Bills

Parliamentary Committees (Referral of Petitions) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 10 passed.

Clause 11.

Mr ELLIS: I thank the government and the Hon. Connie Bonaros for bringing this bill. As the member for Elizabeth briefly mentioned prior, I have been very eager to see this bill pass or at least a change to the current scheme implemented.

In November last year I tabled a petition of near on 11,000 signatures calling for action and suggesting some change to the regional health system. Since that time, unfortunately thanks to the logjam that exists at the Legislative Review Committee, it has not managed to see the light of day yet. So a scheme like this would allow us to delegate that petition or to change course for that petition to be considered at a different committee, to give it an opportunity to be ventilated and heard, and, importantly, to give the members of my constituency who did sign that petition the opportunity to make a submission and contribute to the debate.

I think it is a wonderful move and very much in line with the inspiration behind the change to allow a petition of such a significant volume to be referred to a committee in the first place. It was never meant to be that, once it was referred, that was job done. It was meant to be a properly debated and discussed thing in order to give the people who signed that petition a voice. I welcome the change. I am very excited to see it implemented.

I do have three questions; I believe that is my maximum for any given clause. They centre around this clause 11, which is the mechanism by which a petition will now be referred to an 'appropriate committee'. I am of the view that, having read this draft bill and having considered it carefully, there might not have been enough consideration given to how this will work in practical terms: how petitions, not only new petitions coming in but ones that have already been presented to the parliament, will then be referred to an appropriate committee. I wonder if the member for Elizabeth can give this house some guidance as to what that process will be and whether there will be changes to the standing orders required or how the government and the Hon. Connie Bonaros view that occurring.

Mr ODENWALDER: As I understand it, the current method of tabling a petition is that a member brings it in—whether they agree with the content of the petition or not is irrelevant—and it is tabled in their name. My understanding is the intention of the bill, when the Hon. Connie Bonaros had it drafted, is that the member tabling the petition would also nominate at that time, and presumably move that way, the relevant committee that it would be referred to and then that would be voted on by the house.

In fact, no. It would not be voted on by the house. I beg your pardon. It would simply be a matter of tabling the petition and tabling the relevant committee that it should be referred to. Whether that would constitute a change in standing orders, I would have to take some advice from the Clerk about that, but they would be very minor and administrative.

Mr ELLIS: The member has actually anticipated my next question. I will ask it anyway just for the sake of confirmation, but it sounds as though the proponent of that petition, the one that has secured that significant number of signatures, will then be charged with determining which committee is appropriate and merely informing the house, at least as is currently planned, which committee is the 'appropriate committee'. So that is the intent that the proponent of the petition will be charged with informing the house and there will be no vote required on what committee it gets referred to.

Mr ODENWALDER: As you pointed out in your preamble, the amendment is silent on the method, but that is certainly what I understand to be the intention of the Hon. Connie Bonaros in drafting this. As I said, I will talk to the Clerk about whether that necessitates a change in the standing orders. I would not have anticipated it would be a vote of the house, it would simply be—it probably would be? I am reliably informed by the Clerk that it perhaps would be a vote of the house and that the tabler of the petition would also have to include a motion to refer that to the relevant committee, and that would be put to the house and, presumably, can be debated.

Mr ELLIS: That is all well and good, and if that is the current situation, so be it. But if the government and the Hon. Connie Bonaros intend for that petition to merely be informed and information provided to the house as to where it is intended to go, then I suspect we should change the standing orders to reflect that will.

I want to reiterate—and I have a vested interest, obviously, with a petition that is currently on the legislative review agenda. I have a vested interest in getting my petition to a desirable place and I am not trying to conceal that. As someone who has gone out there and tried to secure 10,000 signatures, I am of the view that it should be the exclusive jurisdiction of the member who has done that to determine where it goes. I think anything else would threaten to undermine the—legitimacy might be too strong a word—destination of that petition, and it might mean that it ends up somewhere that is not appropriate in the eyes of the person who has done the legwork to secure the signatures.

I would be well in favour of changing the standing orders to reflect the will of—I should not put words in the member's mouth, but to reflect the position that it should go to the destination that the member desires it to go. To that end, I want to draw attention to clause 11 and read the wording:

The House of Assembly…must, on presentation of an eligible petition by a member of the relevant House, refer the petition to an appropriate Committee.

So it does not actually say to refer the petition to an appropriate standing committee; it says 'refer the petition to an appropriate Committee.'

In my case, I have a petition on the legislative review agenda which is a health-related petition. I have had a thorough survey of the standing committees, and I do not consider that any of them are particularly appropriate. I think that there are some that might well be able to do the job, and I am sure they would use their best endeavours to make sure it was done properly, but there is no standing committee of the parliament that deals exclusively with health-related matters. In my view, that being the case, my petition would be best referred to a select committee, and I do not think that the wording of the clause in this amendment bill would preclude that from happening.

I was a terrible law student, but I did go, and my view is that clauses 2 through 10 merely empower standing committees to accept petitions. They do not necessarily preclude that petition from being referred to a select committee if it is more appropriate, on my reading of this amendment bill. So I wonder whether—and we may not have considered it—between the houses we might investigate that possibility and if it is, as I read it and as I understand it—

Mr Odenwalder interjecting:

Mr ELLIS: Presuming the amendment passes and it does have to go back; if the amendment fails, it will just be law. But if it does have to go back, I would urge the decision-makers in the other place to continue to allow my perception of how this bill would work to remain. I think that in some cases and for some particular petitions, it might be that one of the standing committees is not the appropriate committee and it should be referred to a select committee with particular expertise to consider it.

I wonder, in somewhat selfish terms, whether the proponent of that petition might then be the chair of that select committee. That might well be a bridge too far—who knows? In any case, that is my view of it. I do not know if that is necessarily a question after all, but that is my reading of this bill and I hope that is allowed to continue, if it is the correct reading.

Mr ODENWALDER: I think there are a fair number of questions there. I think your reading of the bill is correct: it does not make any provision for a petition to be referred to a select committee. I think a member could move that way—there is nothing stopping any member from moving a motion to do anything—but there is no provision in the bill. This must go back to the other place, obviously, so I undertake to talk to the Hon. Connie Bonaros about whether such a thing would be acceptable. As a member of the Legislative Review Committee, I am happy for it to go anywhere else, so I will undertake to do that. Did you mention the retrospective bills, or was that your next question?

Mr Ellis: I have done three now; I do not really want to test the patience of the Chair.

Mr ODENWALDER: I am happy to have another question. I will let you ask a question.

Mr ELLIS: With your indulgence, Chair, I just seek some clarity on the process for petitions that are on the Legislative Review Committee agenda, and how they will be referred to—whatever this place considers an appropriate committee.

Mr ODENWALDER: There is no provision in the bill for that; you are right to point that out. If the bill and the amendment are accepted, there will be a whole lot of petitions that have already been given to the Legislative Review Committee which will then need to be committed to other committees, and there is no provision in the act for that. I think the intention is that the person who originally tabled the petition would be nominating the committee to which it goes. That is what I was going to say. That would have to be, at the moment, a decision of the house.

As you point out, the bill is worded, 'The House of Assembly or the Legislative Council must, on presentation of an eligible petition,' etc., which necessitates a vote of the house. It means the house has to make that decision. There cannot just be the member tabling it and that is that. There must be a vote of the house; that is how it currently stands. Presumably, with the retrospective bills there is the same process. There would have to be a series of motions of the house—presumably in committee time on Thursday morning—to sort out where those bills go. I cannot remember how many petitions are sitting there in the Legislative Review Committee backlog.

I have already undertaken to talk to the Hon. Connie Bonaros, but I will also talk to the Standing Orders Committee, which includes myself, about any changes we can make that might facilitate what you want, and then between the houses we can see if that is amenable to all parties.

Sorry, Chair, but with your indulgence can I address the member for Narungga's previous question? I have just been advised by the Clerk that in order to amend the bill in some way to allow a petition to be referred to a select committee rather than a standing committee, it would have to be done during this process here. It cannot be done between the houses and then when the Legislative Council considers it in the final stage. It would have to be done here. The option is to adjourn this debate to another date while we consider an amendment that you might prepare to take it to a select committee or we leave it as going to the standing committees.

Mr ELLIS: I have talked to the Clerk about this, and I know he disagrees, but my view of the way this bill is currently written is that it does not specifically preclude it from going to a select committee currently. It just says 'appropriate committee', so, if the house determines that the most appropriate committee is a select committee—

The CHAIR: The Clerk has advised that the committee is defined in the context of the Parliamentary Committees Act, and the Parliamentary Committees Act defines those committees. The select committees do not belong under the Parliamentary Committees Act, so it is in that context.

Mr ELLIS: In any case, we will not delay it. I am happy for it to pass the way it is. I just thought I would get that on the record.

Mr ODENWALDER: It could form the subject of another private member's bill if we think that that is an appropriate thing to do, and we could probably do that pretty quickly if all parties agreed, I think.

Mr TELFER: Just for clarification on the process and the procedure as has been put by the member—the necessity for the existing petitions that are being considered by the Legislative Review Committee—you speak on the fact that there will need to be a motion brought to the house for a decision. Is each individual member who is the proponent of the petition going to be the one that brings the motion, each individually, for consideration at that committee stage? Reflecting on what the member for Narungga was talking about, the member who puts the petition is the one who decides the appropriate committee? As part of that retrospective process, is each individual one going to be bringing that?

Mr ODENWALDER: The retrospective ones? Again, I will take advice from the Clerk, but the bill is silent on that process, and so I imagine that, similar to some processes in private members' business, a person could be nominated to move it en bloc, I imagine. I cannot imagine there is an impediment to that in the standing orders, but it probably would be cleaner for each individual member, and I am sure each individual member would want to move that on behalf of their community who lodged the petition, so the bill is silent on it.

Mr Teague: It's not quite silent.

Mr ODENWALDER: Alright.

Mr TEAGUE: Just on the question, as I read the schedule, the bill's providing for it insofar as we have the Legislative Review Committee being relieved of any obligation to inquire into a relevant petition, and then (1)(b) of the transitional provision appears to me to be providing for the house in which that was tabled to refer it in due course to the appropriate committee. So, as I read it, that covers what is presently before the Legislative Review Committee as well as what comes, but I might put that to the member for Elizabeth, who is in the hot seat it seems, although I think we are a bit around the house on this point. Anyway, that is as I read it.

Mr ODENWALDER: I gather what you are saying is there is some guidance in the sense that someone in the relevant house needs to move that petition?

Mr Teague: Yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: So if a petition is tabled in the House of Assembly, only a member of the House of Assembly can move to send that to a select committee?

Mr Teague: It would be just in terms of the backlog, that what is already before the Legislative Review Committee is provided for.

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes, but I think the member for Flinders' question was simply about who moves the motion?

Mr Telfer: Yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: And, as you point out in schedule 1(1)(b), it needs to be a member of the relevant house at least. I think that is the only guidance that I can see in it, and so I cannot see an impediment to it being moved en bloc, but again I think that the person who has tabled the petition probably would want to move that motion in the house to have a second bite of the cherry.

Mr TEAGUE: If I might just welcome what is now on the record, thanks to the member for Narungga having raised those matters, and the member for Elizabeth in response, I think that is helpful for the record. Let's just bear in mind that the ease of the present provision, forcing as it does all referrals to go directly to the Legislative Review Committee, means that until now we have been in territory that is fairly straightforward, so that the eligible petition is presented and, by force of the section 16B(1), heads off to the Legislative Review Committee without anybody doing anything further, whereas because this is now introducing this question of appropriate committee, this is now introduced for the first time, the question of, 'Alright, where does it go?'

It might be helpful just to highlight, again, that there is no doubt about the obligation on the relevant house to refer, and the need for there to be some sessional or standing order for that purpose I think has been made plain as well. I tend to agree that it would be desirable now to have something in our standing orders that provides for that process of referral, because we are moving away from a provision that, by force of the provision itself, exercises the referral, to one in which there is now an obligation on the relevant house to make that referral. Okay, that is all good, on the face of it.

The question the member for Narungga raises—about who ought to decide what the appropriate committee is—I have a lot of respect for that proposition. The only other thing I would add to that is that you have classically, especially with the large petitions, the local member promoting a petition of that sort. I do not know about the history of the large petitions, whether that is comprehensive, but, of course, we also know that it is the duty of a local member to bring to the parliament and table petitions whether or not they necessarily endorse the contents. It is just conceivable that there is going to be a very large petition that the local member does not have a view about one way or the other, or does not endorse, but dutifully tables it to express that view, and that will trigger a requirement for the house to then do a referral.

The local member might want to have nothing to do with it, so I just put that counterpoint that each individual member might be a bit careful what they wish for in terms of taking on that new responsibility. Clearly, it is a different structure, there is a referral action that is required now by the house. I just indicate that I agree that it would be desirable now for the Standing Orders Committee, or any other appropriate process, to now provide a mechanism by which the house is going to deal with not only having the Speaker ask the question, 'Are there petitions?' but also, what are we going to do about them once they are tabled?

Mr ODENWALDER: To your second point, and this is just a matter of opinion really, but I cannot see any substantial difference between the tabling of a report and then moving that it be referred. You are talking about a member wanting to be hands-off, which I understand, but if you are tabling a report, if your name is on it, you are tabling it, and then I cannot see any problem with you then moving that it be referred.

I will talk to the Standing Orders Committee about this, but we can explore a sessional order whereby when a petition is tabled it requires that the member tabling the petition will move, on the next day of sitting, that it be something—that is the sort of thing we are after, is it not? Yes. The two things are separated by a day, because you have to give notice and then, without suspending standing orders, it has to be the next day. I think that is probably the mechanism that the Standing Orders Committee would explore. It just occurs to me that if that is the case then that following day or the following week, or whenever it is, another member on behalf of the member for Heysen can refer such and such petition to a committee. That way the member could maintain some sort of arm's length, if that is what they want.

Clause passed.

Clause 12 passed.

Schedule.

Mr ODENWALDER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Odenwalder–1]—

Page 4, line 24 [Schedule 1, clause 1(2), definition of relevant petition]—Delete '5 May 2023' and substitute '1 May 2023'

This is a very simple amendment. It simply changes the date. We are talking about the 'relevant petition'; the 'relevant petition', in the current bill, is an eligible petition that has, on or after 5 May 2023, been referred to Legislative Review Committee pursuant to the relevant section. I understand this is a tidying-up amendment.

The impetus for the bill in the first place was to capture a whole lot of petitions that have already been tabled and already referred to the Legislative Review Committee. That dates back to what parliamentary counsel, or whoever, thought was 5 May, which is when those petitions were presented to the Legislative Review Committee. However, the relevant date should be the date on which they were tabled in the parliament before they were physically given to the Legislative Review Committee. The relevant date for the purpose of the bill, if we support the bill, is not 5 May but 1 May. I hope that is clear.

Mr TEAGUE: I appreciate the succinct, thorough and clear explanation for the change; that makes everything abundantly clear. All I was going to do was refer over to the member for Narungga, having highlighted this petition that he is especially keen on. I think he referred to it as being November last year. It seems like it is well and truly caught.

We have had some reference to the transitional provision that precedes the definition, which is saying that any relevant petition is then caught. Just for clarity, are we therefore talking about every petition that has been referred to the Legislative Review Committee under the currently applied regime that has not yet been concluded or not yet commenced, or do we have a bit of a mixture? Presumably it is not catching anything that the Legislative Review Committee has managed to complete during that short period of time. Is there anything in terms of categories?

Mr ODENWALDER: Just to clarify what I said before—and this is kind of technical—the Legislative Review Committee sat on 5 May 2023, which was a Friday in the relevant year. Making that the relevant date does not capture petitions that were tabled on the Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday prior. Backdating it to Monday 1 May captures that week of petitions, which is the intention of the bill.

Yes, there are a whole lot of petitions at various stages of being inquired into by the Legislative Review Committee, and this captures all of them that were tabled since 1 May, no matter what point in the enquiry they were up to. It does not include completed ones; there are some that have been completed, I think, one or two, I am not sure. However, there are some underway, and I think it is somewhere in the bill that the relevant information the Legislative Review Committee has collected will be provided to the relevant standing committee.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes, that is right. So:

(c) any evidence received by the Legislative Review Committee during an inquiry…

(i) is, by force of this paragraph, referred to the [new] Committee…

I hope that answers your question.

Amendment carried; schedule as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (11:49): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I thank all members—the member for Flinders, the member for Narungga and particularly the member for Heysen—for their engagement on this. I also want to again thank the Hon. Connie Bonaros in the other place, who brought this bill to the house. It not only substantially reduces the backlog of work for the Legislative Review Committee but also I think makes a very sensible change in referring petitions to relevant standing committees whose members have an interest in the area the petition may be concerning.

I have made some commitments to the member for Narungga. I will keep those commitments, and I will stay in touch with him and hopefully get some answers before the bill is again debated in the other place. I want to thank all members, and I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a third time and passed.