HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-10-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE REVIEW

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:58): I move:

That this house, in light of the agreement in the commonwealth parliament, supports a review of the procedures of the South Australian state parliament and requests the Standing Orders Committee to convene and formulate recommendations, to be reported to this house by 30 June 2011.

When the federal parliament reconvened in September, a few weeks ago, a raft of changes and reforms were passed relating to the many different aspects of the operation of that parliament, including increasing the opportunity for private members to introduce measures and make speeches, quadrupling the time allocated each week for private member's business and an overhaul of question time.

This included limiting questions asked during question time to 45 seconds, ensuring that responses are 'directly relevant' to the question and limited to four minutes. Ministers are also now not allowed to use extensive notes when answering questions, which will put an end to Dorothy Dixers. Changes have also been introduced to increase the effectiveness of parliamentary committees, in that ministers will now have to respond to committee reports within six months or explain why they cannot, have not or could not. The changes to the operation of the federal parliament should provide the impetus and the catalyst for reform to this parliament's standing orders, and also act as a guide for the changes we may wish to see occur.

Attempts over many years (since I have been here) to update the South Australian parliament's standing orders have always failed. Political parties of all persuasions support the idea but only while they are in opposition, never when they are in government. The goodwill that we see in Canberra is an opportunity to do the same here, and I believe that a review of the procedures of the South Australian state parliament by the Standing Orders Committee would be the best place to start.

I believe that, with much goodwill, we can achieve something with the current leadership in position, particularly under the current Speaker (Hon. L.R. Breuer) and Deputy Speaker. Taking into account the government's situation and this opposition, I am sure that we could come up with a situation that could stand the parliament very well into the future. Issues such as whether the Speaker should be independent of both government and opposition and whether the Deputy Speaker should be from a different party, as well as whether the powers of the Speaker to control the house should or could be considered.

A review of the operations of the South Australian parliament by the Standing Orders Committee could include many different aspects of the procedures of parliament including but not limited to the number of sitting days per year. There should be a minimum number required, say, 60 to 70—a lot more than the total of 40 sitting days expected this year. With respect to the hours of sitting, there should be fixed minimum sitting times, say, 11am to 6pm. If the government business concludes before 6pm the house should consider private members' business and committee reports rather than adjourning early. Sitting during meal times should be considered, especially for long debates, such as supply debates, etc.

Set times for major divisions could be considered, such as big divisions on certain debates, as occurs in the United Kingdom parliament. Question time is a farce, we would all agree, with more than half the allocated time used by government members asking ministers Dorothy Dixers—prepared questions and prepared answers. It is a farce.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr VENNING: It has been going on for years.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr VENNING: There are exceptions, but not many. It really is a nonsense that the government is allowed to ask itself questions. Question time is about keeping the government accountable. Ministers should be expected to answer the question, not fudge and dodge them completely. It is answer time as well as question time. Often there is no satisfactory response, and ministers deliberately evade the question.

This is the time when a government is accountable to the parliament. It has been abused and needs to be addressed as a high priority, and the Speaker needs the independence to be able to sit them down without fear of retribution. Question time should consist of 10 questions only from non-government members. Ministers have ample opportunity to sprout their good news via ministerial statements prior to question time.

I also think that time limits should be applied—as happens in the federal parliament—to both the question and the answer to try to combat the waffly, drawn-out answers which do nothing more than help the government run down the clock and avoid scrutinising questions from the opposition or any other non-government party.

Private member's time is another farce, with hundreds of motions blocking up the Notice Paper. Over the years I have tried to remedy this. We need to have a different scheme operating. The whole process needs to be streamlined. Do not let motions hang around forever. Some never get debated—they are never intended to be debated in some cases. The government of the day should not be able to control or manipulate this time. Many motions are continually adjourned. They should automatically fall off the Notice Paper after being there for a certain amount of time. Strict time limits should be put in place.

I believe that parliamentary committees need to be better utilised. Committees need to be revamped to be of more direct value to the parliament. They need to meet more often, with fixed meeting times, and they need to be accountable. Much time could be saved by the parliament if committees scrutinised all legislation prior to it coming before either of the houses. The Notice Paper should be reformed into a one-list system of bills and motions—start at the top and work through to the bottom; two adjournments and they are off the Notice Paper. Use of parliamentary privilege—abuse versus acceptable behaviour needs to come under scrutiny.

Citizens rights of reply—parliament introduced this right some nine years ago. It enables citizens the right of reply if they feel they have been unfairly treated by an MP or the parliament. There have been nine applications, but none accepted. Why? We need strict guidelines and an independent adjudicator. I understand right now, though, there is consideration of a citizen applying to appear before the bar. I hope that that is given good consideration. This decision ought to be made by an independent adjudicator.

Codes of conduct for MPs need to be put in place. Parliamentary protocols need to be reviewed. Technology in the house—use of mobile phones, cameras and computers all needs to be clarified. Televising parliament and public access via the internet, etc.—guidelines need to be put in place and continually reviewed and assessed. The people of South Australia expect their parliament to be more effective, efficient and accountable. It is time to revamp the rules to enable that to happen. It is time we put this above politics and put in place a system that will serve South Australia well into the future.

I believe that the best way for this to occur is for the Standing Orders Committee to conduct a review of the current processes and operations of the parliament and to formulate recommendations to be reported to this house for consideration and, as such, I ask that members support the motion. I am a member of the Standing Orders Committee and I am happy to commit myself to bring about this reform.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:06): I strongly support this motion by the member for Schubert, with one minor consideration; that is, I do not believe the committee needs until the middle of next year to report. We have had a committee inquire into this place before. I think it was chaired by the previous member for Chaffey, if I am correct. I know I have put in numerous submissions and others have as well, but nothing has happened in terms of reforming the way in which we conduct ourselves.

You can nominate just about any other parliament and they have made significant changes. Certainly the Victorian parliament, the Western Australian parliament and Queensland have brought in a whole lot of useful reforms, but we are still going through antiquated procedures here, for example, the Speaker having to vacate the chair during the committee stage. A lot of parliaments got rid of that ritual years ago.

Many parliaments have a committee of the house to look at complex bills. We did it here on one occasion, I think it was one health bill, where the detailed complex aspects of the bill were thrashed out before they came to the floor of the house, so when you get into the parliament you can put something through relatively quickly because you do not have a whole lot of questions being asked ad nauseam about issues which could have and should have been resolved much earlier. If you have a committee of the house, then you can bring in experts from outside, any MP can appear, and so when the minister (or anyone else) introduces a bill it is in a pretty streamlined form, so you are not spending hours carrying on in here unnecessarily.

Other parliaments have introduced a whole lot of other reforms. The federal parliament, as we know, has tightened up question time procedures. We have question time; we do not have answer time. Observing the parliament this week during question time, it is an embarrassment really for people coming in from outside to observe the way in which we conduct ourselves. I have a provision later (and I will not discuss it now, we may get to it) relating to reforming the way in which we operate.

Currently, the Speaker's hands are tied essentially in terms of trying to maintain order, because the reality is that whoever has the majority of numbers in this house will determine whether or not someone is suspended. That is not a fair system and it is not a workable system. Yesterday, we had the Speaker being very generous and giving people three warnings. If you did any of those things in the Queensland parliament, you would have been outside to cool your heels for five or 10 minutes–and that is something that is the substance of a later motion, if we get to it.

The long and the short of it is that we need to reform this place. We are so far behind other parliaments—and that is not the important issue. The issue is: can we be more efficient? We hear moves in another place to set a minimum number of sitting days. What we need is sitting days when we are efficient and effective in representing the people of South Australia, making legislation, keeping the government accountable. It is not the number of sitting days: it is what you do on those sitting days that counts.

Estimates committees I have previously described as a near-death experience. I did not even bother to participate this year because it is basically a waste of time, and you have hundreds and thousands of dollars, of taxpayers' money, being used to prepare questions to answers that will never be asked. It is ludicrous, it is ridiculous, and it is time that we moved forward.

I trust that those who are on the Standing Orders Committee and the Speaker will really reform the way in which we operate because we can do a lot of things a lot better than what we currently do. I support this motion but I do not believe that we need to have a report by 30 June; I think we could have one by the end of February, and that would be quite appropriate. The motion states by 30 June, but that does not preclude it reporting earlier. I support this motion.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (12:11): I support this motion, too. As a new member here I have been amazed at how this place works in some ways. Bills going through the parliament are extremely slow. The processes, as far as I am concerned, are completely wrong. The system we have in place could be streamlined a lot better, and I am sure that those bills could go through in a much more orderly manner and to the satisfaction of all.

Question time, as far as I am concerned, is an absolute disgrace, from both sides of the house. We see the Dorothy Dixers and the often longwinded answers and then, of course, there are always questions from the opposition trying to set up the people in power, but then the people in power actually do not answer the questions that are asked. I believe there should be a much better system in place.

As to the power of the Speaker, I think that when people are not conducting themselves in a manner that they should in this house, the Speaker should have the power to make sure that they can control the house in a much more orderly manner. The theatre is great but I do not think it achieves a lot. I certainly support the idea that we reform this place.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.

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