HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-07-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Constitution (Deadlocks) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (17:37): I rise to speak on the Constitution (Deadlocks) Amendment Bill and indicate, as it will come as no surprise to members, I am sure, that Family First will not be supporting this bill. We will be voting against it in the second reading, in fact, sir.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Well, it is hilarious. Nor will we be supporting the related bills, namely the Constitution (Appropriation and Supply) Amendment Bill, the Referendum (Appropriation and Supply) Bill and the Referendum (Deadlocks) Bill, and I understand that the Constitution (Appropriation and Supply) Amendment Bill was just voted down at the second reading.

Turning to the Constitution (Deadlocks) Amendment Bill, which of course is the bill on which we are now speaking, the government proposes to amend the Constitution Act 1934, replacing the existing deadlock provisions under section 41 with a new system that is modelled on the federal deadlock system. The bill intends to introduce double dissolution elections and joint sittings to resolve persistent disagreements between the two houses.

We have a number of objections, but, first of all, our main criticism and the biggest flaw of this bill is that the proposed deadlock mechanism fundamentally weakens the scrutinising function performed by this Legislative Council. This is also true for the Constitution (Appropriation and Supply) Amendment Bill, which also erodes the council's function and relevance.

The government's justification for this bill, which claims that the current deadlock mechanism is not effective enough or not working in the way they deem appropriate, is not convincing to Family First, and certainly it does not warrant the eroding of the council's important role as a house of review. Similarly, the justification put forward for the Constitution (Appropriation and Supply) Amendment Bill is equally not convincing and will not have our support, as I indicated at the outset.

The Legislative Council is a reflection of South Australia's diversity, as shown with the equally diverse crossbench, with diverse representation from right across the board: Dignity for Disability, the Hon. John Darley from the Nick Xenophon Team, the Greens, of course, and obviously Family First as well. Although each party may have different values, policies and views of the world and, at times, certainly disagree with one another on certain issues, they certainly agree as well, and that is the nature of our representative system and exactly as it should be in my view.

We view that this function is working well, as it should work, and as the people of South Australia would expect it to work. It provides a good level of scrutiny and appropriate debate for matters that appear before this chamber. As demonstrated time and time again, the Legislative Council, and indeed the crossbench, as well as the opposition and obviously the government, play a significant role in the review of important legislation and keep the government in check. It provides an opportunity for members of this place to put forward the views of the South Australian people, as elected by the people.

One might argue that the views in this chamber are more representative of the South Australian public because of the proportional representation electoral system that operates in this chamber. A prime example of this is the recent planning, development and infrastructure legislation that recently passed after much debate and several weeks of going through this chamber.

Members would recall late last year that the planning minister threatened to extend parliamentary sitting days up to Christmas if the Legislative Council did not pass the planning bill before the end of the optional sitting week. Of course, he has no power to do this. As it so happened, that did not occur, and instead of giving into the minister's demands, the council persisted and performed its indispensable function, thoroughly scrutinising this very important piece of legislation and considering hundreds of filed amendments from government members, the crossbench and the opposition in the process.

I agree with the views expressed by Liberal members in this place and the other place who contend that, if passed, this bill will serve to intimidate and coerce members of the Legislative Council to pass legislation as a result of the constant threat of a double dissolution election and the prospect of losing their respective seats in this place. Furthermore, the Hon. Robert Lucas has put on record very interesting statistics which revealed that approximately 1.1 per cent of government bills have either been negatived or laid aside in the Legislative Council over the past 20 years—in other words, one bill on average per year for the last 20 years.

The main question, if that is the case, is: why are this bill and the other associated bills needed at all? The answer, of course, is that they are not. Overall, from my perspective, this is a very simple response. I will not go into great detail about the merits of the Legislative Council. I simply seek to make it clear to the chamber that we will not be supporting this bill or the related legislation because they fundamentally seek to provide more powers to the government at the expense of the Legislative Council. This bill proposes to shift the council's paramount role as the house of review toward being nothing more than a house that provides a rubber stamp. This is not acceptable, and Family First will not support this bill nor the other related bills which accompany it.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (17:42): Given all the angst and aggression that we have had over the last several weeks with the federal election campaign, I have decided today to be as agreeable as I can. I am going to agree with the Hon. Rob Lucas, I am going to agree with the Hon. Kelly Vincent, the Hon. Dennis Hood, and I am also going to agree with the Hon. Stephen Wade. I thank him for his comprehensive defence of bicameral parliament and his defence of the South Australian Legislative Council. I thank him for walking us through the history so that we have some understanding of why we have the system we have and what we would lose if we were to depart from it.

The Greens will be opposing this bill at the second reading, along with other members. I note the comments of the Hon. Rob Lucas. We do not often go to the same barbecues, but it sounds like we might have similar conversations. Like the honourable member, in my brief 10 years in this place I have never had a constituent who has come to me and said, 'You know what, Mark? The problem with our state is the deadlock provisions that apply between the houses.' It is not something that occupies the minds of anyone other than those diehards in the Labor Party who are determined to get rid of the upper house. If they cannot get rid of it, then they want to reform it to a position of irrelevancy. This is not a pressing issue for the public.

When I talk to people in the community, and probably the most recent conversations I have had with people who I do not know have in been doorknocking for the election, and one of the most common themes that comes out, and a number of members have raised this, is that most Australians, even if they are not fully apprised of how our system works, understand that you have checks and balances. They understand the importance of having an upper house of parliament that can provide some scrutiny for the lower house, and that is why, as other members have said, we have seen people voting differently in the different houses.

I am yet to have anyone come to me and say that the secret of a prosperous society is an effective dictatorship. Whilst I am not on personal terms with John Howard (former prime minister), I think that in a quiet reflective moment he might even be encouraged to agree that, in that period when he controlled both houses of parliament, probably were the seeds of his downfall. I may be doing him an injustice but certainly the commentators have reflected on that, that once you have that control, and you do not have the checks and balances, then things can go awry.

The other observation I would make is that one of the things we do in the Legislative Council is that we often save the government from itself. I can remember a number of bills where members have found unintended consequences that have resulted, we have found mistakes and errors, and we have used our authority here to correct those. I think that we have made a lot of legislation better as a result of the scrutiny that we have given it. Of course, sometimes people might say that we have made it worse as well, but on the whole I think the upper house has made legislation better.

I am going to conclude with three bits of advice to the government. If the object of the exercise is better legislation then here are three simple ways in which the government could achieve that. The first thing is that the government could consult better before introducing legislation. It is not just a question of consulting with members of parliament, but it is also stakeholders. I have used the word 'consult' because, as most of us would know, we do not receive invitations to consult with the government on legislation, we receive briefings about what the government has already decided to do. So, that is the first step: you want better legislation, consult better with stakeholders and members of parliament.

The second thing I think the government should do, and I know the opposition have put their minds to this but I think the government should as well, and that is to reform the parliamentary committee system. I think we could do well with a scrutiny of bills committee, a committee that has rotating membership, depending on the subject matter of the bill, and we, as members of parliament, should have the ability to directly interrogate experts and stakeholders as part of the legislative process.

I think that degree of scrutiny would be far preferable to the situation we have here where a small number of ministers represent ministers in another place. The ministers here are not familiar with the portfolios, they do their best, I guess, but that is why they have to have advisors sitting next to them whispering in their ear. It would be a far better a system if we could, in this chamber, interact directly with the ministers, maybe through a scrutiny of bills committee process. That is the second suggestion.

The third suggestion, and this has been raised by other speakers, is we do have a dispute resolution mechanism. It has not been used very often. I do note that in the last couple of days we have seen some so-called deadlock conferences or conferences of managers. That is a process that I think, whilst it is a little unwieldy in some ways, could be reformed and could be then used more. I think in my 10 years I have been part of one conference of managers. Then attorney-general, Michael Atkinson, did not have his heart in it, and basically I think we had one meeting for a few minutes and then the process was abandoned and it went nowhere. I think we should be using processes like that more. The government might be surprised, they might find that, with genuine debate and dialogue, sometimes these deadlocks can be broken.

So, with those words the Greens are certainly interested in reforms that improve the quality of legislation but we are not interested in reforms that gut the democracy of the South Australian parliament, and we are not interested in reforms that make the upper house of parliament an irrelevant rubber stamp without the ability to change legislation, so we will be joining, in an agreeable way, our colleagues on the crossbenches and in the opposition to howl this bill down at the second reading stage.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (17:49): I would like to thank honourable members—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order!

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: —for their valuable, if however—

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order!

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: —misguided contributions to this very important piece of legislation.

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order!

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank you for your protection. You see what I put up with in question time, Mr Acting President. I look forward to seeing how the second reading vote goes on this one.

Second reading negatived.

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