Motions

Coronavirus, State Government Response

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (11:01): I move:

That Private Members Business, Committees and Subordinate Legislation, Notices of Motion, be postponed and taken into consideration after the notice of motion appearing on the Notice Paper to establish a select committee into and report upon the state government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Yesterday, in accordance with agreed protocols between the government, the opposition and the crossbench, I gave notice of a motion to establish a select committee of the house. The contingent motion I now move, if supported by the house, would allow debate on that proposition to occur today. Because the substantive notice of motion I propose to move calls for the creation of a select committee, today is really the first time it could be debated and, because today is the last day of sitting for 2020, today is also the last opportunity to act, which is why we must pass this contingent motion now to have the debate today.

So 2020 has been an interesting year in the truest sense of the Chinese curse. I am merely the messenger for hundreds of thousands of people across the state who have felt the brunt and continue to feel the effects of so much that has happened. Across the course of the year, I think everyone—in this parliament, in both this house and the other place, and across the state—has been willing to accept the advice we have been given and acknowledge the efforts of the frontline workers, health professionals and health department workers who continue their unstinting efforts on our behalf. Because paying heed to the government-led response might be all we could do, we have actually done it.

Members recognise pandemic responses need quick and decisive action, and we have all been happy to afford the government full licence to do that. This has included passing urgent COVID-19 bills without briefings beforehand and accepting limits placed on parliamentary sittings and operations to pass the state budget, which delivers a record deficit. In doing so, members have still asked questions and applied scrutiny, as the public would expect of us.

We have all chosen to put aside politicking and place our trust, as does the public of South Australia, in the team delivering the response under the leadership of the Premier. The events of recent weeks, however, have focused our thinking on questions bigger, the questions being asked of us in our communities—questions and concerns deserving of consideration at the highest levels, but not just by the highest levels, which must be addressed.

I know members are being approached by constituents and members of the wider public in our electorates and beyond profoundly alarmed and concerned by some of the events of recent weeks and some that have been lingering for a little longer. For instance, bakeries who thought recently they were on the list to be able to bake bread found themselves shut down by police after baking all night—try pivoting in a situation like that. Hospitality businesses from small cafes to large hotels, just getting into a new rhythm, threw out any hope of recovery on very little notice and were unable to stock up when things U-turned again very sharply. People wanting to walk dogs rightly got the go-ahead very quickly, but the lifeblood and income of the businesses that sustain us did not.

Growing numbers of South Australians are concerned about the processes that lead to decisions being taken, concerned there are not enough voices around the table, concerned some things need to change and concerned about how future decisions will be made and what lessons are being learnt as we work to establish a new normal. That is why there needs to be an opportunity to evaluate all that has happened, and the select committee the substantive notice of motion proposes will achieve this if it is supported by the house. Today is the first and last opportunity—

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order: while all the points the member is making are very important, they are not actually directed to whether or not we should suspend standing orders for this purpose.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The debate on the motion is akin in some ways to a debate on the suspension of standing orders. It is not quite the same. There is a degree of latitude. I am listening carefully to the member for Florey. The member for Florey has the call.

Ms BEDFORD: Today is the first and last opportunity, indeed the only chance, for this house to show the public we, their elected representatives, are in this with the government before we rise for an eight-week summer recess.

This week, we have seen significant number of lockdown restrictions wound back, although not completely, and that of course is welcome. Even so, the Parafield cluster remains a concern. Most of us are familiar with the oft-repeated truism about a week being a long time in politics. Well, the past two weeks have certainly shown the same could be said for living through a pandemic, therefore the next eight weeks while parliament is not sitting will be an age.

Over the past two weeks, we have stood with our leaders as they continue to do their best, but we have heard mixed messages and seen corrections that are beginning to be confusing. Messaging must be better, particularly around the introduction of QR codes, which are a long way off from being user-friendly and user-ready. This is where a fresh set of eyes from members of parliament could be a conduit to the communities we all know so well.

What is perhaps most concerning, though, is we still do not know exactly how this outbreak started. It has been a rollercoaster ride and has exposed concerns that must be addressed. It is little wonder members have had questions and concerns raised with them by businesses, workers and other groups in our communities worried about consistency. Even if that is not possible, we need to understand what is known and have it put to us in calm, reasoned language. It has been good to see that, when people have made mistakes, they have been owned and addressed as quickly as possible without any real loss of face, so I say honesty is truly the best policy.

As we all know, today is the last sitting day of this parliament ahead of the eight-week recess. The fact so many South Australians have raised questions and concerns, and the fact the Parafield cluster remains a live issue, makes it imperative this parliament acts today to allay concern. We do not know what is ahead, so we cannot afford to wait. We can get this committee started and perhaps avert problems, as we might have had the report of the Victorian Hotel Quarantine Inquiry been read and lessons learned.

As the member for Mount Gambier pointed out in his eloquent and heartfelt grievance on Tuesday, if we do not take action this week when we return in eight weeks' time businesses and family businesses employing thousands across the state will no longer be operating, businesses here in the CBD will be gone and longstanding operators throughout the suburbs will vanish, as will the jobs they sustain.

Members of the crossbench heard this week from the hotel industry, which has said that without change to the current density rules we can expect many hospitality businesses to close up permanently and soon. With 26,000 direct jobs in this sector alone, this is a risk we cannot take and ignore at our peril.

With confusion and an uncertain future, it is clear we need more ways for ideas and suggestions to reach decision-makers, ideas from those who know firsthand what the consequences will be—while it is impossible for this knowledge across so many sectors to be at the table—helping to make crucial decisions. In short, we need to have many hands to ease the task and all hands on deck.

Today is the first and last chance to get this new approach started—to name a committee and to get them to work—assisting and guiding us all through the uncertain times ahead. By passing this contingency motion and enabling debate on the substantive motion, this parliament can represent the people we are here to serve, assert the right to be heard and provide democratic oversight to the executive government while also bringing the collective energy and effort of the house to support the government response.

Without this debate and without this inquiry, the burden of the workload of the next eight weeks will not be shared, and while we continue to do our best to support you it will be harder than it needs to be. Lives will be changed forever and opportunities could be lost. We will not be able to do our job properly. The experience and collective wisdom of the members of this place and the people we represent will continue to be ignored, as there is no other way for concerns to be considered before rather than after avoidable situations arise.

I know concerns about the confusion of recent weeks is shared by members on all sides of the house, and I commend those members who have raised their concerns. It would be a shame if any members were to be subjected to any repercussions because they raised the concerns of their constituents. Having an opinion can be very useful and should not be viewed in a hostile way.

So, to members who share the concerns we have about where we might be going as a state in the next eight weeks, I encourage you to support this contingent motion to enable the debate to even occur. Even if you do not support the substantive proposal, it is vital we have this debate today. The confidence of the public in the government response must be solid and we must take the public with us.

I believe we are all genuinely concerned about the situation in which we find ourselves, and we are all motivated by a genuine desire to help the pandemic response. So again I say to all members: support this contingent motion so we can debate as a matter of urgency the need to establish this select committee. I commend the motion to the house.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (11:11): The issues that the member opposite has gone through—separate from the issue of the contingent motion—are all very important, without any doubt. All those things are very important, but the government does not believe that establishing another committee in this chamber to deal with this issue will provide the people of South Australia any benefit over the benefit that the existing committee from the Legislative Council, which is already in operation, will provide.

There is a committee acting within this parliament doing exactly this work. It has already started this work. It is chaired by a non-Liberal and a non-Labor person—

The SPEAKER: Order! With reference to the point of order previously raised, the motion before the house presently is the contingent notice of motion. I draw the minister's attention to the subject matter of the debate.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Thank you, Speaker.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: A point of order against yourself—well done.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lee is called to order. The Minister for Energy and Mining has the call.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: That's three for three now—all of you.

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens is called to order.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Thank you very much, Speaker, I appreciate your advice.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: They are acting like it is the last day of school, sir. The government does not support the establishment of this committee. The issues raised by the member are very important, but they will not be addressed by the establishment of a committee for this purpose.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The minister has the call. I am listening carefully to the minister. The Minister for Energy and Mining.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: There is a committee in operation already, which means that we do not need to bring on this debate. This is the last day of sitting in this chamber and the issues at stake here have actually been impacting our state for about 300 days now. It would have been possible to do this much sooner, if anybody wanted to.

The issues in regard to stress, jobs and the economy, which are very real, will not be addressed in any significant way by a new committee being established over and above the committee that already exists. There is a very clear commitment by the government that in the new year there will be another layer of full and frank assessment of these issues with the benefit of hindsight. It is also important to point out that at the moment, and for approximately 300 days, on a daily if not hourly basis there has been a very rigorous and thorough self-assessment of all the processes in place to try to deal with COVID-19 and the challenges it presents.

The member opposite also talked about giving all MPs the opportunity to raise their opinions with a proposed committee. All members of this place have had their opportunities to put forward their own opinions for the last 300 days or so. There is nothing extra that a committee would offer in that regard whatsoever. Let me also say that, if it is appropriate in the new year, the government would reconsider its position on something like this if that were to be appropriate at the time. The government does not support the contingent motion.

Ayes 23

Noes 23

Majority 0

The SPEAKER: There being 23 ayes and 23 noes, the Speaker has a casting vote in accordance with standing order 180. I cast my vote with the noes, and I do so with particular reference to the 55 notices of motion that are set out on the Notice Paper at pages 50 to 53.

Motion thus negatived.