Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Prince Alfred College Incorporation (Variation of Constitution) Amendment Bill PRINCE ALFRED COLLEGE INCORPORATION (VARIATION OF CONSTITUTION) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 23 November 2010.) The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS Legislative Council The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (16:20): I rise to support this bill. At the outset I declare that I am an old but not very distinguished scholar of Prince Alfred College, and I also invested significant funds in that institution when my son passed through its halls some years ago. This bill seeks a minor amendment to the Prince Alfred College Incorporation Act 1878 to remove the requirement in section 19(4) for a minimum of 12 members to approve any change to the college council's constitution but retaining the requirement for three-quarters of the membership of the council to support such an amendment. This more flexible approach has been sought by the Prince Alfred College council after consultation with the South Australian Synod of the Uniting Church in Australia. I understand the synod supports the change which is in line with its own governance arrangements. The Liberal Party supports the change, but I want to make a few comments on the process under which this matter has been dealt with by our esteemed colleagues in the lower house. In the process leading up to this matter being debated in the House of Assembly, the Minister for Education sought from the Liberal Party an agreement to set aside the requirement for this bill to be referred by the presiding member of the relevant house to a select committee as a hybrid bill. When the act was last amended in 2007, standing orders were suspended in the House of Assembly so as to pass the bill without constituting a select committee. However, in this council we recognised that because it was a hybrid bill there needed to be a select committee, and one was constituted in this house. I served on that select committee and, while it proceeded uneventfully, it proceeded in a proper way. In that time for taking evidence was set and advertised and the general public were given the opportunity to participate. The Liberal Party resisted the request for a suspension of standing orders in the House of Assembly this time, because that bill, the Prince Alfred College bill, originated in the House of Assembly and that is the place where such a select committee should operate. As such, the select committee took place I think in the last sitting week; it was established and met all on the one day, and it brought down its findings without any ability for anybody from the public to participate. I very much doubt that there were any difficulties there but it just seems to me that the process has not been fulfilled by the House of Assembly. It reminded me of a previous situation which related to the Renmark Irrigation Trust when there were some changes. We dealt with some changes to the Irrigation Bill and the Renmark Irrigation Trust Bill in a relatively joint fashion back in March 2009. It was interesting on that occasion. The House of Assembly as the originating house determined that the Renmark Irrigation Trust Bill was a hybrid bill and, as such, a select committee needed to be established. That was done, but it seemed to me unusual. I am just reading my comments from Hansard of 7 April 2009. It seemed to me unusual that the select committee, which was established within one afternoon and which I think sat only briefly, decided not to advertise, contrary to what would normally be the case with a select committee on a hybrid bill. It then determined that enough consultation had been done and the recommendation of the select committee was that the bill go forward through the House of Assembly. That is almost the same process as the lower house has undertaken with the Prince Alfred College Incorporation (Variation of Constitution) Amendment Bill. I am concerned about our colleagues in the lower house. First, they want to avoid the responsibilities of having a select committee and suspend standing orders to do so, in the knowledge that the Legislative Council will probably fill the vacuum, as was the case last time a Prince Alfred College bill came through the parliament. If they are forced to go through the process of having a select committee, then they do it in a very slapdash way, in my view. If you are going to have a select committee then you need to advertise that fact. You do not have to do it over a long period but at least you give people an opportunity to give evidence. To establish a committee in one day, have a meeting an hour or two later without giving anybody the ability to participate, and then close it down and say that all is okay, to me is ludicrous. However, having made those comments about parliamentary process, I reiterate that the Liberal Party is very pleased to support this bill. The Hon. G.E. GAGO Legislative Council Minister for State/Local Government Relations Minister for the Status of Women Minister for Consumer Affairs Minister for Government Enterprises Minister for the City of Adelaide The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (16:27): I thank the Hon. John Dawkins for his second reading contribution and support for this bill. There being no other speakers I simply conclude by saying that this is a very minor administrative amendment and I hope it will be dealt with expeditiously through the committee stage. Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.