Bills

Parliamentary Committees (Referral of Petitions) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 21 February 2024.)

The Hon. S.L. GAME (17:02): The five inquiries that are currently before the Legislative Review Committee due to meeting the threshold of 10,000 signatures from members of the South Australian public could certainly be dealt with more efficiently, as is the aim of this bill. Ensuring that an appropriate committee can inquire into an issue, it is already geared towards the democratic measure I support.

I currently have my loss-of-foetus petition and First Nations Voice petition circulating, and I would like to see them both dealt with promptly in due course. This bill will address that. I commend the bill.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (17:02): I rise to support the honourable member's Parliamentary Committees (Referral of Petitions) Amendment Bill, not only as a colleague in this chamber but as a colleague on the Legislative Review Committee. I do indeed thank the honourable member for acting upon this issue—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: —for our sanity. I know that this bill has been prompted by an unexpectedly high number of eligible petitions received by the Legislative Review Committee. They are petitions of not less than 10,000 signatures and comply with relevant requirements set by the standing orders.

Over the time that I have been either a member or indeed a Chair of the Legislative Review Committee, the referral of petitions legislation has been in place. I think it is an important piece of legislation because issues that clearly have the support of a reasonable number of South Australians do deserve to be inquired into and reported on in this chamber, and they deserve that the inquiry be thorough. They also deserve to have the government of the day respond to the inquiry and any recommendations that form part of the report.

The Hon. R.A. Simms: Good luck with that.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: The Hon. Mr Simms says 'good luck', and I agree. They do not expect and should not expect members of parliament to have to say to members of the public, 'We are sorry that your petition hasn't been looked at, or has been looked at briefly, because there are so many and we don't have the time or the resources to get through them all.'

I am quite sure that is not what the petitioners expect when they put their name to and sign these petitions. They expect we, the parliament, to take petitions seriously, and so they should. However, those of us who inhabit the Legislative Review Committee will attest to the large numbers of petitions that are currently before us. This is on top of the day-to-day important work of the committee, that is, reviewing subordinate legislation or regulations. This work in itself has increased significantly over the years due to the large amounts of subordinate legislation now delegated to executive agencies.

The Legislative Review Committee has long felt that change is required to the legislation due to this workload. I have spoken in this chamber previously on this matter, and I reiterate my thanks to the Hon. Connie Bonaros for bringing this amendment bill before the parliament. Whilst not wanting to pre-empt debate, I hope and suspect we will have multipartisan support.

This bill amends section 16B of the act, allowing immediately and without passing through the Legislative Review Committee the relevant chamber to refer an eligible petition to the appropriate standing committee. This is faster, just as effective and ensures right away that the appropriate committee receives the petition and associated cause or issue.

Clauses 2 to 10 of this amendment bill amend the act to allow each of the parliamentary standing committees to inquire into, consider and report on petitions referred to them under the aforementioned amended section 16B. Finally, clause 12 makes necessary consequential amendments by substituting in the act, where appropriate in section 19, the title of 'Legislative Review Committee' with simply 'a committee'.

The current and ongoing issue and the fix from this amendment bill is, as I would see it, twofold: (1) it will relieve the associated workload of all eligible petitions from the Legislative Review Committee; and (2) it will ensure that the appropriate committee is the one inquiring into an issue in an immediate sense. This is a sensible amendment bill, and there is nothing here that the opposition disagrees with. I also indicate, whilst on my feet, that we, the opposition, are supportive of the Hon. Connie Bonaros' transition provision amendment, which I think is also sensible and allows for petitions that have already been received to be dealt with in a similar fashion. I am very happy, particularly as a member of the Legislative Review Committee, to commend this bill to the chamber.

The Hon. R.B. MARTIN (17:07): I rise today to indicate the government's support of the Parliamentary Committees (Referral of Petitions) Amendment Bill, and I do so very gladly. The referral of petitions is an important part of our representative government and an important platform through which we as a parliament can listen to members of the public. It was through a bill introduced in 2019 that this platform was created, and we note that it was an important reform.

When this bill was introduced into parliament, it was suggested that the Legislative Review Committee was likely best placed to absorb the new function of inquiry into eligible petitions due to its existing scrutiny function and due to its available capacity, capacity that was not at that time shared by committees such as the Social Development Committee. Speakers at the time noted that this new process was not expected to bring about a significant amount of work for the committee on the basis that at the time there had been so few eligible petitions ever tabled.

Since these reforms were introduced, a significant amount of work has eventuated, with there currently being five eligible petitions before the committee for consideration and reporting. Aside from its scrutiny function, there is no compelling reason for the Legislative Review Committee to continue being the one chosen to examine all petitions. Other parliamentary committees are charged with a vast array of functions that cover a diverse range of policy areas, committees that may be better placed to consider the subject matter of eligible petitions. The government will continue to look at these reforms and consider any further related amendments before the bill's passage in the House of Assembly. With that, I commend the bill to the chamber.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:09): What is left to say? I think all of my colleagues have articulated the reasons why this bill should be supported. The Greens also support this bill. We thank the Hon. Connie Bonaros for putting this on the agenda.

As has been stated, it will, I think, streamline some of the activities of the parliament in terms of ensuring that petitions go to the relevant committee but also, and most importantly, give the community a clearer pathway of getting a message to a parliamentary committee and to the parliament. I do not think I need to reiterate the comments that have already been made by my colleagues, and I am delighted to see the government supporting this bill. I hope that they will see fit to support the bill that I have been advancing around requiring them to respond to committee reports in a timely manner, but I will address that down the track. For now, I celebrate this win and congratulate the Hon. Connie Bonaros on that.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:10): I thank all honourable members for their contributions—the Hon. Ms Game, the Hon. Ms Centofanti, the Hon. Mr Martin and the Hon. Mr Simms—and congratulate all of us for this good outcome. I feel like we are one step closer to committee reform today, which is a wonderful feeling. The only other thing I will say is perhaps a special mention to the Hon. Reggie Martin and the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, who have worked very collaboratively on this issue at a committee level to ensure today's outcome, which I think is a good indication of what we are able to do when we put our heads together.

I might speak to the amendment now, just so that members understand what we are doing. There is one amendment that we will be moving to this bill. It might help members if we speak to that now. As other members have alluded to, there are a number of petitions before the committee already. We have six, but one of those—effectively, we are ready to report on that petition. We have five others, and what the amendment will do is ensure that they automatically go back to the house where they originated so that they can be referred out again to the most appropriate committee. That is all it does. They are not listed. We do not need to because by the time we implement this there might be more eligible petitions as well.

With those words, I want to thank all of us and commend all of us for working so collaboratively on this issue. Also, just in closing, I want to commend, of course, the former member who brought this before the parliament, because it was a very important reform. Although the numbers might be somewhat unexpected, I think they are very welcome and a good sign of democracy at work and working well. I think that warrants us to ensure that those petitions are dealt with appropriately by this place and given the attention that they deserve. With those words, I thank all honourable members for this joint collaboration and look forward to the speedy passage of this bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Given the Hon. Reggie Martin is sitting right next to me, and I know the Attorney is very eager to ask me this question, I might just clarify that when we do move that amendment all the evidence that has already been provided to the Legislative Review Committee will transfer with the petition. It is not a matter of starting again. For the benefit of all members: we are not starting again, they take the whole kit and caboodle with them. So that is just by way of clarification and in answer to those very important questions.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 12 passed.

New schedule 1.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 4, after line 5—Insert:

Schedule 1—Transitional provision

1—Transitional provision

(1) On the commencement of this clause—

(a) despite the provisions of section 16B(1) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Legislative Review Committee is not required to inquire into, consider or report on a relevant petition; and

(b) the House in which a relevant petition was tabled must refer the relevant petition to an appropriate Committee; and

(c) any evidence received by the Legislative Review Committee during an inquiry into a relevant petition—

(i) is, by force of this paragraph, referred to the Committee to which the relevant petition has been referred pursuant to paragraph (b) for its consideration; and

(ii) must be provided by the Legislative Review Committee to the Committee to which the relevant petition has been referred.

(2) In this clause—

eligible petition has the same meaning as in section 16B of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991;

relevant petition means an eligible petition that has, on or after 5 May 2023, been referred to the Legislative Review Committee pursuant to section 16B of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 as in force before the commencement of this clause.

New schedule inserted.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:15): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.