HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-03-25 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Adjournment Debate

Sittings and Business

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:02): I move:

That the council at its rising do adjourn until Tuesday 7 April 2020.

In speaking to this motion, I outline to the honourable members who are here the reasons for it. As honourable members will know, we have a planning meeting late on a Monday afternoon, which was just two days ago. At that meeting I outlined to all members and, I think, representatives of some members who were unable to be with us on that particular occasion that it was the government's intention, at least in the Legislative Council, to be sitting for the three days. Members will recall that some Labor members, I think, were indicating a willingness to speak on a couple of bills for Thursday of this particular week.

What has occurred in the interim has been a range of things. Firstly, unbeknownst to me, two further crossbenchers were unable to be with us yesterday and for the remainder of the week. I think I found out mid to late morning that another two crossbenchers—therefore, all five crossbenchers—were going to be unable to be with us in relation to participating in proceedings of the council.

Each of them in a number of ways indicated their unwillingness for various bills to proceed whilst they were unable to be with us. My advice is that all five members are going to be unable to be with us tomorrow to participate in the proceedings of the Legislative Council. I might say, and I am sure I speak on behalf of all members, that I wish all of those members well in relation to whatever issues they are confronting.

The other issue that has occurred is as a result of national cabinet meetings and the various decisions which were occurring at a rapid pace in relation to various stages of national lockdowns and border closures. It was imperative for the government to do what has just been passed in the assembly and the council, which was to pass a supply bill through both houses of the parliament.

We understood the enormity of what was being asked of the parliament, in particular the opposition members. In the discussions I had with the Premier this morning, who had spoken to the Leader of the Opposition, the government's position was that we knew the enormity of the task but, whilst the government's preference was to have the bill passed by both houses today, the alternative option would be to come back tomorrow to pass the Supply Bill. I have already acknowledged and thanked the leaders of the opposition in both houses and the shadow treasurer for their willingness to support the passage of the Supply Bill through both houses today, which was the main work that had to be done this week.

As I have acknowledged privately to the Leader of the Opposition in this place, I apologise for any inconvenience to him, and to you, as opposition colleagues. It is certainly not our normal way of doing business. You have my assurance of that. As I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition, I am the first to acknowledge that the government does not control the numbers in this particular chamber. If the majority—the opposition and the crossbenchers—by way of vote choose to vote differently, it is entirely their prerogative and we would respect that particular decision of those members of the chamber. We acknowledge that. It is a decision that you as members of the chamber can take.

As best as I am advised—and this is a moving feast—my understanding of the email that I have seen from the Greens indicated that they would vote against any motion which adjourned the council later than the next scheduled sitting week, which was the week beginning 6 April. The Assembly of Members is intended to be on Tuesday, 7 April at 10am for the election of the replacement of the Hon. Andrew McLachlan. As the Labor Party would know, you have for four sitting weeks agreed to a pair for the absent Mr McLachlan. We now have a proposed replacement for Mr McLachlan, and it was proposed to have an Assembly of Members on the morning of 7 April, which is our next scheduled sitting week.

I have seen an email and my whip has advised me, and I take him at his word, that he has had advice from SA-Best that they would support an adjournment to the next sitting week. I am unaware of the position of the Hon. Mr Darley. I indicated to the leader and to the Opposition Whip that, if they wanted a suspension of standing orders, to speak to the five crossbenchers to indicate whether or not they supported the motion to adjourn to 7 April. I would support a suspension of the sitting of the council for a few minutes, or for however long you need to consult with them, if you so choose. I am quite prepared for you to have that consultation, if you wish.

It is the government's position that the assembly has now adjourned, with no division I am told, to 7 April to do its business. It is the government's position and it would make sense that we would adjourn to 7 April for the same purpose to see whether or not there is any urgent legislative work that we need to do in relation to the coronavirus on that particular day, and given that it is highly likely we will be having an Assembly of Members in the morning for the election of the replacement member in the Legislative Council.

Finally, I place on the record that at the meeting of treasurers today I did a quick round robin of the other parliaments. I do not believe we are out of step—we have not taken our next step yet—but the federal parliament and the Tasmanian parliament have both adjourned until August. The Victorian parliament and the Queensland parliament, both under Labor governments, have advised me that they may well meet for one more day to pass urgent legislation and then it is likely to go into a significant adjournment of their state parliaments.

The New South Wales Treasurer advised me it was likely that they would do the same. The Western Australian Labor Treasurer, Ben Wyatt, advised me they were likely to do the same as well, that is, to maybe meet for a day to pass urgent legislation and then to have the parliament sit in abeyance for a period as we, hopefully, move through the worst of the coronavirus pandemic.

So they are the circumstances in the other jurisdictions. That will be a decision that we will have to take either tomorrow, if we reconvene tomorrow, or 7 April, if we reconvene 7 April, as to the length of any adjournment of the parliament, whilst always acknowledging that, if there is urgent legislation, there are provisions for the parliament to be reconvened in an emergency to pass legislation or consider something that might need to be considered.

For those reasons, I apologise to the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Whip for the late advice. It has been a very quickly moving feast, from my viewpoint, in terms of what happened. I only found out in the early afternoon after they passed the Supply Bill. My question to the whip was, 'What day did they adjourn to: was it tomorrow or 7 April?' and he advised me they had adjourned to 7 April and that there had not been a division on it. I do not know whether there was any position put by the opposition. The Leader of the Opposition in this chamber may or may not know what position they put in relation to it.

With that, I am in the hands of the house. As I said, the offer of suspension, to allow you to consult with the crossbenchers if you wish, is there for you. We are not intent on trying to sneak anything through on a vote. I am not even sure what the numbers are without the five crossbenchers here. We would have to work out a pairing arrangement in relation to an understanding of their pairs if there was to be a division on this vote anyway. With that, I move the motion on behalf of the government.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (16:11): I rise on behalf the opposition to express some disappointment at the way this has been handled today. I think most people have generally regarded the way the Leader of the Government has run this chamber as being conducive to the effective management of this chamber. I know, as the leader stated, as of Monday it was the intention to sit as per normal for three days this week. During the course of this afternoon, I have been asked by members of the Labor opposition, 'Will we be sitting tomorrow?' to which I could only go on the information that had been provided by the government as a definite yes.

I note that the leader said that earlier this afternoon it became apparent they were not going to be sitting. It is disappointing that the Leader of the Government did not see fit to consult with the opposition when he found out it was unlikely to be sitting, but instead consulted 15 minutes ago as we were about to move into this motion. I take the advice on face value as to the Greens' and SA-Best's view that they would not oppose adjourning until the 7 April sitting date, so on that basis we will lodge our objection to it but we will not be dividing on this motion, understanding where four of the five crossbenchers sit on this motion.

I would, however, appreciate if the Leader of the Government, who I presume gets to sum up this motion, might indicate what the current view of the government is about sitting beyond 7 April, noting that the history of the South Australian parliament has been one that has continued on during times of great upheaval. I think during both World Wars the South Australian parliament sat. During the last great epidemic, the Spanish flu, the South Australian parliament sat.

We would like to know what the government's current intention is with the sitting of the South Australian parliament and also what the intention is on that Tuesday when we come back. If there is to be a joint sitting, will there also be a question time that day in addition to considering any urgent legislation? What opportunity will the opposition or crossbenchers have in relation to moving and prosecuting legislation they consider urgent to deal with this crisis?

With those words, we are disappointed in the way the government has chosen to handle this. We would like to have come back tomorrow. Question time is a very important way to hold an executive accountable and in times of great crisis when great decisions need to be made, in some ways that becomes even more important. Knowing where the numbers are, we will not divide on the motion to not sit tomorrow but would appreciate those few questions about the government's current intention to sit beyond that first sitting day, what the government intends to happen on the first sitting day, particularly in relation to question time and the ability of private members to move motions or move legislation themselves.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:14): I thank the honourable leader for a very fair contribution to the debate. I have just had a text from the Hon. Tammy Franks, who is either watching us—she must have better things to do—or else someone has told her, and she has indicated she supports the adjournment until 7 April. So I can say that I have had a text directly from the Hon. Tammy Franks, and I say to the Hon. Tammy Franks: you should get on with your life and we all wish you well.

In relation to the honourable member's questions, I will give an undertaking on behalf of the government that it would have been something that I would have fought for from opposition, that if we adjourn to 7 April, we will have a question time in the Legislative Council. I do not support the notion. There have been occasions in the past where parliaments have rolled across from the Thursday to the Friday and there has not been a question time. I always opposed those. If we are having a new day, it is a new day, and there will be a question time and we will be answerable to the opposition for questions. I will not be as generous in relation to considering private members' bills being rushed through or whatever, but you can try whatever it is you wish in relation to that if you get the numbers, but of course it is only the Legislative Council.

In relation to the government's position, I think one of the advantages of adjourning until 7 April—and I know a couple of the other states are saying they are going to sit for one more day, which is tomorrow, and then adjourn for five months—is that, in this sort of circumstance, and my experience tells me, and my brief experience of this particular pandemic is, we are continuing to see things that might need to be changed or amended to give powers to either the state coordinator or to the public health officer, or whoever else it might happen to be.

We have just not envisaged some of the circumstances, and Crown law being as assiduous as it is says, 'Well, look, that's a great idea but this particular legislation prevents it.' One of the areas that I indicated in question time that governments are looking at is in relation to commercial tenancies, which is—the commercial tenancies or whatever it is, I forget the correct name for it—the act that governs commercial tenancies. Depending on what national cabinet agrees and various state governments agree, we may or may not require some temporary short-term amendments to landlord and tenant legislation to try to keep some small businesses operational.

As the member will know, one of the shadow ministers from another house implored me during the five-minute break, when we got a coffee, that shadow minister was being inundated with concerns about people in one particular industry sector, businesses who were facing ruin because of the current attitude of landlords in relation to the tenancies that they have, and asking me on behalf the government whether we were prepared to have a look at doing something in relation to those commercial tenancies.

We are aware of those concerns and the national cabinet is looking at them. We are not sure what the solutions are, but potentially some of the solutions involve emergency changes to legislation which might be limited to the period of the coronavirus pandemic. There might be others as well in relation to urgent legislation, which might need to be considered. I would hope that if the government had urgent legislation that we were in a position where we have consulted with the shadow ministers and the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the work that might be done on 7 April. It at least gives us time beforehand. Cabinet would meet on that particular Monday to have at least advised the opposition and crossbenchers that there is going to be an attempt by the government to amend this legislation for these particular reasons. That would be my wish. It at least gives us some time, if we adjourn to 7 April, to consider what might need to be done urgently.

The final question the honourable member asked is: what is the government's intent? The honest answer is that there is no government intent at this stage. It is certainly as I recounted to the house in the quick discussion that I had with other governments at lunchtime today. There is no other house in the commonwealth that is currently contemplating sitting in an ongoing fashion between now and the end of the year, and that is Labor, Liberal, state and federal. I think I ran through the quick summary that the ministers and treasurers gave me at lunchtime today of their governments' intentions, so I will not run through them again.

Ultimately, that is a decision for both houses again. If the government has the numbers in the assembly, it could ensure that the house meets at the particular times it chooses—if it has the numbers to do so. If the Legislative Council voted differently we again acknowledge that we do not have the numbers in this chamber, etc.

There seems to be an overwhelming unanimous view—with the exception at this stage of South Australia, because we have not indicated our position—of whether or not it is advisable for parliaments to sit over the coming months, other than for emergency legislation. However, that is a decision that we have to take on 7 April, and there may well be discussions between the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition. Those discussions will take place at a higher pay grade than I have in relation to the Premier and the government's intentions and the Leader of the Opposition.

With that and in concluding the debate, as I said, I thank the honourable leader for the nature and the tenor of the contribution he made and the fact that he indicated that there will not be opposition, whilst expressing some reservations about the process. I acknowledge that and look forward to seeing all members hopefully happy, healthy and hearty on 7 April.

Motion carried.


At 16:21 the council adjourned until Tuesday 7 April 2020 at 14:15.


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