HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-10-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Statutes Amendment (Budget Measures 2021) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 12 October 2021.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (11:08): I rise to speak on the second reading of the budget measures bill and indicate we will be supporting the bill but with amendments that have been filed during the course of this week. There are amendments that I filed myself earlier in the week and there are further amendments that were filed yesterday by the Hon. Robert Simms.

This bill was listed as the number one priority of the government when all members of this chamber received a letter—and I have it in front of me—dated 8 October 2021 from the Hon. Rob Lucas, Treasurer, Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council. That is, on Friday last week the number one priority for the government was the Statutes Amendment (Budget Measures 2021) Bill.

We are happy to oblige and help the government do what they want to do in this place. I suspect they are changing the order at the very last minute today because they do not like the amendments that have been put. Quite frankly, the government said they wanted to do this, so we will help them do this bill today and that is where we find ourselves.

The amendments that have been put and filed in my name introduce a parliamentary budget advisory service that will help cost policies in the lead-up to an election. This is something that was administratively set up before the last election and this regularises those arrangements and sets it up by legislation.

Amendments that were filed yesterday by the Hon. Robert Simms go to government advertising. They do not stop government advertising but, in the last nine months before an election—that is, the relevant election set out in the Electoral Act—they confine government advertising to those things that are necessary and reasonable for government and take the politics out of it.

This is something the Treasurer himself has long railed against so, once again, what this bill does is help the Treasurer give effect to public statements he has made over many years. This does apply for this election period for this Liberal government, but it applies during the election period for every future government. Be it Labor, Liberal, minority, majority government, this applies from here on for every government.

Amendments were filed by the Hon. Robert Simms yesterday. We will be supporting those amendments. I note I do not put any stead in an argument that amendments are being filed too late for us to consider here. They are similar things that have been agitated in the lower house during the course of this week. What is more, on Tuesday, at 11.49am, the government filed amendments to a bill that was considered that afternoon.

I am going to predict some sort of concern from the government about amendments only being filed yesterday, but if it is good enough for the government to have done it only two days ago, on the same day a bill was being considered, it is well and truly good enough, on something that is about accountability, transparency and the use of potentially millions of dollars of taxpayers' funds, for amendments that were filed yesterday to be considered today.

The bill itself amends the Mining Act to allow the use of an observable market index price or similar independently determined sale price in the cases of mineral sale price. It makes changes to the Motor Vehicles Act and Road Traffic Act, which is probably the most significant and possibly contentious part of the bill, which provides a legislative basis for SA Police to roll out new mobile phone detection cameras.

Figures that have been provided by the Treasurer show it is expected that 100,000 fines will be handed out in the first three years. Each fine is $646. The total of these fines in the budget is assumed to be $46 million, which is less than the $64 million you would expect at 100,000 fines at $646 each. The explanation, I am told from the Treasurer's office, has been that they do not anticipate all motorists will be able to pay these fines, which is a truly remarkable situation. Be that as it may, I commend the bill to the house and look forward to its passage this morning, with the amendments proposed.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (11:12): I rise also in support of the bill and to indicate the Greens will be supporting the amendments from the Labor Party. Also, I will be moving some amendments on behalf of the Greens that deal with advertising. I understand the government is expressing some concerns around the lateness of the amendments. I apologise for that, but the amendments are based on legislation that had been introduced into the lower house this week, so the government has had some oversight of the issues.

The guidelines that are being proposed are, I think, an improved transparency measure and one that would provide greater accountability in terms of use of government money not only under this government but going forward into the future. But I will talk more to those when we reach the next stage of this debate.

In terms of the urgency of the matter, this has been talked about for some time. I think it is appropriate to move this on, given we had all been told this was going to be the key priority for this week.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (11:13): The situation in this chamber is completely contrary to decades of general convention and practice that we have generally observed in this particular chamber. I think frankly what we are seeing here, which I am extraordinarily disappointed at, is that the contagion that we have seen in terms of the way business has been conducted in the House of Assembly in the last few days has, for some bizarre reason, infiltrated and infected the proceedings of this chamber. I am very disappointed the Hon. Mr Simms is a willing participant and party to this.

In relation to our convention and practice, and as Leader of the Government both many years ago and for the last four years, I have, almost without exception, tried to accede to the wishes of the majority of members in this chamber. So when the Labor Party, for example, or one of the crossbench says, 'We're not ready to proceed with a particular bill because we haven't yet considered the amendments,' we have agreed with that particular proposition, even when we put it on our priority list. Every week we have a priority list and when we have the planning meeting at 4.30 on a Monday afternoon, if the Labor Party or the crossbench say to me, 'We're not ready to proceed with that,' even though it is on our priority list we agree not to proceed with that particular matter.

The Leader of the Opposition—and he knows the falsity of what he was saying—tried to compare circumstances where there may well be amendments moved by a range of people, Labor, Liberal and crossbench, where there is an agreement on the floor either for it to proceed or not to proceed, where we proceed. But if there are substantive amendments to a bill, and if the Labor Party says to me, 'These are substantive amendments and our caucus hasn't considered them, we haven't even looked at them,' then we allow an adjournment or progress to be reported so that at least people can consider the amendments.

I have to say that, without exception, when members of the crossbench approach me and say they are not ready to proceed with a particular bill because they have not had a chance either to be briefed or they have not seen the amendments that have been moved by the Labor Party or the government or they want further time to reflect, we have agreed with that. But to have a circumstance this morning where, rightly, we did highlight the fact that we wanted to get the budget measures bill through, we knew what was in the bill and everyone had been briefed on it, and we were aware that it was likely that the Labor Party might move the same amendment they moved in the House of Assembly in relation to the budget—as it turned out it is slightly different, but not significantly different—so we were at least well aware of that.

I have not even looked at the amendment that the Hon. Mr Simms moved yesterday. For the Hon. Mr Simms to say that the government has had oversight of it because it was introduced in the House of Assembly, it was introduced into the House of Assembly yesterday by the Labor Party as a bill. So there is actually a bill being canvassed in this parliament which, I assume, covers exactly the same things. I assume this is a joint act between the Greens and the Australian Labor Party, but I do not know whether the amendments that are being moved by the Hon. Mr Simms are exactly the same as the bill being proposed by I think the member for Lee, Mr Mullighan.

The reality is, as a member of the government and as a member of this chamber, I have not even looked at it. I have not seen or considered the bill that was moved in the House of Assembly yesterday—because I am obviously not in that particular chamber and we are handling our own business. There was an amendment filed yesterday afternoon. I saw that the amendment was filed but I have not had a chance to be briefed on it or to take any advice on it in relation to its potential operation.

Then to have a hijack today, when no-one advised us—as I said, in our planning meeting at the start of the week there was no discussion about this amendment from the Hon. Mr Simms at all—at all. I think one or two members, including the Leader of the Opposition, were listed as speaking, and it was our intention to proceed with the bill today. But, all of a sudden, a completely new issue, unrelated—it is not as if it is an amendment to an existing proposal within the bill. There are four or five issues in the bill where everyone has been briefed on them. It is not as if someone is proposing a difference to a proposal in the bill. This is something which is completely different to anything that is in the budget measures bill, where no-one has had a chance to have a look at it, other than clearly the Labor Party and the Greens who have had a chance to look at it.

Other members of the crossbench might have been briefed on it last night or this morning, I do not know, but certainly, as I said, I have not been briefed on it and I have not had a chance to have a look at it, other than seeing it being filed late yesterday afternoon, or whenever it was. If this is the way this chamber is going to continue to conduct itself, where we just tear up all the rules, where you can cobble together a majority of people at short notice and tear up all the conventions and practices we generally abide by in this chamber, then so be it. It can be Rafferty's rules from here on.

Members of the crossbench who have supported this particular proposition can bear in mind, with their legislation, the substantive discussions we have had in recent times in relation to the ICAC legislation, where we had the courtesy to work assiduously with the Hon. Mr Pangallo on a whole series of amendments and discussions so that everyone was aware of what was going to proceed. On other bills that have been important to the Hon. Mr Pangallo we have also worked assiduously in terms of saying, 'Okay, if you're not ready we'll defer consideration of the bill until you are.' I defy the Hon. Mr Pangallo to indicate where I, as Leader of the Government in this chamber, have dudded him in relation to a particular amendment or proposition and the process or way we handled it.

The convention would be that when we convene again in the next sitting week, the numbers will be there and there will be no excuses from anybody in relation to not having a chance to have your joint party room, in our case, or the caucus in the case of the Labor Party, to consider the amendments, take advice and decide one way or another. It is the difference of a Thursday of this sitting week and Tuesday of the next sitting week in relation to the consideration of the bill, in particular the complete new provision in the bill about which there has been no discussion and no debate.

This is a slippery slope. If a majority of people want to slide down that particular slope then so be it, but there will be swings and roundabouts and I think it will be to the detriment of the good order and the good operation of this particular chamber. We can have a situation where, on a bill, a major provision completely unrelated to the bill can, on a Wednesday afternoon, be dumped and filed and then, on Thursday morning at 11 o'clock, it gets jammed through.

If that is the way we want to run our business in this chamber then so be it, but I will be glad that I will have sailed off into the political sunset, because in all of my time, under Labor leaders like the Hon. Chris Sumner and other Labor leaders, and Liberal leaders, we have generally abided by the conventions in terms of the good operation of this chamber. With great respect to my lower house colleagues, I think that is why we manage our business in a much better fashion than the business is managed in the House of Assembly.

I think that is to our credit. I think it is to the benefit of the legislation. Even if the majority of members want to support whatever it is the Hon. Mr Simms and the Labor Party want to be considered, there may well be deficiencies in the drafting of the proposal which could be tidied up. However, until people have had a chance to consider the amendments and have that discussion and debate, then I think we are, in essence, giving up the proper legislative scrutiny role that we should have as a chamber.

There have been so many of us who, on various occasions, have said that our role as a chamber is review, scrutiny of legislation, etc. We talked yesterday about the recommendations in relation to the operation of committees, and there is a scrutiny of bills committee, etc. It is all about review and the proper scrutiny of legislation, regulations, or whatever it might happen to be. That is our role as a chamber. What we are being asked to contemplate this morning is completely inimical, completely alien to, I think, that not only lofty but also important role and goal to this as a house of review and as a legislative chamber.

The numbers are there, obviously, to have forced us to this particular position, but I indicate during the committee stage I will be moving at clause 1 to report progress to ask members in this chamber to reflect on my contribution. As I said, the numbers will be there on the first sitting day of the next sitting week for the majority in this chamber to support amendments or maybe amendments to amendments if someone recognises there is a deficiency in the way it has been drafted, and we can have that particular debate on the first Tuesday that we come back.

I conclude by saying that it is correct, as the Leader of the Opposition said, that the government's priority this week was the budget measures bill with what we expected to be the amendment in relation to the budget office. We had not seen it at the start of the week, but we assumed it was going to be something along those lines. It was slightly different, but nevertheless substantially the same. But this is a whole new ball game, adding something new to it, and I would urge members to pause and reflect and, when we get to clause 1 and I move that we report progress, that progress is reported so that we can consider and reflect and get back to the proper role that we should be playing as a chamber.

Bill read a second time.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (11:27): I move:

That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole on the bill that it have power to consider a new clause to amend the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987.

Motion carried.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (11:27): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended to enable me to move an instruction without notice.

Motion carried.

The PRESIDENT: I note the absolute majority.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole on the bill that it have the power to consider new clauses to amend the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987 relating to the approval of the Auditor-General required for certain government advertising expenditure.

Motion carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (11:29): I move:

That the committee stage be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 12

Noes 7

Majority 5

AYES
Bonaros, C. Centofanti, N.J. Darley, J.A.
Girolamo, H.M. Hood, D.G.E. Lee, J.S.
Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I. (teller) Pangallo, F.
Simms, R.A. Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G.
NOES
Bourke, E.S. Hanson, J.E. Maher, K.J. (teller)
Ngo, T.T. Pnevmatikos, I. Scriven, C.M.
Wortley, R.P.
PAIRS
Franks, T.A. Hunter, I.K.

Motion thus carried.

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