Parliamentary Management Board

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services) [9.46]: I move:

(1) That there be established a Joint Standing Committee known as "The Parliamentary Management Board".

(2) That the Board consist of 14 Members; being 7 Members of the Legislative Assembly and 7 Members of the Legislative Council.

(3) That the quorum for a meeting of the Board shall be 8 Members.

(4) That the following office-holders shall be ex-officio Members of the Board:

(a) The Speaker

(b) The President

(c) Leader of the House, Legislative Assembly

(d) Manager of Opposition Business, Legislative Assembly

(e) Leader of the Government, Legislative Council

(f) Leader of the Opposition, Legislative Council

(5) That ex-officio Members be entitled to nominate alternates for the purpose of attending meetings of the Board.

(6) That the Speaker and President be joint Chairmen of the Board.

(7) That the Legislative Assembly appoint 4 Members being 2 Members supporting the Government; and 2 Members not supporting the Government 1 of whom shall be an independent minor party representative.

(8) That the Legislative Council appoint 4 Members being 2 Members supporting the Government; and 2 Members not supporting the Government 1 of whom shall be an independent or minor party representative.

(9) That subject to the control and direction of both Houses, as embodied in a similar resolution agreed to separately in each House, the Board shall be responsible for, but not limited to:

(a) determining details of operation of the Board in areas such as the conduct of meetings, appointment of sub-committees and voting procedures;

(b) general control of the management and administration of the Parliament;

(c) setting the overall policies within which the three Parliamentary Divisions shall function in their day to day operations;

(d) overseeing the Joint Services Division, including final authority over the establishment of positions in that Division and the appointment of staff, with the Director, Joint Services exercising day to day management and control of the Division;

(e) preparing the Parliamentary forward estimates bids for consideration by the Executive Government;

(f) determining, consistent with the principles of global budgeting, the utilisation and allocation of the funds provided to the Parliament in the Parliamentary Appropriation Bill;

(g) for producing annual reports, to include information pertaining to each of the three Parliamentary Divisions and containing as far as possible the information required in annual reports of Government Departments;

(h) arranging for independent consultants to undertake efficiency audits of the three Divisions for report to the Chairmen of the Board, who shall table such reports in each House within 15 sitting days of receipt, with the first audit to commence within 18 months of the Board being established and then at least every four years;

(i) the Auditor General continuing to audit, by invitation, the Parliamentary accounts.

(10) That for the purposes of administration the staff of the Parliament be divided into three Divisions as follows:

(a) an Office of the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, comprising the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, the Assembly table officers, and other staff responsible for assisting the Clerk to provide services to the Assembly and its Members in relation to the official proceedings of the House and its procedure and practices;

(b) an Office of the Clerk of the Legislative Council, comprising the Clerk of the Parliaments, the Council table officers, and other staff responsible for assisting the Clerk to provide services to the Council and its Members in relation to the official proceedings of the Council and its procedures and practices;

(c) a Joint Services Division, headed by a Director responsible for facilities and services which are provided jointly to both Houses, including the Parliamentary Library, Accounts Services, Building Services, Food and Beverage Services, Printing, Information Technology, Security, Hansard, Parliamentary Education and Community Relations, and Archives.

(11) That a message be sent to the Legislative Council requesting that the Council adopt a similar resolution.

This matter - a new direction for the management of the Parliament - has been the subject of considerable discussion by all honourable members. A report has dealt with many of these aspects and there have been discussions between me, members of the Opposition and the three non-aligned Independents, who have clearly indicated their support for these changes. I believe that these changes will lead to honourable members having a more direct involvement in the management of the affairs of this Parliament. I believe this is an appropriate course of action. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [9.49]: This motion seeks to establish a joint standing committee to be known as the Parliamentary Management Board, which will comprise 14 members, seven from the Legislative Assembly and seven from the Legislative Council. The need for such a board was established some time ago. I was one of a group of members who discussed this issue with members of the New Zealand Parliament, which has had a board of management for some time. We saw Government members, Opposition members and Independent members - the equivalent of members of the Liberal-National Party and the Labor Party - who had all given their approval for the establishment of the board.

The implementation of this proposal by Parliament will break new ground. The board will prepare forward estimates for consideration by Executive Government. It will determine a variety of matters, including how the legislative budget is spent. Clearly that will lead to complex problems about the roles of each House of Parliament. Those problems
Page 6234
will not be easy to resolve. A change in the numbers in the Legislative Council will have a dramatic impact on this Chamber, as well as on the Legislative Council. The motion has some strange features. The board will have an equal number of members from the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council. However, the 99 members of the Legislative Assembly are elected to represent individual electorates. The 42 members of the Legislative Council represent the whole of New South Wales. It seems a little odd to me that the proposal treats the Legislative Assembly as inferior to the Legislative Council, which has been proscribed from dealing with money bills. I am concerned about several other features of the proposal. I am not concerned about the Auditor-General being invited to audit the parliamentary accounts or about the production of annual reports. Those matters are important, but I have misgivings about what will happen in the future. I am a little perplexed by paragraph 10, which provides for an Office of the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, an Office of the Clerk of the Legislative Council and a Joint Services Division.

The Office of the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly will comprise the Clerk, the Assembly table officers and other staff responsible for assisting the Clerk to provide services. The Office of the Clerk of the Legislative Council will comprise the Clerk of the Parliaments and others. What is the constitutional authority for the Clerk of the Legislative Council to be known as the Clerk of the Parliaments? I do not care what his name or his title is. Does anyone know whether the Clerk of the Legislative Council will be the clerk of the board? This is a serious issue. Under this proposal the lower House will immediately grant power to the New South Wales Legislative Council. That has enormous ramifications in relation to timing and finance. Legislative programs can be frustrated because of the improper allocation of finance. There is no guarantee as to the manner in which the legislative budget will be allocated. Is anyone able to give me advice on that?

I generally support the thrust of the proposal, but these questions must be answered. It is imperative that we know how funding is to be allocated by the Parliament? The honourable member for South Coast has been active in formulating the proposal, which must be regarded as transitional. He may be able to answer the questions I have asked. The proposal has some good features. The Parliament will be more financially accountable than it has been in the past. I support that, because the only time the parliamentary accounting system comes into purview is for an hour or so at the estimates committee hearing. From an Opposition view point the estimates committees do not operate successfully, although from the Government view point they do. The proposal gives the Auditor-General an opportunity for input. Being a politician makes one aware of where real power lies. I am a little concerned about the overall financing of the proposal. I ask the Leader of the House to consider an additional paragraph 12. That paragraph will provide that a review of the operations of the board takes place after 12 months and the report be made available to all members of Parliament. So far as I am aware the motion does not contain any such provision. I formally move that the motion be amended by adding the following paragraph:

(12) That the operation of the Board of Management be reviewed after 12 months and that the results of the review be made public.

The Opposition supports the motion, as sought to be amended.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [9.59]: The amendment moved by the honourable member for Ashfield is a good idea and I support the motion. I hope the amendment is intended to mean that the review will take place after the board has been operating for 12 months. In any event, the amendment proposes that the parliamentary board reports to Parliament. That is right and proper; the operations of the board should be reviewed. The proposal is a move into uncharted waters. I visited Wellington in New Zealand with Tim Moore and Mr Speaker. We had discussions with the Clerks, the Speaker and the Whips of the New Zealand Parliament about the possible implementation of a parliamentary board. As always, I want to get down to fundamentals. As a person who likes to think in the same terms as a lay person, it has always intrigued me that Parliament determines appropriations and forwards them to Treasury via Executive Government - that is a tradition of the parliamentary system - but the Parliament, through the Presiding Officers, then has to make a bid to Treasury to get some of the money back. From the point of view of the person in the street, that is a quaint way of doing things. Under this model that will not change. The parliamentary board will make the bids to Treasury, through Executive Government, to get the money back to spend in the Parliament. Theoretically it is possible that should Executive Government want to strangle the operation of Parliament, and should it have sufficient numbers, it would be back in the Parliament's hands to amend the budget bill and appropriate more to the Parliament.

I was one who supported the idea of a separate appropriation bill as determined by parliamentarians, rather than being determined by Executive Government, to ensure that Parliament stands separate from Executive Government. The Parliament would then be accountable to the people directly through the parliamentary board for the amount of money it spent and for what the money was spent on. There is nothing wrong with that concept. Theoretically, Executive Government could starve the Parliament of funds should it choose to do so - an intriguing situation. There was no way that Executive Government was going to be allowed to do that; the idea met with fierce resistance. Under the model now before the House the parliamentary board would make bids and Treasury would advise, through the Executive Government, how much would be provided.

Page 6235

The system would be more open under the new proposal. The parliamentary appropriation bill would be discussed line by line when debated in the upper and lower Houses. I am not suggesting that it would not be debated as part of the budget bill, but even so it would be a separate appropriation bill for Parliament. That bill would be subjected to intense debate, and all members would be able to contribute. The press gallery and those in the public gallery would know why the Parliament was seeking funds, why it felt that existing funds were inadequate, and so on. The staff of the Parliament have some fears that a parliamentary board would put them in a less adequate position than that held at the moment. Those fears will prove to be unjustified. Once members of Parliament sitting on the parliamentary board take responsibility for expenditure made and have to reveal that expenditure publicly, mindful of opprobrium they will be open to bids made by staff representatives and bids made by institutions such as the Parliamentary Library.

The preparation of the parliamentary forward estimates bids for consideration by Executive Government will be undertaken by the board in an open and accountable process. The board will also have the responsibility of determining, consistent with the principles of global budgeting, the utilisation and allocation of funds provided to the Parliament in the parliamentary appropriation bill. Everybody understands exactly what that means. The board will also be responsible for producing annual reports. The first annual report will be a progress report, as indicated in the amendment moved by the honourable member for Ashfield, and will report on the performance of the new structure and whether it was necessary to change that structure. The annual reports will contain information pertaining to the three parliamentary divisions. As far as possible, they will include the information required in the annual reports of government departments.

There is one point I should like to emphasise because of staff concerns. As is made clear in the motion, the oversight of the Joint Services Division will not mean that the parliamentary board will be involved in the day-to-day functions of the Parliament. The motion before the House clearly spells out that the Director of the Joint Services Division will exercise day-to-day management and control of the division. It should be underlined that the Clerks will be able to exercise their authority; that authority will not be impinged upon. I strongly support that concept. In none of the discussions in which I have been involved has there been any indication of a wish to interfere with the sanctity of the role of the Clerks of the Parliament. They have a reputation of not being involved in the political process other than in a strictly bipartisan and clinically detached role. Nobody would want to change that in any way, shape or form. The offices of the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly and the Clerk of the Legislative Council in a Joint Services Division are clearly spelled out.

I want to lay to rest the question of whether the upper House or the lower House is in control. There is a fair amount of feeling about that issue around this place. The idea is that the Presiding Officers will take it in turn to chair the parliamentary board, which will have equal representation from both Houses. If a casting vote were necessary because of a tied vote, that would be possible only if the two Presiding Officers agreed. That concept would put pressure on the Presiding Officers and on the board. If there were trouble with the appropriation bill in one of the Houses, the matter would have to go back to the board for determination. For example, the Legislative Council might want to amend the appropriation bill in a way that would advantage the Legislative Council but was not intended by the parliamentary board. In that instance the determination of the board would be required. Neither House of Parliament could upset the process.

If there were a frustration of the process, and there has been discussion about the inability of the upper House to amend money bills, that would be removed by determination of the parliamentary board. Such frustration would certainly be resolved if it involved upsetting the services available to the House and to members. I feel that the model is a good one. I am certainly of the opinion that it would be necessary to review the model in 12 months. I look forward to members of Parliament taking their place on a parliamentary board and taking direct responsibility for the expenditure of the Parliament. I look forward to the day when the Parliament has the courage and the sense of identity as a parliament to vote its own appropriation for its own purposes for the institution of Parliament.

Mr PRICE (Waratah) [10.08]: I support the proposal. In particular, I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Ashfield for a 12-month review. I have concerns about the composition of the committee. The topic was the subject of an extensive report to the House by former Minister Moore and was subsequently dealt with by a select committee which rejected the proposed legislation and called for further consideration. The motion proposes the formation of a joint standing committee. Whilst the politicisation remains more or less the same in relation to the ex-officio officers who will be included on the board, I am concerned on two fronts. First, I am concerned that both Houses will have equal representation on the board. The representation should be proportional.

I have some difficulty with the concept of four members of the Legislative Council equating to four members of the Legislative Assembly - not that I believe their talents are any different but because of the numerical strength of this House. It would reflect badly on this House if we did not endeavour to provide for reasonable proportional representation for the membership of this Chamber. The Australian Labor Party has 47 members in this House and is the largest single group within the Parliament. Representation for that group of 47 members, being almost half the House, is limited to one person. It is not reasonable to have that number prevail.

Page 6236

I have some concerns also about the method of nomination or election. The paper is somewhat vague on that aspect. I assume the leaders of parties and groups will nominate the representatives of their particular parties or groups. I do not have any great difficulty with that; in the original discussions of the select committee, great weight was placed on members having the opportunity to elect representatives. I wonder why that element has been removed. I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on whether he feels that a better representation of the constituency of this House would be achieved by increasing the number of Legislative Assembly members who will make up the total composition of the board.

The function of the board as set out more or less follows the finding of the select committee, but the ability of the House to control its own finances through its own appropriation bill without the interference of Executive Government still has to be resolved. The honourable member for South Coast also raised that matter in his comments. The continuing surveillance by the Auditor-General of the operation of the House by invitation is certainly a valid segment of this proposal. Though I have some personal concerns about the composition of the committee, the amendment to require a review after 12 months will allow a satisfactory period of operation so that these deficiencies that I believe exist can be highlighted and, if necessary, appropriate amendments moved to ensure that they will be corrected. Should a fresh board be elected after that 12-month period it will be truly representative of the total membership of this Chamber, and I look forward to that occurring.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.