HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-04-30 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Committees

SELECT COMMITTEE ON CERTAIN MATTERS RELATING TO HORSE RACING IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (14:27): In view of the fact that the Select Committee on Certain Matters Relating to Horse Racing in South Australia, at a meeting convened this day, was unable to elect a chairperson, I move:

That this council appoint the Hon. T.J. Stephens, as the mover of the motion that established the select committee, to be the chairperson of that select committee.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I rise on a point of order, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: I do not think you can debate it.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I would like to speak to the motion. Members would be well aware that over a number of months there has been a rather large cloud hanging over racing in this state. The opposition's intention was to move for the establishment of a select committee to provide people with the opportunity to come along and have their say with regards to racing in an open and transparent way. Board elections are coming up, and we have a number of wonderful—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: The Hon. Bernard Finnigan says that you, Mr President, cannot chair the committee. Well, Mr President, you were not nominated. Perhaps the Hon. Bernard Finnigan should be in the loop.

I can say that we have met, but have disagreed on who should be the chairman. Rather than further delay calling for submissions and witnesses, it is time that this committee moved on. Thought was given today to consider, throughout the whole month of May, who would be chairman and then coming back into parliament to thrash it out. However, the vote was tied at three all and neither party showed any indication that it was prepared to budge. So, for this select committee to move forward, it is time we took this step.

I will not delay the council. I look forward to the support of honourable members so that we can move forward and help to clear up the clouds hanging over racing.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:29): There has been a total lack of courtesy in this matter coming before the council. It is a private member's matter; it is in relation to the chairperson of a committee. The fact that it should be raised here on a Thursday in government business time without even giving the government the courtesy—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Look, why don't you just keep quiet? Why don't you actually function as a democracy? You keep talking about democracy. What don't you just shut up for a minute?

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Lucas will come to order. I am happy to inform the minister that I did not know that this motion was coming before the council.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The least that could be done is for the honourable member to give the government the courtesy—and not just the government, but I think all members of this parliament, as I am sure that there are members of the crossbenches as well who might have been interested—of indicating exactly what it was that was being moved, and to give them the opportunity to consider other options if in fact they wish to do so. That is the first point to be made.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It really is, as my colleague says, an incredible and arrogant abuse of the numbers.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: In other words, you can come in here and, without showing any courtesy, move resolutions without even telling anybody. I am sure members opposite would squeal like stuck pigs if this government were to seek to move any resolution in here without giving the opposition or other members the courtesy of informing them that we were doing so. That is the first issue that I think should be noted.

Secondly, surely this issue is one for the committee to resolve involving its own chair. It was only yesterday, after all, that this committee was established. I am sure that if we went back to the committee with appropriate discussion the committee would be able to come up with an answer. How ridiculous to bring it back within less than 24 hours! It is less than 24 hours and, without consultation, we hear that there is a motion here in this council trying to resolve an issue that relates to private members' business involving the chairperson of a committee.

I believe that we should reject this rather self-serving motion moved by the honourable member—'Appoint me! Appoint me!' Rather than that, we should reject the motion here and allow the committee to make its own determination. I think we should give it a little more than 24 hours to try to resolve the issue before this council should intervene in the matter.

I think, in accordance with good practice and common sense, we should at this stage reject the resolution. If the committee cannot come up with a resolution by the time we meet in a week's time, then that might be another matter. At this stage, surely we should give the committee a chance to come to its own determination.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (14:32): I agree with the Hon. Paul Holloway that this entire debacle should be dismissed. I sit on a number of select committees with and without government support. In the past and right now, on those select committees the government is quite open to other people chairing a committee if that be the will of the committee. The Hon. Mark Parnell chairs his own inquiry into SA Water.

I have never seen this done at the opening of a select committee. The whole vote was taken; the select committee will happen. In three years here, I have never seen this manoeuvre before. I think that this is an absolute disgrace, and I also consider it to be a breach of parliamentary process for somebody to nominate themselves. In connection with these committees, there have to be nominations and it all has to be recorded in minutes and so forth. Why should we have this process now? Why should you break the tradition that I have seen operating for the three years that I have been in this place?

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Excuse me! I have the floor. Why should we see a tradition that I have seen for three years now broken over this political select committee? I just think this is crap. I think we go back to what we have done in the past: leave it to the committee to decide and, if it cannot, then find a way.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (14:34): Whilst I acknowledge very much the relevance of the leader's point that proper notification was not given officially in the chamber, I think that this matter needs to be dealt with now.

The Hon. A. Bressington: Of course you do. Why don't you try sitting on the select committees you are already on?

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Ms Bressington has had her go.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have just a few points. First, the chamber needs to be advised that, now that this has been passed by a majority of the chamber, it must be debated. Two members of the government were told that this matter would be dealt with in the chamber, as I recall. That is my memory of the debate. The key points to this are simply that if this was a standing committee I would acknowledge that, in all instances, the government should have the right to chair. That has been the practice, as I recall, in the 14 or 15 years I have been associated with the parliament.

However, select committees are not government committees as such. They are committees that are set up and approved by a democratic process in the parliament. This is the people's parliament. This is not the government's parliament. This is the people's parliament, and democratically the people's parliament has decided that there will be a select committee. If the Hon. Russell Wortley or, indeed, you, Mr President, had moved for the establishment of a similar select committee, I would be voting with you, Mr President, the Hon. Mr Wortley or any other member that they chair it—

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I would be, because the government would have moved for the establishment of the committee but, in this instance, it was not the government that moved for the establishment of the committee. Within the past 24 hours I have had representation that two members of the government wanted to chair the committee—two members of the government, not one. Two members wanted to chair it—two chairmen.

I simply say that we have got to get on with this. I am not interested in the politics of this, but I am interested in having a racing industry that can function, and at the moment the racing industry is dysfunctional. The only way to sort out this racing industry that is costing the taxpayers a hell of a lot of dollars is to have this select committee so that there can be an open and accountable select committee.

The fact is that, in this instance, the Hon. Terry Stephens moved to establish the committee. The committee was approved with an absolute majority by the Legislative Council. Members chair the select committee that they move to establish, just like I am chairing the taxi industry select committee because I moved it. There is no real angst that I am the chair of that committee.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: The problem now is that we have three members on one side and three on the other, and it is difficult. The fact is that the Hon. Terry Stephens moved to establish the select committee. It is a select committee set up by democratic process by the parliament on behalf of the South Australian people. I believe we need to resolve it in this chamber. I support the nomination because he is the person who did all the work to get the committee before the parliament.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (14:37): Naturally, I oppose the motion, but I think that people have to look at the history of this matter. The opposition has attempted to manipulate this committee from the very beginning, and the way it has done that is that it had a committee set up for five members. It had it all worked out for those two and the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, who obviously had done the deal. The fact is that two Independents approached the Hon. Mr Stephens to join the committee and he told them, 'No, there's no room.' What happened from there is that, after speaking to him, the Labor Party decided to support the Hon. Mr Darley, and the Independents indicated support for the Hon. Mr Darley.

Once we informed the Hon. Mr Stephens that we were supporting the Hon. Mr Darley and his nomination would not be supported, he then moved an amendment to have six members on the committee. So, this is all about the Hon. Mr Stephens and what he has done to manipulate this committee to ensure that he is the chairman. This is unprecedented. This will make this whole select committee a total farce. My advice to the Independents—it is no use speaking to the opposition—is that you voted to have this discussed but, at the end of the day, the committee must have time to work this out.

Our position on the select committee today is that we need to negotiate this and not come straight in here and try to work the numbers once again to ensure that the Hon. Mr Stephens is the chair. So, if anyone has been trying to manipulate this committee, it has not been us. Members opposite have treated the Independents with absolute contempt by telling them, 'There's no room, you've already got your person'—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: It is my right. I am not even going to argue about that. You are sinking down to the bottom of the barrel. When you run out of arguments you then turn to hypotheticals. The fact is that members of the opposition have attempted to manipulate this position. They have treated the Independents with contempt by the way in which they rejected their nominations and, when they found out that they did not have the numbers to get their person on the committee, they then moved for six. Out of the six, it split 50:50.

I ask the Independents to do the right thing, to reject this, and we will then as a committee eventually find a solution. Do not use an unprecedented motion. I do not know whether this has ever happened before, but do not sit there and set a precedent by endorsing this most self-serving motion. Reject the motion, and that will force us to sit down (and this is what we want to do all the time) and negotiate.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (14:41): Sir—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Hunter has the call.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: As a relatively new member of this parliament, I want to express my very deep concern about what I see as a last minute attempt to trammel the conventions of this place—as I know them, at least. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire said that two members of the government who are on the committee were told that this motion would be debated today. As far as I am aware, that has never been construed as being formal notice to the government or the opposition that something is coming up. That is not the courtesy that we normally practise in this place—or to the whips—as I understand it. Imagine the uproar had we tried to pull such a stunt today. The Leader of the Opposition would have been on his feet immediately calling this for what it is: a stunt.

My view is that it should be left up to the committee concerned to determine who will be chairing it. I was on a committee where the Hon. Mr Parnell wanted to be chair. The vote was deadlocked and we broke. Within, I think, two days we came back and, lo and behold, Mr Parnell became the chair of that committee because it had been worked out in between those meetings. I say it is incumbent on us to let the committee proceed with its work and try to break this deadlock and not force it through this council.

The PRESIDENT: Perhaps I will just clear up something. The two government members of the committee were not told that this would be debated in the council today.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Sir, I told you I was going to bring it to the council today. You said, 'No, you won't.'

The PRESIDENT: Order! I am on my feet. We were told by the Hon. Mr Stephens that he would be bringing it to the council.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Today.

The PRESIDENT: No.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Yes.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Lawson.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (14:43): There has been some suggestion that conventions are being trammelled. That is absolute nonsense. The committee was established yesterday and the members were appointed. In accordance with ordinary practice, the committee met promptly today. The deputy clerk, as the standing orders provide, called for nominations. There were two nominations. There were two votes, and the votes were the same on both occasions. There was clearly a deadlock. Government members were saying, 'We should be able to negotiate this over the next couple of months. Come back at the end of May.'

So, there was a clear attempt on behalf of the government members—who, incidentally, had strongly and bitterly opposed the very establishment of this committee, whose party position is against ever hearing any evidence at all and who, clearly, were seeking to delay. So, the matter was promptly brought back to this council today, and the mover of the motion (Hon. Terry Stephens) indicated that it would be brought back immediately. You, Mr President, said, 'You can't bring it back today because there's no private business today.' You thought you had him by the short and curlies, Mr President, and that clearly shows that you knew it was coming back today. There has been no breach of convention.

The Hon. Ann Bressington suggested that there was something wrong in the mover proposing that he be the chair of this select committee. It is entirely appropriate that the mover of the motion be the chair. The honourable member herself acknowledged that there are a number of select committees where the mover of the motion has been appointed by this council as chair, and the Hon. Robert Brokenshire made exactly the same point. Let us have no further shilly-shallying about this; let the committee function properly and get on with its business.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (14:45): I oppose this motion, you will not be surprised to learn, Mr President. I say at the outset how disappointed I am in Family First, which is a party with which we do not always agree and often disagree, but it has a short history and is committed to its ideals. Whether or not we might agree with them, we can respect that they are the ideals it follows, as we do with the Greens and other parties. I certainly hope that the Hons Dennis Hood and Robert Brokenshire take a good look at themselves and their party and not allow it to be captured by the Liberal Party and turned into a tool for doing its bidding, because Family First has always approached things independently and assessed things on their merits and it is very disappointing to me to see that it is becoming just a tool of the Liberal Party.

What we see here is an utter abuse of process, demonstrating yet again that the only thing that matters to the Liberal opposition is getting its way politically. It does not matter how it gets there or goes about it; the conventions of this place, the history—none of that matters. All that matters is achieving a political objective.

We have seen already with this committee that the membership was at five and then, on motion of the Hon. Mr Dawkins, a member of the opposition himself, the committee was extended successfully to six members, with the support of the council. Now, members opposite are bringing it back to the council because they did not get the numbers to install their own chairperson, so why did they not leave it at five? Because politically it suited them to extend it to six, and now politically it suits them to come back here and ask the council to decide who the chairperson will be.

It simply indicates that the only thing members opposite care about is some political objective and that it has nothing to do with actually examining this issue and trying to get to the bottom of it or make any sorts of recommendations which would be of advantage to the racing industry.

We have seen this week how the opposition whinges, carries on and starts crying foul and talking about the end of democracy whenever the government tries to do anything without giving it notice or a week to think about it and, even when we move amendments in response to other amendments instigated and carried by members opposite, even when we try to clean up their inadequate amendments, that is enough to get them upset.

I would like to deal with this notion that a quiet word or exchange at a committee constitutes formal notice to the government or the other side of politics. I look forward to this principle now being followed. I will say, 'Well, I ran into the Hon. Mr Wade in the lift and said, "By the way, we're bringing in a new bill today to pave the streets with gold." We've informed the opposition; what possible objection could it have?'

The other extraordinary proposition we are getting from members opposite is that if you oppose the establishment of this committee it is therefore not proper or appropriate to serve on the committee or to want to chair it or contribute to it. What an extraordinary notion we now have, that only if you agree with everything this council does by majority are you then somehow bound or you can support or participate in it.

Apparently I can go out there and do anything I want, break any law I like and say, 'I didn't vote for it. I'm sorry officer; I didn't vote for this law. I never supported it. The majority of the people might have voted for a parliament that did; I might have sat here as a member of parliament and opposed it, but I don't support this law; I'm not bound by it. It's my conscience.' What is this? This is a recipe for total anarchy: if you do not have the numbers and you do not have the support of the floor of parliament then you abstain; you forget it, abandon it and have nothing to do with it, because you do not support it.

What an extraordinary proposition that the alternative government of this state is now putting: that if you do not support things in parliament yourself then you are not bound by the outcome. It does not matter if legislation passes by majority; it does not matter if the government was elected by the people; it does not matter that His Excellency the Governor has assented to it: you did not support it so you can abstain and not follow it. What an extraordinary proposition!

If we are now going to establish that the whole council should deal with all select committee matters, why have select committees meet at all? Let us have the council deal with the minutes, decide the dates of meetings and decide the witnesses. Why do we not bring in witnesses before the bar and have us all sit here and listen to them? That is what is being proposed here.

What is the point of appointing select committees made up of a group of members to do the work of the committee and report back to the council if every time there is a little spat, if every time within not even 24 hours there is a disagreement about a procedural matter before the committee, we come running back into the chamber and say, 'Well, now the whole council has to deal with it.' Let us grind the business of the state to a halt: no more legislation, no more government business, no more question time—who is going to chair my committee? 'I want my lolly', is what the Hon. Mr Stephens is saying.

That is what members of the opposition are now saying, that whether or not they get their way, whether or not the Hon. Mr Stephens is chair of this committee is the most important issue facing the state today. Do not worry how they will pay for the stadium or the rebuilding of the decrepit hospital at the end of the road. Do not worry about that or how they will pay for that. Do not worry about the forged documents that appear in their hands. What about Terry Stephens chairing this committee? That is the big issue facing the state.

This is a farce and an abuse of process and demonstrates yet again that members opposite are barely responsible enough to run a golf club, let alone this state. I oppose the motion.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (14:52): In response to the Hon. Mr Finnigan's comments about Family First being 'a stooge of the Liberal Party', to be categorical about this, we have agreed with the Liberal Party on many issues in the past and disagreed with it on many issues and will continue to do that in future. We support it on this issue because we believe that it is the fundamental right of the mover of a motion to chair the committee, and for that reason we will support the motion.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The council divided on the motion:

AYES (12)
Brokenshire, R.L. Dawkins, J.S.L. Hood, D.G.E.
Lawson, R.D. Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I.
Parnell, M. Ridgway, D.W. Schaefer, C.V.
Stephens, T.J. (teller) Wade, S.G. Winderlich, D.N.
NOES (9)
Bressington, A. Darley, J.A. Finnigan, B.V.
Gago, G.E. Gazzola, J.M. Holloway, P. (teller)
Hunter, I.K. Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C.

Majority of 3 for the ayes.

Motion thus carried.

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