Parliamentary Committees

Budget and Finance Committee: Interim Report 2016-17

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (16:03): I move:

That the interim report of the committee, 2016-17, be noted.

It is with much pleasure that I move that the interim report for the Budget and Finance Committee for 2016-17 be noted. In speaking to this motion as an interim report, in practical terms as committee chair and as committee members we would view this as, in essence, our annual reporting to the Legislative Council in terms of the work that was conducted during the financial budget year 2016-17.

The committee has been operational now for approximately 10 years. It commenced in around about 2007, I believe—I do not have the exact date with me. I think, in its time in the Legislative Council, it has demonstrated that it has added value to the operations of the Legislative Council. I think it has added value in terms of the transparency and accountability of government departments and agencies and ministers over their expenditure of public moneys, and I think it has added value in terms of looking at the detail of what government departments and agencies do or do not do in acquitting the funds that are provided to them in the budget.

It is certainly a committee that, in my view, should continue post March 2018, whichever party happens to be in the fortunate position of being in government. I am sure the set of circumstances is going to be that no government is going to have a majority in the Legislative Council, and therefore non-government members post March 2018 will continue to be in the majority on the floor of the Legislative Council. I think that whichever party is in government, the Budget and Finance Committee, in some role or other, should continue, and should continue with the sort of work that it has undertaken over the last 10 years.

It is a committee that is controlled by non-government members, a committee of five, with two government members, two Liberal Party members and one non major party member. That particular member has changed over the years in terms of the people who have offered their services to the committee. At the moment it is the Hon. John Darley, and as committee chair I acknowledge the work that he has undertaken zealously and religiously over a number of years now as a member of the Budget and Finance Committee.

The other innovation that was introduced at the time of the 2007 establishment of the Budget and Finance Committee was the notion of participating members being allowed to come along and, as the title suggests, participate in the operations of the committee. This applies to any other member of the Legislative Council, and I think over the ten years almost all other members of the Legislative Council, with the exception, obviously, of ministers and the President, have at some stage or another come along to either be members of the committee or to participate in some meetings of the committee.

Where a member has an interest in a particular portfolio area, they have been able to come along to the committee, ask questions of the witnesses who are there, and seek answers in a more expeditious way, perhaps, than putting questions on the Notice Paper or even asking questions in this chamber.

The other big advantage, in my view, and the reason why it was constructed that way, is that ministers do not come and give evidence to the committee. There have been occasions, I think, when ministers might have been asked, but certainly it was constructed to be taking evidence from the chief executives of the government departments and agencies and their senior officers.

Whilst, if I can speak frankly, there is a small number who play the game as if they were a minister and a politician, by and large I think most chief executives and senior departmental officers have genuinely sought to cooperate with the reasonable questions of the committee and provide answers within a reasonable time frame. It has not always been the case, and some, as I said, have played the game as if they were ministers and answerable to no-one, but I think by and large, as chair of the committee over the 10 years, I can report that the majority of senior public servants have recognised the importance of the committee and the work it does, and in most cases have sought to cooperate by answering reasonable questions that might be put to them.

The fact that there have been any number of occasions—and I do not propose to list even any highlights from those—but the fact that information gleaned either at the meeting or in answers to questions on notice has, on any number of occasions, ended up in being an ongoing matter of interest or potentially controversy in relation to the public expenditure of taxpayer funds is testament to the value of the committee.

I have spoken briefly before that there have been a number of discussions at varying stages about how one might restructure the committees of the parliament. I expressed personal views years ago in relation to some aspects, and certainly I continue to have some views. Should we be fortunate enough to be in government after March 2018, I would participate as a member of the government team in proposing some constructive and alternative options to the structure of committees.

I think the value of upper houses rests in terms of the merit and worth of the committee structure of the chamber. I see and I read views that some new candidates in the South Australian political context have put in terms of restructuring our parliamentary process to directly replicate the Senate process. I think that is perhaps an easy response. There are some elements of the Senate process which we have borrowed and crafted in the work that the Budget and Finance Committee, for example, has done which better suit and fit the smaller chambers that we have, compared to the federal chambers of the Senate and House of Representatives.

A situation in the future where potentially you might have up to three standing committees of the Legislative Council divided into portfolio areas that in some way continue to meet on a regular basis, holding departments and portfolios to account, is certainly a model that other states have already implemented in terms of holding governments and departments to account. That is certainly a model that is worth contemplating, but whatever the model is, I think there needs to be active recognition of the fact that the value of the way the current Budget and Finance Committee has been structured has sought to hold governments and departments to account.

I suspect that any proposed change to committees would need to recognise that non-government majorities in the Legislative Council would wish to see at least the continuation of the capacity to be able to continue to do that process. Irrespective of whether my party happens to be in government or in opposition, I think that is an entirely appropriate position not only to adopt but to support. I think it is an element in terms of trying to ensure good government, good governance and transparency and accountability, and I think it is also a recognition of the reality of life.

That is, even if new committees were established, there would always be the capacity for the majority of non-government members in this chamber to establish a new select committee or new committee arrangement where there was a majority of non-government members to either conduct specific inquiries or, as in the case of the Budget and Finance Committee, to be a rolling efficiency and effectiveness review mechanism across the board.

I think governments, Liberal or Labor, would have to recognise that fact and work within those constructs, and the Legislative Council then could have a wholly appropriate role as a committee house and a committee house of review in terms of the work that it undertakes. It might be a forlorn hope, and I have heard it before, when the basis of the current committee structure was negotiated in the period between 1989 and 1993 when there were two Independents in the House of Assembly. The argument at that time was, by establishing these new committees, there would be fewer select committees.

The reality is that has just not occurred—certainly not in the Legislative Council and, increasingly, it is not occurring in the House of Assembly either. Again, I think one has to recognise the reality, if we look at the Legislative Council, that if a particular member has a particular issue they want to pursue and they want to establish a select committee, they want to somehow be engaged in the committee that actually prosecutes the case. If it is just referred off to a standing committee and they have no role they are less inclined to want to refer it to a standing committee.

I think that is why a greater acceptance of the participating member mechanism would assist the process. There would be maybe slightly fewer select committees because a member could move a motion on a particular issue, get the kudos for having moved the motion and the attached publicity, and then come to the meetings of the committee and ask questions, again attracting kudos for asking the questions and for any media that might be attracted to that, or that the member might wish.

The only restriction would be that the member would not be participating in the final vote or deliberation of the committee on that particular issue and in the report writing. However, nothing would prevent the member, who would have access to all the evidence, all the reports tabled with the committee, from coming to his or her own conclusion and providing their report directly to the Legislative Council anyway. I think it is worthy of consideration, in terms of how our committees might operate in the future.

I remain a strong advocate of a stronger committee system for the Legislative Council and for the parliament generally. I am not the passionate advocate for joint committees that many others are, but I grudgingly acknowledge that in certain areas they are probably a necessary evil. They have been here for 20 plus years and are likely to continue to play a useful role. However in terms of two options, one being a much greater concentration of joint committees between the houses and a reduction in Legislative Council-based committees with the other alternative being maintaining a small number of joint standing committees and beefing up or increasing the number of Legislative Council-based committees, I am unashamedly a fierce advocate for the latter proposition.

That is, a small number of necessary joint standing committees and an increase in the number of ongoing standing committees of the Legislative Council, more broadly-based perhaps than the ones we have, but without losing the advantage of an equivalent to the Budget and Finance Committee, that holds government departments and agencies to account, that the government does not control, and that the government member does not chair. I hasten to say, as I have done before, that these remain my personal views.

Post March 2018 these are issues which our new party room, with lots of new members and some continuing members, will ultimately express a view on. As with the Labor Party and minor parties in this chamber, there will be new blood and new views in relation to the operation of committees. In moving this motion for the most recent report of the Budget and Finance Committee I wanted to acknowledge, on the record, the work it has done over 10 years, and indicate that it is a useful model when looking at what may be effective in terms of committees and a committee structure for the Legislative Council into the future.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.A. Darley.