HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-10-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Constitution (Independent Speaker) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 27 October 2021.)

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:48): I rise in support of this bill. This is an opportunity to reform our parliamentary democracy. These opportunities do not come along very often. The Greens have long advocated for the benefits of having an independent Speaker, that is, somebody who removes themselves from their political party and therefore is able to act as an independent umpire. This is a model that is not without precedent in democracies around the world. Indeed, it is a model that has been used very effectively in the United Kingdom.

There has been a lot written about this by academics who are much more expert in these matters than myself, but there is one article I want to quote from. Ryan Goss from the Australian National University wrote in The Conversation in an article dated 21 July back in 2015 that 'A truly independent Speaker could renew Australia's parliamentary democracy.' One of the observations he made, and I think it is a very fair point, is that by making the Speakership a political gift of the party in power, Australia is missing a major opportunity for democratic renewal of its parliament. I think that is a fair point.

We have seen over the years what can happen when you have a politicisation of the role of Speaker. Obviously, we have seen some quite dramatic examples of this over in Canberra. Bronwyn Bishop, when she was not helicoptering around, seemed to show a fairly partisan approach to the role of Speaker. We do not want to see that here in our parliament. From the Greens' perspective, though, in order for us to support this bill we want to get an assurance from other political parties that they will support the idea of an independent Speaker of this house.

The PRESIDENT: You are downgrading the role.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: President. Apologies, Mr President. Of course, we do have that model at the moment under your leadership, and I think that has been very successful, but we want to ensure that, in the future, when a President is appointed, they recuse themselves from political party meetings. I would certainly welcome an undertaking from the political parties that that is something they will commit to doing if they are in government, because of course, if we put this scheme in place in the House of Assembly, we should then do so here in this place.

The other point I want to make is the Greens recognise that there are lots of things that need to be done to modernise the way that this chamber works in practice. Enshrining the principle of an independent President is important, but also we would like to look at standing orders more broadly, looking at questions like Dorothy Dixers and the way in which they work in practice. These are things that I think many in the community would regard as a waste of time.

We also want to look at the times in which this chamber operates, the start times, and align them more closely with the House of Assembly, ensuring that we do not have sittings that go into the early hours of the morning but rather we work more sensible hours that are more inclusive of those with families and more in keeping with community standards. We look forward to having the opportunity to talk to other parties here in this place about those elements and would certainly welcome a commitment from the political parties to consider those things.

To sum up, this is an exciting opportunity to reform our political system, to get in place this idea of an independent umpire, to enshrine that principle in the House of Assembly and to also get a commitment that we are going to look at it here in this place too, and to look more broadly at how we can improve the way in which this house of parliament works to ensure it is more in line with community expectations.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (16:53): I rise to speak to and in support of the bill that we have before us. I think the independence of the Speaker is an important issue. The Hon. Robert Simms has indicated some areas where in Australian parliamentary history the independence might not have been as independent as many would like it to be.

There are constitutional barriers to replicating it for the Legislative Council. Something I have only learnt in this term of parliament is the Constitution Act imposes different requirements on changing these sorts of things in the House of Assembly and Legislative Council. It needs a referendum for the Legislative Council, whereas it needs more simply a change in the Constitution Act for the House of Assembly.

I think in my experience, however, the potential problems this seeks to address do not tend to afflict us in the Legislative Council as some people feel they do in the House of Assembly. Certainly, from my experience, firstly as a Chief of Staff to a Labor minister in the Legislative Council in 2002 up until now, nearly 20 years later, as a member of the Legislative Council, I think, by and large, the Presiding Officer, including yourself, sir, has acted independently and quite fairly.

Our former colleague the Hon. David Ridgway might have been a bit annoyed at just how independently former President McLachlan might have often taken his duties, but it is a reflection that, in my experience, the presiding officers in this chamber have acted fearlessly and impartially on the whole.

The worst thing, in my time observing presidents of this chamber, is I can remember very early on in my time as a Chief of Staff former President, the Hon. Ron Roberts, repeating a comment he heard on the floor when he was challenged, 'What did I say wrong', and he swore from the chair, but that is about as extreme as I think I have seen a Presiding Officer in this chamber.

Having said that, I take the point the Hon. Robert Simms has made, and I can say that it would be the intention of a Labor government, if a Labor member became the presiding officer of this chamber in the future, to not just act independently but to show that independence by not participating in the general day-to-day party room activities of the party. From memory, I think former Speaker Michael Atkinson in the lower house chose to do that when he was Speaker, not just to show acting independently but to be seen to be acting independently, which I think is important.

I can also place on the record that on some of the issues the Hon. Robert Simms has raised in relation to Dorothy Dixers and starting times we are absolutely prepared, in very good faith, to have discussions about any possible changes to those in the future. Having said that, I indicate and place on the record that we will support this bill today and we will not support the government amendments.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:56): I rise to contribute a government view to the bill that has been moved, and to indicate our very strong opposition and explain the reasons for our very strong opposition. A range of other issues have been addressed by other speakers and I would say, for example, in relation to the issue of Dorothy Dixers that in my long experience, and certainly in the last 25 years, this government at least was prepared to address the issue of Dorothy Dixers.

With great respect, I would ask the Hon. Mr Simms to go and have a look at the performance of the last government and the length of some replies from the backbench that the Hon. Mr Hunter delivered on behalf of the government and the Hon. Ms Gago, where they went for some 15 to 19 minutes in prepared answers to Dorothy Dixer questions.

We, with our changes to standing orders, indicated publicly that, in relation to questions from our own backbench, we would seek to limit our responses as ministers to four minutes. You will see the President and the past President sometimes remind ministers who might forget that issue.

Occasionally, presidents have interpreted the commitment I gave on behalf of the government to be four-minute answers to every question—that was not the case; it was in relation to Dorothy Dixers that came from our own backbench. The frustration from opposition was to listen to ministers reading out page after page of prepared material.

It is entirely reasonable for members of parliament to be able to, particularly if one in this bill is espousing the independence of at least one member—and I am sure the crossbenches espouse their own independence—allow members of a government backbench to be something more than statues sitting on a backbench, unable to even ask a question of a minister.

How you would come to that provision I am interested, but certainly do not support. I think a self-imposed restriction, which we have certainly for the first time done, is a very useful step in terms of allowing government backbenchers to raise questions, and ministers to put on the public record sometimes public information, which the opposition might not want to put on the public record.

That is all part of the public service, I believe, but not doing it in such a way as to dominate or take away too much of question time. The overwhelming percentage of the time in question time is certainly given to the opposition and the crossbench, with almost unlimited supplementary questions and the like and almost unlimited, on occasions, screaming and yelling and interjecting and being called to order by the President at the time.

There are issues that can be addressed and we believe for the first time that we have been prepared to seek to address them. We have sought to address getting as many questions in as we can. Indeed, I think it was only yesterday or Tuesday when I was asked to whether or not we should do more Dorothy Dixer questions or questions from the backbench and we said, 'No, let's leave it to the crossbench' and the crossbench got a very significant number of questions on that particular day. So I can only say that, as Leader of the Government for the last four years, I have striven to reverse the experience that we endured for 16 years in relation to those particular issues.

For the first time, we have seen some movement in relation to standing orders, having been moribund for a long period of time under the former government. At least during this four-year period, there have been a very significant set of standing order changes, in particular one that was so arcane as to be ridiculous, which was thou shalt not refer to any proceedings, even though they were public, of a committee of the parliament before it had reported, and those sorts of things. We are about to next week. We will have a very significant debate in relation to a code of conduct to be incorporated into the standing orders. Whilst those issues were addressed by other members, they are related of course, but they are not the subject of these particular provisions.

The two broad issues that I want to address in relation to this are in the nature of the amendments that we are going to be moving, but I make the initial comment in relation to people quoting the workings of the House of Commons and comparing it with South Australia's House of Assembly. The House of Commons has 650-odd members. The notion that very often you are going to have a hung parliament or a very close parliament the maths dictates is highly unlikely. Of course, it can happen, but it is highly unlikely.

However, when you are in such a small house, like a House of Assembly with 47 members, there have been any number of examples over the last 30 or 40 years when there has been either a hung parliament or indeed we have had independent Speakers. There was Speaker Peterson going back a long time and Speaker Lewis going back. Speaker Stott, going back to the period from 1968 to 1970 under the Hall government, held the balance of power and was the Speaker, so you go back over the decades in South Australia.

Because we have such a small number and it is so much easier than it is for the House of Commons to have a balance of power position in the House of Assembly, the whole notion that you can easily cobble onto our system the same system of the House of Commons has hairs on it, if I can use a colloquial expression. It is certainly not something that I can see is appropriate or logical in relation to the operations of our parliamentary democracy in South Australia. As I said, it is easy to quote that this happens in the House of Commons, but in doing so people have to recognise the difference between the House of Commons and the House of Assembly.

One of the issues that my amendments seek to address is self-evident in its logic and that is if there are members in this chamber and indeed members in the House of Assembly who believe that there should be an independent Speaker, this whole notion that you shall have an independent Speaker for 3½ years and then at the most controversial, the most frenetic, period of the election cycle, nine months before the election—and we are going through this at the moment before the election—all of a sudden you say, 'Alright, all bets are off. Thou shalt not have an independent Speaker. We will now have a partisan Speaker.'

So you have somebody who is supposedly independent for 3½ years but when it really gets controversial, when it gets frenetic, when you are leading into an election campaign, you say, 'The independent Speaker is no longer independent. For this nine-month period, they go back into their political party.'

Heaven forbid if there was to be a Labor government and they appointed the Hon. Mr Koutsantonis as the Speaker of the House of Assembly, what we are being asked to contemplate is that for 3½ years he would excuse himself from the party room and he would not be a partisan Speaker—I pause and take a deep breath at that particular contemplation—but then, when it really gets controversial, when it really gets tough and we are leading into an election, the Hon. Mr Koutsantonis hops back into the Labor Party, puts his Labor Party hat on and, as you lead into an election, you no longer have an independent Speaker.

When we get to the committee stage my question to those in these chamber, including the Leader of the Opposition, is that if you are serious about this, if you are serious about having an independent Speaker, then you should be supporting the amendment that we are moving, because if this bill is going to go through, then you will have an independent Speaker for the four years. You do not have an independent Speaker for 3½ years and then just when it is convenient, six months before the election, they hop back into their Labor togs or their Liberal togs and join up with the party and become a non-independent or a partisan Speaker for that particular period.

As I said, when we get to the committee stage, I will be asking those who claim that they are going to support this as to how they can explain in simple and rational terms how you have an independent Speaker for 3½ years but at the most controversial time of the election cycle, you have a situation where the Speaker is no longer independent and becomes everything evidently that the majority in this chamber potentially believe to be abhorrent, that is, a member of a political party with all the sins that travel with that particular role within the political party.

That is the major amendment of two. We are moving two amendments in relation to this but we will be testing the views of this council in relation to how genuine the views are that you really want an independent Speaker for the period of time that is there.

The second one is this issue of prorogation of the parliament. This bill, together with other changes that were made in the House of Assembly, have left us in a position where an individual person, the Speaker of the parliament, at his or her whim, in this case his whim, can reconvene parliament whenever they wish in the period leading up to the election.

Again, from the government's viewpoint, our system is the government is able to prorogue the parliament so that everyone with certainty knows that that is the end of the four years of parliamentary debate and people can then get into that election mode. Now that we have fixed terms, we know exactly when that is going to be and so the parliament is prorogued, and staff, members and everyone is aware that the parliament has been prorogued rather than the situation of an individual Speaker being the one who makes this particular decision at his or her whim. As I said, this system is unremarkable. It has existed for decades and for most of those decades the Labor government has been in power.

As I said, it has been largely unremarkable in relation to the period that leads into an election, so the notion that this ought to be a part of a broader scheme of changes where one individual makes the decision makes no sense at all. With great respect, going back over the number of speakers—and I will not name them—that we have had in the past, it does not fill me with great confidence that those particular people and similar in the future may well be the ones making these particular decisions for whatever reasons they might choose.

Whether you like it or not, the people of the state actually elect the government, and generally they are there not only to govern—the executive arm of government—but also to manage the business of the house, subject of course, to final votes of the individual houses in terms of what goes on. The government for 40 years has not controlled the Legislative Council and is unlikely ever in the foreseeable future to control the Legislative Council.

Generally, in terms of the proceedings of the House of Assembly in particular and the prorogation of the parliament, the preparation of the wind-down for an election period, as I said, unremarkably has been a prerogative of governments, mainly Labor governments for the bulk of the last 40 or 50 years.

It just seems to be, because we now have a Liberal government for the first time in 16 years, that in some way there is some evil which now needs to be immediately corrected, because this aberration cannot be countenanced and, should it continue for another four years, it is too horrid a thought for the Labor opposition to even contemplate. The rules are, obviously, different when the Labor Party are in opposition from when they are in government; I have highlighted that in other debates.

As I said, the most significant issue for us in relation to the amendment is to hear from those who believe that they want an independent Speaker as to how they justify—if they are going to. Hopefully someone will see the good sense of, if you want an independent Speaker, he or she is independent for the four years, not for 3½ and then becoming a partisan political warrior for the six months leading up to the election.

So the government will be strongly opposing the bill, and we look forward to the committee stage of the debate.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (17:12): I thank all the speakers on the bill, and I take note of some of the comments that have been made by the honourable Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Robert Simms and also the Treasurer.

Just briefly touching on Dorothy Dixers, I think I remember sitting with the Treasurer when I first got elected, and I think one of the things he said to me was, 'We hope to minimise Dorothy Dixers in the parliament.' To be actually quite frank, there have been some obvious examples of Dorothy Dixers that have been thrown up in the period that I have been in here, but generally I sit back and think, 'Well, what else can those backbenchers do?'

Members interjecting:

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I am just saying, Mr President—it is not a derogatory term.

The PRESIDENT: I would make the comment that there are some on the opposition front bench who have been in exactly that position.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Yes. I am not saying that in a derogatory sense. They have a task, and the task can be quite limited; however, I have to say that I have found some of those questions to be quite informative. My only issue when these questions are asked is the time it takes for the ministers to answer those questions.

I am surprised that we do not have time limits in here so that the ministers who are answering those questions are wound up and told, 'That's it, thank you very much.' They just tend to go on and filibuster and eat into question time. One day I would actually like to see time limits there that limit the response time. Get to the point. Great, thank you very much, and we get onto the next question.

I think the Treasurer was talking about a scenario that could happen where a member, if elected to the role of Speaker in the House of Assembly and of course then takes on the role of being an Independent, two-thirds of the way through the term or close to an election, they may decide to suddenly return back to their blue or red colours.

Is it likely to happen? I would not think it would. Once a Speaker is in that chair, I think they enjoy the privileges that perhaps go with it and the authority that goes with it as well. I think they would be reluctant to suddenly give that up and, at the same time, have it impact on their credibility by suddenly deciding to jump back into their political landscape whence they came.

I think the Treasurer also mentioned the issue in Westminster in the House of Commons. I think I raised it last night about the Rt Hon. John Bercow and his background, where he started off as a conservative, he then became Speaker and demonstrated his independence throughout that period until 2019. Ironically, once he left the House of Commons, he then became a Labour member, and he was suddenly a turncoat.

I have only been here just short of four years. I have to say, I echo the words of the Hon. Kyam Maher. I have found every President in this chamber to have been fair and impartial, starting with the first President that we had, the Hon. Mr McLachlan. Subsequent to that, we had the Hon. Mr Stephens and then of course yourself. I must say that you have been a breath of fresh air as well, Mr President. You will not be here next year and I am sure we will miss your authority in this place and that strong, bellowing voice.

I do not know if I am speaking on behalf of my colleague, the Hon. Connie Bonaros, but I have not really had any complaints about the way that presidents in this place have conducted themselves in the period that we have been here, so we have no issue with that. As I said, the only thing we would ask for is perhaps that there be a time limit imposed on responses. If we get that, I promise to keep my questions brief.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: You'll be speaking frankly all the time!

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will; I will speak briefly and quite frankly. With that, thank you very much for the contributions and I look forward to the committee stage.

The council divided on the second reading:

Ayes 12

Noes 7

Majority 5

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

Second reading thus carried; bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The CHAIR: The deputy—the Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Deputy leader?

The CHAIR: I said the Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The Chairman knows something I do not, it appears.

The CHAIR: The Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Changing leaders. I will address something the Hon. Rob Lucas, the Treasurer, touched on and wanted answers on in a moment. I might just reflect, being referred to as deputy leader, on the Hon. Frank Pangallo's frank and brief contribution.

We have had a number of presidents this term of parliament. As I was checking the batteries on smoke alarms, as you change to daylight savings, it reminded me that it is about that time each year we change presidents here, but we only had to change them once. The reflection on Dorothy Dixers, I must admit I was quite partial when the Hon. David Ridgway was in the chamber for his Dorothy Dixers, to find out what he had had for lunch the week before at the awards he was going to.

In particular, the Treasurer has asked about a part in the bill that refers to the possibility of a speaker rejoining a political party. This is not my bill. This was introduced by the Hon. Frances Bedford in the other place and the Hon. Frank Pangallo is carrying the bill here. I have had the opportunity to have a good look through the Hansard to get an idea of what was the intention of many parts of the bill. I will not quote directly, but from a few different parts of the Hansard I did pick up, and it seems very reasonable to me, the idea behind that part of the bill.

Early in the contribution, I think Frances Bedford was asked questions by the Attorney-General about the specific issue that the Treasurer raised about an Independent. The member for Florey pointed out at some stage in her contribution that the idea is not that you have to be elected as an Independent in order to be Speaker—that is not what the intention of the bill was—but that you have to show an independence if you want to be and remain Speaker and do that by not participating in the day-to-day activities of your party.

That is what Frances Bedford noted in her contribution. It is not that you have to be one of the five or six people in the House of Assembly, the growing number of them in the House of Assembly, who are elected or formally become Independent. A member of a political party can have ambitions of high office, but if they do—and I think it is by the end of the day or the next day; I cannot remember the exact provision in here—they resign from that party. It is not stopping someone who has been a member of a political party, but while they are Speaker they should not partake in the day-to-day activities.

Reading through further contributions, I think it has been mentioned most by the Hon. Robert Simms in this chamber that it is a very strong convention in the Westminster system, but so too is the convention that someone who is Speaker is not challenged at their next election. That is not a feature, I think, that we are contemplating here at all, but in recognition of that, reading through the contributions that were made, if someone is from a political party, becomes Speaker, resigns from that party, we should give that person, given that there is not a convention not to challenge them, the opportunity, should they wish, to contest that next election as a member of the political party from whence they came.

Reading the member for Florey's contributions, the reason the date is in there, the member for Florey said at some stage, is on advice from parliamentary counsel as a relevant date that parliamentary counsel advised as the most suitable, being the relevant date under the Electoral Act, the relevant date before the election, that 1 July the year preceding an election. From the contribution of Frances Bedford, it seems entirely reasonable to me that you do not have to be elected as an Independent to aspire to become Speaker, but once attaining that you need to demonstrate independence outwardly by resigning from the party and not participating.

Because we do not have that convention that the Speaker is not challenged, that does not preclude you from rejoining your party. The reason for the date, as the member for Florey said, for the mechanism is that the advice in drafting it with parliamentary counsel was it is the relevant date as defined in other legislation, being the Electoral Act.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I want to rise to advise the chamber that we will not be supporting the amendments from the government. I guess one of the key principles here that has weighed on my mind, and I think that of the Greens, has been this question of what our role is in terms of tampering with changes made in one house that relate to the way in which they govern their own affairs. I think it would be quite inappropriate, when the House of Assembly has come up with a proposal for how they would like to run their own affairs, for us to come in like big brother at the eleventh hour and say, 'We are not happy with this element. We think you should be doing this better.' That seems to me to be quite inappropriate.

I know the Hon. Rob Lucas has a wealth of experience in this place, and I am sure he would have some great ideas in terms of how we could reform and make this chamber work more effectively, but it is not really our role to then be pushing those ideas onto the House of Assembly. That is a separate discussion that they should have in terms of setting their own rules and protocols.

Is what they have put forward perfect, or is what they have put forward exactly how the Greens would have crafted it? Maybe not, but we should not let the quest for perfection be the enemy of the good here. I think it would be a shame if we were to start tinkering and reopening that process and therefore undermining the authority of the House of Assembly to determine how they want to run their own affairs.

I would not want to see us determining standing orders in terms of how we run our affairs and have the House of Assembly opening that back up again and telling us in a sort of paternalistic way, 'No, you can't do this. You can't have an independent Chair,' or 'You can't restrict questions' and so on. I do not think that would be appropriate.

I also have to question whether or not these are in fact genuine amendments, given the Leader of the Government in this place spoke so vehemently against the bill in its entirety and called a division on the second reading. I question whether or not he is really committed to wanting to improve the bill and make it work more effectively, as he asserts. With those remarks, the Greens will not be supporting the amendments that have been put forward by the government, but we will certainly continue to advocate down the track for changes that we can make in our chamber to make it operate more effectively, more democratically and to modernise the system.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I welcome at least a part of that contribution from the Hon. Mr Simms, because what he has said is the position of the Greens is, if the House of Assembly says, 'This is the way we should want to conduct ourselves,' the Greens will not interfere with that. So should a future House of Assembly come back with an amendment to this particular provision to say, 'We want to govern ourselves in a different way,' consistent with the undertaking he has just given on behalf of the Greens, he would indicate that he would be supportive of that because he would not want to interfere with the way the House of Assembly organises themselves.

That is duly noted and recorded. I am sure he has an excellent memory. Should there be a different position adopted by a future government and a future House of Assembly that seeks to amend the way they run themselves and seeks the views of the Legislative Council, the Hon. Mr Simms has made it quite clear that the Greens' position is: who are they to interfere with the House of Assembly and he will be supportive of that particular change. We, as I said, at least welcome that part of his contribution and acknowledge their particular commitment as to how they will operate in the future.

In relation to the contribution earlier from the Hon. Mr Pangallo, I have to respectfully disagree. I think the inference he was making was it was unlikely that a person who had been elected as an independent Speaker in the House of Assembly would rejoin their party, because they had been independent for 3½ years and, therefore, it is unlikely that they would want to sully that reputation of independence. All I can say is, if this operates, I will hopefully live long enough to be able to have a cup of coffee with the Hon. Mr Pangallo or maybe a spaghetti marinara across the road.

The Hon. F. Pangallo interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, the food court. I will take him to Shogun, and we will reflect on the first experience of this. The reason inferred by the Hon. Mr Maher in his attempted defence of this indefensible provision, if you support independence, was that the position is, for example, in the House of Commons you have this convention or tradition where the independent Speaker is not challenged. Why is that? The reason for that is, because you have 650 members, both of the major parties can afford to say it is unlikely that one vote is going to make much difference, and they accept the independence and, therefore, the independent Speaker is unchallenged.

In a house of 47, for the reasons I outlined, no-one—and the Hon. Mr Maher has conceded this—is ever going to concede a particular seat to the opposition. Therefore, the precedent that has been quoted as occurring in the House of Commons, where a Speaker would be unchallenged by everybody in terms of their future elections, in my view could not possibly occur in South Australia.

I guess the kicker in all of this is the situation of, for example, Speaker Tarzia, in the lower house, in a sort of marginal seat. The whole notion is that, in the Hon. Mr Pangallo's view, because you have been an Independent for 3½ years you will stay as an Independent. It means, therefore, that you have to run for that election as an Independent against a candidate from your own party, possibly, and certainly against a candidate from the other party, but you have no support.

In Speaker Tarzia's position, if we look at it that way, he would have been in a position where he would have a well-funded Labor campaign, spending the maximum amount of dollars, he might be an Independent candidate with no support of a political party and, even if the Liberal Party in that case chose not to run a candidate against him, he would be an Independent fighting an Independent against a well-funded Labor campaign in that particular area. That is why the circumstances of the South Australian House of Assembly are so different from the House of Commons.

If you have a Speaker who is about to retire and is therefore not contesting and does not care, then he or she may well want to continue on as an Independent because it is of no great consequence, but if you are a youngish person—Speaker Teague in a marginal seat up in the Hills, Speaker Tarzia in a marginal seat in the city—the whole notion that you will stay on as an Independent, as inferred by the Hon. Mr Pangallo, I do not think has substance. That is not going to be the reality in relation to what is going to occur.

You will have a whole series of issues in relation to whether you are in or out of a political party in terms of public funding and access to public funding. This relevant election period from 1 July through to March is the relevant election period for disclosures and for caps on expenditure and a whole variety of other issues, so whether you are an Independent or you are part of a political party or not is a critical issue.

So in everything the Hon. Mr Maher and the Hon. Mr Simms have said, they really have not answered the question. They have explained why it might make sense for an individual to want to go back to their political party, and I understand that argument, but it does not actually explain the fact that if you believe—and our position is pretty clear: we oppose the bill and the concept. What we are saying to those of you who say you believe in independence is we do not believe you can be half or two-thirds pregnant—you either are or you are not. If you believe in independence, then it is a nonsense if you are saying, at the most critical period in the election cycle, that you can hop back into your political party and be not Independent, that you can be a partisan political warrior for the last six to nine months of the election cycle.

Our position is pretty clear: we think it is a nonsense. If you lot want it, and you say it is because you want an independent Speaker, then you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say, as I said, that for 3½ years he or she will be Independent and then for the last six to nine months they will be a partisan political warrior. We can go over the detail of that when I move the amendments; we are just speaking broadly now at clause 1, and I do not intend to waste any more time of the committee by canvassing any of the other issues.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I just rise to say that SA-Best will oppose all those amendments.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: For the record, I will be supporting the amendments.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 2, lines 10 to 22—This clause will be opposed

Clause 3 of the bill currently seeks to amend section 6(1)(c) of the Constitution Act 1934 to prevent the Governor from proroguing parliament during a relevant election period. 'Relevant election period' is defined to mean:

…the period commencing on 1 July in the year immediately before a general election of members of the House of Assembly is held in accordance with section 28(1) and ending on the day of that general election…

The government opposes this clause and consequentially schedule 1 of the bill, which inserts transitional provisions related to clause 3, therefore I will treat the vote on this amendment as a test for the subsequent one. If I lose this on a vote, I will not proceed with the consequential amendment.

It is the government's view that the Governor should retain the ability to prorogue parliament in the lead-up to an election, as opposed to parliament merely being adjourned until the writs are called. Prorogation provides certainty to everyone involved, from members and staff of the parliament to public servants, that all pending business before the house will lapse and that no further sittings will be held after the conclusion of the current sitting calendar. Importantly, it prevents parliament from being recalled on a whim. Instead, as is appropriate, the parliament would only be recalled by the Governor to deal with matters of urgency and importance, such as further COVID measures, for example, or in the lead-up to an election.

The committee divided on the clause:

Ayes 11

Noes 8

Majority 3

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

Clause thus passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 3, lines 7 and 8 [clause 4(2), inserted subsection (4)]—Delete ‘, except during a relevant election period’

I think it is fair to say that this particular issue has been given a reasonable airing in the second reading and on clause 1, so I do not intend to repeat at length the government's position, but for those avid readers of Hansard I should at least explain what this particular amendment is and how strongly the government feels about it. Put simply, this particular amendment tests the strength of conviction of those who profess to claim that they want an independent Speaker in the house.

As I indicated at the second reading, if that is your view—it is certainly not the government's view but if that is your view—then the notion that you are going to have an independent Speaker for 3½ years and then conveniently, just before the election, the Speaker is no longer independent, becomes a partisan political warrior, hops back into the Labor Party or the Liberal Party and engages in political combat with all and sundry, makes no sense at all to anyone who tries to make any sense of this professed belief in having an independent Speaker running the House of Assembly.

As I said, I have indicated the government's strong opposition to the bill overall but, as I said, we have a very strong view that those who want it should get the whole lot, not just 3½ bits of it and conveniently forget the other half of the four-year term. I indicate that if we lose it on the voices, we will again be dividing on this particular issue.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 7

Noes 12

Majority 5

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

Amendment thus negatived.

The CHAIR: We move on to amendment No. 3 [Treasurer-1], still on clause 4, which again is proposing the deletion of certain words.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In the interests of being a good citizen, I will not move the amendment in my name.

Clause passed.

Remaining clause (5), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (17:54): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The PRESIDENT: I do not think I need to read this all out, except to say that it is a requirement that we have an absolute majority on the third reading.

The council divided on the third reading:

Ayes 12

Noes 7

Majority 5

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

Third reading thus carried; bill passed.

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (17:59): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended to enable the Clerk to deliver the Constitution (Independent Speaker) Amendment Bill and message to the Speaker of the House of Assembly should the House of Assembly not be sitting.

Motion carried.

The PRESIDENT: I note, again, the absolute majority.

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