HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-04-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Motions

COVID-19 Response Committee

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (15:49): I move:

1. That a committee, to be called the COVID-19 Response Committee, be appointed to monitor and scrutinise all matters related to the management of the COVID-19 response and any related policy matter and any other related matter.

2. That the standing orders of the Legislative Council in relation to select committees be applied and accordingly—

(a) that the committee consist of six members and that the quorum of members necessary to be present at all meetings of the committee be fixed at three members;

(b) that members of the committee may participate in the proceedings by way of telephone or videoconference or other electronic means and shall be deemed to be present and counted for purposes of a quorum, subject to such means of participation remaining effective and not disadvantaging any member;

(c) that standing order 389 be so far suspended as to enable the chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only;

(d) that this council permits the committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to any such evidence being reported to the council;

(e) that standing order 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating; and

(f) that public evidence presented to the committee be broadcast via the Parliament SA website, unless the committee otherwise resolves; and that uncorrected transcripts of evidence be published as soon as available with the understanding that a revised final version may be published subsequently.

This is a motion to establish a select committee of this chamber to scrutinise and monitor matters concerned with the management of COVID-19 in South Australia. We think this is an important initiative. As we just heard in the personal explanation from the Hon. Mark Parnell, it is possible that we might not be sitting for some time. Depending on the will of this chamber, it may be that we are only sitting for one, two, three days every month for a forseeable time into the future.

If that is the case, then given a combination of things—the extraordinary circumstances that we face at the moment, parliament not sitting and also the extraordinary powers that may be given to the government and to officers in terms of how they manage this, depending on how a bill that is before us is dealt with—we think the extraordinary circumstances we are in require some form of oversight of what is happening with the response to the crisis that we are facing.

Many other parliaments in other jurisdictions have seen the need, as their parliaments sit less frequently, for some sort of oversight. Probably the best example is that the New Zealand parliament, which is a unicameral system controlled, by definition, by the government, established an Epidemic Response Committee, which I think is sitting three times a week now while the parliament is not sitting to monitor and scrutinise government actions in relation to their response to the epidemic in New Zealand.

Although the one chamber of the New Zealand parliament is, by definition, controlled by the government, this committee has a majority of opposition members and is chaired by the Leader of the Opposition, and is a committee that needed the government's approval to set up. Indeed, the Speaker of the house in New Zealand spoke of the need for this while the parliament is sitting far less.

Already, we have seen a number of things from that committee. Indeed, the New Zealand health minister, Mr David Clark, in preparing for an appearance at the committee discovered that he had breached the level 4 lockdown laws when he travelled 20 kilometres with his family to go to the beach. The New Zealand health minister stated publicly that it was in preparation for an appearance at the committee that he discovered that. So there are substantial benefits in holding public officials to account, and the mere preparation for this committee meant that this information came to light.

We think it is a sensible move. The Australian Senate is also establishing a select committee as an oversight mechanism while the Australian parliament sits less. In establishing this committee I want to make it clear that the Labor opposition in South Australia does not agree that we should completely suspend parliament or indeed that we should not follow our scheduled sitting calendar. During two World Wars and during the last great influenza (the Spanish flu) the South Australian parliament continued to sit. But given that is one of the likelihoods, we think this committee is the least we can do to make sure that there is proper oversight.

Again, looking at the New Zealand example, the health minister and the heads of the health response are regular attendees at this committee. As a committee of the Legislative Council, it may be that members of this council, including the health minister or the Treasurer, may be witnesses at this committee, as ministers are at the New Zealand committee.

We think this would be not just a way to question when parliament is not sitting and question time does not occur but also, as the New Zealand example shows, for the health officials to give explanations. I note also the industry response, that leaders of industry are giving evidence to the New Zealand committee. I think it is providing an exceptionally useful way to look at not just the government response but our response throughout the community and the economy to this epidemic.

With those words, I would urge members to support what is a sensible motion. If it is the case that parliament is to sit less frequently, this becomes even more important. Even if parliament was to maintain its current schedule, I would say that this is also very important because it is a way that we can have the officials who are in charge and those from industry talk about the response and the needs during this crisis.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (15:55): I rise to speak to the motion. At the outset, I have to indicate that our cabinet has not considered this issue, our joint party room has not considered this issue, and I therefore speak with the limited authority of being Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council and the Treasurer of the state, for whatever that imparts to it. I have had a brief conversation with the Premier and a brief conversation with two of my other colleagues. It is fair to say that a variety of views have been expressed in relation to this particular motion.

Can I say at the outset that I think that, unlike maybe all other Australian jurisdictions, our Premier and the government have indicated a willingness to sit infrequently through the coming six months or so for the global pandemic. That is, I am aware that the federal government is going to adjourn until around August or September. I am aware that two other state and territory jurisdictions have told me that they are up until August or September. I understand there are a couple, including Queensland, which is under a Labor government, that will be sitting for one day next week to do what we are doing with the one day this week; that is, to pass the urgent legislation and, in particular, to pass their responses to the national cabinet decision in relation to commercial leases. So I think they were going to sit this week.

Some other jurisdictions have the quite different position where they do not adjourn until a specific day, which we do. Our standing orders require us, evidently, to adjourn to a specific day. Most other jurisdictions seem to just adjourn and then it is up to the government to reconvene the parliament, and so they have the capacity. A number of them were going to sit this week to pass this legislation and then decided they would not, they were not ready, so they just decided not to sit this week and they are going to sit next week. There is considerably greater flexibility in most other jurisdictions, it appears, in terms of their sitting times. We do have this requirement to actually nominate a sitting time.

The Premier and the government have indicated, in the interests of transparency and accountability, that it is willing. It has nominated a date—I think 12 May—in terms of coming back in May. The Hon. Mr Parnell indicated that he had heard the dogs were barking, that the government would be doing that on a monthly basis for so long as the global pandemic continues. I am not in a position to publicly indicate the government's position, but I just place on the record what the Hon. Mr Parnell indicated, that the dogs were barking in the corridors of Parliament House and that the government's intentions were.

So the government has indicated a willingness. I think the federal parliament is either about to or contemplating a Senate oversight committee because they are not going to be sitting. I understand there is a committee in the UK and a committee in New Zealand. I am not sure what the sitting arrangements for those jurisdictions are or are not, to be honest, in terms of what they are doing.

The first thing I would say is that I would reject, on behalf of the Premier, any notion that the Premier and the government have sought to, in essence, avoid transparency and accountability. I accept that. Certainly, I think there will be a much stronger argument in relation to an oversight committee if the parliament was not sitting, as in relation to the federal parliament circumstances where the parliament is not going to sit, and so there will be this oversight committee.

With the huge caveat that I have not consulted the cabinet and I have not consulted the joint party room, I will indicate, on behalf of my upper house colleagues, that we will support the establishment of a committee on the argument that it is in the interests of transparency and accountability. I support the notion that governments need to be in in some way or another able to answer questions if they are put.

However, I place on the record a very significant caveat in relation to the committee, and that is that we did have the unfortunate circumstance where the Chief Public Health Officer attended at a Budget and Finance Committee and I am advised waited around for an hour or two hours for questioning and was not allowed to speak or to answer questions. An hour or up to two hours of very valuable time was wasted because the committee was interested in pursuing other particular issues at the time.

My clear shot across the bow, if I can put it that way, to whomsoever is going to serve on this committee—because the Leader of the Opposition has indicated that there are sufficient crossbenchers who are going to support this motion to allow the motion to pass even if the government was to oppose the motion—is that I think there is going to be very high public and media focus on how this committee is to operate. If some of the games that are played in relation to some of these select committees were to be played in relation to this particular committee, I think there will be significant criticism, and there should be, of the operations of the Legislative Council committee in this particular area.

The committee members will have to accept that if the Chief Public Health Officer is unable to attend at the time that they nominate, then they may well just have to accept that. It is my view that her work and those of her deputies is so critical and crucial in relation to it that they should not be diverted from their main task. I would nevertheless be hopeful that senior health officers and others who might be able to answer questions would be able to make time available to appear before the committee.

I think sufficient notice ought to be given. There have been too many recent examples where the committee, under the authorship of the chair, has demanded at short notice—in two days' time or three days' time—a requirement to attend at a select committee to answer particular questions. Those sorts of games during a global pandemic are not going to be tolerated, I think, by the community and the media. They should be called out and I would indicate, on behalf of the government, that we would certainly seek to call those out.

We have seen a number of examples where people have been required at very short notice to attend meetings of select committees or the Budget and Finance Committee, not scheduled meetings but meetings called at short notice to attend. Also, I think the nature and shape of the questioning is important. It should be questioning that is going to be useful and obviously providing transparency and accountability from the government, but ultimately it is the ministers and the Premier who have to be held accountable. Hardworking public servants should not be unduly diverted from the important work that they have during a global pandemic in terms of decisions that they are taking on behalf of the government in very trying circumstances and, nevertheless, being potentially held to public ridicule whilst they try to get on to the best of their ability with serving the community.

Let's be frank: in a global pandemic, mistakes will be made. Decisions are having to be made urgently. There are decisions that public health officers and other bureaucrats are having to take during the global pandemic which ultimately everyone will have to be held to account for, but for so long as we are in the middle of the global pandemic, for better or for worse, decisions are going to have to be made. We accept that globally mistakes have been made, nationally mistakes will have been made, and I am sure that at some stage mistakes will be made in South Australia as well.

Ultimately, ministers and governments will have to be held to account, but hardworking public servants who are really just trying to get on with the business of protecting public health and safety should not be put through a public trial and ringer in the middle of a global pandemic when really all they are seeking to do is the best they can under what will be very trying circumstances.

With those words I indicate, on behalf of my members in the Legislative Council anyway, that we will support the establishment of the committee, but I hope that the members who serve on it will bear in mind—and I think there will be a high degree of scrutiny on the committee—that they need to undertake what is an important task in terms of transparency and accountability which I support, but which, nevertheless, will carry a very high onus of responsibility on the members of the committee in terms of the way in which the committee is to conduct its business.

Ultimately, a clash between a parliamentary committee and an individual who says, 'I am just frankly not in a position to be able to attend at that particular time,' can only be resolved by this Legislative Council. The committee would have to refer it to the council and the non-government members would have to force a motion through to drag that particular individual before the bar of the Legislative Council to require them to attend. No-one wants to get into those circumstances whilst we are trying to fight the COVID-19 pandemic.

With that, I indicate that we will support the establishment of the select committee. We wish the members, whomsoever they are, the very best in terms of ensuring transparency and accountability but in a way which befits what we would see as the responsible role of a Legislative Council select committee.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:06): I rise on behalf of the Greens to support this motion put forward by the opposition for debate today. This, in effect, establishes an oversight committee for the duration of the pandemic to explore and evaluate, and to hold to account the decisions that are made and the actions undertaken in these extraordinary times, in what are often called unprecedented times but are, indeed, precedented, and not only precedented in our history but precedented across the world and in other states.

The Treasurer hit the nail on the head when he said that the federal parliament has today established an oversight committee. They were slightly dragged kicking and screaming to do so but have agreed to a Senate oversight committee that includes the opposition and the crossbenchers in that parliament. New Zealand, of course, with Prime Minister Ardern has taken a slightly more consultative and I believe respectful approach and ensured that straightaway there was such an oversight committee.

Where we are shutting down parliaments, the idea that you would not agree to an oversight committee would be something that I think the public would quite rightly pour scorn on, and people would scratch their heads and wonder why a parliament was not doing its job of holding the decisions made in its name to account. Today in another bill, we are signing away a lot of that oversight, a lot of that scrutiny, a lot of the very fundamentals of our democracy.

This committee will go some way to providing the transparency that will affect the trust that is so needed in such a crisis so that people are not panicked, are not scared, are comforted and reassured that the parliamentarians are doing their jobs, and that the rule of law is being upheld, and that public health is the driver for decisions—not politics, not pantomimes, not some bizarre idea that every other parliament in the country apparently does not have a sitting calendar. I am not sure if the Treasurer has been on the internet lately but most parliaments publish their sitting calendar the year before the year that they sit.

Indeed, the Queensland parliament, while it gave itself powers back in March to potentially not sit until September, did reconvene. The federal parliament similarly talked about not reconvening until August, but here they are back today, because there was work to do. Part of that work was oversight and part of that work was necessary legislation, which we know will be needed even beyond this extraordinary day of debate today with this particular COVID emergency bill that is the latest to be put before this place.

Let's not consider the idea that parliaments would not sit, that members of parliament would not do their jobs and bring the concerns that are raised with them—where the errors are being made, where the oversight is happening, where people have fallen through the cracks, where the government does not have the capacity to hear those voices—to the table, because that is the role of all of us as elected members.

I think it actually should have been at the behest of the government today that we were setting up an oversight committee for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. I would have taken great comfort in the bill that is before us had that oversight committee been proposed by government and duly comprised, perhaps, of a joint house committee, but here we are, the house of review holding the government to account. It is very different, of course, from Queensland, where they only have one house, and the government of the day controls what the parliament does. Here we have a parliament of two houses, where it has been a very long time since the government of the day has controlled this house.

I assure the Treasurer that we will not be wasting public servants' time making them unduly give evidence, but what we will be doing is using the very tools that we are entrusted with as members of parliament to hold to account and to ensure the best possible decisions are made, even where there are errors—and there will be errors. I am sure we will all come to that particular select committee with good intentions and good faith, to get through this with all voices heard at the table, not just those of the Treasurer or the Premier, who could have ensured that an oversight committee was brought before this parliament this week. The Treasurer could have got on the phone and talked to more of his colleagues, rather than just putting his own personal view.

It would hardly have come as a surprise that this council would seek to effect some sort of oversight committee. Indeed, I should imagine that they are speaking reasonably regularly and that they could have had a small conversation about whether democracy needed to be put on hold for six months or whether it could continue, because some things need to continue. Some things are essential services, and democracy—transparency—is an essential service if we are to have that trust. With those words, I highly commend support for this motion.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:12): Like the opposition and the Greens, we also support wholeheartedly this motion and do not believe that we should be adjourning our sittings. As we know, there is absolutely nothing preventing us from reviewing the need to sit as often as required, even if that becomes on a month by month basis, or whatever the case may be. The reality, I think, is that we do not know what next month or the month after that will bring, but we do know that there is an important level of expectation that we will continue to fulfil our duties in this chamber and the other chamber, and as members of parliament, throughout this pandemic.

It is comforting, on that note, that the government has not chosen to stop sittings for prolonged periods of time, as other jurisdictions have done, and it is comforting for many reasons. The first has been well canvassed, I think, by other honourable members, and that is transparency and accountability. Touching on the issue the Hon. Tammy Franks has just referred to, it is important, especially for the public, at a time when we are saying to individuals who work in the central services and on the front line that they should go to work, whether that be in a hospital, a supermarket, a doctor's clinic, a pharmacy or a petrol station, or whether they are a public servant attending their work every day. I do not think it is appropriate that we do not do the same, especially given the role that we play.

I think there is an absolute expectation that parliaments of all bodies will continue to sit and they will continue to conduct the oversight role that they have in the interests of accountability and transparency, even if at some stage that becomes in some form of reduced or alternative capacity. What the public do not need right now, I think, is any more cause for angst, worry or fear, and I certainly do not see the role of the committee as one that would exacerbate that angst. In fact, I think the role of the committee is intended to do the polar opposite of that, it is to ensure the appropriate levels of accountability and transparency that the public would expect of their members of parliament during this crisis.

It is certainly not the intention of SA-Best to politicise the work of this committee. It is certainly something we are agreeing to in good faith and on the basis that we absolutely require that ongoing level of accountability and transparency throughout these difficult times. For those reasons, I indicate again that we will be supporting the motion.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. D.G.E. Hood.

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