Motions

Statutory Officers Committee

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. D.W. Ridgway:

1. That this council—

(a) notes Message No. 9 from the House of Assembly of 6 May 2014 advising of the appointments to the Statutory Officers Committee of the Hon. M.J. Atkinson, Hon. J.R. Rau and Mr Wingard;

(b) notes section 21(2)(e) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 which states 'A person ceases to be a member of a committee if the person…becomes a Minister of the Crown'; and

(c) invites the House of Assembly to reconsider the appointment of the Hon. J.R. Rau, Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development and Minister for Industrial Relations.

2. That a message be forwarded to the House of Assembly conveying this resolution.

(Continued from 2 July 2014.)

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (16:57): On 2 July 2014, the Hon. David Ridgway moved a motion regarding the Deputy Premier's membership of the Statutory Officers Committee, inviting the House of Assembly to reconsider the Deputy Premier's appointment—a somewhat disingenuous motion, indeed. I can advise the house that crown law has advised that the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 does not prohibit the Deputy Premier from being a member of the Statutory Officers Committee on the basis of his being a minister.

It is worth looking at the act. As an example, if we go to part 2—Economic and Finance Committee, concerning membership of the committee, members will note that section 5(2) says that a minister of the Crown is not eligible for appointment to the committee. That provision exists in all the committees but three, and those three committees are the Parliamentary Committee on Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation, the Statutory Officers Committee and the Natural Resources Committee. In fact, in terms of the Natural Resources Committee, there is an extra provision that specifically allows a minister to be a member of the committee. It provides:

A Minister of the Crown is eligible to be a member of the Committee, and section 21(2)(e) does not apply in relation to the members of the Committee.

It is interesting to note, looking at the parliamentary intranet, that the Hon. Trevor Griffin MLC, who was the attorney-general at the time, from 1997 to 2002 was a member of the committee (and quite possibly was the presiding member—I have not been able to confirm that particular fact). The Hon. Paul Holloway and the Hon. Michael Atkinson were longstanding members of the committee. In fact, the Hon. Paul Holloway was the presiding member of the committee, I think from 2002 to 2010.

In 2011 the honourable minister Gail Gago was a member of the committee in the 52^nd parliament. What is intriguing about this is that we in this house are asking to say to the other house that a minister of the Crown cannot be a member of the Statutory Officers Committee, yet for 16 or more years this house appointed a minister to that committee. What nonsense! What absolute nonsense! We are suggesting that it was okay for this house to appoint a minister, but that the House of Assembly—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS: I would say that it is absolutely outrageous. If the intention here is to change the act, then do it in the appropriate way: do not try to do it by this spurious mechanism, and it is spurious. One of your people on the other side was a minister at the time of being a member of the Statutory Officers Committee, and, mind you, probably the very same minister who introduced the bill in question. He was the attorney-general, I think, in 1993, which was when the act passed through this place.

This is absolute arrant nonsense. If the real question is that people on the other side believe that ministers should not be members of parliamentary committees, then say that and do it in the appropriate way—go and get an amendment to the act, but do not to try to use this spurious mechanism. If I were a House of Assembly member I would be absolutely insulted by this nonsense, because I point out that for at least 15 or 16 years this place had a minister it had appointed to that very same committee. This is nonsense, and it does not deserve the support of this house.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (17:02): When the Hon. David Ridgway asked me what the Greens' position would be on this motion, my response was, 'Well, it seems to make sense, it looks like what we call, technically, a gotcha moment,' but I suggested that we would wait to hear what the government's response was, and that if the government had a detailed legal opinion that the words of the motion are incorrect, or that the motion's reference to section 21(2)(e) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 is somehow misguided or misplaced, then we might side with the government. But, all I really heard from the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars was not that they were legally wrong to point out what the Parliamentary Committees Act said; his only response seemed to be, 'Well, you lot did it too.'

I was not around, and unfortunately I have not had the opportunity of appointing Greens' ministers to any committees—I would love to perhaps do that in the future, but we have not had the opportunity yet. Effectively, the government's response is that, regardless of the law, we do not like this motion because you lot did it too when you were in government years ago. That is no response! If the question of whether ministers should or should not be on committees arises in a substantive way as an amendment to a bill, then let us deal with it, but for now, if the law says that ministers should not be on committees, let us comply with the law.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: It states:

A person ceases to be a member of a committee if the person…becomes a Minister of the Crown.

Unless the Hon. David Ridgway has misquoted the section in the wording of the motion, it looks pretty straightforward to me. I guess the other thing is that, of all the pressing issues facing this state, this motion has two notes and an invitation. No great harm, it seems to me, is done by supporting this motion, noting the two matters in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the motion inviting the House of Assembly to reconsider their appointment and, therefore, unless any other government member has a really pressing legal case as to why this is a nonsensical submission, the Greens will be supporting it.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN (17:05): I rise to speak in support of the motion of the Hon. David Ridgway—or I should say the polite motion of this chamber for the other place to reflect on their appointment. The motion before the chamber invites the members of the other place to reconsider the appointment of the Attorney-General to the parliamentary standing committee which goes by the name of the Statutory Officers Committee. It is my view that it is good parliamentary practice that ministers are not members of committees unless there is a very strong reason for such membership. To date, in my view, that has not been expressed. I find no such reason why an exception should be claimed or sought in this instance.

One of the key purposes of a committee is for members of parliament to scrutinise government activity. They may also examine community and policy issues as well as other matters of importance to the people of South Australia. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that everything is done to maintain and enhance the public confidence in the institutions of this state.

Critical to this endeavour is ensuring that our committees are able to not only function effectively but also to appear to the people of South Australia to be constituted to properly and transparently examine issues and make recommendations, thereby enhancing the authority of the parliament. As a backbencher I note that they provide an important opportunity for members such as myself to utilise their talents and contribute to the life of the parliament.

In developing my thoughts on the matter, I have been guided by the words uttered in the other place by the former Labor member the Hon. Greg Crafter, when delivering his second reading speech on the Parliamentary Committees Act, then in bill form. In that speech he emphasised the need for opportunities to allow members of parliament to scrutinise government. In my view the appointment of a minister to a committee, especially in this instance, cuts across these noble and important considerations.

One of the key roles of the parliament is to hold ministers and their government to account. The Statutory Officers Committee has the function to consider the appointment of individuals to statutory positions. These include appointments that are under acts which are within the Attorney's portfolio and where he is responsible for the act's administration. These include such positions as the Ombudsman and the Independent Commissioner against Corruption. Therefore, the membership of the Attorney on the Statutory Officers Committee potentially diminishes or restrains the committee's ability to perform its function or be perceived to have performed its function.

A good example of my proposition for the benefit of the chamber can be readily identified by a casual glance at the Independent Commissioner against Corruption Act 2012. Section 8(5) sets out the means by which a commissioner is appointed. The appointment follows a referral by the Attorney to the Statutory Officers Committee—the same committee upon which he now sits. One could certainly argue that this somewhat circular arrangement is convenient but it is not good governance and undermines the ability of the committee to provide scrutiny of the appointment.

Further considerations for this chamber that potentially support the motion are the terms of section 21(2)(e) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, which states that a person ceases to be a member of a committee upon becoming a minister of the Crown. I acknowledge the comments of the Hon. Mr Kandelaars in that there may well be crown advice saying that the Attorney-General can be appointed, but it seems strange that, if a person was not a minister and then became a minister, they would then have to leave the committee.

In my mind the intent of the legislation is clear; that is, ministers should not be members of committees, although I acknowledge that there may be wiser minds applied to this and some technical exemption. If this was not the situation, I query why there would be a reason to have a specific exemption to this rule in section 15K which allows the same minister to become a member of the Natural Resources Committee. Similar drafting also appears in the Parliamentary Committees (Electoral Laws and Practices Committee) Amendment Bill 2014 currently adjourned in the other place. Mr President, my comments on this bill, which is not yet before us, will be discrete and within standing order 188, as they are relevant to the matter which I am discussing.

This bill contains a specific provision, clause 15Q(2), that allows a minister to sit on an electoral laws and practices committee and further provides that section 21(2)(e) is not applicable. In other words, the Attorney's own bill implies that a minister cannot sit on a committee without specific legislative exemption. In any event, even if there is legislative authority for a minister to be a committee member, it is my view that the appointment of a minister to a parliamentary committee is not good practice and diminishes the institution that is the parliament. The people of South Australia need to have confidence in their institutions. I remind the chamber that community confidence derives from practices that ensure governments are held to account for their decisions and actions. I support the motion.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (17:10): I will not take long to sum up. I thank members for their comments. I thank the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars, the Hon. Mark Parnell and, of course, the gallant and honourable Andrew McLachlan. I will make a couple of quick points. Notwithstanding when the committee was appointed, my recollection is that in the time that I have been here, I think the committee might have sat or met formally for the first time in 2005, so while some people may have been on it, it actually did not meet.

The Hon. Andrew McLachlan made the comment about the ICAC and the appointment of the commissioner and the Attorney-General being the person to nominate. I refer people also to the Governor's speech at the opening of this session of parliament. Towards the end he says:

My Government will act so that any perception of impropriety is not hidden in the shadows—and we will deal decisively with those who have sought to benefit personally…

He then goes on to say:

To strengthen our democracy, all political parties must act to ensure that internal processes are transparent and democratic.

I think the spirit of what we are talking about with this motion is about being more transparent. We have adequate members to deal with these committee appointments without having ministers and particularly the minister in this situation and especially with ICAC where it may well be the Attorney-General who is, if you like, the nominating minister, who is then sitting on the same committee.

I would say today, as the Hon. Mark Parnell said, it is a relatively minor motion, but I think we do have the Parliamentary Committees Act coming to this chamber from the House of Assembly at some time after the winter break and it may well be an opportunity to have a closer look at it and to amend that act. With those few words, I thank the members for their comments and urge you all to support the motion.

Motion carried.