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