Hon Robert Brokenshire MLC FAMILY FIRST PARTY sa.familyfirst.org.

au January 2012

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM

Over the years there has been debate about potential reform of Parliament in South Australia. These have tended to be directed by the Government of the day who, in Labors case, have sought the reduction of the strength of the Upper House and, ultimately, its abolition.

The 2010 Federal Election saw Gillard Labor re-elected thanks to the support of three key independents (Andrew Wilkie, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor) and the first Green MHR. Part of the power-sharing deal with these crossbench Members of the House of Representatives saw the introduction of a so-called new paradigm for the functioning of Federal Parliament. The initiatives proposed in the new paradigm have been explored, trialled and in some cases implemented.

Family First believes there a number of unsatisfactory ways that the Parliament and the electoral system operates in South Australia. Our thinking on these matters was accelerated by the dodgy how to vote cards incident in the 2010 State Election whereby our booth helpers were impersonated by Labor operatives handing out incorrect how to vote cards.

REFORM PROPOSALS:
INDEX: STATE PARLIAMENT Premiers limited to two terms Eliminating mid-term proroguation Eliminating long breaks in sitting days Mandatory pre-election sittings Mandatory July Budget delivery Parliamentary Budget Office Committee system overhaul Family Friendly Upper House sitting hours Regional Sittings Joint Question Times ELECTORAL SYSTEM Banning hand out of How-to-Vote cards By-election review either: No resignation allowed unless for compelling personal or family health reasons; AND THEN ONLY Direct replacement with Party nominee (for non-Independent MPs) Recall petitions to force an Election

HON R BROKENSHIRE MLC FAMILY FIRST PARTY PARLIAMENTARY SPEECH (continued) Time limits on Question Time Abolishing Dorothy Dixer questions Tabling of pre-written speeches Live broadcast of sittings; other tech use Disallowance of part, not all, of Regulations Legislated 10-year rolling Cabinet releases

STATE PARLIAMENT
Premiers limited to only serving two full terms In the United States of America we are presently observing the nominations process for the Republican Party and, ultimately, the contest for the Presidency. Barack Obama is eligible for re-election this term, but will have to retire under US law being barred, as George W Bush was and many before him, from serving a third term. Many US States also have Governors limited to serving two terms. Family First believes this system invigorates a leader to get on with the policy they are given an electoral mandate to deliver, and not to delay those initiatives. Late in a Premiers term there is a risk that they can hang on to achieve a record against their predecessors or to build their own legacy. In most cases this is not in the States best interests. This proposal, specifically, would limit a Premier to two full terms. Put another way, it would preclude a Premier from being elected a third time. This way, for instance, current Premier Weatherill would be entitled to serve two full terms in addition to having been installed as Premier in October 2010 with 3 years left to serve so from October 2010 to March 2022. So, in a more extreme example, the two-term policy entitles a Premier to see out almost 12 years as Premier but, at its lower end and the more common scenario, a fixed 8 years under fixed term elections.

HON R BROKENSHIRE MLC FAMILY FIRST PARTY PARLIAMENTARY SPEECH (continued) Eliminating the mid-term proroguing of Parliament It is a waste of taxpayer money to prorogue the Parliament regularly and organise the pomp and ceremony of the military marching from Government House to Parliament House. Family First believes proroguing is only appropriate when heading into an election, so the ceremonial opening of Parliament should only occur on the commencement of a newly elected or re-elected Government. In this context it makes sense for the Governor to be explaining the mandate of His or Her Government for the forthcoming term.

Eliminating long breaks for MPs to sit in Parliament Family First does not support the lengthy election break of sittings in Parliament. In addition to requiring Parliament to sit in the month before an election (see below), Family First is also mandating a minimum number of 60 calendar days may pass between sitting days. Legal advice indicates we can not, constitutionally, mandate a minimum number of sitting days per annum In our proposal there is no extension of the 60 calendar-day time period if an election has occurred. The proposal also requires that the Parliament sit within 30 days of a new Government being elected or re-elected. We note that after the British Parliamentary election (in which the Cameron Coalition Government were elected in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats) that less than a month passed from Parliaments last sitting day to an election, and then the Parliament sat within a month of the election. By contrast, in 2009 Parliament rose on 3 December 2009 and did not sit again after the election until 6 May 2010 154 days between sittings.

Mandatory pre-election sittings of Parliament Family First wishes to see accountability for a Government before an election by ensuring that in February before the fixed four-yearly March State elections the Parliament must sit for at least two weeks before entering the caretaker pre-election period.

Mandatory budget delivery by no later than 30 June Under Labor we have seen twice the absurd situation where, unlike interstate Labor counterparts, this State Labor Government has postponed the State Budget post-election to September. Family First believes a budget should be delivered before the commencement of the financial year, not a quarter of the way

HON R BROKENSHIRE MLC FAMILY FIRST PARTY PARLIAMENTARY SPEECH (continued) through it. The Mid Year Budget Review exists to enable a Government to update its budgetary settings. Delayed July or September budgets are particularly odd when there has not been a change in Government.

Parliamentary Budget Office To ensure that taxpayers are receiving accurate, verified and costed policy proposals from political parties in an election period, Family First proposes that the Parliamentary Budget Office concept in Canberra be adopted at a State level. This would function similarly to how the Parliamentary Counsel Office now does in drafting Bills for Government and non-Government members. The Office would be staffed with persons with Treasury experience but independent of Treasury. Regularly before elections Oppositions are challenged for a black hole discovered in their proposals when the Government has free and full access to Treasury to conduct that analysis but Oppositions must rely on gratuitous assistance, if any, from financial houses. The Parliamentary Budget Office enables all members of Parliament and parties to have their policy proposals costed at any time during the Parliamentary term.

Committee system overhaul The Budget and Finance Committee, a Select Committee of the Upper House, mirrors the Estimates process that runs continuously in Canberra. The Estimates process in South Australia is farcical and does not involve members of the Upper House. Family First proposes making Budget and Finance Committee a standing committee of the Parliament, and the sitting weeks normally used for estimates to instead be used as standard sitting weeks. The functions of the Economic and Finance and Budget and Finance Committee would be merged, with the Committee chaired by a non-Government member of Parliament. The new Upper House Budget and Finance Estimates process would be a minimum monthly process and have the power to call Ministers in addition to Departmental chiefs at present (as occurs in Federal Parliament).

Family First proposes that the current two weeks of ineffective Estimates be axed altogether as part of the savings to provide for the other measures contained in this package. For instance, the regional sittings of Parliament proposed can substitute the cost, and perhaps also the time-slot, currently occupied by Estimates.

HON R BROKENSHIRE MLC FAMILY FIRST PARTY PARLIAMENTARY SPEECH (continued)

Family First also supports reform of all other Committees to have a non-Government chair and non-Government majority to ensure independence and transparency.

Family First has also called for reform of the Aboriginal Lands Standing Committee to remove the unusual arrangement of the Minister being a member of the Committee, and installing nonParliamentarian members representing the Aboriginal community given the lack of Aboriginal Members of Parliament at present. In addition, Family First is calling for a consultation process with both the public and all members of parliament investigating which committees are redundant or ineffective and should be axed.

Family First also believes that, as occurs in Canberra, submissions made to Committees should either be declared private or public and, for public submissions, these should be published on the Parliamentary website. More generally, a review is required of the publication rules for

Committees so as to enable information to be more quickly available to the public on the Committees deliberations.

Family friendly sitting hours in the Upper House Whilst the Lower House now sits from 11am most days, the Upper House still sits from 2:15pm onwards. On occasion it has sat at 11am but even then late sittings occur. Family First seeks the

aligning of the practice in both houses so that Parliament can do its work and conclude at a reasonable hour for Members of Legislative Council with family commitments.

Regional sittings of State Parliament Family First supported the previous regional sittings of the House of Assembly in Mount Gambier and believes there is merit in debate on the regularity and benefit of regional sittings of the Parliament. Parties are capable of staging Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet meetings in regional areas but these are not open to members of the public in regional areas to observe. Family First supports a regular system of conducting regional sittings so as to enable country residents to see for themselves the operations of Parliament. Family First proposes regional sittings:

HON R BROKENSHIRE MLC FAMILY FIRST PARTY PARLIAMENTARY SPEECH (continued) Biennially (once every two years) for both houses to sit regionally (comprising 69 members, being 47 members of Lower House and 22 members Upper House). The Legislative Council (22 members) could sit once per annum in a regional area, given that it is the House that is responsible for representing constituents across the whole State. Sitting locations would be selected based on current issues of concern throughout regional South Australia.. Note: Whilst some cost would be involved, the benefit of the Parliament attending and encouraging regional economies would outweigh the cost.

Joint question time Ministers naturally hold seats in either one house or the other, and in Family Firsts view this results in inefficiencies where non-Government members ask questions but they are not answered because they need to be referred to the Minister in the other chamber. As a partial remedy to this situation, Family First proposes that twice per annum there be a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament for a two-hour Question Time so questions can be asked direct to Ministers from the opposing Houses.

Abolishing Dorothy Dixer questions in question time Both major parties are hooked on their Dorothy Dixer questions when they are in Government as a means to shut down the clock on Question Time. The answer given by the Minister is, in fact, a Ministerial statement and Ministers have leave to make such statements at any time outside of Question time. Accordingly, Family First proposes that all Dorothy Dixer questions be ruled out. Government Members may ask questions relating specifically to their own electorate but the Speaker or President should have authority to rule the question out of order for having the appearance of being a Dorothy Dixer question for instance, if the Minister or the person asking the question is reading from prepared notes in the asking or answering of the question.

Time limits during Question Time Questions should not take more than one minute to ask. Answers should not take more than four minutes to answer, therefore enabling at least 12 questions to be asked and answered every Question Time. This accommodates, in the Legislative Council for instance, more than half the Members asking a question every day. Members who

HON R BROKENSHIRE MLC FAMILY FIRST PARTY PARLIAMENTARY SPEECH (continued) exceed time limits should be either cut off, or for repeat offences the Question or Answer ruled out of order.

Live broadcast of sittings and other technology updates of Parliament Technologically, State Parliament is one of the most backward in the nation. All other State Parliaments live stream by audio or video their proceedings. The technology is now available to readily convert the internal audio feed to use on the Internet. Further, amendments to Bills ought to be circulated to Members as soon as they are tabled, rather than printed. There is merit also in a Parliamentary Network Support Group officer being present, on request from the Parliament, during committee stages of debate to project onto a wall of the chamber the current stage of a Bill being debated so the contested wording can be readily analysed by all (and observed by those in the gallery) rather than flicking through papers on the desk, There are a host of other reforms that would reduce paper usage at State Parliament and thereby reduce its impact on the environment.

Disallowances of part, not all, of Regulations At present the system for opposing a particular Regulation is for Member of Parliament to move disallowance of the full Regulations. This could mean, for instance, that a Council that has overstepped the mark on a particular by-law could see the rest of the good by-laws held up by disallowance. Family First has already tabled a Bill, formerly a Bill by now-retired Liberal MLC Hon Robert Lawson QC, that allows the striking out of parts of a Regulation without losing the rest.

Legislated release of Cabinet documents Family First supports the Government policy of release of 10-year old Cabinet Documents, however we would like to see it : codified as part of the Freedom of Information Act, not a policy of

Government that could be revoked; an easy-to-use timely format for members of the public and media to access the information.

HON R BROKENSHIRE MLC FAMILY FIRST PARTY PARLIAMENTARY SPEECH (continued)

ELECTORAL REFORMS
Banning How-To Vote Cards The Electoral system contains a number of anachronistic systems that belong back in the 20th century. How to Vote Cards had their purpose in informing voters at the ballot box how the Party they intended to support was allocating its preferences in each seat. Labors March 2010 election dodgy how-to-vote card scandal, impersonating Family First volunteers, has spurred a Select Committee review into the process. Family Firsts two-fold reform proposal is: How to Vote Card distribution to be banned and enforced by Electoral Commission SA nominees at polling booths. In replacement, All Booths are to include the How-to-Vote information by all parties registered for the election. Parties are free to circulate How-To-Vote information electronically, on the Internet or via the media if they wish.

By-elections Family First wishes to restrict considerable Members of Parliament rights to retire via byelections. It is unacceptable for a Member of the House of Assembly to contest a general election and then, within 18 months, to retire from the Parliament without identifying a serious personal or family health reason. A Member of House of Assemblys win of the seat is a contract with his electorate to serve four years for the electorate, whether serving additionally in higher office or not. Whilst we are not convinced that the Member of Parliament concerned ought to bear the cost of the by-election, we encourage debate on how this waste of taxpayer money can be resolved. Family First will not stand candidates in by-elections in protest at the policy and proposes that byelections be banned except in cases of serious personal or family health reasons. If a Member of Parliament meets this new by-election threshold, then if that Member is a member of a political party, they can be substituted without by-election by using the system in the Legislative Council.. This system of Member of House of Assembly replacement would not apply in the case of Independent MPs who would, on early retirement, force a by-election. It is rare, however, for Independent MPs to quit their seats so far from a general election as to require a by-election. NOTE: The proposals herein relate to resignations of Lower House members. Upper House members who retire for any reason are in the ordinary course replaced without by-election expense by whoever appeared next on the voting ticket at the election when the MLC was elected.

HON R BROKENSHIRE MLC FAMILY FIRST PARTY PARLIAMENTARY SPEECH (continued)

Recall petitions for an election Family First are already on record supporting the ability for 150,000 members of the South Australian voting public to trigger an election by signing a petition within 30 days. Recall

petitions exist in America and have brought down deeply unpopular Governors. We believe the thresholds are tough enough to ensure this mechanism could only be used if a Government was deeply unpopular and deserving of an electoral contest. The Liberal Party has expressed a view the policy proposal is perhaps too high in its thresholds and they might wish to make it easier for a recall election. We will work with them and other Parties and Independents on this initiative.