PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES (MEMBERSHIP OF THE ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 11 September 2013.)

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (21:57): I rise to speak on the Parliamentary Committees (Membership of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee) Amendment Bill 2013. The amendment seeks to replace the role of the House of Assembly in providing and determining the presiding member of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee of parliament with the Legislative Council.

It will be no surprise that the government opposes this bill. If there is value in such reform it should be part of a broader package that balances the needs of all aspects of the planning system—but I go further: it should also consider the issue of parliamentary committees in a broader sense as well. To do this piecemeal is nonsense, to be honest. I will conclude my remarks at that point.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (21:58): In relation to the bill introduced by the Hon. Mark Parnell in the Legislative Council on 11 September, I thank the honourable member for giving us so much time to consider it. Considering that we are now in the middle of November, that is quite generous really for a parliamentary committee bill of relatively small duration. We had less than a month to consider a serious coalition with the government and the Greens to try and ram through electoral reform, but at least with the parliamentary committees bill we have had more time. I must admit that the Liberal Party did not need quite so long with this one.

The Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 currently provides that the Environment, Resources and Development Committee is to consist of half members from each house of parliament. The House of Assembly is to provide the chair, and the chair has a casting vote. The bill put forward by the Hon. Mark Parnell seeks to promote independent parliamentary oversight of planning schemes by the Environment, Resources and Development Committee by shifting the committee to be a committee of the council. The bill substitutes the words 'House of Assembly' with 'Legislative Council' wherever occurring in the Parliamentary Committees Act.

I certainly concur with the Hon. Mark Parnell and the Greens that we need to utilise the independence of this chamber to strengthen our parliamentary committee system. No member of this house needs to be reminded that no government has controlled a majority on the floor of this council since the reforms in the mid-1970s. If parliament aspires to truly keep executives accountable, a Legislative Council controlled committee, I believe, has significantly enhanced prospects of maintaining accountability.

I should show due deference to committees in the other place and particularly chairpeople of committees in the other place, because it is my understanding that House of Assembly government controlled committees, with a chair who takes their role in the spirit in which it is meant, can maintain appropriate accountability. I have heard very good reports about the work of Heini Becker in the Public Works Committee in the nineties—it might not have been the nineties, but previous parliaments—which kept Liberal governments on their toes. I have also heard positive comments about the work of Labor chairs of committees even in this parliament. I could be wrong, but I think I have heard positive reports about Steph Key's work.

The Liberal Party does believe that we should, if you like, take advantage of the independence of this chamber to also strengthen our parliamentary committee work. That is no basis for a tweet even, because the Hon. David Ridgway in this place on the 4 July put on the record the fact that our party is already actively considering parliamentary committee reviews. Let me quote him. My leader said on 4 July:

The opposition thinks that the committee structure here in this parliament probably needs some review...We have a subcommittee of our party room looking at the structure of committees—and I said that we have the Budget and Finance Committee here and a range of other standing committees—because it is our view that it is probably appropriate to have a look at the committee structure.

He went on to say later:

We actually think it is time to take a big deep breath, look at the committee structure and make sure that the structure we have going forward represents the industries that are important to the South Australian economy, and also to make sure that the community and the environment are represented and the state's finances are well and truly aired in a sensible, open and transparent way.

Let me assure you, Mr Acting President, and the council as a whole, the Liberal Party is actively considering how to strengthen this parliament by strengthening its committees. I can assure you that the issue of whether or not a particular committee could be best chaired by a legislative councillor, and therefore have an increased prospect of a parliamentary perspective which would actually challenge the executive, will be considered in our review and in our policy consideration.

It is not the first time this issue has come up today. In noting the surveillance devices report by the Legislative Review Committee, I noted that—and this is a personal view, it is not a view that has been formally endorsed by my party room—there is an opportunity for increased, perhaps, structured consideration of legislation by parliamentary committees. I had better leave the further exposition of that theory to the policy processes of our party, but hasten to say the Liberal Party will not be supporting this bill, not because we do not think that this particular committee could benefit from that change but, as the Hon. David Ridgway said in the context of a previous debate, I think last week, this is very late in the life cycle of this parliament.

Any change that we would make would not be implemented before the formation of a new parliament. By that time, I can assure you, that the Liberal Party would not only have finalised its review of the committee structure, it would have released a policy on that issue, received the verdict of the people and be in a position to implement that at an election. This bill highlights an issue that is worthy of consideration but we believe that, shall we say, a piecemeal reform such as this is not to be preferred over a more substantial review of the work of committees.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. G.A. Kandelaars): The Hon. Mark Parnell to sum up.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (22:05): Thank you, Mr Acting President, and I thank you and the Hon. Stephen Wade for your contributions. Let me say it does not take me by surprise at all that this bill will suffer the same fate as the previous one, and I am not going to repeat all the same things I said but the same arguments apply. Again, borne out of years and months of discussion with community groups all around South Australia in terms of the problems they have had with the planning system, this is one of them and we are trying to fix it up.

It does not surprise me in the least that the Liberal Party, when they get their turn in office, do not particularly want accountability. I know the Hon. Stephen Wade and the Hon. David Ridgway have said that they will look at the whole committee system when they win office, but it seems to me that if the Environment, Resources and Development Committee, under the heading of 'parliamentary scrutiny' has not rejected a government planning scheme in 19 years, they are hardly likely to after 15 March next year so, whilst I appreciate that the Liberals have put on the record a commitment to reform the committee system, I am not holding my breath for anything.

The Hon. Stephen Wade again referred to the lateness of things and doing things late into the session. I have been trying to hold my tongue with this but who could forget that, as the budget was being announced a number of years ago, a bill was introduced and voted on immediately. The moment it was introduced it was voted on to give members of parliament increased superannuation. Remarkable. When there is some pain to be had then the conventions are all out the window.

Certainly this bill does not infringe any parliamentary protocols. It has been on the table since 11 September. I gave plenty of notice that it was coming to a vote but, again, I am disappointed that the government hides behind its review that will not report until December next year, and they use that as an excuse to stop any private members' reforms but it has no impact at all on their own very widespread reforms that are very unpopular in the community, so it is a classic case of double standards. Again, given the lateness of the hour I will not divide, but I am disappointed that we cannot progress this sensible reform.

Second reading negatived.