STATE SOVEREIGNTY

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. S.G. Wade:

That the Legislative Review Committee inquire into and report on processes for consideration by the parliament of schemes of interjurisdictional legislation and that a message be sent to the House of Assembly requesting its concurrence thereto.

(Continued from 15 February 2012.)

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (21:56): I provide the government's response to this motion. The government is supportive of maintaining the sovereignty of the state. South Australia has many special characteristics independent of those of the rest of the nation. This is clear on many levels, however the government has significant concerns about the motion as it stands.

In moving the motion, the honourable member noted that the Minister for Health in another place moved a motion seeking what was considered to be of similar effect. The government considers that the current system leads to excessive amounts of parliamentary time being spent debating constitutional law issues instead of debating the purpose and contents of the bill. Where the Minister for Health's motion expressly sought to have the Legislative Review Committee inquire into forming an agreed process for all parties and Independent members to form a process, this motion does not make it clear that the Legislative Review Committee will deliver an agreed process.

It seems quite possible that, without the requirement to deliver an agreed process, the result will be a selection of processes, none of which will deliver the acceptance of all members. This is important because the affirmation of state sovereignty can lead to results which are not necessarily in the best interests of the state, let alone the nation.

I note that the new Queensland Premier, Campbell Newman, has been making some noises recently about competitive federalism. Where all states are strong in embracing the best standards for all Australians, there is a benefit for all. Where there is a desire by all states to compete and continually undercut each other, there is potentially a race to the bottom.

Finally, there is significant potential that this motion will have little benefit anyway. If the objective is to deliver a process that will allow debate to focus on the merits of the bill rather than on points of constitutional law, that is good; however, there seems to be too great a possibility of members who do not agree with the process continuing debating the points of constitutional law.

The nuanced issue of maintaining state sovereignty at the same time as harmonising national laws where it makes sense to do so requires a more rigorous framework than provided in the motion. There is a balance with interjurisdictional legislation; it is a delicate balance. It is important that any loss of control for the state yields significant benefits in exchange.

Whilst the government is somewhat supportive of the principle and is indeed highly supportive of measures that would lead to parliament's time being used in a more efficient way, it opposes this motion.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (21:59): The Greens will be supporting this motion. In the six years that I have been in this parliament, we have dealt with a large number of bills which have been variously couched as national uniform legislation or other similar words, which go to the balance that the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars just spoke to in terms of getting laws uniform across the country.

When those bills come to us, we are often told that we cannot do anything about them, that no change of any form will be countenanced and that somehow if the Parliament of South Australia were to interfere with an agreement struck by the executive levels of government in the various states and territories, the sky will fall in. I do not see anything objectionable in the wording used for this reference to the Legislative Review Committee. It is fairly simple language.

The committee is to inquire into and report on processes for consideration by the parliament of schemes of interjurisdictional legislation. The Hon. Gerry Kandelaars seemed to think that this was somehow deficient because it might not come up with any single solution. Well, so what? It is a committee inquiry. Whilst I am not a member of that committee, I would look forward to any range of options that it might want to put forward and I do not see that the reasons offered by the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars are in fact any reason not to allow this inquiry to go ahead.

The Greens will be supporting it. We would urge other honourable members to do likewise and we look forward to the committee getting down to work and hopefully coming up with a range of options for us that do strike that balance between national legislation and maintaining the sovereignty of our state and our parliament to legislate for the people of our state.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (22:01): I would have thought that this particular motion and the wording of it would be probably the least offensive of many motions that we have put forward to this council. As the Hon. Mark Parnell has already mentioned, we have had a number of bills put before us that are supposed to be part of a national framework that we are told this parliament has no standing to amend and that have to be passed as is.

I do not agree that we should be required to rubberstamp any legislation that comes through this place. I believe there is a problem with the understanding of what that so-called national harmonisation truly means to the standing of this parliament. I know, on a number of occasions, the bills put forward have concerned me and I have been concerned in relation to the sovereignty of this parliament. I have had it mentioned to me in the corridors by other members that they have those concerns as well.

I am a great believer that, where there is a problem—whether or not it is a problem that is obvious to the government of the day—amongst either the crossbenchers or the opposition, it would be in this parliament's best interest to do what we can to solve that problem as best we can and at least put up some processes that could be debated so that some agreement, some understanding, some level playing field could be reached so that, when those bills do come before the parliament that are said to be part of a national harmonisation process, we all understand fully what that means.

I actually commend the Hon. Stephen Wade for putting up this particular motion because we did have a meeting of the opposition and crossbenchers some time ago to try to get the wording of this motion as government friendly as possible, so that there would be some chance of some sort of negotiation on these points of this nationalising legislation. I commend the Hon. Stephen Wade, as I said. I am disappointed that the government would find some reason—any reason—to oppose this and I certainly do support this motion and the intention behind it.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (22:04): I move to amend the motion as follows:

Leave out all words after 'interjurisdictional legislation' and insert and 'any other relevant matters'.

I agree that something needs to be done in relation to the process for consideration of interjurisdictional legislation. If an inquiry is the way to go in order to resolve this issue, then I am willing to support that. I do, however, think that the motion should be amended to ensure that all relevant matters be open to the committee for consideration and I think this amendment to the Hon. Stephen Wade's motion ensures that.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (22:05): I will be supporting the amendment. In summing up, I would like to remind members where this came from and really how extraordinary the government's shift has been. In the past two years, there have been several pieces of legislation that raised issues of interjurisdictional legislation, often called national law. Members will remember the complex processes involved in legislation such as the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Bill 2010, the Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Australian Consumer Law) Bill 2010, the Occupational Licensing National Law (South Australia) Bill 2011, Controlled Substances (Therapeutic Goods and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2011 and the energy bills, and the list goes on, and they will keep coming time after time.

Therefore, it was not surprising to see the Minister for Health in the House of Assembly on Wednesday 9 March putting a motion, in government business, seeking a referral to the Legislative Review Committee. Here we have the government opposing a referral to the Legislative Review Committee which they originally proposed. The motion put by the government at that time was long and convoluted. The motion I put forward tonight is not. The fact is that everything in the government's motion moved by the Hon. John Hill could be pursued in the committee. It was not actually a detailed agenda for reform: it just, if you like, presupposed there would be an agreed process for all parties in the South Australian parliament to follow.

To that extent, I differ from the government. I do not believe a conversation needs to start with an outcome, an outcome presupposed. What the government is saying in this is that they support a referral to the Legislative Review Committee if you know before you start what the answer is. What an arrogant attitude. They are now saying that there is lack of clarity in the resolution. I remind this house that on two occasions I gave the government the courtesy of not sending this matter to a vote. That was two occasions when they could have gone back to their party room, even amended the Hill proposal.

But, no: we get the arrogance tonight of the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars coming into this house and telling us what a bad idea an open question to the Legislative Review Committee is, when the government proposed a referral to the Legislative Review Committee on exactly this matter. Let us remember that we are not trying to solve our problem. They are your bills. Your ministers go to these ministerial councils and come back with presupposed—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am sorry, okay, I will take the opportunity to read the legislation again to remind the honourable member that all of this is government legislation. The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, a government bill. It was your—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Okay, great. I am going to remember each of them because the Hon. Ian Hunter wants me to. In the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, we had very serious concerns about winding back state-based quality control mechanisms. Your government ministers drove us to amendment after amendment and insisted that we could not change national law. It is a government bill. Government ministers agreed in ministerial councils, presupposing the outcome in this parliament, and came back here and insisted that we do it.

It was your government ministers who had problems getting it through this parliament. The very minister who moved the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Bill 2010, was presumably frustrated by the process to the point that he put a motion on the House of Assembly Notice Paper to address the issue. I remind the Hon. Ian Hunter, who so arrogantly dismisses the need to improve parliamentary process, that this is a response by the opposition and crossbench MPs to try to help the government do its job. Two years ago—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Let us remember the sort of issues we are facing here.

The Hon. J.M. Gazzola: You've got the numbers.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: No, I am sorry; if the Hon. Ian Hunter needs reassurance about why this is such a good idea I will take the opportunity to try to persuade him. I remind the Hon. Ian Hunter that he sits in cabinet with the Hon. John Hill, who thought this was so important he put it on the Notice Paper in the House of Assembly. He now dismisses that as a trivial concern, that it should not be referred to the Legislative Review Committee. Well, I beg to differ. On two occasions I allowed this government an opportunity to go back to its party room, and the government chose not to take the opportunity to clarify the motion. It could have amended it to provide focus.

Let us remember that the Legislative Review Committee is not some, to use a government analogy, feral select committee set up by the opposition. It is controlled by the honourable member who opposed it; he chairs it. It is controlled by government members, and they can pursue whatever outcome they want. Yet the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars is suggesting that it is somehow reckless to refer a matter, which it was previously suggested by the government be referred, to the Legislative Review Committee, which he chairs and the government controls.

As I said, I think it is offensive that the government insists that before the conversation starts the process needs to be agreed. After all, ours is an open question because there are, as the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars rightly points out, a range of issues to be balanced. There is a need to work constructively with the federal government and with the state governments in developing nationally consistent schemes of legislation. There may well be a range of processes, depending on the nature of legislation involved.

In terms of the government's response, I am very disappointed. Not only has it failed to respect this chamber by coming back with points of clarification, it has actually asked the chair responsible for this committee to put the government's response. The fact of the matter is—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The point being that the government should have expected, considering the level of concern about these matters on both its side of the council and our side, that perhaps this might have had the numbers. Yet it has put up the chair of the committee, who would receive the referral if this place supports the motion, to speak against it.

We are being told that we lack clarity in our motion, but what is very clear from this response is that the government goes into this with a very negative attitude. It wanted to refer it to the Legislative Review Committee. It was the best thing since sliced bread. The opposition takes up the mantle because it failed to progress that motion, and suddenly it becomes some waste of time and effort. I am very disappointed that the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars has delivered the government's response tonight. I hope that if this motion is supported by the council a much more positive approach will happen in the committee.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

Amendment carried; motion as amended carried.

At 22:15 the council adjourned until Thursday 19 July 2012 at 11:00.