HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-09-25 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:37): I move:

That this house supports the reform of this parliament and, in particular, reform of the Legislative Council, including a change to the term of office from eight to four years and the power to delay but not veto, as well as significant changes to the processes and procedures of the House of Assembly.

This motion is an alternative to the series of bills that I have introduced into this parliament previously, seeking to bring about some change to the Legislative Council, in particular. Of course, those changes have to be accompanied by referenda proposals. I seek to achieve the same end by raising these issues via a motion. I deliberately refer to reforming the parliament, meaning both houses, because, while the Legislative Council in my view needs some changes, we also need some changes.

In relation to the Legislative Council, I believe that any attempt by any government to seek to abolish the upper house would fail and backfire and probably burn whoever proposed the measure—not because the wider community necessarily is in love with the Legislative Council but, rather, because it is sceptical and wary of governments. People would be reluctant to see anything which is seen as a possible brake on government or some review of government behaviour and processes abolished. The government could save itself a lot of pain and money by not even contemplating the issue of the abolition of the upper house. It will be a no-win situation for the government and a waste of taxpayers' money if it does that.

The public would support a reform of the Legislative Council with some measures which need to change the Constitution Act. One important aspect is that the term in the upper house needs to be changed from eight years to four years.

The theory underlying the Legislative Council that it is a house of review and that it is very different from the House of Assembly is only partly correct. It was more correct when it was not dominated by political parties—or both chambers were not. The present situation, of course, is that the government does not control the upper house. My prediction is that it is unlikely that any government in the future will be given a mandate in both houses because, as I said earlier, the public is cynical and sceptical of governments and generally fearful that governments might overstep the mark.

What could happen is a change which reduces, as I say, the term of office in the upper house from eight years to four years. That does not create a mirror image of this house because it has, as we know, a different electoral arrangement. I think that the upper house should have an electoral arrangement different from that in this house, not in terms of the entitlement to vote but in the way in which it represents the people of South Australia. I do believe that the upper house should have regions or zones. It used to have something like that years ago, and I think that needs to be revisited, because my view is that if you represent everyone you represent no-one and you are never held to account in the way you should be.

It is the same in councils: if you do not have a ward system, you can pass the buck and blame someone else. If nothing happens, you can say, 'Well, it's not my fault.' I think you must have accountability as a fundamental in a democratic system so that people can say 'You haven't done your job and you will be dealt with via the ballot box.' The reform should not only be to reduce the term of office to four years but also to create regions, or some form thereof. I think that previously they were called 'districts'. You can call them what you like, but what you need is accountability so that people do not get lost in the electoral black hole.

The other thing which I think is vital is that the upper house should have the power to delay but not veto legislation, and the delay should be sufficient so that, if a government of the day was putting forward something which was completely out of sync with the public's desires, the media and the public could organise and agitate to get that measure changed or the government to withdraw it. At the end of the day, a government has to govern and, whilst it is good that a government has the rough edges taken off legislation and has to consult, and so on, a government must ultimately take decisions, some of which will be popular and some of which will not be.

As we know, sometimes we have to do things which may not necessarily be popular in the short term but may be in the public interest in the long term. If you select a reasonable time for a delay without the veto, I think that is the way to go. The bill I introduced previously allowed, in effect, for what you could call a glorified conference of the houses to sort out aspects of the disagreement. However, ultimately, if that did not work out, the measure would come back to the lower house for a re-endorsement. So, checks and balances are built into the system. Many other aspects of parliamentary reform are needed in our house, but one aspect that I think we should be looking at is bills which are controversial and bills which are significant other than the rats-and-mice type of legislation.

Those bills should come before a committee where members can meet and discuss so that, when it comes to the chamber, we do not have long, drawn out, repetitious debate about a matter which should have been sorted out ages ago. I think we should be moving towards a system where a major piece of legislation—and the definition of 'major' could be spelt out so that it could be triggered by a number of members or by some other process so that a matter would go to a committee to which any member could attend and participate in a more informal setting, and the minister could be there with advisers, and so on, and refine the measure down so that, when it came in here, the rough edges had been dealt with.

There are many other things. The estimates committee process, which I have been on about for years, is very ineffective. I think there are other alternatives and ways in which that can be made more effective. I believe that members from the upper house should be able to participate in that process. Likewise, in regard to the matter of prorogation, which has received some attention lately, I believe that a suitably qualified constitutional expert should have a look at that and, if it does need change and if we have to change the constitution, we could put it to the voters at the next election.

Tasmania does not do it and the commonwealth does not have this ongoing stop/start parliament. I do not think it is necessary in this day and age. It was meant to be a safeguard years ago to stop governments becoming, in essence, arrogant and avoiding scrutiny, but I do not think in the current format that it is necessary. I think it is a costly and unnecessary interruption to the business of the parliament.

In regard to some of the other measures that are needed, I like the idea in Victoria and Queensland, where the Speaker can send a misbehaving member out of the chamber immediately, without any reference to a vote. I think that is a simple, common-sense approach. If a member is disorderly or is acting in a way that disrupts the house, I think the Speaker should be able to say, 'You're on your bike; you're out,' for half an hour, 10 minutes, or whatever. In this place the Speaker has to have the support of the house, which is difficult because, if the offender is a minister, the government is unlikely to support such a motion. So we have a lopsided disciplinary process that is unnecessarily complicated. Many members would only require a bit of extra oxygen and a bit of reflection in the corridor for five or ten minutes to encourage them to behave themselves when they returned to the chamber.

I think we have been far too conservative in this parliament in not bringing about changes in the way that we conduct ourselves. There have been some changes. For example, giving the public a right of reply, or potentially a right of reply, is good in theory. It may not always be that good in that it can initially, anyway, cause a hassle if someone does not have a substantive complaint to make, but in principle it is something that I support. This parliament has lagged behind other parliaments, and we still do, in relation to reform. Other parliaments have moved on in simple things such as when dealing with a bill. Our current arrangement is that we go into committee and the Speaker goes out. Other places do not have the stop/start, Speaker in/out arrangement that we cling to.

These are not all the reforms that could occur, but I think it is in all our interests and certainly in the interests of the people of South Australia to ensure that we have a parliament that is as efficient and effective as it possibly can be. We need to look at things such as electronic voting, and I believe the new sound system that has been installed can be modified to allow electronic voting, so members might be able to vote from their office without actually coming into the chamber, or the whip could, in effect, indicate a vote on behalf of some other member. Obviously you need checks and safeguards in that event, but some parliaments now basically allow the whips to indicate the support or otherwise for a measure. We would have to be careful how we do it so that it is not abused and there is no denial of a member's right to have a say but, done properly, I think we could do things a lot more efficiently and effectively in this house.

Likewise, I think a lot of our processes in terms of using paper could be reformed. I am a bit of a Neanderthal in that I still like paper rather than electronics, but I think we could save a lot of money and time by moving to more electronic formats of paperwork in this place. We do some of it, but I think we could do a lot more. I question whether—and this is no reflection on Hansard, who do a great job—it is vital to our democracy to record everything we say in this place. Some of it may be important, but how many members would have read all the copies of Hansard that stretch back 100 years? Most of them gather dust, which is probably what they are worth. It is an incredibly expensive system that we run here, and I wonder whether it is really in the interests of democracy or whether it is more to do with our egos.

We need to reform this place and the other place and we need to get moving on it, because we are currently at the end of the pack. If you visit other parliaments, you will find that we are dragging the chain in terms of reform. We do not want reform just for the sake of it: we want reform which makes this parliament genuinely representative and a key player in what is a fantastic, but not perfect, democratic system. I have great respect for the traditions of this place; sometimes we get a bit casual about them, but what we have in this place is the result of many people sacrificing their lives in developing a system which gives us the privilege to represent the people of this state. I think we need to ensure that we reform frequently but not unnecessarily, and I think the challenge is there to reform both houses. I commend the motion to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.

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