HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2023-05-31 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Motions

Questions on Notice

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (15:55): I move:

That this council censures the Attorney-General, the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development and the government for their failure to provide answers to questions on notice to this council within the required time limit, pursuant to the sessional order passed by this council on 1 June 2022.

The fact that I am having to stand up in this chamber and move this censure motion is a sad indictment on the arrogance of this Labor government. The Liberal government, upon election in May 2018, committed to being transparent and accountable to the South Australian people. Changes were implemented to the sessional orders. Questions with notice would receive answers within 30 days. We could do it when we were in government; I am not sure why Labor cannot.

We, the Liberal Party, did this because it is basic best practice. It shows accountability and it shows transparency. The people of South Australia deserve honesty and we stuck to our word. We have already seen that this Labor government does not understand the meaning of sticking to their word. Before the election they said they would fix the ramping crisis, but they have not.

Before the election they—that is, the Deputy Premier and member for Port Adelaide, Susan Close—said Labor had absolutely no intention of knocking over any heritage places, but it is looking like they absolutely will. We have already seen in this chamber, despite the sessional order motion moved by the opposition and supported by the crossbench being passed in mid last year, that this government is still not prepared to answer the South Australian community's questions and, what is more, is using every excuse under the sun to not answer these questions.

They remind me of the primary school aged kid—the one everyone had in their class—whose excuse always was, 'The dog ate my homework.' Apparently when questioned by the media last night about this censure motion and where the answers were, a state government spokesman said:

The answer to the questions were prepared some time ago but had not yet been tabled due to an 'administrative error'.

It appears the dog ate the Premier's and the parliamentary secretary's homework. I wonder why it took the media to find out where these questions, asked back on 8 February, were. I asked the Leader of the Government some time ago, and time and time again, where they were, but somehow they were lost, apparently never to be found again, except that, surprise, surprise, they have appeared on my desk today. It reminds me a little bit of that classic line from Muriel's Wedding, 'Deidre Chambers, what a coincidence!'

Earlier this week, the parliamentary secretary was on the Adelaide radio, applauding her efforts as the first Minister for Autism in the country, stating that this government views outcomes for the autism community so seriously that the portfolio deserves to sit with Premier and Cabinet, across multiple ministries with its own dedicated parliamentary secretary. Yet, up until about an hour ago there were eight outstanding questions about autism without answers from February this year—each 81 days overdue—and the parliamentary secretary and the Premier provide the lame excuse of 'administrative error'. The dog ate their homework.

In all seriousness, these are the questions that have been asked on behalf of constituents who are closely linked to autism, and it is frustrating and upsetting to have to continue to explain to them that Labor and the parliamentary secretary cannot be bothered answering these important questions.

The Leader of the Government in this house has stated on numerous occasions in response to questions from the opposition about overdue answers to questions on notice that, and I quote: 'My understanding is that there have been hundreds of questions on notice', and that hardworking members of the public sector had spent 'hours and hours collating, finding information to inform', suggesting that we, the opposition, were submitting too many questions on notice for the government to keep up.

It is my understanding that in last 12 months we, the opposition, have submitted 280 questions on notice. It is also my understanding that Labor, when they were in their first year of opposition, submitted 700 questions on notice—700, more than double the number of questions that the Leader of Government suggests are too many to handle. The Labor government promised that they would hold their government to a higher standard, but those promises, like most promises we hear from the Labor Party, were empty.

The Labor government continues to show arrogance and are unwilling to cooperate with our chambers' sessional orders, and so I feel I need to take the time to explain to the government why this is such an important matter. Number one is accountability. Transparency ensures that any government is held accountable for their actions and decisions. By providing answers and providing access to information, the government allows its colleagues in opposition and the crossbench to scrutinise policies, programs and expenditures. They should want this. It lays open a system of checks and balances, improves ethical behaviour and correct use of power. Without that transparency, they have no proof of this.

Number two is democratic principles. Transparency is fundamental to all democratic governance systems. Openness, inclusivity, fostering trust, promoting participation, ensuring processes are representative and fair are all key elements of a safe and secure democracy. Respecting the role of opposition and crossbench as part of state governance contributes to the stability and long-term viability of a democracy: the South Australian public's right to know, allowing us on the other side of this chamber to check that the decisions made by the Malinauskas government are not favouring vested interests. Again, I argue, the government should want this transparency. They should want the public to trust them, to know promises are being kept. Alas, another fail by this Labor government.

Number three is better outcomes for South Australians. Effective decision-making, bipartisan support for strong policy, refinement of proposals and planning based on cohesive well-informed feedback can only happen if questions are answered.

I moved the motion to change the sessional orders mid last year with the support of the crossbench, and I thank the crossbench for their dedication to transparency and accountability in this chamber. I did so, so that questions on notice would be answered within a reasonable time frame of 30 days. The government has largely chosen to ignore these sessional orders, which is a contempt of this chamber and an absolute disgrace.

As I said during the sessional orders motion, it is a sad state of affairs when the opposition and the crossbench have to force the government to be open, accountable and transparent to the people of South Australia and, after all that, the government take an outstandingly arrogant view to ignore these sessional orders and ignore the questions put to them by the South Australian public.

This government clearly does not believe in being honest with the South Australian community, they clearly do not believe in being transparent with the South Australian community, and they clearly do not believe in being accountable to the people who showed them faith in electing them in March 2022. Shame on them.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

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