HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-11-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Committees

Joint Committee on the Equal Opportunity Commissioner's Report into Harassment in the Parliament Workplace

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. R.I. Lucas:

That the report of the committee be noted and that the recommendations of the joint committee that the code of conduct for members of parliament be adopted and that the standing orders of the council be amended to incorporate the code of conduct within the standing orders and that, upon the code of conduct being adopted by the Legislative Council, the statement of principles previously adopted be superseded by the code of conduct, be adopted.

(Continued from 16 November 2021.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (11:03): As has been circulated sometime earlier in the week, this is actually the motion that the report of the joint committee on the recommendations arising from the Equal Opportunity Commissioner's inquiry be noted, and the recommendations of the joint committee that the code of conduct be adopted. This is the first motion. Given the contributions, I understand that it is likely to be—one never likes to predict—uncontroversial and will be approved. If that is the case, I will then be moving, based on advice, a recommendation for the formal adoption of the standing orders, and I think there has been the flagging of a potential amendment.

I am just clarifying that, when I move that second motion, I am able to speak to both the motion and the mooted amendments. So at this stage, we are just voting on this first motion that is here on the Notice Paper.

Motion carried.

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

That council adopt a new standing order providing for a code of conduct for members of parliament as follows.

As I briefly outlined earlier, this proposal is a formal adoption within our standing orders of the code of conduct for members of parliament. I do not propose to go through all of that; that has been explained in our earlier speeches on the earlier motion. But to briefly summarise, there is a preamble and then there is the actual code of conduct. A number of us addressed the distinction between the preamble and the actual code of conduct, and I do not propose to go over that again.

What I will say is that since I last spoke on this particular issue our lower house colleagues—we do not always have to be mindful of what they have done, but I think on this occasion it is important that we at least note that because I think it is important to note what they have done and therefore in relation to an issue of consistency between the houses.

The House of Assembly has already adopted the recommendations of the joint committee as is. In the House of Assembly, I am advised, all Liberal members, all Labor members and all 15 million crossbenchers—or whatever that number is at any point in time; without dissent, I should say, is perhaps a better way of putting it—unanimously adopted the actual recommendations of the joint committee without further amendment.

Whilst I have indicated, and I do so again now, the government's opposition to the about to be moved amendments to the code, to be moved by the Hon. Mr Simms, I now add the additional argument from the government's viewpoint that should the Legislative Council adopt the further amendments we would have a position where the code of conduct that exists for House of Assembly members would be different to the code of conduct that was adopted by the Legislative Council.

There is nothing unlawful about that, so I am not suggesting that there is. I do, however, add to the argument that I made earlier, that we do not support the actual substance of the recommendations of the amendment anyway, for the reasons I have outlined. Secondly, I think there is now this additional issue that there has been this unanimous vote of all government, opposition and crossbench members in the House of Assembly.

I think the strength of this code of conduct was that there was a unanimity of all represented there. There is now unanimity of all in the House of Assembly, and I would hope that there will be eventually, if the amendments are unsuccessful, unanimity in this chamber from government, opposition and crossbench members, that we are now all pledged to incorporate the recommended standing orders into the standing orders of this place, as well as into the House of Assembly, to help govern the behaviour of members henceforth.

For those reasons, I move the adoption of this new standing order. Whilst the proposed amendment has not been moved yet—the Hon. Mr Simms will do that in a moment—it will be the government's position that we will be opposing the amendment and supporting the adoption of the recommendations of the committee.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (11:09): I move to amend proposed new standing order 455B:

After 'Code of Conduct', first appearing, insert 'and should a Member wilfully contravene the Code, the Council may require the Member to apologise; or pay a fine; or may suspend the Member from the service of the Council.'

This is a straightforward inclusion. It is modelled on the code of conduct that operates in the state of Victoria. I understand the points the honourable Treasurer has made in terms of wanting to ensure uniformity between the houses, but at the same time I think we have a responsibility to ensure that any code we put in place is effective and has real teeth.

I think the people of South Australia expect that if you do the wrong thing in a workplace you face consequences, that you face potential sanction or penalty. It would send the wrong message if we supported a range of laudable principles today, but we did not actually stipulate what consequences may flow for members of parliament who do the wrong thing. I think it is appropriate that we put some of those things in the standing orders.

Members may well ask how great would a fine be, or how long would a suspension last. The Victorian legislation provides some clarity on this and so if we were to establish this principle in the parliament today then we could certainly finesse that down the track. I think this is an important principle for us to establish. It is one that the community will expect of us and I am hoping that this chamber will support the amendment being advanced by the Greens.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (11:11): I rise very briefly to speak to the amendment and thank the Hon. Robert Simms for bringing the amendment to this chamber. However, we will not be supporting the Hon. Robert Simms' amendment at this time. That is not to say we are closed to the idea of supporting something like this in the future, in the next parliament. We do agree with some of the reasons the Treasurer has laid out.

I think it is a desirable outcome that there is uniformity between the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council; that is, all members elected to this parliament, regardless of the chamber, fall under the same rules. I suspect also that many of the sanctions that are outlined in the Hon. Robert Simms' amendment could probably be imposed by the Legislative Council without the amendment if the Legislative Council so chose to do that. So as I have said, we are not opposed to the idea and we are open to re-visiting it in the next parliament.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (11:12): Can I state for the record, as I did when I spoke to this issue a few days ago, that in principle I am not opposed to what is being proposed, but I am very mindful of the process that we have just gone through with this committee. I appreciate the issues that we have all asked, in terms of those penalties, could be addressed, but I am also very mindful of all the other problems that I outlined when I spoke the other day, particularly around issues of parliamentary privilege and so forth, that still need to be ironed out.

By no means is this exercise finished, and it is my firm view that there is much more work that still needs to be done. I think the process that we went through in that committee and the reason we reached that unanimous position was that some of these issues are not as clear-cut as they appear on the face of it. That was certainly my take from it. I have been outspoken in this place about the need for consequences. I think there are avenues for consequences that exist. We did flesh this out during the committee process and I agree with the Leader of the Government and the opposition that we should have uniform codes between the houses.

That is not to say that I am opposed to having penalties in the code, but at this stage, based on the fact that we reached that unanimous position—and it has been baby steps to get to this point, very slow baby steps—I do not want to do something that will take us outside that agreement, knowing full well that there are a number of other equally important issues—and I say it again, parliamentary privilege—that need to be addressed. My firm intention is that this will be considered into the next parliament and that we can consider something that all members are comfortable with and that applies equally to both chambers of this parliament.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (11:15): For the record, I will not be supporting the amendment. I agree to the principle of the matter, but I cannot sign a blank cheque on matters that we do not know how the consequences will be determined and what they may be.

Ayes 2

Noes 18

Majority 16

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

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (11:19): I move:

That new standing order 455B be presented to the Governor by the President for approval, pursuant to section 55 of the Constitution Act 1934.

Motion carried.

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