Parliamentary Committees (Electoral Laws and Practices Committee) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 25 September 2014.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole that it have power to insert a new clause in relation to Ministers of the Crown not being members of parliamentary committees.

Motion carried.

Clause 1 passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Wade–2]—

Page 2, line 6——Delete line 6 and substitute:

(1) This Act will come into operation on a day to be fixed by proclamation (which may not be a day that falls before the prescribed report has been presented to each House of Parliament).

(2) Section 7(5) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1915 does not apply to this Act or a provision of this Act.

(3) In this section—

prescribed report means the report prepared by a commission of inquiry established by the Parliament to inquire into and report on electoral reform that would ensure that the political party (or coalition) that receives the majority of the State-wide vote at a general election of members of the House of Assembly is elected in sufficient numbers to enable that party (or coalition) to form a government.

This is a series of sections which I am proposing to insert into the commencement clause. I originally proposed to insert key provisions of what was the Commission of Inquiry on Electoral Reform Bill 2014. That is not a bill that this house has seen. but it was considered by the House of Assembly, having been introduced by the honourable member for Dunstan in another place.

The bill was proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (member for Dunstan) in the other place as opportunity to address the fundamental issue of fairness in the South Australian electoral system. After a wrong outcome election in 1989—in other words, an election where the majority of South Australians voted for a change of government but a change of government did not ensue, an independent Labor member of the minority Labor government that ensued after the 1989 insisted on a committee which would look at fairness.

That committee proposed what is generally known as the 'fairness clause', and what has been disappointing is that the best intention of the fairness clause have not succeeded, that being that there have been a number of elections since 1989 where the party that won a majority of votes did not win the majority of seats and did not form government.

The issue facing this parliament, after having had three of the last four elections being wrong-outcome elections in those terms, is how do we address that issue? The government's suggestion is that it should be dealt with by the committee that is proposed by this bill. I should stress that the Liberal Party does not oppose a joint select committee on electoral matters. They already operate in the commonwealth parliament, the Queensland parliament and the Victorian parliament.

A select committee I was a member of which reviewed the 2010 election suggested that such a committee be established and, through consideration at the end of the last parliament in relation to optional preferential voting, we certainly reiterated our commitment in principle to the idea of such a committee.

One thing that has been very disturbing with the government's reaction to the election outcome post the 2014 election is their total denial that we have a problem. Historically, that is rather surprising, because it was the Labor Party until the 1960s that was suffering the problem of geographic concentration of parliamentary majorities. It was Don Dunstan, one of the heroes of the labour movement, who had candle-lit vigils on the steps of parliament about the end of democracy. These were not just statements about the Playmander: these were statements about the unfairness of an electoral system which did not allow for the concentration of majorities in parliamentary seats.

Don Dunstan saw the problem, and Dean Jaensch was writing in the seventies about the problem. It was a problem that plagued the Labor Party up until the 1960s. It is a problem that has plagued the Liberal Party since. So, this great party of social justice and justice in other realms of life believes that electoral justice is only a concern when it is against you. For the Labor Party members who are thinking at the moment, 'You are bleating because this is against the Liberal Party at this stage,' I will just remind you that it was Steele Hall and a number of members of the Liberal team who significantly contributed to South Australia delivering electoral reform.

Making the point, this government has been in denial, particularly since the 2014 election, that we have an issue of fairness. Faced with that, the Liberal Party had to ask the question: what is the best way to deal with fairness? It was quite clear that the Attorney-General, if this committee was established, would provide every distraction under the sun for it to discuss every issue under the sun other than fairness.

We consulted our parliamentary officers in this chamber about whether it might be possible to insert into this bill a commission of inquiry similar to that proposed by the Commission of Inquiry on Electoral Reform Bill 2014 in the other place. We were advised that that was not consistent with parliamentary procedures in the sense that establishing a commission of inquiry in a schedule to the Parliamentary Committees Act would not be within the remit of the act. We accept that advice and, upon the bill being defeated in the other place, we are still of the view that the commission approach still represents the best initiative on the table to address fairness.

The reason for that is that: (a) it is single-mindedly focused; and (b) the proposal in the bill that has been considered by the House of Assembly was a multipartisan approach. The bill that we presented would have the independent commissioners appointed by a multipartisan appointment committee, which would have every parliamentary group and, for that matter, sole member parliamentary groups, involved in the process.

We believe that fairness is an extremely important issue for the electoral reform process to address and that the most likely mechanism to have a successful resolution of that issue would be by a process which is independent, which is not able to be manipulated to the benefit of one party or another and has the confidence of the whole parliament, supported by the parliament's involvement in the appointment of the commissioners.

Faced with the fact that we could not establish such a commission by way of a schedule to this act, I have moved an amendment which basically says that this Legislative Council agrees that a commission of inquiry would be a valuable step in the electoral reform process. It does not incorporate the commission into the bill, but what it does do is say, 'This parliamentary committee shall not start until a commission of inquiry has concluded.' In other words, it would be an affirmation by this council that it believes that the primary electoral reform challenge facing this state is fairness.

It was a challenge that faced this state in the sixties and seventies, and it is a challenge that faces us now. Commentators and a range of political parties, except for the Australia Labor Party, have acknowledged it as a corrupting influence on our electoral processes, and we believe it needs to be addressed. We think a commission of inquiry is the best way to do it, and this amendment would give the Legislative Council an opportunity to affirm that and basically to call on the government to stop playing games, and face up to its responsibility to put in place an electoral system that is fair for all South Australians, not just for the Australian Labor Party.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government opposes this amendment. This amendment seeks to delay the commencement of the Parliamentary Committees (Electoral Laws and Practices Committee) Amendment Bill 2014 until the government, first, establishes a commission of inquiry and, secondly, inquires into and reports on electoral reform that would ensure that the political party or coalition that receives the majority of the statewide vote at a general election of members of the House of Assembly is elected in sufficient numbers to enable that party or coalition to form a government.

The Commission of Inquiry on Electoral Reform Bill 2014 was negatived in the other place on 20 November 2014. This appears to be an attempt to put the commission of inquiry proposed by that bill back onto the table. The result of this proposed amendment is that not one but two bodies would consider issues of electoral reform. Only once the proposed commission of inquiry had reported would a standing committee of the parliament be established with broad powers to inquire into electoral matters.

The standing committee that is contemplated by the government's bill would have the power to consider and inquire into a broad range of matters. It would be able to hear from witnesses, including academics and experts. The proposal contained in this amendment is a proposal that would delay the establishment of a representative committee of this parliament to consider issues of electoral reform and may delay electoral reform itself.

This amendment also proposes that section 7(5) of the Acts Interpretation Act should not apply to the bill. Section 7(5) of the Acts Interpretation Act has the effect that, if an act or a provision of an act is not proclaimed, then it is taken to come into operation two years after the date of assent.

Put simply, what the Hon. Mr Wade's amendment seeks to do is to make the establishment of a bipartisan committee on electoral reform contingent on the outcome of a partisan inquiry. That inquiry is partisan because it is not being asked to consider electoral reform generally but is simply being asked to ensure a way for the Liberal Party to win government when in reality they campaign like they have arrived on a basketball court for a game of baseball. I just remind the Hon. Stephen Wade that we heard no such complaints from him or his party when his factional leader, Christopher Pyne, entered government in 1998 with less than 50 per cent of the two-party preferred vote—no complaints whatsoever then.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I will be very brief. Family First has supported a commission of inquiry in the past, and we support it now, and therefore we support the amendment.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: One thing I will not criticise the opposition for is their creative use of parliamentary processes to include in this bill something that the government had no intention would form part of the bill. I think that it is an exercise that is to be applauded. I note that he has more success than I have had in trying to add additional material to government bills, so I will direct no criticism in that quarter.

The effect of the amendment, as the minister has explained, is that it postpones the establishment of a standing committee of this parliament until the commission of inquiry has been completed. The Greens have an open mind about whether a commission of inquiry is a reasonable way to go. We have not actually had that bill before us in this chamber, as the Hon. Stephen Wade said—it was a matter that was put in the lower house and was defeated—so we are open to have that discussion.

But something I have said to members of the Liberal Party, including the leader, Steven Marshall, is that I do not believe that they have the question right because the question the commission of inquiry is to look at is pretty much as the minister has explained. It is a question that is limited to a two-party preferred statewide discussion, and it ignores all of the other elements in our democracy.

As I have said to Steven Marshall: the question is not why 'you was robbed', to use the vernacular. The question is: why doesn't Family First have three members of the lower house, or the Greens four or five? On a proportional basis, the way people voted in the lower house, that would have been the outcome. Having a quick look at the Electoral Commission website, I remind members that the vote in this last election, in the first preference votes no-one got 50 per cent. No-one got a majority of first preference votes in the House of Assembly.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Not even Mitch Williams?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The interjection was: 'Not even Mitch Williams?' We are talking about statewide. The terms of reference proposed for this inquiry are to do with ensuring that the political party or the recognised coalition that receives the majority of the statewide vote at a general election of members of the House of Assembly is elected. A quick look at the Oxford English Dictionary does not provide a whole lot of help, because 'majority' can have a couple of meanings: it can mean who got most, or it can mean who got more than 50 per cent.

No-one got more than 50 per cent. No-one got a majority of first preference votes in the lower house. So, on that interpretation, this commission of inquiry is an academic exercise that will be of no effect until someone gets 50 per cent. If the other interpretation is to be preferred—to say who got the most first preference votes—effectively, it is an inquiry into first-past-the-post voting and ignores the preferential nature of the system. The terms of reference are flawed, but that is nit-picking on my part. It is fundamentally flawed because it is asking the wrong question; it is asking a single question.

We are open to having a commission of inquiry and, if the opposition was to bring one to the Legislative Council, we would have a look at it. We would look at the terms of reference, we would see whether they could be improved, and we would consider it on its merits. The question before us now is: are we prepared to delay the establishment of a standing committee of this parliament whilst a flawed outside commission does it work? The answer is that, no, we are not; we are not going to postpone this bill to that end. So, we will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I think the Hon. Mr Parnell has articulated quite well the weaknesses of this amendment. It is essentially to establish a commission of inquiry into why the Liberals lost, rather than: what is the best electoral system for the state? I know that collectively we could talk for months on end about electoral systems and such matters. It is a matter that is obviously very dear to the heart of politicians as well as people who take an interest in the political system, but it is not something that occupies a lot of space in community debate, I do not believe.

So, I am really not sure what a commission of inquiry is intended to achieve, other than to look at this one question of: why is it that the Liberal Party can get a majority of the two-party preferred vote but not a majority of the single member seats? That is a question that is quite valid and a question that is certainly of great interest to members of the opposition, naturally, but I think the discussion needs to be broader than that and I think the establishment of a committee is a way that that is more likely to occur.

The Hon. Mr Wade has mentioned electoral reform in the seventies. It is worth noting that that was, in a sense, before the advent of the Democrats and the Greens and other political forces outside the two major parties, although I suppose the Liberal movement was being formed towards the end of that time. The point being that, the late Don Dunstan achieved, I am not sure of the exact figure but I think it was something like 52 per cent of the primary vote and was still not elected. That is certainly an extraordinary situation and I do not think it can be at all compared to what has happened to the Liberal Party, where overall they may get a two-party preferred majority but not a majority of seats.

It is a particularly pronounced issue in South Australia because, unlike some of the other states, we do not have a Newcastle or a Geelong. Only about 18 per cent or so of the population lives outside of Adelaide, so naturally a lot of the conservative vote is tied up in rural electorates and that has an impact on the overall two-party preferred vote. Essentially, Labor holds one country seat, is not likely to gain any others in the foreseeable future, so you have a situation where elections are being decided in the metropolitan area of Adelaide and that is it, which is a situation that is not typical, I think, in most other states.

If you look at, say, the Victorian election just recently, there was a lot of focus on Geelong, Bendigo and Ballarat and large regional centres. So, as to the two-party preferred figure for South Australia overall, the reality of our electoral boundaries and the reality of our population, where there are not large numbers of people, relatively speaking, living outside the metropolitan area, has to be taken into account.

While I understand why the Liberal Party wants to agitate the issue, I think the notion of setting up a commission of inquiry into that one aspect of electoral matters is short-sighted. I do not think it is a particularly good principle to say that, because you oppose a bill or a proposal, it cannot take effect until there has been a commission of inquiry. For better or for worse, setting up commissions of inquiries of that nature are generally a decision of the executive and I think that is a principle that needs to be respected as well.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In terms of the comments provided by the Hon. Mark Parnell, with all due respect I would suggest that he is reading the amendment narrowly. He focused on the fact of whether a political party had received the majority of the statewide vote. What the amendment actually says is to 'ensure that the political party (or coalition) that receives'—

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: Recognised coalition. You're not in coalition with anyone.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do not read the word 'recognised coalition' but—

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: My door's open but we're not in one at the moment.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As I said, the Greens are reading into the amendment words that are not there. The fact of the matter is that the Liberal Party is not talking about ditching the preferential voting system and going to a first-past-the-post system. That may be an option that might come out of a commission of inquiry, but that fact is that we are genuinely seeking to put an open question. There was certainly discussion within the Liberal Party party room about alternative models, and there are some who believe that there are models worth putting now. However, in our view, the issue of fairness is so fundamental that it needs to be a community discussion with an open question.

Both the Hon. Mark Parnell and the Hon. Bernard Finnigan, with all due respect, in my view, significantly underestimate the frustration and the anger in the community that their democratic will is being persistently frustrated by our current electoral system. Let's remember that this is not something that the Liberal Party thought would be a good idea and it has not been endorsed by the people. At a referendum after the 1989 election—forgive me if I get the date wrong, but I think it was in February 1991—the people of South Australia said that they wanted their Constitution changed to entrench fairness. They have not got what they want. They voted for it. And this Labor Party says, 'Stuff you, it suits us to continue to have an electoral system that doesn't deliver fairness. Go and bleat somewhere else.'

The Hon. Bernard Finnigan rightly pointed out that, since the electoral reforms of the 1970s, minor parties have emerged—all the more reason to look at fairness again. I do not disagree with the Hon. Mark Parnell. Those South Australians who seek to choose from non-major parties have every right to have their democratic will expressed. I think the Hon. Mark Parnell and the Greens would make a very strong submission to a commission of inquiry that that democratic will should be expressed not just in this place but also in the House of Assembly. Again, going back to the terms of reference:

…report on electoral reform that would ensure that the political party or…coalition that receives the majority of the State-wide vote…is elected in sufficient numbers to enable that party or coalition to form a government…

The Hon. Mark Parnell wants to put in the words 'recognised coalition' or what have you, which suggests some pre-existing arrangement. The fact of the matter is that in a number of jurisdictions it is not uncommon for coalitions to be brought together after an election. Perhaps in that sense you might say that the behaviour of the Hon. Geoff Brock and the Hon. Martin Hamilton-Smith was, if you like, post-election negotiations for the formation of a coalition.

The Hon. Mark Parnell focused on whether or not a particular political party had the majority of first preference votes. That is not what this question is asking. Anyway, be that as it may, the Hon. Mark Parnell is saying, 'This is a flawed terms of reference, I'm going to vote against it.' He posed the question: will we postpone the committee until a flawed commission has completed its work? Of course we would not do that. What we would do is make sure that the commission we are insisting on has the right terms of reference, that it has a mandate, a responsibility which will address the legitimate frustration of the South Australian community that their democratic will has continued to be frustrated.

I thank the Hon. Dennis Hood for indicating his support. I urge other members to support the Liberal amendment. As I often do—and perhaps this is just throwing myself at the mercy of the council because of my poor drafting skills—I urge the council to support the amendment in spite of any flaws that the Hon. Mark Parnell might have highlighted, because we have two houses. We often consider alternative amendments between the houses.

We did it on SACAT earlier this evening and it meant that we had a better bill. I would urge members not to dump this amendment for wont of tweaking that the Greens may think might improve it. I am disappointed that the Hon. Mark Parnell did not take the opportunity to improve the terms of reference and let us see where the Greens thought a better open question could be asked.

Certainly I am very disappointed that the Australian Greens, the group that actually believes in open democracy, would want to support their coalition colleagues in maintaining a very unfair electoral system, which continues to frustrate the people of South Australia. I reiterate my point: in spite of the distractions, however well intentioned by the Hon. Mark Parnell, I urge the council to support this amendment. If it needs to be tweaked between the houses, the opposition stands ready to do so.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate my support for the opposition's amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 3 passed.

New clauses 3A and 3B.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Wade–3]—

Page 3, after line 1—Insert:

3A—Amendment of section 15E—Membership of Committee

Section 15E—after subsection (2) insert:

(2a) A Minister of the Crown is not eligible for appointment to the Committee.

3B—Amendment of section 15H—Membership of Committee

Section 15H—after subsection (1) insert:

(1a) A Minister of the Crown is not eligible for appointment to the Committee.

This new clause relates to the issue of parliamentary committees other than the one proposed by this bill. This amendment seeks to reaffirm the well established understanding in the parliament that the Parliamentary Committees Act provides that ministers are not members of parliamentary committees. I remind honourable members of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, section 21, which reads:

Removal from and vacancies of office

1. A member of a Committee may be removed from office by the member' appointing House.

2. A person ceases to be a member of a Committee if the person—

And then there is (a), (b), (c) and (d), and (e) states:

(e) Becomes a Minister of the Crown; or

My leader moved a motion on 2 July, which put to this council that the appointment of the Attorney-General by another place was inconsistent with the longstanding practice. I will read that motion onto the record, which the Hon. D.W. Ridgway moved:

1. That this council—

(a) notes Message No. 9 from the House of Assembly of [a certain date] 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 the 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.

Members would well remember that the House of Assembly earlier this week advised us that it had received our request that they reconsider their appointment, and they suggested that we might like to reconsider our suggestion that they reconsider. So, to avoid descending into a downward spiral of reconsiderations, I thought this might be an opportunity for this house to put into the legislation what has always been our understanding, which is that the parliamentary committees, unless otherwise specifically provided, do not have ministers of the crown on them.

My understanding is that the Natural Resources Committee does provide for a minister of the Crown. I was advised by another honourable member that they do not currently have a minister on. I do not know if any other members might be able to confirm that. My understanding is that that is the only committee which has explicit provision for a minister. The Hon. Terry Stephens, I am sure, will be able to inform the council that the Aboriginal Lands Standing Committee previously had provision for the minister to be on the parliamentary committee as de facto chair, and my understanding is that that provision has been removed.

We are not saying cannot specifically consider, in the context of a particular committee, that a minister can be a member. In fact, the Hon. Bernard Finnigan reminded the council that in relation to the Aboriginal Lands the minister was actually the chair of the committee. Obviously it is within the capacity of the parliament to make exceptions in particular circumstances, but it is the council's assertion, as affirmed by the council, when the council accepted the resolution of my leader and we conveyed a message to the House of Assembly, to reiterate our clear understanding of what the Parliamentary Committees Act provides by putting into the Parliamentary Committees Act relevant amendments.

Parliamentary counsel has suggested that the best way to achieve that is not with a general clause but with a series of clauses relating to particular committees. I indicate that this particular amendment would affirm that principle of ministers not being members of parliamentary committees. This amendment deals with two of the committees. I commend the amendment to the council.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government opposes the amendment. This amendment relates to the Parliamentary Committee on Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and the Statutory Officers Committee. It seeks to amend the Parliamentary Committees Act to provide that a minister of the Crown is not eligible for appointment to those two committees specifically. I wonder, perhaps, if it is beyond the scope of the Parliamentary Committees (Electoral Laws and Practices Committee) Amendment Bill, which is to amend the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 to provide for the establishment of the electoral laws and practices committee and to make related amendments to the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1990. Be that as it may, we oppose the amendment.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I just assure the minister that I consult parliamentary counsel and parliamentary officers in putting forward amendments. If he wants to reflect on officers serving the parliament, then that is his choice; I certainly will not be doing it.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I was not reflecting on parliamentary counsel: I was reflecting on the blithering hypocrisy of the honourable member who has moved the amendment.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: As I said, I will not be critical of someone having a go. I am surprised at the results of these negotiations. Here we have an amendment that deals with committees that are not before us in the primary bill, but so be it.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: I have an instruction.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Yes. Regarding the merits of the issue whether or not ministers of the Crown should be on the committees, the Greens' general position is that ministers of the Crown should not be on these committees, and we will therefore be supporting these amendments.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: As we will.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will also.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I oppose this amendment, not because I disagree with the principle, but I think, firstly, it is odd that we should be dealing with it in this bill, which is focused on the establishment of a particular committee. Secondly, I think the Statutory Officers Committee is different from the average committee, if you like. It would be very unusual. I do not know that anyone has proposed that a minister sit on, say, the Economic and Finance Committee. That would be extraordinary.

The Statutory Officers Committee is a bit different. It is only really summoned to look at particular appointments. Often they are people who are being nominated by the Attorney-General or he or she has carriage of that bill, so I think that can be distinguished. Whether or not that means we should have ministers allowed to or not be allowed on a committee is a separate question, to me, than that which is being dealt with by this bill.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the Hon. Bernard Finnigan for his contribution but I put it to him and other members of the council that Statutory Officers is perhaps the most important committee not to have ministers on because, as the Hon. Bernard Finnigan said, the Attorney-General is often the person who has custody of acts to whom these statutory officers report to, but let's remember they are not members of the executive.

They are statutory officers of this parliament, they may well have a relationship with the executive, that is understood—for example, the Ombudsman—but they are primarily statutory officers of this parliament. I think it is an important separation of powers, although I appreciate that term is being used not in its normal sense. I would assert that it is particularly relevant to the Statutory Officers Committee that this convention be upheld.

New clauses inserted.

Clause 4.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Parnell–1]—

Page 3, after line 34 [clause 4, inserted section 15Q]—Insert:

(2a) The members of the Committee are not entitled to remuneration for their work as members of the Committee.

The sole purpose of this amendment is to save taxpayers nearly half a million dollars in extra salary that would other have been paid to MPs who need no encouragement to sit down and chew the fat over electoral laws and electoral practices.

The proposal in the bill is that this be a paid committee with individual members and the chairperson being paid. My back-of-envelope calculation is that it is about $400,000 over a four-year term; that is money that taxpayers do not need to spend. I will not go on about it any further because I understand the government is supporting the amendment.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The opposition also supports that the committee not be a paid committee. The parliament could well benefit from coming back and talking about remuneration for committee and other roles within the parliament, but in this context we are specifically focusing on this particular committee. The joint select committee on electoral matters in the federal parliament does a report after every election. We would expect this committee to do exactly the same.

It may well not have business to do from years two, three and four, so I agree with the Hon. Mark Parnell that the public would be regarded as a waste of money if the committee was being paid for three years' work that it was not doing. I make the point that the Liberal Party is always open to how we can better spend taxpayers' money. This is a particular circumstance and let's have the discussion about other changes separately if we choose to do so.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: In the interests of progressing with the establishment of the Electoral Law and Practices Committee, the government is happy to support this amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Wade–3]—

Page 4, after line 22—Insert:

4A—Transitional provision

A member of either or both of the following Committees under the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 who is a Minister of the Crown ceases to hold office as a member of the Committee or Committees on the commencement of this section:

(a) the Parliamentary Committee on Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation;

(b) the Statutory Officers Committee.

What this amendment proposes to do is to address an element of the functions of the committee. Currently, proposed section 15R says the functions of the committee are:

(a) to inquire into, consider and report on...

(iii) any other matter referred to the Committee by the Minister responsible for the administration of the Electoral Act 1985.

Members of this council do not need to be reminded of the creative thinking of the Attorney-General when it comes to electoral reform for the Legislative Council. He is not quite so creative when it comes to electoral reform for the House of Assembly.

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: He is full of ideas about us.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: That's right. In fact, in the context of this bill, on 3 June on radio FIVEaa, the Attorney-General suggested the committee could look beyond the electoral system for the upper house and 'whether the Upper House in its present configuration is satisfactory'. Goodness knows what cunning plans he has for us. I would say that this function provision is unusual in that it is putting in the hands of one politician from one political party in another place the power to load up the agenda of the committee in a way which perhaps does not reflect the broad interests of the parliament and the people of South Australia.

What this amendment proposes to do is to relieve the Attorney-General of this awesome duty and put it in the hands of the parliament itself by allowing the matters that are to be referred for report into the resolution of either house of parliament. Of course, the Attorney-General has every right to put resolutions to the House of Assembly on what he thinks should be considered, but let's have the parliament expressing that view, not just one person.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: This amendment seeks to remove the capacity of the minister responsible for the Electoral Act 1985 to refer matters to the Electoral Law and Practices Committee and, in the words of the Hon. Mr Stephen Wade, it is because they do not like who the Attorney-General is. Providing a minister with the power to refer matters to the committee is not without precedent. At the federal level, the commonwealth Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is able to have matters referred to it by a minister.

Within the context of the South Australian Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Statutory Officers Committee is able to receive referrals from the minister responsible for an act under which an appointment to statutory position must be made on recommendation of both houses of parliament. So, this amendment, if passed, would also provide for either house of parliament to refer matters to the committee; however, the existing provisions of the Parliamentary Committees Act already enable this, and I can refer specifically to section 16(1) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, which provides that:

(1) Any matter that is relevant to the functions of a Committee may be referred to the Committee—

(a) by resolution of the Committee's appointing House or Houses, or either of the Committee's appointing Houses; or

(b) by the Governor, by notice published in the Gazette; or

(c) of the Committee's own motion.

For these reasons, the amendment is opposed.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I do happen to like the current Attorney-General, but I also like the amendment and I will be supporting it.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will also be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: This is one of those rare situations where both the opposition and the government are dead right. There is already the power for either house of parliament to refer something, plus the specific provision in the proposed section 15R, but what I find more compelling is the Hon. Stephen Wade's argument. If the minister as a single individual is at least forced to gather the support of a majority of the House of Assembly before sending something to this committee, then I think that makes sense.

At a practical level, it is neither here nor there. The committee is going to have a look at anything the Attorney wants them to look at. They are going to have a look at anything that either house of parliament wants them to look at. I would not spend a whole lot of time on it, but certainly we are happy to support the amendment for now.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Wade–2]—

Page 4, lines 21 and 22 [clause 4, inserted section 15R(b)]—Delete 'or by resolution of either House of Parliament'

It is the view of the Liberal Party that functions assigned to committees are best done by statute, not by resolution of either house of parliament. After all, that is why we have functions in the Parliamentary Committees Act, so I commend the amendment to the council.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The amendment is opposed by the government. The amendment reduces the flexibility around the way that functions can be assigned to the Electoral Laws and Practices Committee. If the amendment were to be passed, other functions would only be able to be assigned to the committee under the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 or any other act.

In relation to the other committees established under the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, there is scope for additional functions to be assigned by resolution of either one house of parliament or both houses of parliament, depending on the committee. This amendment does not add anything to the bill but has the potential to reduce the flexibility around the functions of the proposed Electoral Laws and Practices Committee and would depart from the position that exists in relation to other committees.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Again, this falls into a very curious category, because we have just resolved that either house of parliament can effectively refer any matter to the committee and yet we have this separate paragraph which talks about 'performing other functions'. The question then would be: are there functions that are different to matters that might be described as part of the terms of references? I have some difficulty seeing what that distinction might be and I fall back on the fact that, at a practical level, the way this committee is going to work is that, if either house of parliament wants them to do something or to inquire into something, it will. If the Attorney wants it to inquire into something, he will get his colleagues in the House of Assembly of assembly to do it.

I think, on balance, I am inclined not to support this particular amendment because I think the alternative would be that, if there was something that was regarded as a function that was not part of terms of reference, the only way to get this committee to look at it would be to change the act again, and it seems that that might be a bit too much effort for what is really required. We will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I make the point that we have already had electoral committees that have looked at matters other than the Electoral Act. The 2010 Select Committee on Electoral Matters, as the Hon. John Darley will well remember, having been a member of that committee, looked at the local government issues. The Hon. John Darley had particular concerns about the local government elections and the security of that election, and this house gave—I think the term would be 'supplementary terms of reference'.

In fact, I think our first report was the interim report, which was on the general election, and our second report was on the local government elections. I make the point that it would be quite within the capacity of the parliament, within the Local Government Act, to give the parliamentary committee responsibility to consider electoral matters in relation to the local government.

I do not disagree with the Hon. Mark Parnell that it may not be functionally significant, because I imagine at the same time we are amending the Local Government Act we could come back and amend the Parliamentary Committees Act to make sure that function is picked up. However, let me put it this way: on such a sensitive area I do not think it is wise for the functions of a committee to be able to be recast by one house without engaging the other, particularly because the other house holds us in such high esteem.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Yes, I think we are almost in furious agreement in a sense, in that in a practical sense the way this will work is that, whichever house decides on anything for the committee, it will happen. That being the case, I think we will err on the side of caution and support the amendment because, as the Hon. Mr Wade has highlighted, I do not think we are held in the highest regard in the other place and a little bit of safety probably is not a bad thing.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 4A.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Wade–3]—

Page 4, after line 22—Insert:

4A—Transitional provision

A member of either or both of the following Committees under the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 who is a Minister of the Crown ceases to hold office as a member of the Committee or Committees on the commencement of this section:

(a) the Parliamentary Committee on Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation;

(b) the Statutory Officers Committee.

This is a transitional provision relating to [Wade-3] Amendment No. 1 standing in my name. I would suggest to the committee that it is consequential on that amendment having been supported.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: We oppose the amendment. This amendment proposes that on commencement of the bill any minister of the Crown who is also a member of either the parliamentary Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Committee or the Statutory Officers Committee ceases to hold office as a member of the committee or committees.

If this were to occur, section 21(3) of the Parliamentary Committees Act, in relation to removal from and vacancies of office, would have effect. The member's appointing house would need, as soon as practicable, to appoint one of its members to the relevant committee. As with the previous amendment, this is arguably beyond the scope of the Parliamentary Committees (Electoral Laws and Practices Committee) Amendment Bill 2014.

New clause inserted.

Schedule.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Parnell–1]—

Schedule 1, page 4, lines 23 to 29—Delete the Schedule

This amendment deletes the schedule. This is a consequential amendment on the early successful amendment to remove the pay clause from this committee.

Schedule negatived.

Title.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Parnell–1]—

Long title—

Delete '; and to make a related amendment to the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1990'

This is another consequential amendment to amend the long title of the bill.

Amendment carried; title as amended passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (17:22): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.