BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. R.I. Lucas:

1. That a committee to be called the Budget and Finance Committee be appointed to monitor and scrutinise all matters relating to the state budget and the financial administration of the state.

2. That the standing orders of the Legislative Council in relation to select committees be applied and accordingly—

(a) That standing order No. 389 be so far suspended as to enable the chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only;

(b) That this council permits the committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to any such evidence being reported to the council; and

(c) That standing order No. 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating.

3 That members of the council who are not members of the committee may, at the discretion of the chairperson, participate in proceedings of the committee but may not vote, move any motions or be counted for the purposes of a quorum.

4 That a full-time research officer position be made available to assist the work of the committee.

(Continued from 12 May 2010.)

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (17:22): The government opposes the establishment of the Budget and Finance Committee. The government does not oppose the establishment of the committee because it wishes to avoid scrutiny or because it is worried about the role of the upper house in scrutinising budget matters: as we indicated on the last occasion that the Hon. Mr Lucas moved the establishment of this committee, it is not the appropriate way for such a committee to be established.

The purpose of the standing orders for the establishment of select committees by the Legislative Council is so that the committees can be set up to look into a particular matter. This is a pseudo standing committee. It is a committee that met every two weeks or so during the last parliament, when it was established; and it has a one-line term of reference. It is not really a select committee at all.

There are a number of ways that the opposition or other members of parliament can scrutinise the executive or the government in relation to the budget. Obviously, one is the estimates process in the House of Assembly; there is also question time in both houses, the Auditor-General's Report, and other means. The government has indicated that it is willing to consider a proposition to have the upper house play a more permanent role in scrutinising the budget. We are all aware that at the commonwealth level there is an extensive senate estimates process, and my understanding is that just about all the other state upper houses play some sort of budget estimates role. So this government has indicated that it is willing to consider a proposition in relation to that, to create some sort of standing committee to play a role in budget matters. That is not to say that the government will necessarily support any particular proposition that comes up, but it will certainly look at it.

This government does not believe that a new standing committee should be created overnight without necessarily taking into account the whole Parliamentary Committees Act and what the various committees do. However, the government has indicated that it is quite open to the proposition that there be a permanent standing committee of the upper house that would have some role in budget scrutiny. In fact, that was the policy the Liberal Party took to the last election, so it is surprising that it is going down this route again rather than attempting to move an amendment to the Parliamentary Committees Act.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: As my colleague the Hon. Mr Wortley interjects, it is a toy for the Hon. Mr Lucas. For those members who are new to the chamber I should explain how this committee came about; it may be confusing to follow, because leadership coups are pretty common in the Liberal Party. There was one in, I think, 2005 when Mr. Hamilton Smith, the member for Waite in another place, knifed—who was it? It was the Hon. Mr Evans, who is still around and chafing at the bit to have another go.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: The dates are wrong; get the dates right.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I do apologise; it was 2007, or 2008. As I said, it is very hard to keep track of Liberal leadership coups because they happen so often. However, Mr. Hamilton-Smith became leader of the Liberal Party in an overnight coup against the Right, and one of the warriors of the Right, the Hon. Mr Lucas, was dumped from the front bench. That left his position as leader in this place untenable, which meant that the Hon. Mr Ridgway became Leader of the Opposition in this place.

The Hon. Mr Lucas then decided that he needed to carve out a role for himself, given that he had been stripped of his frontbench responsibilities—even though he is the most senior member of the Liberal party in terms of cabinet service. Nonetheless he was knifed, so he thought he had better create for himself a bit of a plaything. He moved to establish the committee, and it was established by the parliament.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I am happy to provide the council with two examples of the Hon. Mr Lucas treating this committee in a quite contemptible fashion. On one occasion the Hon. Mr Wortley and I were absent; we were unable to attend a meeting. There was also one other member—it may have been the Hon. Mr Hood, I do not recall exactly—who was unable to be present, and thus there was no quorum for the meeting. I believe the committee purported to meet about midday that day, and minutes were taken. Upon subsequent reflection they thought better of it and realised that committee meetings cannot be called without informing the committee members, particularly myself and the Hon. Mr Wortley. That meeting then disappeared down the memory hole and apparently did not exist. That was one example, where the Hon. Mr Lucas called a meeting without inviting the two members from the government side.

I also draw honourable members' attention to the Hansard report of the Budget and Finance Committee held on Friday 13 November, when the Hon. Mr Lucas again demonstrated his contempt of the standing orders by continuing a meeting scheduled for 2pm. I drew his attention to the fact that it was past 4pm, past the time at which the meeting should have ended—in fact, it was 4.10pm and, as indicated in the Hansard report, I had given some latitude in allowing the committee to continue past the appointed finishing time. It went on for two hours, and I drew the Hon. Mr Lucas's attention to the fact that it was past 4pm and that the meeting should therefore end. I will now read from the Hansard report some of what the chairperson (the Hon. Mr Lucas) said, which regrettably will mean me referring to myself in the third person. The Hansard report reads:

The HON. B.V. FINNIGAN: …What I'm indicating is that you need to suspend the meeting.

The CHAIRPERSON: No, I don't, so long as there is a quorum at the start of the meeting. It's the same as the parliament. It's the same standing orders as in the parliament.

The Hon. Caroline Schaefer then tried incorrectly to correct me, but I will not bother with that. I then read out standing order 390, which states:

If at any other time a quorum is not present the chairman shall suspend the proceedings until a quorum is made up or adjourn the committee to some future time.

The chairperson, the Hon. Mr Lucas, then said:

That's if someone is here to draw attention to the quorum. There is a quorum present. If you're not here you can't draw attention to the quorum.

This exchange went on for some time, and then the Hon. Mr Lucas said:

The notice that went to all members was from 2.15 to 4.15.

The HON. B.V. FINNIGAN: When did the committee resolve that?

The CHAIRPERSON: When we found that we were short of a member.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: The committee met today and resolved that, did it?

The CHAIRPERSON: No, as chairman I advised members.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: You unilaterally decided to change the meeting?

The CHAIRPERSON: I did, indeed.

That is the sort of contempt the Hon. Mr Lucas has. He says, 'The standing orders provide that a quorum must be present, but if you leave you will not be here to draw attention to the lack of quorum, and I'm going to continue the meeting anyway.' How can the meeting continue to a time past that advised to members? 'I decided that', said the Hon. Mr Lucas, 'I'm the chairman, I can unilaterally, as chair of the committee, just decide when it meets by myself, without reference to other members.' That is the sort of behaviour the Hon. Mr Lucas has displayed in his chairmanship of the committee, and if the council resolves to establish this committee it will not be the government's intention to support him for the position of chairman because he has consistently demonstrated that he treats the committee as his little plaything.

We know that most members opposite do not support the establishment of this committee; we know how much they burn up every time the Hon. Mr Lucas is far more successful than are they in getting in The Advertiser or any other media, and he does that quite successfully with the Budget and Finance Committee. We know very much how galling it is to the Hons Mr Ridgway and Ms Lensink, in particular, that the Hon. Mr Lucas continually outperforms them and outshines them as an opposition frontbencher, so in their heart of hearts they would probably like to see nothing more than see this committee not continue.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: Stop it!

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Why don't you go on it, Ms Lensink, if you are that keen on it? You are not putting up your hand to go on the committee, are you? We have just had confirmation from the Hon. Ms Lensink that she has no intention of going on this committee, yet she claims that she strongly supports its establishment. I think we know what frontbenchers opposite genuinely think: they wish that the Hon. Mr Lucas would retire and go away so he does not continually show them up. We know members opposite are very keen for the Hon. Mr Lucas to depart because he continually humiliates them with his better performance as a frontbencher.

The final point is a new one on this motion to appoint a research officer. It is extraordinary that the Legislative Council should now decide to take upon itself the role of appointing staff and dictating that the council should start appointing staff for this, that or the other. I cannot wait to see what else the Legislative Council will come up with in future. Will we now decide the menus in the bar or blue room? Will the Legislative Council now determine what blend of coffee is used in the coffee machines? It is absurd—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I highly recommend fair trade coffee to the house. It seems extraordinary that the council should attempt to usurp to itself the prerogative to make judgments about the resourcing of the house, which are typically your domain, Mr President, as presiding member in consultation with our professional Clerk, Black Rod and others. It is a very poor reflection to suggest that members opposite have no confidence in the permanent staff of the Legislative Council that they now have to start dictating terms in committee resolutions as to whether or not staff should be appointed.

For those reasons the government opposes the establishment of this committee. We certainly do not fear scrutiny and we are very proud indeed of our budget record, unlike members opposite and the mover of this motion who oversaw successive budget deficits. We are proud of our budget record, which has seen the state return to a AAA credit rating and has seen, in very difficult economic circumstances, the finances of this state maintained in good shape. We are more than happy to have scrutiny of that, but we have indicated that this is a bit of a sham. It is setting up a select committee that really operates like a standing committee.

If they were serious about this they would come back with a proposition about a standing committee that would be part of the normal structure of the houses of parliament. We know they will not do that because that would mean that the Hon. Mr Lucas would not get his way, and he still clearly calls the shots within the upper house party room of the Liberal Party. For those reasons the government opposes the motion.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:35): The Greens support this motion, as we supported it in the last parliament. I have listened very intently to the Hon. Bernard Finnigan's historical analysis of the origins of the committee and the different agendas various members of this place might have. I do not care for that analysis. I am not saying that he is wrong but that I do not care for it. I care for the ability of the Legislative Council to properly engage in its important function of scrutinising government decisions and, in the case of this committee, government expenditure.

The Hon. Bernard Finnigan talks about its being a select committee that operates as a standing committee. It may and that does not bother me one iota. This committee shows, for the shame that it is, the current sham of estimates committees where, once a year, only one house of the parliament has the opportunity to ask questions, when in fact questions on government spending arise continuously throughout the year. When we discussed this in the last parliament, one of the suggestions I had, which the mover of the motion accepted in the last parliament, is what is currently before us as point (3), namely:

That members of the council who are not members of the committee may, at the discretion of the chairperson, participate in proceedings of the committee but may not vote, move any motions or be counted for the purposes of a quorum.

That was a sensible measure that allows participation by any of us in this parliament, from whichever side or party. Every single time I have asked to participate in committee meetings I have been granted that opportunity. I am not aware of other members who have said, 'I would like to come to this committee,' and the chairperson has said, 'No, you can't.' Members of the Labor Party might say, 'Oh, we tried to come along to a committee meeting, and we were turned away.' I have not heard any evidence from anyone that anyone has been denied the ability to participate in the committee meeting. On the occasions when I have participated, the committee had some procedures (and I understand that it will probably operate the same way this year) where non-members wishing to participate give notice—I think it is 48 hours; it may be 72 hours—of their intention to come along.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Seventy-two hours. As a courtesy to the witnesses, we usually advise the topics on which we wish to make questions, and that has been a very workable procedure. My understanding is that is the procedure that will be adopted again this year if this motion is successful.

The Hon. P. Holloway: How do you know?

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The minister asks, 'How do I know?' What I could say is that, if it was Tony Abbott, I would ask to get it in writing. I have seen it in writing. If the same procedures that were used last year—the 72 hours, the giving notice in advance—are to operate in this parliament, I think this will be a very useful and workable committee.

I do not know whether the Hon. Bernard Finnigan has moved his amendment yet; it certainly has been circulated and flagged. We will get to discuss that when we get to it, but for now, for the reasons I have mentioned and for the reasons we supported this committee last year, the Greens will again be supporting the establishment of the Budget and Finance Committee.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (17:39): I want to speak briefly in support of the Hon. Mr Lucas's motion. The operations of government departments must be open to scrutiny, and I believe that a budget and finance committee is an excellent vehicle to scrutinise and monitor how state government departments spend the people's funds.

While those in government and the opposition have the opportunity to scrutinise the financial administration of government departments during estimates committee hearings, as cross-benchers we do not have that option. In a sense, I am especially pleased that all members of this place may, with the permission of the chairperson, participate in the proposed committee's proceedings. For this reason, I support the motion.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (17:40): I seek leave to move in an amended form the amendment I have distributed to members.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I move:

Leave out the words 'at the discretion of the chairperson' and insert 'after notifying the chairperson'

In effect, the motion would then read:

That members of the council who are not members of the committee may, after notifying the chairperson, participate in proceedings of the committee.

The effect of the amendment is quite simple and quite harmless, really. All it means is that the chairperson does not have the discretion. Including the word 'discretion' means that the chairperson has the discretion. As the Hon. John Darley and the Hon. Mr Parnell will testify (and I think they are the only two people who have attended as non-participating members—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: You have?

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Well, that's good. You're so irrelevant that I just didn't take note. What it means now is that, if a person wants to participate, all they have to do is notify the chairperson and they can participate; there should be no discretion involved. I seek the indulgence and support of the chamber.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management) (17:42): I rise to support the amendment moved by the Hon. Mr Wortley. I want to use this opportunity to point out some of the background to this committee because some of the newer members probably are not aware of it.

Recently, I spoke to the opposition, through the Leader of the Opposition, and I put to him that this committee has been around for some time and that, unquestionably, there will be moves to re-establish it following the election. I said to him, 'Why not consider making it a permanent standing committee, particularly since we have at the moment a Statutory Authorities Review Committee and there are relatively few statutory authorities to look at, so why not replace it—'

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, of course he said no—and that goes to the whole point. It would have made sense to absorb the work. Let's face it, we have a standing committee to look at statutory authorities, which is relatively well resourced relative to select committees, and that could have been used. That was the offer for consideration. Of course, we know why it was rejected, and that is because it is Rob Lucas's plaything. That is what it is all about. It is all about giving him a voice. Of course, he then gets one of the tame journalists from The Advertiser, who very uncritically publishes whatever he wants.

It is important that this parliament have scrutiny, but it is also important that this parliament has credibility. Why is it that a member of the opposition has to chair a committee of this nature? Does that make it objective? Does that make it fair, when someone who has spent his whole lifetime in this parliament—and it has been a long lifetime in this parliament, 28 years or so—attacking the Labor Party. This committee is a vehicle; it is not about scrutiny. If this committee was genuine—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: You can laugh, but you know what he is like. There has been no person in the history of this parliament who has made more personal attacks—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! The Hon. Mr Stephens is out of order!

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: —on members than that particular person, and you know it. The history is there. If this was genuine and he really wanted a select committee to provide some scrutiny, why not have one of the Independents? Why doesn't Mr Parnell volunteer to chair it? We all know who is going to be the chair of it now because the deals are done, and I think it is important that we put that on the record. The deal has already been done for Rob Lucas to be chair of this committee to provide him with another vehicle. Because he wants an extra staff member, he is saying that the money from this parliament should go towards funding a full-time research officer the other committees do not have.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT: Order! The minister needs no help from the Hon. Mr Finnigan.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: This resolution requires a full-time research officer position to be made available to assist the work of the committee (that is, Rob Lucas). So, he will have an additional staff member that other members of the government and other members do not have. I think that the members who have come here fairly recently should understand that it was during the last parliament that the Liberal Party, in conjunction with the Independents, broke a long-standing convention—a convention of 150 years—in no longer having government members chair committees. That had always been the convention. It was a convention that the Labor Party, when it was in opposition, in conjunction with Independent parties, had always honoured. That has been broken. Okay, that is gone; that convention is broken.

However, if those members, particularly the Independent members, believe that there should be some independent scrutiny, why doesn't one of them offer to chair it? How much credibility do they think the committee will have if it has an opposition person, particularly shadow finance, using this as their personal plaything?

I think there has been a lack of integrity by certain journalists in their reporting of this matter, but I think that will change. One of the reasons I am speaking today is to highlight the fact that this is a flawed committee. It is profoundly flawed in that the shadow minister—I think he is the shadow minister for tracking the broken promises of government—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It shows how dopey the Leader of the Opposition in another place is. How can you have someone as a shadow minister who is not tracking a minister? He is using this chair and using the numbers in this parliament, duping the Independents who are supporting him, to give him extra staff so he can carry—

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Duping. Yes, exactly; that's right—

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order!

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: —so he can have extra staff to attack the government. No other parliament in the Western world behaves like this. It is just another breach of the Legislative Council—and he has made dozens of them—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: This is yet another breach. Just like the convention that was broken in relation to the chair, now we have the breach where it operates at the discretion of the chairperson. That comes back to the amendment moved by the Hon. Russell Wortley. Why should the chairperson have sole discretion? It does not happen in any other committees. It does not happen anywhere else. Committees of the Legislative Council should be the property of the Legislative Council; they should not be the plaything of a particular member of the opposition. So, for that reason, I support the amendment moved by the Hon. Mr Wortley.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (17:47): I seek permission to ask a question of the mover in relation to the amendment.

The Hon. P. Holloway: He's not here, is he?

The ACTING PRESIDENT: You cannot ask a question but you can make a contribution and pose that question in the contribution.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Thank you.

The ACTING PRESIDENT: If there are no further contributions, the Hon. Ms Bressington.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (17:48): Just very briefly—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: No, I'm not going to—well, I am, sort of.

The ACTING PRESIDENT: I think the honourable member should proceed.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I will. First of all, I get a bit sick and tired every time a proposal for a select committee, or whatever, comes up in this place that we either have the Hon. Bernie Finnigan or the Hon. Paul Holloway saying that the Independents are being sucked in and duped, and that we don't know what we are doing and we don't know why we are doing it. How insulting is that, for a start!

The second point is about breaking conventions, about not having government members sitting in chairs of select committees. I sat on eight committees last year and not all of them were chaired by government members. In fact, the Hon. John Dawkins chaired a select committee that we established.

The Hon. M. Parnell: And water.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: And the Hon. Mr Parnell here, for water.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: But has it killed us? Has it really killed us? Has it changed the way this place works? I think not. Anyway, you should just watch what you say—that we have been duped into this—because some of us might just dig our heels in and vote for it despite the comments. Give us some credit for the fact that we come here every day, the same as you, and do our job. We have a pretty fair idea of what is going on and why we are voting for issues.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Hang on. To say that the decision has already been made is not true. I have not been approached by Rob Lucas or the Liberal Party to vote anybody into this chair, or anything else. This is an independent vote. The last time I attended the Budget and Finance Committee, when Families SA officers were in attendance, the evidence they gave to the Budget and Finance Committee was completely different to the evidence given to the select committee inquiry, and it was a discrepancy that was pursued. So, there is value in this. I think it was in the Budget and Finance Committee that Mr Hamilton-Smith picked up on the poor reporting of Drug and Alcohol Services, involving its expenditure of almost $14 million. So, there is a reason for this committee, and it does serve a purpose. It might not serve it for you guys, but it actually does for us. Just be careful about what you say.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (17:51): I rise on behalf of the mover of the motion to establish the committee. Unfortunately, Mr Lucas has been called away on a family matter today and is unable to be here. I have listened to the debate and to the pathetic half-truths that have come from the opposite side of the chamber. The Hon. Mr Wortley's amendment is interesting. Nobody has been refused an opportunity to come to that committee. I am not sure whether any of the backbenchers—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Nobody has been refused.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Have you ever asked?

The Hon. P. Holloway: I haven't been able to, because it's when cabinet is sitting.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: What's the point of a minister asking his own minister?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Exactly. Nobody has been refused. The Hon. Ann Bressington, members of Family First, the Hon. Mark Parnell, the Hon. Mr Wade, and I—a range of members—have come to the committee. To my knowledge, nobody has been refused an opportunity to come to the committee. So, clearly, we will not be supporting the Hon. Mr Wortley's amendment.

The comments of the Hon. Mr Finnigan—the next leader of the government—were interesting. I hope he sharpens up his performance before he becomes leader. He spoke about all the opportunities for scrutiny, including question time. We still have hundreds and hundreds of questions on notice not answered. We rarely have questions without notice answered in this place. I know the Hon. Caroline Schaefer still has a number of outstanding questions that I suspect will never be finalised.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: These are issues that the Hon. Mr Finnigan raised. My understanding is that, speaking on behalf of the mover, I am indicating that we will not be supporting the amendment and basically summing up the debate on the motion. Is that correct?

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Yes, that is right. I beg your pardon, Mr President, I should stick to the amendment. I have dealt with the silly amendment and now I am dealing with the very important motion.

The PRESIDENT: I would imagine the summing up of the debate would have probably been done before the amendment was moved.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: You gave the Hon. Mr Wortley the call to move the amendment.

The PRESIDENT: Very well; carry on.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: May I carry on?

The PRESIDENT: Yes, carry on.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Thank you. It was interesting that the Leader of the Government had a discussion about the Statutory Authorities Review Committee, the possibility of the Budget and Finance Committee being a standing committee, the change of standing orders—a whole range of things. I suggested to him that he, as the Leader of the Government, should put what he wants in writing. This government has a track record of saying one thing and then changing its mind halfway through. All we have seen so far from the government is a change to sitting times, so that we get up at 10pm on Wednesday nights.

The Hon. Mr Finnigan says we just establish a new committee at the drop of a hat. A little later on today I suspect we will pass a bill to add extra members to a committee—and the Hon. Kelly Vincent goes on to the Social Development Committee. It is interesting that this chamber was more than happy to have a reciprocal person from the House of Assembly, unlike this arrogant government where the House of Assembly has decided to put two extra members on the Natural Resources Committee and no extra members from the Legislative Council. They are quite happy to undermine the integrity of the Legislative Council. We see that the NRM committee (which I will make a contribution on later) now has nine members—six from the House of Assembly and three from the Legislative Council.

It is important that this committee be re-established. It has been a very useful tool to hold the government to account.

The Hon. A. Bressington: Very successful.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: As the Hon. Ann Bressington says, very successful. Another question I posed to the Leader of the Government (we had this discussion prior to the start of the sitting) was the possibility of upper house shadows being involved in budget estimates but nothing has been forthcoming. This means the chamber, the shadow ministers, the crossbenchers and the backbenchers—anybody from the government side—may attend the Budget and Finance Committee. It has certainly been one way of holding the government to account. I am sure one of the very first groups that will be called in will be the Stadium Management Authority and a whole range of government officials in relation to this latest con by the Labor Party.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I beg your pardon, that we have made up our mind! We had the Treasurer today inform—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: —the House of Assembly that he had received advice prior to the election that the expenditure was going to go beyond $450 million on the stadium. There was a range of very important unanswered questions about expenditure of taxpayers' money on a key election promise that this government made to the people of South Australia—$450 million and not a penny more. Now it is probably another $450 million. Goodness knows how large and how out of control this project will become. One of the things that the Hon. Rob Lucas discussed—

The Hon. P. Holloway: It is not a government project.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: It has government money—$5 million just to tick it off and $450 million of taxpayers' money. It is a government-sponsored project.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Ridgway should not be distracted by interjection.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: If it is taxpayers' money it is a project of interest to the Budget and Finance Committee and a project of interest to the taxpayers of South Australia.

The Hon. Mr Lucas did a study tour to the US a couple of years ago where he came up with the idea for a Budget and Finance Committee. He said that the ones that were most successful were the ones that had full-time research officers. I know members opposite cringe because the Hon. Rob Lucas has such a long corporate knowledge of the way government operates. He has certainly been here for a very long time but eventually—and it will be a sad day—the Hon. Rob Lucas will retire at some point and that corporate knowledge will be gone.

He said the example overseas is that, when you have a full-time research officer, you have somebody who has corporate knowledge who lives beyond terms of government and beyond terms of parliament and, therefore, whichever party is in government, there is a better opportunity to hold it to account.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I suspect it will, Mr Finnigan.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: This select committee has been so successful that I suspect that, after the next election (when we will have a Redmond-led Liberal government) members opposite—those who are left and sitting over here—will move to have a Budget and Finance Committee. I am sure that we will have a Budget and Finance Committee, whoever is in government, in this chamber. It has proved to be a very useful tool to hold the government to account. With those few words we indicate we are not supporting the foolish amendment of the Hon. Russell Wortley but we do urge members to support the real establishment of the Budget and Finance Committee.

Amendment negatived; motion carried.

The council appointed a select committee consisting of the Hons J.A. Darley, B.V. Finnigan, R.I. Lucas, D.W. Ridgway and R.P. Wortley; the committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to adjourn from place to place; the committee to report on 24 November 2010.

[Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:45]