HON JOHN MICKEL MP SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF QUEENSLAND
27 January 2011
(Premier and Ministers)
f Dear Premier I Minister
I write regarding recent recommendations made by the Committee System Review Committee.
As you are aware, late last year the committee's report was published. At the time, I publicly supported the overall thrust of the committee's recommendations.
However, I did express serious concern in relation to two of the committee's recommendations, and in particular to Recommendation 12 proposing that "responsibility for the management of construction and maintenance of the Parliamentary bUildings and electorate offices (along with the relevant bUdget) be transferred to the Department of Public Works".
If adopted, this recommendation would have significant implications for the management of the Parliament, for all Members, and for the Parliamentary Service (including electorate office staff).
I have already written to the Premier outlining my concerns with regard to Recommendations 12 and 13. With regard to Recommendation 13, I believe it is totally unacceptable that the Speaker would be excluded from the proposed Committee of the Legislative Assembly and thus from the formulation of Standing Orders and from the consideration of a range of other significant management issues.
With regard to Recommendation 12, I feel so strongly about what is proposed that I have decided to write to all Ministers, both to provide relevant factual information and to respond to some of the comments that have been made. In short, my concems relate to the following:
• the committee's recommendation is not supported by any evidence or justification; • there is a real risk that the committee has acted on information that is misleading or incorrect, given that there was no opportunity to address this matter to the committee because it was not in its terms of reference and could not be reasonably foreshadowed; • the current arrangements provide a clear demarcation between the executive and the Parliament and a clear position of authority and accountability (I.e., the Speaker); and • an independent Parliamentary Service is an integral part of an effective Parliamentary democracy.
I believe that the current model for managing the precinct and electorate officers should be maintained for the following reasons: 2
• it provides a single independent authority to set priorities for work, i.e., the Speaker, based on the advice of the Parliamentary Service. with appropriate consultation with the all-party Speaker's Advisory Committee; • it allows the exercise of efficiency and effectiveness controls over contractors including the Department of Public Works; • it allows a single point of contact for the coordination of service delivery under the direct control of the Speaker to advance the interests of the Parliament and its Members; • it provides on-site 24/7 service to Members on the precinct; • it provides a consistent approach to the management of electorate offices; and • it ensures a responsive and high quality service to Members.
What is proposed is akin to a "shared services model", Such models are often not very successful, particularly because there is a blurring of responsibility.
The reality is that there can never be an unlimited amount of funds to be spent on the maintenance, development and improvement of the parliamentary buildings. When all the facts are considered, it becomes clear that the precinct and electorate offices have been managed well given the competing demands for work and available funding.
I believe it is important that all Ministers take the time to carefully consider all of the facts along with the implications of what is being proposed by the Committee. To assist in this process, I have prepared a detailed assessment regarding Recommendation 12 and related issues for your consideration.
Additionally, I enclose a copy of a letter and accompanying commentary by Integrity Commissioner Dr David Solomon with regard to the report of the committee. I draw to Ministers' attention Dr Solomon's comments in respect of Recommendation 12 and also regarding the exclusion of the Speaker from the proposed Committee of the Legislative Assembly.
While I appreciate that many Ministers are busy with important flood recovery matters within their portfolios and electorates, I urge you to read the attached material and discuss it with your colleagues before any further decision is taken in relation to the proposed moves.
Yours sincerely
HON JOHN MICKEL MP Speaker Queensland Integrity Commissioner
10 January 2011
Han RJ Mickel Speaker, Queensland Parliament Parliament House Alice and George Streets BRISI3ANE QLD 4000
Dear Mr Speaker,
I enclose a copy ofa commentary I have prepared about some ofthe major issues raised in the report by the Parliamentary Committee System Review Committee, concerning its review ofthe Queensland Parliamentary Committee System.
In particular Isuggest the retention of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, the Standing Orders Committee and the Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. I also suggest that the number ofportfolio-based committees be reduced from nine (as recommended by the Committee) to six, and that one of those committees should absorb the present responsibilities and role ofthe Public Accounts and Public Works Committee. There are several other matters that I discuss.
I am sendingcopies to the Premier, the Clerk of the House, the Chair of the Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee, the Chair ofthe Committee System Review Committee, the members ofthe (unofficial) Integrity Committee and the Director-General of the Department ofthe Premier and Cabinet.
Dr David Solomon AM Queensland Integrity Commissionel'
{eveI1), S·~ Alber! Street Brisbane PO ~ox 'S1.9(1, tity ttl."1 Qltl'()l1slonu /jOOl AIISlfiJ!ia Phone +61 17 ].22fj 2351 foOl" 161 73'-'413'6 Website Nww.lnteglity.qld.goV.illl Commentary by the Qneensland Integrity Commissioner on the report by the Committee System Review Committee
On 16 September 2009. [made a submission in response to the Government's green paper on Integrity and Accountability in Queensland. In the course of that submission I suggested that it was desirable that the Government should revisit the proposals in the review in 1992 by the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission ofParliamentary Committees. "In pal1icular," I wrote, "it is important in a unicameral Parliament that most legislation should be considercd (aftcr an initial review by the Scrutiny ofLcgislation Committee) by committees organised according to public policy groupings." I then quoted the primary recommendation that EARC made along similar liues and pointed out it was the system that operated velY effectively in New Zealand. I concluded that "Adopting such a system wOllld contribute... significantly to real accountability and the public's perception of accountability... I consider this reform would make a major difference to the way the Parliament is judged by many Qneenslanders."
The Government subsequently decided that a new Parlimnenta'Y Committee, the Committee System Review Committee (refelTed to here as "the Committee") should be established to conduct a comprehensive review ofthe Queenslaud Parliamentmy Committee System. This was established by . resolution ofthe Legislative Assembly in February 2010. I was one of33 people who made a submission to the Committee. The Committee presented its repol1 in December 20 IO.
I wish to comment on a number of matters that arise in the report. In doing so I find it very gratifying that the Committee has essentially adopted the substance ofthe original recommendations of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission of which I was Chairman in 1992-3. Those recommeudations had been largely rejected by the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review (PCEAR) and by the then Government.
Technical scrutiny of bills
Recommendations 6 and 7 of the Committee rep0l1 propose that nine portfolio committees that it is proposing should take over, within their p0l1folio responsibilities, the functions currently performed by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee in considering the application of the fundamental legislative principles and subordinate legislation. There appears to be no explanation for this proposal in the Committee's report, or justification offered for the abolition of the Scrntiny ofLegislation Committee.
EARC first proposed the establishment ofthe Scrutiny of Legislation Committee in its 1991 rep0l10n Rel'iew ofIhe Office ofParliall/elllat}' COllI/sci. Its recommendation was supportcd by PCEAR but not adopted by the Government. In 1992, in its report on Review ofPal'liall/ell{w}' COllllllillees, EARC renewed its recommendation.' It did so while at the same time recommending the creation of five
I Electoral and Administrative Review Commission (EARe), Report on Review ofParliamentary Committees, October 1992, Report No. 92/R4, p. 94.
1 standing committees with powers to inquire into and report on any aspect ofpublic administration in Queensland.2 These committees were also intcnded to act as estimates committees as well as reviewing all new or amending legislation within their respective areas ofrcsponsibility - the roles aud fnnctions the Committee proposes for its nine "portfolio based committees".
In a recent al1icle, Techllical SCi'll/iII)' ofBills ill Nell' Zealalld', Tim Workman, Clerk-Assistant (Legal Services) in the Parliament ofNew Zealand, says "Ofthe Australian scrutiny staudards the most highly developed appear to be those of the Queensland Parliamenl.'" He points ont that New Zealand legislation is less well served in the systemic application oftechnical scrntiny thongh the terllls of referenec ofselect committees (of the kind recommended by the Committee in Queensland) inclnde the power to consider bills and propose amendments of a technical nature. Those committees tend to rely on third party snbmissions and the resnlt is that technical scrntiny may not be applied consistently to all bills.S
In the past decade and a half, the Scrutiny of Legislation COlllmittee has developed considerable cxpertise in the analysis ofthe technical aspects of legislation, an expertise that could not be expected to be maintained if it were to be spread over nine separate commiltees. As [ nnderstand it, that expertise in the Scrutiny ofLegislation Committee is evident in the Members ofthe committee, in its committee staffand in its legal advisers. The committee has always been able to obtain advice from (mainly academic) lawyers. It currently has a panel oflhree lawyers (all professors) to whom it has access, together with a nnmber ofother lawyers to provide advice in specialist areas. The fact that it is so expert helps concentrate the minds of legal drafts-people and those in agencies preparing drafting instruetious. It provides continuity, that over time improves (aud/or helps to ensure) the qnality of legislation that is introduced into the Parliamenl.
I fear, and have no doubt, that this would rapidly be destroyed if the committee were to be dissolved and the technical aspects of legislation were to bccome the responsibility of nine separate pOJ1folio based committees. First, the Members of committees would lack expertise. Second, the staffofthe nine committees conld not be expected to bnild np 01' retain expel1ise in these technical areas. In both cases (i.e. Members aud staff) the technical aspects of legislation such as adherence to legislative standards wonld be the least important matter for their attention and consideration. I donbt if they would ever find time to consider whether subordinate legislation within their policy areas was appropriate and met the legislative guidelines. And third, I suggest difficulties would arise in the relationship between so many committees and the external legal advisers currently assisting the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. The New Zealand experience, refelTed to above, and outlined in the article, is instrllctive.
Elimiuation of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee would almost certainly lead to a dim inution of the quality ofQueensland's legislation. Mr Workman would no longer be able to point to the "highly developed" scrutiny standards of the Queensland Parliament.
2 EARC 1992. p. 92. 'Australasian Parliamentary Review, VoI2S, Na 2, Spring 2010, p. 179-92. 4 At p. 187. 5 At p. 191.
2 Committee ofthe Legislative Assembly
In t992 EARC recommended the creation ofa "business ofthe House Committee", a single internal parliamentary committee that would combine the functions ofthe (then) Standing Orders, Privileges, Printing and Members Interests committees, to be known as the Parliamentary Proceedings Committee.6 In 2010 the Committee has taken a similar all-encompassing approach, and recommended the creation ofa committee to be known as the Committee ofthe Legislative Assembl)', whose functions would include the responsibilities ofthe current Standing Orders and Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee (though without oversight ofthe lutegrity Commissioner) together with some important additional fimctions. Regrettably, once again, the Committee makes no attempt to explain orjustify its recommendations.'
The first point that should be made is that the Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee has an entirely different function from that of the Standing Orders Committee, which is why it has a different membership. The Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee meets regularly during parliameutary sittings. Its most impOltant eoutinuing function is to provide advice to the Speaker about issues that are raised duriug the sittings ofthe Parliament concerning claims of(or more often, breaches of) Parliamentary Privilege.
Second, the Standing Orders Committee meets infrequeutly. Because of its importance and potential to change the way the House operates, its membership is essentially confined to the Leaders ofthe Government and the Opposition. As EARC noted in its 1992 report, "This practice recognises the fact that decisions about the way the House conducts its business have to take into account the needs of Government and Opposition, as well as private (backbench) members ofthe Parliament." sThe fact is, the Standing Orders Committee is not like, or intended to be like, other parliamentary committees. The Speaker, no doubt because ofhis role in overseeing the conduct ofthe members ofthe House and interpreting and enforcing the Standing Orders, is the chair ofthe Standing Orders Committee.
The Committee, in recommending the amalgamation of the Standing Orders and the Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committees, appears to recognise this disparity in roles by stipulating that the committee it recommends include, as well as the leader of the House and his/her Opposition counterpart, thc Premier and Deputy Premier and the Leader and Depnty Leader ofthe Opposition, but the lattcr four can be represented by uominees. Presumably, the Committee envisaged that it would only be when the committee was functioning as the Standing Orders Committee that the two most senior representatives of the Government aud Opposition would personally take part in the committee's work. The Speaker has been removed, however, from any role on thc proposed amalgamated committee. In 1992 EARC recommended that the Speaker and the Leader of the House should be members of its-proposed Parliamentary Proccedings Committee.
It must also be presumed (because there is no explanation in the report) that another reason for the high level of political representation on the proposed Committee of the Legislative Assembly is that it would have an additioual role in relation to the budget and reso\ll'ees ofcommittees. At present the Pal'lialllelllwJ'Sel'I'ice Acl/988 provides, inter alia, that the Speaker has conlrol ofaccommodation and services in the parliamcntary precinct - s. 5(a) - and that the general role of the Speaker includes deciding majot' policies to guide the operation and management of the parliamentary service, and to
• EARC 1992, pp. 251-252. 1 Committee System Review Committee, Review ofthe Queenslond Porliomentory Committee System, December 2010, pp. 15-16. 8 E/IRC 1992, p. 250.
3 prepare budgets- s. 6(1)(a) and (b). The Commiltee's recommendations 10 and 11 would, at least in relatiou to parliamentary committees, remove these powers and functions from the Speaker and give them to the proposed Committee ofthe Legislative Assembly.
In passing, the Committee, in recommendation 12, also wants to transfer responsibility for the management ofconstruction and maintenance ofthe Parliamentary buildings and electorate offices, and the relevant part of the parliament's budget, from the Speaker to the Department ofPublic Works. No reason is provided for this unprecedented transfer of power over part ofthe physical structure of the Parliament from the Parliament to the Executive Government. Making such a change would constitute a significant departure from the traditional independence of the Parliament, and fmther diminish the role ofthe Speaker (and ofthe Clerk, who under the Parliamentary Service Act is the chief executive ofthe parliamentary service).
In my view the Parliament should retain both the Standing Orders Committee and the Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee, with the latter having oversight responsibilities in relation to the Integrity Commissioner.
The portfolio-based committees
The Committee recommended that there be nine portfolio based committees. It said9 that the uames and portfolio areas proposed "are based on the current administrative arrangement." Til is is not strictly correct as can be seen from an examination of the actual departmental structure published as Appendix E in the report. (EARC in 1992 recommended that there be five public administration committces.)
The Committee properly suggests that the p0l1folio-based committees should be based on current administrative arrangements. Applying that criterion (the only one it mentions) it would follow that there should be six committees, corresponding with the six "clusters" in appendix E - Policy and Fiscal Coordination; Employment and Economic Development; Social Development; Environment and Sustainable Resource Management; Law, Justice and Safety; and Government Services.
The Committee recommended (Recommendation 5) that each ofthe portfolio committees have responsibility within their portfolio areas for public accounts and public works, formerly the overall responsibility ofthc Public Accounts and Public Works Committee. For essentially the same reasons as I outlined in relation to the need to retain the Serntiny of Legislation Committee (particularly the need to develop and/or retain technical expertise, both among committee staff and serving members of the committee) rsuggest it would be best to have a single committee performing this ulIlction across all portfolios. Using the structure based on the existing "clusters" outlined above, that task would ideally fall within the responsibility ofthe Gove1'llment Services Committee, which effectively would add public accounts to its scrutiny of public works. 11 would mean that the Committee should also have oversight responsibility in relation to the Auditor-General.
Overall committee structure rsuggest that committees be restrnctured along the following lines -
9 Committee Sysrem Review Committee 2010, p. 11
4 Six portfolio-based committees dealing with the scrutiny ofall administrative matters within their portfolio areas, that would also consider legislation, estimates and petitions in relation to their areas. These committees would be-
Policy and Fiscal Coordination;
Employment and Economic Development;
Social Development;
Environment and Sustainable Resourcc Management;
Law, Justice and Safety; and
Government Serviccs (including the responsibilities and fnnctions ofthe current Public Accounts and Public Works Committee).
Two "hauseu comm ittees -
Standing Ordcrs Committee; and
Integrity, Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee.
Additionally, as the Committec has recommended, the Parliament shonld retain the-
Parliamentaty Crime and Misconduct Committee.
Special appointments
In recommendation 45 the Commiltee recommends a change in the method ofappoinling most ofthe indepcndent statutOJY officers. It proposes that an appointee must have the "bipartisan support ofa (rel.evant) parliamentary committee". The effect ofadopting such a rule would be to give the Opposition parly an effective veto over any appointment (that is the system that exists currently for the appointment ofthe Chair and other Commissioners ofthe Crime and Misconduct Commission). In the case ofthe Integrity Commissioner, the exercise ofsuch a veto would prevent the office from functioning until such times as an acceptable (to the Opposition) candidate was discovered.
The Committee points out that in other cases there is a requirement for consultation with the relevant parliamentary committee, and that in some cases a chair or deputy chairs may sit on selection committees. But it says that "consult" in SOme cases may mcan no more than advising a committee of thc proposed appointment.
Commissioner Tony Fitzgerald dealt Ivith this issue in his report under the heading "Special Appointments".'o Referring to the appointment ofofficials with independent functions, statutory and Parliamentaty officers such as the Auditor-General, the Ombudsman, the Commissioner of Police, the Clerk of the Parliament nnd members ofTribunals (and others) where the Governor in Councilor a 1vlinister has a right of appointment, he proposed the adoption of public guidelines observing the following principles:
10 Usefully, It is reproduced in the CMe's December 2010 report on an investigation Into the alieged misuse of pUblic monies (etc), at p.57.
5 • all eligible persons of whom the minister is aware should be accorded proper and impartial considerations and evalnation; extraneous considerations, including personal and political associations or donations should not be regarded. The appointment should be based on professional selection and recruitment processes where merit is the undcrlying criterion for appointment; appropriate qualification for appointment should be formulatcd and publicly notified; and advcrtised where appropriate; and • there should be appropriate consultations with 'Opposition Shadow ministers', professional associations and othcr relevant bodies and peoplc, with reference to all potcntially relevant circumstanccs, iucluding and personal or political connections which the appointee has with the government or any of its members Or their political party.
The formula adopted in rccent years (e.g. in the Integrity Act 2009, the Auditor-General Acl 2009 and the Right to Inforll/atioll Act 2009) requires consultation with the Parliamentary Committee about the appointment process and about the appointment. This satisfies the Fitzgerald criteria. A fut1he.; possibly desirable move, would be to require the Chair and Deputy Chair ofthe Parliamentary Committee be members ofthe selection committee (but without the power ofveto) to ensure that the appointment process is understood by the public as open aud fair.
Dr David Solomon AM
10 January 20 II
6 SPEAKER'S RESPONSE TO
RECOMMENDATION 12 OF THE
COMMITTEE SYSTEM REVIEW COMMITTEE
Recommendation 12
The Committee recommends that the responsibility for the management of construction and maintenance of the Parliamentary buildings and electorate offices (along with the relevant budget) be transferred to the Department of Public Works. Committee System Review Committee Recommendation 12
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS AND ELECTORATE OFFICES
1. INTRODUCTION
Preparing a response to this particular recommendation is made somewhat difficult because:
a) the subject matter (i.e., the management of the construction and maintenance of Parliamentary buildings and electorate offices) does not fall within the Committee's Terms of Reference; and
b) the Committee's report provides no supporling information or discussion to explain or justify the recommendation.
Following my public comments expressing concern at the recommendation, one of the Members who served on the Committee (the Minister for Public Works) responded In writing to me (a copy of which was sent to all Members) and aiso released a separate media statement refuting my concerns.
In the absence of supporting information In the report, the Minister's comments are the only material I have that provide some insight into what may be the justification for the recommendation. I propose to address each of the Minister's comments later in this document.
In the first instance, however, and for the benefit of all Ministers, I would like to outline some background.
2. BRIEF HISTORY
Prior to 1988 when the Parliamentary Sarvice Act was introduced, the management of the parliamentary precinct in Brisbane and electorate offices across the State was shared between a number of central agencies and the Speaker.
The Premier's Department and Administralive Services Department were heavily involved In determining polley, selling priorities and delivering services. The Speaker had lillie If any input into these management processes.
In 1988, the introduction of the Parliamentary Service Act provided the legislative framework for the Parliamentary Service Commission to manage parliamentary accommodation (i.e., the management of the parliamentary precinct, its buildings and also electorate offices across the State). From this time, responsibility moved from the central agencies to the Commission.
In 1992, a major policy change Introduced by the Government further reinforced the Speaker's responsibility for Parliamentary accommodation.
On 1 July 1992, the "commercialisation" of QBuild Property Management resulted in wihole-of government changes to the way In wihlch the ASD operated. The ASD relinquished management control and funding for property management to various government departments. In the case of the Parliament, this resulted in the Parliamentary Service Commission assuming management and funding responsibility for all parliamentary accommodation.
In practical terms, on 1 July 1992 the Parliament assumed responsibility and funding for:
a) The management of Parliament House and the Parliamentary Annexe, including responsibility for:
• planning and funding all precinct and bUilding maintenance; and • planning and funding all capital works.
Page lof32 Committee Syslem Review Commltlee Recommendation 12
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARYBUILDINGS AND ELECTORATE OFFICES
b) The management of all electorate offices across the State, including responsibility for:
approving electorate office fit-outs, relocations etc; and • paying all leasing and associated office costs.
Since 1992, the Parliamentary Service has established administrative and policy frameworks to effectively manage these responsibilities.
3. STATUTORY CONTEXT
3.1 The Parllamenlary Service Act 1988
The Parliamentary Service Act 1988 outlines the administrative functions of the Speaker, establishes the Parliamentary Service and outlines the Speaker's roles and responsibilities in relation to the Service. Part 2, of the Act includes the following provisions:
5 Admlnfstmtlol1 tindel' S[)('Rkcl"S control
The Speaker has lhe control of~ (a) accommodation nnd scr"ices in the parliamenlary precinct; and (b) accoll1mooalioll and services supplied elsewhere by the Legislative Assembly for ils members,
6 S,)eakel"s l'ole fol' pAI'IIl1menfl1I'y servIce (I) The general role oflhe Speaker illl'clalioll to the parliamcnlaay sClvice is to--
a) dcdde major policies to guide the operation and management of the parliamentary service; and b) prel",e budgels; and c) decide the size and organisRtion of lhe parliamcnlf'ry service and the services to be slipplied by the parliamentary service; and d) be the employing authority. for lhe Legislative Assembly, of J>arlimncntary service officers and e) employees deciding their remulleration and conditions ofservice; and 1) slIpervise the management and delivery ofservices by the parlialllenlCHy service.
Section 24 of the Act outlines the funclions of the Parliamentary Service including:
11) lite ma;"tcllallce ofPmHamelltmJ' Buildblgs.
Originally (in 1988) controi over the precinct rested with the Parliamentary Service Commission. However, in 1995 the Commission was abolished and all of the Commission's powers were conferred in the Speaker.
During the 1988 second reading debate, Members from both sides of the House rose In support of the Parliamentary Service Bill, including:
Mr Delacy: • We ill Ihe Oppositioll see Ihis as a gellllille atlempt to gi\>e tile membeJs '?fPartiamelll control over their OW/I destiny, It is Vel)' important for Parliament to possess this power - (fte poJl'er Ol'e,. its OU'II resources - because tllllt sort of power is fundamental to its legislatil 1c actions.
Mr Casey: • Qllite dearly, tile Bill provides for themallllerillll.ltich this place is to operate alld provides that great collllcil for the people ofthis Stale free from the cOlltrol ofIhe GOl'emmellt '?fthe day. That itll'hat it is really all abollt. The wonl "sen'ice' relates to the provisioll of 1111 of those services lIeCeSSOl)' for tile operatiolls of tile Parliament.
Page20f32 Committee System Review Committee Recommendation 12
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS AND ELECTORA TE OFFICES
In 1995, when the Act was amended to abolish the Commission and transfer powers to the Speaker, Premier Wayne Goss reiterated the importance of "keeping the government separate from the administration of Parliament House".
3.2 The Appropriation (Parliament) Act
In the same year in which the Commission was abolished and its powers conferred in the Speaker (1995), Treasurer Keith Delacy introduced (for the first time) a separate Appropriation Bill for the Parliament.
Mr Delacy:
The inlrodllction oj Ihe Approprialion (Parliament) Bill 1994 is an occasioll oj some significance 10 Ihe State ojQlleensland. It represellts the firsl time in 0111' Slate's !listo/)' Ihat the illdepelldellt role ojParliament has been refiecled in the way in which jJllblic mOllies are appropriatedJor the Jllllctionillg ofthe Parliament. T!lis has been done in the Jorm ofa sepamte Appropriation Bill.
1//is Bill provides Jor Ihe costs associated with the Legislative Assembly inelllding members, members' allowances aud committee activities, alUl with the complele range of staffing, at/minis/raiNe, operating and capital costs oJtfte Pal'liamenlmy Service and the parliamell((lJy precincllo be appropriated separately.
This rejann Itas even/ualed as a result of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission's Review ofParliamenfal)' Committees 11'hich was completed in late 1992. III undertaking its re\'ic\l', EARe cOllsidered a range of issues associated with fhe adlllinistration oj the Par/lamenlmy Se/l'ice COlllmissloll, aJld specifically addressed parliamentmy blldgets.
Seell allheJorefront ojthese considerations 011 Ihe par/ialllelltm)' blldget was the lIeed to presen'e tlte independence ofParliament ill its complete range ojactivities. This should OCCllr by ensllring thaI tlte abilily oj Parliamellt to discharge its dillies IIl1der Ihe Qlleensland Constitlltion was 1101 restricled by J"nding received and approved by lite E,·eclltil'e. The Par/il/II/ent tlterefore ",oJlM be .men to be respoJlsible to itself, as lite elecled represeJltati,'es oj Ihe people oj QJleeJlsllIIlIl, Jor its fill/diJlg I/Ild re.l'oJlrcillg decisions.
III a short time 1 will be introdllcillg the Goss GoVeJ'l/lIIellt's ji.flh Blldgel. A short time afier that, and alsoJor tlte velY first lillie, Ihal Blldgel will be cOllsidered ill detail by sir Estimates Committees. These measures demonstrale ill a material-way the commitment oj Ihis GoveJ'l/lI/enl to sllbslalltial refonn ojIhe blldgetmy alldjillll11ciallllallagelllellt ojtltis State. It;8part ojour commitment to open and accountable gOllenlmellf.
Agaillst this backgl'OllI/{1, thereJore, this is a sigllificalll Bill, IIOt becallse ofits size or cOlllplexity bill becallse oj its !lisloric lIatllre alld its flllldameJltal sigllificallce ill recognizillg as Jar as possible tlte jillallcial indepeJldence oj the Parliamellt oj Qlleellslalld.
3.3 The statutory framework and the independence of the Parliament
The statutory framework under which the Pariiament has been managed and funded over the last 20 years has significantly improved the independence of the Parliament.
There are those that may argue that the executive still "holds the purse strings". However, the fact is that since the early 1990s there has been a progressive improvement in the way in which the executive recognises and respects the Parliament. This has manifested itself in a number of ways:
Page 3 0/32 Committee System Review Committee Recommendatioll12
RESPONSIBILITYFOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARYBUILDINGS AND ELECTORATE OFFICES
a) In terms of funding, the executive has grown progressively less intrusive in seeking to direct the activities of the Parliamentary Service and the resources it uses. This in turn has meant that the executive has faced litlle, if any, criticism for these mallers.
b) In terms of public sector administration, Government departments and in particular central agencies are now more understanding of the Parliamentary Service, its independence from executive government, and the unique role it plays in supporling the Speaker and all Members.
c) In terms of the role of the Speaker. there has also been an improved understanding (and recognition) of the fact that that under the current framework, the Speaker is not simply the umpire in the Chamber and a ceremonial figurehead used for special occasions. The Speaker has become recognised as:
• a leader of the Assembly; • the Assembly's representative; and importantiy • the person responsible and accountable for all of the allendant resources required by the Assembly and Members generally.
The iast dot point in relation to resource responsibilities is at the heart of this discussion. The term "Parliament" has grown to represent more than the just the legislative Assembly. It also includes the supporting resources critical to the activities of the Assembly and Members. These points were reflected In the comments ouliined earlier by Messrs Delacy, Goss and Casey.
In short, the legislative framework in place today provides:
• a clear demarcation between the executive and the Parliament with the Parliament being defined as the Assembly, its Members and the resources required to support both; and
• in the Speaker, a clear posilion/person of authority and accountability for the resources allocated to the Parliament.
While there has been a progressive improvement in the way in which the execulive recognises and respects the Parliament, there have still been some instances of the executive seeking to exercise some conlrol over the Parliament's activilies or expenditure.
Since 1990 there have been examples of the executive suggesting to successive Speakers (either officially or unofficially) that outsourcing arrangements be put In place, including:
• outsourcing Hansard Reporting to the Queensland Court Reporting Bureau; • outsourcing certain Table Office staffing to Crown law; • privatising Catering Services; • allowing Electorate Offices staff to be directly engaged and employed by Members; • outsourcing Finance, Human Resource Management and Informalion Technology Services functions (in the 1990s to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and then later in the early 2000s to a Shared Service proVider); • haVing Property Services outsourced to the Department of PUblic Works; • outsourcing Library services to the State library; and • outsourcing Parliamentary Security to the State Government Security Service.
Page 4 of32 Committee Syslem Review Committee Recommendation 12
RESPONSIBILITYFOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS AND ELECTORATE OFFICES
It is usually argued that:
• significant costs savings can be made from such outsourcing arrangemenls; • the standard of services provided to members would not be diminished; and • the arrangemenls will not impact on the actual independence of the Parliament because the Parliament is essentially the Assembly and that the supporting activities/staff can more effectively provided by the executive (or indeed the private sector).
Fortunately, in the case of all of the aforementioned examples, decision-makers carefully considered the proposals and came to the view that:
a) the supposed costs savings may not materialise; b) there would likely be adverse service delivery implications for Members; c) Ihe proposal(s) would contravene the principles underpinning Ihe statutory framework in place; and d) maintaining the status quo far outweighed any perceived benefit in outsourcing the services.
Of course, the current proposal has been put forward not by the executive, but by a Committee of Ihe House.
Unfortunately, we do not know why the Committee made these recommendations as the report includes no analysis on these issues (as distinct from other parts of Ihe report). There is a real risk that the committee has acted on information that is misleading or incorrect, given that there was no opportunity to address this matter to the committee because it was not In Its terms of reference and could not be reasonably foreshadowed.
The motivation for Ihe recommendation mayor may nol be similar to those previously put by the executive. However, the key issue remains the same - do we want or need an independent Parliamentary Service?
Some may say no, we don't, and we can happily return to the time when staff working at Parliament House and in electorate offices were employed by various Government Departments.
I would put to you, however, Ihat the reforms introduced in 1988 and 1995 were good reforms and are worth retaining.
An independent Parliamentary Service Is an integral part of an Independent Parliament. Furthermore, an Independent Service under the control of the Speaker is In the Interest of all parties, Including the executive arm of government.
Page 5 0[32 Committee System Review Committee Recommendation 12
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS AND ELECTORATE OFFICES
3.4 Stringent financial management
An important malter to note is that since the time the Parliamentary Service was established, it has operated under a stringent financial management ethos.
Since the early 1990s, the Parliamentary Service has absorbed several rounds of government efficiency dividends and has significantly rationalised staffing levels across all areas and levels of the Service.
In the early 1990s the Service was SUbject to significant budget cuts totalling $2M over two years. Staffing at Parliament House was reduced by 44 FTEs during this period.
Over the last 10 years, there has been a further overall reduction in staffing Within the Parliamentary precinct of around 20 FTEs or 10 per cent on 1999-2000 numbers.
During this period, the on-going service needs of Members within the precinct have been successfully managed by Speakers of the day.
The folloWing table c1eariy illustrates how the cost of Parliament House services (Including the cost of maintaining the precinct) has reduced as a proportion of the overall budget for the Parliament over the last 20 years.
1969·90 1999·2000 2010·2011
Members' enlltlements $12.002M $24.433M $43,963M (39% of the budoel) (56% of the budoel) (65% of the bud9~
Parliament Housocosls S19.122M $17,502M $23,726M (61% of the budoel) (42% of the budoel) (35% of the budoel)
S31.124M $41.935M $67.691M
l'age6of32 Committee System Review Committee Recommendation 12
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS AND ELECTORATE OFFICES
4. HOW PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS AND ELECTORATE OFFICES ARE MANAGED
4.1 The current property management framework for the parliamentary precinct
4.1.1 Overview
Responsibility for all construclion and maintenance within the parliamentary precinct rests with the Speaker. The Speaker is supported by a small unit within the Parliamentary Service called Property Services.
Property Services is responsible for ali construction (capital works) and maintenance within the precinct. In practical terms this involves:
• developing and delivering the Capital Works Plan approved by the Speaker; • coordinating all building management aclivities including building and equipment maintenance, energy management, building conservation and sustainability, house-keeping; assisting with function management and managing the gardens and grounds; and • managing the office accommodation (and In the case of Members, overnight accommodation) needs of ali Members and staff.
4.1.2 Relationship with the Department of Public Works
Prior to and since the devolution of management and funding from the then ASD In 1992, capital works and maintenance projects within the parliamentary precinct have been delivered in close partnership with ASD/DPW.
The relationship between the Parliament and DPW dates back to the construction of Parliament House.
DPW (in one form or another) has provided building support to Parliament House since it was first constructed although prior to the construction of the Parliamentary Annexe there was little if any on-sile DPW staffing presence.
Following construction of the Parliamentary Annexe. a range of DPW staff were "attached" to the Parliamentary precinct, including cleaners, trade staff and a permanent on-site coordinator/manager .(Mr Don Duncanson). Over time, these staff were attached to the precinct on a semi-permanent basis.
When responsibility for the management of the precinct transferred from the central agencies to the Parliament, the Parliamentary Service Commission decided to appoint Mr Duncanson as a Parliamentary Service Manager. employed by the Parliamentary Service rather than DPW. This was consistent with the principle that the Commission would be selling priorities, not DPW.
At an operational level, there was little change to the DPW staffing arrangements and this remains the case today, although now they are engaged from DPW on a contract basis.
DPW currently provide (upon request):
• project management services In the delivery of some of the Parliament's capital works program; • general engineering advice and consultancy services;
Page 70f32 Committee System RevIew CommIttee RecommendatIon 12
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS AND ELECTORATE OFFICES
• contract management services in the delivery of some service maintenance contracts; and • trade and cleaning contract staff that deliver some on-site maintenance and cleaning.
The Parliament does, however, like many Government agencies that manage their own property portfolio, retain the right to set its own priorities and make decisions about what works will be done, when and by whom.
It is noted that under current arrangements the Parliament (Property Services) does not always engage DPW. From time-to-time, Property Services direcUy engage other private sector contactors to undertake capital and/or maintenance works for the Parliament.
4.1.3 The effectiveness of the current model
The current model for managing the parliamentary precinct has been relatively successful for a number of reasons:
a) It allows the Speaker to set priorities for work.
PrioriUes for capital improvements and maintenance are set by the Speaker with appropriate Input from the actual bUilding users/occupants, that Is, suggestionslrequests from:
• Members individually and/or through the Speaker's Advisory Committee;
• The Clerk in his capacity as accountable officer and Chief Execullve of the Parliamentary Service; and
• Property Services staff, who are of course the people most familiar with the building and precinct and those responsible for its up-keep.
Each year, the Speaker approves capital and maintenance priorities. In recent times, the key priorities are submitted to the Speaker's Advisory Committee for their Information and comment. The process by which the Speaker sets priorities is undertaken carefully and consultallvely.
It is difficult to envisage how this process could be bettered by a process involving only external agents (e.g., DPW managers and/or the Minister for Public Works).
b) It allows the Speaker/Parliamentary Service to exercise efficiency and effecllveness controls over contractors including DPW
Under the current arrangement, the Parliamentary Service can:
• choose who (which service provider/contractor) will provide the best value for money; and • scrutinise contractor proposals and work undertaken to ensure public funds are being expended efficiently and effectively.
Property Services staff are responsible for ensuring that the Parliament obtains the best value for money of any works being undertaken.
Page 8 of32 Committee System Review Committee Recommendation 12
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS AND ELECTORATE OFFICES
Property Services staff regularly challenge quotations/estimates received from DPW and private sector contractors to ensure the best value for money is obtained.
I understand that almost all Government Departments and agencies that have some responsibility for buildings/property operate in this way.
c) It allows for the effective coordination of service deliverv
Property Services staff understand the operation of the Parliament and are dedicated to serving it. They play an important coordinating role which ensures that basic day-to-day services, special projects and events are delivered on time and to appropriate standards.
In any given month there are numerous examples of contractors (including DPW) working in and around the precinct whether it be on day to-day activities or special projects. Contractors are by their nature interested primarily in delivering their service and leaving for the next job.
Our Property Services staff control these contractors to make sure that they not only complete their work, but that they work In with the other activities occurring within the precinct (e.g., sittings of Parliament, parliamentary functions etc). A good example of this occurred recenlly when a DPW contractor arrived unannounced and indicated they were going to close Car Parks Band C to undertake work. Property Services staff refused to permit this to happen because there would have been significant Implications for function patrons and other visitors to the precinct.
Many Members would be aware of the significant coordinating roles performed by Properly Services in the delivery of major events such as:
• Regional parliamentary sittings (Townsville, Rockhampton and Cairns and soon Mackay); • the opening of each Parliament; and • the swearing-in of successive Governors.
Most Members would be unaware of the important work done by Property Services during the recent flood event. Property Services staff literally worked around the clock to ensure that the precinct continued to function and was prepared for the flooding that did occur in the car parks and expected flooding under the Annexe (including protecting important infrastructure, library stores and the like).
It is dlfficuit to envisage an external agent such as DPW taking this level of care and attention with the precinct or more generally having the Parliament's interests at heart to this extent.
d) It proVides for staff under the direct control of the Speaker to protect the interests of the Parliament and Members.
Property Services work for the Speaker. The unit was established to ensure that:
the interests of the Parliament are protected; and • the service standards or performance benchmarks expected by the Parliament are met.
Pnge 9 of32 Committee System Review Committee Recommendation 12
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS AND ELECTORATE OFFICES
Property Smvices staff -
operate within the policy framework and rules of the Parliamentary Service; and • report under a chain of command to the Clerk and Speaker.
In the event of Members experiencing difficulties, there is no need for the Speaker, Clerk or Members to contact a large central agency or private sector contractor to obtain service or obtain redress. Members can address any service delivery concerns they may have directly and Immediately though the Clerk and/or the Speaker.
As mentioned earlier, Property Services staff monitor the impact of activities/events events in an effort to minimise disruption; exercise control over contractors to ensure that behavioural expectations (I.e. code of conduct) are met; and act in a non-partisan way treating all Members equally and provide a confidential and discreet service.
e) It provides an on-site 24/7 service to Members
Given the nature of the buildings and use, responsiveness is a critical Issue.
During a sitting week, for example, when both buildings are at maximum capacity and there are literally thousands of visitors to the precinct, Members have an expectation that client demands are addressed Immediately without undue disruption to the operation of the Parliament.
The Property Services Manager Is on call and is regularly required to allend the bUilding out of hours to address urgent issues. These mailers can be sensitive in nature (relating, for example, to overnight accommodation mailers) or often require the extensive local knowiedge and understanding of Infrastructure and building management (security, air-conditioning, fire, water, sewerage, etc).
The current Manager (Mr Jason Gardiner) has over 23 years experience with these buildings and Is far beller placed to manage them than an external contractor.
4.1.4 Risks of current model
Of course the current model Is not without Its risks for the Service.
Firstly, the Service takes reputational risk when works or maintenance fails or is disruptive, regardless of the identity of the service provider. Thus delays to building works, office relocations etc. are often sheeted home to the Service, despite the fact that the delays may have been caused by the service provider, Including DPW.
Secondly, the Service largely assumes the financial and administrative risk for maintenance and capital works. For example, in the last financial year the Property Services area of the Parliamentary Service finished the year over budget. There was an array of reasons for this situation, including delayed invoices from DPW as a consequence of the implementation of its new invoicing soflware. Delays of about seven months for DPW billing Invoices resulted in budget forecasting and management difficulties for the Parliamentary Service in the final half of the financial year.
Page /00[32 Committee System Review Committee Recommendation 12
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS AND ELECTORATE OFFICES
4.1.5 Is there evidence that the current model has failed?
Significantly, there is no objective evidence 10 suggesllhatthe current model has failed the condition of the precinct buildings over the last 20 years.
Yes, it is possible to examine a 140-year-old building and identify some "peeling paint" or a piece of timber that needs repair.
However, any fair assessment of the condition of the buildings needs to look a lillie furlher than isolated superficial maintenance observations.
It also needs 10 consider thai what has been achieved over the years has been done in the context of very limited resources. There is simply no evidence of waste or misdirection of resources.
The condilion of any building and the work undertaken on ills dictated by two main factors, namely:
a) the improvement and maintenance priorities that are sel by decision makers, i.e., lhe things decision-makers decide Ihey would like to improve in the buildings (often the aesthetics of the buildings) as well as things they !lave to do (often infrastructure, security/safety matters) and
b) the funding available to do these things in any given year.
4.1.5.1 Improvement priorities
Over the last 20 years, successive Speakers have had to manage two types of plans each year:
a) A Capital Investment Plan which provides for new improvements to the precinct, ils buildings and investment in other major equipment or technology.
Each year, there are some 15-20 individual capital projects Ihat are undertaken within the precinct. There are always a number of competing priorities that must be managed in any given year.
Members are unaware of many of these projects because they affect building infrastructure, technology enhancements or safety matters "behind lhe scenes". I can assure you lhat these projects are nonetheless very important.
Page II 0/32 Committee System Review Committee Recommendation 12
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS AND ELECTORATE OFFICES
Here are some examples of the major improvements made to the bUildings within the precinct over last the 20 years, all of which have been initiated by the Parliament:
The refurbishment of Members' The replacement of Annexo air offices and bedrooms within the conditioning cooling towers and Parliamentary Annexo. the current replacement of Parliament House air The upgrade of toilets on condilioning units. Members' offlce flOOfS In the Annexo. Inslallatlon of a "state-of-the-art" building management system for The new (equitable access) main both buildings. governing air entrance to Parliament House. condilioning, energy usage. security and fire protection. The complete refurbishment of levels 3 through 6 of the Annexo Installation of safety handralls in including the all new entrance on various locations in and around level 3, the full kitchen both buildings. refurbishment on level 4 (as well as the Parliament House kitchen Replacement of sewerage and refurbishment). creaUon of tho water pIpes and tho removal of Undumbl and Dandllr Rooms on slorage ruellanks from lhe back level 5 of the Annexo, new dock area. Committee and Opposilion Office accommodation and rofurblshed Library faeililies on loveI 6.
I would submit the above list hardly Indicates buildings in neglect, lacking care or Investment.
b) A Maintenance Plan is prepared each year to address day-to-day service and condition-based maintenance.
Managing the Maintenance Plan has presented successive Speakers with difficulties, and these difficulties generally revolve around funding.
When funding was first devolved from ASD In 1992, there was a dispute with Treasury regarding the amount of funding prOVided. The Parliamentary Service argued that the amount of funding provided did not match the vaiue of existing service maintenance contracts. After some debate, Treasury decided to provide the Parliament with only half of the disputed amount. This effeclively resulted in the Parliament having to source the funding shortfall from within Its existing budget.
Over subsequent years, maintenance funding levels were not supplemented to cover annual CPI increases. Once again, the Parliament was required to meet this shortfall so that funding could be maintained at existing levels in real terms.
Page /20/32 Committee System Review Commillee Recommendation 12
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS AND ELECTORATE OFFICES
In 2010, the Parliamentary Service prepared a Strategic Review of Parliamen/ary Buildings". The review produced three separate Reports about the buildings:
Report 1: Financial Performance (Maintenance Costs) Report 2: Functional Performance (Fitness for Purpose) Report 3 Technical Performance (compliance and sustainability)
Note The CommHtee was provided with Report 2 (Fitness for Purpose) during Us deliberations and the CommIttee referred to RepOl"I 2 in (he Committee System Review Commillee Report (seo page 66).
Report 1 made recommendations for improving maintenance funding and following a request to CBRC, Treasury has provided additional funding this regard.
Notwithstanding the provision of additional funding, there will always competing priorities for maintenance funding particularly given the nature of both buildings and usage.
4.1.5.2 Available funding
No precinct (public or private sector) has unlimited funds to spend on maintenance, development and improvement. The reality is that the precinct and buildings have been maintained extremely well bearing in mind the various competing demands for work and available funding.
PI/ge 13 of32 Committee System Review Committee Recommendation 12
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS AND ELECTORATE OFFICES
4.2 The current property management framework for electorate offices
4.2.1 Overview
Responsibility for the management of all electorate offices rests with the Speaker, supported by Properly Services.
Many Ministers would be familiar with Barry Hensler and Paul Soreland who are the primary point of call for all Members in relallon to their electorate office accommodalion. These officers are responsible for:
• the coordinallon of electorate office relocalions as well as all major and minor office improvements;
• managing the overall physical environment wilhin offices (inclUding security, the supply of ulililies etc);
• approval and coordinalion of electorate office maintenance requests and lease renewals;
• financial management of lease and maintenance funding;
• the supply, management and maintenance of utilities (power; telecommunications) to electorate office premises; and
• setting and applying policy In relation to electorate offices, Including for example developing and maintaining relocallon policies and fit·out standards (Including securily standards).
4.2.2 Relationship with the Department of Public Works
Prior to and since the devolution of management and some funding from ASD in 1992, the management of electorate offices has been delivered in close partnership with ASD/DPW.
DPW currently acts in the following roles for the Parliament:
• as leasing agent (i.e., leasing agent under the instruction of the Parliament); • as primary maintenance service provider, managing various service maintenance contracts over electorate offices (e.g., for security systems) and providing locallregional trade staff to undertake certain maintenance/repair works; and • as bUilding manager when office relocations or major refurbishment are effected.
An important point of note here relates to funding arrangements. When responsibility for the management of electorate offices was devolved, not all funding was devolved.
While funding for leasing costs associated with electorate offices was transferred from ASD, funding for electorate office Improvements (i.e., relocalions or refurbishments) was not transferred. This funding and control over it remained within the Department of Public Works budget.
Page 110/32 Committe;' System Review Committee Recommendation 12
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARYBUILDINGS AND ELECTORATE OFFICES
4.2.3 The effectiveness of the current model
The current model for managing lhe electorate offices has been relatively successful for a number of reasons:
a) It provides a single point of contact for all members and electorate office staff regarding their electorate office accommodation
As a leased workplace, each electorate office can present a myriad of accommodation and business Issues for Members and slaff to manage, including:
• air-conditioning problems; • dealing with landlord disputes; • telecommunicalion difficulties; • equipmenl, security and general mainlenance matlers; and • major/minor accommodation improvement requesls etc.
Some of these matters can be resolved wilhin lhe Parliamentary Service (e.g., through Information Technology Services or Financial and Administrative Services) while some are managed outside the Parliamentary Service, e.g., through DPW, private seclor contractors, Telstra etc.
The current arrangements provide Members and electorate office staff witll a "one-stop-shop" through a single contact point (Mr Hensler or Mr Boreland). They will take whatever acUon is necessary to address lhe Member's concerns, liaising with people inside and outside the Parliamentary Service as necessary.
b) It provides for a consistent approach to the management of offices
Properly Services staff, In consultation with various Speakers since 1992, have developed a suite of policy and practice documents that are used to manage all electorate office accommodallon.
These documenls govern matters such as relocaUon guidelines. office fit out slandards, and security standards. The documents ensure that all offices and Members are treated equally and In a non-parUsan way. All policies and practice documents are administered consistently.
It is worlh noling here that when electorate office accommodalion was taken over from ASD in 1992, one of the first matters noted by lhe lhen Speaker and Parliamentary Service staff was the significant variations in the size and standard of electorate offices.
While there will always be some inconsistencies between offices. I am pleased to say that the standard of all offices has improved substanUally and there is a sense of consistency in what is provided.
c) It ensures a high quality service to Members
Properly Services work for the Speaker and Clerk. The unit was established to ensure that:
• the interests of lhe Parliament are protected; and • the service standards or performance benchmarks expected by the Parliament are met.
Page /.5 of32 Committee System Review Committee Recommendation 12
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARYBUILDINGS AND ELECTORATE OFFICES
Properly Services staff -
• operate within the policy framework and rules of the Parliamentary Service; and • report under a chain of command to the Clerk and Speaker.
There is no need for the Speaker, Clerk or Members to contact a large central agency or private sector contractor to obtain service or obtain redress. Further, Members can address any service delivery concerns they may have directly and immediately though the Clerk and/or the Speaker.
The work of Barry Hensler and Paul Boreland has regularly been recognised by Members as outstanding. These officers have over 35 years experience in serving Members of Parliament. They act In a non partisan way treating all Members equally, providing a confidential and dIscreet service.
d) It allows the Speaker/Parliamentary Service to exercise efficiency and effectiveness controls over contractors Including DPW
Properly Services staff are responsible for ensuring that the Parliament obtains the best value for money of any works being undertaken.
Under the current arrangements, and particularly in terms of electorate office relocations, Property Services staff play an important role in scrutinise proposals and work undertaken to ensure public funds are being expended efficiently and effectively.
Page 160/32 Committee System Review Committee Recommendation 12
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS AND ELECTORATE OFFICES
5. WHAT SERVICE DELIVERY MODEL IS BEING PROPOSED?
. At this stage, I am unable to say precisely what service delivery model is being proposed because the report is silent on this and all other matters that may support or explain the recommendation.
I note the recommendation wording which uses the terms "responsibilily for the management of construction and maintenance...".
I interpret the term "management" to mean:
• setting priorities and timellnes for all construction and maintenance works; • allocating funding and other resources to undertake lhose works; and • being accountable for all decision-making.
"Construction and maintenance" spans a wide range of activities. Construction and maintenance in the parliamentary environment would include anylhing from: • requesting a new lock on an electorate office door right through to a request for a whole new electorate office; • requesting a new bed in the Annexe to requesting a new bedroom; • requesting a new workstation in the Annexe to requesting the refurbishment of an entire work area; and • repairing a leaking tap through to replacing underground water pipes.
A reasonable interpretation of the Committee's intent would suggest that if the recommendation were to be Implemented the Minister for Public Works would replace the Speaker as lhe person making all of the decisions relating to the precinct, its buildings and electorate offices; and the Director-General of DPW and DPW staff would carry out the Minister's wishes.
Selting aside the previously stated philosophical concerns with this arrangement, it does raise questions about how lhe proposed arrangemenls would be delivered in practice. For example:
1. How will staff, Members, Speaker or Clerk make requests to the Minister?
2. Will the Speaker/Clerk have a role to play In this?
3. What will be the chain of command (i.e., from the Minister through the Director General down through DPW officers)?
4. Will the policies/practices/processes used by the Minister and DPW in assessing and delivering requests be the same as currently exist or will new policies be estabtished and if so how and when will these be communicated to Members and slaff?
5. Would the Minister make determinations In consultation with Cabinet or would the Minister have sole responsibility?
6. If a decision Is made by the Minister in relation to accommodation that has implications for other aspects of the operation of the Parliament under the Speaker's control, how will this be managed? (For e.romple, ifthe Millisfer decides to alter the aeeess to or availability ofaccommodation to a room wi/hill/lte precillct, alld his decision has implications/oj' (wens ullder the Speaker's cOllirol, such (IS Ihe aClivities o/Caleling Services, hoU' will/his be mmUlged?)
Page I7qf32 Committee System Review Committee Recommendation 12
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS AND ELECTORATE OFFICES
7. Will there be some on-site presence within the precinct? (It is IIlIdel'lood Ihal III preselll there are mOil)' GOl'emmell( buildings Ihol do 1101 !I{l\'e a permanent oil-site presence. People call a JlulI/ber alld DPW provide assistance ill due course).
8. Will there be Right To Information (RTI) implications? (fhe ParfiamelllOlJ' Sen'ice is currently ercmpl!rol1l RTf legis/alioll but DPW is 110t).
There is nothing in the Committee's report to indicate that any of these matters have been canvassed or considered by the Commiltee. Indeed there is nothing in the committee's report to Indicate that It canvassed or considered anything at all to do with the either the reasons for or the consequences of the proposed move.
It appears that what is proposed is akin to a "shared services model" although with management apparently being left to the Minister - who can make arbitrary decisions without reference to the Speaker.
Such models are often not very successful, particularly because there is a blurring of responsibility. Recent history backs this interpretation of these arrangements.
Pagcl8oj32 Committee System Review Committee Recommendation 12
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS AND ELECTORATE OFFICES
6. RESPONSES TO THE VARIOUS ISSUES RAISED BY THE MINISTER
As was noted earlier, in the absence of any detail within the Committee Report regarding why this proposal has been put forward, I am left to rely on the public comments of one of the Committee members (the Minister for Public Works) who recently wrote to me (a copy of which was sent to all Members) and who also released a separate media statement.
The Minister's comments provide some insight into what may be the justification for the recommendation. The following sections seek to address some of the Minister's comments.
6.1 The Parliament House Stonework Restoration Program
Minister's comments
Ever since I have been a Minister for the Department of Public Works all stone restoration has been funded and delivered by the Department of Public Works. No Speaker has ever controlled this program even though over the years credit has been claimed by variolls Speakers for the outstanding craftsmanship of the QBlIild staff. No Speaker has even SlIggested that this program has threatened his independence nor did they have cause to do so.
My response
1. The Stonework Restoration Program has, since its inception, mostly been jointly funded by the Parliament and DPW. Indeed, in the first three years of the program (1993-94 to 1995-96) the program was fully funded by the Parliament. In all subsequent years, both the Parliament and DPW have contributed funding. Questions on Notice regarding funding for the stonework have regularly been asked and answered by the Speaker during annual Parliamentary Estimates Committee hearings.
2. The Stonework Restoration Program was not Initiated by DPW, but by the Parliamentary Service Commission upon the recommendation of the then Speaker. The circumstances were as follows:
• Prior to 1990, the Administrative Services Department or ASD (now DPW) were responsible tor Parliament House maintenance. Stonework repairs were carried out by ASD on an ad-hoc basis.
• In November 1990 the Department of Environment and Heritage (then responsible for administering the Heritage BlIildings Protection Act) wrote to ASD recommending that a comprehensive program tor the restoration ot the exterior stonework be prepared.
A year later, (November 1991) the Department of EnVironment and Heritage advised that a pending request for approval to undertake stoneworks had been rejected on basis that no formal programme existed.
• In November 1991 the Parliamentary Service Commission approved funding of $160,000 to enable a comprehensive study to be conducted with a view to developing formal stonework programme. QBuild were commissioned to prepare the programme.
Page 190J32 Committee System RevIew CommIttee Recommendation 12
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS AND ELECTORATE OFFICES
3. While it is true that DPW (through OBuild) manage the actual works, it has done so under the direction of the Speaker through theParliamentary Service.
4. Each year, the Parliamentary Service works closely with DPW (and when required the Department of Environment and Heritage) to effect the program for that year. Heritage approval for works is initiated by the Clerk of the Parliament.
5. Final decisions about the various stages to be undertaken in any given year have rested with the Parliamentary Service. These decisions have taken into consideration funding availability (Le., funding available from the Parliament and DPW) as well as operational issues that are important to the Parliament. For example decisions regarding stages to be undertaken take into consideration various other works programmed for that year by the Parliamentary Service in and around the building. I note also here that in July of last year, the Clerk wrote to the Director-General of DPW requesting that an accelerated program be prepared to complete the Program as soon as possible. A funding request will shorlly be provided to the Cabinet Budget Review Committee seeking additional funding for this purpose.
6. For the reasons outlined above, I submit it is incorrect to assert that "no Speaker has ever controlled this program".
7. It is correct, however, that that no Speaker has considered the above arrangements to be a threat to the independence of the Parliament because each Speaker has been in control of the overall management of the program including selling priorities and allocating much of the funding.
8. Additionally, no Speaker to my knowledge has ever sought to Inappropriately claim credit for the outstanding craftsmanship of OBuild staff engaged on the stonework restoration project. To the contrary, Speakers have readily and willingly acknowledged the craftsmanship and contribution of QBuild staff.
Pnge20 of32 Committee System Review Committee Recommendation 12
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS AND ELECTORATE OFFICES
6.2 The capacity of the Speaker to secure appropriate levels of Treasury funding
Minister's comments
The suggeslion that an independent Speaker has a beller c/wnce of arguing budget mailers than a Cabinet Minister is naive in the exlreme and not supported by the facts.
My response
There are two points to be made here:
1. As outlined earlier in this document, the current funding model in place within Queensland sees the independence of the Parliament recognised through a separate Approprialion Act.
However, before this formal recognition took place in 1995, Speaker Fouras made representations to the then Treasurer requesting that the Speaker be permiUed to make submissions to and appear before the Cabinet Budget Review Committee (CBRC) each year to argue funding requests.
This participation in the formal budget process (which commenced in the early 1990s) continues today with the Speaker making annual bUdget submissions to CBRC. Up until recenUy, the Speaker also appeared before CBRC each and every year to discuss individual funding requests.
I submit that the capacity of successive Speakers to successfully seek funding from the Executive !§ supported by the facts. Since the early 1990s, various Speakers have been successful in securing funding supplementation for a range of important projects including:
1997-2000 Tho refurbishment of Members' offices and bedrooms wllhin Ihe Parliamentary Annexo
2002-2003 Tho now (equilable access) main entrance (0 Parliament House
2003-2004 The creation of the Undumbl and Oandlir Rooms on levelS of the Annexo
2007-2008 The full kitchen refurbishment (Parliament House and Parliamentary Annexa)
2008-2009 The upgrade of toilets on Members' aU/ce floors In Ihe Annexo · The replacement of Annexo air·condlUonlng coollng towers · 10 Eloolorale Office Relocations arising oul of Ihe 2008 redislributlon ·• The Electorate Office securilY uPQradas 2010-2011 • Addltlonat maintenance funding • The futl repaint of the Inlerlor of Partlamenl House
Of course, Ihe reality is that funding is not always provided by CBRC.
For example, a recent request for funding to upgrade audio-visual services in the Annexe level 4 functions rooms in line with those available on level 5 was not supported by CBRC.
However, as I'm sure all Ministers would appreciate, funding is limited and il is simply unrealislic to expect CBRC to always provide funding when asked.
Page 21 of32 Commit/ee System RevIew Committee Recommendation 12
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS AND ELECTORATE OFFICES
6.3 Poor care for and maintenance of Parliament House and Its contents
Minister's comments
That the 'aiel building' is in a state of neglect with peeliiJg paint rotted veranda posts and has not been properly maintained since it was refurbished in the early 1980's suggests that successive Speakers have not properly maintained this asset.
Your own Report earl/er this year which highlighted the incompetent treatment of the antique and priceless furniture and fittings at the Parliament House proves Just how inept the decision was to take responsibility away from executive government with aI/ its expertise in maintenance ofpublicly owned bUildings.
My response
1. To state that Parliament House is in a state of neglect is. I would submit, an exaggeration.
2. As I mentioned earlier, it is possible to examine a 140-year-otd building and identify some "peeling paint" or a piece of timber that needs repair. However, any fair assessment of the condition of the building needs to look a IIltie further than isolated superficial maintenance observations.
3. In respect of painting, it is Important to be aware of the following points:
a) The condition of painted surfaces in Parliament House In most rooms Is reasonable/good. Indeed In some rooms (the chambers) they are very good.
b) The areas Where painted surfaces are poor are the result of either:
• damaged done as a result of the stonework restorallon (water penetration occurring as a result of the stonework restoration has damaged the interior surface of rooms); or
• the inaccessibility of the surfaces, that is, some of the surfaces (e.g. the main entcance stairwell/foyer) are difficult to access and can only practically be done as part of a major project of works where the areas will be made inaccessible for long periods of lime.
c) Taking into consideration the above facts, successive Speakers and the Parliamentary Service decided to manage the repaint of the Interior and exterior of Parliament House as part of a major project where:
• work would only commence on rooms when the stonework had been completed (to avoid painting areas that could later be damaged by the stonework restoration works); • major rooms that require considerable set-up/preparation for painting could be carefully scheduled; and • the colours chosen would take into consideration heritage matters that were Identified as part of a broader heritage or conservation plan.
4. The above strategy, which in my view Is perfectly sensible, Is now being put into effect. All Members would be aware of this because I wrote to all Members explaining it last year.
5. In summary, yes there is paint peeling on some walls however a logical strategy has been put into place to address this and work has already commenced.
Page 22 0[32 Commillee System Review Committee Recommendation 12
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS AND ELECTORATE OFFICES
6. On the issue of conservation, I have reviewed the Parliamenl House Conservation Plan (which I note was commissioned by former Speaker Reynolds, not DPW) and I am unable to locate anywhere in the plan any reference to "Ihe incompetenl treatment of the antique and priceless furniture and fillings at the Parliament House".
7. Whatlhe Plan (which was prepared by a DPW officer and another expert) does say under "Section 7.2 Management" Is lhat:
"The Property SelVices seelton of tile Parliamentary SelVice Is responsible for tile management of Parliament House and its contents. Tile present managers are commitied to tile Ileri/age values of ti,e place as can be seen in /Ileir considered approacllto caring for Ille buildIng wllile satisfying Ille requirements ofuso':
8. It is true that the plan does make a number of comments and recommendations in relation to the future management and conservalion of Parliament House and its contents:
• One issue, in relation to the cut down of Joseph Backler's historic porlrait of Gilbert Eliott (see Section 4.5 of Ihe Plan), is cited as an example of "inexpert care". It Is Important to note however that the Plan states that "if is not known wilen tills travesty occurred except that it was before the renovations in 1981-82" which of course was well before the Parliament assumed full responsibility for the bUildings..
•A second issue raised in the plan is that "In some cases, antique furniture has been re-l/pho/stered with inappropriate materials and chair fremes have been damaged In the process". Again, It is not known at which lime these works may have been done. It could have been during the major renovation in 1981-82. Regardless, I would defend the DPW workers who have undertaken almOst all of the upholstery work on Parliament House furniture over the years. These workers have done what they believed to be the correct thing at the time.
• Another issue, relating to breakage of the plaster porlralt of Premier Byrnes, is an example of a simple accident, when the bust was being moved to accommodate a major function being held In a room within the building. The reality Is that in a working heritage building such as this where literally thousands of people come in and out of the building every month, damage will occasionally be done.
Page 23 oJ32 Committee System Review CommIttee Recommendation 12
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS AND ELECTORATE OFFICES
6.4 Speaker's powers, accountability, transparency and the Estimates process
Minister's comments
The all Party commit/ee has recommended a complete overhaul of the estimates system and any expenditure of public money or lack thereof at the Parliament will be fully tested and accountable to the Parliament and thereby to tile public, so I fail to see how tllis process would compromise the independence of the Speaker.
As for accountability, tllere is an absence of Ihat at the moment, given that the Speaker lIas unfettered right 10 do as he pleases with these publicly owned buildings. "
Mr Schwarten saId the new committee system being proposed by the all-party committee would provide greater transparency and accountability across the board.
"By giving responsibility for these buildings back to the Department of Public Works, the pUblic through Parliamentary Estimates will be able to determine whether sufficIent resources are being allocated by the government ofthe day," he said.
At the moment there is no such scrutiny - the Speaker sets tile priority and that's the end of it.
My response
1. The suggestion that there will be greater transparency and accountability through the Estimates CommiUee process by giving responsibility for the buildings to the Department of Public Works ignores the fact that the Speaker himself appears before the Eslimates CommiUee each year.
2. The public through the Estimates Committee has always (since the very first estimates in 1994) had the opportunity to determine whether sufficient resources are being allocated for the Parliament. Indeed records indicate that the Speaker is regularly asked about expenditure upon the buildings. To claim that currently there Is no such scrutiny Is untrue.
3. Indeed, I would suggest that the Estimates Committee has a beUer opportunity to scrutinise building expenditure on Parliamentary buildings through the Speaker than it would through the Minister for Public Works because Members have greater access to more background Information through exisling communication networks provided by the Speaker, such as the Speaker's Advisory CommiUee.
4. In respect of the suggeslion that has Ihe Speaker has "unfeUered right to do as he pleases" and the Speaker "sets the priority and that is the end of It" there are several points to be made here:
a) The Speaker does not have unfeUered rights to do as he pleases. For example, the work that can or cannot be done in relation to Parliament House is heavily governed by the Heritage Act. b) It is also worth noting that current convention sees the Executive with powers over Ministerial and Member room allocations in Parliament House and overnight accommodation in the Annexe. c) My approach as Speaker has been, where appropriate, to engage all Members in relation to priorities, including through the Speaker's Advisory Committee. I have not taken the approach of selling my own priority and "that's the end of It".
Page 24 oJ32 Committee System Review Committee Recommendation 12
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARYBUILDINGS AND ELECTORATE OFFICES
6.5 Comparisons between managing Parliament House and the Governor's residence
Minister's comments
"If it is good enough for the Department ofPublic Works to maintain the residence of the Governor, which is a similarly independent office, then I would like to hear tile sensible discussion which says Parliamentary builrlings are different.
For your Information the DPW takes sImilar responsibility for every other publicly owned heritage building in Queensland including Govarnment House which provlrles for the office of the equally independent Governor ofQueensland.
My response
There are a couple of points to be noted here but at the outset it is important to stress that what is being proposed by the Commillee is management of all Parliamentary bUildings (I.e., Parilament House. the Annexe and precinct and also ail 94 electorate offices). In other words, the CommiUee's recommendation Is more far reaching than pointing to a comparison between Ihe management of one heritage building with another.
1. The first and most important point to note is that the Office of the Governor Is not "equally independent" like the Parliament:
• As I have outlined earlier, the Parliament has a statutory framework which recognises Its independence (i.e., the Parliamentary Service Act and the Appropriation Parliament Ac£). This framework prOVides for an elected official (Ihe Speaker) 10 have control over the accommodation and facililies.
• The Office of the Governor does not have such a framework. The appointed Governor, while obviously a resident of the building, does not have statutory control over the estate. I note also that the budget for the Office of the Governor falls direclly under the control of the Premier.
2. Secondly, there are obvious operational and functional differences between a relatively small private residence, and a working heritage building like Parliament House operating within a working precinct incorporating the Annexe. In a precinct that receives around 100,000 visitors a year, and with a much higher permanent and semi-permanent occupancy rate, there Is a much more significant relationship between:
• the successful delivery of services (e.g., the operation of the Parliament, functions, security, etc); and
• the management of accommodalion.
I submit that puUlng in place arrangements that would see the Speaker with control over (and responsibility for) services provided within the accommodation but not for the accommodation itself (which is so integral to how and when the services are successfuily provided) Is illogical. This is particularly true in the case of the Annexe, given the varied nature of the accommodation provided and the associated activities conducted.
PagelS 0[32 Committee Syslem Review Committee Recommendalion 12
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS AND ELECTORA TE OFFICES
3. Finally, while I do not have a detailed knowledge of the operation of the Governor's residence and the management of the estate, I note from the Office of the Governor's most recent annual report a number of key points:
a) There is an on-site "Facilities and Operations Manager" employed by the Office of the Governor. This person "manages fhe logistics functions for Ihe Government House Estate".
b) The Office of the Governor has a "Service Level Agreement" with DPW for works and maintenance but the "Office undertakes minor works as necessary and is responsible for heritage listed facilities, ensuring maintenance, security, occupational health and safety and horticultural services."
There are a number of noteworthy points here:
• The on-site management arrangements appear to be essentially the same as currently in place at Parliament House (Le., a facilities manager is on-site and this person Is under the control and direction of the Office of the Governor, not DPW);
• The local facilities manager appears to play an important coordinating role, just as the (Parliamentary Service) Manager of Property Services does at Parliament House.
• While I cannot be certain, I suspect that the Office of the Governor (and the Governor herself) would exercise considerable management control over what gets done and when. For example, I suspect it would be unlikely Ihat works or maintenance would be undertaken wlthoul the final agreement and approval of the Governor and the Office of the GoVernor.
I note the Minister's comment that DPW lakes similar responsibilily for every other publicly owned heritage building in Queensland. Yet, to my knowledge, no other building under DPW control has had a strategic review and conservation plan such as that undertaken for the Parliamentary precinct by the Parliamentary Service. Indeed, the Committee's recommendations regarding accommodation and technology requirements build on work that the Parliamentary Service has previously undertaken in the Strategic Review of the Parliamentary Buildings (2009). This Strategic Review was both unique and comprehensive. The Service Is unaware of any review this comprehensive for any other government buildingfprecinct.
Page 26 Q(32 Committee System Review Committee Recommendation 12
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS AND ELECTORA TE OFFICES
6.6 The role of the Speaker
Minister's comments
/I was refreshing to serve on an aI/ Purly Commillee of very experienced Members who are commilled 10 modernising this Parliament. While it is understandable that you woutd wish to see Ihe Speakers role remain unchanged there is no suggestion that the Parliamentary role of chairing the Parliament enforcing Standing Orders without fear or favour, attending to ceremonial matters and the other Parliamentary duties required of the position should change. No one has sought to diminish Ihe independence ofIhe Speaker in any way shape or form.
But If the Parliamenlary process is to change, as it shoutd, then it is poinl/ess 10 do so without examining Ihe role of the Speaker as it relales to matters oUlside the duties outlined above. I am hopeful ofyour support in doing so.
My response
1. It is important to note firstly that the Commillee was tasked by the Assembly with examining how parliamentary oversight of legislation could be enhanced and how the existing parliamentary commillee system could be strengthened to enhance accountability.
2. Within the context of these terms of reference, the Minister has then argued that:
a) the Committee was about "modernising the Parliament"; and
b) if the Parliamenlary process is to change all of the current Speaker's roles other than the Speaker's Parliamentary role of chairing the Parliament enforcing Standing Orders withoul fear or favour, attending to ceremonial matters and the other Parliamentary duties required of the position should be examined.
3. What the Minister appears to be suggesting is that all of the Speaker's roles and responsibilities outlined in lhe Parliamentary Service Act have to be "examined".
4. On that basis one may argue that the Minister believes that the follOWing mallers are relevant to improving parliamentary oversight of legislation and enhancing executive accountability:
• who approves a request for an electorate office relocation; • who decides whether water pipes are replaced and when; or • who decides when and where painting occurs in an electorate office or in the parliamentary precinct.
5. I submltlhat these matters are not relevant.
6. The Minister's comments also infer lhat not only should responsibilily for accommodation be stripped from lhe role of the Speaker, but that all of the Speaker's duties outside those mentioned in 2 b) above should be reviewed.
Page 27 q(32 Committee System Review Committee Recommendation 12
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS AND ELECTORATE OFFICES
7. This may mean for example that when the Parliamentary Service Act is reviewed (see recommendation 10 of the Committee) that some or all of the Speaker's other current powers should be withdrawn in' the name of "improving parliamentary oversight of legislation and enhancing executive accountability". For example, perhaps the Speaker should no longer:
decide major policies to guide the operation and management of the Parliamentary Service; • prepare budgets for the Service; • decide the size and organisation of Ihe Parliamentary Service and the services to be supplied by the Parliamentary Service; • be the employing authority, for the Legislative Assembly, of Parliamentary Service officers and employees deciding their remuneration and conditions of service; • supervise the management and delivery of services by the Parliamentary Service.
8. Any reasonable examination of the facts would suggest that this recommendation is not about improving parliamentary oversight of legislation and enhancing executive accountability but about who exercises administrative power over Members' accommodation and the Parliamentary Service.
Page 28 of32 CommIttee System Review CommIttee Recommendation 12
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARYBUILDINGS AND ELECTORATE OFFICES
6.7 The funding priorities set by successive Speakers
Minister's comments
That for 20 years successive speakers have been unable or unWilling to provide decent committee facilities and interactive public accessible video conferencing is testament to the fallllre ofthe model you prefer.
Similarly successive Speakers have IInllaterally decided upon building programs such as the 5 star Speakers accommodation while Women Members, Regional Ministers and Shadow Ministers have had no such consideration.
That a purposeless Speakers Corner has been created while media facilities especially a dedicated media conference room have fallen by the waysIde is yet another example.
Speaker's response
There are three separate issues here:
1. Video conferencing facilities for committees were investigated almost a decade ago. The assessment at that time was that the demand for such facilities was not sufficient to warrant the expendilure. Teleconferencing was seen as sufficient for demand. Of course, a different commiltee system such as thaI proposed creates different demands.
2. Between 1997 and 2000 there was a major refurbishment within the Partiamentary Annexe covering all but one floor of Members' offices. All bedrooms, Including those prOVided to the Speaker, Minislers and other Members were refurbished.
The standard of accommodation provided to the Speaker at that time was set taking into consideration two important factors:
a) the Speaker Is regularly required to entertain guests/visilors to the Partiament and this area was to be used for thai purpose; and b) the general standard of the Speaker's accommodation should be al leasl consistent with that provided Senior Ministers occupying Level 23 of the Annexe. (It is noted that when the Annexe was originally constructed, Level 23 accommodation plans provided for overnight accommodation for the Premier, Leader of the Opposition and lhe Speaker).
The suggestion that Women Members, Regional Ministers and Shadow Ministers have had no consideration by Speakers is·lncorrecl.
Indeed, successive Speakers have gone to some lengths to provide for these Members over the years. Examples include:
• the establishment of the "Family Flat" on level 3 of lhe Annexe;
• the provision of additional toileUshowering facilities for female Members on Members' office floors;
• the provision of overnight child-carer accommodallon on level 22; and
• the provision of additional overnight accommodallon when the bedroom refurbishment project took place between 1997 and 2000.
Page 29 of32 Committee System Review Committee Recommendation 12
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS AND ELECTORATE OFFICES
3. The Speakers' Corner in the George Street forecourt of Parliament House was created not just to formally designate an important location in terms of the Parliament upholding a basic democratic freedom, that of free speech, but also as a legacy project to commemorate the Parliament's 150th anniversary last year. I will leave it to olher Members to form their own views on its purpose and value. Speakers' Corner has nothing to do with the position of Speaker. Speakers' Corner is a designated place for speakers to freely speak their mind.
In terms of the comment media facilities especially a dedicated media conference room have fallen by the wayside, I am unsure what point is being made here. I do note, however, that last year in the Estimates Committee hearing, I received a Question on Notice regarding the use of the level 5 Media Room. See my response attached.
In closing here, I would like to make a general point aboul the Speaker's role in setting priorities for the parliamentary precinct, buildings and electorate offices.
It is not until a Member becomes Speaker thaI he/she gains an appreciation of the competing demands for resources in Ihe maintenance of precinct and electorate offices.
The reality is that all Members will not agree with the project priorities set by different Speakers any more than they would agree with, for example, the Minister for Public Works if that Minister was setting the priorities.
I suggest, however, that for important reasons of principle and also for practical purposes, it is in the interests of the Parliament and Members that the Speaker continue to be responsible for this important area of the Parliament's administration and that It not be transferred to the Department of PUblic Works.
Page 30 of32 Committee System Review Committee Recommendation 12
RESPONSIBILITYFOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARYBUILDINOS AND ELECTORATE OFFICES
QUESTIONS FROM THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
QUESTION 4
Will the Speaker outline what plans exist to provide stand alone media facilities Ihat allow MPs to conduct press conferences in a timely manner to issues of thc day without facililies having been booked in advance for non-media related events?
SPEAKER'S RESPONSE
'illere are 110 plans to provide additional media conference and interview facilities, because such fhcilitics have been provided and are available, but are simply not used to Ihe extent that they could be due to personal preferences.
In 2003-04, a major refhrbishment ofthe level 5 Media Room (since named the Dandiir Room) was completed. TIIO Dandiir Room was provided for the use of Members for media conferences and interviews. Indeed, the design and layout of the room was conceived with input iiom various media representalives and Members' representalives to ensure it filled this purpose.
Notwilhstauding the f.,ct that it was designed with this primary purpose in mind, it was also dcsigned to provide a flexible venue that could address the increasing needs of the pnrliament, the Parliamentary Service, and its cHents for suitable conference and meeting venues.
In 2005-2006, the Speaker received correspondence fi'om the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Parly on this maller. TIle correspondence indicated that the Opposition Parties were unhappy that the room was being used for othcr purposes.
With a venue ofthis quality, it was inevilable that for time to time there may be competing requests, pnrtieulnrly during silling weeks. With this in mind, special beoldug arrangements were put iu place to ensure that the needs of Members ou silting days were accommodated. On 24 May 2006, the Speaker advised the then Premier, Leader ofthe Opposition, Leader ofthe Liberal Party aud the Member for Gladstone ofthe new arrangements.
111cse arrangements nre still in place today. 1l1eyare: • On parliamentary sitting days, the Dandiir Room is reserved for Members' media conferences each day between 8mn (0 2pm. • Room bookings during Ulis time are only permitted in 30 minute allocations and are on n first booked first sen'cd basis. • 1llere are no long term bookings allowed for this room weeks in advance. Bookings for the room open the Monday moming ofeach week.
I am aware that Members have for many years utilised a range of locations withiu the precinct to hold media conferences, in parlicular the Speaker's Green and Allnexe levelS colonnade and more recently the Legislative Council chamber.
I suspect thnt in the vast majority of cases, these venues have been used not because the Dandiir Room is unavailable, bul rather because Members simply prefer to use such locations. Indeed, Parliamentary Service statfresponsible for tnking beokings for the Dandiir Room have indicated that they cannot recall in recent times an incident where a Mcmber sought to book the Daudiir Room and it was unavailable 10 them.
For the information of the Committee, the table on the following page GUmnes actual usage of the room ill l'ccen( years.
Page 3/ 0/32 Committee System Review Committee Recommendation 12
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARYBUILDINGS AND ELECTORATE OFFICES
USE OF THE DANDIIR ROOM
Bookings I % of total Bookings %oftotal '. BoOkings:: I % oftotal Bookings I % of total booki--n9S boOkings ·:·bookings bookings Opposition Members 132 I 46% 2.6% I 2 3.57% 8 I 8% S I 6.2% I Government Members 80 28% 25 65.7% 26 46.4% 26 26% 33 I 25.5% I I Independents --0.3% I - Parliamentary Committees 9 I 3"1<> 2.6% 3 5.35% 7 7% 12 9.3% I, Parliamentary Service ! HRM 1 3 9 19 Par1iamentary Education 15 3 7 15 22 Community Engagement 3 2 S Clerk of ParliarnentlDep Clerk 2 3 3 2 Info Tech 1 Corporate Wardrobe 3 Catering 3 2 security 1 7 6 Table Office 2 Property Sel'\lioos 3 Ubrary 2 2 Social Club Staff Training 26 Sul>-totaJ 41 14% 7 18.4% 22 39.2% 44 44% 63 48.8% Functions Oepatlmen1s 21 7.3% 4 10.5% 3 5.35% 7 8 Other - -- £ £ Sub--total 21 7.3% 4 10.5% 3 5.35% 9 9"/0 10 7.75% Federal Parliament 3 1% 6 6% 2 1.5% CMC .775%
.TOTAL·BOOKINGS . :·::.287 .~.::.>,.:., :~ .... " ./'38:.:.:...:;;1 .:>.,. ".....:.. /1" '.,58 .:.J., ...... : .:.>.;,,:-';/ i. /:i:~OO ';':~':'::":":' .. ,':. .,.129. ::::;·01',,"
Page32ofS2