HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-12-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CONSTITUTION (FIXED SESSION PRECEDING ELECTION) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 November 2009. Page 3999.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (16:48): This bill would require that the parliament meet in February before each state election in March. It applies to this parliament and requires that, whether or not we sit any further days this year, the parliament must resume in February 2010.

I will briefly reflect on the requirements of the Constitution Act in terms of the sittings of this parliament. Section 7 (Sessions of Parliament of the Constitution Act 1934) provides:

There shall be a session of the parliament once at least in every year; so that a period of 12 calendar months shall not intervene between the last sitting of the parliament in one session and the first sitting of the parliament in the next session.

A section in similar terms has been in the Constitution Act of this state since the first Constitution Act 1855.

Section 28 of the Constitution Act 1934, the current constitution, requires that an election be held on the third Sunday of March every four years. My understanding of the combined impact of sections 7 and 28 is that constitutionally the parliament could have adjourned as early as April 2009, as long as it meets again by April 2010.

On the other hand, if the parliament rises at the end of this week, it would not constitutionally need to sit again until 3 December 2010. However, that is not the expectation on a modern Westminster parliament. It is certainly not the expectation of the South Australian community. The normal sitting pattern of this parliament is that it sits until late November or early December and resumes in February. This bill seeks to require the parliament to sit in February in accordance with that normal sitting pattern.

The Hon. Robert Brokenshire outlined to the council the relative performance of recent governments in terms of the sitting hours of parliament. I appreciate the point he was making. Another point to be made is the gap between sittings. A government may arrange for parliament to sit a lot of days in blocks and have large gaps between them, but parliament is more than a legislature on call to the executive to deal with proposed legislation. Parliament has the responsibility to keep the government accountable on an ongoing basis. It has a range of tools at its disposal to pursue this duty: question time, matters of interest, petitions, the capacity to disallow regulations, committees, and so on. Even if this government does not have legislation it wants to have considered, parliament has responsibilities that it needs to discharge.

The arrogance of the government was demonstrated again on this matter by the transport minister Pat Conlon, who is reported this week as saying, 'A bad government sitting every day of the week is still going to be a bad government.' I agree that that is certainly what I observe, but the concern is that this bad government will be even worse if parliament is not able to keep it to account.

The Leader of the Opposition, Isobel Redmond, has described the long break as absolutely appalling and said that it is not accountable government. The University of Adelaide political lecturer, Dr Clem McIntyre, said that '130 days is too long for any government to go without answering its critics on the floor of the house'. I agree with the comments of the Hon. Robert Brokenshire that it would be better not to need to move this bill. One would have hoped that the government itself would choose to maintain regular sittings. However, that has not happened and this parliament, or at least this council, in this bill has the opportunity to make clear that it accepts community demands for parliamentary accountability. The opposition is willing to do so and we support this bill.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (16:52): The government obviously will oppose this bill. It is rather interesting that the Liberal opposition is opposing it. One is almost tempted to let it go through and have it hanging there for the future so that they would be hung by this, because it really is a very silly idea. One should look at history, going back right to the very early days of this state and look at what has occurred whenever there has been an election. Sir Thomas Playford used to hold the election in early March every three years, and that went on for years. Right through from the 1960s and 1970s, the usual practice has been to have long recesses around election time, as indeed there should be.

Could one imagine what would happen if this parliament had a sitting in February? What would we do? We saw Mr Lucas yesterday—on the second to last day—and his priority was to speak for over an hour on matters that went back to 2003-04.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: That is the sort of reason that members of the opposition would want us back: so that they could discuss these vital matters of the day, such as the stashed cash affair that happened back in 2003, which has been debated ad nauseam in this place.

One only has to look at the pairs taken in this place. I do not believe I have missed a single question time in the eight years this government has been in office. I have had some pairs in the evening when I have had functions to attend, but I do not believe I have missed any—or at most only one—question time. The minor parties and others have far more pairs than the government has. When this place is sitting the track record is that those members are least likely to be here. I dare say that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, who has moved this bill, is right at the top of the list in terms of the number of pairs he has had. He is out there campaigning to get re-elected.

We saw with Mr Winderlich the other day, when discussing a really important piece of legislation to hand over powers to the commonwealth government in relation to IR, that he was down at the Burnside council. That is where his priorities are! These people say that we need parliament back and we need to be here, but their track record is that they are rarely if ever here. One can imagine, the closer we get to an election, if we came back for two weeks how few members would be here. They would be at community meetings and the like. If Burnside or Charles Sturt councils were to have a meeting, that would be the end of Mr Winderlich—we would not see him. These are the people who want us to have some statutory sitting, notwithstanding the fact that there is no legislative reason to do so. The principal purpose of the legislature is just that: to pass legislation. We have met the government's legislative program for this year.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: You've run out of ideas, have you?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: No, we have not run out of ideas. We have introduced a few bills for consideration, as I did today, in relation to mining. You can imagine what would happen if we did come back in February: we would find that none of these members would want to turn up because they would want to be out there campaigning in their seats. Could you imagine the lower house two months from an election? Which of the marginal members would want to turn up in parliament? You would probably not get an opposition in the lower house to turn up.

The excuse is that this is to keep the government accountable. I would have thought that, as we get closer to an election, the voters of South Australia would want to see and hear the policies of the two main parties, and hopefully the minor parties as well. In terms of accountability, I can tell you that, if you are out there trying to explain your policies, and if you have a team of journalists asking you questions, that is likely to keep the main players (ministers and shadow ministers) much more accountable than this parliament. I do not think standing in here listening to Mr Lucas speak for an hour and a half on the stashed cash affair—

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): I remind the minister that it is the Hon. Mr Lucas. You know that.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: One only has to look at this, the last scheduled day of the parliament, and the time we are spending here today and the matters we are dealing with. Is this providing accountability for the people of South Australia? Is this what they want? I am sure that the people of South Australia will, when it comes to the election, want answers from the government and the alternative government of this state to a whole lot of policy issues. They certainly would not be getting it from members opposite if we were sitting here.

We do not want to take up too much time on these sorts of issues, because we know that they are purely to score points before the election. That is okay; they are the games we play in this place. Sure, the honourable member wants to move it, so we will deal with it. I am sure he will get the numbers, but we all know that it will not go anywhere.

Just for the record, I think we should have a look at the number of sitting days by session. I have a list here. In 1994, the Legislative Council sat for 30 days, the House of Assembly for 28. In 1994-95, the Legislative Council sat for 72 days, the House of Assembly for 70. In 1995-96, both houses sat for 55 days and, in 1996-97, both houses sat for 51 days. In 1997-98, the Legislative Council sat for 46 days, while the House of Assembly sat for 42. In 1998-99, the Legislative Council sat for 49 days and the House of Assembly for 46. In 1999-2000, the Legislative Council had 44 sitting days, while the House of Assembly had 46. In 2001-02, the Legislative Council sat for 69 days and the House of Assembly sat for 66. In 2002-03—and there was a change of government, as members will recall—the Legislative Council sat for 91 days, while the House of Assembly sat for 85. In 2003-04, the Legislative Council sat for 63 days and the House of Assembly sat for 65. In 2004-05, the Legislative Council sat for 90 days and the House of Assembly sat for 91. In 2005-06, the Legislative Council sat for 56 days and the House of Assembly sat for 58. They are all significantly greater than in the 1990s. That trend has continued.

The historical record is that under the Rann government we have sat more days (with, therefore, more question times) by a significant margin than was the average under the previous government. This government has a track record of providing more parliamentary accountability through the sittings of the parliament than was the average in the previous eight years.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: In addition, just find a statistic that suits. We all know, as I said, why honourable members opposite and the minor parties want this bill. They just want to have more circuses. They are not really interested in accountability to the people of South Australia because the people of South Australia, come next February, will be starting to focus their attention on the next government of South Australia.

They will want answers about the parties. They will want to know who can deliver economic growth and record low unemployment, as this government has done. They will want to know who has the plans for the future in dealing with infrastructure, public transport, health systems and all of those things. They are the issues that the people of South Australia will be focusing on next February. They will expect their members of parliament to be out in the community, not locked away in this place, and providing answers to them in relation to the direction of the government.

Let us waste no more time with this. We know the bill will be carried. We will not bother dividing on it. Let us get it over and done with and move on to something important so that we can get out of this place and start dealing with some of the real issues in this state. The tragedy is that, as we have seen from the track record of members opposite, with the sort of questions they ask, in the past eight years, sadly, very few of the real issues of the day have been dealt with by members opposite in this parliament.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (17:01): I am rising to briefly put my thoughts on the record because I imagine I will be the only cross-bencher who does not support and will not vote for this bill. I believe that we have a job in here to deal with issues on their level of importance and on the expectations of the people of South Australia.

We know that pollie bashing is a favourite pastime of people who do not get a taste of this and do not understand the responsibilities that we have in here. My concern is that this is a politically motivated bill, as we all know, and that it is being supported for political motivations only. There is no benefit in our coming back here in February. We are dealing with the legislative agenda this week. What are we going to do if we come back in February? If the lower house is not sitting over this period are the cross-benchers and the Liberal Party going to have a mountain of legislation developed over the Christmas break for us to work on in February? I have also heard whispers that this bill is probably not even constitutional.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. It is a disgrace for other politicians to be out there doing this. It reminds me of the Hon. Nick Xenophon and his favourite pastime of making out that nobody works as hard as he does and nobody even wants to work as hard as he does. Now we have somebody else stepping into his shoes and carrying on with the same crap.

We all work hard in here and we all do our very best to do the job that we have to do. To put up a bill that someone thinks is going to get the public on side because we are going to come back in February I believe is an abuse of our position here. Surely, we should all just grow up, get on with the job and do what we are paid to do. If you do not have enough policies to lobby and campaign on before the election, then for God's sake, don't run.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: It is cheap tricks. I am all for working harder. I am all for meeting the needs of the people of this state and bringing up the debates that need to be had and putting up legislation that needs to be discussed—but this is a nothing. I think we should be ashamed of ourselves for using this cheap trick to try to get a bit of media coverage and perhaps grab one or two votes from it.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (17:04): I rise to support this bill. I had not intended speaking but a couple of things mentioned by the Leader of the Government need to be addressed, and I will do that very briefly. The Leader of the Government talks about this government's number of sitting days. Certainly, there was a very moot point made by the cross-benchers and other members that the number of sitting days should be qualified by the number of hours in each day. We know that, when this government came in and we had four sitting days a week, the number of sitting hours were fewer than when we sat three days a week, but it came to its senses on that issue.

This leads me to other comments made by the Leader of the Government about pairs. He goes into dangerous territory because he talks about the number of pairs taken by crossbench and opposition members as greater than those of the government, but I have some statistics on that. You cannot compare apples with oranges because some of the applications for pairs are for as little as a quarter of an hour, some are for a whole day and some are for an evening—and that might be a Tuesday evening when we eventually do not sit. How does that work out?

You have to go through and work out all the hours and minutes you might have been here if you had a pair, so I think the minister is in dangerous territory when he brings up that issue. As someone who, with my colleague, administers the pairing, I think we have a very sensible arrangement in this place—much more so than in the other place, and I think the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, who has served in both chambers, would agree with that. I think it is unfortunate that the matter has been brought up in this debate.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:06): I will be brief, but I do want to sum up and put a few things on the public record. I thank all honourable members for their contribution for or against the bill, and I have reflected on this issue for some time now—in fact, before I had the privilege of coming into this place.

Kris Hanna did a good job in getting fixed terms, but two clear mistakes were made. First, from the point of view of accountability, which is a major consideration when people determine who they will vote for at the next election for government or opposition, the four year term should have come up in November and not in March. It was wrong, and it was a mistake from the point of the view of democracy for it to be set in March.

For a government to make a decision to shut down the parliament for 130 to 150 days is wrong for democracy. This bill cannot pass through both houses now, although it could had we been able to debate it here last night; however, it cannot now get up in the other place. Notwithstanding that, it is important to show the South Australian community where the democracy sits with respect to this matter in this chamber, this upper house, this people's house. I will introduce a bill in which we consider having it in November because that it is a fairer time but, if that is not to be, we need to bring back the parliament for a two week period.

In 2005, in Britain, there were only 34 days from when the Labour government prorogued the parliament until it returned after the election; here, it will be something like five months. The people need to know what is happening with the Mid-Year Budget Review, but they will not have transparency and honesty once this council is up.

In both chambers, just over 100 bills and private member's motions have not had a chance to be debated, and 10 government bills have still not gone through, including bills on native vegetation, which the government said were so important in relation to fire prevention.

The Premier leads the charge when it comes to South Australia (the mining and defence state), and today we saw the minister introduce a complicated bill into the council. If we were to sit in January and February that bill could be debated and passed if it is important for the protection of Arkaroola, for the royalties and rehabilitation and those sorts of things.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: What about the native vegetation one that is been there?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have mentioned that. Those sorts of things could have been debated.

I want to touch briefly on pairs. I know the government has had a go at me in the media about pairs. If the government chooses to withdraw pairs (some of the pairs I had were for just an hour or two, and sadly two of those pairs were for funerals), then it should bring that up in the parliament. If it wants to amend this bill and say there will be no pairs for the two weeks in January and February, fine; I am happy to be here without a pair. It is about two key things: the contribution that any member makes while they are in here—and members do work hard in here—and the fact that parliament is open for business even when someone is paired for a while.

I have always respected the fact that the Premier in particular should be paired off, because he heads the state. It is right that he be paired; I have never attacked the Premier or anyone at a senior level when they are out paired regularly, because we respect the fact that they have to do other work, but that does not mean the parliament cannot go on.

The final point I want to make is that the leader of government business said that it is only some cross benchers. I understand and respect the rights of my colleague with her comments and the opposition, but there have been polls on this, and the fact is that 89 per cent of the people want so see the parliament sitting over that period. This is about shutting down the parliament and taking away democratic process and opportunity to put the government of the day under pressure for a period leading up to the election. That is how you get your best consideration. That is not occurring, and all we will see is a massive void where opportunities for the state of South Australia are shut down for a five month period, so I commend this bill to the council.

Bill read a second time and taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:14): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (17:14): The government does not support the bill, obviously, but, given its limited prospects in the lower house we will not waste time by dividing.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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