HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2023-07-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Resolutions

Joint Committee on the Establishment of Adelaide University

The House of Assembly passed the following resolution to which it desires the concurrence of the Legislative Council:

1. That in the opinion of this house, a joint committee be appointed to inquire into and report on the establishment of Adelaide University, and in so doing consider—

(a) the proposal to create Adelaide University, to be formed by the amalgamation of the University of Adelaide and the University of South Australia;

(b) the expected impact (including non-commercially confidential modelling generated by the existing universities) of the new university, on:

(i) the South Australian economy and society;

(ii) current and future staff and students of the two existing universities; and

(iii) the higher education sector in South Australia.

(c) ensuring Adelaide University's legislative, governance and funding arrangements provide for a university that:

(i) facilitates access to education by South Australians from a broad range of socio-economic and cultural backgrounds, including Aboriginal South Australians;

(ii) is engaged with industry and business in South Australia on research and education outcomes;

(iii) generates high quality research and engages in commercialisation of research of strategic importance to South Australia;

(iv) is likely to be consistently highly ranked against universities globally;

(v) is attractive to and welcoming of international students; and

(vi) has a modern governance framework consistent with high standards of fiduciary responsibility and understanding of the value of universities to the state's economy and society and of the Australian and global higher education environment.

(d) any measures by which the parliament and government can facilitate these outcomes in creating the Adelaide University; and

(e) any other related matter.

2. That in the event of a joint committee being appointed, it report on 17 October 2023, and the House of Assembly shall be represented thereon by four members, of whom three shall form a quorum of assembly members necessary to be present at all sittings of the committee.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:30): I move:

That the message be taken into consideration forthwith.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 17

Noes 2

Majority 15

AYES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Centofanti, N.J.
Game, S.L. Girolamo, H.M. Hanson, J.E.
Henderson, L.A. Hood, B.R. Hood, D.G.E.
Hunter, I.K. Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A.
Maher, K.J. (teller) Martin, R.B. Ngo, T.T.
Scriven, C.M. Wortley, R.P.

NOES

Franks, T.A. Simms, R.A. (teller)

Motion thus carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:35): I move:

That this council concur with the resolution of the House of Assembly for the appointment of a joint committee on the establishment of Adelaide University with the following amendment in paragraph 2, that is, by leaving out 'four' and inserting 'five', and that the Legislative Council be represented on the committee by members of whom—

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have a point of order: I do not know which standing order it applies to, but we do not even have this message in front of us. You are making amendments to something we do not even have on the table in front of us. Could we have a document circulated so that all members can follow the debate and the proper running of the council is adhered to?

The PRESIDENT: I am sure if we wait a couple of moments, we will get some—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! We will get there. This is obviously unusual, but we will get there.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will start that again. I move:

That this council concur with the resolution of the House of Assembly for the appointment of a joint committee on the establishment of Adelaide University with the following amendment in paragraph 2, that is, by leaving out 'four' and inserting 'five', and that the Legislative Council be represented on the committee, by five members, of whom three shall form the quorum necessary to be present at all sittings of the committee, and that the members of the joint committee to represent the Legislative Council be the Hon. R.B. Martin, the Hon. J.S. Lee, the Hon. C. Bonaros, the Hon. T.A. Franks and the Hon. S.L. Game.

The announcement over the weekend of progress towards the creation of Adelaide University through a merger of the University of Adelaide and the University of South Australia is a significant opportunity for the state. Since the announcement, there have been calls from the opposition and crossbench for an inquiry into the establishment of Adelaide University. We believe that this is a legitimate request that has been made by the opposition and the crossbench.

We know that the universities have separately and collectively undertaken significant feasibility assessments, including the development of a business case and transition plan to arrive at the conclusion to merge. The universities have worked with the government over many months on the matter, and we fully understand the appetite to scrutinise a reform of this importance and magnitude within this parliament. We want to make sure the legislation achieves the outcomes all parties are seeking to achieve for this state.

As part of the feasibility assessment process and resulting transition plan, the universities have developed a specific time line to achieve their objective of the new Adelaide University to commence operations from 1 January 2026. To achieve this, the government is seeking to pass the new Adelaide University legislation by the end of the year. This will enable Adelaide University to seek the relevant legal and regulatory approvals needed to proceed to create the new institution, including consideration by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency registration and amendments to the Higher Education Support Act.

This time line will also support the detailed transition implementation planning that is needed for the university to be operational by 1 January 2026. Should there be significant delays in the passage of legislation, we risk compromising the university's capacity to recruit and enrol students both domestically and within international markets. Any delay will create uncertainty for existing staff and students as well as prospective domestic and international students. Such a delay could have a significant impact on the university's financial position and competitiveness and could potentially cost the state in the vicinity of an estimated $500 million a year. With that, I commend the motion to establish a joint select committee to the Legislative Council.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (15:45): I have two amendments I would like to move. I move:

Insert after paragraph (d) new paragraph (da) as follows:

the impact of the proposed measures by the government to facilitate the merger, including but not limited to the research and low socio-economic student funding, Magill and Mawson Lakes land sales and international student investment.

I move my second amendment:

In paragraph 2, leave out '17 October 2023' and insert '28 November 2023'.

Here we are again with another example of brazen contempt from this Malinauskas Labor government. The Liberal Party is definitely not closed-minded to this proposed university merger; in fact, we have said on the public record that we are very open-minded when it comes to this proposed university merger. What our party is opposed to, though, is the lack of transparency from this government, the lack of detail, the lack of timely consideration, the lack of open consultation and, quite frankly, the lack of respect in this chamber.

Our colleague the Hon. Robert Simms announced his desire and intention to move that a committee be established to consider the university merger, and he made that announcement, as we are all aware, over the weekend. We indicated our desire for a committee through our shadow minister and member for Morialta in the other place. Judging by their media statements, it was supported by SA-Best as well. It is my understanding, and I am happy to stand corrected, that One Nation was also in support of a committee.

The Hon. Mr Simms moved his notice of motion before question time today in the chamber for his committee, that is, a committee that we were all consulted about before today. He is right to move his motion to support that committee. This merger is a big deal for our state. It will affect multiple pieces of legislation, many regulations, the careers of hundreds of thousands of students in this state and the education of hundreds of thousands of students in this state and around the world. The details should be clear, and the consultation should not be rushed.

An upper house select committee, which is what the Hon. Rob Simms had put forward, was going to comprise two opposition, two government and two crossbench members. I do not think it gets any more balanced than that. However, the second the government caught wind of the honourable member's select committee motion, they dumped their own committee proposal before the lower house without any consultation and sailed it through in the space of, I think, probably 20 minutes or less.

They did not even have the common courtesy of speaking to the Hon. Robert Simms. They certainly did not have the courtesy of speaking to the opposition, and I can understand why they would not be speaking to the opposition. We know the government does not like to talk to the opposition very often, but to be so arrogant and disrespectful to the crossbench in this place is shameful and a poor indictment on this Labor government.

We the opposition do not want to hold up this process, which is why we voted with the government to deal with this message forthwith, but I want to express utter disappointment and dismay at the very way this whole process has been handled by this government. It is an absolute disgrace. In terms of my first amendment, which is about really understanding how the proposed measures by the government to facilitate the merger will impact the people of South Australia, I think it is incredibly important that we look at the impacts of these decisions and of this proposal by the government on the South Australian community.

I do not think this is a big ask. I would have thought this would be a proposal that the government should support. Indeed, I would have thought this is a proposal that the people of South Australia would be very keen for the government to support, and for us to actually be able to have a look at, in a bit of detail, what the impacts of the proposed measures by the government are going to be on the people of South Australia.

We know, of course, that the legislation has to be first and foremost. That provides for the governance frameworks, for the university and for a range of things that are dealt with in the terms of reference for the motion at hand. We also need to look at the nature of the government's investments; in particular, $200 million for the research fund to be held within SAFA and the investments being provided to the Adelaide University, which we understand is not being given to any other institution or research institution around South Australia but is purely for one entity.

Presumably, that is $10 million to $15 million a year from the government effectively to one university. There is a $100 million investment fund to support low socio-economic students to help the university to fulfil its requirements under the federal arrangements to increase equity and to support low socio-economic students. This is a good thing. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but we do need to investigate and we do need to look into those arrangements, understanding again that having these investments for one institution and one institution only may have some consequences. We need to look into that.

We also need to look into the land investment at Magill, which is quite significant—my understanding is $60 million for pieces of land both in the electorate of Morialta and the electorate of Hartley. We also have a proposed investment at Mawson Lakes for the government to purchase land, which I am not sure they have a purpose to at this stage. That is why I am moving my first amendment, to ensure that we can have a look at and investigate the impacts of these decisions that have been proposed by the current Malinauskas Labor government.

I would now like to turn people's attention to the change of date. It is my understanding that relevant stakeholders have indicated a desire for the piece of legislation encompassing the merger of the two universities to be addressed before March of next year; that is, March 2024. This amendment sees the report being tabled on Tuesday of the last sitting week, that is, 28 November.

I will tell you the reason why I have chosen this date. Given that it will be tabled on the last Tuesday of the sitting week, it gives plenty of time for the government to pass this piece of legislation in the House of Assembly—because of course, as we know, they pass things in that place in less than 20 minutes. They will actually have two, if not three, full days of sitting in which they can pass this legislation through the other place. This then gives approximately four weeks for the legislation to be debated in this chamber.

I think this is a pretty reasonable amendment. I would hope that the government—I am not sure that they will; in fact, I am fairly confident that they probably will not support this amendment, because that is their arrogant way—but I would hope that at least the crossbench would be open to supporting this amendment, indeed both of my amendments today.

With that, I want to highlight the absolute disappointment and dismay that we have, as the opposition, in what has occurred in this chamber today. In fact, I can remember the Leader of the Government, when he was in opposition, absolutely ranting and raving at the Hon. Rob Lucas, when he was Leader of the Government, if he even dared to rush through a single piece of legislation. Well, shame on them. Shame on this government, and shame on what is happening here today.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:56): I move:

That the motion be amended by inserting after 'Adelaide University' the words 'with the following amendments:

In subparagraph 1(b) leave out 'non-commercially confidential' and after subparagraph 1(d) insert a new paragraph as follows:

(da) the consequences for Flinders University'.

I take this opportunity firstly to indicate our position on the Liberal Party amendments, which we will support. They are sensible amendments. I will talk a little bit about those amendments and indeed about the amendments that we are putting forward, but first I want to make some general remarks about this process and convey my profound disappointment to the government for the way in which they have dealt with this matter.

The Hon. Nicola Centofanti highlighted the background to the push for a parliamentary inquiry. It was last week when I heard that there was the potential, there was certainly a lot of media speculation, that there might well be an announcement that the two universities were keen to start up a merger. I began canvassing with my colleagues support for the idea of a parliamentary committee to look into the proposal. It was very clear from the government's comments in the lead-up to the announcement that they did not support having any parliamentary scrutiny of the proposal. I think the terms that were used were 'denial', 'delay' and 'this has got to be dealt with quickly'.

On the weekend, I came out and indicated that the Greens would be moving to establish a parliamentary inquiry into this. I was joined at that announcement by the Hon. Frank Pangallo from SA-Best, who was supportive of the call, and also, on the same day, the Liberal Party came out and supported it as well. The Premier subsequently, a day later, indicated that he was initially against an inquiry because it would be a delay. Then he was in favour of an inquiry, but only if it was six months.

I think, as I pointed out in media interviews, it is for the parliament to determine how long such an inquiry should progress for. All members of this place were aware of the crossbench's intention to establish an inquiry. I was totally transparent around that and around the issues that would be canvassed by such an inquiry.

Rather than picking up the phone and talking to me and providing an opportunity for all of the parties to get together and nut out the terms of reference for a joint parliamentary inquiry, instead the Labor Party plays a political game where they spring this on everybody unawares in the other place and then try to ram it through here today. That is disappointing because actually I think all of us would have agreed to a joint parliamentary inquiry.

I do not think anybody in this chamber would have said, 'Don't have a joint parliamentary inquiry.' If you had wanted to do it, why not sit down and talk to us? Pick up the phone. That is all they had to do is pick up the phone and have a chat with me, maybe have a chat with the Hon. Frank Pangallo, who had also been working on the terms of reference, engage with us in a respectful way and we could have all worked out something, rather than coming here today with terms of reference that miss the mark and with a short-term reporting process.

This really, I think, typifies the arrogant way in which the Malinauskas government have approached this issue, the way in which they have politicised this whole merger process. It is profoundly disappointing to me, and indeed the Greens, that members of university staff across the two universities found out about this plan through a media story that was reported on Saturday night. No-one from those universities had the courtesy to actually let their staff know before Saturday evening. How disrespectful is that?

Then, to add insult to injury, you have our two vice-chancellors being politicised by the Premier holding a joint press event where the Premier takes ownership of this whole proposal, and then the government is too arrogant to lower themselves to actually talk to the crossbench before today around crafting some terms of reference for an inquiry and a process. So what we have, when we step into this chamber, is a shambolic dog's breakfast, which actually typifies the botched approach that the Malinauskas government has taken to this whole process.

It is interesting to remark that during question time I asked the Hon. Clare Scriven about the government's commitment during the last election. They indicated they were going to have a commission of inquiry into this proposal—that is an independent process—but instead what we have is the Malinauskas government running their own process, taking ownership of this, and the role of the parliament is just to rubber stamp. The parliament is seen as an inconvenience, an obstacle, to them pursuing their agenda, and that is disappointing because actually it is this parliament that is going to have to change the law.

If you want to make friends and influence people on the crossbench, this is not the way to do it—just a little tip. If you wanted to try to win people over to support your bill, this is a really curious strategy. We will see how it plays out, but it is a really curious strategy that they have embarked upon, rather than the strategy of collegiality and engagement with one's colleagues in this small chamber. It is disappointing, but anyway this is where we are at.

Enough about the process. What about the substance? All of the amendments that the opposition are putting forward we will support. I want to indicate in particular why I think the extension of the time frame is important. It has never been my intention or the intention of the Greens to try to frustrate on this issue. All we have said is that we have concerns about the impact on jobs, we have concerns about the impact on staff, and those concerns are shared by the NTEU, they are shared by a number of academic staff, and they are informed by the experience of what has happened in other jurisdictions around the world where there have been mergers—look at Manchester university.

Indeed, there was a survey that came out today that demonstrated that Australia's largest universities fail to deliver good outcomes for students and that the highest student satisfaction was among our nation's smallest universities. It is against this backdrop that the Greens wanted to have an inquiry to consider the issues.

This idea that we need to proceed with this at breakneck speed I find really bizarre. If the government needed to get this done in this quarter of the year, why did they only announce it on Saturday? Why did they not work to do it in the early half of the year, so that there was appropriate time for the parliament to work through the issues? Why was the engagement of the parliament at the end of the process rather than at the beginning? Why has the government's approach been: this is a fait accompli, sign along the dotted line, rather than giving the parliament the opportunity to consider the implications in a thorough way?

That is why I think it is quite reasonable for the opposition to propose an extension. It would be my hope we could get the committee done earlier than the Leader of the Opposition has proposed, but why not give enough time to appropriately ventilate the issues? We are supportive of those amendments.

To speak to the amendments that I am putting forward, one of the key issues in the media this week, which I found really astounding, has been that it seems no-one in the government has read the business case underpinning this proposal. The Premier has not read it. The minister for higher education, the Deputy Premier, has not read it. We know the Hon. Clare Scriven has not read it, but that is not unusual, with respect. She often does not indicate whether or not she has read reports, but I do not think she has read this one. It is not her portfolio, she will say—the catchcry in this place.

I know a lot of people in the community will ask, 'Why haven't they looked at that information?' At the very least, I think the people's representatives in the parliament should actually have an opportunity to access that information and that is why I am moving this amendment, because I think it is appropriate that the parliament consider those issues.

The final amendment that I am seeking to advance today is one that considers the implications for Flinders University. A fair point that has been raised with me is: what about people from low socio-economic backgrounds from Flinders University? I grew up in the southern suburbs, I am a graduate of Flinders University, and I know that a lot of people from Flinders University will ask what role they are playing in this process and whether they will get access as an institution to the same support that is being afforded. I think it is worthwhile adding that into the terms of reference, so that some of these implications can be considered.

It is disappointing that this is the process we have landed on. The Greens welcome an inquiry. We were the ones calling for it. We would have been happy to achieve a joint parliamentary inquiry. I just wish that the government had sat down and had a chat with me. I am not that difficult to deal with. I am actually quite nice.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Simms, I think we will be the judge of that.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I would have been very happy to sit and have a chat with them. Everybody knows I am really easygoing, and they could have sat down and had a chat with me and we could have nutted something out. Instead, what we have is this booby trap that has blown up in all of our faces today, the exploding cigar that one pulls out of the drawer and it has blown up in everybody's face. There could have been a different process that was adopted. I hope there is some collective learning from this, so that we do not do this in the future.

There are legitimate questions that need to be ventilated through this process, questions for students and questions for academic staff. I have to laugh when I see the debates about mergers and so on. There is often very little discussion around students and their interests. It is like the old saying that a hospital would be great if not for the patients. The universities do not work without students. They are a fundamental stakeholder group. They need to be consulted. They need to be engaged. I hope that the government starts to engage with them, starts to talk with them, starts to talk with the broader community, rather than just simply announcing these things as a fait accompli.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:08): I rise briefly, not as the portfolio holder but as somebody who has actually been impacted previously by mergers of institutions—in this case, the University of South Australia and my campus of Salisbury, which no longer exists.

I am concerned that in these terms of reference there are no guarantees for Whyalla, Mount Gambier, Roseworthy or Waite. Where was the minister for regional development in that discussion of these terms of reference, I ask? These terms of reference have now landed on our desks today with no prior warning other than a debate in the other place just before lunchtime that went for mere minutes. This is disappointing. This is not the way to run a parliament. I hope it is not going to be indicative of the seriousness with which the government should be taking this quite important and profound move.

I also ask why specifically teaching—not education, not research, but teaching—has not been addressed in the terms of reference. I hope that is simply an oversight and will be corrected by the committee itself. I note that the campuses of Underdale and Salisbury no longer exist and that is to the detriment of the communities they served and the constituencies. As a Salisbury campus student—it was how I was politicised—I became active as a result of the experience of studying at a small campus in a working-class area as a young mother of two children, where there was a childcare centre on campus, where it was close to supports, where it was easy to do that without additional access to wealth.

The promises that were made with that amalgamation were never kept. Mawson Lakes did not have the same culture; Magill did not have the same access. The administration for those students who were starting their courses at Salisbury was not continued to the end. Many promises were broken. I hope that will not be the case this time, and I think that guarantees should be sought on those matters.

I also note there is a no forced redundancy promise, but it only lasts for one round. What happens after that first round we need answers to from this committee. I am certainly very happy to hear that the Premier believes that staff and students have been well consulted so far. That is not the feedback I have had, certainly from the NTEU on this matter. They do not feel that the process the Premier is so seemingly assured has occurred has occurred, so I am sure this will be a good tool for that.

We will be debating whether this committee runs for three or four months. I find that extraordinary in itself. This is a massive enterprise, this is a massive once-in-a-generation (to use the Premier's words) initiative. For something that is once in a generation, surely this parliament should be doing it in a way where we consult properly and collaboratively and work all together to make sure the state is served by what are public institutions. They are not the Premier's institutions, they are not the vice-chancellor's institutions, they are public South Australian institutions that belong, really, to the public of South Australia.

I am happy to serve on the committee for a short period to ensure that the Greens are represented within this role, noting that my colleague will be away for a few weeks, so we certainly will not be holding up those processes in that way, but I note that it is our intention that we will replace my membership on the committee with the Hon. Rob Simms at the first opportunity on the return of parliament.

I am saddened that this has been the process to get us to this point. I hark back to the bad old days of declare and defend and note that when former Premier Jay Weatherill came to power he himself said that those days were over and that it would be deliberate and decide going forward. I urge the Malinauskas government to deliberate and decide, not to end up declaring and defending, and not treat this parliament, this upper house, with the contempt they have shown today.

The Hon. N.J. Centofanti: Can I indicate our support for the Greens' amendments?

The PRESIDENT: No, you only make one contribution to the debate.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON (16:13): I would like to very briefly indicate that the opposition intends to support the amendment moved by the Hon. Mr Simms.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (16:13): I thank all members for their contribution on this matter. One thing that all people who have made a contribution have agreed on is that this is a very important matter for consideration for South Australia and for the people of South Australia.

I rise to indicate that we will not be supporting the amendments put forward by the opposition or the Greens. I do understand their intent. It is our view that what has been suggested is capable of being looked at in the terms as they exist. In particular, the Leader of the Opposition talked about looking at the effects on South Australia as a whole, and I think that is well catered for in 1(b)(i) in particular.

Also, the wording of the amendment from the Leader of the Opposition talks about including the socio-economic student funding, which I think is catered for specifically in the text of what is in the motion. In any event, subparagraph 1(e) states, 'any other related matter', which is effectively a catch-all for many of the things that people would like to look at in these things.

One thing I will say specifically is that, while we will not be supporting the amendments put forward, the one I think would actually do damage to the aim of what the universities put forward is the one changing the date of reporting. As I outlined in my contribution in moving the motion for the committee, there is a time line if the universities were to realise their aim, should that be what eventuates, of the university setting up at the start of 2026, and that could be in jeopardy by changing the date of reporting. So whilst we will not be supporting those amendments, that is one amendment in particular that we think could possibly do harm to what the universities' aims are.

I thank members who have made contributions on this matter, and I look forward to the establishment of this committee, with a very wide range of views we have had put forward in the motion—the Hon. Reggie Martin; the Hon. Jing Lee from the opposition; and in the motion through the crossbenchers the Hon. Tammy Franks, who will serve, I think she has indicated, for a short time representing the Greens; the Hon. Connie Bonaros from SA Best; and the Hon. Sarah Game. It is a rare occasion when every single constituent part of the Legislative Council is intended to be represented on this committee.

I commend the motion and I commend members to move it in the form I have moved with the one amendment to increase the number to five, but not the further amendments that have been moved.

The PRESIDENT: We are going to work our way through the amendments, and are going to circulate the Hon. Robert Simms' amendments so that members have them in front of them. While we are doing that I would like to thank the table staff for their work under considerable disadvantage, these amendments pretty much being on the fly.

The first question is that the amendment to the motion of the Attorney-General, moved by the Hon. R.A. Simms and relating to subparagraph 1(b) of the resolution, be agreed to.

The council divided on the question:

Ayes 7

Noes 10

Majority 3

AYES

Centofanti, N.J. Franks, T.A. Girolamo, H.M.
Henderson, L.A. Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A.
Simms, R.A. (teller)

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Game, S.L.
Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K. Maher, K.J. (teller)
Martin, R.B. Ngo, T.T. Scriven, C.M.
Wortley, R.P.

PAIRS

Hood, B.R. Pnevmatikos, I. Hood, D.G.E.
Pangallo, F.

Question thus resolved in the negative.

The PRESIDENT: The next question I am going to put is that the amendment to the motion moved by the Hon. N.J. Centofanti to insert new subparagraph (da) to the resolution be agreed to.

The council divided on the question:

Ayes 7

Noes 10

Majority 3

AYES

Centofanti, N.J. (teller) Franks, T.A. Girolamo, H.M.
Henderson, L.A. Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A.
Simms, R.A.

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Game, S.L.
Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K. Maher, K.J. (teller)
Martin, R.B. Ngo, T.T. Scriven, C.M.
Wortley, R.P.

PAIRS

Hood, B.R. Pangallo, F. Hood, D.G.E.
Pnevmatikos, I.

Question thus resolved in the negative.

The PRESIDENT: The next question is that the amendment to the motion moved by the Hon. R.A. Simms to insert new paragraph (da) into the resolution be agreed to.

The council divided on the question:

Ayes 7

Noes 10

Majority 3

AYES

Centofanti, N.J. Franks, T.A. Henderson, L.A.
Hood, B.R. Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A.
Simms, R.A. (teller)

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Game, S.L.
Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K. Maher, K.J. (teller)
Martin, R.B. Ngo, T.T. Scriven, C.M.
Wortley, R.P.

PAIRS

Girolamo, H.M. Pangallo, F. Hood, D.G.E.
Pnevmatikos, I.

Question thus resolved in the negative.

The PRESIDENT: The next question I am going to put is that the amendment to the motion moved by the Hon. N.J. Centofanti relating to paragraph 2 be agreed to.

The council divided on the question:

Ayes 7

Noes 10

Majority 3

AYES

Centofanti, N.J. (teller) Franks, T.A. Girolamo, H.M.
Henderson, L.A. Hood, B.R. Lensink, J.M.A.
Simms, R.A.

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Game, S.L.
Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K. Maher, K.J. (teller)
Martin, R.B. Ngo, T.T. Scriven, C.M.
Wortley, R.P.

PAIRS

Lee, J.S. Pangallo, F. Hood, D.G.E.
Pnevmatikos, I.

Question thus resolved in the negative; motion carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (16:35): I move:

That it be an instruction to the joint committee that the joint committee be authorised to disclose or publish, as it thinks fit, any evidence or documents presented to the joint committee prior to such evidence or documents being reported to parliament.

Motion carried.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order: have we actually appointed members to the committee we just set up?

The PRESIDENT: Was that not part of his amendment?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: It is not on this part of the motion that I have in front of me. It was not on the motion that was put in front of members in this place.

The PRESIDENT: I was sure the Attorney moved that way because we—

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Clearly, we are just governing by the vibe of the thing now.

The PRESIDENT: No, we absolutely went through it because we had a recount at the time as to the number of people, by name, who were actually on it.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have done motions as well where I have said who will be on the committee in my speech to the motion, but then you actually have a motion to appoint the people to the committee because actually the council decides on who is appointed to the committee. There is normally formally a motion to appoint people to the committee once we set up a committee. I do not know why we are changing the process now.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Franks I take your point; however, I will read out what was actually moved. I have no idea what was put in front of anybody, given that everything was done on the fly today:

Mr President, I move that the council concur with the resolution the House of Assembly contained in message No. 84 for the appointment of a joint committee on the establishment of Adelaide University, with the following amendment to paragraph 2 that the council be represented on the joint committee by five members of whom three shall form the quorum necessary to be present at all sittings of the committee and that the members of the joint committee to represent the Legislative Council be the Hon. C. Bonaros, the Hon. S.L. Game, the Hon. T.A. Franks, the Hon. J.S. Lee and the Hon. R.B. Martin.

That is how we went through it in the first instance.

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