LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL REFORM

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (15:12): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Leader of the Government a question about the Legislative Council.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister and the Attorney in another place have read onto the public record the Rann government's proposals for reform (as they deem it) of the Legislative Council. One aspect of that was the reduction in the number of members of the Legislative Council by almost a third—from 22 members down to 16 members.

The Hon. R.D. Lawson: Just because they want to get rid of Russell.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: There are other ways of getting rid of Russell, I would have thought, than reducing the number of members from 22 down to 16. I think most people who have involved themselves with the operations of the Legislative Council in recent times have appreciated the significant work undertaken by the committees of the Legislative Council, the standing committees and the select committees of the Legislative Council. Under the Rann government's proposed reforms (as it deems them), when one removes up to three ministers—which generally has been the case, although it is not at the moment—and the President from the members of the Legislative Council, there would be just 12 members to continue the work of the committees of the Legislative Council. Some people have already commented to me that this is just one further attempt or mechanism by the Rann government to gut the accountability and effective control mechanisms of the parliament in relation to the operations of the executive arm of government.

My question is: if the Rann government's proposed so-called reforms were to be successful and there were just the 16 members, does the Leader of the Government acknowledge that there would need to be a significant curtailment of the work of the standing and select committees of the Legislative Council and that whatever party happens to be in power, given that there would be three ministers and a President, potentially, there would be only three or so government members to serve on the committees of the Legislative Council?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:14): I find it a bit rich that the Hon. Rob Lucas talks about the government's gutting control mechanisms when one of the proposals is to have a Senate-like double dissolution provision. At present, the Legislative Council could block legislation, it could block a budget—it could do anything—and not be held accountable for it. Unlike the situation that exists in most other parliaments, if not every other parliament of the world, it can block legislation but there is no mechanism for resolving that. In fact, what would happen if a major bill was blocked by the Legislative Council is that it would have to be passed again after an election, and if it was blocked again you would then have an election at which the Legislative Council would not itself have to go to the people.

One of the problems with this council is that it has the least accountable provisions of any upper house probably in the world. In every other bicameral system there are provisions for dealing with deadlocks, as there should be. There are systems in the Senate that have worked. They have not been used very often—there have been only two or three double dissolutions in the 108-year history of the commonwealth parliament—but it is an important mechanism. The fact that we have not reformed the double dissolution provisions was an oversight in some of the changes made in the original reforms of this upper house back in the 1970s.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: People are sick of—

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: They are sick of what?

The Hon. S.G. Wade: The Labor Party promised four years' consultation.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: We can see that members (they have had about 10 minutes) are trying to think up, 'How are we going to block this? What excuse are we going to use for not having a debate?' I guess that is really what this is about, and I think that comment gave it away. To say that it guts the control mechanisms is nonsense. In fact, it brings accountability to the Legislative Council, in terms of the rejection of legislation. It provides a legitimate means of resolving disputes between the houses which does not currently exist in the South Australian constitution but which exists in other parliaments in every other bicameral system in the world.

The other question asked by the honourable member related to the work of committees. We know what has happened with committees here. We have already reached the stage where so many committees have been established that most of them do not meet, anyway, for want of a quorum and other issues. The other thing about four year terms is that the parliament would reflect more currently the wishes of the people.

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I would have thought that the Hon. Ann Bressington would be the last one to interject. She was voted in on a ticket for Nick Xenophon. She will be here for four years after the next election. She was carried in with a handful of votes on Nick Xenophon's ticket and the public will not have another chance to vote for her until four years after this election. I would have thought that she would be the last one to try to justify an eight year term, unless it is self-interest.

Will this council allow the people of South Australia to choose whether eight years is too long or whether four years is an appropriate term for a member of parliament? That is a simple proposition. If the Hon. Ann Bressington does not like it, she can oppose it. She can use her numbers, along with those of the opposition if they care to so vote, to block us from even having a referendum. However, this government believes that that is something that the public of South Australia should decide.

Will it have an impact on the number of members of committees? Yes; I think that with respect to the future reform of the Legislative Council there is a debate we should have about the role of this chamber. If it becomes more of a genuine house of reform and, I think, a more contemporary composition—and the four year term would help that—one would hope that this chamber would emerge towards more of a house of review operation. With respect to the composition of the parliament, indeed, there has been public debate about whether there should be ministers in this council or, if it is to be a genuine house of review, have no ministers, in which case committee membership would come to be less of an issue. These are issues that will need to be considered.

I remind the honourable member that reforms were made to the Tasmanian parliament. I think the Tasmanian parliament was based on the five federal seats which each originally had seven members in the lower house. I think it had 35 members in the lower house and 19 in the upper house, and those numbers have, I think, been reduced to 25 in the lower house and 15 in the upper house, which means it has fewer members than we have in this place—but that reduction in numbers has not caused the Tasmanian parliament to collapse or fail to provide the necessary scrutiny .

There is a parliament that has recently reduced its numbers. The question here is: should it be up to the people of South Australia to make the decision or should the Legislative Council dictate to them, as it has tended to do in the past, and try to refuse any discussion about its own reform? We will see when we have the debate.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Honourable members should remember those poor workers out there who have faced redundancy during the past few years.