Judicial Conduct Commissioner Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 30 July 2015.)

Schedule.

The CHAIR: We are up to amendment [Wade-1] 1 to the schedule, page 27. The Hon. Mr Wade has moved the amendment.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I have moved the amendment and I would briefly like to reiterate the key arguments for the amendment in a matter of four sentences. I remind members that the reason I believe the amendment should be supported is that the parliament as a general rule takes the view that ministers should not sit on parliamentary committees.

Secondly, the Statutory Officers Committee in particular should not include ministers because of the need to maintain parliamentary oversight of the executive. Particularly in the context of this bill and the ICAC Bill, both of which involve the Attorney-General in the appointment process, it would be inappropriate for the Attorney-General to sit on the Statutory Officers Committee, so I would seek the support of the council on this amendment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The government opposes this amendment and opposes it very strongly, and there are a number of reasons for this. This amendment has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the bill before parliament today. If the chamber allows ridiculous vandalism like this of perfectly good legislation then this council has to be prepared to have amendments about anything on any given bill at all. We need to accept amendments like this on bills to do with dog and cat management or the Harbors and Navigation Act. There is no nexus between this—

The CHAIR: Point of order, the Hon. Mr Wade.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It does not seem to me as though the minister is actually attacking the merits of my proposal; he seems to be reflecting on either a judgement of yours or a judgement of the Clerk as to whether this amendment is within the scope of the bill.

The CHAIR: We are all grown up enough to take some serious criticism.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Thank you, Mr President. I do note the irony of attacking someone commenting about an amendment that has nothing at all to do with the bill before us—

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: And the honourable member keeps interjecting.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: You are reflecting on the Chair.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For all those who, as occasionally the Hon. Stephen Wade does, pride themselves on upholding the traditions of this chamber, they will forfeit that right if they continue with this amendment and support it. This amendment has nothing to do with attempting to improve the bill before us. It is a petty, personal, misguided vendetta against the Attorney-General. For some reason known only to the Hon. Stephen Wade—

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Point of order. It seems to me that the minister is imputing to me improper motives, and that is outside standing orders. If he wants to accuse me of that then he should move a substantive motion.

The CHAIR: I have accepted the amendment and it will be up to this chamber to determine whether it passes or not. I have heard a lot worse in this chamber than the comments by the minister, so let us just get through it, debate it, and we will vote on it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do apologise if I am offending the very sensitive Hon. Stephen Wade today. For some reason—

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The minister has the floor.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For some reason known only to the honourable member, he does not want the Attorney-General on this particular committee, notwithstanding the fact that former attorneys-general—

The Hon. G.A. Kandelaars interjecting:

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: —including, as the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars points out, Liberal attorneys-general—have been members of this particular committee. It really is primary school sort of stuff: 'I don't like you, I don't want you to play with us, I don't want you on my committee.'

I think a question needs to be asked: did the Hon. Stephen Wade have the support of his party room when he moved this amendment or is he acting as a lone wolf without the backing of his party room? If he did do that it is an embarrassment to his party and he should be sacked from shadow cabinet—which they would have to do because there is no further room to demote him in the shadow ministry, that has already happened.

If he is letting his own personal vendetta cloud his judgement without the backing at the time of his party room, he should be properly cut loose by his colleagues. Then he can truly become the Legislative Council's own version of the member for Heysen, and continue to act contrary to the Liberal Party's interest most of the time. If, on the other hand, the Hon. Stephen Wade is pursuing his wacky amendment, initially with the support of his party room, I suspect it is even more problematic. It would be a clear indication of an absolute takeover by the Christopher Pyne-marshalled forces of the South Australian Liberal Party.

That the Liberal Party would allow pursuit of ridiculous personal grievances in the face of sensible public policy absolutely shows us that some of the sensible conservatives—and there are some in this chamber—now have no influence at all over what the Liberal Party does in this state. It is a complete and utter takeover by the federal member for Sturt, a man who is not even in this parliament. That is why the SA Liberal Party leader can do nothing about it. His leadership is ineffective, as these sorts of things by the moderate Liberals happen time and time again.

I invite the Hon. Stephen Wade to inform the chamber whether he did have the permission of his party room when he introduced the amendment to this bill, because it seems to be very odd that this bill was going through very, very smoothly with the Hon. Andrew McLachlan doing a very good job, before all of a sudden being hijacked by the Hon. Stephen Wade.

Regardless of whether the Hon. Stephen Wade is acting as a lone wolf—which many suspect—or whether he has the support of his Liberal Party colleagues in this, it bodes very poorly for the Liberal Party. What does this sort of stunt say to bright people with a bit of talent who might be considering standing for the Liberal Party?

As I said, you have the Hon. Andrew McLachlan, who has actually practised law himself and who has a very significant amount of experience as a lawyer, handling this bill, only to be hijacked by the Hon. Stephen Wade, a failed shadow attorney-general pursuing his own personal vendetta, and a Liberal leader in another place who is ineffective in stopping this sort of behaviour. This is a very silly amendment that has nothing to do with the bill, and I urge honourable members not to support it.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I presume that minister Maher did not draft that speech, but—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Wrong again; I did.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In that case I would suggest that the—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Wrong again.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If the minister claims he has written that speech, then he has shown that he has not even bothered to read my contribution in moving the amendment. Let me quote it:

On 6 August 2014, this council resolved to invite the House of Assembly to reconsider its appointment of the Attorney-General to the Statutory Officers Committee in the context of 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.

Then it goes on about the response. I would remind the honourable minister that the 6 August motion moved in this chamber was not moved by me: it was moved by the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. David Ridgway—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Wade has the floor.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The Hon. David Ridgway had the full support of the parliamentary party, just as I did in moving this amendment. If honourable minister Maher wants to become a member of the Liberal Party party room, there are processes for that, but I assure you that this amendment is supported by the parliamentary party. Instead of abusing the processes of this chamber by making personal attacks, I suggest that he addresses the merits of the amendment.

The distinctive element that is different between the service of the Hon. Trevor Griffin and the insistence of the Attorney-General that he continues to sit on this committee is that this parliament has made two fundamental changes in relation to two key pieces of legislation: the ICAC Bill and this bill. The bill before us would have the judicial conduct commissioner appointed on the nomination of the Attorney-General. In relation to the ICAC Commissioner, that is also on the nomination of the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General wants to be both the person who makes the nomination and the person who approves it on behalf of the parliament.

It was the majority judgement of this chamber to support the motion of my leader (David Ridgway) and the resolution was passed on 6 August 2014. If the Attorney-General and his lackey in the upper house (honourable minister Maher) want to reflect on a decision of this chamber and try to personalise it, that is their call. The vote of this chamber today will show what it thinks about this issue.

The CHAIR: Just before we go on, I think we should try to stick to the issues. It is not becoming for both members to be throwing names and insults at each other. Let's just get back to some decent—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! We have a delegation here from India, and I think they would like to see a bit of decorum in this chamber.