Parliamentary Committees

Standing Orders Committee: First Nations Voice

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Defence and Space Industries, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water) (12:15): I move, pursuant to a contingent notice:

That the second report of the committee be adopted, and that the new and amended standing orders adopted by this house be laid before the Governor by the Speaker for approval pursuant to section 55 of the Constitution Act 1934.

It gives me great pleasure to address this house briefly in relation to the report on the Standing Orders Committee. The report makes a number of recommendations for changes to the joint standing orders, and to the standing orders of the House of Assembly, to give effect to the provisions of the First Nations Voice Act 2023.

The proposed changes enable a designated presiding member of the State Voice to give an annual address to a joint sitting of both houses of parliament, to be held in the Legislative Council, and to address parliament in relation to a bill and, accordingly, to be promptly notified of the introduction of all bills; and to enable members of parliament to request that the State Voice provide them with a report in relation to a bill.

These changes give practical effect to what has been legislated in this place. They are simple changes, but critically important. I look forward to seeing these changes in motion and hearing from those who have been elected to the Voice for First Nations people in their state. Their contributions will be valuable to the way in which we make legislation and policy, and I am glad that these changes will allow us in this place to hear directly from them. I commend the report to the chamber.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:17): I rise to make a contribution in regard to the consideration of the second report of the Standing Orders Committee. This has come about due to the legislation that was passed last year to establish a State Voice, which we on this side were against. Personally, I think legislation by segregation is a terrible thing, but here we are discussing the standing orders that have been worked through in regard to people of Aboriginal descent speaking to the chamber and having access to ministers and the full cabinet, if need be.

In regard to the elections that were held recently, we realise that less than 10 per cent of the people who were eligible to vote in the Voice elections voted. That equates to 0.1 of 1 per cent of the state's population who are going to come to this place and try to influence—

Mr ODENWALDER: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Elizabeth on a point of order.

Mr ODENWALDER: Sir, I would like you to rule whether this is relevant, since we are discussing changes to the standing orders.

Mr PEDERICK: It is completely relevant.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hammond will take his seat. The member for Hammond should know that that is my decision, not his decision.

Mr ODENWALDER: We are here to discuss changes to the standing orders which have come about as a result of changes to legislation, not the legislation itself, which has already been debated.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In fact, your comments could be construed as reflecting on a decision made by this chamber as well.

Mr Odenwalder: That is a better point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. I rule in favour of the point of order, and I would ask the member for Hammond to make comments specific to the actual report itself.

Mr PEDERICK: Isn't it interesting? My contribution to the Voice, and I am already muzzled as an elected representative of this state, voted in by my electorate—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Hammond!

Mr PEDERICK: —and people do not like what I am saying, and they try to muzzle me.

Mr Odenwalder: Did you speak on the bill?

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, I am speaking on the Voice. I was speaking about the election process.

Mr Odenwalder: No, did you speak on the bill?

Mr PEDERICK: I am speaking—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Hammond, you will take your seat. I suggest that you calm down or you leave the chamber. It is your choice. You have the floor to discuss the matter before us.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. What we have is the First Nations Voice Act, and it provides for a lot of interactions between the State First Nations Voice and the parliament, as I indicated. Part of that process is for the Voice to present a report and address a joint sitting. The Voice is to present an annual report on its operations and a report on the operations of each local First Nations Voice to a joint sitting of parliament each year, and one Voice presiding member is to address the joint sitting in relation to the report.

What intrigues me with regard to people of Aboriginal descent—and they can just identify as being of Aboriginal descent—is that they can come here and make recommendations and they do not have to be listened to at all. This could be a completely toothless tiger. Another point I wish to make is that part of that process is the not inconsequential fact of the outcomes, that Aboriginal peoples of this state can impact not just on the state's economy but on the nation's economy.

I note that as part of this process, with the standing orders, with setting up the Voice, it is a $10 million budget over four years, and that will get bigger, obviously, with the bureaucracies in the background. I will just say this, if I can, in relation to representation and the impact on the greater economy not just of this state but this nation. I look at the Santos Barossa project, which I understand is about 70 per cent complete. It is an offshore gas operation north of Darwin. The total capital expenditure is expected to be $4.5 billion to $4.6 billion. There was an attempt to block this by, I think, four Tiwi Islander elders—completely disproportionate. Thankfully, Santos won that case.

Then I get to Woodside Petroleum, which has increased the cost estimate for its Scarborough gas project in Western Australia by 5 per cent to $US12 billion, or $A16.2 billion. There was an attempt to block that at the time. I am frightened that decisions made with these standing order changes will bring recommendations into this place that kill off investment and kill off the golden goose that pays the royalties so that we can contribute to the $40 billion per annum that is now spent on Aboriginal affairs across this country. The thing is that you can bite the hand that feeds you, but the money has to come from somewhere.

I look at what happened in regard to the Voice—and I am sure there will be other representations similar to this under the standing orders—to the proposed Kimba nuclear waste facility, which was impacted by, as reported in The Advertiser, the 'Barngarla billionaires'. This would have put 45 new jobs into the local Kimba community in fields like security, administration, environmental monitoring, scientific services, health and safety. Kimba would have received a community development package of up to $A31 million, and the local community would have benefited from improved infrastructure, including water, power, communications, transport and waste. I fear that with these changes under the standing orders, where people are segregated by race, they can make their representations to this house and pull up investment like this.

The only money that governments have of any consideration is taxpayers' money, and that includes royalties. It includes the great wealth from our primary production, and that could be impacted by some of these representations by the Voice to this parliament. We saw how spectacularly the Federal Voice collapsed, with a 64 per cent no vote in South Australia, the second highest no vote in the nation, when people got ahead of themselves thinking that they could push an ideology.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Hammond, sorry to interrupt, but are you the lead speaker responding on behalf of—

Mr PEDERICK: No, I am not the lead; am I?

Mr Teague: I do not know that we need one.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have been instructed differently by the Clerk, member for Heysen.

Mr PEDERICK: No, I am not the lead, so you will have to crank the clock up.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you were lead speaker, you would not have a time.

Mr PEDERICK: That is alright, thank you. I am just pointing out the concerns that I have as a proud elected member to this place. We all fight for the election process, we all work hard, no matter who you are. Whether you are a Labor prospective politician, a Liberal prospective politician or an ongoing politician, an Independent or a Green politician—whatever you are—we have to work hard to get that majority of votes. But what we saw in this election—I do not know whether some people did not even know they had been nominated or had nominated themselves; they did not even vote for themselves. One person got up on six votes, some on 10, some on 12, some on 17. I just do not call that democracy.

The Voice will have many examples where they are able to present, in their minds thinking they can impact events and bills and the legislation that comes out of this place. But, as I have indicated, I am very concerned because if you think a government—certainly of the Labor kind—is going to say, 'We've listened to your advice under the standing orders, presenting to the parliament, presenting to the cabinet'—and in what other forums they present, they will not say, 'No, we just won't listen to that.' The government will need to justify their $10 million spend, and they will make recommendations with that advice from a group that has had less than 10 per cent, or 0.1 of 1 per cent of the state's population, vote them in.

I do not bear any ill will against any of the individuals who have been voted in, but I think it is madness when we have seen what has happened under the federal jurisdiction and what we are going to see here now and into the future.

I do worry. As a sitting elected member, I worry when I look at proposals like the Kimba proposal, which would have been massive for that town, and yet an Aboriginal group 100 kilometres away impacted freehold land that was offered up by a farming family for that facility. This is especially as this state is about to enter the nuclear age. Only yesterday in this place we dealt with extraordinary legislation—and I was happy to contribute—in regard to AUKUS and the compulsory acquisition powers being put in place.

One thing that might happen here in the future is that, just to get projects operating—because there will be the Voice, there will be Aboriginal groups, people campaigning against projects—the only way to get them up is perhaps using similar powers as under the AUKUS bill, which I am sure will come into legislation. It will go through the process in a couple of weeks in the other place and then be dealt with by the Governor.

But I do have great fears that people represented on a very small vote can completely overrun the 47 elected members of this place who have run campaigns and worked hard to get here. I guarantee you that we all got more than zero votes to be in this place.

The Hon. S.E. Close interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: You will get your chance—you have had your chance.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hammond has the floor.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, sir, for your protection.

The Hon. S.E. Close interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Deputy Premier, you know better.

Mr PEDERICK: Throw her out. It goes both ways, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was protecting you; you realise that.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you; I appreciate that. There is something about democracy: you can have a different point of view. Some people do not think that. Some people think they can bulldoze these ridiculous things through the parliament and it will affect the operation of the 47 elected members of this place and the 22 elected members of the other place. Certainly, I do not agree with the views of every elected member of either house, but I do respect the way that they have been legitimately elected. I have my concerns, and let's see how this pans out.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:32): Apologies that I was unable to be here a little earlier, so thank you to the member for Hammond for speaking ahead of me, although I am speaking on behalf of the opposition, obviously. The Standing Orders Committee has performed a task that was required as a result of the legislation. The legislation was opposed by the Liberal Party, as is a matter of public record. I believe it is absolutely reasonable for that to be reflected on in the course of this debate. We are now obviously having to put in place standing orders that will give effect to the legislation that has passed.

The Standing Orders Committee has, as I understand it—and obviously not being a member of the committee myself but being aware of the discussed changes as they were discussed between the parties ahead of the formal resolution that we see in the report—had a number of things to consider that would give enactment to the operation of the Voice in how it interacts with this house and, indeed, how the houses have proposed to interact differently together through joint sittings and joint standing orders compared to what the operation has been in the past.

My understanding is that in relation to practical effect there were matters on which the members agreed and there were matters on which the members did not agree. The Speaker, the member for Giles, the member for Schubert, the member for Elizabeth and the member for Unley I believe worked hard and collaboratively where possible but, nevertheless, there were points of disagreement and the Liberal Party remains disappointed at the disagreements that were unable to be resolved. Nevertheless, I understand them to be in the minority in effect of how it is to operate.

The Liberal Party, as I say, opposed the legislation at a state level as, indeed, we opposed the referendum at a federal level, but I do want to make clear to the elected members of the Voice that the Liberal Party has always supported an opportunity to engage with Aboriginal South Australians.

Through the term of the last government, we believe that there was a superior model in place, but we looked for opportunities to make it better. This government chose a different pathway, a different model, but that does not undermine the respect that we will offer and show any individual member. As indeed the member for Hammond made clear, individual members who are going to be representing in this way for the term of their elections, whatever the model, whatever our disagreements on the model, will be offered respect.

I suspect that the parliament will not always agree with them. I suspect that individual members at different times will have a different point of view and we have all been elected to serve all of the people in our community so that is right and proper. I am sure all members of the house will agree. We will observe how it works. With that, I conclude my remarks.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (12:35): I note the contributions of members on this occasion, an opportunity for the house in debate on a substantive motion to consider this second report of the Standing Orders Committee. I think it is fair to say that it is a particularly consequential report. It is a short report and members of the house might note an appreciation of the committee members' endeavours to grapple with what might be regarded as necessary changes to the standing orders to accommodate the requirements of the First Nations Voice Act 2023, and those consequences so far as the parliament is concerned are, I think, all captured in the bottom third of the first page of the report.

I think it is an opportunity to note that there is not one single pathway that is presented to the parliament as a consequence of those particular aspects of the act, the subject of sections 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42 respectively. As I say, they are summarised in the bottom third of the first page of the report. They are respectively that the Voice is to present a report and address a joint sitting of the parliament; that is section 38. Also, that there is provision already in the act for the Clerk to advise the Voice of each bill that is introduced, so that is an obligation on the clerks of both houses that is already the subject of the act.

Thirdly, the Voice may address the house on bills relevantly and that is the subject of section 40. That has been the subject of debate, including on the bill, that the Voice may present a report and, in that case, may present it to both houses on any matter of interest to First Nations people. That is section 41. To complete that list, parliament may request, report or address, via the Speaker or the President making that request to provide a report or address. That is section 42.

It might be apparent, therefore, as I think it was apparent to all members following the passage of the act around a year ago, that in order to facilitate that direct interaction with the chamber it would be necessary to make changes to the standing orders. The work of the committee has been required because it is clear enough that there might be a variety of ways in which the standing orders might be changed in order to accommodate those requirements of the act.

I certainly express appreciation for the work that has been done by the committee in those circumstances. Hopefully they have seen the best way through, or the most desirable way, to see the mechanics of those requirements in the act actually occur in terms of the practicalities of it all. The committee is closer to it than I am, and the committee has deliberated over a considerable period of time.

I note that there has been some consideration prior to the report now being brought up to the house for debate this afternoon and so, like any novelty, whether or not the particular course that has been adopted by the Standing Orders Committee—and that is spelt out at appendix A to the report—turns out to be the best and most productive way to see those particular requirements of the act fulfilled, remains to be seen.

For the time being, I just want to make clear that I have no particular difficulty with where the committee has come in to land on the proposed way forward in terms of the form of those standing orders. I think that there has been an endeavour, which appears in terms of the changes that have been proposed, to adopt an approach that is as close to the present operations of debate and of analogous procedure when it comes to making these stipulations in the act come into operation.

We see, for example, that there is an analogy that is drawn by the committee in terms of the proposed joint standing order for joint sittings that draws upon the process that applies for the election of senators. Other standing orders that are proposed, the subject of this report, are new. As I say, by that illustration there is an endeavour to see analogy in the existing standing orders where that has been possible. We are yet to see how the application of those five particular aspects of interaction with the house are going to come into practice.

Earlier this week, I was fortunate to have an opportunity to greet, I suppose, to welcome to the house, to cross paths again, and to meet for the first time in several cases, newly elected members of the Voice. It was an opportunity to reacquaint myself in particular with several of those members who have been elected from the Far North. It was an opportunity to get together not so very long ago, in recent weeks, on the occasion of recognising 40 years since the passage of the legislation that brought the APY lands into existence a little over 40 years ago, and here they were then, newly elected and here in the parliament.

I am sure those elected members of the Voice will, as with others, now go about the process of convening as Local Voices for the first time and in due course they will follow the steps required by the act to constitute the State Voice, and at some stage in the future we will, I expect, see these elements, for which the standing orders are to be amended—if that is what occurs in line with the recommendations of the committee—then coming to bear.

These are early days, but what is very clear is the issue that has been taken by me and by my party and others in the course of the debate about the merits of those particular aspects, and without entering into debate about a bill that is before the house, there is a bill that I have introduced in recent weeks that I believe can improve that form of engagement. Leaving aside the debate in relation to the merits of the act and the capacity of the act and the processes that it provides for to achieve the objects for which the project has been described as endeavouring to achieve, we will see that work out over the time ahead.

For the time being, this is a significant moment insofar as the changes of the standing orders. It is no small thing. As the member for Hammond has adverted, it involves in some ways really quite fundamental changes to the way in which this parliament and the members of the parliament in both houses will now interact. We have time ahead to see how this develops and I am sure the debate will continue in relation to the requirements of the act. I do not, for the time being, suggest that as a house we ought to be too quick to require a complete and perfect outcome in terms of the standing orders. It may be necessary to look at them again in the light of how things pan out in terms of the application of the standing orders.

But here we are and I, for the time being, just note that we now do have the means by which the house will interact pursuant to those five sections in particular of the act that relate directly to the parliament. We will now see how this pans out over the course of the near term.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Defence and Space Industries, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water) (12:49): I am happy to close the debate by thanking members for their contributions, recognising that this is a consequential set of standing orders on a piece of legislation that has already been passed by this house, but also recognising that there was a diversity of views about that legislation and it is, of course, legitimate for members to express their views, continuing to express concern or even opposition to that piece of legislation.

Nonetheless, it is my hope and expectation, having had the legislation through, having been able to now present these standing orders to the chamber, that when in due course we hear from representatives of the Voice to Parliament they will be heard with respect. In fact, my expectation will be that every member of parliament will take something of value from those representations.

As has been pointed out, there is no requirement for us to alter course as a result of hearing from the representatives of First Nations people, but there is an obligation, I think, on us all to behave in a way that shows respect to anyone who presents to us and particularly to show respect for those who have been chosen by their people to represent their culture and their experience in seeking to make South Australia a stronger place. I therefore commend this standing order report to the chamber.

Motion carried.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: In accordance with the report of the Standing Orders Committee, which was adopted by the house today, I move:

That the following message be sent to the Legislative Council—

'The House of Assembly has adopted amendments to joint standing order No. 16 and new joint standing orders Nos 16A and 16B to give effect to the provisions of the First Nations Voice Act 2023, and transmits herewith a copy of the joint standing order No. 16 as amended and new joint standing orders Nos 16A and 16B, and requests the concurrence of the Legislative Council thereto.'

Motion carried.