Bills

Government House Precinct Land Dedication Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 10 February 2016.)

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (11:17): This is an important bill. However, there are also some important matters relevant to this bill that I want to put on the public record. I will also foreshadow a question during committee on the legalities around this bill, particularly with respect to the relevant minister—not the minister in this house. I understand minister Hamilton-Smith is the lead minister for this bill and I think there are some very serious questions that the lead minister needs to explain to the parliament.

The general intent of what the government is doing here with the Government House Precinct Land Dedication Bill 2015 is commendable. Many other colleagues in this house would have family who have been involved in war and, whilst we never, ever glorify war, it is important to remember those who paid the ultimate sacrifice and those who suffered for the rest of their lives from going to war and giving us the democratic rights and freedom we so very much cherish and appreciate in our state and nation. My father, as some colleagues would know, was one of those. The government is to be commended on its intent of having this dedicated memorial.

I question whether or not, though, there are a couple of things that are completely out of order. The first is that I am not sure whether it is for the absolute recognition of the centenary of Gallipoli or whether it is politically expedient that this is being rushed and managed the way that it is. I would like minister Hamilton-Smith to get an answer to us on that because this involves changing legal structures and an asset—namely, Government House and the real estate around that asset.

I am sure all members have been along North Terrace over the last few months and seen what started off at the War Memorial in the way of fencing going up and display banners on those fences talking about a project by the state government. If you happen to walk down or drive down the road to the east of that War Memorial, you would have seen trucks and excavators knocking down walls and digging out roads and pathways and so on for months.

I do not believe it is right that a minister or a government can expect to ask this parliament to retrospectively fix legal issues. To me, this issue is very serious because clearly now minister Hamilton-Smith expects us to pass this bill, and I would assume that the bill will be passed. What does it say about a minister of the Crown when the minister of the Crown is prepared to authorise project works to start when I am advised legally that he had no right to authorise this start until such time as proper procedure and due practice occurred in this parliament?

I am talking about exactly what I am here for with my colleagues now and that is to debate this bill. If I am right in what I understand and in discussions with others, we are now in a position where we are retrospectively fixing legislation to accommodate political expediency, and that is wrong. I put on notice for a response in committee: has the minister broken the law? I want an answer. Has minister Hamilton-Smith broken the law?

Ultimately, if it is his responsibility as a minister of the Crown and he has signed off and taken documents into cabinet and, following that, contracts have been approved and work has started without legal issues being addressed beforehand, then that is wrong. If I am wrong, I will take the answer on board and I will simply turn around and say to the house that I was wrong, but I am certainly not wrong in raising the issue. I want a clear and defined, clinical, legal response during committee on whether or not the minister has breached the law.

Having said that, I now come back to the intent of this bill. As I said, the intent of the government generally is to be commended, and Family First will be supporting the intent of the bill. I am advised from an email that I received from a constituent that there is no impact whatsoever on ANZAC Day services and the march because, according to the advice here on this email, 'the chairman of the ANZAC Day Committee confirms that delay of the memorial walk project would have no impact on the ANZAC Day services, march, etc. as the land in question is not used'. The land in question is also part of the current Government House garden. The land in question is not used for ANZAC Day activities and the march is via North Terrace and King William Street.

Anything that we can do to improve the recognition, appreciation and thanks in perpetuity for any man or woman involved in conflict to protect our rights and our privileges I commend. I am sure that this walk is going to be absolutely superb when it is completed. There is one other point that I raise at this point in time, and I would like an answer to this in committee as well. To be fair to the lead minister, it is not his bill. He is just here to carry the bill through the Legislative Council. In an email—and at least one if not more colleagues have tabled petitions on this—there is also an issue being raised about the Dardanelles Memorial in the south Parklands.

There are allegations that that will be moved. I would like some answers on what detailed work has been done if, indeed, that is to be moved. I declare an interest, because my great-uncle (my grandfather's brother) was over there in Gallipoli. There is a memorial in Gallipoli for him and thousands of others and for anyone who has the privilege of going there. I have not been there yet but would like to.

I declare this interest because he was killed in action there, and my grandfather was also, with his brother, in that conflict. He and thousands of others are really represented by the Dardanelles Memorial in the south Parklands. I have had representation and, clearly, we have seen as a chamber significant petitions saying that that should not be moved into this memorial.

I place on notice these questions to the minister: is it going to be moved? Is there going to be proper consultation? Has there been a sign-off? Have relevant family members involved in this been contacted? With those words, we will support the bill, but I look forward to detailed answers on those two specific questions in committee. If they cannot be answered straightaway, then I would suggest that we should not proceed through all of the committee stage until we as a Legislative Council get an opportunity to see the detailed answers on what I believe are two very important questions.

On one of them, it is probably not the first time that things have been tried to be done retrospectively but, in recent years, I have not seen anything pushing for retrospectivity like this on something that was so clear-cut; that is, that you have to address the legislation regarding the boundaries of the real estate, the property, of Government House, through this parliament, before you actually start putting equipment in there to do the work.

Let's respect this parliament. Let's respect Government House and former members of parliament who put legislation in. Let's respect the people of South Australia, and let's see a return to proper democratic processes, due diligence and, particularly, respect for the Westminster system through proper legislative debate and practice, prior to works commencing.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (11:27): The second reading contributions being finished, I would like to thank honourable members who have contributed to the debate on this bill. The Hon. Andrew McLachlan posed a number of questions during his second reading contribution that I will address.

The project managers have advised that no significant trees or trees of cultural or historical significance have been removed in the creation of the new space. The advice I have is that the project is allowing Government House the opportunity to remove some of what are referred to as 'common garden variety' trees from the perimeter and upgrade some of the once unseen garden area to more appropriate vegetation that enhances more of the open style of fencing.

In relation to some of the questions posed by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire, I appreciate that he is putting his views forward and wanting answers. I wonder if he posed these questions when he was offered briefings on this matter or if this is the first time he is raising these questions. However, with the questions being raised, I can respond to the Hon. Robert Brokenshire that I have been advised that the advice that has been given is that the work was started appropriately.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I ask the minister, further to the brief oral response that he gave the chamber in summing up, has he, or on behalf of the minister responsible, documentation through crown law that confirms that it was legal and fine to proceed in November 2015 in knocking down walls and taking over land from Government House?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that this bill is not a precursor to the construction of the wall; that is, this bill is not needed for the wall to be constructed. The wall can be constructed without this bill passing. This just realigns the boundary of Government House.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Is any land, even a square centimetre of the land that will be involved in this dedication memorial walk as part of an urban development project, relevant to Government House and the Government House real estate precinct?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is the same answer that was given before, that the advice is that this bill is not a precursor to construction; that is, the building of this wall does not hinge on the passing of this bill, the realignment of the boundary does.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I was trying to follow the same line of questioning as the Hon. Mr Brokenshire. I was somewhat irritated by the minister's criticism of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire suggesting that he should not raise an issue in the second reading if he had not raised it in briefings. I think this parliament is an open, transparent organ, and parliamentarians have no obligation—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Excuse me, I'm sorry, on clause 1, I am allowed to make comments and questions, am I not, Mr Acting Chair?

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The Hon. Mr Wade has the call and the minister will remain silent.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: And if the minister wants to heckle me perhaps he could do it through the Chair. I just reiterate the point—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The Hon. Mr Wade has the call.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I understand I am in order.

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): And the Hon. Gail Gago is out of order. The Hon. Mr Wade has the call and should proceed.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The Hon. Mr Brokenshire has every right to raise questions in this parliament, but for the interest of the minister I raised this very issue in a briefing, and I was told whether the parliament passed this bill or not the government was proceeding with the construction. The reason I raised it was that the construction had already started before I received my briefing.

The minister can use weasel words about how the wall can be constructed without the tender being clarified. Obviously it can: a wall can be constructed on somebody else's land. The fact of the matter is that this wall is within the precincts of Government House, and this parliament is now being asked to realign the precinct of Government House. I would have thought that it would be respectful to the Governor, and it would be respectful to this parliament, to do things in an orderly fashion and to have considered this bill before construction was commenced.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. That is not what I was suggesting to the Hon. Rob Brokenshire, and I appreciate that you have raised questions through receiving briefings on the matter and I think that is a good and appropriate thing to do. It may be the case that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire only thought of this after he had received a briefing; that is always possible, but in my experience it is easier to agitate these things when you might have the responsible minister and a suite of advisers for it.

I can repeat what I have said, that the advice is that this bill is not a precursor to construction. This bill is about the realignment of the boundary. The advice is that the wall can be constructed. This bill is about the realignment of the boundary.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: Perhaps I will ask the question slightly differently from the Hon. Robert Brokenshire. Can the minister assure the chamber that no illegal act has been done, that there has been no breach of any law, in commencing the construction ahead of the passing of this bill and its ultimate proclamation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can give you the answer that I have given, that the bill is not a precursor to construction. I am not going to stand here and attest for everything everybody has done on every part of it under every sort of potential state and commonwealth law to relate to anything in the world. I am not going to give that guarantee, and I bet you that the Hon. Andrew McLachlan would not give that guarantee about any work that he was not directly responsible for anywhere either.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: We will just have to wait and see if the Liberal Party wins government. I suppose the concern that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire is raising is whether any contractor, project manager or worker is at risk of criminal or civil liability as a result of commencing the work earlier. I put that question to the minister. The boundaries will be realigned by the passing of this bill and its ultimate proclamation. Has the governing act that this seeks to amend, which sets out the parameters of Government House, been breached by the works commencing early?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The advice I have is that the answer is no.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Is the advice the advice of parliamentary counsel or the advice of crown law?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The advice I am receiving is from the parliamentary officers who are advising me.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The Hon. Mr Brokenshire.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I am sorry. Yes, I do. I may have several. I may even foreshadow that if we cannot get some proper answers on this, I may consider reporting progress, because this is important. It is not flippant, and as I said to a minister recently, who said, 'Here comes a troublemaker,' because I happened to be raising some issues on another piece of legislation, 'Minister, I am not a troublemaker, but I am here to raise issues on behalf of constituents, because if constituents can't have issues raised in this house, the whole state's an absolute mess when it comes to legal and parliamentary structure.'

I said to the minister, 'Minister, you may be in government, you may be a minister of the Crown and you may have been in a very long time, but you don't own the parliament.' The one thing the government cannot ever do is own the parliament. Therefore, I am not interested in an adviser's verbal response on this, because what we are doing here, unless I have got it wrong, is actually now retrospectively passing a piece of legislation that allows the shifting of a boundary from memorial walk, that takes land from the precinct boundaries of all the real estate around Government House, certainly on two sides, certainly on the eastern side, and certainly on the northern side.

There is a clear act that defines the boundaries of government house. Yes, you can go and knock down a wall, minister: I agree with you on that. You can go to your neighbour's place and knock down a wall, but even then you are in breach of the Fences Act if you have not given proper notification and protocol and processes have not occurred. I am simply asking whether there is a legal opinion that the government received that says that they can go and start works, call tenders, and knock down brick historic walls that have been there since I think Government House was built. Did you get a legal opinion? If you did not get a legal opinion, how inept are you or how arrogant are you? I am simply asking for a question to be answered.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have given a response; it is the same question that was asked already.

The CHAIR: So you are not going to respond?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can once again inform the honourable member that the advice is that the bill is not a precursor to the construction of the wall. We are not doing something to allow the wall to be built—that can be done. What we are doing is adjusting the boundary.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I asked a hypothetical here, an important one, of the minister. If this chamber, based on that answer, was not to pass this legislation, what would the legal situation be then on the wall that has been knocked down and other work that has commenced on a piece of land that legally belongs to Government House?

The Hon. K.J. Maher: I will not repeat what I said before. I am happy to take it on notice and come back with an answer. I urge you to consider the bill as it is and pass it today, but I can come back with those answers for you. I am happy to come across.

The CHAIR: If the minister wants to add to the answer he needs to stand up.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: On behalf of the Hon. Rob Brokenshire, I thank the minister for his willingness to come back with the information for the house. Could I suggest a couple of questions on which he might come back with advice in the same context? Was the wall that was demolished a registered heritage asset under any state heritage legislation, and were relative approvals received before it was demolished?

Secondly, is it the intention of the government that the walk would be in the care and control of the council? That being the case, wouldn't the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's concerns be particularly valid, because if the parliament was not to change the boundary of Government House, you would have a portion of land outside the Government House wall that would still be under the care and control of the Governor, and another piece of land contiguous to it under the care and control of the council?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his questions. I can certainly answer the first one for him now. In terms of the heritage status of the wall, I am advised that, no, it did not have any heritage listing. In terms of the second question, similar to what the Hon. Rob Brokenshire asked, I cannot give you all the details now. I am more than happy to take it on notice and give an undertaking to bring back any answers I can. I would encourage members to pass the bill today.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Arising from this clause 1 discussion, it has been posited that the wall has been there for some period of time. When I first moved to South Australia in the 1980s I remember that there was a wall along the King William Street end—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: The North Terrace side—oh, the western side?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I know what I am about to say—the King William Street side, where there is now the ability to view Government House. If you look out from Parliament House, standing looking across the road, you can now see through because there is now a fence that enables you to view Government House. That was due to a governor at the time, and I do not know if it was Dame Roma, but my memory is telling me that it was Dame Roma who said, 'I want to open Government House to the people.'

When I first moved here I found that it was a large wall with broken glass on the top, a very old stone wall and very forbidding. In fact, I remember that being done as a way of opening up Government House to the people. What were the provisions around opening it up and taking down that particular wall?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member, but I do not have the details about the provisions of the opening up and the taking down of the wall. One thing I can add that I think is useful is that that is what this new wall will do: in part it will be opening up Government House, as has been mentioned before, and I think that is a very good thing.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: To further assist the minister on this issue, and listening to the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's questions, in effect the question he is raising is: if it is not (using the minister's words) a precursor to the work starting then, in essence, you could build a large wall around the immediate surrounds of Government House and leave the rest as a park without any other legislative intervention.

It is arguable that the works commencing is a positive act by the state to take the land from Government House and thus breach the law and assume control of Government House land without legislative authority—which is why we have this bill before the chamber. These are important questions and I would be supporting any motion by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire to report progress and for those answers to come back to the chamber, so I will leave that with the Hon. Mr Brokenshire for the moment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his questions. I think I understand the question he is asking. As I said, the advice I have is that it was not a precursor to construction. I am very happy, as I have indicated to the Hon. Robert Brokenshire and the Hon. Stephen Wade, to bring back any answers that I can in relation to the very specifics of those questions. I just do not have the information available in front me, but still I would urge this chamber today to pass the bill.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I respect what the minister is saying, but I put to the chamber that there is a matter of a very important principle here. This place is not for rubber-stamping simply what government has started to do, for whatever reason, and then bringing in legislation. In my 21 years here that is not how I have understood the parliament to work.

There must have been some legal assessment on this because there are a lot of issues around this, including who is responsible for any potential litigation at the moment if sadly and tragically something happens while the works are occurring, and there is a transitional situation on land boundaries that are under Government House/state government ownership and the Adelaide City Council—just as one example. I would move that we report progress and wait for some answers to be brought back because this is serious.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I did have a question at clause 1.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The Hon. Ms Franks, just one moment. Have you actually moved that we report progress because, if you have, then that cuts the Hon. Ms Franks out?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: That's right.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have foreshadowed that, and I understand that my colleague wants to ask a question.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I rise to both put a position and ask a question. A position has been put here that perhaps illegal activities have occurred. I am hearing from government that they in no way have occurred to its knowledge and that we should proceed with this bill. I am also cognisant that in both the other place and here all members support this piece of legislation.

While there are concerns raised—and this is where my question is—that at the moment we are leaving people potentially liable to litigation by the fact that we have not passed this bill, will not passing this bill today leave, in that case should that be the situation, further people open to litigation?

If we do not pass a bill today that we say is exposing people to some sort of potential for liability, are we not increasing the liability, if that were to be the situation? I know it is being put as a possibility (and at this point I am not accepting that that is proven), but by not passing the bill today, that all those who have spoken to have supported, would that not increase and further the risk?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Hypothetically that is possible. I understand that we all support the intent of this bill—I do not think anyone is denying that—and I encourage members, if they support the intent of the bill, to get it passed today, and I give an undertaking that I will bring back the answers to what I acknowledge are important questions.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: The minister just argued against himself. Earlier in the committee he said—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: I said hypothetically.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: I look for your protection, Mr Acting Chair, from the minister's interjections. If the bill is not a precursor to the works, then there is no risk in us reporting progress. If there is a risk, then the questions that have been raised and the line of questioning initiated by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire are justified. So the minister needs to clarify whether there is a risk or not. If there is a risk then we should continue with the committee stage perhaps later today.

I do add that the Liberal Party was very keen to address this bill ahead of Christmas but there were other priorities dictated to us by the government, and any reference to Hansard and the Hon. David Ridgway's protestations immediately prior to the Christmas break will inform them. The minister has to clarify, given his statement to the chamber, that if it is not a precursor then there should not be any obstruction—to follow the line of questioning from the Hon. Tammy Franks—for us to report progress and have the answers delivered in the committee stage.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In responding to the interpretation of my question, my argument is actually that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire is the one who is arguing against his own logic. He is the one presenting the false logic, because if there is a risk he should be urging us to pass this bill today to alleviate and eliminate that risk. He is the one saying that there is a risk. I have not heard any evidence that there is, and certainly the Greens' position has been the same as the opposition and the government and other members who have spoken to this bill in supporting its passage.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: To hopefully help the debate, and not confuse it, my advice is that there is no liability, but I think the Hon. Tammy Franks makes a very good point. My advice is that there is no liability but, if it is the case that there is some, as the Hon. Robert Brokenshire is concerned, then I think the Hon. Tammy Franks is absolutely correct in that continuing to delay the bill could cause problems with that. However, that is hypothetical because my advice is that there is none.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Just further on the point, that was a secondary point to the key principle I was raising. The key principle I was raising was: are we being asked to now pass this? Of course we all want this; we all want it, and there is no doubt about that. However, what you want also involves proper process and proper consideration of that process within the parliament. As I read it, this is effectively asking us to retrospectively confirm a situation in here so that the government can get on with work it has already started before it got confirmation from the parliament that the parliament agreed to change the law.

That is the simple issue we are debating here. That is my primary concern. As one legislator—and I know that I am one out of 22—I believe, fundamentally, that we need to scrutinise this. If this becomes more of a normal practice into the future, that there is a breach of process and ministers think they can just sign off on things because it is politically expedient for them and they expect this parliament to come back and ratify it, I believe that would be a disaster.

Simply all I am asking, to make it clear, is: what documentation was done? Surely there must have been some documentation between minister Hamilton-Smith's office and all the government agencies and the council involved in this; there must have been some legal opinion that you could go and start these works and then get ratification from the parliament.

If the documentation is there that says it is fine to do that, I, personally, as one of 22, am happy to proceed later today on this, because I do not want to hold it up. But I believe, as a matter of principle, that if we just allow this stuff to come in, ebb and flow whenever the government wants it to, without proper process, we are heading down a very bad path for future legislative procedure in this state. I am absolutely adamant that we must be sure that we are doing things properly. We cannot just allow any government to blaze away without respect for the procedure of parliament.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his passionate contribution. The advice is that Government House is crown land, there is a wall being built on crown land and the wall will continue whether we pass this bill or not. This bill merely seeks to realign the boundary.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Then, if you are proceeding with realigning, building a new wall and changing structures around Government House for the wall and you say you are proceeding whether or not this legislation is passed, are you telling us that you are prepared to defy the law as it stands at the moment and just proceed with the project?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is there is no law that is being broken. This is realigning the boundary. This is not the wall being built. Whilst I appreciate the tenacity of the line of questioning, it has me at a loss as to exactly what the honourable member means.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: When you realign a boundary, unless you actually happen to own contiguous land, you are realigning a boundary with different owners, are you not? And, surely, you have to have proper process in changing that. You would have to do a land transfer and you would have to have a conveyancer involved. You would have to go through proper legal processes as a private citizen if you are going to realign boundaries. Are you not doing that now?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that Government House is crown land and the contiguous boundary is council-owned land. Both parties agree. They are joint funders for the project. The wall is being built. This merely realigns a boundary.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: To add to the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's point, a reading of the bill that governs Government House is, in effect, creating a trust, because it is for all time. Therefore, whilst everyone might agree with the movement of the boundary, there is consideration about the proper process of breaching that trust, in effect, and the community settling on a new boundary and the purposes for which that land is going to be used. So, there is a process there. I am not arguing against the minister: I am just saying that is one of the concerns.

From the Liberal Party's perspective, whilst we do not have a problem with the terms of this bill, one of our colleagues has raised a series of questions that he wishes to have answered so that he, in good conscience, can vote in committee, if I understand the Hon. Robert Brokenshire correctly. The Hon. Tammy Franks has raised the question that, because we all agree and there might be a scintilla of risk, as indicated by the minister, we should just proceed.

The Liberal Party is more than willing to hear from the minister later today if we report progress and then bring this back on, because the committee stage is the only chance members of the Legislative Council have to interact with the terms of this bill and debate it. Whilst I appreciate the minister has undertaken to bring back answers, if the answers are unacceptable, it cuts out the ability of the Legislative Council to further tease out the responses. If the Hon. Mr Brokenshire is minded to move to report progress, the Liberal Party will support that motion, but we would also be willing to bring it on at any time during the day and complete the legislative process subject to the responses that are received.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the member, and I think the first part of your answer hit the nail on the head and clarified it: this is about the moving of a boundary. I know we can bring in other issues and it is great fun for esoteric legal debate to take its course in the Legislative Council, and I know that is part of what we all do here, but you are absolutely right: this is about moving a boundary. That is what we are doing today, so we do not support the reporting of progress. I am happy to bring back some of those answers but this is about the movement of a boundary, not the building of the wall on both sides of the boundary everyone agrees on. I would encourage and ask members to pass this now as we are discussing it.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Again, I argue that there is a matter of principle here and, whilst I have a lot of time for this minister, the Leader of Government Business in this house, it is a big ask in my opinion to say to the parliament, the Legislative Council, 'Just go ahead and pass the bill and we will have a look around later on today or next week or next month and find any information on what assessments we did with respect to starting the work, calling the tender and all that before retrospectively confirming in the parliament boundary changes.'

The material is either there or it is not there. If it is not there, then it is up to the Legislative Council to make a decision on whether they continue with it. I am really interested to know whether the work was done with due diligence, whether there is some material there. If it is, it will be very easy for the department to dig it up and we can work on it this afternoon and we can go our merry way with it being approved if that is the desire of the chamber. If there is work being done on that, why can this chamber not see that work to feel confident? I believe we should have challenged this because I believe this is bad process. I move:

That progress be reported.

Let's report progress until later today and see what they can find in the next couple of hours.

The committee divided on the motion:

Ayes 10

Noes 7

Majority 3