House of Assembly Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Parliamentary Procedure Parliamentary Procedure Standing Orders Suspension Standing Orders Suspension The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION House of Assembly Taylor Minister for Housing and Urban Development Minister for Housing Infrastructure Minister for Planning The Hon. N.D. CHAMPION (Taylor—Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Housing Infrastructure, Minister for Planning) (15:44): I move: That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable the introduction of a bill without notice and passage through all stages without delay. The Deputy Speaker House of Assembly The DEPUTY SPEAKER: An absolute majority not being present, please ring the bells. An absolute majority of the whole number of members being present: Mr TEAGUE House of Assembly Heysen Deputy Leader of the Opposition Mr TEAGUE (Heysen—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:46): The opposition opposes the motion. I indicate for the benefit of the house that this motion to suspend is moved in circumstances where the opposition has been notified of the bill that I think the minister has named in the title of the motion, but that is about all. The government has afforded the opposition a briefing on the bill that commenced at around 10 minutes to one this afternoon. That was after the Premier and the minister, so far as I could tell, in company with one or two members of another place, gave a media conference at around midday. All of that is to provide some context, then, to the question that was asked at the briefing: what is the urgency that might lead to the desirability from the government's point of view, let alone the necessity, to move with such haste as to suspend standing orders here today in the midst of the second reading debate on the budget? I think I can put it as bluntly as: at least just immediately prior to the Leader of the Opposition getting on his feet at 11 o'clock this morning, this was new news to the opposition. I think we have heard some reference to the fact that the government has told all of us on this side of the house, let alone all South Australians, that in the midst of the second reading debate on the budget, the government has decided to interrupt what is undoubtedly important government business, arguably the most important bill of the year, which needs to be passed within the next couple of days so that we can get on with a committee of the whole house over an extended period of time in the estimates process, in order to introduce this bill. So what is the urgency? The question was put in the course of the briefing, I think in a whole range of different ways to the minister, to the minister's staff and to the departmental adviser who was gracious enough to come along and do what could reasonably be done to walk us through this bill—but, I stress, a little more than a couple of hours ago. There is no particular answer that has been given to the opposition about what the particular urgency is. Members in this place, I am sure, will be forgiven for not having acquainted themselves with the contents of this bill in any sort of detail at all. I know that the bulk of the members of my party made themselves available at particularly short notice. I appreciate the opportunity for a government briefing. I appreciate the invitation for all of us to come if we possibly could, but that is far from all of us. There is a good reason why, when a bill is introduced by the government, let alone one that has just emerged out of the blue like this, it sits on the Notice Paper at least overnight: so that those who need responsibly to discharge their obligations to their electors and their legislative duties have at least that period of time in which to consider what is on the government's agenda. Of course, par for the course, the usual run of things is that we see the government business sitting on the Notice Paper for considerably longer than that for debate to be allowed and so on. But the haste with which this has been brought to the parliament in the particular context of being, as I say, in the midst of the early stages of the budget second reading debate, begs the question: is this some sort of attempt to run interference on the budget being the focus at this time? Is there some other reason for changing the subject in the midst of that important debate? While the government could not answer the question about the urgency at that briefing a couple of hours ago, one thing that the government could give a clear answer to me about was the response to my question: has the Adelaide City Council published a view about this bill? The answer to that question was no. And the following question: has the Adelaide City Council seen the bill? The answer to that question was no as well. I have not got this firsthand from the Lord Mayor but I understand it on reasonably good authority that the Lord Mayor happens to be away on business overseas in Europe and that this might be coming as news to the Lord Mayor of the Adelaide City Council while she is away in Europe undertaking, as I understand it, council business. What is the Adelaide City Council to make of a bill that, as far as I can see, resembles more a contract than a piece of legislation, the sort of document that looks a little bit like a contract where one party is being told what is going to happen and it is not clear what that other party's view is? All of this goes to the question as to why, in these circumstances, it is desirable, let alone necessary, for this house to grant the government its desire to suspend the standing orders. Surely the government is not afraid of the Lord Mayor or something, afraid of what the Adelaide City Council might do if it were given the proper amount of time to take this in. Surely the government is not afraid of the sort of scrutiny that would come in the ordinary course of a bill like this. Many might have thought that the government would be very happy to see this aired in the proper and usual way. I can stand here and indicate from the opposition's point of view there is surprise, to say the least, that we are somehow at nearly 4pm on the Tuesday of a sitting week that is dedicated to the budget debate sidelining all of that so that we can urgently progress debate in this place about a bill that is of central importance, undoubtedly, to the Adelaide City Council, which is the responsible entity that it affects, and all of those residents and businesses, stakeholders—large groups of them—that I expect are similarly, understandably, none the wiser about this legislation. What I would be seeking to persuade members of this place of the merits of at this relatively late hour of the afternoon is that there not be support given for the suspension of standing orders this afternoon, but rather that the minister instead move in the usual way to progress the bill as soon as tomorrow, if that is his wish. The minister has chosen not to address the motion on the suspension, and so even right now on the floor of this place we are none the wiser. The motion to suspend is without merit, and it should be opposed. The house divided on the motion: 26 15 2 Ayes	26 Noes	15 Majority	11 AYES Andrews, S.E. Boyer, B.I. (teller) Brown, M.E. Champion, N.D. Clancy, N.P. Close, S.E. Cook, N.F. Dighton, A.E. Fulbrook, J.P. Hildyard, K.A. Hood, L.P. Hughes, E.J. Hutchesson, C.L. Koutsantonis, A. Malinauskas, P.B. Michaels, A. Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K. (teller) O'Hanlon, C.C. Pearce, R.K. Picton, C.J. Savvas, O.M. Stinson, J.M. Szakacs, J.K. Thompson, E.L. Wortley, D.J. NOES Basham, D.K.B. Batty, J.A. Brock, G.G. Cowdrey, M.J. Ellis, F.J. Gardner, J.A.W. Hurn, A.M. McBride, P.N. Patterson, S.J.R. Pederick, A.S. Pisoni, D.G. (teller) Pratt, P.K. Teague, J.B. Telfer, S.J. Whetstone, T.J. PAIRS Bettison, Z.L. Tarzia, V.A. Motion thus carried.