Bills

Constitution (Independent Speaker) Amendment Bill

Standing Orders Suspension

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (16:16): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable the Constitution (Independent Speaker) Amendment Bill to pass through all remaining stages forthwith.

The SPEAKER: An absolute majority of members is not present. Ring the bells.

An absolute majority of the whole number of members being present:

Ms BEDFORD: In calling for the suspension of standing orders, I want to continue with the movement through the house, through all stages, of the Constitution (Independent Speaker) Amendment Bill so as to ensure that the public of South Australia has full confidence in the work of the house, and I believe that is a matter of the utmost urgency.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 24

Noes 22

Majority 2

Second Reading

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (16:23): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

In so moving I wish to place these remarks on record. In moving this Constitution (Independent Speaker) Amendment Bill, I seek to put in place one of the things in which I have an unshakable belief.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members who are leaving or otherwise moving through the chamber will do so quietly. The member for Florey has the call.

Ms BEDFORD: After 24 years in this place and, as Grandmother of the House, representing the people of my seat in the north-east, I have watched changes in the conduct of our parliament come in over that period of time—slight changes at first from time to time—which have incrementally led to the situation where I now feel compelled to do what I can in these changed circumstances in the make-up of the membership of this house.

Parliament must be free of any political influence, perceived or otherwise, and be beyond reproach and a beacon of best practice as it weighs and deliberates laws and amendments to legislation to present the best possible outcomes for the people of South Australia. We must do this in a transparent and logical way, in plain English, so our actions are easily understood.

Leadership of this house—of any parliamentary chamber—must reflect the standards expected by our constituents, the residents of South Australia, and be seen as not a reflection of the conduct of the past but, rather, an expectation on the conduct of the future of this house and a first step in restoring faith and respect and lifting our standards to the point that we, in the parliament, are held again in the highest regard and perceived as relevant to and in the lives of South Australians.

No-one can mislead the house, and this must be the basis of all our work. This bill is a first step and it will be closely followed by the introduction of a code of conduct, part of a suite of changes now supported by what I hope will be better scrutiny of the corruption, maladministration, misconduct parts of our practices and behaviours.

Democracy and the value of the vote are issues that have driven me in my public life, and that rigour now being extended to the operation of the business of this house must also extend to the operation of political parties, one of which will form the next government. They and we must be mindful of the reason we are here: to serve and protect this state and its people.

This work must be done in a chamber where the arbiter, an adjudicator, does so without fear or favour. This amendment, if passed, will begin a new chapter in the important period before us, when the state we all love comes out of the pandemic in a period just before an election, where our performances will be judged by the people we represent.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (16:26): I rise to briefly make a few remarks in relation to the bill, which has been introduced by the member for Florey to amend the Constitution Act 1934. Essentially, as I understand, the bill tabled today is to provide for the obligation of any person who is elected as Speaker while occupying an office to not be able to actively participate in the votes or be a member of a registered political party, as the office of Speaker is dependent on being held subject to a majority of members voting on a motion for removal and the obligation for the Speaker to be removed.

There is, essentially, a third provision, which sets out the conduct in the ballot in accordance with procedures as determined by the house, and of course that is a matter always for the house as to how they conduct their procedures. I see foreshadowed a number of amendments which also relate to a relevant election period, which I have only just received today. They purport apparently to deal with the opportunity for the proroguing of parliament during a newly defined relevant election period. Obviously, we will wait until the committee stage to identify how that is proposed to be enumerated and, indeed, how it is to be applied.

It is certainly unusual, but it is not unknown of course, for legislation to be passed on occasion when there is some merit in having some urgency. On hearing the speaker, I think her urgency is to capitalise on a change of political allegiance in relation to the house and want to take advantage of that. Again, that is the prerogative of the parliament. She also indicates that she wishes to pursue, under the same banner of the new flavour of the house, the statutory implementation of a code of conduct.

It is not the subject, on my quick viewing of this bill, that includes that at this point, but I remind members of the house that there is a joint parliamentary committee that is undertaking work in relation to a code of conduct. Of course, it is up to the member to decide whether she wants to pursue something without considering any recommendation of that committee and the work that has been undertaken by both houses of parliament for her code of conduct to be endorsed.

I would simply say, in that regard, which I think also applies to this house, that if there is to be a code of conduct for MPs, or if there is to be a new regime of independent speaker, then perhaps it also should apply to the President in the Legislative Council. I am not advocating for it; I just make the point that both houses are going to have to consider this matter and I think it is not necessarily one which suggests it should be dealt with with so much urgency.

On quick assessment, it appears we only need a simple majority vote to make these changes, but it is one where I think haste is certainly unusual, particularly as this house already has the capacity to make decisions in relation to the position of the office of Speaker. We do not need to have a change to the state constitution to deal with those matters if for some reason someone considers themselves to be a worthy candidate, other than you, sir—and I cannot think of anyone in the parliament who would be. But, nevertheless, that is a matter which I think has carried out the role in an exemplary manner.

There is no suggestion from the Speaker, at this point anyway, that there has been the introduction of this opportunity to produce this legislation because of some disquiet towards your role and I would certainly hope it had not been, because I would not endorse it. Nevertheless, it is a body of work which I think needs to have some further consideration and therefore I will not be indicating any support to this bill. I will listen with interest to the matters raised as to the basis of the amendments and how they fit in with this legislation. It seems to follow a different issue, but I am happy to have a look at that as we go through, of course.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (16:31): I can indicate, if it matters in private members' business, that I am the lead speaker for the opposition, but I do not think it does matter in private members' business. I just want to point out that the mother parliament, the parliament on which we base ourselves, has an independent Speaker. That Speaker is not contested at elections. That Speaker is elected and it is generally beyond political affiliations. They remove themselves from their party room.

We have a long tradition in this parliament of conservative, independent Speakers who have recused themselves from party room deliberations. We have presiding members in other places who have also removed themselves from the deliberations of party rooms. The principle about why you would want an independent Speaker is for the fair, independent and impartial deliberation of this house.

It is very difficult to have this debate without reflecting on the Chair, or any Chair's rulings, and I will do so very cautiously because I do not want to reflect on the Chair. It occurs to me that there are an inordinate number of opposition frontbenchers who are ejected during question time for breaching standing orders without a standing order or point of order being moved. Therefore, there is a breach of the standing orders, there is no point of order by any member to bring that breach of the standing orders to the attention of the Speaker, but the Speaker miraculously identifies it.

However, when there are numerous points of order about government ministers debating answers to questions—yes, occasionally they are upheld; sometimes they are not—there is a political bent, either voluntary or involuntary, in the way we conduct ourselves in this place because we are a small parliament in terms of scale and it is almost impossible for any member to conduct themselves, in the position you hold, Mr Speaker, independently when they sit in the party room with their friends and colleagues. Trust me, Mr Speaker—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Exactly.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Chaffey!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If Texas Tim could listen, what I was saying is that no member in this place can do that. It is very difficult; hence, the importance of the constitutional amendment.

The constitutional amendment imposes on this parliament a rigour to ensure that the Speaker must be independent, must act independently and provide protections for the parliament to ensure it. Why? Well, why would we not want an independent arbiter of our debates, an adjudicator, who looks at the debates not through the prism of party political benefit as former Labor Speakers have and current Liberal Speakers have?

It is not my fault the Premier has lost his majority. It is not my fault he is now in a minority government less than three years after winning an election. That is his fault, and now the parliament is exerting its will. These are the consequences of a lapse of leadership. That is what happens when you spend more time at events than tending your garden, than tending to the people you need in this parliament.

So the parliament wants an independent Speaker. Why? Because we have all observed it; we know what it is like. I know how members opposite felt in 16 long years in opposition, and I know what it is like in three long years in opposition. Independent Speakers, independent adjudicators of debate, improve the quality of the parliament, improve the quality of question time and improve the quality of our discourse. How could anyone oppose it other than if you want to entrench partisan political bias in the immense and huge powers that the Speaker is clothed in? The Speaker, whoever it is, is clothed in immense responsibility and powers given to them by the constitution and the standing orders. Those standing orders allow the Speaker to even give precedence on debate in this house.

The opposition raised matters of privilege. There has not been one example, despite what I believe is overwhelming evidence, that privileges motions could have been justified. The truth is that in this house, in our system of government, whoever has the majority on this floor runs the place. If, for example, hypothetically a minister were to incorrectly fill out their register of pecuniary interests to the parliament, so what? There is no scrutiny; there is none. People are not even declaring their family trusts anymore. They do not need to because there is a majority in the house by the government, so therefore there is no scrutiny. You mislead the parliament; if you have the numbers, there is no scrutiny. If you say something incorrect, who cares? If you mislead, who cares? If you do not declare a conflict, who cares? Because the parliament uses its majority to protect those ministers.

An independent Speaker, by compulsion of the Constitution Act, will be a defence against that and it will outlast this parliament. It will be a good reform that will set this state on a good course for good representative government. The truth is, I wager that probably since representative government has been in place in South Australia, more than often we have had an independent Speaker not from a political party. I suspect it is a relatively new occurrence to have organised political parties holding that office; and, when organised political parties hold constitutional office, it is used politically.

The parliament now, in this rare snapshot of time that we have where the government is in extreme minority and 24 members of the house are in opposition, think it is time for a change. They want independence in their Speakership, independence in the way the adjudication of debates occurs in this place. It is a good constitutional reform. The question is why would anyone oppose removing politics from the adjudication of debate in this house? Why are members of the government fearful of losing the protection of a constitutional officer? Why? Well, I have to say that the standing orders are observed in the breach rather than the rule.

I have been here 24 years and a day, along with the member for Florey. I have seen ministers come and go and I have seen ministers held to account, but the only time I have seen ministers held to account in this place properly by the parliament—not by the media, but by the parliament—is when there has been a minority government and we have had a crossbench strong enough to exert the traditions and standards that this place expects.

That is what is occurring now. It is a good reform. It is a reform that may come back to bite me and bite others on this side of the house, but I say that is a good thing. It is a good thing for our democracy, it is a good thing for freedom of speech and it is a good thing for our debates in this parliament and we should not be fearful of it. We should, of course, do all we can to support the crossbench in attempting to legislate the independence of the adjudication of the Speakership.

I also think it is important that privilege is upheld by an independent constitutional officer who does so in the interests of the traditions of the parliament set back from the House of Commons. That privilege is not there for us as individuals but for the public. That privilege is there to protect the public from the Crown. That is why we have it, so we can speak out. There is a reason we are summonsed to the other place, because the Crown cannot enter this room. There is a reason our Speaker is independent.

There is a reason we slam the door in the face of the Usher of the Black Rod—because this house is the people's house and the people's house should defend its rights and privileges to the very end. That means now a constitutional amendment to ensure that the person charged with defending those rights of this parliament is truly independent, without a partisan political motive. Who would be opposed to that? Well, it seems the Liberal Party. I think that says it all.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley—Minister for Innovation and Skills) (16:41): It is a good thing we ran out of time for the member for West Torrens because I am sure he was going to lecture us about speeding next, about the dangers of speeding and how you should not speed and you should pay your bills and you should pay your fines. What hypocrisy from the member for West Torrens!

The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The member for Lee rises on a point of order.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Not only is it debate but it is also disorderly and against convention that an unparliamentary term like 'hypocrisy' is used in this place when referring to another member. Somebody who has been in here since 2006 should know better.

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order in respect of debate. We are in the course of the second reading debate on the bill, so there might be a matter of relevance that might arise in due course. In the circumstances of the use of the word, I do not uphold the point of order. The minister has the call.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It is just extraordinary that the member for West Torrens, with a straight face, would tell this parliament that because somebody is not a member of a political party all of a sudden they have converted on the road to Damascus, they have left all their allegiances, all the factional deals that were done, all the branch stacking that they have been responsible for—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: —as members of their political party—and I am referring to the Labor Party because the Labor Party has a rule that if you vote against the party line you get the sack, you are thrown out from the party. This is very convenient for the Labor Party because we know on our side of politics that somebody can reserve their right, if they do not agree with the party, they can vote—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Lee!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: —they can cross the floor. They can vote and do that. There are no consequences for doing that, only to their own constituents. But in the Labor Party it is automatic dismissal. Look what happened to those two MLCs in the 1990s who voted for the leasing of ETSA. So bitter was the feud between Terry Cameron and his mate up there that they had to build a wall up in the opposition rooms so that the Labor Party did not have to look at those rats. They call them rats, people who rat on the Labor Party. So the member for West Torrens actually suggests that someone like Michael Atkinson, who is a foundation builder of the shoppies union power in the Labor Party, will all of sudden, if he is elected as Speaker of the Parliament, completely forget all that—and do not forget this little tickler amendment that we are expecting to see introduced by the proponents of this bill later that you can rejoin the party.

Do you think that is going to happen in the Labor Party if you do the wrong thing? If you are a fair Speaker and you are responsible for the removal of a Labor minister, do you really think you are going to get your Labor Party membership back? No way. It does not work like that in the Labor Party.

As to the suggestion that the sycophants of the trade union movement and the Labor Party are going to completely forget about their allegiances and their friends and who they owe, it is all about deals in the Labor Party, intimidation and deals. That is how you get to where the member for Lee is, that is how you get to where the member for Playford is: intimidation and deals. That is how it is done in the Labor Party.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will resume his seat.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Is the member for Playford or the member for Lee seeking the call? The member for Lee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is a personal reflection on me. I would like a withdrawal and an apology.

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Innovation and Skills will withdraw and apologise for that expression.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Certainly, sir. I withdraw and apologise. Of course, we know how the Labor Party works.

Mr Brown interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The minister, resume his seat. The member for Playford.

Mr BROWN: I would ask the minister to withdraw and apologise for the reflection he made on me as well.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I withdraw and apologise, sir. Of course, we know how the Labor Party works, and it starts with 15 and 16 year olds who are forced to sit through a half-hour shoppies union induction on their first day at Coles or Woolworths or Kmart or any of the other retail—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: —organisations this union represents. They are forced to sit there and listen to a union induction. The union induction tells them—they use a stick; they break a single stick to see how weak that stick is.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Point of order, sir.

The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The member for Lee rises on a point of order.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It is relevance, sir. This is completely irrelevant to the bill which we are seeking to debate.

The SPEAKER: I am listening carefully to the contribution of members on all sides of this debate. The subject matter of the bill, as has been addressed—and rather widely—concerns questions of independence and impartiality. It is important that members, in their contributions to the debate, confine themselves to matters relevant to the subject matter of the bill. To that extent, I uphold the point of order and I remind the minister that we are debating the specific matters that are the subject of the bill. The minister has the call.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I am simply using the example of how entrenched those who lead the Labor Party are in their relationships and how the machine—

Mr Szakacs interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Cheltenham!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: —that is, the big unions like the shoppies union, how they manipulate—

Mr Szakacs interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Cheltenham!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: —the electoral system. They do deals with the big retailers so they can have access to 15 and 16 year olds and intimidate them to sign on to union membership.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Point of order, sir.

The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The member for Lee rises on a point of order.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I raise the same point of order, that of relevance, about the same contribution that the member is now making again in a repetitive way that you have previously ruled on, Mr Speaker. It has nothing to do with the bill that we are debating.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I have previously upheld a point of order of the member for Lee. I draw the minister's attention to the subject matter of the bill. The minister has the call.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The subject matter of the bill is about some magical amendment to the constitution that if somebody gives up their party membership all of a sudden they are a different person. That simply does not happen. It is a nonsense to suggest that by not being a member of a political party you do not favour a particular view or you do not owe people something.

We know how organised the system is in the Labor Party and how it is what we call a pyramid of power. Union members are at the base of the pyramid, but the wider the base of the pyramid the more quickly you can push yourself up to the pointy end and end up with a seat in parliament. So it is about controlling. Remember that these people do not vote for themselves. They have shoppies union representatives who get more votes—

Mr Szakacs interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Cheltenham!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: —the bigger their membership. But those shoppies members do not get to vote for who is going to represent them in the parliament. People like Peter Malinauskas as the—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: —leader of the shoppies union are the ones who decide who goes into parliament. Remember that he was the one who tapped Mike Rann on the shoulder and said, 'Time to go, mate.' His shoppies union mate Mr Jack Snelling was there with him. These are the allegiances. These are the relationships that are built in the Labor Party. If the Labor Party just stands over there and tells this parliament that by removing somebody's membership to the Labor Party all of a sudden they are independent, it is absolute nonsense.

Mr Boyer interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Wright!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It is nothing more than a stunt and nothing more than an attempt to destabilise this parliament and this government that is doing enormous work for the economy here in South Australia, with the COVID response here in South Australia, keeping South Australians safe, keeping them in work, keeping them in jobs, as we are recovering from—

Mr Boyer interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Wright!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I am a bit sick of those opposite making derogatory remarks about apprentices. I hear it time and time again. I know that there are many tradies out there who have apprenticeships to thank for the incomes they are earning and the terrific jobs and careers that they are delivering because of their apprenticeships. It just shows you how far away the Labor Party has moved from their origins, the fact that they use an opportunity like this to ridicule someone who has entered the workforce through an apprenticeship. It is absolutely outrageous and it tells you what the Labor Party stands for. They stand for themselves and political opportunism, and that is it.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (16:52): Well, how do you follow an extraordinary contribution like that from the member for Unley? Really, you must wonder—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Cheltenham and the member for Wright will cease interjecting. I am listening carefully to the contribution of the member for Lee. The member for Lee has the call.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I feel for the electors of Unley having that to be the best effort to represent them in this place. How extraordinary! We get this diatribe. Apparently, it is a revelation to this place that the labour movement in South Australia, coincidentally founded 130 years ago in this state this year, comprised people from workplaces who joined together into a literal union and asked people to stand for parliament to represent their interests in here. Apparently, to the member for Unley that is some great revelation.

Then the concept of unionism about strength in numbers, making sure that those workers hitherto exploited by their employers should bind together for a common outcome, is apparently unpalatable in the eyes of the member for Unley and presumably those others on that side of the chamber. We are very proud of it.

To this assertion that suddenly you cannot become an independent in the chair, that people will be willing to relinquish their political affiliations once they sit in that chair, I would say even without having to leave a political party, we saw that. Those opposite—particularly the Deputy Premier, the member for Stuart and the member for Hammond over there—the short memories amongst the three of them and others forget that when they were over this side, particularly between 2014 and 2018, they would have the entire first half of question time unfettered to ask questions of the government without interruption, without Dorothy Dixers being called, half an hour of questioning non-stop, no breaks after three questions in order to alleviate the pressure being experienced by a minister. That is what an independent Speaker can provide this chamber.

But we have been denied that for more than 3½ years. We have had this run sheet approach by the presiding officers in this place of making sure that we can give the appearance of having a question time, the appearance of government being held to account in this place and the appearance of practising responsible government in this state. It has been a sham and one protected by the numbers of the South Australian Liberal Party.

I know it is has been a strategy of the member for Dunstan, the member for Bragg and the member for Morialta, the leading lights of the moderates in the Liberal Party, to eschew any dissenting voices within their party and, in particular, in the cabinet to make sure that they dominate all those positions that come with the benefit of government.

What did they do when it came to selecting a Speaker after the election? Did they think, 'I wonder who's been in here for a long time? I wonder who's got the respect of the chamber? I wonder who understands the standing orders?' Perhaps you might think of someone like the member for Flinders, for example. No, it was announced on election night that we should give it to the member for Hartley as some sort of reward for beating off the demon that was Nick Xenophon's SA-Best party.

That is the treatment of the position of Speaker by the Liberal Party here in South Australia, and what does it mean for the rest of us? When there are issues of genuine concern—I am sorry, Mr Speaker, there is a stranger in the house calling attention for a member. Is there a government adviser for a private member's bill? Do we all invite our staff in now? Is that what is happening? Does she need the leave of the house?

The SPEAKER: The member for Lee has the call.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, sir. We will get back to this being a gathering of popularly elected members of parliament. Where do we see this and what does it mean for the rest of us in parliament? We are all, as I just said, popularly elected to represent our electorates. Some of us do that in the course of business, making contributions to second reading debates on bills. Some of us make grievance debates; others are required to hold the government to account, having shadow ministerial responsibilities. In any of those different hats that we might wear, we are constrained in doing so when the government uses its numbers to ensure that it protects its own interests and silences opposing voices in this place.

With all due respect, that is what we have endured for 3½ years. You might wonder why question times get rowdy. When a member of the opposition stands and raises a legitimate point of order because a minister is deliberately running down the clock of question time by waffling on about something that is purely debate and completely unrelated to the subject of the question, and we raise that with the Presiding Officer and it is overruled in favour of the government who is seeking to run down the clock of question time, then what do we have left?

The only forum left is interjections and then how is that rewarded? How is the silencing of dissenting voices in this parliament rewarded? We get booted out for it. That is the experience of the last 3½ years. Those members opposite might stand up and say, 'I can't understand where this is coming from. This is outrageous. This is unprecedented.' Well, do you know where it comes from? It is behaviour from that side of the chamber and what you instil in presiding officers in this place.

It is not very enjoyable, I can tell you, to have the responsibility to try to represent 25,000 or so electors and not be able to get their voices heard in here because you are actively silenced by the government of the day. I had never witnessed that sort of behaviour in all the years that I worked around this place in government or outside it, but I have to tell you it has had a sharp point in the last 3½ years.

Every single South Australian deserves to have their voice heard and heard equally in this place, not just if you happen to be located in an electorate where the government of the day happens to have a majority—but that is what we have suffered over the last 3½ years. You can throw up your hands and you can say that this is some great conspiracy against the operations of the house, or it is some great overturning of decades if not more of history in this place, but nothing could be further from the truth.

This parliament was deliberately constituted in a way where, in its current iteration, we elect 47 representatives of the community. If they happen to be members of a political party or not, that is a matter for the composition of the chamber. Out of those 47, eventually a majority will emerge and, out of that majority, they will ask someone to lead them who will become Premier, who will go over to the Governor and seek permission to form a government in their name. That is what our constitution provides for.

The member for West Torrens is exactly right: we are basically constituted in the image of the House of Commons in the Palace of Westminster. They have an independent Speaker, and it works well over there. We have seen the independent Speaker in the House of Commons, particularly in recent years, work to hold the parliament to account, whether it be government or members of the opposition, members of minor parties or Independents. It is not too much to ask that we have the same here in South Australia, particularly when we have been exposed to the alternative.

There have been clear and obvious cases of ministers providing incorrect information to the chamber. You have to get to the realisation that it is being done deliberately because it is usually in the course of uncaringly and callously casting aside a point that is being made by another member of parliament or a question that has been asked by the opposition or a member of the crossbench. They will say anything—anything—to get past a period of questioning from this parliament.

That is a grievous offence to the house, to mislead the parliament. We are all given a privilege, but with it comes responsibility: you have to be correct, honest and diligent in dealing with the house—and ministers have not been. That behaviour has consistently been swept away with the rulings of the presiding officers, and that is unacceptable.

I came into this place, as a new member of parliament and a brand-new minister, quivering at the thought that I might get something wrong when I addressed the house. Now they do not even bother. If it helps their political argument, if it enhances their debate, they will say anything to make their point, whether it is correct or not. That standard has to be raised. That cannot continue, and that is why we need somebody who will take a genuine, independent approach to the presiding membership of the chamber.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (17:02): I rise in respect of the bill moved by the member for Florey to change our constitution in regard to the independence of the position of Speaker. As you know, sir, and as all members know, this is a very powerful position. The houses of parliament themselves, the legislature, is a powerful institution which for some time over the past few decades—particularly in the lower house, where we have seen in place a majority of a particular party of a particular type—takes its bidding from the executive government. The executive of the day decides how things operate, the way it works.

We are not in that situation at the moment. We were in that situation in this house, but bit by bit the power dynamic has changed in this chamber and we are now very much in a hung parliament situation, where there is a real dynamic of every vote being up to the deliberation of the house in terms of where things will go.

In the previous parliament, of which I was privileged to be a member, most of the time, despite it starting as a minority government, it did the opposite. Instead of what has now happened, with the government getting smaller and smaller, the government votes in the previous parliament got bigger and bigger and bigger and so votes were assured. Now the opposite is true, and it does give this opportunity to consider the issue that has been discussed for many years as to whether there should be an independent Speaker in place.

Clearly, as has been discussed, this is a great tradition from the United Kingdom and the House of Commons, where for many years there has been a tradition respected, both in the way their chamber operates and by their unwritten constitution, that the Speaker be an independent position. The person who forms that position, while often being originally from a political party, no longer takes part in that political party and sits independently to arbitrate the house and decide matters for the house in its operation, and that has worked obviously extremely well in the United Kingdom for hundreds of years. We do not see that here.

What we have seen regularly, particularly during the term of this parliament, has been Speakers from the political party of government—the Liberal Party—who have clearly at times felt the pull of the need to support that party through their deliberations. The difference really sits in terms of what we saw in the previous parliament, where we did have an independently minded Speaker in the Hon. Michael Atkinson—

The Hon. V.A. Tarzia interjecting:

Mr PICTON: —who, as the former Speaker, the member for Hartley, says was a good Speaker and who was very generous, if I recall, to the opposition of the day in terms of the deliberations, perhaps with the exception of the member for Unley, but he was otherwise very generous in terms of the number of questions that were allowed. In fact, on many occasions he used the standing order powers to remove ministers from the chamber for disruption, including, I think, one former minister who was relatively close to the former Speaker.

This is very different from what we see in this house now. When the Minister for Police, the member for Hartley, assumed the Speakership we saw the dynamic change instantly, and we were back to a very party political way of operating the Speakership, and really that has continued over the past 3½ years with the current Speaker and the previous Speaker. This would seek to alleviate that.

This would seek to put in place a proposal where the member who took the Speakership would leave their political party—and I understand there would be some discussion as to whether there would be some opportunity for them to return before the election—and sit independently to make sure that they exercised their duties without the potential for any influence by their political party. We have seen this time and again in this chamber, particularly in question time, when the imbalance in terms of how the different political parties are treated is very shocking.

We regularly see the Premier display the most outrageous behaviour in this chamber for which there is no punishment ever meted out to the Premier. People on this side get the vast majority of the warnings and the expulsions from this chamber, whereas that does not apply to the other side of the house, and clearly politics comes into it.

I think it is very clear as well with respect to what I have seen as a member of the Standing Orders Committee, where recently we have been discussing a right of reply request from a Ms Sharyn White. She asked for a right of response to the parliament in relation to comments made by the member for Adelaide in which she regarded that the member for Adelaide had made inaccurate statements about the amount and nature of contact with her. She said:

The Minister has misrepresented Adoptee Rights Australia Inc., the organisation, and myself, both as Secretary of that organisation and individually.

And also:

The Minister has invaded my privacy by naming me in Parliament and making claims about my personal experience, which also has implications for the privacy and perception of the reputations of members of my ex family-by-law.

These were very serious issues which were raised in a very detailed account from Ms Sharyn White and which were brought to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration as to whether they should be tabled in this house as a right of reply. Following the standing orders, the committee then sought a response from the minister. The response from the minister, while denying some of the elements, did not even touch on the third element that Ms White raised, which was as follows:

The Minister had invaded my privacy by naming me in Parliament and making claims about my personal experience, which also has implications for the privacy and perception of the reputations of members of my ex family-by-law.

Here we have the member for Adelaide, who did not even raise a response to those elements in her response to the committee. Then, in the deliberations of the committee, we obviously had discussions about that. I moved a motion that this should be incorporated into Hansard. That motion was tied two votes all, along party lines, and the Speaker decided to vote with the Liberal Party members on the basis, he said, that he wanted to maintain the status quo and would not form the majority in approving a motion.

However, that precedent only lasted a few minutes before the Speaker decided to form a majority with the Liberal Party to say that the statement submitted by Ms White had misrepresented the member for Adelaide in her statements before the house. Very clearly, I think this is an example where you can see the pressure put on the Speaker in terms of his party membership, rather than independently considering the matters at hand.

There were many other options available, including whether we would go back to the member for Adelaide and seek a further response in relation to the issues that she had not addressed in her response. There were options in terms of whether we go back to the complainant and seek her further particulars in relation to the complaint that she had made.

Here we have a situation where the Speaker voted with the Liberal members as a casting vote to dismiss this complaint and so that will never see the light of day on Hansard in this parliament; whereas if we had an independent Speaker who was not concerned about their party membership, I think that would have been a very different story and those concerns that were raised by Ms White, which hopefully will see the light of day through other fora, would have been tabled in this house and that right of reply would have been available for some very serious issues, including breach of privacy that Ms White had regarded.

I hope that this bill will get the support of this house to make sure that we have a parliament that is presided over independently and without the influence of a person being in one political party or another.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL (Mawson) (17:12): I rise also to support this bill and to put on the record my thoughts about how important it is to have someone who brings independence to the Speaker's role. I have been in here for nearly 16 years and have seen Speakers from both sides, and in the four years before that I witnessed Peter Lewis and Bob Such as independent Speakers—maybe Peter Lewis is not the right person to single out as a great example of being an independent Speaker; he may have had a few personality potholes. However, I think Bob Such did an extraordinary job as an independent Speaker.

I have seen, in the past 3½ years, without reflecting on anyone who might be in the chair now, the way that our side is treated compared with the other side. When we look at the number of people on this side who are sent to the sin bin or named, if you do the stats, they would far outweigh those on the other side. If we go back even further, before my time in here, I think there were stories going around; I think it might have been Graham Gunn, when he was the minister, who threw someone out—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: When he was Speaker, not minister.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Sorry, when he was Speaker. I think he might have thrown someone out for raising an eyebrow. That person obviously was not on his side of politics.

The move to follow the Westminster tradition of having an independent Speaker is a good one. It is one that would be welcomed by people in the general public who perhaps do not know how our system works; that it has generally been the government that provides the Speaker. It is something that our communities and our constituents would welcome, and I very much support this proposed change.

Mr SZAKACS (Cheltenham) (17:14): I also rise in support of this bill moved by the member for Florey and, of course, with the support of the opposition. The truth is, I have not in my time in this parliament thought a great deal about the ability for us at law to instil better principles within the stewardship of the Presiding Officer of this place.

As one of the newest members in this place—with the member for Elder still in this place—there has been at times, in my view, a degree of significant impartiality and non-partisanship on behalf of the Presiding Officers. I reflect on the former Speaker, the Minister for Emergency Services, and see him longingly wish for the great days when he was Speaker when there was a bit less scrutiny and a little less need to answer pertinent questions from the member for Kavel, as we saw in today's question time.

The one thing that is in my mind is the question around good governance and not necessarily in this place, but the need to bring good governance to this place. On reflecting on this bill, I have turned my mind to some of the lack of governance and the lack of leadership that this parliament, and this house, has seen over the last 2½ years of my time in this chamber. It is very clear that this parliament, and this house, operates in an incredibly unique legal construct. At times, it could be accused of operating in a legal black hole.

There has been an incredibly serious workplace incident that has occurred—well prosecuted, well spoken about—which I will not go into the detail of today. But what is very clear about that very significant workplace incident, and a series of workplace incidents over the years, is the lack of very clear human resource/duty of care/leadership from Presiding Officers. That is no reflection on the current Speaker because this is a product of the legal construct of this place.

The desire and the need to bring good governance to this workplace are the same and as acute as the need to bring good governance and good practice to any workplace when it comes to impartiality and when it comes to exercising proper duty of care. I know that a series of committees are looking at this at this stage, but I do hope there is cross-party whole-of-parliament support for reforms to the overall legal construct that will bring employment to this parliament. There are too many workers in this parliament who feel ostracised, who feel alienated, who feel unable to speak about harassment, who are unable to speak around and raise complaints because of the lack of a clear, responsible officer in their mind and at law as well, and that needs to change.

What needs to be brought to this chamber is a legal construct of impartiality in the Presiding Officer, and that is what this bill does by requiring the Presiding Officer to not be a member of a political party. We have heard various albeit minimal contributions from the government benches at this stage. Of course, we were all floored and completely blown away by the deep, academic approach of the member for Unley in his contribution. I think the next thing he was going to do was talk about fluoride in the water and contrails—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: Complain about it.

Mr SZAKACS: Complain about it, that's right. Frankly, if I am drinking the water that he is, then I will be complaining about it as well, because certainly his contribution was way off the reservation. But what he showed us was his hyperpartisanship and what it brings when it means a complete and utter void of judgement.

The member for Unley's judgement, the member for Unley's subjective and objective intellect that he brings to arguments, is through a partisan lens at all times such as his complete and utter distaste, as the member for Lee had put it, of the collective, of the fact that the Labor Party 130 years ago was proudly formed by workers who believe, and continue to this day to believe, in the power of numbers.

I sure as hell hope that the member for Unley is not on the UN peace team for the government benchers who are approaching the crossbench at this stage, because I tell you who also believes in the power of numbers, and that is the crossbench. The crossbench grows every single day because of the lack of leadership of this Premier who would rather run off to the Barossa and party than sit there and break bread with disaffected party and caucus colleagues of his. It is that hyperpartisanship that the member for Unley demonstrated that shows me why this bill to amend the longstanding practices of the partisanship of the Speaker is so important.

Before I came to this place—I know, much to the disgust of the member for Unley—I was a trade union leader, but also within that capacity I was a company director and I sat on a superannuation board of directors. I will tell you one thing that is very clear in the corporate world, and many of those on the other side of the chamber would absolutely, no doubt, agree with me: the critical importance of an independent chair.

In superannuation—particularly industry superannuation—and also in companies that appoint non-executive directors, the longstanding principle of independent chairmanship is critical to corporate governance. The idea that industry superannuation funds—which are, at the core, stakeholder based and shareholder based—step above that to appoint non-stakeholder, non-shareholder directors as a chair is critically important. It brings better decision-making. It brings better impartiality. It brings better outcomes for those members of industry superannuation who count on their board of directors to make the best decisions in their sole decision-making in their interests. That is what this bill attempts to do.

It may not be perfect. It may not seek to shed a natural and fundamental inclination of a person elected to this place regarding their policies. It may not shed a person's natural inclination to be community-focused rather than, as those are on the opposite benches to ours, this idea of trickle-down. It may not shed the idea that tourism is not focused around niche events that the Premier gets to attend on the taxpayer dime rather than working-class, community-accessible events like the Adelaide 500; it might not shed that.

What it will do at law is show our constituents, the public of South Australia and every member elected to this place, that the Speaker must—not should, but must—at law, per the constitution of this great state, rise above party politics and separate themselves out, no matter how much that may be against their natural inclination, against their core. It is against our core on this side to step away from the collective.

We have seen, as has been demonstrated, in just the three years of the life of this Marshall government how it is not against the natural inclination of the Premier to usher his caucus members out the door and onto the crossbench. Notwithstanding that, this is a bill of merit. This is a bill that will make the operation of this chamber better, and it will be a bill that I hope will bring better outcomes for the people of South Australia. That is why I, and we on this side, will be supporting it.

Ms COOK (Hurtle Vale) (17:24): I certainly am supporting this bill. I have done some research on the Speakers over time. I think that the independence of the Speaker is important and that the capacity of the Speaker to demonstrate that independence and impartiality in judgement over the house is vital.

I was thinking about it as in sport, in that it is very hard to maintain impartiality in judgement when you are refereeing and umpiring contests. I do feel for Speakers who are connected to the parties they represent and their difficulties. The casting vote in a tie on government bills is always given to the government by the Speaker at this point. It does not necessarily reflect what the community wants, needs or expects. I think an independent Speaker will assist in that.

The history of the Speaker is interesting. In school tours we will often, in that pantomime way, re-enact the dragging of the Speaker up to the chair because of the fear of the retribution they might face in judgement. Maybe in having an independent Speaker, I do not know whether that whole issue is lost. We might just say, 'Up you go,' and change the way we re-enact, although I hope we still respect the theatre of parliament. I found the following quote regarding independent Speakers in Australia in 2015 in the federal sphere:

Parliamentary democracy relies on the parliament, as an institution, functioning to hold the government to account. Without a truly independent Speaker presiding over how that accountability takes place, Australia's parliamentary democracy is deficient.

I think that is an interesting quote. As I was doing this and starting to write more notes on what I would perhaps say, I listened to the member for Unley, and I was seething while I was listening. I have held onto something for some time regarding my first ever meeting with the member for Unley.

First of all, I was not a trade union leader. I was not a member of a political party until some fire burnt within. There were several things that ignited that fire. You know why I am here. You know the story of my journey as a nurse and then losing my son and working in the community to make change. The first time I met the member for Unley was when I was invited to give evidence at the Social Development Committee in 2012 or 2013, when they were doing an inquiry into something to do with alcohol and the service of alcohol to minors.

I was terrified of coming into this place, but in the lead-up the Hon. Russell Wortley from the other place made me feel very calm and relaxed about coming and doing this. He said, 'The people on there, the members of parliament, want to support you and hear your evidence.' That may have been the case for the good Independent Bob Such, who was my local member, and the good Frances Bedford, member for Florey, who was the Labor person on the committee, and I believe the Hon. Kelly Vincent was another member of that committee.

As I gave the evidence as to what had led to the death of my son and the behaviour of young people under the effects of alcohol, I was then subjected to the member for Unley questioning my parenting in the middle of a committee. In the middle of the Social Development Committee, that man questioned my parenting of my 17 year old, six foot five inch, 94 kilogram son, who was out with his mates after winning a game of football, only at midnight, with one carton of beer between four of them.

He questioned my parenting. How dare he! I will not be lectured about parenting by him. How dare he! I have held that in here for the whole time that I have been in this parliament. I sat there and I listened to that rubbish come out of his mouth about unions and all that carry-on that he brought to this debate. How dare he! After six or seven years I have held this in my heart. I say shame on you, member for Unley. You are a disgrace.

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (17:29): I, too, rise to speak in support of this Constitution (Independent Speaker) Amendment Bill. I do so because, as the member for Lee spoke about at length, I also utterly believe in the right of every member of this house to equally have the right to speak, to participate in any debate they choose to participate in, to raise points of order, to question, to raise issues about the conduct of members in this house and, crucially, to be heard and to have decisions made in relation to the issues they traverse determined with utter impartiality.

We would all agree that it is an absolute honour to take your place in this house and represent the people, the community who have voted for you, and to bring what is important to them, to their families and to our whole community to this place to public attention. We would also all agree that when we are not heard, when debates are guillotined—as they were just last sitting week—when our points of order are ignored, when we are chastised for speaking up and when our complaints about treatment in this house are ignored, the voices of those we are privileged to represent are silenced.

Silenced they must not be, and for them not to be silenced we must have a Speaker who rules without fear, without favour and without affiliation, without bias and with utterly equal treatment toward every member of this house, as is the case, in essence, in Great Britain, where the Speaker may not run as a candidate at an election with party affiliation but must run as the Speaker.

The role of Speaker must also pose a positive influence on the broader operations of this parliament, with the interests of the parliament, its reputation, its history and its need to reflect community standards at the forefront of the role. I wanted to reflect on that broader role of the Speaker through some of my own experiences.

I think we were all very proud to celebrate 125 years since South Australian women successfully fought for the right to vote and to stand for parliament, making us the very first place in Australia and the second place in the world to achieve that. I had the privilege of being involved in the suffrage committee of this parliament with members from both this house and the Legislative Council.

At about the time of those celebrations, I hosted a number of women from my community and from other areas of South Australia here in Parliament House for a particular celebration. I had been thinking a lot about what had happened on the day that those women visited, and I had been thinking a lot about how welcoming and inclusive this place may or may not be. After pondering those issues, I took it on myself to write to the then Speaker of the House of Assembly. On 18 December 2019, I wrote to the then Speaker and the letter reads:

Dear Speaker,

As you are aware, today our State proudly celebrates 125 years since women successfully fought for the right to vote, and to stand for parliament, making us the first place in Australia and the second in the world to achieve this.

As we celebrate this important step forward, it is important for us to ensure our Parliament is inclusive of women in every way. I ask that the following issues particularly impacting women be expeditiously resolved.

Our Parliament lacks family friendly facilities. Earlier this year, I had a group of community event members visit me in our Parliament. A number of women in the group brought along their infants and toddlers. At different points during the visit, these women required the use of a change table and a quiet place to feed their babies.

Whilst we secured a place for breastfeeding, it was not a place that would accommodate all women who may require this space at different times. Despite a thorough search across the building, I could not locate a change table.

It is important that our South Australian Parliament is a place that includes and welcomes all and is an exemplar of being friendly and open for families. I ask that change tables be immediately purchased and placed in appropriate areas, and that an appropriate area be designated for breastfeeding and for the storage of expressed breast milk.

The Australian Breastfeeding Association provides advice and assistance to ensure workplaces and public spaces are accredited in terms of the provision of these appropriate spaces. I have worked with them on these issues in the past and would be very happy to contact them and to arrange a meeting to discuss this matter.

I would also very much appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to discuss and progress these matters, and to identify other mechanisms that we could implement to improve how welcoming and appropriate our parliament is for women and indeed, for all people and families.

Could you please contact me to advise of a suitable time to meet about these matters should you wish to do so?

Again, it is important that our State celebrates 125 years since the achievement of a significant milestone for women that we contemplate and implement the improvements that we can continue to make.

Thank you for your assistance.

That letter was written on the day that marked 125 years since South Australian women successfully fought for the right to vote and stand for this parliament. The letter was written on 18 December 2019. To date, unless I have missed it (and I am very sorry if I have), I have not received a response. I have not received a response, other than to notice that about a year after writing that letter there was finally one change table—one year after I wrote the letter—put in one set of women's toilets on the lower ground floor. I guess I should take that as my response from the Speaker.

I note that various committees of this house have now progressed some change, but certainly not all the changes that were suggested in that letter. I am sure that other members would have suggestions about how we can make this a much more inclusive family-friendly place for all. But, given the offer to meet about these matters was never accepted by the then Speaker, it is hard to have that conversation.

As I said, I think that it is incredibly important that the Speaker plays a role in upholding the dignity that should be associated with this place. I thought I had 20 minutes but I only have 10, so I am going to very quickly refer to a couple of other examples. One was earlier this year, when I tried over and over and over again to suspend standing orders to speak about the need for an urgent inquiry into sexual harassment in this workplace. I tried and I tried and I tried.

The frustrating thing was that, yes, it was frustrating that we could not have the standing orders suspended, but it was also very frustrating that every single time I tried over and over again to talk about the prevalence of sexual harassment in our community, to talk about the need for us to be an exemplar in terms of being free of sexual harassment, no matter how much I tried I was not allowed even to speak, let alone begin a debate about the importance of these particular issues.

On another occasion, I was speaking about Wicked Campers. For two years—two years—I had a bill in this place calling for a ban on vehicles with those incredibly offensive slogans, two years with debate after debate after debate and people standing out on the steps. Once in here, once in this place, I read out some of those slogans, and what should happen but the Speaker asked me not to read out those slogans.

However, I could never actually have the bill debated so that we could ensure families, children and people in our community did not have to read those slogans out on our streets. But certainly, as was the point I made on that day—

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms HILDYARD: —the Speaker ruled that those slogans were too offensive for this place.

The SPEAKER: Order! The time—

Ms HILDYARD: I have been trying to get your attention for some time, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Order! The time has expired.

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (17:40): I rise to make a brief contribution to this very important bill. As others have noted, this South Australian parliament has a very proud history of firsts and of leading the way nationally and internationally. We all know the stories of suffrage, we know, thanks indeed to the work of the member for Florey, of the work of Muriel Matters and of the suffragettes in South Australia before her, who led the way in South Australia to establishing South Australia and the South Australian parliament as leading lights in the parliamentary system across the world.

What we have a chance to do today is do that again in Australia. We have the chance to establish a truly independent, impartial Chair on these proceedings. There have been arguments made at the federal level and in other states that this should be the case, and I think it is time that we put our stamp once again on the parliamentary system across Australia and establish ourselves once again as leaders in this field.

As observers of this parliament over recent years may have noticed, I spent a long time on the government backbench and, while there were some frustrations spending time on the government backbench, I am sure it was not as bad as spending 16 years on this side of the house. During that time, I did have a lot of time to think about and to observe the processes of this place, both as an ordinary backbencher and as Chair of the Economic and Finance Committee and subsequently as Chair of an estimates committee.

Extra to those committees, I was involved in various informal groupings of people from both sides of the house who looked at ways we could reform particularly the parliamentary committee system, and often we would turn to questions of the Speaker, but obviously none of that was resolved. We did get quite far, in fact, on some questions of committee reform, but for one reason or another those fell by the wayside, and I do note that there has been a recent select committee or a standing committee looking at these matters, and hopefully we will hear from them soon.

I also got to see during that period the Speakership in microcosm as Chair of an estimates committee over four years. We all know the problems—and we discuss this every year in this place—and we discuss the problems with estimates committees. As I said, it is a microcosm of the way the Speakership works, and we know that the Chairs of the estimate committees are selected from the government and essentially steer the estimates committee in a way that favours the government. There is no doubt about that. We have seen that starkly over the last three years. I like to think I was an impartial judge presiding over the committee, but of course in recent years we have seen that tradition fall away.

As I said, this is a chance for us to really make our mark on the parliamentary system in Australia. The position of Speaker, as the member for West Torrens alluded to, is an ancient position. It is almost as old as the parliament itself, as the mother of all parliaments herself, but that position has evolved over time. Initially, the Speakers of the House of Commons—I cannot remember what they were called for the 100 years before they were called Speakers—were essentially agents of the Crown to one degree or another and they were seen as such by the members of the House of Commons.

It continued that way for 500 years: the toing and froing between the Crown and the parliament was in many ways played out by the role of the Speaker. It was not until the 19^th century that the British parliament really cemented and established the Speakership as impartial and independent. It is an important tradition, and it is a tradition that, sadly, was not conferred on the colonies in the 19^th century in quite the same way.

I think this is our chance to catch up. I think it is a chance to use the mother of all parliaments as a model for our parliament and be seen in a true leadership position within Australia. This is a reform I think is long overdue. I look forward to majority support in the house for this measure and I commend the bill to the house.

Mr BROWN (Playford) (17:45): I rise to make a brief contribution on the bill as someone who has not been a member of the house for very long, only a very short period of time in fact, but someone who has had some involvement in previous parliaments, including one in particular where there was an independent Speaker of this house between 2002 and 2006. Whilst other members have talked longingly of the period of time when the Hon. Bob Such was Speaker of the house, not too many people have spoken in great praise of the time when the Hon. Peter Lewis was Speaker of this house.

However, there are many things that I would like to say that I think reflect positively on that time. One of them is the fact that because there was an independent Speaker and, indeed, a minority government, it was very hard for those of us who were working for government ministers to have any great safety or surety as to what rulings might be made by the Speaker on things such as issues of privilege or other rulings that the Speaker was required to make.

Indeed, other members of this house who were advisers at the time will say that you were very, very careful to make sure that your minister did not do anything that could be considered as being misleading to the house. I can absolutely assure you of that. If your minister put a hair out of line—although it is true that some ministers got a bit more leeway than others—you were always sure he would be in serious trouble. Everything was checked, double-checked and triple-checked to make sure that in no way could anyone say that a minister had misled the house in any way.

While I know that some ministers did get into trouble from time to time, now that quite some time has passed I can say that I think most of them deserved it. I think ministers who got into trouble during that time when Peter Lewis was Speaker of this house certainly had let their standards slip a little bit and so got what they deserved. Unfortunately, I cannot say that is something that exists at the moment.

In my experience in this house, things such as the quality of answers to questions and the quality of ministerial statements delivered by ministers in this house pale in comparison to those delivered between 2002 and 2006. I think a lot of that has to do with a general arrogance that has crept into this government, a lot of which comes from the fact that they feel safe and secure—rightly or wrongly, I make no opinion about that—knowing that they do not think they are going to have any problems with the Speaker's rulings. That, I think, is unfortunate, and one reason why we need to look at the independence of the Speaker and adopt the proposal that has been put forward by the member for Florey.

I would also like to take some issue with the comments made by the member for Unley. I know lots of other members have done that and I am sure other members will do that following me. I do not want to take too much issue with the rant, if one could describe it as such, against collectivism that we got from the member for Unley. We are used to that from him. We know his particular views. It is well known amongst the Liberal Party. I have had a number of conversations with people on the other side about the member for Unley and his views, and their views about the member for Unley.

However, one thing I would like to talk about is that he has in his mind apparently this idea that someone who is covered by the bill will be some sort of creature of a political party, will always be harking back at the political party and always trying to do the political party's bidding. I would like to say that in my mind the person who most embodies this concept of an independent Speaker is in fact the member for Flinders.

The member for Flinders, to my mind, is the sort of person we are talking about when we are talking about an independently minded Speaker. I know the member for Flinders is intending to retire, unfortunately, at the next election, but I can see someone of his ilk and stature fulfilling the obligations that are put forth by this particular bill, leaving their party and being a fine independent Speaker of this parliament. He is the person I think we should all keep in our minds when we are talking about this particular piece of legislation, when we are talking about the sort of person who would fulfil this role.

It is important that the Speaker fulfil not only the obligations given to him or her by standing orders, but also the common law requirements, the historical obligations that go with this particular role. It is also important that the person who has these obligations be independent, because I know the role can weigh on the person who has it.

I have had a number of conversations over the years with Speakers—most recently you, sir, but also the member for Hartley, who was the Speaker before you—and I am acutely aware of the so-called twin obligations that weigh on members not only as an independent Speaker here in this house but also as someone who is a member of a political party who has weighing on them obligations to their colleagues, who expect to be given an easy run because they are a member the same political party. Ministers expect to have an easy turn from them because they are members of the same political party.

These are obligations that weigh on Speakers, and one way of allowing Speakers not to have these things weighing on them, these swords of Damocles hanging over their head, is to free them from that political party membership. So I would like to thank the member for Florey for bringing forward this bill to do just that. There are obligations on the Speaker that could be better done by Independents.

Earlier we heard people talk about rulings the Speaker makes, and how it is important that the Speaker makes those rulings independently, but there are also other things we need to consider. There is representation on the JPSC, which the Speaker chairs every second year; that needs to be independent as well. We cannot have that being the plaything of a political party, and have the Speaker being someone who has to check back with their political party as to what they want them to do. We need them to think independently about administering this place.

It is also important that we have someone who is independent so that they can represent this chamber more broadly and publicly, not only with those who visit here from time to time but also in terms of the community outreach that the Speaker needs to perform to let people know about the obligations that exist and what the chamber actually does. These things also need to be independent.

We have heard about the very common corporate practice of independent chairs for corporate boards, something I know is becoming more and more prevalent; in fact, it is very much seen as being best practice for corporate boards in this country. If we expect businesses to have independent chairs, why should we not expect this parliament itself, this sovereign entity which passes the laws of the land, not to have someone who is independent? It is ridiculous for us to put those obligations on business but not be prepared to do it ourselves.

The other thing I would like to talk about is the notion of a code of conduct, which has been raised more frequently in the last few weeks. In the opinion of some it seems that the legislation introduced into this chamber by the Attorney-General to amend ICAC could unfortunately have created a situation where obligations on members of parliament are not as strong as they should be. The way to make sure those obligations are strengthened is to have a code of conduct, so it is important that the person who is involved not only in developing but also enforcing that code of conduct be independent of the control of political parties.

I believe the best way to make sure that happens in the future is to pass the bill that has been presented to us by the member for Florey. With those few words, I urge all members to support this legislation so that we have a truly independent Speaker, so that we lead the way again, and so that South Australia shows it is committed to an independent Speaker.

Ms MICHAELS (Enfield) (17:53): I also rise to speak in favour of the member for Florey's bill on amending the Constitution Act for an Independent Speaker, and I commend her for taking this step forward in the progress of this parliament.

As you are aware, Mr Speaker, all our traditions in this place are largely taken from the Westminster system. Looking around at the green carpet in the House of Commons (as it would be in the United Kingdom), we see the executive branch sitting opposite us there. We see a lot of the conventions coming from the Westminster system; however, one of the conventions we have not taken is that of an independent Speaker. It struck me when I entered this place how difficult it must be for someone in your position, Mr Speaker, given the requirements of a Speaker, to fulfil that role while being a political party member. It must be actually very challenging.

The first independent Speaker I met was the Speaker for the Cook Islands. It was a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting held here in Adelaide, pre COVID days, so it must have been 2019. She was a lovely lady by the name of Niki Rattle, and she talked to me about not being a party member of either party and being truly independent.

She talked me through what she saw as her duties as Speaker, including allowing members to speak, whether they were from the government or from the minority. She talked to me about ensuring that members on both sides adhered to the rules of debate. I think it is very obvious, when there is not an independent Speaker, that sometimes that does not happen. Sometimes members on the government side are not necessarily called on to adhere to rules of debate as stringently as members of the opposition are.

She also talked about regulating the time allocated for debate, which our Clerks help us with greatly in this place. Ruling on disputes on procedure and protecting the rights of minorities are some issues that she mentioned to me. I imagine that if you are not an independent Speaker, it would be very difficult to be able to achieve that. Mr Speaker, you and the member for Hartley are the Speakers I have seen in my very short time here. I understand that you have attempted to do that as best you can, but there are also situations where I am astounded at some points of order during question time, for example. From my perspective, I think, 'Well, of course that is a valid point of order.'

That is not to question your judgement, Mr Speaker, but there are some situations where I think it must be very difficult to be truly independent and make those independent calls. The only way to really do that is to adopt the member for Florey's amendment bill and actually have an independent Speaker who is not a member of a political party. I think that would make this place a better place. I think it would make it a fairer place.

Obviously, other commonwealth parliaments around the world have adopted this and seen the benefits of it, so I think it is high time we take the seriousness of the Speakership and see it as a seriously independent role and one in which we will want an independent person who is not a party member to sit and regulate how this chamber operates. Unfortunately, the Speakership at the moment seems to be a bit of a prize for the government.

At the last election, we saw the member for Hartley get the prize because he managed to slay Nick Xenophon in his seat of Hartley. Perhaps it is a prize for you, Mr Speaker, in some regards. I think in the past it has also been seen as a prize to be dished out by the government of the day rather than seeing the seriousness of the Speakership role.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Are they going to give it you now, are they?

Ms MICHAELS: If the Attorney wishes me to be the Speaker, I am happy to take that role and be fiercely independent in it.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my right!

Ms MICHAELS: I do think that particular parts of the day, particularly question time, would work much more smoothly and be much fairer to both the opposition and the crossbenchers if there was an independent Speaker. I commend the member for Florey for bringing this to the house, for bringing us to the modern world, in many respects, in this place.

Some of the other things I think that we do need to take account of in updating the parliamentary process are ones we have spoken about in the Standing Orders Committee in terms of how this parliament operates for family friendly work hours, for example. We have only just recently managed to change standing orders to allow the feeding of babies in the chamber. These are all things we need to take seriously, and we need to progress how this parliament operates for the benefit of not only the current sitting members but also future sitting members. I think this is one of those issues that I think is very important and I commend the member for Florey for bringing this to the house.

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (17:59): Obviously, I have a lot of time to make my contribution. I will put on the record that I have absolutely no interest in being the Speaker. That might come as a surprise. I did work part time for a Speaker of the house on one occasion—Lyn Breuer, who was very proud to be the first female Speaker of the house.

Sitting suspended from 18:00 until 19:30.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Giles is continuing his remarks.

Mr HUGHES: Yes, I am continuing my remarks. Where was I before dinner? I was—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You were only just into it I think.

Mr HUGHES: I was confirming the fact that I had absolutely no interest in being a Speaker. We have already had one Speaker from the seat of Giles, and I think one is enough, and at least that Speaker covered herself in glory, being the first female Speaker in the history of this parliament. So that is something where you do go down in history—a proud moment for the former member for Giles, Lyn Breuer. I am sure that, when I confirmed the fact that I had no interest in being a Speaker, I heard howls of disbelief: how could I not take on a position like that?

The reason I could not take on a position like that is that I used to play for an amateur soccer team in Whyalla called Westlands United. It was partly a works team, but it had a few hangers-on from elsewhere. We were not playing for sheep stations; we were an amateur team. It was an amateur team noted for its capacity to down a few pints and have a few smokes before we even got on the pitch, and then at half time you had to top that up with another few pints and another few smokes.

Despite that, we were not all that bad when it came to playing soccer. But what was incredibly important, and something that we always paid attention to, was the quality of the referee. We wanted a referee who was objective, a referee who was balanced and a referee who, if he was going to do us for our transgressions, would do the same to the other side. Some of the referees in Whyalla did have a hard time. My brother was one of these notorious supporters of the Westlands United Soccer Club, which just celebrated its 50^th anniversary. He was actually a very good player, an A-grade player, but as a spectator he was absolutely terrible. It would be a stream of invective directed at the referee. I have a lot of respect for referees.

I have a lot of respect for referees in soccer, for umpires in footy, for those people who have to make the decisions on the pitch. The role of the Speaker is not that different. It is somewhat more complicated. Your knowledge base has to be deeper when it comes to parliamentary process, when it comes to convention, when it comes to precedent and when it comes to the history. You always have some people who are able to assist you in that process—but the role of the Speaker in the house is incredibly important.

When the member for Florey moved this bill I thought, 'Good on her. I think that is a step forward.' When I first came to this place back in 2014—and I thought maybe I was just naive—I thought the person who took on the role of Speaker should be independent or at least semi-independent. I think there is something to be said for that. In fact, I would have gone further. I was one of those people who had an inclination to maybe see the role of Speaker as being a judicial appointment. I have heard strong arguments against that and I have heard arguments for it, so I am not going to go into that space today. The important thing is that there needs to be a strong sense that the Speaker of the house is, to a degree, independent, objective and balanced because that then assists with improving the standards in the house across the board.

I am not going to reflect upon any Speakers. I have only been kicked out the once, and I think on that occasion I deserved it. I am not one of the more unruly or noisy members of this parliament. I always remember Gary Gray saying to me that he spent years getting into parliament, so why would he do something as a frontbencher to get kicked out? That was his approach, and different people have different approaches, so it is horses for courses at different times.

When we look around the world, we see different jurisdictions handle this in different ways; different parliaments handle this in different ways. I developed a significant degree of respect for the Speaker of the British parliament when they were going through that whole Brexit debate. I watched what he had to go through and what that parliament had to go through, and he managed to keep his cool and actually be very balanced about it while being mindful of his role: precedent, history and convention. I thought the way he handled that was a credit to him.

I do not have full knowledge of all the Speakers in this chamber, in fact, very few of them. I am sure there has been a mixed bag over the years. So the idea that we could have a Speaker with a greater degree of independence is something that I think we should welcome. They say that a week is a long time in politics, and a few days has been a long time in politics in this state with the shift in dynamic. I am wondering, given that we are here and looking at the role of the Speaker, whether we should look at some of the other things that we do in this place. I would be a person who would be more favourably disposed to a greater number of issues being considered by committees.

One thing I was staggered by when I came into this place, given that lots of places had done efficiency drives and the rest of it, was how much time we actually waste in this place. There are times when I have heard people read out the same prepared lines—multiple speeches with the same prepared lines. I think to myself, 'What? You don't even look at what you are reading and what other people have already said and you say exactly the same thing.' Often, it is just a variation on a theme, but usually it is just the theme over and over again. I sometimes wonder: would we not be better served to have a lead speaker and maybe a second speaker from each side and from the Independents? It would save a lot of time.

There is an irony in that given what is going on here—anyway, I have said it. It reminds me of the song from Talking Heads, Psycho Killer: 'Say something once, why say it again?' This is a house where repetition is shaped into a real art form, so I think we should be very open to what the member for Florey is trying to achieve here. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the concept of having a Speaker who is independent. As I have indicated, we have seen other jurisdictions, other parliaments, have Speakers who have a degree of independence from the party that they might well have come from. I referred to the Speaker of the British parliament during Brexit, the way he handled that and the pressure that was on him, which at the time was enormous.

So maybe a new day has dawned with the shifting dynamic in this place, with the shift in numbers, and something positive might well come from that. As the member for West Torrens said, this might come back to bite us on the bum if we are in government, but he welcomed it—he welcomed it. I think it is important, and I think it is something that the people of this state would agree is important.

Ms WORTLEY (Torrens) (19:39): I rise to speak on the Constitution (Independent Speaker) Amendment Bill 2021, a bill moved in this place by the member for Florey, who herself has served as Deputy Speaker in this place. In effect, if this bill is passed it will amend the Constitution Act 1934 in relation to the position of Speaker.

The position of Speaker adopted from the Westminster system is a very powerful position, as you would be aware, Deputy Speaker. I think it is fair to say that many who have served in this place while the member for Croydon, the Hon. Michael Atkinson, was Speaker would agree that he was indeed mostly impartial as a Speaker. In fact, there were times when some of us thought that he was too hard on those Labor members of his own party.

Interestingly, the member for Giles was talking about not having been kicked out of this place, and I note that the rules governing the Speaker and the rules governing the President in the Legislative Council in relation to being able to remove someone from the house differ considerably. The rules governing the position of Speaker under the Westminster system in Britain, however, differ from those that govern the office of Speaker here in Australia.

In Great Britain, for example, the Speaker may not run at an election as a candidate with party affiliation, but must do so as the Speaker, and in the British system the presiding member of the House of Commons on taking up the position must resign from the political party to which they belong. They are not able to involve themselves in political activity, not only while holding the position but even when they are no longer in parliament, when they leave.

There would be some Speakers over the years who would have liked to adopt the British system, I am sure, where if they stand for re-election they are not opposed by the major political parties. It is said to enable them as a Speaker to exercise their powers without fear or favour, and their independence in office extends to how they vote in the event of a tie, with convention dictating that they vote in favour of continuing the debate or maintaining the status quo, and that is not something I can say that we have here.

It is interesting to read what is written about the Presiding Officer's position in other parliaments. In Canada, for example, the Speaker is nearly always elected from the party in government, similar to what we have here, and is supposed to avoid partisan political activity. They are not required to make a complete break. However, when running for re-election, incumbent Speakers are usually careful to avoid partisan statements that might prejudice their perceived impartiality in the future. Again, that is something that we do not see here, and I am sure that many would like it to stay that way.

In New Zealand, it is important that the elected Speaker is not biased towards any political party. This is to ensure that parliament has an equal chance to contribute to the debates and to take part in other business in the house. The Speaker of New Zealand's House of Representatives is allowed to maintain links with their political party, but they are not allowed to show political bias when chairing business in the house, and the Speaker must not show preference or disrespect for any political party, for the government or in opposition. It sounds familiar, not unlike what we have here in our parliament.

It is legendary in our federal parliament in the House of Representatives that when Bronwyn Bishop was the Speaker between the years of 2013 and 2015, I understand, she removed around 400 members of the House of Representatives, and of those 393 were from the Labor opposition—393—with only seven from the Liberal government, of which she was a member. When I was looking up those figures I had to go back and check them because they seem almost unbelievable. But I do ask: where is the impartiality there? If the bill before us is passed, it will mean that a person elected as Speaker of this house will not be able, while holding the office of Speaker, to be a member of a political party.

It would also mean that a person elected as the Speaker while occupying that office would not be able to actively participate in the votes and proceedings of a registered political party. It is worth highlighting that this does not include votes and proceedings of the House of Assembly or of parliamentary committees.

Further, should a member of a registered political party who is elected as Speaker not resign from that party by the end of the day on which they were elected to the office of Speaker, it would come into play that at the end of that day they immediately vacate the office. The Speaker could, under this bill, be removed as the Speaker on a motion by any member of the House of Assembly, approved by a majority of members of the House of Assembly.

There is also in this bill, moved by the member for Florey, a transitional provision which states that the person holding office as the Speaker of the House of Assembly immediately before the commencement of this act continues to hold office until the first sitting day of the House of Assembly occurring after the commencement of this act. So as to the current Speaker, that may or may not affect them under the current circumstances should the bill be passed.

Interestingly, history reveals that in our South Australian parliament there have been a number of occasions—six, I believe—on which the Speaker of the House of Assembly was not in the governing party. Independent MP Tom Stott was elected Speaker following the 1962 election, which had resulted in a hung parliament. The Liberal Party offered him the job in order to retain government. Stott held this position until Labor won in 1965 but regained it under similar circumstances following the 1968 election, then retiring at the 1970 election. He had a considerable time in that position.

Further hung parliaments led to Speakerships of Ted Connelly under Labor from 1975 to 1977; Norm Peterson, again under Labor, from 1989 to 1993; and Peter Lewis under Labor following the 2002 election. When Lewis resigned on 4 April 2005, he was replaced by fellow Independent Bob Such, who held the job until the following election. Many of us here in this place can remember that.

In Australia, both at the state level in the House of Assembly and at the federal level in the House of Representatives, our Speakers are meant to be impartial. However, they are able to remain—at the moment—an active member of their party room and they can also stand for re-election as a party member. In fact, they can continue to campaign for their seat at election time just as any other candidate can and it is fair to say that their position and political future depends on the ongoing support of their party. It will be interesting to see, if this bill passes, how that plays out. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay) (19:48): I rise to speak in support of the Constitution (Independent Speaker) Amendment Bill 2021 introduced by the member for Florey. The ambition of this bill is to confirm and maintain the utmost independence of the role of Speaker in our South Australian parliament and to have that independence confirmed within legislation. How will this work? It will work that the person has been elected and must not, while occupying the office, be a member of, or actively participate in the votes and proceedings of, a registered political party. In addition, a member of a registered political party who is elected as Speaker and who does not resign from the party by the end of the day on which they were so elected will, at the end of that day, immediately vacate the office of Speaker.

In this context, a 'registered political party' has the same meaning as in the Electoral Act 1985. When I started to write some notes about this issue, I thought I should reacquaint myself with the actual functionality and the role of the Speaker as the Presiding Officer of the House of Assembly. In my research, I was drawn to Edwin Blackmore, who was an assistant Clerk of the parliament in 1885. To remind ourselves, they listed duties as such:

The ordinary duties in the Chair consist—

In presiding of the deliberations of the House, and maintaining order:

I know sometimes we need a little bit more control than always, but order is the desire here. It continues:

In counting the House before the business is commenced, and at any time when attention is called to the state of the House:

In calling upon Members to speak, to put the questions and move the motions standing in their names, and bringing up Bills:

In putting questions for the decision of the House, and declaring the result by voices or by divisions:

In giving a casting vote where necessary:

I experienced that just recently during the debate of the multicultural bill, when we had even numbers on either side about a particular amendment and the Speaker was required to give a casting vote. Alas, it did not go my way, but I had not actually seen that happen very often in my nearly 10 years in this house. Blackmore continues:

In receiving Reports from Committee of the whole House:

In receiving and communicating to the House Messages from the Governor, and from the Legislative Council:

In announcing vacancies and the issue of Writs:

In reporting Assent to Bills:

In adjourning the House, whether on motion or from want of a Quorum.

These are just the basic things the Speaker does, but when you reflect that this comes from words written in 1885 it is important for us to reflect on the Westminster system and how well it has treated us here in the Commonwealth of Australia and in the South Australian parliament and throughout the world.

Whether it be Canada or New Zealand or Great Britain, we have many jurisdictions using very similar rules that were set down hundreds of years ago. But they do change from time to time and they change because it is the will of the parliament to change. They change because they need to be updated. The get changed because of concerns of the people elected to this house.

Most importantly, we should remind ourselves of the focal point of what a Speaker does. They are constitutional, procedural, administrative matters on behalf of the house—not on behalf the government, not half of the opposition, but on behalf of the house. That took me to some brief research about some comments about independent Speakers. I have heard other people speak here about Great Britain and the use of an independent Speaker.

There was an article a few years ago by Ryan Goss, who was a lecturer in law at the ANU. He talked a little bit about why we should consider a fully independent Speaker here. He was reflecting on the Australian parliament at that time in 2015. I think the member for Torrens reflected on that time as well about certain antics of a Speaker of the house, but they are worthy of raising today. He talks about Great Britain having an independent Speaker who is more than a fair umpire, the fact that a Speaker in the House of Commons resigns from their political party and therefore the Speaker speaks for parliament, not for government.

In this article, Ryan Goss reflects on Walter Bagehot, the political writer from the 19^th century. He says:

…one of parliament’s most important jobs is:

…watching and checking the ministers of the Crown.

So this is something that has been reflected upon for many years. It is something that, although the system serves us very well, means that we should consider roles from time to time. He looks at the fact that Great Britain has a truly independent Speaker, who allows the parliament as an institution to be separate from the government—to keep ministers accountable. The independent control enhances the accountability of the government.

I thank the member for Florey for bringing this forward, because that is what she is aiming to do—to enhance the accountability of the government to the people of South Australia. This is their house, the South Australian parliament. I have just hosted an event, had people here and said, 'Welcome to your house,' because it does not belong to us as politicians: it belongs to the people of South Australia.

In this article, Ryan Goss gives an example of what can happen in the House of Commons and I think this is quite interesting. It provides, above and beyond question time, something called 'urgent questions' on very important issues of the day. As we reflect on looking at an independent Speaker and having that within legislation, maybe there are some other elements which we could consider on very important matters which are urgent for the day to be asked above and beyond.

I stand in support of this amendment bill to reflect on the role of the Speaker and to remind ourselves how important it is that the Speaker must act with both authority and impartiality. They are fundamental to our system of democracy and laid the foundations for which we stand here today. I support the bill.

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (19:56): I come to this proposal by the member for Florey without unfettered enthusiasm. While our side of the parliament has indicated that we will be supporting it—and I do support it—I do not do so assuming that this is an easy change to make, nor that it does not come at some cost. This is a difficult thing to do, to change the nature in which a Speaker is considered to be a Speaker, depending on their connection to a political party.

The two concerns that I come to this with are, first, that I am a believer in political parties. Unlike many people—increasing numbers of people—in this parliament, I do not see myself ever wanting to leave the political party of which I have been a member since I was 15. I think political parties are fundamentally a force of good in our democracies, although I also appreciate that there is a very serious role for people who are independent members of parliament.

The second area, and I am certainly not the only person who feels that way on this side but neither would I say that I am necessarily in a majority, is that I have a lot of time for our current Speaker. Our current Speaker was the Chair of a committee that I still sit on and I think he is an honourable person, a thoughtful and intelligent person, and I think he seeks to do his job well. That is not necessarily the view that is entirely shared by everyone on my side, but it is one that I hold sincerely.

In no way is this a proposal, from my perspective, that is a reflection on the current Speaker. It is, however, a reflection on the way in which the Speaker's role is used, the way that it is required to conduct itself, and perhaps also the way in which the public regards the role of Speaker.

The idea of an independent Speaker is not unique and it is not new. As many other speakers on this side have canvassed, it has been the Westminster tradition for some time—around the time, I believe, that political parties first came into being—the question of how the person presiding over the chamber ought to relate to those loyalties that political parties require. It seems to work in Westminster.

There are various other versions in other parliaments that come within the Westminster system, but it is the one in the UK that is the most explicit. I do think, though, that some consideration ought to be given to the role of the Speaker in relation to the Speaker's electorate. I personally would be interested in an amendment that allowed a Speaker who is an Independent to reconnect with a political party in the context of seeking re-election.

I have thought about it in my own terms. I am very proud not just to be the member for Port Adelaide but to be a Labor Party member who represents the seat of Port Adelaide, and a lot of my electorate feel the same way. They often introduce me as the Labor member for Port Adelaide, even though strictly speaking I am the member for all of Port Adelaide. I would not want to go to an election in my seat, in my community, not proudly part of the Labor Party, even—and I personally will never aspire to be Speaker—in the instance that I was required through a role that I held here to be independent of the political party for a time.

So I think there may be a way to accommodate—and we will see what happens in the committee stage—an independent Speaker who is also then able to connect with their political party as they run for election. I think we can hold those two thoughts separately. But the question of why have an independent Speaker I think really arises from the conditions, rules and expectations that sit around a Speaker acting as this sort of presiding officer.

I have now seen four Speakers in the nearly 10 years that I have been here and they have all operated in their own individual ways. Although they have all been members of a political party, they have in their own different ways endeavoured to operate within the existing system, some of them more critical of people on their own political side than others.

There may well be a dispute about Speaker Michael Atkinson. Where we sit is where we stand, so we experienced what we experienced, but I certainly found the experience as a minister of being reprimanded in questions that I was answering in a way that has not been replicated with subsequent Speakers when, for example, information has been very widely available in the public.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner: He was mainly concerned about your grammar.

Dr CLOSE: And he did occasionally text me in Latin, indeed. That happened during a question I was answering. He gave me the Latin expression for something I was trying to say. So certainly we all have our own way and style, but my point is more that that is occurring within the context of the Speaker having been appointed by the party of government, usually the party of majority, although not necessarily, as we have been discovering.

So that person comes from the government, is appointed by the government and is part of the government's party, but is then expected to independently oversee the implementation of the standing orders, to reprimand behaviour and to act in a fair and so-called independent manner, and that is not easy for the Speaker.

I have to say that I like the current Speaker very much, but I have seen very bad behaviour not being dealt with on one side and what I would regard as milder behaviour being treated much more firmly on the other. I think we are only human if we understand that the considerations that go into how someone hears and sees and then acts on what is in front of them are informed by who you belong to, who you are part of and who you spend time with.

Speaker Atkinson removed himself almost entirely from the Labor caucus. I do not know if that has happened subsequently and I do not know if it happened before, but it is one way of attempting to say, 'I'm not really part of this decision-making group. I will sit out of that.' It is trying to find an accommodation for dealing with the challenge of needing to in fact treat all sides of parliament equally and dispassionately.

A different way of doing that is exactly what the member for Florey has suggested, which is to say that, for the period you are in that role—not you, sir, of course, as Deputy Speaker as I do not believe there is any suggestion that your role would change—the Speaker would step out of that alignment or that connection to a political party and all of the loyalties that go with that in order to enable them not only in practice but also with the comfort of the rules around them to be able to be truly dispassionate.

If we had a Speaker who was not a member of the governing party, the government would not expect them to treat them more gently. Whereas now I wonder if the Premier maybe gives a little bit of an eye to one of the two Speakers we have had since the election, in that 'It is okay if I am shouting across or I am saying things to the other side. It is only when the Leader of the Opposition or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition says things that there ought to be a reprimand.' That gets removed by a Speaker not just hoping to be independent, not just independent in theory in the role, but actually declared to be independent from the political party. It may make it easier for any Speaker to do their job well.

I certainly think that this would be attractive to the public. I think the public would expect that the person sitting in what is in some ways the judicial chair, the presiding chair, would enforce the rules dispassionately, and the public would probably find it very attractive to have that person not being tied to the loyalty of a particular political party and particularly not, of course, the party that otherwise also has the numbers and has the capacity to give future largesse.

Although, as I say, I have not come to this with immediate enthusiasm and I do not see this as being something that is clear-cut, I do think, having had the time to consider the precedents and consider the purpose—the intention the member for Florey has come to this with—that it probably is an advance for our parliament and is one that the public would welcome.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (20:06): I might make a small contribution to this debate and welcome the opportunity to discuss this important issue because I think this issue is in some ways symbolic of other reforms which we may have to undertake in the parliament if we are to survive this century and gain the trust of the people who elect us to this place.

I think the idea of having an independent Speaker would certainly enhance the way the chamber operates and so I thank the member for Florey for bringing this bill before us. I am hopeful that the bill will be successful but if it is not I think that the debate in itself is worthwhile having, because it does challenge what we have seen in the time I have been here, almost 16 years, and challenges the way we think about this chamber.

That brings me to the next point: what are the benefits of having a potentially independent Speaker? I should say at the outset that in what I am saying, as other members have said before me, this is not a reflection on any Speaker. This is about the position of Speaker, rather than the current incumbent or previous incumbent.

All the Speakers who have held that position in my time in this chamber have had their strengths and some have had fewer strengths than others, but all of them have done the best they can, but all of them have been members of parties and all of them have, to some extent, been influenced by that relationship to their party.

My personal view is Speaker Atkinson was probably the one who had a slight independent streak about him and would often chastise our side of parliament as often as he would the other side of parliament. From that, I have some insights into what a potentially independent Speaker could do. In terms of the benefits of having an independent Speaker, I think something very important that is perhaps lost in this chamber, but also lost in probably all lower house chambers in all Australian territories and jurisdictions, is that often the parliament and the executive become one.

The reality is that if you have a majority party who heads this chamber and the Speaker is one of that party the line between the executive and the parliament is a very fragile line and invariably, because the Speaker's position relies on the support of their own party, that must influence, if not consciously then unconsciously, the way they may vote at times in their position. That is not suggesting anything improper. That is suggesting it is just a political reality. So the idea of an independent Speaker would certainly remove that sort of restriction or constraint or that pressure or bias from the Speaker of the day.

I think it is very important. It is an important distinction in our democratic institutions that the executive and the parliament are two separate institutions, but the reality is that in practice they become one, because when the major party that forms government also controls the Speaker and the chairmen of all those committees, etc., it is very hard to hold the executive of the day accountable for their performance.

Other speakers have alluded to that in terms of question time. In question time you can see, if you like, the brutal end of the strong link between the executive and the parliament in the sense that while the rules say ministers can answer questions in whichever way they wish, at times they do not even go close to the question which is asked. With an independent Speaker, I think that would change, and that would change for the better.

That would change for the better not only what happens in parliament in terms of accountability of the government of the day but also how the people outside this chamber would perceive us. That is very important, because we are, sadly, on a trajectory whereby people have less trust in our institutions. Unfortunately, both governments and the parliament have less trust today than they did some years ago. We need to redress that if we are to maintain a civil society. So I think that break in the strong nexus between the executive and parliament is an important one.

An independent Speaker would also give the opportunity for the Speaker to be a defender of the legislature much more clearly and speak on behalf of the legislature rather than speak on behalf of the majority party of the day. I think that is a benefit too: the Speaker can actually speak with confidence not only of the majority party but of all of the parliament. I think that is an important distinction and a very important thing to do.

That said, I know some Speakers and particularly some Deputy Speakers have done a very good job in that regard, but the reality is that they are still seen to be a member of that party, although they have tried their very hardest to be impartial, and I think that within those restrictions they have done an excellent job.

The Speaker would also become a much more effective voice for the house rather than a voice for the party, because if they are independent there is no obligation upon them to actually speak on behalf of their party or be seen to speak on behalf of their party. They would speak on behalf of the parliament itself.

They are some of the things I think are worth considering in the context of this bill. They are some of the strengths I see in it. I am happy to listen to what may be some of the drawbacks. One drawback that has been brought to my attention is that if a member of a political party has to resign their position to become the Speaker, it then means that political party is minus one member on the floor.

In the English parliament, where that happens, it is not such a big issue because they have a membership of 650 MPs. In a chamber of 47, one vote is perhaps more valuable. One in 47 is perhaps more valuable than one in 650. Having said that, even in the British parliament it is a problem, because I think Margaret Thatcher came to government as a result of the previous government, the Callaghan government, losing a vote of confidence by one vote. The Speaker at the time was a Labor Speaker; had he been on the floor, that vote of confidence would not have got across the floor, and we may not have seen Margaret Thatcher for some time.

So that is one of the drawbacks. But one has to weigh up the drawbacks against the benefits, and from my point of view at this stage, certainly from what I have heard today, the benefits of having an independent Speaker outweigh the potential drawbacks.

One of the things I do, as all members do, is do tours of parliament, particularly with students. I know some members of parliament on the other side like to bash the unions, etc. I do not necessarily do that. I am quite complimentary about some famous Liberal premiers. One of the things we talk about, though, is the bar and how it defines the floor of the chamber. I explain to them how important that definition is, what it is about. It is about the battle between the then monarch and the legislature about power and who represents the people and how, I think it was James II—I am happy to be corrected—was put on the throne.

Mr Brown: Charles II.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Sorry, Charles II—I am corrected. After the Cromwell period, Charles II was put on the throne. It was done on the basis that he and his heirs and successor would never interfere with the running of the people's chamber. That is very important because, previously, Speakers had been, to some extent, targeted by monarchs if they did not toe the monarch's line; in fact, I think seven Speakers lost their lives. They were beheaded by the monarchs of the day for not doing the right thing, as the monarchs saw it.

One of the Speakers was beheaded about 510 years ago during the time of King Henry VIII, who decided to behead one of the Speakers, Edmund Dudley, because obviously Edmund Dudley did not do the right thing according to the king, apart from his poor wives of the day, who from his view did not do the right thing by him.

The role of the Speaker is very important. I understand the first Speaker was appointed in 1377. Over time, the position has evolved to maintain the independence of the Speaker. The independence of the Speaker is important even today, as the member for West Torrens says, in our mother parliament of England. For those reasons, I wish to support this bill.

Mr GEE (Taylor) (20:16): I am happy to support this amendment to the Constitution Act 1934 moved by the member for Florey. I am really not surprised that this amendment is now before the parliament. I think that for any thoughtful person this amendment makes a lot of sense. It is a bit threatening to people who have belonged to a political party for a long time. Some people have been in political parties for their whole working life and do not like the thought of having to resign from the party they belong to and love. I would hope that if a member of any party or from the crossbench took the opportunity, with the support of the parliament, to be Speaker, they would have the full support of the political party they belong to, and they should welcome that decision.

I think most people are like me. As immigrants, I grew up in a house with my brother. We were very close—only 11 months apart. Looking back at it now, it seemed quite harmless, but I would say there were not many days when we did not fight; we fought a lot. Those were the days when we had one car in the house. Dad was at work. Mum would look after the house and get us off to school. If she wanted the car, she would have to drive my dad to work early in the morning. If she had the car for the day, she would have to get us from school and then pick my dad up from work.

I do not know why it was that my brother and I fought. It was very physical. I do not think we enjoyed it; I do not know what it was. My mother used to deal with us fairly. She always dealt with us equally. Whatever the punishment was, it was the same for both of us, my brother and I. I think we did break a lot of furniture and a lot of belongings, which she loved and were probably irreplaceable, not that we understood that.

One thing I will always remember is that if it escalated to the next level where she was going to tell my father, then it was brutal. In today's sort of thinking and language, you would think it was highly inappropriate. It would just be brutal. Even the punishment we received from my father would always be measured out in equal terms, but I tell you what was worse than the punishment—waiting all day for my father to get home, just waiting. I would be looking and thinking of all the arguments I could use to put to him that it was my brother's fault, and he would be doing the same, working out that he was in the right and I was in the wrong.

It was great to know at that time with my parents that they were not aligned with me or they were not aligned with my brother: they were aligned with each other and there was independence there. I always knew that they loved me, but imagine if they had taken one side over the other person's side? That would have been absolutely devastating. There was always that independence. For me, I grew up believing in independence. It did not hurt us—well, it did hurt us a lot, but we got over it because we were young and strong.

Another thing I wanted to say is that I am really surprised how large the crossbench is now, but I think that is an indication really of what is going on within the government. I have tried not to go over what everyone else has gone over, but a lot of the speeches have talked about the past, but I think we have to talk about the future and we have to talk about reform, and this is a positive reform.

It may be difficult for people who are members of political parties—not just the crossbencher who could become the Speaker but people who are in political parties. If this amendment bill is successful, then political parties have to work out how the party is going to support the person who becomes the Speaker. As I said, it is a challenge for somebody who has been a part of a party and loved that party all their lives then suddenly have to resign from that party.

Ms Bedford: It's not that hard. Buckle up, buckaroo.

Mr GEE: No. The member for Florey reminds us that as the longest serving person here in the parliament—

Ms Bedford: Female.

Mr GEE: —female, also with the member for West Torrens.

Ms Bedford: Joint parent of the house.

Mr GEE: Yes, and the house is in good hands. I think it is a credit to them that they are the ones who have brought this forward and spoken on it so well. As I say, I am surprised that this has not been brought forward before. It just makes sense, it really does. This sort of reform is possibly what we need here.

I was listening to the member for member for Giles talking about refereeing and everything like that. It is another indication. After going through it and working out that you need independent parents who are going to treat you fairly, you then go into sport, where you can take out some of your aggression. Again, you rely on those people to adjudicate and not to be aligned with one side or the other, and it is difficult. I have refereed a few games in my life.

In my previous role within a union, the nature of the automotive industry was that most people had to live in a 60-second cycle and you had to really improvise. You did not have time; you could not just stop one thing and shut down thousands of people. You have to be able to move and you have to be able to think. You have to have people who can make up their minds and make decisions that never hurt other people—they are always impartial.

One of my roles was as a returning officer and, for some reason, instead of having elections every four years or two years, we used to have elections every year, so I would be running probably 200 to 300 elections a year as the returning officer, and maintaining that impartiality is very similar. A lot of these chaps, living in a 60-second cycle, would rather go outside and sort it out than stand around a ballot box and have a vote. So there was a bit of crowd control going on as well, similar to the role of the Speaker, I guess, in trying to maintain order in the house. I know it is difficult. I have to say that I have only had one warning in eight years, from Speaker Atkinson, and I think it was a mistake.

An honourable member: It was unfair.

Mr GEE: I think it was unfair, it was. I felt like it was being impartial, and I decided to never let it happen again.

Members interjecting:

Mr GEE: I have learnt my lesson.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! We will let the member for Taylor complete his remarks. Thirty seconds to go, member for Taylor.

Mr GEE: We should move on and get to the vote. I commend the amendment to the house.

Mr BOYER (Wright) (20:26): I rise to offer some brief remarks on the bill. It is often said that kids ask the toughest questions and that has certainly been my experience when taking students through this place on tours of Parliament House.

In gathering my thoughts to say a few words this evening, I had cause to reflect on the fact that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait flags are only flying in this chamber now because a year 6 student from Surrey Downs Primary School by the name of Bella was courageous and had the wherewithal to ask a question of me about why they were not hanging here already. That completely stumped me and I did not have a good answer for her, but there began a process by which collectively we came together and we now find these flags hanging where they should always have been.

It is also on these tours that I have met a couple of students who were very well versed in our system of government, surprisingly well versed, and who asked me some very tricky questions about how our parliament functions. I am sure something that we have all done on occasion is attempt to in some way dumb down our explanation of the functions of parliament because we think that is something that we need to do for students.

I was certainly caught napping on an occasion when I was describing the role of the Speaker and likened it to an independent umpire. A student on this occasion put up their hand and said, 'But isn't the Speaker also a member of a political party?' Of course I said, 'Yes, that is correct, or that is normally the case.' The student then went on to ask, 'In that case, how can we assume or believe that the Speaker is therefore an independent umpire?'

I think these kinds of interactions with our young people and the incisive and clear way that they see the world, and the clear way that this young student on this occasion saw the partisan nature of the Speaker role in our modern system of government, really goes to the heart in a much clearer way of the nonsensical nature of how it currently functions probably than we could ever explain ourselves as adults. As has been said by many members of this chamber who have spoken before me this evening, these were practices that were put in place before the party system was entrenched like it is now.

Another one that comes to mind is the deadlock conference, which I have had, I will not say the pleasure, but the experience of being a member of once as a member of parliament and of dealing with on a couple of occasions as a staff member. The deadlock conference was devised at a time when members of parliament participating in that conference could be relied upon to represent the views of the chamber in which they sat.

It was supposed to be a meeting of the two chambers: members of the House of Assembly were there to represent the views of their chamber and members of the Legislative Council were there to represent the views of their chamber. Of course, in our modern system of government it is absurd to expect members of parliament from each chamber to cross party lines and come together to represent the views of that chamber and that chamber alone, and not let party politics bleed into that process in any way.

There are a number of longstanding traditions and processes in this place that were put in place and devised with very good intentions, but at a time when the party structure was not as entrenched as it is now. Because of that, some of those processes have broken down and do not function the same way they once did. That in itself is probably reason enough to mount an argument for the need for reform of or change to the Speaker's position, regardless of which party is in government.

It is possibly greater now than it has ever been because of the fact that the two-party political system is more entrenched now than ever, and therefore the possibility or likelihood that office bearers such as the Speaker are able to act independently, free of any inference or partisanship, is probably far more unrealistic now than it has ever been. In many respects, that incongruence between what the role of the Speaker is supposed to be and what the role of the Speaker actually is undermines the integrity of our whole parliamentary system.

Our young people—and I include myself in this category—at a young age had it instilled in them that our system of government was a beacon of democracy that had some very important checks and balances in place that operated free of partisanship and bias—things like ministerial responsibility, which were to be enforced by independent office bearers who had sworn a sacred oath, etc. I guess once you learn of what is now the partisan and party political way in which office bearers are chosen, it is a bit like arriving at the Emerald City and drawing back the curtain and seeing the Wizard of Oz for what they really are.

I am sure it is a bit like that for our young people as well, in the sense that we teach them all these important lessons about the things that hold our democracy together, the things that keep our government functioning, but then they learn that the person we so regularly refer to as an independent umpire on our tours of this place is actually chosen by the party governing at that time.

When I consider these things it makes me look at the story we tell the students who come on those tours about how the Speaker used to be dragged to the chair unwillingly. I tell that story now really more as an example of how brutal and barbaric our practices used to be and how far we have come. Whilst not for a second do I advocate for us to return to any of those kinds of barbaric practices, the fact that we now give the Speakership up as a prize of government instead of being a role that was, back in the day, incredibly difficult and possibly life threatening, probably goes to highlight that we have in some way lost sight of what the role really needs to be.

Although in the scheme of our democracy, in the scheme of our government, this is perhaps just one small cog, I have always fundamentally believed that collectively making improvements in these kinds of areas can go a long way overall to restoring the deficit of trust we have in politics and politicians, which is something we in this chamber deal with every single day. Not only do we have very important roles in terms of legislating for the state, we also have roles we need to play in trying to restore that deficit, to build trust with the community, to build trust in our systems of government, to build trust in our elected members of parliament. In that spirit, I commend the bill to the house.

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (20:34): I would like to thank all members for their contributions and just make a note on something the Attorney-General mentioned. I have no plans for an additional or extra code of conduct other than the one being worked on by the committee elsewhere. It is not about some new thing.

Returning to the bill, this is not a new notion for me. This is something I have thought about long and hard for many years and I have been surprised now to find some happy co-travellers on this path. As I said, I thank all members for their contributions. This bill is not about the past or any former member. It is about freeing the incumbent Speaker into a position where they are able to make frank and fearless rulings in the house without fear of retribution from either side, because that is what independence is going to bring to this chamber.

I have actually seen the best and worst of all things here in parliament from both sides. I believe firmly in the two-party system, which is our greatest strength when it works, but I do not think it is actually working at the moment, and I believe it has become one of our greatest weaknesses or problems. Parties themselves must return to their democratic ways. Unless members here in this house respect the position of Speaker and the law we are making here tonight, nothing is going to change the behaviour in this house.

Behaviour has to improve. All members must be heard in silence. It is the worst possible nightmare for anybody in the chair to try to organise unruly behaviour. We must all understand we are being watched by our constituents, and our behaviour is not appreciated. We are not held in high regard.

As an Independent, I have sought changes in this place for accountability for us. I have been lucky enough to bring forward petitions with at least 10,000 physical signatures to trigger a report—not that that in itself is any great spark, but it is better than we had; petitions had no weight at all. We have managed to get extra questions for Independents at question time, much to the horror of everybody I know, but it has been able to see real questions be asked in this place.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner: It's nice to occasionally get a question.

Ms BEDFORD: That is right, but I mean in the old days when I sat on benches in a party my questions were real questions, and I had to fight long and hard to get my real question.

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

Ms BEDFORD: Unfortunately, we cannot point fingers, because any number of questions on either side of this place are absolutely ridiculous.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner: Yes, I know. We heard them today.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Ms BEDFORD: Which question of mine did you not like today?

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister for Education will cease interjecting.

Ms BEDFORD: We have also managed to have extra grievances, and I really do thank and acknowledge the current government for having the—what is the right word, Attorney-General?—wherewithal to grant that to the Independents. We have appreciated that, and it has been productive. I want to thank them for allowing us to have the extra staff that has meant we can do this work in this place, because without a party structure or support from a machine behind you, the work of an Independent is arduous.

It is in allowing the Speaker independence that we ensure the office of the Speaker can be effective. I have to commend the current Speaker, Speaker Teague, for his work in instigating today of all days the Muriel Matters Award. I must also acknowledge the work of the Minister for Education. It has been truly wonderful to see a new generation of young people out and about being active in their communities and ready to make change.

Speakers can and must be independent and free to make rulings without fear or favour. If we cannot respect the Speaker and their rulings and each other, we are not going to be able to uphold the expectations of the people of South Australia. Quite the reverse of suggestions today, rather than destabilising the government, I see this bill as a way to reinvigorate the parliament and therefore the government so they can deliver good government and legislation to the people of South Australia. I think with those remarks I might leave it at that and commend the bill to the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Florey has moved that the bill be now read a second time. Before I put the question, I need to inform the house that, as this is a bill to amend the Constitution Act and provides for an alteration of the constitution of the Legislative Council and/or the House of Assembly, its second reading is required to be carried by an absolute majority.

Ms BEDFORD: Would you like me to draw attention to the state of the house, sir?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, there is no need to do that, because I have not quite finished yet, member for Florey. In accordance with standing order 242, I see that there is not an absolute majority present, so we will ring the bells.

An absolute majority being present:

The SPEAKER: I will put the question that the bill be now read a second time.

The house divided on the second reading:

Ayes 24

Noes 22

Majority 2

Second reading thus carried; bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I ask the mover of the bill to indicate who she has consulted on this bill.

Ms BEDFORD: It may—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

Ms BEDFORD: It may surprise the Attorney, perhaps, I have not spoken with her, but it is something I have been interested in since almost my earliest days in parliament. It became more of a passion, so to speak, after my visit to Westminster, where I met Speaker Bercow and spent some time with him, and again when I spoke with the Speaker in the parliament of New Zealand and had contact with the office of Speaker Jenkins in the federal parliament.

It is something I have been thinking of for quite some time, and I have consulted with the crossbench most recently when it became apparent there was some interest in my proposition. It is something I have been raising from time to time with anyone who has had anything to do with me.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Do I take it the mover is suggesting that apart from the persons who have been in office that she has indicated—

Ms Bedford: Apart from who?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —those Speakers or others she has referred to—there has not been any consultation with any other person?

Ms BEDFORD: Do you want me to name everyone I have ever spoken to about this?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, on the bill.

Ms BEDFORD: On this particular bill today? Parliamentary counsel have had most to do with it, because we have had something similar in my bag of tricks for some time, but they have reworked it today for me.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In the 24 years that she has been in the parliament, can the member for Florey indicate on how many occasions she has introduced a bill of this kind?

Ms BEDFORD: You have been here for most of those years. You know I have not done it at all. I am not a fool who will introduce things when I know they have absolutely no chance, although petrol was such an occasion.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The Attorney has had three questions. Are there any further questions on clause 1? If not, I will put the question.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: During the time that the member for Florey was the Deputy Speaker, did she attend her Labor party room meetings?

Ms BEDFORD: Well, that is an interesting question. Of course I did, but if anyone had studied my time here in parliament they would know I have been on the outer since the first day I arrived here. In fact, I can remember one particular day when I lost a vote 31-1 to try to be Speaker in the party room, so there is no need to indicate or imply that I have ever enjoyed anything in the Labor Party other than contempt most of the time.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My question is to the member for Florey. I am somewhat confused after the line of cross-examination by the member for Bragg. This relates to the position of Speaker, doesn't it, not Chair of Committees, not Deputy Speaker?

Ms BEDFORD: Correct. It says 'Independent Speaker'.

The CHAIR: Thanks, member for Lee. You have made that point.

Clause passed.

New clause 2A.

Ms BEDFORD: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bedford–1]—

Page 2, after line 9—Insert:

2A—Amendment of section 6—Place and time for holding Sessions of Parliament

(1) Section 6(1)(c)—before ‘prorogue’ insert ‘except during a relevant election period’

(2) Section 6—after subsection (2) insert:

(3) In this section—

relevant election period means the period commencing on 1 July in the year immediately before a general election of members of the House of Assembly is held in accordance with section 28(1) and ending on the day of that general election (and includes, if the Constitution (Independent Speaker) Amendment Act 2021 comes into operation during a relevant election period, the remainder of that relevant election period).

This clause is to prevent parliament from being prorogued during the period leading up to a state election. It does not affect the power to dissolve parliament for the purposes of the election. It ensures, rather, the current session of parliament continues until the election. The amendment will apply to the current pre-election period as well as future ones.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Is it the intention of this amendment to facilitate continued sitting up until 15 February 2022 or thereabouts as caretaker?

Ms BEDFORD: Absolutely.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Does the member have any intention of identifying the proposed sitting days for the purpose of that?

Ms BEDFORD: At this stage, as far as I am concerned, it is just the sitting days on the calendar, although I have an appetite to sit perhaps the optional week but that is just me. That is going to be up to parliament, obviously.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Does the member have any proposal that we sit during December and January and up until the middle of February?

Ms BEDFORD: I do not think that is up to me. I think that is going to be up to the parliament.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: My question though is: was that the proposal—

Mr Picton: You have had three questions.

The CHAIR: Just take a seat for a moment, Attorney. I was just about to make the point, member for Kaurna, that the Attorney was seeking clarification on her previous question and if you read the Hansard you will find that. You will know that, as Deputy Speaker, I have allowed that from time to time.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As a matter of clarification, is the intention of the mover of the bill though that we do sit up until mid-February?

Ms BEDFORD: No.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Would the measure in the amendment preventing parliament being prorogued enable a select committee, for example, constituted of the house, to continue sitting beyond perhaps a parliamentary sitting date that might be agreed to?

Ms BEDFORD: Yes, as far as I am concerned everything is going to be up to the house to make those decisions.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Would it prevent the government of the day essentially stopping those sorts of either parliamentary sittings or select committee hearings or a continuation of those sorts of parliamentary processes?

Ms BEDFORD: Yes, in the appropriate circumstances that would be true.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Did the member consult other members of the South Australian parliament in regard to this clause or any clause in the bill and, if so, when did that consultation start?

Members interjecting:

Ms BEDFORD: I did not hear the last part of that question. I cannot hear.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: My question was: did you consult other members of this parliament about any clause in this bill and when did that consultation start? When did you first speak to a member of parliament in the South Australian parliament about this bill?

Ms BEDFORD: As I have said, this is not something that has come out of the blue. This is something that I have spoken to other people about for many years but it would be fair to say it is only in recent days that I have talked to the crossbench about it and that is why we are now where we are.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: When? What is the date that you started speaking to the crossbench? Which crossbench member did you speak to and did you speak to any other members of parliament?

Ms BEDFORD: I do not think this is relevant to the bill at all.

The CHAIR: Thank you, member for Florey. Minister, we are asking questions in relation to the amendment which seeks to insert new clause 2A. The Attorney has already canvassed the consultation that may or may not have occurred and that was during clause 1. That was your opportunity, so rephrase your question, please.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Was this clause inserted to satisfy a request by any member of the Labor Party?

Ms BEDFORD: Absolutely not. I have been autonomous of the Labor Party for many years—many, many years.

The CHAIR: Attorney, you have asked three questions—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Okay, I will go to clause 3.

The CHAIR: —and I have allowed you an extra question for clarification, so I am going to put the question.

New clause inserted.

Clause 3.

Ms BEDFORD: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Bedford–1]—

Page 2, line 16 [clause 3(2), inserted subsection (4)]—After ‘registered political party’ insert:

, except during a relevant election period

Amendment No 3 [Bedford–1]—

Page 2, line 17 [clause 3(2), inserted subsection (5)]—After ‘elected as Speaker’ insert:

(other than during a relevant election period)

Amendment No 4 [Bedford–1]—

Page 2, after line 23 [clause 3(2), inserted subsection (6)]—Insert:

relevant election period means the period commencing on 1 July in the year immediately before a general election of members of the House of Assembly is held in accordance with section 28(1) and ending on the day of that general election (and includes, if the Constitution (Independent Speaker) Amendment Act 2021 comes into operation during a relevant election period, the remainder of that relevant election period).

I am happy to move these amendments en bloc because they are all for clause 3. They talk about making sure that the person who is acting as the independent Speaker has the opportunity prior to an election to recommence their membership of a party in that election period, whichever party they are in. This is not designed to install necessarily only an Independent person, it is actually about making sure all members have the opportunity to be a Speaker and that once they are they have the opportunity to be independent of whichever party they might be in.

The CHAIR: Just before the Attorney speaks, I will clarify that the member for Florey has moved three amendments, amendments Nos 2, 3 and 4 standing in her name, en bloc. You have done that, member for Florey; I am just reminding the committee that that is what has occurred.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In the event that there was an early election—that is, prior to 1 July of the preceding year—what provision is made for a person who may be Speaker who is independent to join a political party?

Ms BEDFORD: Again, I do not see how there would be an early election.

Members interjecting:

Ms BEDFORD: I cannot hear you with your mask on. Do me a favour and let me hear what you are saying.

The CHAIR: In fact, member for Florey, it was an interjection, so there is no need to respond.

Ms BEDFORD: I know, but I am trying to be as fair as I can be. I do not understand how there can be an early election, and if there were I am sure the parliament would have the wit to organise that. The intention of this is to make—

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner interjecting:

Ms BEDFORD: You are interjecting again and I have been told not to listen to you.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner interjecting:

Ms BEDFORD: Yes, but you are not supposed to be interjecting. If the parliament does not have the wit to understand the intent of this, which is not malign but about trying to do something good, if we cannot work our way around it, then we really should not be here. It is fairly obvious and I have been assured by parliamentary counsel this is what it is supposed achieve to give that person who may have had to relinquish a party membership the opportunity to take that up again to run as a party member for that next election, whenever it occurs.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: My understanding is that these amendments will allow that, if it is in the relevant election period—1 July to 1 March in the election year, the third Saturday, etc., so in that nine-month period—the Speaker could rejoin a political party or join a political party, whether it is rejoining or not, for the purposes of preparing for the following election. How do you expect that they will be able to undertake their role independently as Speaker for what might be the first five or six months of that prior to the election in operating as Speaker that is different to what they do in the first three years and three months of the electoral cycle?

Ms BEDFORD: Working on the theory we have fixed terms, you are now trying to predict an occasion where there might be an early election—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, this is normal. So let me just clarify. My understanding of this amendment is that Speaker can join or rejoin a political party in that last nine months for the purposes of being able to be part of the election as an endorsed candidate for a particular party. How are they able to undertake their duties independently for that nine months, which, for some reason or other, you are providing in the bill they have to have independence and no political alignment for the first three years and three months of that electoral cycle?

Ms BEDFORD: That gets back to the fact that we do not have that informal understanding that exists in the United Kingdom.

An honourable member interjecting:

Ms BEDFORD: Well, we don't. In the United Kingdom, the Speaker does not have a party, the Speaker is not challenged. Here, we are trying to allow the person who is charged to run the house in an impartial fashion the right to be able to take up party membership or rejoin a party or run again under a party umbrella in their seat at the appropriate time when an election is called.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: From 1 July to at least November/December, they are going to continue to be the Speaker of the house, which is a period that they are purportedly continuing their role as Speaker, ostensibly independently, and now will be a member of a political party, which is the antithesis of what you are proposing here, namely, that there be no political allegiance during the time of their tenure as Speaker.

I realise that amendments Nos 2, 3, and 4 are designed to enable them to rejoin and be part of that banner for the purposes of the forthcoming election, but how are they able to undertake their role of independence for those five or six months, during the parliamentary sitting week, when, for some reason, they cannot do it in the preceding three years, three months?

Ms BEDFORD: That is like walking and chewing gum, is it not? I am sure whoever we put in the chair, or whoever is in the chair, is going to be capable of doing that.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The question then is: if they can walk and chew gum at the same time for those nine months, why can they not do it for the other three years, three months?

Ms BEDFORD: Well, that is—

The CHAIR: I am actually having a lot of trouble hearing both the questions and the responses here. I would ask the members asking the question and the members answering to direct their questions and answers through the Chair, otherwise I am going to miss it.

Ms BEDFORD: If we had the exact replication of what is happening in the United Kingdom, none of this would be happening, but we have not got that here. We are trying to come to a position where we can have a Chair able to chair impartially and still enjoy the ability to rejoin a party at the time of an election, if they are in a party.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: So—

The CHAIR: No, Attorney, you have had your quota of questions.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, there are three amendments being put at once here, so I would ask your indulgence, Chair.

The CHAIR: Yes, alright. I will come back to you, Attorney, and I will make a decision on that.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Just while the Chair is considering how many questions somebody gets on three amendments—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Minister, I am going to interrupt you. Fear not, I am not intimidated by the Minister for Education. The Minister for Education has the call.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Thank you, sir. I was clarifying what you had just said and I thank you for that.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! I know it is the evening—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: My question is to the proponent of the amendment and the proponent of the bill and I just seek clarification. The member has put forward a bill which, as I understand it, is on the basis that she thinks that somebody might be intimidated by being a member of a party room and therefore unable to conduct themselves independently.

I think she or members may have offered as evidence of that Speaker Atkinson removing himself from a party room, albeit I certainly did not see any independence that followed from that. Indeed, it was the wherewithal of an individual Speaker in that circumstance—one who was not running for re-election.

As far as I can gather from this amendment, what the member is proposing is that to remove somebody from a party room for three years and three months is desirable, but at the very moment when they are seeking to run for re-election—when they are potentially offering themselves for preselection in the party from whence they came or another party—at that moment, nine months from an election, when the parliament might be at its most febrile in most people's experience, the member is putting forward an amendment, as far as I can tell, that would reinstate somebody in their political party and therefore, potentially, have them at that same threat of loss of preselection or potentially the opportunity to gain a preselection if they are joining a new political party, as may be the case.

If the member thinks that this amendment is worthy of consideration—unlike the UK where nobody runs against the Speaker in their seat and they have many hundreds of members of parliament, that would mean that people do not feel the need to run against the Speaker given that it is unlikely to have an impact on the outcome of the election. Given that difference, if the member thinks that it is therefore necessary to allow the Speaker to join a political party, then for what purpose has she introduced this bill at all?

Ms BEDFORD: Only if that person wishes to be in a party, because they may not wish to be in a party. Once they are free, they might like being free.

The CHAIR: Attorney, by my calculations, you have had four questions already. Given that they have been moved—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: Here we go—Atticus Finch.

The CHAIR: Member for Lee, pipe down. Given that you have had four questions and the amendments have been moved en bloc, I am considering them as one.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Can the member for Florey advise when she first started consulting the member for Kavel about this bill and these amendments?

Ms BEDFORD: It is actually the other way around, if you think about it. I do not have legal experience. On the other two occasions I have had a private member's bill—you might not have been here—much to his horror, the member for Croydon or Cheltenham or whatever he was at that time, Atkinson, came downstairs and championed the bill for me not because he wanted to help me but because he wanted to put everybody else back in their box, so I merely asked the member for Kavel because he has some working knowledge of the law.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: When did you first discuss this bill with the member for Kavel and what input did the member for Kavel have into this bill?

Ms BEDFORD: I asked him for his help this evening. If you would like to look at my phone, I am happy to show you.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: So are you ruling out that—you have had no conversation with the member for Kavel on this bill prior to tonight? Is that what you are saying?

Ms BEDFORD: It is actually the other way around. I raised it with the crossbench.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Why did the member choose 1 July in the year preceding an election for this amendment rather than the time at which a redistribution is finalised and therefore the seats for the coming election might potentially be available for a Speaker to determine whether or not their own continuation in this house was feasible with or without the renewal of their membership or newly joining a political party?

Ms BEDFORD: I was advised by parliamentary counsel that this was necessary because of the funding disclosure period. If you have other information, share it with the house.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: On that basis, the purpose for the date 1 July is so as to marry up with the funding and disclosure period, as required under our state election laws. Given that the bill has been provided to the parliament and the people of South Australia for consideration in one day, which is unorthodox to say the least and usually as a result of significant—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: Like a COVID bill or a supply bill or those other pieces of government legislation that you have rammed through in the last 18 months without notice or warning.

The CHAIR: The member for Lee is called to order.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I might need to start again. On the basis that parliamentary counsel provided advice to the member for Florey, which she confirmed has not been circulated to the public outside of the broad conceptual stage previously and certainly not the detail of the bill and certainly not the detail of this amendment to the bill, which has been introduced since the bill was introduced earlier today, the member for Florey, potentially with the support of the Labor Party and some of the crossbench, is proposing to amend the South Australian constitution on several hours' notice with detail she has identified needs to be amended.

As I understand it from her last answer, she is saying that it has to be married up on 1 July that the independent Speaker can renew their membership of the Labor Party or the Liberal Party or whatever other party they want because it ties in with the funding and disclosure threshold for which there is a reporting requirement through the Electoral Commissioner of South Australia.

I note that the member for Florey has said that is the reason for that date, rather than any other period, because it will tie up with the member's potential re-election expenses. Notwithstanding that the purpose of the bill is to increase independence, and given that the redistribution now comes out sometime before 1 July in the funding period and it is open to any political party to pre-select their candidate well before 1 July in that funding period, it therefore makes it, I would have thought, the easiest way for a political party to pressure a potentially independent Speaker under the definition of this to have preselection prior to 1 July in that period.

Can I ask the member firstly whether there was any consideration given to potentially not doing this bill in such an unorthodox fashion, given its incredible impact on the constitution. Usually bills that move through more quickly are done so in consultation with significant amounts of the relevant government agency involved or indeed, as was the case in the ICAC legislation, as a result of a parliamentary committee inquiry over extended periods of time.

Has the member for Florey discussed this amendment with the Electoral Commissioner of South Australia, who is indeed responsible for the policing of the basis for which the amendment the date of 1 July has been chosen?

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! Every member has an opportunity to ask a question during committee stage.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The member for Florey has the call.

Ms BEDFORD: I think it is again back to walking and chewing gum. If we cannot find an independent person, or a person prepared to take the chair in an independent fashion, who then can have an eye to other things, I do not see the problem. I see this as being entirely workable. I am sure each of us has a—

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Is it the vibe?

Members interjecting:

Ms BEDFORD: It is clearly not the vibe for you, unfortunately, sir, but it is brought to the house with the best of intentions. You may doubt that and you are entitled to doubt that, but it is not here to be mischievous or create trouble or further rancour in the house. It is actually a genuine attempt to raise the standard of debate and to reinforce ourselves in the public eye as being a place of the best behaviour with the best of intentions. I am sorry if you cannot see that.

The CHAIR: The Minister for Education has already had three questions and I will remind—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The CHAIR: The member for Lee, unfortunately, is warned. We have a way to go in this committee and I suggest you be cognisant of that. Before I call the member for Schubert, I will just remind members that should these amendments pass we then have the opportunity to question the member for Florey on clause 3 as amended.

Mr KNOLL: The fundamental premise, I understand, of this bill and this clause is, as the member for Florey suggests, to have an independent Speaker because inherent in that statement is the fact that an independent Speaker is going to somehow elicit different behaviour from a Speaker who is not independent.

I note in that that the situation of having a minority government is a situation the upper house has found itself in—I think the last time there was a majority by one party in the upper house it was maybe in the early nineties somewhere—that they have had some 30-odd years now of minority government situation in the upper house. They have not seen fit to need this requirement and have been able to operate in a fair and impartial manner, as I think this house has too. They have had the power to undertake this style of amendment, have not found the need to, yet we hear on the first day of finding ourselves in this situation this needs to be jammed through without any due process.

My question is: if a Speaker who was a member of a political party resigns that office as is the intention under this, what inherent in that resignation is going to change the behaviour that they would undertake sitting in the chair?

Ms BEDFORD: Their oath to the Governor.

The CHAIR: Before you go, member for Schubert, could you repeat your answer please, member for Florey.

Ms BEDFORD: Their oath to the Governor.

Mr KNOLL: That answer to me is entirely unsatisfactory because that oath to the office that the Speaker holds exists regardless of whether someone is a member of a registered political party. The job that the Speaker undertakes—the role that they undertake and the oaths that they make to deal fairly and impartially in this chamber—exists regardless of whether the member is a member of a registered political party and shows that this legislation is nothing more than farce. It is childish, and it shows that once again there are people in this chamber who want to spend much more time worried about their own internal matters as distinct from looking after the best interests of South Australians.

Members interjecting:

Mr KNOLL: Explain to me how this helps the people of South Australia. It does not—and if it did, then those who are pushing this bill would much prefer to allow it to have the scrutiny and time and due processes that are normally afforded to these things. Certainly in my time in this place the only other time I have seen something jammed through in this way was the last day of the last parliament when the fairness clause was got rid of without any public scrutiny and debate.

With regard to legislation on ICAC that recently went through, I was satisfied by a parliamentary committee—

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The CHAIR: The leader is called to order.

Mr KNOLL: —as well as a committee of members from across parties, across two chambers, that looked at that legislation tightly. When it comes to COVID emergency legislation, we were dealing with very specific time frames. There is absolutely no reason given for why this legislation needs to be jammed through today. Again, I would like to give the opportunity to ask the question: explain to me why—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Schubert, can you just take your seat for a moment. I will allow you to continue shortly, but I remind all members that every member in this committee has the opportunity to ask a question or make a contribution and be heard in silence. Whether you agree with them or not, they are allowed that opportunity.

Mr KNOLL: Whether the Speaker was a member of a political party yesterday and resigned that office today or whether they remain a member of that political party will make absolutely no difference to their conduct as Speaker—none, absolutely none.

An honourable member: How do you know?

Mr KNOLL: Because they take the same oath. It is the same job. To try to suggest that by not being a member of a registered political party somehow somebody becomes automatically impartial and fair is ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous.

What is worse is that what we have had all afternoon is a degree of self-righteousness from those opposite, who now have found some sort of magical moral compass. After decades and decades of partisan Labor Speakers in that chair, today is the day they have had an epiphany, and today the reason they have had that epiphany is that the numbers in this house changed.

The fundamental arguments behind this legislation have not changed. They are the same as they were when this parliament was brought into session some 160, 170 years ago. It is just that today there is a crass political opportunity. That is fine. That is the parliament's prerogative, but what I will not stomach without rising and talking to is this—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: The member for Mawson is called to order.

Mr KNOLL: —self-righteous indignation which shows that those opposite pushing this bill—

Mr PICTON: A point of order—

Mr KNOLL: —are much more interested in political games—

The CHAIR: Thank you, member for Schubert.

Mr KNOLL: —and internal parliamentary matters than governing the people of South Australia.

An honourable member: Sit down!

The CHAIR: The member for Schubert will sit down.

Mr Whetstone: Shut up, Bignell.

The CHAIR: The member for Chaffey is called to order.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: I am warning people. The member for Chaffey is warned. Two warnings and members will be out of here.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: There is a point of order that I am trying to hear.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The CHAIR: The member for Chaffey is warned for a second time.

Mr PICTON: Mr Chairman, I fear that the member may have strayed from the amendments at hand.

The CHAIR: Well, I must admit there was a lot of interjection going on right throughout the member for Schubert's contribution, and as a result of that I found great difficulty hearing all that he was saying. Member for Schubert, can you pay attention, please. Have you finished your contribution? Would you like to couch a question for the member for Florey?

Mr KNOLL: I would like to ask the member for Florey if she has thought through any of the potential unintended consequences of this amendment, especially with regard to removing the ability of governments to prorogue parliament for the whole variety of reasons governments may need to prorogue parliament.

The CHAIR: So the question is about proroguing particularly.

Ms BEDFORD: I took the counsel of parliamentary counsel because the intent of the bill is not to allow parliament to be destabilised in any way. It is envisaging that this is going to make a difference to the way the parliament behaves, so that this may be the very last time we have a debate of this nature. Wouldn't that be super? It is trying to look at the eventuality that we are not disadvantaging the person who is Speaker, who chooses to take that oath and remove themselves from any party influences and then be able to take that up again, should they wish.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I have another question.

The CHAIR: No, unfortunately. But I am going to remind you, minister, that should these amendments pass we will have an opportunity to question clause 3 as amended.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Thank you.

The CHAIR: Minister, you have had your three questions.

Amendments carried.

The CHAIR: We now come to clause 3 as amended.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: So, member for Florey, we now have a situation where a Speaker for three years and three months is obliged to have the independence that is specified now, proposed in this section, but has the opportunity to join a party in the last nine months. Although I am still somewhat puzzled as to how they can do that, the inconsistency is, as I see it, between their capacity to do that in the first three years and three months but not in the last nine months, especially when they are coming up to an election and might potentially have an opportunity to utilise their position as Speaker not to be impartial as such. Nevertheless, my question is: you are satisfied that you think a Speaker is capable of doing that in the last nine months?

Ms BEDFORD: I do not think we should get hung up on the notion of 'last nine months'; 1 July is there for the purpose of other things. The Speaker would not be looking to rejoin a party, if that were that person's wish, until the election is called.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have understood this, if I can be clear: during the relevant election period they in fact can do just that. From 1 July, they can actually now, with this amended motion, rejoin in this last nine months. So come 1 July they might think, 'Okay, I'll rejoin my old party, join a new one.' They will be supervising the Speakership for the next five or six months at least, but under your proposal we might be going up to 15 February. Are you satisfied that if they are undertaking the role as Speaker in that period or part thereof they are able to do that in a nonpartisan way?

Ms BEDFORD: It would be my hope that that person would not be joining a political party again until the election was called, but it gives them the ability to do that. It is either going to work or it is not. If the parliament does not wish to respect the person in the chair and the intent of this bill then you do not have to vote for it. That is what we are down to tonight.

Mr Knoll interjecting:

Ms BEDFORD: Just a second, I have not finished. If we are trying to give the parliament the opportunity to have an impartial Speaker, we also have to perhaps try to look to that person and not disadvantage that person, and that is all I am trying to do.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Can I just clarify, because this bill came in today and then we had amendments. I am assuming you provided the instructions for the initial bill. At what time did you decide that you needed to allow the Speaker to have a chance to rejoin a party and put these amendments in?

Ms BEDFORD: It was through parliamentary counsel.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Today?

Ms BEDFORD: Yes.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am not quite sure what the member for Bragg and the member for Schubert find so difficult to understand about the proposition from the member for Florey. It is quite simple really. That is, when a Speaker finds themselves in the position of presiding officer in this place, if they themselves reflect on the fact that they might like to seek re-election as a member of parliament, we have in recent times put in place laws to ensure that all members are placed on an equal footing for electoral purposes when it comes to electoral funding and disclosure, and a Speaker, in whatever capacity, should not have an unfair advantage over another member of parliament.

The member for Schubert I know has been a brief participant in this place, so he probably does not recall that the former member for Croydon was in fact Speaker from 2010 to 2018, not from 2014 to 2018. I realise that as far as the member for Schubert is concerned, we have BC and AD in terms of his parliamentary career, but there were some proceedings and people who pre-existed his time in this house.

It is quite clear that from time to time a Speaker will seek re-election to the House of Assembly. They may not seek to be Speaker in the next session of parliament at all. They might have done some period of time as Speaker and want to go back to their substantive duties as a member of parliament, and perhaps participate in some other office of the parliament. They might choose to be a Chair of Committees, or they might choose to be a member of either side's frontbench or a Chair of a parliamentary committee or whatever.

In that event, I do not think it is unreasonable that the member for Florey has carefully designed a regime where the parliament can benefit from true independence of the behaviour of a Speaker, unfettered from the strictures and the expectations and the factional requirements placed upon them by a political party, such as we have experienced in the last 3½ years under this government, so that they can exercise their freedom of judgement and the best possible superintendence of the house, and that we make some small accommodation for them in the lead-up to an election so that should they wish to demonstrate to their electorate, to use perhaps the lingo of the Premier, the cut of their jib as to which political party they might show some allegiance to, then the electorate can have the opportunity to have that made clear by that member. Of course, having the funding and disclosure regime and having an equal footing there—

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: What's the question?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Did you think I was asking you a question?

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I was speaking to a clause. Have you not been through this process before?

The CHAIR: Could you take a seat please, member for Lee. I will just remind members that the member for Lee is quite within his rights to make a contribution on this clause. He may or may not ask a question as a result of that, but certainly a contribution is within standing orders.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, sir. I am grateful for your protection. I do not think it is unreasonable for all of us to acknowledge that the member for Florey has quite carefully come up with this arrangement to ensure that the parliament can experience, as the saying goes, the best of both worlds. The member for Morialta paints a dreadful picture of the last nine months of a parliament, presumably the current context front of mind for him. He talks about the months leading up to an election as being a 'febrile period' for the parliament.

I have to say in all the terms of parliament that I have witnessed, or indeed directly experienced, it has never been fevered as far as I can recall, because I have never seen a political party with such a weak grip on the levers of power and on the numbers of parliament as what I have seen before us. We have never experienced this situation where the leadership of a political party in its current form from the member for Dunstan and the member for Bragg could so badly mismanage their political party that people are running for the exits.

The CHAIR: Member for Lee, you are straying from the clause at hand.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Sure. But that leads us to the current environment. Now that we have more evenly balanced representation within this place during the course of the term in which they were meant to provide majority government, we have the opportunity to finally improve the situation.

The member for Bragg and the member for Schubert say, 'Don't worry about what they've got in the House of Commons. That's not good enough for us. We want something different. We want something better. We want partisan superintendence of our place. We don't want independence. We don't want that. Don't worry about the hundreds of years of people laying down their lives for parliamentary conventions and privileges. We're not interested in any of that. We know better.'

Do you know what? We have tried your way and do you know what it has resulted in? It has resulted in all of us not having the opportunity to adequately represent our communities in this place because you silence us and, in fact, do you know what it has meant for you as well? It has meant that your political party has fallen apart at the seams.

We have tried your experiment and your experiment does not work. We have had Labor Speakers who provided fair superintendence of this place. They have allowed you to have the first half an hour of question time so that we can hold the government to account, but what did you give us? Nothing. More time in question time devoted to Dorothy Dixers than to opposition questions.

We have tried it your way. We have tried to extend the same courtesy that other governments in this place have had for generations and for decades. You have trampled your feet all over it. It has not worked. You are the authors of your own demise and now you are suffering the consequences. So, finally, those of us either on the opposition benches or the crossbench, can finally get a fair go in this place.

Mr KNOLL: The member for Lee is correct: I only came into this chamber in 2014, but I do know how to use Google and I do think that in 2010 the Speaker of the parliament was actually the former member for Giles, Lyn Breuer, and in fact the member for Croydon only became the Speaker on 5 February 2013.

But the rant from the member for Lee belies the fundamental hypocrisy and illogicality of this bill. You cannot have a situation where on 30 June you need an independent Speaker in an election year but on 1 July you no longer need to. The idea that you need to be independent of a registered political party for three years and three months, but on 1 July, no, you can go back and join that political party. It is okay. We trust that you will be independent now. That fundamentally brings lie to the premise behind this bill, because if you needed an independent Speaker you would need it for the full term and, if you do not need an independent Speaker, then you do not need that to happen for the full term.

The idea that we can now try to create—and this is because when you rush legislation and bring it to parliament without due process or let it see the light of day so that we can actually discuss and look at—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

Mr KNOLL: —the unintended consequences of legislation such as this—

The CHAIR: Order!

Mr KNOLL: Unintended consequences which is why you have to have amendments like this that do not make sense.

The CHAIR: Member for Schubert, I hate breaking you mid-stride but I am going to remind opposition members that the member for Lee was able to make a contribution, a heartfelt contribution, over some minutes without any interruption.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: There was one.

The CHAIR: One interjection but nothing like what we have just seen. The member for Schubert is entitled, as you were, member for Lee, to make a contribution. I will just remind people that I have warned a couple of members already, and if they are warned a second time they are on their way to be thrown out, and we have a way to go in this committee.

Mr KNOLL: I do not mind that this bill comes to this house, but everybody should see it for what it is, and that is the fact that we are seeing an undermining of the workings of government by those opposite—and that is okay, but at least be honest about it. At least be honest about it instead of trying to couch it behind flowery language and high-minded rhetoric, and a degree of self-righteousness that really sits poorly in the back of my mouth.

Just be honest about what you are seeking to do here, and that is to trample on convention in this chamber, trample on the history that Speakers since time immemorial have given to this place in a fair, judicious and impartial manner. I think it is a disgusting slur on the member for Heysen, who is perhaps one of the most thoughtful contributors and Speakers to ever sit in that chair.

He is a man who deliberates deeply on every decision he has had to make, who has at times made decisions that may have put him at odds with people on all sides of this chamber, because he sees that he has an oath to that chair that is beyond any party affiliation. At least those opposite can be honest about that.

My question to the member for Florey is: why is it important to be impartial and not a member of a political party on 30 June, say, 2025, but on 1 July 2025 it is okay to be a member of a registered political party and expect that Speaker to be any more or less independent than the day before?

Ms BEDFORD: I think the intent is that it is going to encourage all of us to have our fiscal houses in order from 1 July rather than force anyone to rejoin or become a member of a party.

Mr KNOLL: What the member is saying is, 'I desperately need an independent Speaker who is not a member of a registered political party, and that's why I have to bring this bill to the chamber and have it jammed through on the same day it was presented, because it is that important, but that principle of independence does not supersede the normal functioning of political party operations in the lead-up to an election.'

The member for Florey says that we need independence, but we only need independence for three years and three months. After that the practicality, and the fact that this bill does not work, well we are going to have to fix that by amendment to this bill so that the normal functioning of the way members of parliament get elected is not upset by this ill thought-through legislation. Essentially, the principle and independence, which are so high minded that we have to deal with this today, is not so high minded that getting someone's financial house in order, as the member for Florey says, should not take precedence over that perceived independence nine months out from an election.

That just speaks to the farce this chamber is going through today, and any member of this parliament who votes for this bill is doing so only out of short-term interest. I want to know what the Labor Party is going to do next time they are in government; I want to know what they are going to do. They are going to force their Speaker to resign. The member for Croydon or the member for Giles or the member for Playford, Mr Snelling at the time, all those Speakers could act impartially but now, all of a sudden, we cannot have impartial Speakers.

This chamber has operated on convention for decades; it has operated on convention forever, but slowly, bit by bit, those conventions get eroded. I tried, during my time as Manager of Government Business, to bring those conventions back, but once they are gone they very, very rarely come back. Going to the member for Lee's point earlier, we now have a function of regularly seeking leave to provide explanations for questions, which did not exist before. If that is not something that speaks to the magnanimity and impartiality of the Speaker, then I do not know what does.

What is happening here is that bit by bit the conventions of this parliament are being eroded: the ability of governments to prorogue, the ability to see the Speaker as impartial regardless of their political persuasion. Bit by bit these conventions go until, in the end, all we have is brute force of numbers. That is a dangerous precedent to set, and it is something that really frustrates me in these last few months of my time in this place, to see these conventions go out the window.

What replaces them is a form of petty politics, and it is a reason why the public do not trust us. The Roy Morgan poll that came out in terms of trust in professions earlier this year, in March or April, had us at 7 per cent trust amongst the South Australian public—and debates like this are the reason. Anybody who would be coming in to watch this debate today would go, 'What's this on about? Why are they doing this?' When they try to sit down and functionally understand why it is that we have had to stop dealing with important government business to deal with a private member's bill based on creating a change to the Speaker—

Ms BEDFORD: Point of order, Chair: I am just wondering what the question is.

The CHAIR: As I have already explained—

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The CHAIR: The member for Chaffey, unfortunately, is warned for a second time. To the member for Florey, as I have explained to this committee just a few moments ago, every member is entitled to ask a question and/or make a contribution. The member for Schubert is making a contribution. We can hear that out. He may look to couch a question as a result of that, but he has the call.

Mr KNOLL: Anybody who is listening in to this debate today would say, 'In what way does this bill, which has sought to take precedence over many other very important bits of legislation which are sitting on the Notice Paper, need to seek precedence? Who is it really benefiting? What is this change designed to do?' The bit that I do not understand is: let's say this passes—all the member for Heysen has to do is resign as a member of a political party.

Members interjecting:

Mr KNOLL: He does not even have to do that, so what are we doing here? Why has this taken precedence? The reason that it has taken precedence is that all of a sudden the naked maths in this place has come to bear and those opposite, especially the member for West Torrens, just want to create a bit of havoc, and that is fine. Be honest about it—that is fine—but do not expect the South Australian public to swallow it. This is why people do not like politicians: because they spend so much time talking about themselves rather than the issues that matter. My question to the member for Florey is: given that the Speaker does not have to do anything as a result of this bill between here and the 2022 election, why is it so important to jam this bill through the house today?

Ms BEDFORD: I would expect the person who becomes or remains Speaker to resign from their political party in an effort to show the people of South Australia we are going to change our behaviour in this place.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I just want to correct a few things that the member for Schubert said, which I think are inaccurate. He says we are trampling on the traditions of this house by not allowing governments to prorogue. The right to prorogue the parliament is not a right of this parliament; it is a right of the Crown. It is a fundamental misunderstanding by a young man who rushes to judgement, again.

Mr Knoll interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes. The idea that somehow proroguing the parliament is a right of the house is wrong. It is factually incorrect, just like claiming to have the ability to remove members of a Cemeteries Authority when you do not. It is that type of ill-informed commentary that misinforms this debate.

What is actually happening here is the parliament is expressing its will over the Crown, because we are saying that the Crown should not prorogue the parliament six months before an election. The member for Schubert is completely wrong in his assessment about the traditions of the parliament. When he said we restored the traditions of the parliament by allowing leave, leave had been a process of this parliament since the 1860s.

An honourable member: It's in the standing orders.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is in the standing orders. Who took it away? This government when they got elected. To his credit, the member for Schubert, when he became a manager of government business, when they fired the former one—he was my second manager of government business; I am onto my third now—he decided that we should return those processes back to the house because they are important, and I agreed with him, because the government were wrong in not honouring pairs.

What was the opposition's only thing we had left? Remove leave—that is all we had, because the government broke a pair because they cannot manage themselves. Here we are again because they cannot manage themselves, because the Premier is too busy doing other things to worry about his government. We are here now in a minority government, and the government are bemoaning that they are a minority. The member for Lee is right: you are the authors of your own demise. It is not us; it is you.

So, with all due respect to the member for Schubert, who I do actually have a high regard for, despite him continually focusing back on me, the truth is that defending the rights of the parliament while arguing for a right of the Crown are two very different things. The member for Schubert should know that before rushing to judgement, as he did when he attempted to remove members of a board illegally and then was caught, and the OPI then referred it to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman found him guilty of misconduct—

The CHAIR: Thank you, member for West Torrens—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —the first minister in this parliament to be found so.

The CHAIR: —you are straying from the clause. Member for Schubert, this will be your final question.

Mr KNOLL: I suppose the only difference is that when I make a mistake I own up to it and accept it. That is how you learn in this place—by taking responsibility for your own actions. The member for West Torrens is correct: that is right, you do petition the Crown to prorogue parliament, but are we not in this place right at this moment, where the parliament is seeking to change an act to stop the ability to prorogue parliament, which is parliament expressing its will over the rights of governments and governors to be able to prorogue parliament?

What I love most about the member for West Torrens' contribution is, 'Government, you are the authors of your own demise, but we take no responsibility for our actions in this place.' The Labor Party, who today voted to suspend standing orders, have so far voted for the passage of this bill with their self-righteousness and their high-minded rhetoric and 'We're here trying to stand up for the people, but it's not our fault, we're just voting for it.' That sort of logic is pathetic and it is something the South Australian people will see through.

To try to suggest that somehow they have no responsibility for their actions today beggars belief, that there is any sort of logical, internal consistency the member for West Torrens can put together to keep a straight face when saying that sentence. If you are going to take responsibility because we are a minority government, then take responsibility, but do not say, 'It's not our fault. It's your fault we're voting the way we are.' Take responsibility and be honest about what you are doing here.

I think everybody in this chamber should be honest about what this bill is really seeking to do—about what this bill is really seeking to do—because, if it were anything other than that, then it would be allowed to take normal process, given the fact that it is not going to make any difference between here and the 2022 election as to whether or not the Speaker will have to resign as a member of a political party. But, again, it all comes down to the fact that raw maths, the ability to count and the lack of any sort of responsibility for any decisions they happen to make, that the opposition chooses to make, means we are dealing with this situation here tonight. That is farce, and I think those people who vote yes to this bill will be taking responsibility for this bill.

Ms LUETHEN: I have a question to the mover of the amendment. I would like to clarify whose behaviour you are looking to change by having a Speaker independent for 3½ years and then the last six months they can choose to be in a political party. It has been my experience in this term that often the opposition is yelling at me while I am speaking—most of the time the Leader of the Opposition—so how will this independence of the Speaker for 3½ years of the term stop that yelling at another member in government?

Ms BEDFORD: Well, it will not unless you respect the role of the Speaker, and I put it to you that if the Speaker is independent they have a much better chance of that respect.

The CHAIR: If I can make a contribution here, the respect is for the standing orders and how they are applied. They are quite clear.

Ms LUETHEN: My second question is that every time I take classes here on a school tour, when I talk about how we regulate the behaviour in here I talk about the standing orders and how the standing orders set the rule for debate. One of the things more as commentary I would like to see in the future is more description and adhering people's behaviour to more respectful behaviour and building that into the standing orders. Can you tell me more about why you are not choosing, with your amendments, to go down the path of changing the standing orders and, instead, you are focusing on the political party membership of the Speaker for 3½ years?

Ms BEDFORD: Standing orders committees have existed for as long as I have known—

Mr Picton: She is a member of the Standing Orders Committee.

Ms BEDFORD: Right, and I guess we could say to you that, as someone who has been on that committee, you would see that standing orders are only going to work if they are respected. It is the enforcement of the standing orders that I see is the issue and if the current make-up and role of the Speaker is not allowing for that to happen, it is about trying to find an alternative way to have that happen so that our behaviour is regulated and the business of the house is carried on in a much better atmosphere.

Ms LUETHEN: I have just one more question to further understand your thinking around this amendment. Could you help me a little bit further to understand why the Leader of the Opposition can yell at me so often in government with a government Speaker? I have the utmost respect for the Speakers we have had this term trying to regulate everyone's behaviour. I do not see how that is going to change, having a Speaker who is not part of a political party for 3½ years of the term, without changes to the standing orders. It does not make sense to me. In making more of a comment, you would think if anything, if what you are saying is because there is a government Speaker there would be more protection here, I would not have the problem with the Leader of the Opposition yelling at me so often. So how do you explain that?

Ms BEDFORD: You would have to ask the Speaker, would you not, who lets the Leader of the Opposition yell at you. In some ways, I would hope this new regime would stop that.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Can the member for Florey advise the house if she has been discussing her candidacy as a Speaker either now, before the election, or after the election with any member of this chamber?

Ms BEDFORD: Yes, I can and I have not.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Can the member for Florey confirm that the member for Kavel is advising you this evening on answering questions in this committee process?

Ms BEDFORD: I already answered that when I said I asked the member for Kavel to help me, and you were in the room when I said this, because I have no legal training.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: So the member for Kavel is assisting you this evening?

Ms BEDFORD: Only if I choose to ask him a question, and I asked him as late as this afternoon if he would assist if there were questions that I could not answer.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I hear that the member for Kavel is assisting the member for Florey in asking this question and it makes me ask myself the question: where are we heading here? I think, where have I seen a 'Bizarro' situation previously—in other words, the reverse of what we are seeing tonight—where we now have the Labor Party acting like the Nick Xenophons of the parliament and we have a bizarre piece of legislation with bizarre amendments. It reminds me of when the former member for Wright, Jennifer Rankine, brought to this place a reform of the real estate act and the way we sell real estate in South Australia, and—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order, sir.

The CHAIR: There is a point of order from the member for West Torrens, so the minister will take a seat.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Standing order 127: digression, personal reflections on members:

A Member may not

1. digress from the subject matter of any question under discussion,

2. or impute improper motives to any other Member,

3. or make personal reflections on any other Member.

The minister is talking about members being bizarre. He is talking about their character because of the way they are moving motions. It is not within the standing orders for him to behave this way.

The CHAIR: My recollection is that the minister did use the word 'bizarre', but he was talking about a situation—

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: 'Bizarro' I said.

The CHAIR: Bizarro. Those of us who read Superman comics would know all about the planet Bizarro. The minister was referring to a situation rather than a person. He did mention the previous member for Wright. The previous member for Wright is not here to take offence. Minister, you are on your third question, given that I allowed one for clarification.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It is obvious that the member for West Torrens is not a fan of Seinfeld, because there is a whole story, a whole episode about Bizarro Jerry. These were the opposite to Jerry, to George and to Kramer.

The CHAIR: My recollection is more from the Superman comics.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: That is what we are seeing here, sir. We are seeing a bizarre bit of legislation brought into the parliament, and it reminds me of the bizarre landing that the Labor Party came to with Nick Xenophon in 2007 during that debate on the real estate bill, where we, as Liberals, on our side said, 'If somebody wants to declare that they are having a vendor bid and someone is foolish enough to bid against the vendor or they want the property so much they bid against the vendor, and everyone is informed of the situation, let them do it.' The Labor Party's position was, 'No, we are opposed.'

The CHAIR: Minister, you have already had a point of order raised against you, and I ask you to come back to the clause at hand, which is clause 3 as amended.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: This is an important comparison as to the ridiculousness of this bill before the house compared to the outcome of a negotiated bill in the upper house back in 2007. The outcome of that was that Nick Xenophon wanted a headline. He wanted to be the person who fixed the deadlock, and the then Labor Party agreed to three vendor bids, with the fourth one being illegal. So you have a situation where it is legal to have a vendor bid the first time, the second time and the third time and now the fourth time it is illegal. That is what we have here. We have a—

The CHAIR: Thank you. Back to the clause.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: This is how silly that bill was, and this is exactly the same silliness that we are seeing in this bill, where someone is going to be seeking preselection who has been forced to be independent or not a member of a political party. It does not actually force someone to be independent. It just means they cannot be a member of a political party. There is a big difference between them, because I know a lot of Liberals who are not members of the Liberal Party. They would not say that they were independent voters; they would say they were Liberal voters.

So we have this bizarre situation where we are led to believe that somebody who is not a member of a political party has no allegiance to that party. Someone who has been a member of that party for 20, 30 or 40 years all of a sudden switches off their allegiance to that party. They put on their blinkers, they completely ignore colleagues, friends, lifelong friendships they have developed in political parties and they do not play any favourites. Their children still play together, I imagine. I guess that is not banned. Families still get together. The Speaker would get together at barbecues with the members of the government.

The CHAIR: Depending on the COVID regulations at the time.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: We are expected to believe that they will in actual fact be impartial and independent, even though they have an intention of running for parliament again under the brand that they were elected under initially, and they expect that preselection in nine months' time. It is a nonsense.

Ms BEDFORD: I just would like to advise the committee, and in particular our immediate past Speaker, that one of the other things I would like to see happen in this place is that people who move private members' bills are able to have advisers, because it is going to be important to have advice if this house is going to operate in any sort of way where members feel they can move private members' bills.

The Attorney and I were both here when the euthanasia bill went through and we had four or five people running around trying to do the right thing. That is another thing we can do for the house. I also remind you all that Speakers Jenkins and Smith have managed to do this sort of thing, be independent in the chair, manage to get preselection and manage to be re-elected. So I do not think what you are saying applies because I think what I am proposing here is eminently achievable.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Clause 4 as printed sets out to insert 34A. You have titled it 'Removal of Speaker'. My question is in relation to this clause which is to require that a person who is the subject of a motion of a majority of the house who is Speaker to immediately vacate the chair, of course, if they are voted to remove. My question relates to the current Speaker, who is a member of a political party. Under the clause that we have just passed in this bill, he is entitled to be a member of a political party now because we are in this last nine months after 1 July. He could remain then as any other member, of course, could be affiliated with a political party, and be there. Is it the intention of the mover that she proposes that the current Speaker should be removed from office?

Ms BEDFORD: No, that is a matter for parliament.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Can the member explain to me why it is necessary to provide in this bill a removal of Speaker provision when in fact the parliament already has the power to both elect and challenge an existing Speaker and, of course, vote to remove them? Why is this necessary?

Ms BEDFORD: Because it would adopt the appointment mechanism as the removal mechanism. It is a ballot.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Just to be clear then, you are saying that the vote of this parliament to both elect or remove a person in the Speakership is not a ballot, or are you saying that it should have some kind of terms around it as to it being a secret ballot or something of that nature?

Ms BEDFORD: It is just the same mechanism for the appointment as it is for the removal.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: What I am trying to understand is this parliament already has the power to appoint and remove its Speaker and in fact it regularly does do just that, especially after an election. It can, of course, move a vote of no confidence in the Speaker. It can move for a further nominee to be made to that position and can vote to do that. We could do that right now. If it is no intention of the mover to actually do that, why is it necessary to have new section 34A at all?

Ms BEDFORD: It is just an attempt to codify the process.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Is that the information that is being provided?

The CHAIR: Yes.

Mr PICTON: Point of order: I think the Attorney has had four questions so far.

The CHAIR: She has but I have deemed, once again, that she was seeking clarification. Final question, Attorney.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: What is the proposed ballot arrangement that is in subsection (3)?

Ms BEDFORD: The same as the appointment mechanism.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Which is?

Ms BEDFORD: Which is if necessary, as we all endured the last time we had a ballot for the Speaker, people fill in little bits of paper and stick them in a box.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Will the member for Florey rule herself out for being a candidate if there is a ballot for Speaker before the election?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order: that sounds extremely hypothetical and it should be ruled out of order for being hypothetical.

The CHAIR: I am going to allow the question.

Ms BEDFORD: It is hypothetical, but who knows? I may be the only person nominated at that time and I would have to think about a nomination if that happened.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Has the member for Florey had any discussion about nominating for the Speaker's role with any member of this chamber?

Ms BEDFORD: No. You asked me that earlier and I said no. It is still no.

The CHAIR: The minister is asking hypothetical questions, which he is quite entitled to do because this is not question time, but if I can just make a comment in relation to that: we already have a Speaker. It is just an observation.

Clause passed.

Schedule 1.

Ms BEDFORD: I move:

Page 3, lines 25 to 30—Delete the Schedule and substitute:

Schedule 1—Transitional provision

4—Transitional provision

For the avoidance of doubt, section 6(1)(c) of the Constitution Act 1934 (as amended by this Act) applies (on and after the commencement of this Act) for the remainder of the relevant election period that commenced on 1 July 2021.

The CHAIR: Do you wish to speak to the amendment?

Ms BEDFORD: I think it is obvious, sir. As it says:

For the avoidance of doubt, section 6(1)(c) of the Constitution Act 1934 (as amended by this Act) applies (on and after the commencement of this Act) for the remainder of the relevant election period—

and, again, that magical date, 1 July.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: My question, member for Florey, is: in introducing this proposed schedule 1, I am now looking at page 41 on my copy of the Constitution Act. At the end of the list of legislative historical amendments there is the title 'Transitional etc provisions associated with Act or amendments'. Do I understand that this amendment is to insert after the words 'Constitution (Parliamentary Terms) Amendment Act 2001' this new clause 4, which is to be called a transitional provision?

Ms BEDFORD: It is a new schedule, is it not? If you read it, I am deleting the schedule and substituting a new schedule 1.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If you look at the schedule—Transitional provisions on pages 41 and 42 of the act set out a number of different transitional provisions. You are not abolishing all of them because there is no provision for that; you are simply deleting your 'Transitional provision 1—Speaker continues to hold office until next sitting day' and substituting this new transitional provision. I am just trying to work out where it is going to go into the act.

Ms BEDFORD: My understanding from parliamentary counsel is that it is a standard provision.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am just trying to work out where it is going in because at the moment there are a whole lot of transitional provisions in the act and you are removing the proposed schedule 1 from your bill and in your amendment you are putting in a new transitional provision. I am just trying to ascertain where it goes in the schedule to the current act.

Ms BEDFORD: Exactly where it says.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is the point; that is why I am asking you.

The CHAIR: My reading of this, member for Florey, is that this is a reasonable question. From my perspective, I need to know where it is going to fit into the act.

Ms BEDFORD: Does it not say 'Delete the Schedule and substitute: Schedule 1'?

The CHAIR: In relation to drafting of bills, there is a particular place in the bill where a schedule needs to appear. My reading of it is that it is not exactly clear.

Ms BEDFORD: Parliamentary counsel has prepared this for me. If they are wrong, I am imagining they are still listening—would they not be listening for a private member's bill? It says, schedule 1, page 3, lines 25 to 30, so you have the bill there, Attorney, and this says, 'Delete the schedule and substitute.'

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If you look at your bill—it is not completely terminal, if it is a complete muck-up, I suppose it is something that can be dealt with in another place. My point is that you have in your bill a transitional clause, which is a quite sensible thing to have, I think, and you are now moving an amendment to get rid of that transitional provision and put in a new one. I am asking where that new one is going to go in the act; that is not clear. If it is, I would like you to indicate to me where it is going in in the act.

Ms BEDFORD: My advice is it does not go into the act. It is just a transitional provision that sits in the amendment bill.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Alright. If it sits in the amendment bill, is it going to be included? The reason I was alerted to this is because it has gone from clause 1 to clause 4 as a transitional provision and it seems as though it needs to sit—and you can perhaps get some advice on this at another time—in relation to the transitional provisions in the act, and there is a number of them relating to different acts. It seems as though this one is relevant to the Constitution (Parliamentary Terms) Amendment Act 2001 and is a transitional provision that you are putting in for it.

I would just like some clarification on that. You may be able to provide that information between the houses, because unless we sort that out, if there is a suggestion that this was to replace the whole of that schedule, it may remove a whole lot of other validation and transitional provisions for the other acts in that transitional section of the act. That, I think, could be catastrophic.

However, my next question is this: in relation to the current position as Speaker, on the basis that this bill passes, does the mover of the bill understand that it is quite legitimate under the terms of this bill for the current Speaker to continue as a member of a political party, given that it is now October?

Ms BEDFORD: It would be a matter for parliament.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am saying it is quite lawful under the terms of your new bill, because it is after 1 July, that he is actually able to be a member of a political party.

Ms BEDFORD: I am not in the position to give you legal advice. You will always form your own view.

The CHAIR: Before I call the minister, just in regard to the previous line of questioning as to where the schedule might fit, I think we have to assume, obviously, that parliamentary counsel know what they are doing and we can clarify it between the houses.

Ms BEDFORD: I am getting advice from parliamentary counsel and it is perfectly normal not to put it in the act. It is done all the time, is my advice. I know the Attorney will be able to turn her mind to it between this and the other place.

Amendment carried; schedule as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (22:20): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (22:20): I rise to relate a few matters that I think will need to be considered in relation to this legislation, and they may be matters that need some assistance in the other place because obviously Constitution Act amendments require both houses of parliament and an absolute majority.

What I think is very clear through the debate on this matter is that, whilst there may be good intentions of the member for Florey to establish a regime of Speakerships in this house and perhaps even potentially in the other place of the President on the basis that there be some independence from undue influence of political allegiances—and I understand that argument—I think it is hurried and I think that, unfortunately, we may not be able to achieve something that is workable as a result of that; however, I understand it.

Unfortunately, what I find completely absurd is that whatever meritorious aspect the member has in relation to independence is utterly undermined as a result of her attempt to give some fairness to Speakers who want to be candidates at the next election by allowing them to rejoin a political party after 1 July in the year preceding the fourth anniversary of an election year. That, to me, is just completely inconsistent.

I still cannot get my head around how a Speaker, if it demands of their opportunity to be free of the encumbrance of any duress of the political influence they would be under by being a member of the party for the first three years and three months of a parliamentary term, can suddenly walk and chew gum, as the member for Florey says, in the last nine months when they are a member of a political party. Quite frankly, if they have some desire to be partisan in the lead-up to an election, it would be the classic circumstance where they are likely to be influenced. I cannot understand that argument or the merit behind moving to make some provision this way.

As best as I understand it, it does not even occur in what has been described as the Westminster system, which is not this system. They have one in which they have a level of independence, but they certainly do not say that in the nine months before an election suddenly you can go and rejoin political parties and have those alliances. It seems to make a farce of the whole thing.

The other question is: why now? I think that is obvious. I think the member has been quite frank about that. She sees the opportunity. She says it has been a long-held view. She was happy to sit as a Deputy Speaker herself in the political party room with the Australian Labor Party while she was there. In the time I have been here, I have never seen her present a bill of this nature, but it may be a longstanding desire on her part that she has brought it here. She has seen the opportunity with the composition of the voting circumstances of the house and she has taken it. Again, I do not make criticism of that.

What I find bizarre is that it is clothed in this idea that it is necessary for an orderly parliament. If she has been so worried about this, it seems to me rather unusual that it has not been raised in the 24 years she has been here. Let me look at what is really happening here. What is really happening here is there is an opportunistic circumstance to change the Speaker of this house, notwithstanding the extraordinary service of the current Speaker to undertake that role.

The debate contributions in this time have been repeatedly of the accolades for former Labor Speakers and their capacity to undertake independent and fair assessments while they have been a member of the Australian Labor Party, so the whole thing seems to be completely inconsistent with that argument. I do not know. I was a victim of Speaker Atkinson, being thrown out of parliament more than most, I think, in the house, but nevertheless that is their view. It seems to completely undermine the basis of this.

What is really going to happen here? What we are clearly moving to is to use this opportunity—those who want to cause disruption to the parliament I suggest—to remove the Speaker, notwithstanding his, I think, exceptional record. So who should replace, of the Independents here? We have six of them. We have six people who are Independents. We have the member for Frome, who is probably the only one who has been an Independent for all the time he has been here in the parliament. He sat in a Labor government as a minister in that government, but he has sat in here as an Independent.

We have the members for Narungga, Mount Gambier and Waite, all of whom are Independents of their own volition. They have been facing certain charges and matters, but they have actually chosen to save the reputation of their party—that is, the Liberal Party of Australia, SA division—from any reputational damage by them resigning. That is what has actually happened there.

Then, of course, we have the two remaining ones. We have the member for Florey. She was a longstanding member, I think a very loyal member, of the Australian Labor Party for many years, until she was cast aside by the pre-selection of the Hon. Jack Snelling for her seat, what was to be her area. She ran as an Independent and, yes, she has taught the Labor Party a lesson as an Independent and she has remained as an Independent.

In the time since she has been an Independent, I cannot think of any significant bill that she has not supported the opposition on. There have been others that she has supported the government on, but when it has come to significant bills she has stuck to her core belief, her Labor belief, which I do not criticise, that is her position, and she has supported the opposition. Then we have the member for Kavel, who has recently determined that he has some future in being an Independent.

Who is the odds-on favourite? The odds-on favourite at the moment is probably the member for Kavel, as to the deals that have been struck. Second in line I would suggest, about 2 to1, would be the member for Florey. If she thinks she has been offered it, she may be sorely undermined. About 10 to1 is the member for Waite and the three real rank outsiders, about 100:1, are Narungga, Mount Gambier and Frome.

Mr PICTON: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a point of order, Attorney. Member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: Point of order: third reading debates have to be quite strict to discussing the legislation at hand and a discussion of potential Speaker candidates—as you have noted, there is no vacancy—seems to be well off the topic.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I uphold the point of order. The Attorney will speak to the bill in the third reading speech. You have the call.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We will see over the next few days who is right about what is really happening here and I think we will find it will be a bit like groundhog day.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Florey has moved that the bill be now read a third time. I refer back to an item that I referred to earlier, and my advice is that, as this is a bill to amend the Constitution Act and provides for an alteration of the constitution of the Legislative Council and/or the House of Assembly, its third reading is required to be carried by an absolute majority, and in accordance with standing order 242 we need to ring the bells.

An absolute majority of the whole number of members being present:

The SPEAKER: There being an absolute majority present of the whole number of members of the house, I now put the question that the bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 24

Noes 22

Majority 2