HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-05-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Committees

STATUTORY AUTHORITIES REVIEW COMMITTEE: ANNUAL REPORT

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. B.V. Finnigan:

That the report of the committee, 2007-08, be noted.

(Continued from 29 April 2009. Page 2111.)

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (20:46): I rise to support the motion and speak briefly on the activities of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee. I have spoken a little today about one of the particular inquiries on which we have handed down a report. Given that this is a motion in relation to the annual report of the activities of the committee, I will touch briefly on some of the matters we have been looking at. Obviously, we have handed down a report into the Independent Gambling Authority, but a couple of time-consuming matters include the inquiry into WorkCover, which is ongoing, and an interesting inquiry into the Land Management Corporation.

Already today I have paid tribute to the work of Gareth Hickery (our secretary) and Jenny Cassidy (our former research officer); Ms Lisa Baxter, who has taken over from Jenny, is doing a wonderful job; and also our long-serving assistant, Cynthia Gray. I enjoy very much working with the Hons Ian Hunter and Ann Bressington. Of course, I learn from the master, the Hon. Rob Lucas. The Hon. Bernard Finnigan chaired the committee quite competently but has now handed over the reins to the former minister, the Hon. Carmel Zollo, who I have no doubt will do a sterling job.

As I said previously, the thing I really enjoy about the committee is how we work in a bipartisan way, scrutinising the activities of some of the statutory authorities that come before us. I am sure the people of South Australia are well served because of that scrutiny. One of the more rewarding things we do as members of parliament is to give people the opportunity to be heard. While I do not always agree with the sentiments of people who appear before our committee to give evidence, I do know there is a real appreciation of the fact that we are prepared to listen to their grievances. Quite often they have had no success in being heard by anyone who is prepared to try to assist them. We are much maligned as members of parliament and much of our work goes without any thanks—and we accept that—but I do know that the Statutory Authorities Review Committee and the lengthy inquiries it conducts give people some comfort in being able to appear before the committee to have their say.

I thank previous members of the committee, including the Hon. Michelle Lensink, the Hon. Nick Xenophon (with whom I worked on the Independent Gambling Authority inquiry) and Mr President himself, who was a committee member when I first started. With those few words I support the motion.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (20:50): I had not intended speaking, but the quality of the contribution from my colleague the Hon. Mr Stephens has inspired me to speak briefly on just two issues. I will not repeat the issues that he raised. I do want to record two things and, in doing so, I indicate that they are my personal views and not necessarily the views of my colleagues. The first point is that, from my brief experience on a standing committee—and in my time in the parliament this is the first standing committee on which I have participated—I have noted a number of the conventions and traditions with interest. I will not spend any time this evening going through some of the details of those views, because what I have put to the committee and in forums will suffice in terms of what I think ought to be changed.

One of the issues that members themselves in this chamber ought to reflect upon and then perhaps, hopefully, within their party rooms is that the strength of upper house committees in terms of holding all governments to account, in large part, obviously depends on the quality and the competence and workload of the members of the committee in terms of their membership. As the Hon. Mr Stephens has indicated, this committee—and I am not sure whether other committees are the same—has had a tremendous turnover in terms of its membership.

The second aspect is the quality and the corporate knowledge of the staff of the committees. There is one issue that I must admit I have some concern about and that is in relation to the research officers attached to the committees. The current arrangements are such that, by and large, under their employment arrangements, the research officers stay with the committee for only two years. I know there are circumstances where they can be extended potentially for another two years.

My experience and the discussions with committee staff and committee members in other states and in other jurisdictions, particularly in Canada and the United States, is that the strength and quality of the work of committees in terms of holding governments or executive arms of government to account, as I said, depends not only on the quality of the members but also very significantly on the quality and corporate knowledge of the staff attached to the committee. Now, as I have indicated to the council before, some of the jurisdictions have significantly larger numbers of staff. In essence, we are talking about only two full-time staff.

My view is that this parliament ought to contemplate moving to a situation where we do have permanent research staff attached to committees, and I will give the example of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee. Given sometimes the length of the inquiries—WorkCover is a perfect example—when you come to presenting a report, you may well be in the situation where the staff, for a variety of reasons, have left—either their time has concluded or they know their time is about to conclude and therefore they seek a promotion somewhere else in the public sector; that is, they make a conscious decision.

I think that significantly weakens the capacity of our standing committees to undertake the work they are required to do. I know that in Victoria, for example, one of the flexibilities they have is the capacity for the permanent staff to be moved between the committees, but nevertheless they do have a permanency arrangement. I think it is something that members and this parliament, hopefully, at some stage, might contemplate in terms of the employment arrangements. As I said, at this stage I am only putting a personal view, but it is certainly something that I want to discuss with any other members because I do think, whichever government happens to be in power, the capacity of this standing committee to hold governments to account would be assisted by having permanent and ongoing staffing arrangements.

The second point I will make very quickly. I have spoken on this before and again I hasten to add that it is a personal view. I have a very strong view now that, as the changes have occurred in relation to the chairmanship of the select committees, those wholly based standing committees of the Legislative Council ought to be chaired by a representative of the majority of the Legislative Council. I think we have seen, in my view, that that is the circumstance that occurs in virtually every other upper house in Australia.

I have put on the public record on previous occasions (and I will not repeat it) that that is a circumstance that generally occurs in the Senate and in most other state upper houses; that is, if the government or the opposition, or some combination of that and the minor parties, has a majority vote on the floor, by and large, on a number of the committees—or, indeed, sometimes all the committees—that majority view is reflected in relation to the chair position for those particular committees.

As I said, this council has moved in the last, I think, three or four years to reflect that with respect to select committees. My view happens to be that there is not much of a difference in principle. If you accept that principle for a select committee, what is the difference in relation to a standing committee? The only difference is that the standing committee has a paid position, and the members of the government of the day obviously would jealously guard and want to protect that position.

As I have indicated before, that is one the reasons I have not pushed the argument in relation to standing committees whilst we have been in opposition, because we had the position where government members were chairs of the standing committees for the eight years when we were in office. That will be the case for the eight years whilst the Labor government is in office, but my view is that, in essence, there have been equal years now: eight years and eight years.

After the 2010 election, this council ought to consider the position by saying 'whoever is in government'. It might be a Labor government or it might be a Liberal government but, whoever is in government, in my view (as I said, it is a personal view), the issue with respect to the principle of a majority of the chamber being reflected in the chairing of select committees and the wholly based standing committees ought to be debated and ought to be supported.

I think there is no doubt that that is a much stronger way of holding governments to account. The position of chair is quite strong in relation to these committees. If this council is to undertake its role of holding governments to account, as I said, whether it is Liberal or Labor, I think that is one of the mechanisms to achieve that. I hasten to say that that is a personal view; it is not necessarily reflective of the views of my party in relation to standing committees.

Motion carried.

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