HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-04-10 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CONSTITUTION (LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL REFORM) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 March 2008. Page 2465.)

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (11:18): I rise to respond to this bill on behalf of the opposition. It is a bill that was, in fact, originally introduced by the member for Fisher back in May 2006. It comprises a package of four bills that the member for Fisher introduced at that time. This particular bill (the Constitution (Legislative Council Reform) Amendment Bill) is coupled with the Referendum (Legislative Council Reform) Bill, which is listed to follow it.

Essentially, what the bill seeks to do can be summarised in two parts. First, it seeks to reduce the term of members of the Legislative Council to four years, and the term would run consecutively with that of this house. Of course, at the moment what happens is that members of the Legislative Council are always up for re-election at the same time as members of this house. However, in their case, they have a half rollover, so only 11 members of the Legislative Council are expected to run for election. The effect, of course, is that the members of the Legislative Council—

The Hon. K.O. Foley interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: On his way through the chamber, the Deputy Premier just commented that members of the Legislative Council are not very hardworking. I am sure that he said that in jest, because I am certain that he recognises how extremely hardworking they are. The Labor government has a firm policy of wanting to abolish the Legislative Council altogether because it considers the council to be an impediment to the government.

As I said, the member for Fisher introduced this bill, one part of which seeks to bring the term of elected members of the Legislative Council into line with that of members of the House of Assembly so that they serve only four years at a time and are then up for re-election. I can see some attraction in that proposition and, indeed, it was the proposition moved in a bill introduced by the member for Mitchell in a previous parliament. As the member for Fisher indicated, this bill goes somewhat further, and it is this aspect of the bill with which the Liberal Party has some difficulty.

In his second reading explanation, the member for Fisher talked about the idea that the Labor Party wants to get rid of the upper house because it says that it is obstructive and delays things. He seeks to introduce a mechanism he hopes will resolve the issue of delay. In essence, he states that the Legislative Council can delay a measure for 45 sitting days; if it does not deal with the matter, there is a mechanism whereby the bill can be transmitted back to the House of Assembly to be dealt with again.

I do not think that this resolves the problem. I understand that the member for Fisher is suggesting that 45 sitting days would be at least six months in a normal sitting calendar and that that is long enough for the council to consider a bill. However, when you look at the reality of the Legislative Council (and we wholeheartedly support its continued existence and think that it fulfils a very valuable role), when the original bill was introduced in May 2006 the then shadow treasurer (Rob Lucas) advised that, of the 200 bills introduced by the Rann government in the last four years, only three were defeated and one was held over due to significant amendment. So, 98 per cent of the government's bills were passed.

As I said, there is some attraction for me in the original proposition that perhaps we should consider moving to standard four-year terms for all members of parliament. I am certainly most happy that we now have a fixed four-year term; I think that that it is one of the few things out of the American voting system I was happy to see adopted here. However, with a pass rate of 98 per cent of government bills going through the upper house, I cannot go along with the idea of obstructionism by that house. It is not defeating the government. One of the things I think the upper house does is very thoroughly consider the legislation. Sometimes in this place I despair at the nature of the debate we have. I have a firm view that, when new members of parliament come into this place, we should provide a training course in the interpretation of bills. It is a standard subject that is undertaken by all first-year law students. I remember when David Wotton was retiring as the member for Heysen, and I came in here following him, he said to me shortly after his retirement, 'I wish that, when I first went into the parliament, I had done some basic law subjects'.

I think too often our members come in without getting any real training on what is a bill, an act, an amendment bill—and how you read them—what is a clause, a section, and all of those sorts of things. As a consequence, I know of members who served in this place for many years without ever feeling confident that they knew how to deal with the detail of legislation and take the matter through the committee stage and so on. Indeed, members avoided participating in the debate or, if they did participate, they did so only in a very generic manner. They did not actually apply themselves to the detail of the legislation.

I believe that in earlier parliaments, probably 100 years ago, we were actually better at dealing with our legislation in this place than we are now, partly because some things have become so complex in our modern community and a lot of our legislation is complex. I really think it is our job as legislators to pay close attention to the bills that come before us and, too often, we fail to do that and we fail to pick over the detail of the bills and question exactly what the impact will be. It happens to be an area I love dealing with, so I enjoy that aspect of the legislation, but it is clear to me that a lot of members in here do not. The point I want to make is that members in the upper house largely spend a lot of time concentrating a lot of their efforts—

The Hon. R.B. Such: Some of them.

Mrs REDMOND: —on the detail of a bill. The member for Fisher interjects, and I am sure he is right. I do not sit up there often enough to observe how much all of the members participate, but my clear impression from what comes back from that place is that they consider a matter in considerable detail and, to me, that seems a lot more productive than the occasions in this chamber when I have seen 47 members get up, each to make a contribution on a particular bill without diagnosing what the bill is, what its relationship is to existing legislation and what the actual clauses will do in terms of how things will be managed under the new legislation.

In fact, I think that our upper house not only should stay but that it is not obstructive. It is simply doing what we, in this chamber, often fail to do: consider the detail of a bill and whether it could be improved by amendment. As I said, 98 per cent of the government's bills in the four years leading up to 2006 were passed by the upper house and, on that basis, it seems to me that, although I understand what the member for Fisher has said, it is a furphy to suggest that it is necessary because the government is making up an allegation about the Legislative Council which cannot be sustained in terms of it being obstructionist. For those reasons, unfortunately on this occasion, the Liberal Party will not be supporting the member for Fisher.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (11:29): I support the second reading of this move by the member for Fisher to amend the circumstances of the upper house members' tenure and the resolution of disputes between the two houses. Personally, I would suggest a different means of resolving disputes between the two houses. Members will be aware that I fully support the shortening of the term of the upper house to four years. I have brought in a bill to do just that, following the constitutional convention a few years ago, which was instigated by another Independent in this house, the Hon. Peter Lewis. The point is not who instigated the convention but the fact that several hundred people chosen at random from the South Australian community attended and decided that this was a good move.

Debate adjourned.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT