocles that the Treasurer in the other place tried to hang above members of parliament was, 'We will set this bill aside. We will establish this commission in an executive form, perhaps as an attached office, or in some other mechanism of an administrative unit, and then you won't see anything. You won't have any idea what goes on with this productivity commission.' That is absolutely outrageous. But the good news is that it is a hollow threat because the bill that the government placed before this place, as well as the other place, provided no greater transparency than the arrangement that has been threatened by both the Premier and the Treasurer. Indeed, the resort that members of parliament are having to go to with this new government—to resort to the Budget and Finance Committee, to freedom of information requests, to questions placed on notice and, of course, to the estimates process, which is coming upon us—will actually provide a greater level of transparency than the bill in the original form that was moved by the government. That is the irony of this situation. Despite repeated warnings from the opposition and, more particularly, from each of the crossbench parties in the other place, the Treasurer in that place and now the Premier down here, represented by the Deputy Premier, thumb their noses at those crossbench MPs and basically tell them that their concerns are illegitimate, that they should not be listened to and that the matters they raise are not important. I think that is outrageous. Let's hope that this government does not continue to treat the crossbench MPs and the opposition with the same level of contempt as we have seen in the other place today and we are now seeing in this place with the setting aside of the bill. The committee divided on the motion: Ayes	22 Noes	16 Majority	6 AYES Basham, D.K.B. Chapman, V.A. Cowdrey, M.J. Cregan, D. Duluk, S. Ellis, F.J. Gardner, J.A.W. Habib, C. Harvey, R.M. (teller) Knoll, S.K. Luethen, P. Marshall, S.S. McBride, N. Murray, S. Patterson, S.J.R. Pederick, A.S. Sanderson, R. Speirs, D.J. Tarzia, V.A. Teague, J.B. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Whetstone, T.J. NOES Bignell, L.W.K. Boyer, B.I. Brown, M.E. (teller) Close, S.E. Cook, N.F. Hildyard, K.A. Hughes, E.J. Koutsantonis, A. Malinauskas, P. Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, A. Picton, C.J. Rau, J.R. Stinson, J.M. Wortley, D. PAIRS Pisoni, D.G. Gee, J.P. Wingard, C.L. Weatherill, J.W. Motion thus carried; bill laid aside.