Parliamentary Committees

Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee

The PRESIDENT (14:23): I am required to give a statement to the chamber. I have to advise the council that, at its meeting held yesterday, the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee was unable to come to a decision as to who is to be its Presiding Member. Therefore, pursuant to section 7(1b) of the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee Act, the matter is referred to the council for its determination.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (14:24): I move:

That the Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins be appointed Presiding Member of the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee.

In speaking to the motion, I have to say, after a long period of service in the Legislative Council in the parliament, I think it is a sad day that, on behalf of government members in this chamber, I have to stand to move this particular motion. It has been a longstanding convention respected by governments and oppositions of both flavours—Labor and Liberal—in all of my time in parliament.

The joint standing committees of the parliament (we have more now than when I first started) comprise House of Assembly members and Legislative Council members. By convention, some of these are chaired by Legislative Council members and some are chaired by House of Assembly members. However, by longstanding convention, they have always been chaired by government members.

These processes have been governed, in part, by legislation but, significantly, by accepted and respected conventions between the two major parties: the government and the alternative government in the parliament. As I said, that has been the case irrespective of whether we have had a Labor government or a Liberal government. Most recently, for a very long period of time (16 years), we have had Labor governments in South Australia. I have been a member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition during all of that period and, as members of the Liberal party, as the opposition, we have respected that particular convention of the day, even though it was always possible to seek to get the numbers to reverse that particular convention.

The situation we are confronted with now, I have to say, has only occurred since the election of the new leader of the Labor party, Mr Peter Malinauskas, and I point the finger solely at him. Under previous leaders, there has been a respect for this longstanding convention and, sadly, since the election of the member for Croydon, all of a sudden this longstanding convention has been thrown out the window. As I understand it, it has been largely driven not just by Mr Malinauskas but by the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber, the Hon. Kyam Maher. I think the responsibility rests with both of those two gentlemen in relation to this particular position. Ultimately, it is for them to make a decision on behalf of their party rooms, or caucus, in terms of whether or not they are going to respect that longstanding convention.

There is a position in relation to the chair of these particular committees. They are important positions. Not only is there the additional remuneration and status that goes with those particular positions as a chair—it is an important position in the parliament in terms of chairing a committee—but it is also important in terms of the management and governance of the committees of the parliament. On the joint standing committees, if there is to be, on any particular issue in terms of a vote, a split vote, other than the election of the Presiding Member, which comes back to this particular chamber, the person who takes the position of Presiding Member has two votes: a casting vote and a deliberative vote.

The balance of these particular committees has been recognised in the past as two government members from the House of Assembly and one opposition member, and one government, one opposition and one crossbencher from the Legislative Council. The balance has been quite clear: three government members in total and three non-government members in total. Essentially, because the government member has been respected by convention to be the Chairperson or Presiding Member, then on an issue or a particular vote—whether an inquiry should be conducted, a witness should be called, a meeting should be called, all the process in governance issues—the Presiding Member has a deliberative vote and a casting vote.

So, if there is a split between government and non-government members, the convention in terms of the operations of these committees has been that the government, ultimately, through the casting vote of the Presiding Member, has been able to take the final decision. These committees are very important. This committee is very important in terms of the Aboriginal lands, but members of this chamber, on the opposition backbenches, have served on legislative review committees, the environment resources committees and a variety of other committees. The work of the Legislative Review Committee has been longstanding in terms of the work that it does. As I said, the convention has always been respected by governments and oppositions in the past.

I could say much more, but I do not intend to. I have spoken individually with members in this chamber. I know there are members within the government caucus collectively—I do not speak just about the upper house—who are mightily unhappy with the position Mr Malinauskas and the Hon. Kyam Maher have adopted in relation to this particular position, but loyalty to their party and the caucus means that they have not and will not speak out in relation to this issue. But, I would urge members in this chamber to respect the longstanding convention that has been respected in relation to the governance and processes of the joint standing committees of the parliament and I would urge members to support the Hon. Mr Dawkins, who is the government nominee on this particular committee.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (14:31): I move to amend the motion as follows:

Leave out the words 'the Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins' and insert the words 'the Hon. T.A. Franks'.

In doing so, I rise to speak to both the amendment and the motion. I am deeply sorry to have disappointed the Treasurer in that, in his long service in this place, he has come across something that he was not aware of. It may have escaped his attention that we changed the act for the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee in the last term of parliament. We did so to remove the minister from the committee and we did so to ensure that the committee was not in a position where a government minister was, in fact, writing to themselves on behalf of the committee. We did so because the working of the committee was actually hampered by that model. So, there is no convention when it comes to this particular committee.

We also have an act that provides for a crossbench member to be from the Legislative Council on this committee and for the leadership, the Presiding Member, should there be a tied vote, to be decided for this Legislative Council. Both of those things are in the act. They are not subject to convention. They were provided for when we debated the law that is the foundation of this particular committee.

What I would also point out, through you, Mr President, to the honourable Treasurer is that, in the last term of parliament, we had a crossbencher sitting on this committee, not just from the upper house, which, of course, was myself, but, indeed, the member for Morphett, who lost his party mid-term on the committee and served as a crossbencher in the lower house on this particular committee. So, in fact, this committee has a fine tradition of breaking all of those conventions that the honourable Treasurer holds so dear.

The other point I would like to note in the long, long period of service that the honourable Treasurer noted that he had—it may have escaped his attention that, as a member of this committee, I served on the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee for some eight years. The members who supported me in the vote of this committee to be its Presiding Member have also served on this committee previously—one for four years and one for less than a year but then in a role as shadow minister in this portfolio. Prior to this session of parliament, the sum total of service of the government appointees to the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee is zero days. I think, when one is talking about respect for processes, it is the government which has not shown respect for this committee.

I also point to other instances where, in other parliaments around the country, crossbenchers do act as presiding members of committees. It is commonplace in the Senate, it is commonplace in the New South Wales parliament, it is commonplace in the WA parliament and all of these things have happened because somebody was the first to do it.

I would note that I would be the first woman crossbencher to be a Presiding Member of this committee; that would be a first I would be proud to achieve, but it would be something I would do not because I woke up one day and decided I wanted to chair this committee but because I have served eight years and have developed connections with the communities that hold this particular committee in high regard and hold hopes for us because of the very terms of reference, because of the carriage that it has for the APY lands act, the carriage that it has for the Maralinga Tjarutja act and the carriage that it has for, and the current inquiry that is underway into, the Aboriginal Lands Trust Act.

I note that the Hon. John Dawkins has put himself forward and that he has indeed received the support of the Liberal government members of the committee. I ask him to speak to this chamber; the Legislative Council is the chamber that will now decide the presiding officer. I ask him to address this chamber about why he wishes to put himself forward to be the Presiding Member. I would say that we were halfway through a review and that I have the history in and the commitment to this committee. Yes, I am a crossbencher, but I am the one who has the runs on the board, regardless of your conventions. Convention seems to me simply a polite way to put a crossbencher in their place and also a reason you have when you do not really have a reason. With those few words, I commend the amendment.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (14:36): I rise to support the amended motion and the candidacy of my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks to be the Presiding Member of the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee.

I was not going to weigh into this debate, but the Treasurer's contribution in relation to what he described as longstanding conventions, accepted and respected conventions, does need to be challenged. I would particularly like, through you, Mr President, to address my remarks to the opposition and crossbench members.

The opposition, as I understand it, are supporting the Hon. Tammy Franks, but the crossbench members, I think, need to bear in mind that one thing we who are not part of the government all have in common is that our job is to hold the government to account. We know that in our toolkit there are various tools for holding the government to account. Question time is coming up soon; that is one of them. Another of the most important tools is parliamentary committees, where we can get witnesses in, we can ask them questions and we can determine whether government policies are hitting the mark or not. It is a very valuable tool of accountability.

To suggest that there is some unwritten rule—and that is really all a convention is: some sort of unwritten rule—that says that the government that we are seeking to hold to account somehow has a right to run the committee and to have a deliberative and a casting vote on the committee that holds that government to account is, I think, an absolute nonsense. The Treasurer said he was disappointed he had had to do this; he is lucky it has not happened sooner. From talking to my colleagues interstate, I can note that in the Senate the Greens regularly—after every election—put up a candidate to be president, and we insist on a vote. As my colleague mentioned before, crossbench members are routinely appointed as chairs of committees in the federal parliament and in the parliaments of other states.

The Hon. Tammy Franks has a long track record in and a commitment to this area, and I think that makes her the best candidate to be the presiding member. The Treasurer conceded that, with a deliberative vote and a casting vote, the chairperson of this committee can determine whether a meeting is held and they can determine whether a witness will be heard, if there is a division on the committee. Really, how does that tie in with accountability—the fact that in the event of a division the government would get the deciding vote on whether to hear from a witness on a committee that is in large part to hold the government to account? It makes no sense.

I have had many discussions with government members over the last 12 months or so along the lines of, if they are elected, we need a complete overhaul of committees, how they are constructed and how they operate. I make no secret of the fact that I have been chewing anyone's ear who will listen, that some of the lucrative consolation prizes that have gone along with committees need to come to an end. I congratulate the government for getting rid of those chauffeur-driven cars and drivers from those two government-controlled committees that were nothing other than consolation prizes for wannabe ministers—the disgruntled backbench, not quite enough spots on the front bench, give them a car and driver, that will make them happy.

Let us also remind ourselves that there is a lucrative consolation prize that goes with this: $26,000 extra salary goes with this position. Again, I have made no secret, whether to my colleague or to others, that we will be moving to get rid of all these salary bonuses for chairs of parliamentary committees. I just do not think it is necessary—we get paid well enough. We do not need extra lumps of salary exclusively for government members of parliament. It is an anachronism, it has to go; it does not pass the water cooler test or the front bar test.

I will support my colleague in her bid to be the chairperson of this committee. As I have said, she has a long and sustained interest and good connections with these local communities, but, most importantly—and I say it again for the benefit of those on the crossbench—whatever other differences we have, our collective job is to keep the government to account. If we can have a non-government chair of as many standing committees as possible, then I think we are doing proper credit to the role with which the people of South Australia have entrusted us.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (14:41): I was not intending to speak, but, as often happens, the Hon. Rob Lucas provokes a response in what he says. The Hon. Rob Lucas spoke to us about needing to abide by longstanding conventions, and I note how quickly and how hypocritically his view has changed from his time in opposition about needing to do that. I know that in opposition there were longstanding conventions that they saw no need to abide by, but now, all of a sudden, when they are in government it is sacrosanct and has to be abided by.

It is important to remember, when the Hon. Rob Lucas implores us to vote for, amongst other things, the extra pay and prestige associated with the position, why we are here voting as we are today. I think everyone in this place has a huge amount of respect for the Hon. John Dawkins: a more decent, honest and earnest member of parliament I do not think any one of us will have met. He is one of the people who will end his time here having made a difference on issues he has consistently championed, and I pay a great deal of respect to the Hon. John Dawkins for that.

But the reason we are being implored by the Hon. Rob Lucas to afford the extra pay and prestige of the position is because of the Hon. Rob Lucas's own role in the position of President in this chamber. We know, from the Hon. Rob Lucas bragging about it himself to InDaily, that, contrary to the expectation of most people in this chamber (and I expect most people opposite), the Hon. John Dawkins was not made President of this chamber. A little Kirribilli deal happened, that the Hon. Rob Lucas bragged to InDaily about, that saw you, Mr President, installed, acting in the role for two years before the Hon. Terry Stephens takes over. That was well publicised, admitted and bragged about to InDaily by the Hon. Rob Lucas, and that is why we are here today, with the Hon. Rob Lucas imploring us to afford the Hon. John Dawkins the extra pay and extra prestige because of his own role in having done over the Hon. John Dawkins only weeks ago.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (14:43): I had not intended to speak, but I will briefly and I would say, just to respond to the last comment from the Leader of the Opposition (and I thank him for his remarks), that I have no interest in this job for the pay. If the Hon. Mr Parnell was successful in removing the pay from it, then I would still be as interested. The role I have been given by the government in suicide prevention, which I welcome, has no extra pay.

I very briefly want to pay respect to the Hon. Tammy Franks and others who have served on the Aboriginal lands committee for some period. It was my wish, some time ago, to serve on that committee. That did not work out. I have served on a number of other committees that have had quite a bit to do with the Aboriginal lands, both in the north and the west of the state and in other areas I have visited, where there has been a plea to me in relation to the work I do in suicide prevention. However, that is not the abiding reason for my wanting to serve this committee. I have respect for those who have served. I would be happy to learn from those as we go, but I do have strong contacts with people, who I value very highly, from the various Indigenous communities around this state.

The council divided on the amendment:

Ayes 9

Noes 11

Majority 2

Amendment thus negatived; motion carried.