Parliamentary Departments
2.1
The committee took evidence from the parliamentary departments on Monday, 18 February 2008.
Department of the Senate
2.2
The following issues of interest are discussed below:
- Senate Select Committees;
- Question Time in the Senate; and
- Friday sittings of Parliament;
Senate Select Committees
2.3
With the recent establishment of three Senate Select Committees[1]
the committee examined the issues surrounding the relationship between the
establishment of Select Committees and government control of the Senate, associated
costs and the appointment of consultants.
2.4
Senator Ray questioned the Clerk of the Senate, Mr Harry Evans, about
the relationship between government control of the Senate post July 2005, and
the establishment of Select Committees. Mr Evans informed the committee that
the only Select Committee to be established was the Select Committee on Mental
Health.[2]
2.5
Further information was sought by Senator Ray regarding the refusal of
the Senate to authorise the establishment of Select Committees during the
previous government's control of the Senate. This information was later
provided by the department in an answer to a question on notice. This answer indicated
that two proposals were refused: 'Mental Health Services' on 5 December 2006; and 'Australia's Anti-Terrorism Laws' on 9 August 2007.[3]
2.6
The Department of the Senate was also asked to provide information about
the cost to administer a Select Committee. Mr Evans informed the committee that:
The cost of a select committee very much depends on how long it
runs. The average figure that we work on is $150 000 to run a short select
committee. Select committees that go on for much longer can cost much more,
obviously.[4]
2.7
Senator Ray sought a guarantee from the President of the Senate, Senator
the Hon Alan Ferguson, that the use of consultants for the newly established
Select Committees would be appropriate, and closely monitored:
Senator ROBERT RAY—President, are
you going to carefully supervise the appointment of consultants?...
The PRESIDENT—In the committees I have been involved in
previously where we have had to engage consultants we have always had to go to
the President to get approval...I will continue in the same vein as previous
Presidents, who are pretty hard to convince on some occasions that the expense
of the consultants was worth while when we had some expertise within the
department...However, there were some occasions—the inquiry into the GST was
probably a prime example—where consultants were engaged to provide outcomes...[5]
Question Time in the Senate
2.8
The committee questioned the President of the Senate on the rationale behind
the current distribution of questions asked by government and opposition
Senators during Question Time.
2.9
Senator Ray asked the President why in his advice outlining the current allocation
of questions between government, opposition and minor party Senators, for the
42nd Parliament,[6]
that there was no consideration of scraping the proportionality of questions
according to the numbers of Senators in political parties:
Senator ROBERT RAY—...I agree with the [current]
allocation, because question time is about scrutiny; it is about giving the
opposition rights...I think what you have done is right, but I am trying to
seek the reason why it was done and why it was reversed from what applied in
the previous parliament.
The PRESIDENT—We determined the proposed order of
questions in my office, basically on the number of government senators and the
current number of minor party senators, knowing that after 1 July that will change
because the number of the minor parties will be fewer...
Senator ROBERT RAY—...but I have acknowledged that
I support the allocation and I know about the correspondence sent...The matter
of proportionality was not canvassed highly in that letter, though, was it?
The PRESIDENT—No...[7]
2.10
Senator Ray's exchange with the President revealed that if the
allocation of questions during Question Time continues to be based on
proportionality, that when the distribution of party numbers change in the
Senate, post July 2008, then the allocation of questions would face further
change. In order to pursue this matter, and to consistently enable future
oppositions to have the greatest possibility to scrutinise successive
governments, Senator Ray suggested, and the President agreed, that this issue
be examined by the Senate Procedure Committee.[8]
Friday sittings of Parliament
2.11
Opposition Senators questioned Mr Evans about their concern over the government's
introduction of Friday sittings of the House of Representatives. Senator Fifield
questioned Mr Evans about the validity of Friday sittings of Parliament,
whereby the House of Representatives Standing and Sessional Orders have
been amended to suspend quorum requirements. Senator Fifield cited section 39
of the Constitution which states:
Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the presence of at
least one-third of the whole number of the members of the House of
Representatives shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the House of
Representatives for the exercise of its powers.[9]
2.12
Senator Fifield specifically asked about the meaning of the phrase 'until
the Parliament otherwise provides'. Mr Evans explained that:
...It has to be a statute passed by both houses and signed by
the Governor-General. Both houses have initiated changes to their quorums since
1901, and they have been done by statute. This is a question that has been
discussed over many, many years. What we have always said is that it is not
constitutional for the Senate to take away the right of any senator to draw attention
to the lack of a quorum because the Constitution requires the quorum to be at
least available. It may not be a justiciable question, but it is one of those
provisions in the Constitution that the Senate has to have regard to and comply
with itself. Needless to say, many people over many years have said, ‘Can’t we
do away with quorum calls?’ and that has always been the response.[10]
2.13
Senator Fifield sought further clarification, asking:
Senator FIFIELD—...So any attempt to dispense with
the requirement for a quorum without legislation would be contrary to the
Constitution?
Mr Evans—The senator says 'dispense with a
quorum'. I think the statute would have to set some kind of quorum. Possibly it
could set a quorum of one, but that might be a bit dubious too. It might become
justiciable if that happened. But the quorum can certainly only be changed by
statute...If a house passes an order to abolish quorum calls, it is within its
power to do so. But what my predecessors have always said over many, many years
is that it is not constitutional to do so.
Senator FIFIELD—Is there a similar constitutional
provision for the Senate?
Mr Evans—Yes, it applies to both houses.[11]
2.14
The committee notes the government's subsequent announcement that Friday
sittings for the House of Representatives will no longer be held.[12]
2.15
Other matters of interest raised during the examination of the
Department of the Senate included:
- appointment of a new Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary
Services;[13]
- maintenance of the Women parliamentarians photographic display in
the public area of Parliament House;[14]
- allocation of pubic seating for the opening of Parliament;[15]
and
- expected publication date of Volume 3 of the Biographical
Dictionary of the Australian Senate.[16]
Department of Parliamentary Services
2.16
The following issues of interest relating to the Department of Parliamentary
Services (DPS) are discussed below:
- information technology systems and services; and
- environmental impacts.
Information technology systems and
services
2.17
Government, opposition and minor party Senators examined the information
technology (IT) systems and services provided to members of Parliament by DPS. The
broad issues relating to the examination of IT systems and services were: the
procedures for archiving electronic data; whether emails held by Senators and
Members are covered by Parliamentary Privilege and the Freedom of
Information Act 1982 (FOI Act); and what procedures DPS has in place to
ensure the Parliamentary network is only accessed by appropriately authorised personnel.
2.18
Senator Fifield asked officials from DPS whether the electronic storage
facilities were such that deleted emails could be restored. Mr David Kenny,
Acting Secretary of DPS, stated that in some cases it was possible, but not
after a period of three months, whereby the information stored in archive
facilities designed for 'disaster recovery purposes' would be deleted.[17]
2.19
Senator Fifield also raised the question with Mr Kenny as to whether
Senator's and Member's email records attract Parliamentary Privilege or are
subject to the FOI Act. The committee heard that in some cases email is subject
to Parliamentary Privilege, whilst the FOI Act does not apply to either of the
Parliamentary departments.[18]
Environmental impacts
2.20
Continuing on from the previous examination during the May 2007 Budget
Estimates hearings, the committee examined DPS's commitment to lowering the
department's impact on the environment. Of particular interest to the committee
were the topics of water and energy conservation.
2.21
Mr Kenny informed the committee that a review into the use of water for
landscaping purposes is due to be completed by 18 April 2008. Senator Murray requested that DPS provide a briefing about the findings of the review to the
committee before the next hearing.[19]
2.22
The committee heard further evidence about DPS's current and planned
water saving measures. Mr Kenny cited the statistics that:
- 'The Parliament House water consumption as at the end of January
2008 is running at a 40 per cent reduction on the equivalent period in 2005-06
which is 5 per cent better than when the target was set';[20]
and
- '[Parliament House's statistics for the use of water to
air-condition the building] were at 150-plus kilolitres [per day]...With the
changes in the air-conditioning that we trialled last year, it came down by
about 50 kilolitres'.[21]
2.23
Mr Kenny also revealed other water saving measures including: the trial
of drought tolerant 'buffalo grass'; abolishing summer floral displays; no
watering of plants between 10:00am and 6:00pm; and the instillation of AAA
rated shower heads.[22]
2.24
The committee notes these improvements made by DPS's water conservation
measures. The committee also makes the suggestion, as detailed by various
Senators during the hearing,[23]
that DPS consider, where possible, the use of grey water to further reduce
Parliament House's water consumption.
2.25
Mr Kenny informed the committee of DPS's ongoing review into Parliament
House's energy consumption. He stated that this review will be completed before
the end of June 2008. The committee notes Senator Murray's suggestion that the
committee be provided with a briefing on the progress of this review before the
May estimates hearing.[24]
2.26
Other matters of interest raised during the examination of DPS included:
- the cost of moving Senators and Members to different offices
after the November 2007 Federal election;[25]
- the appropriate use of facilities provided to the former
Government Members Secretariat;[26]
- Parliamentary Library staff and services;[27]
- maintenance of Members and Senators suits;[28]
and
- the provision of child care at Parliament House.[29]
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page