LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

The Hon. M. PARNELL (12:37): I take the opportunity today to reflect a little on the workings of parliament, and in particular the workings of the Legislative Council. I am moved to do so as a result of a number of things, including comments that have been made in the chamber on a number of occasions by government members about the value of the upper house. I am also moved to reflect a little on the opinion piece in this morning's Advertiser by Dean Jaensch, entitled 'Parliament puts public confidence to the test'. I think it is incumbent on all of us in the Legislative Council to make sure that we remain relevant to the legislative process and to the process of government. I think that we have done that admirably.

In general, the input of this chamber has been timely and worthwhile on a great many issues. I think that any analysis of debate on the most contentious issues that have faced this parliament would show that there has been more rigour in this chamber and that the members of the Legislative Council have been more attentive. If we look, for example, at issues such as the debate on the Penola pulp mill or on greenhouse legislation we will find that it was in the Legislative Council that most of the genuine debate occurred, and that is clearly because the government does not have the numbers in the upper house.

That means that debate takes on a very different meaning in the Legislative Council. In fact, the debate can influence the outcome of legislation, and that is to be contrasted with the situation in the other place where decisions are largely made in the party rooms behind closed doors, and the debate is pretty much redundant and certainly does not influence the outcome.

In fact, you could say that if you are not going to have a genuine debate you may as well just table a series of set speeches, maybe a series of questions on notice that you really do not expect to be answered, and then table your vote in advance. In fact, the 56 sitting days of parliament next year could be reduced to just a handful if was not for the need for genuine debate. That is the need that members of the public have: they expect us to properly debate legislation, and it is in the Legislative Council that we do that. In his article, Dean Jaensch talks about what we do badly in parliament, but also says that we could do better. He states that parliament:

...could meaningfully fill up the 56 days and more if it decided the public needed a full and frank debate on matters of real public importance. It could put aside the party confrontation, even invite public input to the debates. A full canvass of the water future of the state. A detailed discussion of options for public transport. Informed debates about infrastructure. Why not an open debate about education? This would be valuable and positive. Further, it might bring back some public confidence in the Parliament. And that, alone, would be worth while.

What that says to me is very much a vote for the committee system, in particular, the role of select committees. It has been said here before that we have a number of select committees on the Notice Paper that are redundant, that have passed their use-by date, and I am starting to believe that that might be the case with some of them. I was minded to support some that were continuing the work from the previous parliament, yet, if those committees do not make progress, if they do not produce genuine reports, then I think their days are numbered.

There is merit in removing some of these moribund committees from the Notice Paper, because it does free up space for some of these more important issues. We have established a select committee on water. The idea of a select committee on public transport is a good one. If the Environment, Resources and Development Standing Committee does not take up that reference, then I think this council could well do that job.

I also think that we under-use the roles of committees in scrutinising legislation. In my brief time here, only a handful of bills have been referred to committees. When I leave the chamber for the lunch break I will be going to the steps and joining the Shirley Nolan rally. The subject of voluntary euthanasia is another one that we could probably do justice to if we were to put it through the committee system. I would urge all members to have regard to how we could better use committees to further democracy in this state.

Time expired.

[Sitting suspended from 12:42 to 14:15]