Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 3 December 2008] P793b-802A Hon Ray Halligan; Hon Peter Collier

Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 3 December 2008] p793b-802a Hon Ray Halligan; Hon Peter Collier SELECT COMMITTEE INTO PUBLIC SECTOR EXPENDITURE Establishment — Motion, as Amended Resumed from 27 November on the following motion, as amended, moved by Hon Sue Ellery (Leader of the Opposition) — That — (1) A select committee of three members is appointed, any two of whom constitute a quorum. (2) The committee and the proceedings of the committee are subject to chapter XXII of standing orders and it is to be regarded for all purposes as a committee appointed under that chapter. (3) The committee is to inquire into and report on government measures to audit the operational and financial performance of the Western Australian public sector and any other means by which efficiencies in public sector expenditure can be gained, and all the circumstances surrounding the implementation of the three per cent efficiency dividend, including — (a) the impacts of the three per cent efficiency dividend on the general level of service delivery across all agencies, in particular any impacts on service delivery to regional areas; (b) considering alternative methods for achieving a three per cent reduction in government expenditure; (c) whether the efficiency dividend has a disproportionate impact on smaller agencies, including whether or not smaller agencies are disadvantaged by poorer economies of scale or a relative inability to obtain funding for new policy proposals; (d) what measures agencies are taking to implement the efficiency dividend, and the effect on their functions, performance and staffing arrangements; and (e) alternatives to an across-the-board efficiency dividend to encourage efficiency in the public sector, including consideration of whether certain agencies or functions of agencies should be exempt from the efficiency dividend, or whether the rate of the dividend should vary according to agency size or function. (4) The committee may present interim reports without a requirement for leave and is to present its final report to the house not later than Tuesday, 12 May 2009. HON RAY HALLIGAN (North Metropolitan) [4.13 pm]: We have been debating this motion to establish a select committee to look into a number of matters. I and other members who have spoken in the debate have mentioned that it is very much the right of Parliament to play a role in checking on the government of the day— the executive. However, some members have questioned whether a select committee is the best way to approach this problem, if I can call it a problem. I am sure that many members in this chamber would call it a problem, because on many occasions it has been difficult for them to obtain information from successive governments to satisfy them regarding the expenditure on certain services provided by government. As I have mentioned, this has occurred irrespective of which party has been in power, because quite frequently the accounting is changed to protect certain people and certain information. I must admit that I have not heard what Hon Giz Watson is likely to support in this regard. However, as the chair of a standing committee that has been set up specifically to look at this type of issue, I imagine that that committee would appear to her, as it does to me and to others, to be the way forward to provide the checks and balances that this house requires to bring the government of the day to account. It would surprise me greatly if Hon Giz Watson supported this motion to establish a select committee to do something that the standing committee that she chairs can do. I understand the frustration of many members on both sides of the chamber on this issue. I will read into Hansard certain information that I will extract from the Australasian Parliamentary Review. An article headed “Accounting and Accountability” written by Rosemary Laing, who is the Deputy Clerk of the Senate, states — So what had happened to parliamentary control? This is what a minister had said to a parliamentary seminar on government expenditure and accountability held by the Public Accounts Committee in May 1980: Despite this over-riding power of Parliament I am sure all members of Parliament have on at least one occasion asked themselves whether this power is more imaginary than real and whether the power given is exercisable either before the event or after the event. That is exactly the situation that we are in, and that was 28 years ago. It goes on to say — [1] Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 3 December 2008] p793b-802a Hon Ray Halligan; Hon Peter Collier It is true that section 83 of the Constitution requires that no money shall be drawn from the Commonwealth Treasury except under appropriations made by law. This should not be taken to mean that Parliament controls expenditure. The word control means power of directing or command and in the context of expenditure it should be used in the sense of the ability to determine the size and composition of public expenditure. This the Parliament does not do — the government party is in a majority which has a vested interest in supporting the proposals of the Executive. It is thus difficult to see how the House can control a situation when its own majority has to support the Executive. As in the fable of the Emperor’s new clothes, parliamentary control of expenditure is a myth that all concerned have every reason to foster. I think that is exactly the same situation that we are in at a state level. Her article also states — Accounting and accountability are far from synonymous. She concludes by saying — Eternal vigilance by the Auditor-General and by parliamentary committees from their own unique perspectives is required to ensure that accounting remains the servant of accountability, not its substitute. That is certainly something I agree with. I believe we must remove the expectation from our minds that every member of the executive, every member of the government and every public servant can be called to account and asked to bring truckloads of information to this proposed committee—I suggest it should be a standing committee—wherever it might sit, and expect the committee to go through every document to determine what in fact the executive should be doing. There is no doubt that members on the other side of this chamber, who are now in opposition, know full well many of the problems associated with the government—a government that they controlled for seven and a half years. They know the issues. They do not know the solutions—that is obvious—otherwise we would not be going down the path that they suggest at this time. As to accounting and accountability, I wonder whether Labor Party members recall the words in the document I am holding. Under the heading “Questioning the government”, it states — An Australian government’s attitude to its accountability to the lower house was epitomised by the claim by Deputy Prime Minister Keating that question time was not a right, it was a privilege granted by the government. That seems to be the attitude of Labor Party members when they are in power, but it changes dramatically when they sit on the other side of the chamber. I said that it would surprise me if Hon Giz Watson supports this motion, as amended, to create a select committee. I will quote again from the Australasian Parliamentary Review, which refers to a conference in 2006 in Wellington, New Zealand, at which Hon Giz Watson presented a paper about the committee she chairs; that is, the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations. She said — The Committee’s terms of reference are extremely broad, enabling the Committee to initiate investigations relating to any aspect of the financial administration of the State. This includes inquiry into any matter relating to past, current, proposed and future expenditure by the public sector. The terms of reference are very broad indeed, and provide an opportunity to undertake the work that members opposite wish the proposed select committee to undertake. Hon Giz Watson’s paper went on — The Committee is aware of its limitations both in relation to the resources available to the Committee but also in relation to the time constraints that Members of Parliament have. Whilst the Committee does not have the capacity to look at every single issue relating to the financial operations of government, it can examine key aspects and it can foster a general awareness across government that the Parliament is active in its scrutiny function and that there is a chance that the agency may be called in to appear before the Committee. I mention that for two reasons: one is again that the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations as an existing standing committee of this place has the capacity to undertake such an inquiry and to overcome the difficulties any committee would have in undertaking all the work under the terms of reference that we are debating today. I have read part of the motion, as amended, before and I will repeat it — (3) The committee is to inquire into and report on government measures to audit the operational and financial performance of the Western Australian public sector and any other means by which efficiencies in public sector expenditure can be gained, and all — [2] Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL - Wednesday, 3 December 2008] p793b-802a Hon Ray Halligan; Hon Peter Collier I repeat and emphasise “all” — the circumstances surrounding the implementation of the three per cent efficiency dividend … The expectation, if we are to read that literally—I cannot understand why we would not, and we cannot second- guess it; if opposition members do not mean it, they should not say it—is that the proposed select committee would look at absolutely everything, yet the motion, as amended, seeks a select committee of only three members.

Load more