Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Parliamentary Committees (Functions of Environment, Resources and Development Committee) Amendment Bill PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES (FUNCTIONS OF ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 2 May 2013.) The Hon. M. PARNELL Legislative Council The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:54): The Greens support this bill; it is a very short bill. The operative provision consists of only nine words. What the bill does is add to the terms of reference, if you like, for the Environment, Resources and Development Committee, a standing committee of the parliament, the following: 'any matter concerned with primary production in the state'. It is probably fair to say that that is already a role that the committee has voluntarily adopted and already seen as being part of its terms of reference. For example, we did look at the biosecurity levy just recently prior to that matter being sent off to the Mutton review. So I think this does make sense. In many ways it clarifies what committee members already believe to be the status quo. However, having opened up this bill for amendment I cannot let the opportunity pass without proposing a number of far more important amendments than that proposed by the government. The main one of those is to actually make sure that the ERD Committee of parliament is able to fulfil its statutory function of parliamentary scrutiny under the Development Act by ensuring that it will not always be government controlled, and the method for achieving that objective is to make it a standing committee of the Legislative Council rather than a standing committee of the House of Assembly. The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins Legislative Council The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: It wasn't government controlled in the four years I was on it, I can tell you—two members out of six. The Hon. M. PARNELL Legislative Council The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Hon. John Dawkins interjects that it has not always been government controlled, but certainly it has been more often than not. The point we can take from that is where in the Development Act it provides that the parliament has the ability to scrutinise rezoning exercises or development plan amendments. As members would know, in the 19-year history of that provision the parliament has never, ever rejected a development plan amendment, a rezoning exercise. The overwhelming reason for that is because whenever it does get to a vote on that committee, the chair exercises his or her casting vote and the government always wins the day. I note that the Hon. David Ridgway has often criticised the Greens for trying to send things to this committee, and his main criticism has been that it is government controlled and we will never get decent scrutiny out of it. So in some ways this amendment puts the Hon. David Ridgway in the position of being able to vote for something he has been talking about for a very long time: that is, to fix the situation where the committee is stifled from exercising genuine parliamentary scrutiny by the fact that it is government controlled. Members might draw a parallel with the Legislative Review Committee and say, 'Well, that's government controlled and they have the ability to disallow regulations, similar to the ERD Committee's ability to move the disallowance of a planning scheme or a development plan amendment.' The big difference—and this is an important difference—is that when it comes to the disallowance of regulations, any member of either chamber can get to his or her feet and move disallowance. However, under the Development Act it is not possible for a member of parliament to move disallowance of a planning scheme unless that disallowance has previously been passed by the Environment, Resources and Development Committee. We do not have that ability to disallow planning schemes as we do regulations, and that is a big difference. I will have more to say about that when I actually move the amendment, but I am just letting members know that that is my intention. The other amendment I have filed goes to the rort, as I would put it, of chauffeur-driven government cars for the chairs of committees. I draw members' attention to the fact that the government's own Sustainable Budget Commission did recommend that the number of chauffeured vehicles be reduced from 26 to 17. Where it identified those vehicles and drivers to go, on that list was 'Chairman, Environment, Resources and Development Committee'. So the government has already recommended removing that car and driver. Let us be honest here. We are talking about the consolation prize available to the government of the day for disgruntled backbenchers who did not quite cut it for a ministerial role. Their consolation prize is a car and a driver, and it is completely unnecessary, it is completely wasteful. So I also have on file an amendment which basically says that no member of parliament is entitled to a car and driver pursuant to their membership of a committee. I have not touched the other positions, whether it be the Speaker or the Premier or whoever else. I have not touched those, but certainly the rort of chairs of committees getting a car and a driver, when they are already handsomely paid for the extra work inherent in their role as chair of a committee, let us get rid of that rort. Let us bring back the Sustainable Budget Commission's recommendation. I am just putting members on notice that that is the second of my amendments. I will, in passing, mention that the Liberals certainly have filed an amendment, which is to create an entirely new standing committee called the natural disasters committee. I will say that the Greens' inclination at this stage—it is not a firm position—is to support the creation of a committee, but I think that what we need to do in this place is to make sure that the people who go on committees do so because of their interest in the topic rather than their desire for extra income. So, I will be seeking to amend the Liberal's amendment by removing the provision for extra pay. By all means, let's create a new standing committee, but let's not pay them any extra. Let's have people on it who care about our response to natural disasters, and we will see how well populated that committee is with that requirement. With those brief words, the Greens will be supporting this bill. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. G.A. Kandelaars.