Constitution (Parliamentary Sittings) Bill

Extract from Hansard

Legislative Council
8 November 2000

Mike Elliott
Leader Australian Democrats
Member of the Legislative Council

Parliament Index
2000 Spring Sitting Index
Browse by Subject
Search all Democrats material
About the SA Parliament
Hansard on line

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I rise to speak briefly on behalf of the Australian Democrats and support the second reading of the bill, and perhaps give some consideration to some different paradigms as well. I think that the fundamental issue that is being addressed here is one of an issue of accountability and, for those members who were not there, and I do not think many were at SA Business Vision 2010's meeting this morning, I encourage them to get a copy of a speech given by Professor Dick Blandy. It was a speech that looked at the history of South Australia and sought-

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: If only just once the Hon. Legh Davis had a blinding flash we would be all truly grateful. As I said, I suggest members look at the speech because it is interesting. It looks at where South Australia is at present within an historical context, and it made some important observations about what underpins the South Australian community, what makes it special, and referred towards the end of that speech to questions of accountability, secret government, etc. It was an excellent speech and well received by some 400 people who listened to it this morning.

As I see it, the fundamental issue here is about recognising that we are in South Australia a parliamentary democracy, not an elected dictatorship, that the executive is not elected and then can do what it likes for the next three to four years.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Well, they think they can and that is what they seek to do.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: They are not much better. I think there has been a deterioration over time. It began under Labor and has got worse over the past couple of years, and I suspect that if Labor got back in it would be about on par.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: As I said, the fundamental issue is one of accountability through parliamentary democracy and a recognition that, if that is to occur, the parliament needs to meet. If the parliament does not meet then we cannot have accountability through the parliamentary democracy. The instrument that the Hon. Nick Xenophon is using is really a requirement that parliament sit at least a certain number of days, and also looks at the issue of how long a break should be between sittings. That is one way of achieving it. I have not had amendments drafted at this stage, but I think there is an alternative. It might indeed be that there is not an overwhelming need for vast amounts of legislation. An awful lot of what we do is, arguably, rats and mice and not changing the world an awful lot, anyway. We need to concentrate more on the bigger issues.

What is important to me is that the parliament is in a position to demand accountability, and there still are some quite long breaks that can be manipulated by governments to their own purposes. I recall, indeed, this year where we were going to a break and the government brought in a regulation, essentially, I think the day that parliament was going to rise, knowing that the parliament could not then put it under scrutiny for some three or four months. It was quite a deliberate thing, and the government could still do it under this sort of proposal here.

It seems to me that another way of going is, indeed, to recognise that the parliament itself should be able to assemble, if a majority of members of either house wish the house to meet, providing there is sufficient notice, and there would need to be some argument about that, in which case the house should be able to assemble itself.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I am not arguing about whether or not I believe that it will get support, but what I am saying is that, if one was serious about parliamentary accountability, probably an instrument which requires perhaps two to three weeks notice by a majority of members of either house would be a way to go about it. For instance, imagine hypothetically that the Auditor-General has produced a report which raises issues of great importance, highly significant importance, and the government just decides to sit on the report and not let parliament sit, and therefore avoid the scrutiny which might come about.

I think we are in a period now whereby over quite some years governments, be they Liberal or Labor, are not going to enjoy majorities in either house-something they brought upon themselves. I do not know what else they blame it on. There has been a massive growth of support for third parties and Independents such that Liberal and Labor will not enjoy majority government in both houses at the same time, and most likely not in either house, for quite some time. In many cases I think we will see minority governments rather than coalitions, but in those circumstances for an executive to expect that it can control when the parliament sits when it does not actually enjoy majority support, in all senses of the word, is a nonsense.

So at this stage without actually putting an amendment forward, which would have to be done in committee, in any event, I am saying that, rather than perhaps putting a simple number on the number of sitting days and a space between sittings, we could consider an amendment which enables a majority in either house to call for that house to be convened, requiring that there be sufficient notice, of course, recognising that some members may be interstate or overseas and would have to be given adequate time to return and carry out their parliamentary duties.