HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-06-30 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Committees

Select Committee on the Waite Trust (Vesting of Land) Bill

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL (Schubert—Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government, Minister for Planning) (20:23): I bring up the report of the select committee, together with minutes of proceedings.

Report received.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It has been received. We will move that it be noted and then I think we will be able to throw to speakers. Minister, could you move that that report be noted?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Mr Deputy Speaker, it was the will of the committee that the report be tabled and it was a resolution of the committee that that is what we do today.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It has been tabled. You can move that it be noted.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (20:24): I move:

That the report be noted.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is an acceptable motion. Sit down.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just wait, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I had a preceding motion to lay it on the table—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You will have to speak up, minister, I cannot hear what you are saying. Member for West Torrens, can you just take a seat for a moment, please.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sir, I moved a motion.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I had a preceding motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let's wind it back a bit. The Minister for Transport has come in and tabled a report.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Then I moved that it be noted.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It will be in the hands of the minister. Did you move earlier that it be noted or not?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: He does not want to debate it, sir.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I moved that it be received, and then I said that it was a resolution of the committee that the report be tabled.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, that has happened, but it still needs to be noted.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I might seek advice from the Clerk, but it was the resolution of the committee that the report be tabled.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The report has been tabled. It is not absolutely necessary that the minister move that it be noted.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I moved that it be noted, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: So we are back to the member for West Torrens, who has moved that it be noted. Is that seconded?

Ms Stinson: It is, sir, yes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are okay, member for West Torrens. It has been moved and seconded but not passed. You now have the opportunity to speak.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: For how long, sir?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It sounds like 20 minutes.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Excellent. Thank you, sir. The incompetence of the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure knows no bounds—absolutely none. The arrogance of this—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are debating the report.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, sir. The arrogance of this young man boggles me—the idea that he could somehow hold two committee meetings on a hybrid bill. The minister held the meeting today while the Labor Party caucus was on, and the two Labor members could not attend because we were at a caucus meeting. Discourteous does not cover the arrogance of what this minister has done—the idea that any government would use its numbers to hold a select committee while a caucus is on, knowing that we cannot attend, and then attempt to stop debate here on a bill that has bipartisan support.

The bill is going to pass. All we wanted to do was have one hearing, but the minister refused even to contemplate that. He refused to contemplate that it was a hybrid bill and fought that the whole way. When he found out it was a hybrid bill, he was forced to have a select committee. He tried to ram it through the select committee. He even sat and held the committee meeting while the bells were ringing.

Everyone in this parliament knows that when the bells are ringing committee meetings end because the house takes precedence but, of course, the minister is using his numbers in the parliament to override the precedence of this parliament.

Ms Stinson: Just arrogant.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Arrogant, and stupid alongside him. Arrogant and stupid, maladministrating his way through his first two years as a minister. Misconduct and maladministration are his catchcry, aren't they, Stephan? We will all find out soon enough about the maladministration and misconduct going on in his office.

We are now going to have a report that committee members have not even had the chance to consider. I have not seen a copy of it and I am on the committee. The minister tables it and then tries to vote against even the parliament considering it. There is a definition of arrogance, sir: it resides in the member for Schubert. How can he possibly turn up during caucus? That is right—leave the caucus to come to a committee meeting. Well, caucus meetings and party room meetings are there for a reason. The parliament even provides space for these.

This minister has attempted to do this on a bill that we have agreed to pass. I even gave my word to the minister that it will pass before the winter recess and he still cannot keep to an agreement; he still cannot do it. I gave him my word that it would pass this parliament, this house and the upper house, and he still cannot bring himself to abide by any common sense or common decency. I do not know what the report says. He has just tabled it. He had a meeting with just Liberal members and decided this is good enough. It is a whitewash.

Ms Stinson: What a joke.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: And it is a joke. All he had to do was accommodate the opposition for one meeting, and he could not bring himself to do it. Why? Because he is a child; he is an absolute child. Everything he has he has had given to him, and now, when he cannot get his way, he just uses the numbers, which is why his career is littered with incompetence, backflips, people briefing against him in his own party room, telling him daily that he is the best Labor MP in the parliament. That is how much they think of him. And now he does this again.

What is wrong when the opposition say we will support this bill? I gave him my word that it will pass both houses of parliament before the winter recess if he only allowed us to attend the committee meeting rather than schedule it when caucus is sitting. He was told caucus was on and we could not go. But, sir, without—

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: Hang on! Tom, when did you provide that?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You told it to the Clerk of the committee.

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: When? What time this morning? How many minutes before the start of the meeting?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, you will have an opportunity later on. Member for West Torrens, you are labouring this point.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: This is what I am being forced to deal with as manager of opposition business and government business: a child, a child with an idiot standing behind him who has not been here long enough to know how the parliament works. It is a hybrid bill—did not want it to happen. Select committee—sat while the bells were ringing; pure breach of the standing orders. Then he holds a meeting while the caucus is on knowing we cannot be there and then tries to ram it through, and when we wanted to have a debate on what the report says he voted no. He did not want to even debate it. He just wanted it tabled. That is childish and undemocratic.

Ms Stinson: And pointless.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, and pointless, because we agree with the bill. We agree with the bill, but we have the coach alongside here who knows nothing about parliamentary procedure other than what he is told by his staff, and then just smiles—just smiles.

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: Stay on track.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Stay on track. Well, the good thing about—

Ms Stinson: Is that advice you are giving to Stephan?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, well, the advice being given to Stephan is not by his colleagues; it is by lawyers, isn't it, Stephan? It is by lawyers. We will find out soon enough what those lawyers have said, won't we, Stephan? Smile all you like. I know what we are talking about. Do your colleagues? Have you told them?

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: Well, why don't you say?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You have not told them, have you?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Do not worry; they will find out soon enough.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: They will find out soon enough, but that is alright. In my experience, there would be one person concerned about you: you—and the rest will be thinking to themselves, 'Ah, a vacancy!' That is what your colleagues will be thinking. I would have thought the prudent thing to do with a bill that has bipartisan support is, rather than agitate the opposition to the point where we have these debates unnecessarily, actually have a meeting when the opposition can be there. It is just not that difficult.

The worst part about it is the member for Schubert knows that I am not that difficult to work with and that when he has asked me for things and called me for things I generally agree with everything he asks me to do. He stopped me in the middle of the street yesterday to say that the opposition had agreed to suspend standing orders this morning. I was not told a thing, yet we had an agreement that I would be given 24 hours' notice of any suspension. That did not occur. He spoke to me about it, it was fine. This minister knows that when he calls me things happen smoothly.

What has happened here is that he has not turned up to the debate on time. The house is confused about what is going on because he is not here. He gets here and he tries to subvert the process of the parliament by saying, 'I just want the report tabled, not noted,' so that we cannot have this debate, in a childish, immature manner. Then, when he is forced to hear the debate, he does not like what is being said about the way he is trying to railroad the parliament on a bill that everyone agrees on.

There is no debate here: we agree with what the government is doing. All we wanted to do was have one meeting on the hybrid bill at the Waite campus—one meeting; one meeting so that local residents would have an opportunity to come along and talk about the change in use of trust land for a road. That is it: one meeting, one night.

He did not even have the courtesy to include the local member of parliament on the select committee. It is not a requirement but it has been a practice of this parliament since hybrid bills began. There has always been the opportunity afforded to local members, where a hybrid bill is the subject in their electorate, to be on it. It is just a common courtesy.

Of course, the minister was so obsessed with having a majority on the committee that he could not have the member for Davenport on it, even though they are close personal friends, and I doubt there is any instance where the member for Davenport would not have done what the member for Schubert wanted. But he could not even bring himself to do that. It is because he is immature.

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: He is the member for Waite, sir.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Is it Waite, is it? My apologies.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, and, member for West Torrens, you are straying—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We are debating—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens, I am just going to say something here. You are straying into a breach of standing order 127(3), making personal reflections on any other member. You have done it on a couple of occasions, in my opinion, so I ask you to be careful about that, please.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You know that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, I do. I was doing it deliberately, sir.

Mr Teague: You are being broadcast to the public. Children are watching.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know that, and now I have warned you, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Children are watching, are they?

Mr Teague: They are.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: My children?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: But we are not engaging in—

Mr Teague: I don't know. I hope not.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Heysen, we are not engaging in—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You hope not, do you? What a class act.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know it is after dinner—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So that is okay, is it? That is okay?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it is not. He is interjecting. It is out of order, member for Heysen. Back on track, please, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Classless, baseless, petty thugs, that is what they are—petty thugs. Fancy saying to a member of parliament that your remarks are being watched by children and they find it offensive. Fancy that as a retort.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens, do not be distracted by interjections. You do not need to be.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will not be, sir. I will not be by the backbencher who left a—I will not say a lucrative legal career because he was actually my lawyer for a brief moment, a brief moment that I now regret. Anyway, back to this report. I was suing a Liberal Party candidate and he was my lawyer against that Liberal Party candidate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Back to the report.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Back to the report, sir. The minister has a bill that we are prepared to support, and I gave him my word that we would support the bill and that we would pass it before the winter recess. I asked him for the ability to have a committee meeting. The first committee meeting was to decide whether or not we would have a meeting. The minister was elected Chair. He then refused to contemplate an external other meeting.

The bells rang and the member for Port Adelaide and myself left to attend the parliament, but they continued to meet while the bells were ringing, which I think is probably a breach of privilege; however, they continued to do so. They then scheduled another meeting while the bells were ringing, even though the house takes precedence over any committee. They then scheduled another meeting while there was a caucus, so the member for Port Adelaide and I obviously had an obligation to our party room, as all members do in this place, and we were at our party room meeting. Why?

The Minister for Energy has two bills before the parliament and I was briefing our caucus on supporting those bills. I have responsibilities as a shadow minister as well; there are other important pieces of legislation that need agreement from our party room so that we can endorse here in the parliament.

This minister came up with a cunning plan: 'I know how to circumvent the democratic process. What I'll do is I'll hold the committee meeting while the caucus is on,' so we cannot turn up. Now he wants us to note or agree on a report that I have not seen. I have not seen it. He did not even have the decency to ring me and say, 'By the way, I note you couldn't be there today because your caucus was on, but this is what the committee resolved,' like any other Chairperson on any other committee would have done.

Most members here know how collegial most committees usually are. The Chairperson, regardless of political persuasion, generally gets on pretty well with everyone on the committee and it works in a way that is collegial. Not this minister. He did not even have the common courtesy to let the opposition know, to forward me a copy of the report before he tabled it. What does that say about the Manager of Government Business?

This is what it says about him: he knows I have already agreed to support this bill, he knows we will give it speedy passage so, 'Bugger the process, bugger the procedures, bugger the niceties, bugger democracy, I'll do whatever I like.' That is probably why he announced he was cutting 1,000 bus stops and refused to tell everyone about it, just told them to go and look it up themselves. That is probably why his colleagues do not have much time for him anymore and probably why his future is about to be under a big cloud—and he knows exactly why that is.

I do not know what this report says because we have not been given the common decency or courtesy of seeing it. The minister even refused to move that it be noted, so we do not even know what his view is on the report, that is how much contempt he has for this parliament. Perhaps the minister might want to explain to me, in his remarks back, what the report says about the change of use, whom he consulted with about the change of use, because—

Ms Stinson: It wasn't a Labor member, was it?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It was not Labor members and it was not the community of Waite; it was not them. For the member for Waite's benefit, this is what the minister said about the annexation of the Peter Waite Trust land for the purposes of a road: 'There will be plenty of opportunities later for them [the people of Waite] to be consulted on the road.' Our point was: at what point do they get consulted about the annexation of land from the trust? They do not because the minister has decided it shall be so.

To be fair to him we agree, because the roadworks are important. All we wanted to do was give people the common courtesy of one hearing, and he refused. For the life of me I do not know why. My guess is that he did not want this to be a proxy for other issues in the electorate of Waite, whether it be the controversial aspect of the upgrades or the historic building on the intersection that is scheduled either for demolition or for being moved. It is a historic landmark, and I understand that a lot of local residents are concerned about that.

There is also the school and the school community, who are losing some amenity. I understand from the briefings we have received that they are losing some car parks and some tennis courts. DPTI has given us an assurance that it will make good on what they lose, but I would have thought that the local community would have liked the right to canvass that with the minister themselves, to get that assurance back from the minister himself.

Of course, they will not have that opportunity. The local member of parliament was not even given the opportunity to make a submission, but I suppose when you are close friends it does not really matter; it is just, 'Sam will be okay; it won't matter. Tom and Susan don't count because they're the Labor members. They're not important. The process is not important. We have the numbers and we'll just do whatever we like.'

That is not how this place works. This is not the Young Liberals or Young Labor: this is the Parliament of South Australia, and process matters. Regardless of the outcome, the process matters. In the end, in this house, because the government is the government, they will win. The important part of the process is the scrutiny, because out of the scrutiny occasionally you get the government accepting opposition suggestions, you get the government improving its own legislation, you get good outcomes from scrutiny. You get bad outcomes when you initially decide what you are going to do and consult later.

The most common recent example of that is our public transport changes that the minister has so royally, comprehensively and publicly wrecked. After two years of planning, he claims, here we are. We are seeing it again here with something as simple as a slip lane being put in to a road over a trust. All the minister had to do was be collegial, and it was beyond him—beyond him.

I have to say what goes around comes around, and the precedent this minister is setting will become the norm—it will become the norm. That is how the parliament will operate from this day forward. The norm is now that if you have the numbers you will do as you please—no more consultation, no more collegial working together, no more working with each other to try to get a good outcome, it is simply majority, winner takes all. That is a system the member for Schubert is imposing on the house today and we have to accept it and cop it.

I would just point out in my last two minutes this: since the pandemic—I want to say this without wrecking what I have been saying—I do actually have a bit of time for the member for Schubert. I do think he can be quite clever sometimes. However, I feel I have been taken advantage of. I feel I have been used. I have been very collegial with him and I have been very accommodating of him, but as of now I will be less so.

I will be less so because over something as small as this, even though I gave him my agreement that it would pass in the timetable he asked for, he still behaved in a petulant, childish way, and for the life of me I do not understand why, other than he has had a bad week and the little small victories make it all better. Well, I will say to the member for Schubert: remember this moment the next time you call me and ask me for something to occur in the parliament in a bipartisan way.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL (Schubert—Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government, Minister for Planning) (20:47): He managed to make that last 20 minutes; I thought that was quite a feat. Just to lay out the facts, when this bill was brought before the parliament and was being debated at the second reading in the chamber there was still a discussion about whether or not this bill would be a hybrid bill. In fact, the advice that I had received was that it was not, but there was a subsequent discussion amongst staff and a determination made by the Speaker, and out of an abundance of caution we turned it into a hybrid bill.

Once that decision was made, and given the time frames to deliver this bill through the parliament as outlined—in essence, we wanted to make sure that this was finished and dealt with before the midwinter break so that we could get on with providing the job stimulus that is important as part of this project—certainly the member for West Torrens and I did discuss ensuring that this bill passed both houses before you gave me your word that it would, Mr Speaker.

The decision was taken then on that last sitting Thursday to hold a meeting at 1.45 on the hybrid bill, and we appointed members—five government to opposition—at that point. At that meeting, we did go through and have a discussion. I want to make an important distinction here, first off in relation to the member for West Torrens' claims that select committees cannot sit whilst the bells are ringing. The ruling of the house is that committees cannot sit while the house is sitting. The house is not sitting until the Speaker sits in the chair, and that only happens from 2pm onwards.

When we were having the meeting, and it was quite a necessarily short meeting—in fact, my one experience of being on a hybrid bill was when the Hon. John Rau was the attorney-general. I remember distinctly sitting in the Plaza Room for a meeting that went for a good six or seven minutes, a single meeting where the report was delivered, the decision was taken to accept it and everybody moved on with their day. So certainly the precedence that the member for West Torrens thinks exists, that we have exhaustive hybrid committee bill hearings, I think is misplaced.

What happened was that there was a resolution at that time that we would not hold hearings, given the time frame and given the fact that we wanted the committee to be able to report today in order to ensure that the bill continued to pass through the house. The discussion at that committee was that the opportunity for consultation in relation to the project is one that happens as part of the project. There has in fact been an initial consultation period that has already been undertaken, but once firmer designs are finalised there will be a second period of consultation in relation to that.

Because of the tight time frames and the fact that there were consultation mechanisms already embedded as part of the project itself, having a further period of consultation—and, by the way, what we are being asked to deal with as part of a hybrid bill select committee is merely the parcel of land in question, which is actually land that is vested in the minister under the terms of the trust, and not necessarily the project more broadly. So it is quite a specific thing that we are being asked to deal with. In fact, being a hybrid bill it actually asks us to inquire into private interests in land, as distinct from broad public interest.

To debunk the claims made by the member, what happened was that certainly the opposition members walked out at 1.55—no notice, no discussion. They just got up and said, 'This can't continue,' and walked out. The meeting itself actually finished a minute or two later. In fact, we could have dealt with the business and very easily got to the chamber within time, but that is not what happened. It almost seemed pre-arranged that at the allotted time they would walk out.

I am going to read a series of emails that were sent by the parliamentary officer, Philip Frensham, someone who is quite experienced in these matters. The email of 24 June states:

Dear Members

Please find attached the draft report for the select committee on Waite Trust (Vesting of Land) Bill. Any feedback before the next committee meeting please—10.30 Tuesday 30 June in Kingston Room.

That was sent on 24 June, which was seven days ago, and it provided a copy of the draft report. I then provided some feedback to say, 'In discussion with the member for West Torrens about an amendment that he would like to see made,' which I will table once we get through to the committee stage of this bill, 'in relation to changing "may" return leftover land back to the trust'. We changed that to 'must', which is something I agreed to in conjunction with the member for West Torrens. I have the amendment here, ready to move as part of the committee stage.

I wanted that information provided as part of the select committee, to give further assurance to the member for West Torrens that we were cognisant of his proposed change and wanted that included as part of the draft report. On 25 June, the day after 24 June, when it was first highlighted to the member that there would be a meeting today at 10.30, the email states:

Dear Members

Please find attached the next iteration of the draft report SC on Waite Trust (Vesting of Land) Bill. This incorporates (at page 5) land not used for roadworks being revested. Any queries please call. Also agenda attached for Tuesday's meeting.

That information was provided on 25 June. The committee sat this morning at 10.30 and, on opening the committee, the parliamentary officer advised me that the two Labor members of the committee were not going to be attending and that he had been advised, moments before the start of the committee meeting, that they would not be attending.

This is information that was provided on the 24th; it was provided on the 25th; and if I look through my emails I think it was actually provided on the 23rd to both members. But they did not take the opportunity on the 23rd, the 24th or the 25th to say, 'Hey, look, we can't make that meeting.' Apologies were received moments before the committee meeting started, and that is for me the bit that makes the tirade from the member for West Torrens nothing more than after-dinner theatre from somebody who has enjoyed dinner.

If there had been a problem, we could and should and would have worked through that issue, but the member for West Torrens did not provide me, as the Chairman of the committee, the opportunity to be able to fix what he says was an egregious fault that needed to be fixed somehow and that it was my fault completely. He provided that apology minutes before the start of the meeting, and that is what makes his tirade disingenuous. The draft report, as was provided on 25 June, is the report that the committee chose to adopt.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: How do we know that? Did you call me and tell me?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens, you have had your opportunity.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Yes, through a barrage of interjections, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Some of which you responded to, but they are out of order regardless.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: That is the report that was adopted, so again, if there was an issue with the time of the committee meeting, providing that information more than a couple of minutes before the start of the meeting to the parliamentary officer I think would have been more appropriate. If there was an issue, the member for West Torrens—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: You knew about caucus, you knew.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I am sorry, member for West Torrens, I do not know when Labor caucus is.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens will cease interjecting. He is called to order. Next time he will be warned. Minister, you will be heard in silence.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: We have endeavoured on all fronts to follow due process here. What I think has happened is that this was a pre-arranged issue where giving me the ability or the committee the ability to reorganise the time would have meant that he was not able to come in here and make the statements and the tirade, which I think was the whole purpose of the exercise of not giving any notice about the time frame of the committee being at a time that supposedly was not convenient for members opposite.

But the point here is that what we are dealing with is a very specific issue in relation to what has been deemed a hybrid bill. All of those particulars are contained within the report that is being noted, a report that the member had a copy of on 25 June, and we can now proceed to the next stage of seeing this through the house. Again, we need to make sure that we do things properly in this chamber, and following and observing procedure is important but we cannot lose sight of the objective that we are trying to achieve.

Those objectives are numerous. Firstly, this is a very important intersection, being our outer ring route as well as a key bottleneck on the Mitcham Hills corridor, a corridor that this government is now investing in together with the federal government some $100 million in fixing the Mitcham Hills corridor. Secondly, we have a project which is there to provide stimulus in this COVID environment, which is extremely important and makes this timely, which was one of the fundamental reasons why it was important to ensure the speedy passage of this bill through the select committee and through both houses of parliament.

Thirdly, this is an intersection that has been the scene of horrific accidents. Again, that should provide the impetus for all members of this chamber to see the speedy passage of this bill through the house. This is not new. There have been hybrid bill committees into the Waite Trust before for exactly the same purpose as what we are outlining here today. We endeavoured to provide information, as was asked for, and respond to the issues as they were raised, but it is nigh on impossible to reorganise a committee meeting when you get told that there are two apologies at the start of the committee meeting once the meeting has been opened. That does not provide the committee with any opportunity to change its arrangements.

As to the rest of the member for West Torrens' tirade, it is a matter for him. I am not 100 per cent sure whether it is because he used to be one of the youngest members of parliament and is now the Father of the House or whether it is because I cannot grow a beard or for whatever reason my youthful appearance happens to upset him. It is not my fault. It is the genetics that I was born with. I blame my parents. But as to my childish look, there is not much I can do about it.

The bill that we are seeking to deal with today is important. We need to make sure that it passes so that the good people of Mitcham Hills get a road upgrade that is going to unlock one of the key bottlenecks across their corridor to make sure that our road network can work as efficiently as possible.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (20:59): Again, the other beauty of knowing the parliamentary system is that if the minister had moved that the report be noted he would not have to go through this all over again—and he will. There is only one flaw in the—

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Point of order: for the house's awareness, the member for West Torrens received the report at 3.16pm on 24 June.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, what is the point of order? You are just making clarification, are you?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Yes, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. The member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: All the draft reports that were sent to the opposition still do not change the fact that we do not know what the committee actually approved. I am going on the word of a minister of the parliament, that he has just told us that the draft reports are exactly the same and they are unamended. Whatever the draft report is, it is just a draft report. It is not the report until the committee votes on it. My point is that the minister held a meeting during the Labor Party caucus.

I assert to you, sir, and to the house that the minister knows when the party room meetings of the Labor Party are on because he has called me numerous times when those party room meetings are on and apologised to me while they were on, saying, 'Sorry for interrupting you.' Either way, as I said, the argument falls over because the minister says the reason he had to ram this through was for the speedy passage of the bill. As the minister himself concedes, the opposition had already given its assurance that the bill would pass this week and in the following week would pass the other place unamended, other than the amendment that the minister is contemplating. That was our word, sir.

Given that he had an assurance from the opposition and therefore a majority of the parliament that the bill would pass, speed was not an issue; time was not a factor. What he was really worried about was the public meeting. He did not want scrutiny. He did not want anyone coming to the meeting. Ministers who are afraid of the public are not very good ministers. Ministers who are afraid of their voters and their constituents are not very good at their job. Politicians should not fear the people whom they serve or who elect them; they should be out there amongst them. This minister did not want to have a public meeting on this issue. Why? He had bipartisan support. The legislation is going to pass. What was it that the minister feared?

I will give you my three views on why the minister did not want a public meeting. First, anyone can turn up to a public meeting and ask this minister any question they want on a series of issues. Probably because it was in and amongst a very controversial number of public transport changes that he announced that were very unpopular, he did not want an angry crowd talking about bus cuts on Cross Road, for example.

Secondly, despite DPTI's assurances to the opposition that they would make good on all the amenities lost to the school, that was all the school was getting out of this upgrade. Perhaps the school community may have said, 'As you are augmenting the land that we are on you can do some other improvements.' Maybe the minister did not want to have to confront the school community in a non-Labor seat. He would have to explain to them that they would not be getting anything else. The truth is they made good provisions but they are not in writing. People cannot see, touch or feel them, nor are they enforceable. They are simply the assurance of DPTI to the Department for Education—that is it.

The school community are observers here. The principal and the student body have nothing in writing to say, 'Everything you lose you are going to get back.' It is just a deal between DPTI and Education to make good. Perhaps he did not want that canvassed at the public meeting. Thirdly, maybe it was something else in relation to the Independent member for Waite.

I do not know which one of those three it is, or maybe he just could not be stuffed and did not want to have the meeting—just could not be bothered. Maybe that is what it is, or maybe the minister is far too important to go mix amongst ordinary people and hear their views about changing the Peter Waite Trust to build a road because, God knows, when you meet with ordinary people—

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Point of order: the member for West Torrens is imputing improper motive.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not actually catch what the member for West Torrens said, I must admit.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have warned the member for West Torrens in his previous contribution that he should not, under standing order 127, make a personal reflection on any other member and I remind him of that; he knows that very well.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I do, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You do.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I do, and I admit: I did it deliberately—

An honourable member: Again?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Again. I am a serial personal reflector. I personally reflect on members, but I will not do it now, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens, the minister has pointed out that you have made that reflection. He has asked for nothing more at this stage, but I am going ask you to cease that for the remainder of your time.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: For the remainder of my 16 minutes, I will, sir. The point I was making, to which the minister took umbrage, was that I proposed three reasons why the minister may not have wanted to have a public meeting on this issue. The minister took umbrage to those because he thinks I have made either a personal reflection or I have imputed improper motive to him for not wanting to have the public scrutiny on this hybrid bill.

The first reason was that perhaps he did not want to have people raise public transport issues at a public meeting, because at a public meeting the public do not really care what the agenda—

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Point of order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think I have been proven right, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I would ask that the member withdraw any comments relating to imputing improper motive under standing order 127.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, I was listening carefully at that point and my opinion is I do not believe the member for West Torrens had transgressed in that most recent moment, but he is on thin ice.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I like to live on the edge, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I can see that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I like to live on the edge.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are listening carefully, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The second reason was to do with the school body: the student body, the teachers and the parents who are impacted with the loss of amenity and facilities. The minister and the department have said, 'Look, it's a few car parks, it may be a tennis court, it may be some gardens.' I propose that the augmentation or the make-good provisions by the department are simply a verbal arrangement between the Department for Education and DPTI. DPTI have the funding from the government to build the road, Education are impacted, DPTI decide how to make good. They are the ones that decide what tennis courts you get, what gardens you get remediated, what car parks should get moved around.

It is not so much the school in collaboration, but DPTI tell you how lucky you are about what it is you are about to receive. The reason I know this is I used to be the minister for transport and infrastructure and I used to be the treasurer, so I know how these relationships work. Sometimes ministers do not like the idea of a student body or a school community having the opportunity at a public meeting, in front of politicians who do not like to have difficult questions thrown at them at public meetings, to ask about whether or not the make good provisions will be honoured.

Just imagine a hypothetical situation where an Independent member of parliament may be seeking re-election in a relatively marginal seat because they are no longer in the main political party. They might want to make a few points about what the school deserves and put the government of the day under a bit of pressure. Why have a public meeting? You would not want to have that. These are the reasons that the minister took offence to, in my thinking, about why he did not want a meeting—because he cannot use speediness of passage as an excuse because he had an agreement from the opposition that it would pass, which is where the argument falls down.

Dr Close: A very generous agreement.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: A very generous agreement. However, I do thank the minister on one part. I thank him for agreeing to Labor's suggestion of an amendment about the land that is not used to be returned, because the advice we have from DPTI is that the title that they are excising from the trust is actually much larger than the land that they are using for the roadworks, which means almost all the school is being excised from the trust because the parcel of land is very large.

The legislation says the minister may return that to the trust. What the minister's amendment says—and, in fact, I have a filed amendment as well—is that it must be returned to the trust once DPTI has finished constructing the road. This is a sensible, commonsense amendment that I thank the minister for agreeing to, which is a lot more generous than he has been to us.

I point out to the house one last time that the minister says committees can meet during the ringing of the bells. Nothing can inhibit a parliamentarian on the ringing of the bells from attending the house. We must be able to attend the house unmolested when the bells are ringing, whether it is a division or whether the parliament is being assembled.

Every member should know that. No-one can stop us. But the minister says, no, the house does not take precedence; the executive telling us to stay in a committee meeting when the house is calling us does. Some would call that a breach of privilege. Some would call that a contempt of the parliament.

That is my view on what happens when the bells are ringing: all matters cease and the parliament takes precedence because we are being called here. It is no different from someone trying to detain a member of parliament when the bells are ringing. They cannot do it, because we are being summonsed to the house and we are attending the house. The minister says, 'No, committee meetings are fine. You're in the parliament anyway. This is more important. Don't worry about the bells ringing, you can turn up late if you want.' No, sir. The house is very clear on this: parliamentarians should be unmolested.

The second point is pretending not to know that we had a party room meeting when they scheduled their meeting and then trying to tell the house that I knew what was in the report that he tabled. A draft report is a draft report until changes are made at the committee meeting. I was not at the committee meeting. How am I to know what they have tabled? How am I meant to know this? We were not there because we were at a party room meeting—a scheduled meeting. It is held at the same time every Tuesday; it does not change.

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: While the Minister for Energy laughs and interjects and cackles, the reason I was detained in the party room of the Labor Party caucus is that I was seeking support for two pieces of legislation he wants passed in the parliament to give the government the ability to pass its legislation.

None of this needed to happen. The most offensive part about this minister's behaviour is not even having the decency to call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or me and tell us as a courtesy what was in the final report that was accepted at the committee and whether any changes were made. That is just a common courtesy. If the government does not want to abide by that, then, fine—

Ms Stinson: It comes with experience.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, it is no longer that it comes with experience; it is now the norm. If this government wants to see the tyranny of the majority, just wait. Just wait and then we will find out all sorts of things with our majority—things like travel allowance, country members' allowance, and all sorts of things will come out. Who knows what we will find when we start digging?

With those few remarks, I commend whatever the report says, given that the minister did not have the common decency to call me and tell me. I just point out to the house again that whatever cooperation we had with the minister, as the Manager of Government Business and Manager of Opposition Business, is now at an end.

Motion carried.

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