Hansard debates

                      Establishment of standing committees

  Ms PENNICUIK  (Southern  Metropolitan)  --  I  would like to move motion no. 1
standing in my name, which is:
  That the Standing Orders Committee be required  to  inquire into and report no
  later than  30 November 2008  on the establishment of  new standing committees
  for the Legislative Council, including --
(1) the number, composition, structure and functions of those committees; and
(2) the staffing  and resources required  for  the effective operation  of those
        committees.

We are now almost halfway  through this parliamentary term and it is timely that
we look at  the establishment of a full and functioning committee system for the
Legislative Council. The end date of  30  November  for  the  reference  to  the
Standing Orders Committee would pretty well coincide with the exact halfway date
of  the  term,  as  it would be just  on  two  years  after the election of this
Parliament and this new upper house. We are definitely  still  in  the embryonic
stages of establishing  a  functioning committee system  on  a model similar  to
those which operate in other states.
We have put in place  one  standing committee, the Standing Committee on Finance
and  Public  Administration,  and   without   pre-empting  the  outcome  of  any
deliberations by the Standing Orders Committee  and  what  it might come back to
this house with, I think its establishment has been a good start.

As all members know, two select committees have looked  into important issues in
the public interest, those 

 Page 3584


being gambling in the state of Victoria and the sale  and development  of public
land in Victoria -- the latter committee is about to hand down its final report.
Of those  two select  committees, one  has already  finished and one is about to
finish. The  Standing  Committee on Finance  and Public Administration  has just
about finished its  first reference on the  economics of the  channel  deepening
project.  Thus,  some work has been done in terms of revitalising the  committee
system in the upper house, but a lot more needs to be done. It would be the role
of the  Standing Orders Committee in the  first instance to have  a look at what
goes  on in the other  states  of Australia, and I  will briefly run through the
committee systems in other upper houses around Australia.
The Tasmanian upper house has four types of standing committees, the Legislative
Council estimates committees,  the government business  scrutiny committees, the
Privileges Committee  and the Standing Orders Committee. Obviously we have those
types of standing committees.

Tasmania in effect has two working upper house committees that look into issues;
it  is a small state. Western Australia has six upper house standing committees,
and at  this present  point in  time it  has two upper  house select  committees
operating.  That number changes from time  to time; it could be three or four or
it could be one or two. New South Wales has  10 upper house committees, and 5 of
those  are  what are called  general  purpose standing  committees  that look at
general  areas of government, covering  basically the whole  of the government's
role and government departments. It also has five other standing committees. The
South Australian  Parliament has five upper house standing committees, including
the  Aboriginal Lands  Parliamentary Standing Committee,  the Legislative Review
Committee, the  Social Development Committee,  the Statutory Authorities  Review
Committee and the Statutory Officers Committee. The Australian Capital Territory
has seven standing  committees in the  upper house, and the  commonwealth Senate
has 16 standing committees and, at   the  moment,  4  select  committees -- that
number too can vary from time to time.

Given  that  of  the  two select committees established in this house,  one  has
finished its work and one  is about to finish its work, that  will leave us with
only  the Standing Committee  on  Finance and Public  Administration in terms of
upper house committees. It is obvious that  we need to have a look at how we can
establish a functioning committee system for this house so that it operates as a
house of review, which is what upper houses are meant to do.
In  2001  the  government  established the Constitution Commission of  Victoria,
which looked into the reform of the  upper house  in terms  of electoral reform,
and that commission produced a  discussion paper called A House of Review -- The
Role of the Victorian Legislative Council in the Democratic  Process. On 30 June
2002  the commission released its final report, A House for Our Future,  which I
think is a great title.

It is what this reference is about; it is about the Standing Orders Committee of
this  Council  looking at how we can establish a committee  structure  for  this
house for  the future  so  that  this  house can  continue on  its road  towards
operating  as a  house of review and a house that investigates issues  of public
importance, which is not necessarily the role of the lower house.
It is  definitely  the  role of the  upper  house, and it is  an  important role
undertaken by the upper house for the people of Victoria. The people of Victoria
want  this upper house to operate as a  house  of review, just as the people  of
Australia want the Senate  to  look at the  legislation  that is put up  by  the
government, review  it and make recommendations  about it and instigate  its own
inquiries into issues of public interest and public importance.
One of the major recommendations in the report of the constitution commission is
that the work of the committees in the Victorian upper house be enhanced.

It  notes that  committee systems  of both  the Senate  and the New  South Wales
Legislative  Council  have  been  strengthened by the diversity achieved through
proportional representation, and there is no reason why this should not occur in
Victoria as well.
The report  states  that it is  a  matter  for the new  council  to consider and
develop the composition  of  the  committees in the upper house, and it suggests
that in doing so the following issues need to  be addressed. One is whether  the
existing joint committee system should be modified wholly or in part. While that
is not  part of  the reference to this Standing Orders Committee, I suggest that
review of the joint committee system might be undertaken further down the track,
once we have a functioning upper house committee system.

It is suggested  that  the council should look at whether all  or any of the new
committees should have non-government  majorities and government chairs; whether
there should be  a group of  general  purpose committees, each  covering several
portfolio  areas and together  spanning them all; and  whether the chair  should
have  a  deliberative  or  casting  vote  or  both.  It should consider also the
remuneration of chairpersons; the responsibility of  ministers  and  their staff
and officers to be available to committees; the 

 Page 3585


arrangements, limitations and possible sanctions required for that purpose;  and
the resources required to ensure that the system operates effectively.
That is an important point that I have included in the motion. Having worked for
18  months on  the public  land committee,  I take  the opportunity  here to pay
tribute to the staff  of the committees of the upper house.  I know the staff of
the public land committee have been working on the  select committee on gambling
and  also the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration, and their
workload has been huge and really unsustainable. So not only does  the  Standing
Orders Committee need to look  at the  structure, function  and roles  of a  new
committee  system for  the upper house, but it  needs to  look seriously  at how
those committees can be resourced in such a way that they  can do their work for
the  benefit  of  the public and so  that  it  does  not put so much stress  and
pressure on the staff. There are definitely not  enough  staff and resources for
even the small numbers of committees that have been operating now.

That is something very important to look at. The upper  house  committee systems
around the country operate with dedicated staff and resources, and that is why I
have included it in the motion.
Prior to  the  debate the government  circulated an amendment  that foreshadowed
adding another point to  my motion about reviewing the sessional orders. We will
not be supporting that amendment.  The  idea behind this motion that a reference
be given to the Standing Orders Committee  was  to  give  that  committee  three
months to investigate the appropriate role or a recommended model of upper house
committees in this  Legislative Council. Muddying that  role with looking at the
sessional orders is not appropriate.

It  is important that we look at the committee system now, so we can go into the
second half of the life of  this Parliament with an established committee system
to review legislation better and  to undertake inquiries and investigations into
important matters of public interest. I urge all members of the house to support
this motion.