Parliamentary Committees (Referral of Petitions) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (10:59): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I understand this came from the Hon. Connie Bonaros in another place. I think it is an excellent series of amendments to a bill that was initially brought in by Frances Bedford, the former member for Florey. I think in its initial form it was a good idea. The idea of course was that when there is a substantial number of signatures on a petition it should be referred to a committee, that there should be more action taken than the petition simply being noted by the house.

This bill by the Hon. Connie Bonaros, which was supported by members in the other place, simply takes the onus away from the Legislative Review Committee—which is a fair onus, as there is quite a backlog of petitions to consider on the Legislative Review Committee—and puts the onus back onto relevant standing committees. When a petition of sufficient numbers is tabled in the house, instead of getting referred to the Legislative Review Committee, it gets referred by the member tabling the petition to the relevant standing committee of the parliament. I do have an amendment on file, but with those few words I commend the bill to the house.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (11:01): I rise to indicate the opposition's support for the bill. As the member for Elizabeth has said, this is actually a meritorious, substantive improvement on what was at the outset a meritorious arrangement in terms of establishing a threshold for petitions that would then require committee inquiry. The trouble is that, I think, well intentioned as it was, the referral of such petitions that have garnered a high level of subscription to the Legislative Review Committee was just not the appropriate destination, not the ideal destination.

Of course, the Legislative Review Committee, as the name indicates, is a committee that is charged with oversight for primarily questions of ultra vires and other compliance with power in terms of the enactment of by-laws, regulations and subordinate legislation. It is not a committee of review on the merits of any particular matter but, rather, a committee of oversight as to where the power existed, either in the minister in the case of regulations or in the relevant council in the case of by-laws and so forth.

As the member for Elizabeth has indicated, the workload of the Legislative Review Committee routinely is voluminous, albeit on those terms. There is a lot of material for the Legislative Review Committee to have to wade through the entire time, and it does so diligently and competently and all the rest of it, but in this relatively short period of time that we have had these petitions referred to it, it has sat there really as kind of a new and unusual addition to the ordinary work of the Legislative Review Committee.

The change that will happen as a result of this bill is that we have changes to the functions of all the relevant standing committees in line now so that their functions will include receipt and consideration on the merits of those petitions that qualify and, in terms of subject matter, that those committees on the merits are well equipped to be dealing with.

So it is an improvement of process. It ought to be an improvement then in terms of how productive this parliament can be in the interests of South Australians who are troubling to sign petitions in those numbers. It will mean that if you have 10,000 people who are sufficiently motivated to subscribe to a petition on a question, they will be able to get that in front of the relevant standing committee. It will then deploy all the powers of a standing committee, including the compelling of evidence, the benefits of privilege and all the rest of it, and do what committees are so well able to do.

The other advantage, of course, of now providing for this process to be referred to the appropriate standing committee is that instead of burdening the Legislative Review Committee with all of these in one go, they will be able to be spread around those committees with subject matter expertise and the consideration of those petition questions will be able to be dealt with all the more efficiently.

This is a win for the deploying of parliamentary capacities in the interests of the community. It ought to be a win for each of those individual committees that are going to be charged with the responsibility for inquiring into each of these petitions as they come along and it is otherwise a wholly meritorious improvement on, as the member for Elizabeth has credited already, that initiative that Frances Bedford, as she then was as member for Florey, took an initiative on. I join in acknowledging the initiative in turn of the Hon. Connie Bonaros MLC in another place in terms of setting this out and advancing the debate.

It would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity in these circumstances to just highlight the important work that the standing committees in particular—let alone committees established for particular purposes along the way in the course of any particular parliament—can do for the promotion of improvement in the interests of all South Australians. I have said so in a whole variety of contexts.

There is a bill in my name before the parliament presently in the circumstances of the recently passed state Labor legislation with the establishment of the State Voice which unfortunately carried as a corollary the dissolution of one of those successful and productive standing committees. I would reinstate the Aboriginal affairs standing committee. Much as it is capable and should be there constituted to do that work with that particular focus, so, too, are there the range of other subject matter focused standing committees that will be well placed to be in receipt of these referrals from those significant petitions.

So I look forward to the passage of the bill and the advent of this new system of referring petitions. If by demonstrating that, when South Australians do trouble to sign up to a petition, not only will it be capable of being tabled in this place, but it will be capable of being referred for an inquiry process, now by an appropriately constituted subject matter committee, I hope that it will promote, therefore, the confidence of South Australians on important questions that are the subject of petitions received by the parliament from time to time.

With those words, and in anticipation of an amendment, with which I am familiar, I just indicate the opposition's support and look forward to the passage of the bill.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley) (11:10): I rise to also speak in favour of the bill and, I guess, also use the opportunity to reflect how successful this 10,000-signature legislation has been in engaging the South Australian public. I think there was a stage there where many South Australians were petitioned out. They would sign a petition, it would be presented in parliament. They would not know what day that happened or what the outcome of that was. Often it did not change anything and you did witness petition fatigue out there when the community had been campaigning for a change or for an issue to be raised in the parliament. People say, 'I'm not going to bother signing. Nothing ever happens. Nothing ever happens when I sign a petition.'

The first tranche, if you like, of this legislation, that happened under the previous government, actually meant that it would force an action. As legislation does and as parliaments do, things evolve and I think the proof of the success of the legislation, and the interest there is in public participation in matters that may very well be raised by this petitioning process, is we are seeing more engagement. I think there is a pile-up of about half a dozen or so of these petitions at the Legislative Review Committee and it only makes sense now to take it to the next phase and streamline that process and get it to a parliamentary committee as early as possible.

Of course, we know that parliamentary committees are available for members of the public to be in the audience or the gallery, if you like, in person, or listening to it online or even having the opportunity to put in a submission. What I have found, particularly with the Museum petition that we have running at the moment, is once people realise that there is actually a guaranteed action once 10,000 signatures are collected, they are much more enthusiastic about spending that 30 seconds filling out the petition because, all of a sudden, there is light at the end of the tunnel. 'Yes, I am seeing the process in action.'

I think it sends a very strong signal or a very encouraging sign to members of the public that they are now, because of this petitioning process, actually in a position to make a difference outside of the election cycle, in between elections. They can actually be part of a group of people who have come together to force an action of the parliament, to inquire into a particular issue.

The petition that I have been out collecting signatures for at the moment is the impact that the Malinauskas government cuts are having on the Museum. People are concerned about it. I am amazed at how many of those signatures I have been collecting out the front of the Museum from my old stamping ground in the northern suburbs, where people are coming in with their children and grandchildren for an educative day out, completely free of charge. They are very concerned about the threat to galleries, and there are others who are very concerned about the cessation of the research that is going to be the result of these cuts. After 170 years of world-renowned research at the Museum, it will no longer be there.

I support this bill and look forward to seeing more South Australians participate in our democratic process and participate in the parliamentary process by signing petitions that can actually lead to an action of this parliament on matters that are important to them.

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (11:16): Since there are no further speakers, I want to thank the member for Heysen particularly for signalling the opposition's support for this bill. I do think it is important and, as the member rightly points out, the Legislative Review Committee, like all standing committees, has a substantial amount of legislated work to do. The other standing committees, of course, have work to do, so the idea of essentially farming out relevant petitions to those committees makes absolute sense.

I want to thank the Hon. Connie Bonaros in another place. I know that she is a current serving member of the Legislative Review Committee. I have recently joined the Legislative Review Committee and so I have seen the backlog of petitions that they are required to deal with. She has been a strong proponent of this because she can see firsthand the problems with the Legislative Review Committee dealing with petition after petition. I also want to thank the member for Unley, of course, who in his usual style made a considered contribution to the debate. I know that he genuinely does support this bill. I believe he has served on the Legislative Review Committee before and he would have an idea of the workload.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: No, I haven't.

Mr ODENWALDER: I beg your pardon. It is a busy committee, believe me. I also want to thank the member for Narungga, who has long been an advocate for this bill as he is for his own local community. I think that his impetus—and he can correct me if I am wrong—behind supporting this bill is to make sure that the concerns that he raises on behalf of his community through the petition process get dealt with quickly and adequately by the relevant committee.

There is an amendment on file. I should just quickly address that amendment. I do not know if there will be any questions. I hope the member for Heysen has no questions. The impetus behind the amendment, as I understand it, is—

The SPEAKER: We might come to the amendment in committee.

Mr ODENWALDER: I cannot talk about the amendment? I beg your pardon.

The SPEAKER: It is like Fight Club, mate, you cannot talk about it—first rule.

Mr ODENWALDER: With those words then, I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.