Legislative Council Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Motions Parliamentary Committees Parliamentary Committees Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. T.A. Franks: That this council— 1.	Notes that in 2022 this council passed a motion recognising the ongoing resourcing issues within the current committee system of the Legislative Council, especially select committees, and requesting that the Clerk of the Legislative Council commence implementation of the formal recommendations contained in the Report of the Select Committee on the Effectiveness of the Current System of Parliamentary Committees to the current committee structure; and 2.	Seeks a report from the Clerk on the implementation of this February 2022 motion’s request. (Continued from 11 September 2024.) The Hon. M. EL DANNAWI Legislative Council The Hon. M. EL DANNAWI (12:19): I rise on behalf of the government to speak briefly and indicate our support for this motion. From the outset I acknowledge the mover, the Hon. Tammy Franks, and also the Hon. Connie Bonaros for their longstanding advocacy for reform in this area. The 2021 report of the Select Committee on the Effectiveness of the Current System of Parliamentary Committees made a range of recommendations. Some of these relate to reform of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, recommending a particular structure for parliamentary committees that would require the abolition of some current committees, the creation of new ones and adjustment to others. While the government does not have a position on the particular model recommended in the 2021 report, we see this motion as a sensible step to progress the concerns raised by the committee. Aside from legislative reform, the committee also made recommendations relating to staff support for committees, standing orders amendments and commentary on a range of other non-legislative issues affecting the effectiveness of parliamentary committees. The government therefore supports this motion as a way to progress the discussion on these issues. Members of this council and members in the other place put a significant amount of time and energy into the work of parliamentary committees. At best, committees can shine a light on issues that might otherwise not gain attention. They can give a voice to community members and organisations and provide a direct community between the parliament and everyday South Australians. However, it is important that the time and resources devoted to parliamentary committees are used as effectively as possible. The government therefore supports this motion and looks forward to further discussions on this matter. The Hon. C. BONAROS Legislative Council The Hon. C. BONAROS (12:22): I rise to speak in support of the motion and thank the honourable member for bringing it forward, and I echo the sentiments just expressed by the Hon. Ms El Dannawi. We have spoken about this issue at length in this place. That committee referred to here has aged now and a bill has been sitting on the Notice Paper for some time. I cannot help but think that, despite the positive words, without some real action we will not be any better off. I think that the Legislative Review Committee is sick of me saying that if we implement the recommendations of the committee on committees then perhaps we will not find ourselves in this position. There is also a cynical part of me that thinks this is precisely what we want to do: we want to tie the hands of members of this place and the other behind their backs and effectively allow us to drown in the workload of committees and distract us from other parliamentary business. That is the only conclusion that I am now logically able to reach, given the very sensible recommendations made in that report and the dire need for them. I challenge any member of this place or the other to tell me that our committee structure in this parliament, which is often, with respect, referred to very negatively on a national platform—I have been told at conferences that we are effectively the laughing stock of Australia when it comes to our committee structure because it is so archaic and behind the times. Somewhat cynically, I almost think that is deliberate. I think perhaps the reason we do not have the support that those recommendations deserve to date is that it is a good way to distract members of parliament, by tying them up in committee work. I cannot think of another explanation for not supporting the bill that was introduced in this place that sought to implement the recommendations. I remind honourable members that there was unanimous support across the political divide at the time for those recommendations. Like I said, I would challenge anyone in this place or the other to tell me that it is not a big load for them and their staff, for the clerks and their staff and for the team of staff who have to work between all the committees and the inquiries that are running. They are sensible reforms. I appreciate that it is on the public record that we have previously had evidence from the clerks presented to the Legislative Review Committee that touches on this issue and effectively highlights that, in the absence of legislative reforms, some of the recommendations—and the ones that we probably most want to see implemented—cannot be advanced. That said, I think it is very reasonable to request of the clerks a response in terms of the implementation of the formal recommendations, as has been highlighted in this motion, and seek some sort of update to see where we are at. If we keep going like this, then I think it is not just a disservice to the members in this place but a disservice to every single witness who appears before those committees and does their level best to highlight issues that are of public importance to the state of South Australia. The fact that there are inquiries that are waiting so long to get off the ground, the fact that people give up their time to come here and provide evidence that ought to be acted on by us in a very reasonable timeframe, but there are delays because of the workload of members, their staff and the staff of this chamber and the other is completely and utterly unacceptable. To be frank—and I am probably going to say something now I should not—when you are juggling that many committees and that many inquiries, you get to a point where you just say, 'Well, it's just going to have to wait,' because there is only so much that we can physically do on committees outside of sitting in this place. You can absolutely tie yourself up on committee work every single day that you are not in here. That does not allow you much time to prepare for parliament. It certainly does not allow you enough time to deal with your constituent issues or all the other responsibilities that we have as members of parliament. That is not a good outcome for anybody. It is not a good outcome for members, it is not a good outcome for their staff and it is most certainly not a good outcome for the public of South Australia. I think we need to get serious about not just requesting those updates to see where we are at but also that we are falling behind the recommendations, which were made in line with every other jurisdiction in the nation, including the federal jurisdiction. We are the only ones in this position. We are the only ones who have resisted very logical changes, changes in fact that could make this place, this chamber, work more effectively and efficiently and free up our time more. It is not groundbreaking stuff. It is not earth-shattering, it is just logical. I know in that committee I always compare our processes with the processes of the Senate, which are, in many respects, much more streamlined and efficient. If you have worked across different jurisdictions and you see the difference between the way we do things and the way others do, then you get a real appreciation of just how backwards we are here in terms of those processes. I remind honourable members that at the last count—and I cannot remember the last time I quoted these figures—it was something like 93 per cent of our laws, or 95 per cent of our laws, are now made by regulation. We do not even see them. The Legislative Review Committee gets a list that is pages long each sitting Wednesday, and apparently we, with the terms of reference available to us, are solely responsible for that scrutiny. This chamber, which ought to know what is happening in that committee, because that is where the bulk of laws that are impacting South Australians are made, would not have the faintest idea what the government of the day is trying to pass into law via regulation. We have had enormous concerns raised in that committee about substantive changes, particularly when it relates to our criminal codes, being slipped into regulations and dealt with via that method of lawmaking as opposed to being introduced in this place and going through the robust debate that a bill would go through. That is happening more and more, and it is unacceptable. Ultimately, it is impossible for all of us to be on top of that sort of volume of legislation and regulation without an appropriate scrutiny committee, and the Legislative Review Committee is the only one that we have that touches on the issue of scrutiny. But even the material that is provided to that committee more often than not is left wanting. We are constantly having to ask for more detail. I do remember under the previous government an adviser saying to us, and I heard this, 'We don't want to give you more because it might alert you to the concerns that were raised by stakeholders. That is why we provide you such minimalist reports.' Well, guess what? We are going to get on the phone and we are going to ring those stakeholders anyway, and inevitably we are going to get a hold of the material that you are not disclosing to us via that committee. It completely undermines the role and function of that committee and the committee process in its entirety. I have spoken about this at length. I am very glad that the honourable member has put forward this motion requiring that update in terms of resourcing issues in particular. I think we all have questioned, 'What is going on? How do you get appointed a secretary, a research officer?' or whatever the case may be. 'How is it that committees are resourced? Are they effectively resourced?' I know we have certainly raised time and time again the resourcing of the Legislative Review Committee, which effectively has a double load. That committee does a lot of work, but it is also the only committee that allows you to have your finger on the pulse in terms of all the laws that are actually passing this parliament. That is information and there are reports that we should all be considering, because there are decisions being made that none of us are aware of on a daily basis, and hopefully we will flag them and put in a disallowance motion. You see tonnes of those now through the Legislative Review Committee, even in terms of a holding motion to enable us to get the information we need and hopefully report back to other members as to whether there is anything that ought to be of concern and then actually proceed with a disallowance motion. I think I have spoken enough. I think I have made my point. I thank the honourable member for raising this issue again and I look forward to receiving the reports in line with what she has proposed. The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI Legislative Council Leader of the Opposition The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (12:33): I rise to speak on the motion relating to the report of the Select Committee on the Effectiveness of the Current System of Parliamentary Committees. I will be quick. The report into the effectiveness of committees was unanimously supported with good reason. It is clear that there is a uniform desire for the committee structure to be as efficient as possible and agreement that effective committees are essential for the operation of the Westminster system. The opposition is in favour of reforms that make committees more effective and efficient and that committees are properly resourced so that all of us can do our jobs in representing the South Australian public to the best of our ability. There have been several different options of resourcing raised during the course of these discussions over the years, and the report of the Select Committee on the Effectiveness of the Current System of Parliamentary Committees included recommendations about expertise of staff and access to specialist staff as required. These are all measures that have the end result of making the committee process more effective. For those reasons, the opposition supports the motion. The Hon. T.A. FRANKS Legislative Council The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (12:34): I thank those members who have made a contribution today: the Leader of the Opposition the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, the Hon. Mira El Dannawi, and the Hon. Connie Bonaros. I also thank the Hon. Kyam Maher, as Leader of Government Business in this place, for his conversations and support on this important matter. It is actually as a house of review that we often see ourselves, in the Westminster system, in this Legislative Council. Part of that review is the important work of committees. In fact, we had an entire committee on committees, which does seem a little farcical, but I think Yes, Minister is sometimes used as a bit of a guidebook rather than being a fictional portrayal of parliaments. In this case, it is a little Yes, Minister. The PSA approached me about this issue and sought clarity about how we were resourcing our committees in this place. I note that today we will pass this motion and seek an update on what the previous parliament's Legislative Council resolved to see happen, and I look forward to that report being provided. Mr President, if you could provide some clarity on how that will be provided—not right now, but to be taken on notice—so that all members in this place know how we will receive the report, whether it will be tabled or simply circulated. Just today, I note that I am on two particular committees that are conflicting and am being presented with the option of whether I want one committee to report or the other committee to report, because it is the same researcher. Both are really pressing political issues to which witnesses have devoted their time; now we are in a position, because of the lack of appropriate resourcing, where one of those committees is not going to get a timely report. I do not know what decision we will make between just those two committees. This is what happens when we are not properly resourcing, applying ourselves to the proper resourcing, particularly in terms of human resources, of our committee system to enable that to function. For those members who are newer than me, I point out that when I started in this place a lot more of the administration of committees was provided to us by the parliament. These days our staff officers are required to do the collation of folders and the photocopying, largely. A lot of those aspects of that role have been taken on within our offices. I have raised that with the PSU as a potential enterprise bargaining concern, and note that enterprise bargaining is occurring not just with our offices as MPs but within the parliament, and that there is a forthcoming bill looking at professionalising this place with a chief executive and some parliamentary reform. I hope this report informs all those discussions, and thank members for their support today. I note that we are reaffirming our commitment to really, truly being a better house of review. Motion carried.