Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Constitution (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill CONSTITUTION (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL Introduction and First Reading Introduction and First Reading The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:59): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Constitution Act 1934. Read a first time. Second Reading Second Reading The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:59): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I believe it is worthwhile for the Legislative Council to look at matters concerning the constitution from time to time. I do not think it will be done in the other place, for reasons that we would all know, but here I think that, for democracy, the Legislative Council should and does have a right now and again to revisit some of the matters around the constitution. This bill contains three essential elements that honourable members will have heard me speak about in the media and other places and forums. Firstly, the requiring of premiers to serve no longer than two terms and, generally speaking, eight years in office; secondly, the empowering of the people of South Australia by petition to require an election; and thirdly, the compelling of the upper house to sit in or about the January/February period before a March fixed election. All these elements are designed to bring some accountability to the government of the day, and I will explain each quickly in turn then refer honourable members to my public comments or my office if they would like further information on each of these matters. Regarding fixed terms for premiers, this is a law that applies in the United States of America with its governors and, of course, its President. It ensures that heads of state move quickly to implement their true political desires and not hang on in office for a long time. It ensures rejuvenation of governments that do, generally speaking, get tired after two terms and need reinvigoration. It is a protection from dictatorship and, at the moment, whilst it is taking a very long period of time—and I preferred the model that I heard you, sir, talking about on radio—we are seeing some of that reinvigoration at the moment, but it is never a pretty sight when we see it this way. Clearly, with my proposal here, it would be automatic, and, ultimately, the premier of the day, of whatever political persuasion, would go down in the history books for what they achieved in that two-term period, not whether or not they beat the record of another premier of that party. The second clause I wish to discuss is the petition for election or recall election. We have had an outstanding response on this issue. The South Australian people actually do want this. We have had many calls to our office asking where they could sign right away with respect to a petition to support this clause. We have chosen a lofty limit that I know some political commentators feel is too high. In fact, in debate in the media recently, one highly respected political commentator could see wisdom in this clause; however, they felt that we were setting the bar too high. I am not sure that is the case. However, I am prepared to listen to wise counsel from my honourable colleagues if they feel that the bar is too high, as was already indicated by the Hon. Mr Stephen Wade when he, in principle, supported this concept in the media but thought that we were a bit too high. The bottom line with this is that we believe we have set it at a responsible level at 15 per cent of the enrolled voters at the time of the petition. The limit is 30 days to ensure the matter does not drag on and is genuinely an urgent desire by the state's electors. This is in keeping with models used overseas for recall elections, the most famous of which is that of a governor of whom the Premier has spoken in the past with some approval—former California so-called Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger. Fixed sittings before elections is the third part of this bill. Firstly, on a technical point, I am advised that we can only compel this house to sit, which I think is unfortunate because I would love to see both houses sit for a couple of weeks before an election. I point out that this is only on the year of the actual election and, as we know, we have four-year fixed terms for the second Saturday in March, as I recall. Constitutionally, we cannot compel the other place to sit, and whether the other place follows suit if the Legislative Council is sitting is up to it as a transparency measure. I am also sure that, if there is a hint in this process that government representatives here seek to deflect questions to the minister in the other place for response, we would have to amend standing orders in advance of what would be a February 2014 sitting of parliament to ensure we get answers and not deflections. It is really one of the challenges of this place and the other place that, although some ministers have sought to give more detailed answers than others, other ministers take the questions on notice and members then wait a long time for an answer. The so-called new paradigm in Canberra in relation to this has not worked, whereas the Cameron government in the United Kingdom has shown that you can have an effective question time with real answers. Those are matters parallel to the issues in this bill. The bill requires only that parliament sit just before the election. It is problematic that this parliament picks up and goes on a long break before elections—and for some time after the election—and that is not what the public expects. To continue on from the technical point I have mentioned, it is appropriate that we as an upper house sit during this time since half of us are not even up for re-election at that time. The taxpayers of South Australia expect a lot more from this parliament than its taking a long holiday for elections to be conducted, and this particular element of this bill gives effect to that. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. Carmel Zollo.