HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-03-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Parliamentary Committees Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:30): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to provide for the establishment of various parliamentary committees, to define the powers and duties of those committees, to make related amendments to various acts, to repeal the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 and for other purposes. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:31): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I think everybody here knows what this bill is. I do not plan to speak to it at great length today, but effectively we have all come to terms with the fact that our current committee processes and structures in South Australia are not only lagging behind other jurisdictions in a dramatic way but impacting all of us here. They are impacting staff, they are impacting the Clerk's office, they are impacting members in terms of being able to undertake all of our responsibilities and duties.

Certainly, when the committee on committees was established I guess I was pleasantly surprised that at the conclusion of that committee in 2021 we reached a position where we had unanimous support for much-needed reforms to our current processes. I note, obviously, the involvement of the Hon. Ms Franks, the Hon. Mr Hanson, the Hon. Rob Lucas, the Hon. Ms Pnevmatikos, you yourself, Mr President, and myself.

There was a great deal of time put in by all of us to appreciate what it is that other jurisdictions are doing and how it is that we can improve our current structures. I want to thank the Treasurer at the time, the Hon. Mr Rob Lucas, for the amount of work that he put into this as well, because we wanted to reach a position where we had unanimous support.

I think from where the Hon. Tammy Franks and I sat—I am not putting words in the honourable member's mouth—it was very clear to us that we needed changes, but getting both of the major political parties on side to reach a unanimous decision was no small challenge. We did that because the recommendations are extremely reasonable. They are straightforward and they do bring us into line with other jurisdictions.

We all know that as members of this place we establish select committees to drive the issues that we want to raise in this place, and they are an effective tool, amongst many, that we use. But I think, overwhelmingly, the reason why we use that tool is we have an ineffective committee structure and if we had a more effective committee structure, as exists in the federal parliament and in those other jurisdictions, then we would not always be looking to establish select committees that will enable us to participate in the way that we all hope to.

The committee itself looked at all the other jurisdictions. It also looked at what happens at the commonwealth level. Some of the criticisms that were levelled specifically at South Australia were the lack of a human rights committee, the lack of a human rights impact statement attached to bills, the lack of an explanatory memorandum attached to bills for the benefit of all members, and also the lack of scrutiny of bills and delegated legislation.

Those members who have had the benefit of working in the federal jurisdiction would know that they take a very different approach to bills when it comes to scrutiny. Effectively, by the time you get onto the floor of parliament, you have a lot of impartial information that has been provided to you that has been the subject of inquiries and reports that all sides of politics feed into.

There is an understanding that the work that should take place is not politically motivated or driven. It is done so that, by the time you get to the chamber, you have a body of work before you that includes all the pros, cons, concerns about a piece of legislation or whatever the case may be, but it is not politically motivated and driven.

The biggest criticism, though, I would say that we have faced as a jurisdiction is the lack of a scrutiny of bills committee, whose job it is in those other jurisdictions to do precisely what I have just outlined. There is no question that, putting members and their needs and their time to the side for a moment, it is the staff that we have relied on in this place who are completely drowning and overwhelmed. I do not think there is enough.

We were talking about this the other day in terms of there being committees for every single member of this chamber at the moment. The Hon. Tammy Franks raised that with me just the other day and obviously there are staff, secretariats and research officers. It puts a strain on the budgetary constraints that we have here as a parliament and it is taking its toll on everybody.

The bill itself incorporates the recommendations of that report. I am happy to circulate the report to all members who have not had the benefit of reading it. There have been minor tweaks in line, only taking into account changes that have happened since 2021. I will allow members to go through it at their leisure and ask any relevant questions of me during briefings and whatnot, but I think overall what I would say is there are going to be potentially two or three elements of this bill only that would really be the subject of any debate around whether or not they should form part of the bill. The explanatory memorandum might be one of them, for instance.

But, in all, it is entirely consistent and in line with other jurisdictions which are doing things in a much more timely and effective manner when it comes to their parliamentary processes. We all know how important those parliamentary processes are to us, but the reality is that we cannot keep going down this path of trying to find staff to work on these committees and the continual establishment of these committees. Something has to give.

Just briefly, for those members who have not had the benefit of how those other jurisdictions work, the Senate is certainly a good example. I think the Legislative Review Committee is sick of hearing this from me. If you want any change, then this is where we start. One of the examples—and this will be contained in there—is the ability, much like Budget and Finance, for members to hop on and off of committees for the purposes of taking part in inquiries that concern them, so that when you do establish a committee it is referred to an existing committee as opposed to establishing a standing committee. But that does not mean that you do not have any role in that process; you can still partake in that committee process.

The other one, of course, is ensuring that we have the appropriate committee set up, so that every time there is a bill that is introduced into parliament we have the appropriate committee to refer it to. That again, based on the findings and recommendations of the report, is something that should be subject to change.

Also, when it comes to the staffing of these committees, we have talked previously about the fact that in those other jurisdictions there is a pool of ongoing committee staff who work on an inquiry basis while maintaining corporate knowledge on scrutiny and statutory committees. It is a much more flexible approach than what we have historically had in South Australia. I do note that is something we have tried to implement on an ad hoc basis, but we have not been able to implement it to its full effect because we do not have the legislative framework to be able to do that. That is one of the other things that this bill seeks to achieve.

The only thing I would urge members to consider is we certainly do not want to be the laughing stock of the nation when it comes to our committee processes here—not because of the work that is undertaken in the committees but because of the systems we have in place. That is through no fault of any of us; that is what we have inherited. But we also do not want to be limiting what it is that we can do because we do not have the right processes in place. I think that what we have seen, all of us as a collective, is that over time we have outgrown. All jurisdictions have seen that.

I think if you ask quite candidly, and I have spoken to people who attend these sorts of forums interstate and federally, it certainly was raised to the committee itself: 'How on earth do you manage with the structure that you've got in place in South Australia, because it's not practical for anybody?' That is not just members I am talking about. I am talking about the staff in here, the Clerk's office, who have to make these committees function. But I do note in particular the evidence that was provided to that committee by witnesses who spoke specifically about the lack of scrutiny that appears in South Australia.

Last time I spoke on one of these issues, it was in the Legislative Review Committee context. I noted that it is now over 90 per cent of our legislation that is being made by way of delegated legislation. That means that most of us in this place—unless you are on the Legislative Review Committee, which has had a huge workload, granted—do not know what most of the laws we are passing every day are, because they are being made by delegated instruments.

That is not a good outcome for democracy, when we are using these by-laws and regulations and guidelines and codes to make laws that impact lives of South Australians every day and most of us in here would not have a clue what they are. Sometimes the list is 500 instruments long that we are sitting there trying to sift through in the Legislative Review Committee. There is no way you can give all of those regulations the time and effort that they warrant, given that they are resulting in laws that apply to our state and our communities more broadly.

In all, I think it is pretty self-explanatory. The report is available in terms of the background of the recommendations, it is in line with the other jurisdictions, and I am very, very hopeful that we will be able to move forward with our committee structure and make some much-needed efficiencies and reforms.

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

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