Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations CommitteeImproving Victoria's Parliamentary Committee SystemMatters considered by the Committee[Back to Table of Contents]A new Act in plain English and with a user-friendly structure1.1 Since its enactment, the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 has been amended over thirty times. Some of these amendments were minor and were part of the general update and maintenance of the State's Statute Book. For example, the Statute Law Revision Act 2000 made three amendments to the Act: the reference to the "Subordinate Legislation Act 1962" was updated to "Subordinate Legislation Act 1994" and "employee" was substituted for "employé". 1.2 Other amending Acts, such as the Parliamentary Committees (Joint Investigatory Committees) Act 1982, re-shaped the entire committee system in Victoria and, in the process, new provisions were added to the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968. This resulted in numbering of some provisions which may be confusing for readers not accustomed to legislation, for example sections 4A to 4U in Part 1A of the Act. The Committee is of the view that many provisions are in an illogical order. For example, the section stating how a committee member vacancy is to be filled appears towards the end of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968, while provisions dealing with appointments to the committees and the quorum of each committee are found close to the start of the Act. One would expect such provisions to be grouped together. 1.3 In addition to a mere re-ordering of the provisions of the Act, the Committee is of the view that a remodelled Act should be drafted in plain English. The plain English movement may be described as demand for "clarity as well as accuracy and is opposed to convoluted, obfuscating language in official, legal, and commercial documents".[21] As the website of the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel of Victoria explains: "The meaning of a law must be clear and legally certain if it is to achieve its purpose. In writing a law we see it as our task to ensure that the law achieves its purpose and that it is as easy to read and understand as is possible in the circumstances.".[22] Thus, in Victoria, all Bills, including any proposed Bill dealing with Parliamentary Committees, is structured in a clear logical manner and is drafted using plain language that avoids the use of archaic and unnecessary words. 1.4 The Committee received two submissions stating that the use of gender-specific language, specifically the word "chairman", was not appropriate.[23] 1.5 Reference was made in one of the submissions to the significant number of women who are currently Ministers and the Members of Parliament and to comments of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Ms L. Asher MLA on 1 March 2000 and those of Mrs J. Maddigan MLA on the following day. Both these members expressed their concern regarding the use of gender-specific language. 1.6 The Committee is of the view that the language used in an Act regulating Parliamentary committees should be gender-neutral. This corresponds with the policy of the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel to use gender-neutral expressions whenever a reference to gender is made in Victorian legislation.[24] It is the understanding of the Committee that unless otherwise instructed, Bills drafted for the Victorian Parliament contain "chairperson" rather than "chairman". 1.7 The draft Bill in Appendix A maintains the current committee system. It is drafted in plain English and has a user-friendly structure. The Committee believes that the draft Bill should form the basis of a new Parliamentary Committees Act which incorporates as many of the Committee's other recommendations contained in this report as the Parliament sees fit. Recommendations: 1a. The Committee recommends that, as a minimum, the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 be repealed and replaced by an Act that uses plain English, and has a user-friendly structure. The Committee draws Parliament's attention to the draft Bill in Appendix A. 1b. The Committee recommends that the draft Bill in Appendix A be enhanced to incorporate as many of the other recommendations made by the Committee as the Parliament sees fit, thus creating a modern and effective Parliamentary committee system in Victoria. How should Parliamentary committees be established?2.1 The Committee considered the legal basis for Victorian Parliamentary committees - in other words, how committees may be established. The principal method of establishment in Victoria is under the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968. This Act sets up a number of specific committees. There is, however, no legal reason why Parliamentary committees must be established under an Act that deals solely with Parliamentary committees. Several jurisdictions, both in Australia and overseas, have systems where Parliamentary committees are established under a multitude of Acts or by Standing Orders of either or both Houses of Parliament in a bicameral system or by resolution of Parliament. Indeed, in Victoria all three methods are currently possible. 2.2 The issue of how Parliamentary committees should be established was considered in great detail by the Queensland Electoral and Administrative Review Commission in 1992 in its Report on Review of Parliamentary Committees[25] ("the Queensland Report"). That committee (as did the Committee conducting this inquiry) examined the different ways in which Parliamentary committees are established and regulated in several other jurisdictions which follow the Westminster model. 2.3 The principal arguments set out in the Queensland Report in favour of establishing committees by legislation are—
2.4 The Queensland Report also summarised the disadvantages of legislation as follows—
2.5 The inflexibility of a legislative basis for Parliamentary committees was emphasised in a submission made by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Western Australia: "Establishment by legislation is not our preferred method. It is far easier (and convenient) to have the Assembly resolve whether a committee should be established and what its terms of reference will be, and whether any Standing Order relating to committees should be amended or made subject to an interim change under a Sessional Order or otherwise.".[26] 2.6 In contrast, the Hon. Dr Ken Coghill of Monash University's Parliamentary Studies Unit argued strongly in his submission in favour of retaining Victoria's current system where committees are, in the main, established under an Act: "Establishment by Act of Parliament has the clear advantages of allowing the creation of an on-going life and the greater certainty and standing that arises from a statutory basis. It enables provision for committees to continue notwithstanding prorogation. Committees effectively cease to operate only when dissolution of the Houses (for a general election) caus[27]es all Members' seats to fall vacant pending the election.".[28] 2.7 In a similar vein, the Speaker and President of the Victorian Parliament commented in their joint submission that "the very fact that Committees are named in an Act conveys to the community a sureness of committee activity that would otherwise be not so apparent".[29] 2.8 The Speaker and President's submission raised in the mind of the Committee a related and important consideration, namely community awareness of the Parliamentary committee system in Victoria. This, the Committee feels, could be fostered better by establishing and regulating most committees in Victoria by the means of an Act of Parliament, rather than by means of Standing Orders or resolution of Parliament. The Committee is of the view that an Act with a descriptive title (for example the current Parliamentary Committees Act) is easier for members of the community to locate than those particular Standing Orders relating to committees. 2.9 The Committee believes that most members of the community do not know of the existence of Standing Orders, may not consider examining Standing Orders for references to Parliamentary committees and would have difficulty in locating a copy of the Standing Orders. Since one aim of having Parliamentary committees is to encourage community participation in the Parliamentary process, it is of vital importance that members of the community are able easily to access information about the committees and to know what their rights are in relation to Parliamentary committees. This can be achieved best by means of an Act dealing specifically with Parliamentary committees. 2.10. The Committee is of the opinion that a Parliamentary committee system should strive to deliver openness of process and accountability of action and that the preferable way of achieving this goal is means of an Act dealing specifically with Parliamentary committees. This is because an Act of Parliament sets out particular steps and requirements that must be followed. 2.11 As mentioned above, one argument against an Act dealing with Parliamentary committees is that an Act is relatively inflexible. It takes time to amend an Act and the agreement of both Houses of the Parliament. However, the apparent inflexibility of working within the confines of an Act of Parliament does have an advantage: amendments made to an Act of Parliament are more likely to come to the notice of the general community than amendments made to Standing Orders. 2.12 If flexibility is an attribute of a good Parliamentary committee system, then the Committee is of the view that retaining the current status of the Parliamentary committee system in Victoria is to be encouraged. The attributes of certainty, openness and accountability may be found in committees established by Act. That of responsiveness to situations as they arise is met by the ability of Parliament to appoint select committees of either or both Houses by resolution as set out in each House's Standing Orders and in the Joint Standing Orders respectively. The Committee cannot see why the Victorian Parliament should want to limit the opportunities available with respect to the establishment of Parliamentary committees. Recommendations: 2a. The Committee recommends that an Act of Parliament should be the principal means by which Parliamentary committees are established. 2b. The Committee recommends that the Victorian Parliament should retain the option of establishing Parliamentary committees by means of Standing Orders and by means of resolution. Single or Joint House Committees or both?3.1 Under the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 there are five Joint House Committees, two Specific Purpose Committees and the Economic Development Committee. The Joint House Committees and the Specific Purpose Committees consist of members from both the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly. The Economic Development Committee consists solely of members of the Legislative Council. Section 11 of the Parliamentary Committees (Amendment) Act 1999 provides that the Economic Development Committee will revert to being a Joint House Committee at the end of the life of the current Parliament. The Standing Orders of the Council and the Assembly, respectively and the Joint Standing Orders of the Victorian Parliament also enable single House and joint House select committees to be established. 3.2 In Victoria there is a tradition of having joint House committees rather than single House committees. This is generally not the case in other Australian jurisdictions. The Clerk of the Senate, Mr Harry Evans, expressed the view that it is preferable in bicameral systems such as Victoria that Houses of Parliament establish their own committees. He believes that joint House committees "undermine the rationale of bicameralism of providing two deliberative assemblies to bring two separate deliberative processes and different views to bear on public issues.".[30] Mr Evans argues that two Houses in a bicameral system have different priorities: lower houses tend to be preparing for elections, while upper houses take a long term view and concentrate on scrutinising Government operations. "The combination of those different cultures in joint committees tend to lead to uncertainty as to their role". In addition, Mr Evans is of the opinion that it is difficult to co-ordinate meetings of joint committees because of the different work pressures and timetables of the two Houses. 3.3 It is true, as shown by the Committee's survey of other jurisdictions,[31] that Victoria's bicameral Parliamentary committee system is unusual. However, as the Hon. Dr Ken Coghill of Monash University's Parliamentary Studies Unit comments, this is no argument for abandoning the Victorian model: "It has considerable strengths, reinforced by the non-partisan culture which often prevails in their operations.".[32] 3.4 After sharing and discussing the experiences of the individual members of the Committee, the Committee concluded that a Parliamentary Committee system that enables joint House committees to function was a positive feature of the Victorian system and that it was a feature worth retaining. 3.5 The Committee feels it is important to emphasise that joint House committees provided members with the opportunity—
3.6 At the same time, the Committee acknowledges that there are times when a single House committee is more appropriate than a joint House committee. The Economic Development Committee is such a committee. It became a single House committee in light of the make-up of the Victorian Parliament following the last election. For this reason, the Committee is of the view that as Ministers are generally members of the Assembly, it would prove difficult to establish many single House committees in the Assembly as there would be an insufficient number of Government members available to be members of Assembly select committees. Recommendation: 3. The Committee recommends that the Parliamentary committee system in Victoria continue to include the option of joint House and single House Parliamentary committees. The relationship between Standing Orders and the Parliamentary Committees Act 19684.1 The Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 does not stand alone. Section 3(2) of the Act requires that notice be taken of the Standing Orders of the Parliament of Victoria—
4.2 In order to understand the operation of this provision, it is helpful to examine some examples. Under section 4B(2) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968, members of Joint Investigatory Committees are to be appointed according to the practice of Parliament. It follows that the Standing Orders relating to the appointment of members to select committees apply. Another example of the Standing Orders applying to the Joint Investigatory Committees are the proceedings on consideration of a committee's draft report. There is no specific mention in the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 as to how a committee should consider a draft report. The Standing Orders require a select committee's draft report to be considered by the committee paragraph by paragraph. As this is a topic on which the Act is silent, these Standing Orders apply. 4.3 The Environment and Natural Resources Committee in its submission suggested that Standing Orders and practices of the Parliament should not apply to Parliamentary Committees established under an Act: "Having two sets of procedural rules that overlap and give rise to areas of procedural uncertainty is not considered helpful.".[33] The Committee is of the view that the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 and the Standing Orders do not overlap. The Standing Orders merely "fill in the gaps" of the Act. 4.4 A detailed examination of the Standing Orders of the Council and the Assembly respectively and of the Joint Standing Orders of the Victorian Parliament revealed that there are several Standing Orders that currently apply to Parliamentary Committees set up under the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968. These cover such areas as the nomination and balloting of members for committees, requirements for minutes of committee meetings, the admission of strangers to committee meetings, the requirement that evidence taken by a committee not be published before its report is tabled and matters concerning committee witnesses. 4.5 In relation to the Standing Orders that deal with the nomination and balloting of members, the Committee is of the opinion that these requirements should not be moved from the Standing Orders and put into the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 or any other Act dealing specifically with Parliamentary committees. This is because the nomination and balloting takes place on the floor of each House of Parliament. It is therefore appropriate that the procedure be set out in a document that contains general Parliamentary procedure. The Committee is also of the opinion that matters relating to the summonsing of witnesses before Parliamentary committees should remain in the Standing Orders as failure to comply with such requirements should be dealt with by the President and Speaker following current practice. 4.6 The Committee notes that some Standing Orders set out detailed procedure to be followed that may be over-prescriptive. An example is Standing Order 210 of the Legislative Council. This Standing Order requires a Parliamentary committee's draft report to be read paragraph by paragraph to the committee and that members of the committee consider each paragraph separately. The Committee would welcome a review of the merit of this Standing Order. Recommendations: 4a. The Committee recommends that matters concerning Parliamentary committees that occur on the floor of either House of Parliament (for example the nomination and balloting of members) continue to be dealt with by Standing Orders. 4b. The Committee recommends that reviews of the Standing Orders take particular note of procedures relating to Parliamentary committees and endeavour to deal with these matters in a modern and appropriate manner. What should Victorian Parliamentary committees be doing?5.1 In House of Representatives Practice it is stated: "The principal purpose of parliamentary committees is to perform functions which the Houses themselves are not well fitted to perform, that is, finding out facts of a case, examining witnesses, sifting evidence, and drawing up reasoned conclusions.".[34] To this principal purpose may be added—
5.2 The Clerk of the Senate commented that it is generally believed that "the ideal committee system consists of subject-specialised committees with the ability to scrutinise government operations within those subject areas and to inquire into legislation or other matters falling within those areas referred to them by the house, either by specific or standing references".[35] He added that, in addition to such committees, committees that look at particular kinds of government activity across subject areas with particular specialised criteria of scrutiny are required. 5.3 The Committee notes that the Road Safety Committee, the Drug and Crime Prevention Committee, the Law Reform Committee, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, the Family and Community Development Committee and the Economic Development Committee of the Victorian Parliament belong to the first category of committee, that is the subject-specialised committee. The Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee and the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee appear to belong to the second category of committee mentioned by the Clerk of the Senate, namely the specialised scrutiny committee. 5.4 As previously discussed, the current Parliamentary committee system in Victoria is the product of various reforms. It seems to the Committee that the Parliamentary committee system consists of several committees covering a collection of ad hoc subject matter. 5.5 The question therefore considered by the Committee was: Would the Parliament of Victoria be better served by committees established under an Act that broadly reflect the areas of responsibility of the government's portfolios or departments? Several submissions were received in relation to committees following portfolio or department lines. 5.6 In studying the New Zealand Parliamentary committee system, the Committee noted that the New Zealand model has committees with responsibility for each area of policy (often called departmental committees). Associate Professor Elizabeth McLeay of Victoria University, Wellington emphasised this point during her meeting with the Committee in New Zealand.[36] The Committee acknowledges that there are areas of policy such as health, education and public transport which do not appear to be covered by the Parliamentary committees that are established by virtue of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968. The Committee believes that these are very important areas and are appropriate fields for consideration by Parliamentary committees. Indeed, health and education are possibly the two main areas of government activity that most obviously impact on the day to day life of people in Victoria. 5.7 The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales commented: "Should the New South Wales Legislative Assembly have the opportunity to start from scratch or review the committee system I would recommend the establishment of omnibus Standing Committees which would cover a number of portfolio areas of government administration.".[37] 5.8 The benefits of a portfolio or department-based Parliamentary committee system include—
5.9 Victoria currently has 9 government departments: Justice, Education, Human Services, Infrastructure, Natural Resources and Environment, Premier and Cabinet, Treasury and Finance, Sport, Tourism and the Commonwealth Games, and, Innovation, Industry and Regional Development. The Committee, noting the relatively small size of the Victorian Parliament and the desirability of maintaining Parliamentary committees such as the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee and the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, suggests replacing the current committees referred to in the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 with committees that would broadly cover the same subject matter as the government departments. The Committee suggests the following committees to reflect the breadth of government and public sector activity—
5.10 The Committee envisages that from time to time an issue may arise that is not relevant to the functions of these suggested Parliamentary committees. In such a situation, it seems appropriate to the Committee that the issue be dealt with by a committee that is established by resolution of either or both Houses of Parliament under Standing Orders. The Committee is of the opinion that the Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee should have the status of a select committee. This is because its concerns cannot be neatly allocated to one of the suggested new committees. In addition, this area requires short, sharp inquiries from time to time. This type of work is best suited to a select committee that is able to consider whole of government responses. 5.11 Currently, under section 4F(1)(a) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968, a Parliamentary committee must inquire into, consider and report to the Parliament on any proposal, matter or thing relevant to its functions that is referred to the committee by resolution of either House or by Order in Council. Section 4F(1)(b) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 provides that Parliamentary committees may inquire into, consider and report to the Parliament on any annual report or other document relevant to the functions of the committee that is tabled in Parliament under a requirement in an Act to do so. As discussed in paragraphs 11.1 to 11.8, the Committee is of the view that Parliamentary committees should, in addition, be empowered to initiate inquiries that are relevant to their functions. 5.12 The Committees feels that Ministers, should be encouraged to use Parliamentary committees as vehicles for—
5.13 In particular, the Committee recommends that Ministers routinely send draft or proposed Bills that are controversial or complex to Parliamentary committees for in-depth scrutiny by specific committees and also by members of the public by means of inquires run by committees. 5.14 The Parliament of New Zealand has a unique Parliamentary committee system. As described in Appendix B, its Standing Orders (SO 279-281) require most Bills to be referred to select committees, usually after the first reading debate in the House. They are referred to the committee that deals with the subject matter of the Bill. A referral is well publicised and the public is encouraged to make written submissions. Once submissions are heard, departmental advisers and committee staff prepare a report for the committee to consider. Parliamentary Counsel drafts amendments to the Bill according to the wishes of the committee. Finally the committee will go through the Bill clause by clause and formally adopt the draft amendments and the committee's final report to the House of Representatives. Generally, a Bill must be reported back to the House within six months of its referral. 5.15 Victoria, unlike Zealand, has a bi-cameral Parliament. The second House, the Legislative Council which is often referred to as a House of review, has among other things the function of scrutinising or re-examining legislation that originates in the Legislative Assembly. It can, therefore, be argued that the New Zealand practice of referring almost all Bills to a Parliamentary committee is not so vital in the Victorian context. However, there are advantages to the New Zealand system, such as better informed members of Parliament and increased public participation in the legislative process. 5.16 The Committee believes that the New Zealand model should be followed in Victoria in appropriate situations, for example in the case of controversial Bills or draft or proposed Bills or those that contain complex new policy. The vast majority of Bills are not controversial and therefore would probably not benefit or change as a result of closer scrutiny by way of a Parliamentary committee and public submissions. However such Parliamentary scrutiny and public contribution to the development or fine-tuning of controversial Bills (for example the Racial and Religious Tolerance Bill released for public consultation by the Department of Premier and Cabinet) may result in legislation that enjoys bi-partisan support and community approval and ownership. Recommendations: 5a. The Committee recommends that Parliamentary committees established under a new Parliamentary Committees Act should broadly reflect the areas of responsibility of each government department. 5b. The Committee recommends that Ministers use Parliamentary committees more readily as a means of researching issues for the Parliament and consulting the public. 5c. The Committee recommends that the Government consider referring draft or proposed Bills to Parliamentary committees where appropriate. Comments received on various committeesScrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee 6.1 The functions of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee are set out in section 4D of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968. The Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee is responsible for scrutinising Bills and regulations. The Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee considers Bills introduced into either House of the Parliament against a number of criteria including whether the Bills unduly trespass on rights or freedoms and whether the Bills alter section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975. The Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee also scrutinises regulations against criteria set out in the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994. In addition, the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee must review any Act when it receives a reference to do so (as in the case of this review of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968). Recently the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee was given further functions under the Co-operative Schemes (Administrative Actions) Act 2001 and it will also be required to consider whether Bills unduly require or authorise acts or practices that may have an adverse effect on privacy of health information within the meaning of the Health Records Act 2001. 6.2 The Committee received an extensive submission from the Executive Officer of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, Mr Andrew Homer, on the functions of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee.[38] Mr Homer noted that the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee may not scrutinise Acts. This limitation placed on the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee's jurisdiction was made obvious by the insertion in section 4D of paragraph (ba) which enabled the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee to consider Acts passed between 3 November 1999 and 31 December 1999. Mr Homer submitted that there are occasions when "it would be desirable, if not necessary, where the Committee should have jurisdiction to prepare a report for the Parliament on an Act. The Committee has previously experienced instances where Bills have passed all stages in both Houses on the same day, giving the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee no opportunity to consider the Bill, report to the Parliament or write to the Minister on matters of concern to the Committee.". 6.3 To overcome this problem, the Committee suggests that the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee be given the power to consider Acts with respect to the matters referred to in sections 4D(a) and (b) if the Acts were not reported on by the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee when they were still Bills. The Committee noted that the terms of reference provided by the resolution of the Senate establishing the Scrutiny of Bills Committee allows that committee to report on Acts without qualification. Road Safety Committee 6.4 Section 4EE of the Parliamentary Committees 1968 provides that the Road Safety Committee must inquire into "any proposal, matter or thing concerned with road trauma or safety on roads and related matters" if so required. 6.5 The Road Safety Committee advised the Committee that it had discussed its role and had concluded that it was now time to expand the committee's functions to transport safety in general.[39] The Road Safety Committee felt that as Victoria "is seen as a world leader" in the area of road safety issues, it was constrained by its current functions to make a further meaningful contribution. The Road Safety Committee referred to its counterpart in Queensland whose functions could be used as a model for revising its current functions. 6.6 The role of the Travelsafe Committee in Queensland is to inquire into—
6.7 The Committee agrees that the Road Safety Committee has done useful work and that its role should be expanded. The Committee is of the view, as mentioned in paragraph 5.9 that the Road Safety Committee should be replaced by a Transport Committee whose functions would cover road safety, public transport, ports and rail. Public Accounts and Estimates Committee 6.8 The functions of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee are set out in section 4EB of the Parliamentary Committee Act 1968. They are to inquire into, consider and report to Parliament on—
In addition, the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee has the functions conferred on it by the Audit Act 1994 and Part V of the Constitution Act 1975. 6.9 The Public Accounts and Estimates Committee submitted that the section 4EB "reflects the range of financial documents that were tabled when the Government had a cash accounting system. As a result of the introduction of output-based management and the recent Financial Management (Financial Responsibility) Act 2000[40], the range of financial and budget documents tabled in the Parliament has increased.".[41] 6.10 The Committee notes the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee's suggestion that paragraph (b) of its current functions be changed to—
Family and Community Development Committee 6.11 The functions of the Family and Community Development Committee are set out in section 4ED of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968. They are to inquire into, consider and report to the Parliament on—
6.12 The Committee agrees with the Family and Community Development Committee's submission that its functions are very broad and that this has allowed the committee to receive a very wide range of references. Indeed the functions of the Family and Community Development Committee are so wide, that it has conducted inquiries on matters which could have been dealt with by other committees. For example, the Family and Community Development Committee's inquiry on Legislation under which Persons are detained at the Governor's Pleasure in Victoria could have been conducted by the Law Reform Committee. Despite this, the Family and Community Development Committee's submission also states that because of the "relative lack of overlap with other Committees it is essential that the Committee continue". The Committee acknowledges the valuable work of the Family and Community Development Committee. This work has led the Committee to conclude that if its recommendations are followed in relation to replacing the existing Parliamentary committees with the committees referred to in paragraph 5.9, that the Family and Community Development Committee should develop into the Human Services Committee. Environment and Natural Resources Committee 6.13 The functions of the Environment and Natural Resources are set out in section 4EA of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968. They are to inquire into, consider and report to the Parliament on any proposal matter or thing concerning with the environment, natural resources or planing the use, development or protection of land. 6.14 The Environment and Natural Resources Committee submitted that its current functions as set out in the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 were relevant and appropriate and that the it should continue to operate.[42] The Committee agrees with this view, especially in light of its recommendation that Parliamentary committees should broadly reflect the subject matter dealt with by the various government departments. Law Reform Committee 6.15 The Law Reform Committee's functions are set out in section 4E of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968. In summary, its functions are to inquire into, consider and report to the Parliament on matters concerning legal reform. 6.16 A submission on the Law Reform Committee was received from the Hon. Ms Dianne Hadden MLC who is a member of the Committee.[43] Ms Hadden commented that the functions of the Law Reform Committee as set out in section 4E were "sufficient". She drew the Committee's attention to the different roles of Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee and the Law Reform Committee and suggested that given the establishment of the Law Reform Commission, it was time to consider changing the name of the Law Reform Committee. Ms Hadden was of the opinion that the Law Reform Committee should continue because of the good work that it does. A similar submission was received from the chairman of the Law Reform Committee, Mr Murray Thompson MLA.[44] 6.17 The Committee is of the view that the valuable work of the Law Reform Committee should be continued by a new committee, the Justice Committee as described in paragraph 5.9. Recommendations: 6a. The Committee recommends that the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee be given the power to consider Acts if they were not reported on by that Committee when they were still Bills. 6b. The Committee recommends that the Road Safety Committee should be renamed the Transport Committee and that its functions be expanded to cover road safety, public transport, ports and rail. 6c. The Committee recommends that the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee's functions be amended to reflect the full range of financial and budget documents tabled in the Parliament. 6d. The Committee recommends the Law Reform Committee should be renamed the Justice Committee and that its functions should be expanded to cover the administration of justice, police, the courts, prisons and law reform. House Committee7.1 The House Committee is a joint House domestic committee and does not have an investigatory function. Section 45 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 establishes the House Committee and provides that it consists of the President, the Speaker, 5 members of the Legislative Council and 6 members of the Legislative Assembly. These members are to be appointed at the commencement of each session of Parliament. By virtue of section 48 of the Act, the House Committee holds office for the session during which it is appointed until its members are appointed at the commencement of the next session or until the expiry or dissolution of the Assembly, whichever happens first. Section 46 sets out the powers and duties of the House Committee. The House Committee is responsible for managing the refreshment rooms and the Parliament gardens and maintaining the Parliament buildings. 7.2 Given that the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 deals primarily with committees that have some interaction with members of the public, the Committee is of the view that references to the House Committee should be removed from the Act and placed in the Joint Standing Orders of the Victorian Parliament. 7.3 In any event, the Committee has the following comments to make about Part VI of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968—
Recommendations: 7a. The Committee recommends that the House Committee should not be dealt with in an Act dealing with Parliamentary committees. Rather, the House Committee should be dealt with by the Joint Standing Orders of the Victorian Parliament. 7b. The Committee recommends that the tenure of the House Committee should be the same as other Parliamentary committees, namely that it hold office until the expiry of the Assembly by effluxtion of time or the dissolution of the Assembly, whichever happens first. Library Committee8.1 The tenure of the Library Committee is set out in section 36 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968. Like the House Committee, it holds office for the session during which it is appointed until its appointment at the next session, the expiry or dissolution of the Assembly - whichever happens first. Therefore, if the tenure of the House Committee were amended so that it is in line with those of the Joint Investigatory Committees, so too should the tenure of the Library Committee be amended. 8.2 In contrast to the House Committee, the membership and quorum requirements with respect to the Library Committee are in the Joint Standing Orders of the Victorian Parliament.[46] Since the Library Committee is partially governed by the Joint Standing Orders, the Committee feels that there is an even stronger argument than in the case of the House Committee for removing all mention of the Library Committee from the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 and amending the Joint Standing Orders to incorporate all aspects of the Library Committee. Recommendations: 8a. The Committee recommends that the Library Committee should not be dealt with in an Act dealing with Parliamentary committees. Rather, the Library Committee should be dealt with by the Joint Standing Orders of the Victorian Parliament. 8b. The Committee recommends that the tenure of the Library Committee should be the same as other Parliamentary committees, namely that it hold office until the expiry of the Assembly by effluxtion of time or the dissolution of the Assembly, whichever happens first. Size of committees9.1 Section 4B of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 provides that a Joint Investigatory Committee (other than the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee) may not consist of more than 9 members. The Public Accounts and Estimates Committee may consist up to 10 members. In addition, at least two members of a Joint Investigatory Committee must be members of, and appointed by, the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly respectively. 9.2 The Committee is of the view that the flexibility of the current size requirements for committees under the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 is a positive feature of the Victorian Parliamentary committee system. This is because it is difficult to be prescriptive in relation to size and composition requirements in an environment that can radically alter following an election. 9.3 The Committee believes that committee membership is an integral part of a person's responsibilities as a member of Parliament and members should strive to share the load and the rewards equally. These rewards include gaining expertise and knowledge in specific policy areas and the opportunity to work together in a bi-partisan manner, thus increasing one's contribution to the work of the Parliament. While acknowledging that some members have other special responsibilities (such as being Ministers), the Committee would like to encourage members of Parliament to participate as much as possible in the Parliamentary committee system. Recommendations: 9a. The Committee recommends that the Parliamentary committee system retain its current flexibility in relation to the size and composition of committees. 9b. The Committee recommends that members of Parliament be actively encouraged to participate as much as possible in the Parliamentary committee system. Chairmen's panel10.1 Section 4Q of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 sets up a committee consisting of the President, the Speaker, the chairmen of the Joint Investigatory Committees and the chairman of the Economic Development Committee. This committee may meet and hold discussions with a view to securing the more efficient functioning of the committees. 10.2 One submission suggested that section 4Q should be amended so that the President, Speaker and chairmen are required to meet at least five times each year.[47] At a meeting with the Committee, the President and Speaker agreed that the panel does not generally meet more than once a year. However both the President and the Speaker were in favour of retaining the provision in its current form.[48] 10.3 The Committee is of the opinion that such a provision, whether or not amended as suggested, is not required in an Act dealing with Parliamentary Committees. Naturally it is a good idea that there be regular meetings to consider the operation of the committees and to suggest ways in which it may be improved. While it would appear that this process is of an administrative nature and that accordingly no statutory mention of such meetings is required, the Committee is of the view that, in light of the President and Speaker's preference, mention of the meetings should be retained. This is in order to encourage continued discussion of, and improvements to, the Parliamentary committee system. Recommendation: 10. The Committee recommends that a provision similar to section 4Q of the current Act that sets up a committee to hold discussions with a view to securing the more efficient functioning of the committees be included in a new Act dealing with Parliamentary committees. Should Joint Investigatory Committees have the power to initiate referrals?11.1 Section 4F(a)(a) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 provides that a Joint Investigatory Committee is required to inquire into, consider and report to the Parliament on any proposal, matter or thing relevant to the functions of the committee which is referred to it by resolution of either House or by Order of the Governor in Council. The functions of each Joint Investigatory Committee are set out in the Act. 11.2 In practice, there may be little difference between retaining the status quo and giving committees the opportunity to instigate their own inquiries. This is because in Victoria, the Assembly is currently controlled by the Government and the Council is controlled by the Opposition. Thus, a joint committee which is controlled by government members can request that the committee be given a reference by Order of the Governor in Council. The same committee could also be given a reference by the Assembly as that House controlled by the Government. Alternatively, a committee controlled by the Opposition could be given a referral by the Council. 11.3 Several submissions were received on this issue. 11.4 The Hon. Dr Ken Coghill of Monash University's Parliamentary Studies Unit took the view that "Subject to Committees remaining subordinate to the Parliament, it is entirely acceptable that they should have a delegated authority to instigate their own inquiries".[49] The Committee takes this to mean that Dr Coghill was in favour of committees having the power to initiate inquiries within the general subject area of their functions as given to them by Parliament. The Environment and Natural Resources Committee made a similar point in its submission to the Committee.[50] 11.5 The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory drew the Committee's notice to the fact that "a feature of the committee system of the ACT is that standing committees have always had the power to instigate their own inquiries".[51] The resolution of the ACT's Legislative Assembly appointing a standing committee specifically states that inquiries may be instigated by the Assembly or by the standing committee itself. The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly commented that committees in the ACT see the power to instigate inquiries as important to their role of scrutiny of government and that this power also gives committees the opportunity to respond quickly to community concern about particular issues. This view is supported by Gavin who comments that "reliance of committees on the House (and therefore the executive) for referral of subjects leads to uncontroversial investigations and a weak committee system.".[52] The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales was also of the view that in order for a committee to be able to "provide for avenues of conducting inquiries independently of the executive", it was necessary for a committee to be able to instigate its own inquiries.[53] 11.6 The Clerk of the Senate, Mr Evans, seemed to be in two minds as to whether committees should be able to instigate inquiries.[54] Mr Evans stated that just as Parliament can appoint members to committees, so too should Parliament be able to "determine the matters for inquiry and the priorities of inquires". Yet he also believed that it is beneficial for "committees to be given some freedom in the areas they choose to scrutinise. This is particularly the case with oversight of government operations. Committees will accumulate expertise and knowledge in relation to particular areas of administration, and when they detect problems or concerns which should be looked at, they should be able to look at them at once by calling the responsible departments or agencies and initiating short, focussed inquiries.". Mr Evans suggested that extensive inquires should be determined by Parliament and that there should be good communication between Parliamentary committees and the Parliament. 11.7 The Joint Investigatory Committees do have some flexibility or freedom by virtue of section 4F(1)(b) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 which provides that a Joint Investigatory Committee may inquire into, consider and report to the Parliament on any annual report or other document that is relevant to the functions of the Committee and that is required to be tabled. However, the Committee understands that it usually only the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee which takes advantage of this provision when it scrutinises documents prepared by the Auditor-General and departments' annual reports. 11.8 The Committee concluded that, in the future, Parliamentary committees should be able to initiate their own inquiries. However, consistent with the multi-partisan operations of such committees, this should only occur if the members of the particular Parliamentary committee unanimously agree to initiate an inquiry. 11.9 The Committee recognised the importance of committees being independent of the executive and the value in Parliament having a mechanism by which Government activity may be scrutinised. The small number of members of a Parliamentary committee (as compared with the number of Members comprising the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council) encourages the examination and consideration of issues in great detail. Further, Parliamentary committees are able to respond quickly to matters as they arise. While it is anticipated that committees would rarely initiate inquiries, the Committee believes that in the interest of achieving a flexible and responsive Parliamentary committee system in Victoria, this avenue should be open to a Parliamentary committee in cases where the committee members unanimously agree that the committee should pursue an inquiry. Recommendation: 11. The Committee recommends that Parliamentary committees be allowed to initiate their own inquires if the committee members unanimously agree to do so. Committee members taking evidence12.1 By virtue of section 4L(6) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968, a Joint Investigatory Committee may, in appointing a sub-committee, empower one or more members of the sub-committee to take evidence. A similar provision in relation to members of full committees does not appear in the current Act. Therefore, the quorum requirements in respect of a full committee must be satisfied when evidence is taken during the course of an inquiry by the full committee. 12.2 The Committee considered whether it was appropriate for a member of a sub-committee to be able to take evidence and whether a member of full committee should be given the same power. Three submissions were received on this issue. 12.3 The Executive Officer of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, Mr Andrew Homer, expressed the view that it seemed illogical for a full committee not to be able to invest one of its members with the power to take evidence when the committee may, under the current Act, so empower a member of a sub-committee.[55] He suggested that committees and sub-committees should be treated the same way. This would allow a full committee to take evidence lawfully even when there is, for example, a momentary lapse in the required quorum numbers. 12.4 Mr Homer also commented that the words of section 4L(6) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 were ambiguous: "In appointing a sub-committee a Joint Investigatory Committee may empower one or more members of the sub-committee to take evidence...". Does this mean that a full committee may only empower a member of a sub-committee to take evidence at the time that the full committee appoints the sub-committee? The Committee believes that this is the correct interpretation of the provision and agrees with Mr Homer that the provision seems unnecessarily restrictive. No doubt there are instances when a sub-committee is appointed and the parent or full committee fails simultaneously to empower a member or members of the sub-committee to take evidence. 12.5 The Environment and Natural Resources Committee commented in its submission that all its inquiries are undertaken by the Committee acting as a full committee and that its inquiries frequently involved members going on field inspections and attending informal briefings, conferences and seminars.[56] The Committee noted that the Act was unclear as to whether such activities need to be undertaken by either a quorum of the Committee or sub-committee or by a member of a sub-committee who has been empowered to take evidence under section 4L(6). 12.6 The Committee is of the view that the activities described by the Environment and Natural Resources Committee need not be undertaken by the full Committee or by a member of a sub-committee who has been empowered to take evidence. A committee may inform itself about an inquiry subject in whichever way it pleases. It is not necessary to take all evidence on oath. Indeed, the Committee understands that evidence is only rarely taken on oath, generally in very serious matters where, for example, an allegation is made as to a person's reputation. In any event, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee could appoint a sub-committee for the purpose of taking evidence in the course of a field inspection if it considered it necessary to take evidence in a formal manner. 12.7 The President and Speaker of the Parliament of Victoria recommended that sections 4L(6) and (7) be omitted. They commented that sub-committees consisting of one member were not in the spirit of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968.[57] With respect, the Committee notes that section 4L(6) and (7) do not allow the establishment of sub-committees consisting of only one member. Indeed, section 4L(1) provides that "a Joint Investigatory Committee may appoint sub-committees of not less than four members...". The President and Speaker also commented that one-member sub-committees "can too readily be used as a means of circumventing quorum requirements. They are also discourteous to witnesses.". A similar point was made by the Executive Officer of the Road Safety Committee.[58] 12.8 The Committee agreed that the option provided by section 4L(6) to empower one member of a sub-committee to take evidence should only be used when appropriate. If a committee believes that a witness would be offended by giving his or her evidence to only one member, then it is clear that the committee should not use section 4L(6) and that the whole committee or whole sub-committee should hear the witness. 12.9 The principal advantages of enabling one member of a Parliamentary committee to take evidence are that the committee saves time and money. This is particularly the case where witnesses are not able or willing to travel to Melbourne and where the witnesses live in difficult locations around Victoria or indeed interstate or overseas. A provision similar to section 4L(6) would allow several members to met witnesses in different places at the same time and the committee would not have to travel in a group. 12.10 The Committee cannot see the logic in limiting the capacity of individual members to take evidence to members of sub-committees and is of the opinion that no distinction should be made between sub-committees and full committees. The Committee also believes that a committee should be able to empower an individual member to take evidence at any time, provided that this is the unanimous decision of the committee. Recommendation: 12. The Committee recommends that a full committee may only empower an individual member to take evidence if the committee members unanimously agree to do so. Sending for persons, papers and records13.1 Section 4J(1) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 gives Joint Investigatory Committees "power to send for persons, papers and records". Generally, this power is only invoked if a request for particular evidence or the appearance of a witness is met with refusal. 13.2 It has been commented that without the power to send for persons, papers and records, that committees "become simple study circles, inferior to the various executive-appointed bodies, such as commissions of inquiry, which have the power to compel evidence".[59] 13.3 In their joint submission, the President and Speaker of the Victorian Parliament asked whether section 4J(1) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 gives committees the power to send for exhibits or electronically stored information.[60] It seems to the Committee that as section 4J(1) currently stands, the answer is no. Obviously there is a need for committees to have such powers. One can imagine that committees may wish to send for exhibits or things in the course of their inquiries. For example, if the Environment and Natural Resources Committee was investigating the occurrence of a particular animal disease in Victoria, it may wish to see an animal that suffers from that disease. Since the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 was enacted, the computer revolution has occurred. Vast amounts of information are now stored electronically. It is unclear whether the Act allows committees to call for information stored in this kind of manner. 13.4 The Committee is of the view that the committees should be given the power to "send for persons, documents and other things". The words "other things" covers exhibits. "Document" is defined very broadly in section 38 of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984. Paragraph (d) of the definition of "document" provides that "document" includes, in addition to a document in writing, any disc, tape, sound track or other device in which sounds or other data (not being visual images) are embodied so as to be capable (with or without the aid of some other equipment) of being reproduced therefrom". This covers information stored electronically. 13.5 The Committee notes the more recently enacted Parliamentary Committees Act 1995 of Queensland. Under section 25 of that Act a statutory committee is "authorised to call for persons, documents and other things". Recommendation: 13. The Committee recommends that Parliamentary committees be given the power to send for persons, documents and other things Publishing evidence and allowing evidence to be considered by other committees14.1 Confusion exists among the staff of the Joint Investigatory Committees as to when they may or must publish evidence. Section 4R(1) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 provides that a Joint Investigatory Committee must on request, unless special circumstances exist, make available—
14.2 This appears to contradict section 4R(3) of the Act which provides that a Joint Investigatory Committee must not disclose or publish any evidence given to it in private. 14.3 Some committees find it puzzling that the Standing Orders[61] seemingly, contradict section 4R(1) of the Act.[62] The Committee notes that there is no actual inconsistency between the Standing Orders and the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968. By virtue of section 3(2) of the Act, the Standing Orders and practices of the Parliament as to select and joint committees extend and apply to committees referred to in the Act except as otherwise expressly provided in the Act. Thus, although the Standing Orders may provide that no evidence can be released before a committee lays its report before Parliament, if the Act allows evidence to be released (as section 4J(1) does), then the Standing Orders have no application in that regard. 14.4 The Committee was interested to learn that it is the normal practice of the Road Safety Committee to avail itself of the exemption given in section 4R(1) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 by resolving at the start of each inquiry that special circumstances exist which prevent the release of any submissions until the report of the Committee has been tabled in Parliament.[63] It is the opinion of the Committee that this is not how Parliament intended section 4R(1) should operate. The Committee is of the view that a Joint Investigatory Committee should decide on a case by case basis, taking into account all relevant considerations, whether "special circumstances" exist that would make it "undesirable" for the Committee to release a particular submission, item of evidence or determination. 14.5 Concern was raised about reassuring witnesses or persons making submissions that the evidence which they gave in private would continue to be treated confidentially. The Executive Officer of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, Mr Andrew Homer, was of the view that committees should not be able to "de-classify" evidence without the express permission of the person. He argued that this would increase witness confidence in the Parliamentary committee system in Victoria.[64] Similarly, the Executive Officer of the Road Safety Committee, Mr Barry Aitken, thought that people should have the right to make submissions without fear of being ridiculed by other members of the public.[65] However, the Clerk of the Senate, Mr Harry Evans, commented that the prohibition in section 4R(3) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 which prohibited the disclosure or publication of evidence given in private was "unduly restrictive".[66] 14.6 The Committee believes that clear guidance needs to be provided by an Act dealing with Parliamentary committees as to which documents in the possession of a Parliamentary committee may be released and which documents must be kept private. The Committee noted the suggestion made in the joint submission by the President and Speaker of the Victorian Parliament that "there is a need to define what material ... cannot be released" - in other words, it should be expressly stated what type of evidence or documents must not be disclosed. 14.7 The Committee discussed the issue of how evidence and documents should be treated in detail. It seems to the Committee that four broad principles should be followed—
14.8 There is also considerable confusion about the operation of section 4S of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 which provides—
14.9 The Committee agrees with comments of the Clerk of the Senate that the wording of the provision is unnecessarily "convoluted".[67] Committee staff are unsure as to how similar the "proposal, matter or thing" considered by the defunct committee and the new committee is required to be. It was suggested that the provision be simplified and that confidentiality resolutions regarding the treatment of the evidence by the former committee be upheld by the current committee.[68] 14.10 At a meeting with the President and Speaker of the Victorian Parliament, the Committee learnt that the unwritten practice of the committee system in Victoria was for a current committee to apply to the President and Speaker for permission to consider evidence gathered by a former committee. The Committee noted that this was not evident on the face of the section 4S. 14.11 The Committee considered how two other Australian jurisdictions whose Parliamentary committees are established under an Act dealt with the issue. Section 30 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 of South Australia provides that where the composition of a committee changes (for example, after the start of a new Parliament) before the committee completes its inquiry, a newly constituted committee may continue the inquiry and consider any evidence as if all the evidence had been given to the committee as newly constituted. Section 32(2) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1995 of Queensland is very similar. The Committee did not think that these examples covered the situation of, say, the Drug and Crime Prevention Committee wanting to examine the evidence taken by a former Law Reform Committee. 14.12 The Committee is attracted to the South Australian method of enabling a committee of the same name but of a different composition to complete an inquiry started by the committee as previously constituted. However, the Committee is of the opinion that a committee should only be able to continue an inquiry started by the committee of the same name if the originating committee's membership was that membership in existence immediately before the current membership of the committee or if the old committee and the new committee have the same purpose. The Committee feels that evidence must be evaluated within the context in which it is given and that it is therefore not desirable to allow long periods of time to lapse between the giving of evidence and the making of recommendations based on that evidence. 14.13 Guided by the principals set out in paragraph 14.7 the Committee concluded that evidence taken by a Parliamentary committee on the basis that it is confidential should remain confidential even if that evidence is later considered by the same committee with a different membership. Recommendations: 14a. The Committee recommends that all evidence given to a Parliamentary committee should be treated as public unless the committee accepts the evidence on the basis that it is confidential. 14b. The Committee recommends that confidential evidence remains confidential unless the person who gave it later consents to its publication. 14c. The Committee recommends that evidence gathered by a Parliamentary committee that has not completed its inquiry before it is reconstituted, may be used by a committee of the same name or with the same purpose. Use of modern technology by Parliamentary committees15.1 The President and Speaker of the Victorian Parliament in their joint submission asked that the Committee examine the merits of teleconferencing, and evidence-taking and committee meetings in the internet or intra-net environments.[69] The issue of the use of modern technology by Victorian Parliamentary committees could, in the opinion of the Committee, be the sole subject of an inquiry. However, the Committee felt it was appropriate to consider the issue in brief and make some recommendations. 15.2 The Committee received only one submission that directly suggested that the Victorian Parliamentary committees make greater use of modern technology, namely that public hearings be conducted via video conferencing where there is significant public interest shown by the number of submissions received.[70] 15.3 The submission made by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales mentioned that the Legislative Assembly's Standing Orders and Procedure Committee was considering whether to amend its Standing Orders to provide committees with the power to meet via a teleconference, video conference or other similar arrangement.[71] 15.4 The most recently reported examination of technology and Parliamentary committees in Australia was, to the knowledge of the Committee, undertaken by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure in 1999.[72] The Committee considered and discussed the findings of the Standing Committee on Procedure. 15.5 The Committee agrees with the conclusion of the Standing Committee on Procedure that the issue of expanding the use of technology by Parliamentary committees has 2 main strands—
15.6 Information about the Parliamentary committees can be accessed via the internet. The homepage of the Parliament of Victoria (www.parliament.vic.gov.au) provides a link to the homepage of each Joint Investigatory Committee. The homepage of each committee describes the function and composition of the committee, lists its current and past inquires and explains how to contact the committee. Committee reports and discussion papers can be downloaded. The Committee notes that the Law Reform Committee also lists the names of persons who have made submissions in relation to various inquires. The Economic Development Committee goes further and actually publishes the text of some of the submissions it has received. 15.7 The Committee notes that most committees of the House of Representatives make submissions available on their websites and that this has led to a decrease in the number of paper copies of submission mailed in response to requests. 15.8 Section 4R(1)(a) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 provides that a Joint Investigatory Committee shall on request make available to any member of the public a copy of any written submission made to it under section 4J(6) of the Act. 15.9 The Committee is of the view that submissions received by Victorian committees should generally be made available on the internet. However, concern was raised in relation to submissions made to committees in private. Obviously such submissions should not be available on the internet. The Committee believes that persons who make submissions should be informed that their submissions may be made available to the public. 15.10 The Committee discussed whether audio or audio visual links should be used to conduct formal meetings, particularly for the purpose of taking oral evidence. Both advantages and disadvantages in allowing Parliamentary committees to make use of such technology were identified. Advantages include—
Disadvantages include—
15.11 The Committee also considered the appropriateness of conducting meetings held for the purposes of committee deliberation where all or some of the members were linked by electronic means. Section 4G(2) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 provides a Joint Investigatory Committee may only sit and transact business in such places in Victoria or elsewhere as are convenient for the proper and speedy dispatch of business. The quorum requirements for the various committees are set out in section 4B of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968. 15.12 Under the common law, a meeting required the physical presence of members.[73] Thus in Higgins v O'Grady [1971] IAS Current Review 65 it was held that resolutions purportedly passed by telephone hook-up were invalid. A body, however, could include a provision in its governing rules authorising the holding of a meeting by telephone. However, it was held in the New South Wales Supreme Court case of Wagner v International Health Promotions Pty Ltd (1994) 15 ACSR 419 that the phrase "meet together" in a company's articles included a meeting of minds made possible by modern technology. 15.13 The Committee notes that all committees of the Senate may meet "electronically", without members being physically present in one place.[74] It seems to the Committee that there is nothing in the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 that would necessarily prohibit Parliamentary committees in Victoria from meeting electronically. However, to put this beyond doubt, the Committee is of the opinion that it should be directly expressed in an Act dealing with Parliamentary committees that committees may meet electronically. 15.14 A provision similar to that in the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Act 2000 which provides "The Authority may permit members to participate in a particular meeting, or all meetings, by telephone, closed circuit television or other means of communication." seems appropriate for a new Act dealing with Parliamentary committees. Recommendation: 15. The Committee recommends that Parliamentary committees make greater use of technology by—
The tabling of reports16.1 Section 4O(1) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 requires the chairman of a Joint Investigatory Committee to lay his or her committee's report to the Parliament before both Houses of the Parliament within 10 sitting days of the report being adopted by the Committee—
16.2 Based on sitting patterns of recent years, it appears that generally there about 60 days each year on which a report may be laid before the Parliament. 16.3 The Committee received four submissions that commented on section 4O(1) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968. 16.4 The Executive Officer of the Road Safety Committee was of the view that committee reports should be tabled in Parliament before they are publicly released.[75] In his opinion, placement on the public record is important and Parliament is the best mechanism for this. His other concern was that committee reports were required by the Clerks or President and Speaker to be tabled in printed form rather than photocopied form. The Committee is of the view that this is a purely administrative matter which is inappropriate to be dealt with by Act. 16.5 The other submissions received in relation to section 4O(1) concern a different aspect.[76] It was suggested that an amendment be made to the current arrangements to enable or permit committee reports to be tabled outside the sitting time of Parliament. The arguments for such a change may be summarised as follows—
16.6 A mechanism by which committee reports may be tabled between sittings of Parliament is not novel. Section 14(7) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 of South Australia provides one possible model—
16.7 The Council of the Parliament of New South Wales establishes committees by resolution of the House. The resolution of the Council in May 1999 that established five standing committees also provided for the committees' procedures, including the tabling of committee reports—
16.8 Section 4 of the Longford Royal Commission (Report) Act 1999 contained a similar provision and enabled the Commission's report to be published while Parliament was not sitting. 16.9 The submission made by the President and Speaker of the Victorian Parliament mentioned a proposed Bill, the Constitution (Parliamentary Privilege) Bill. If this Bill had been enacted as introduced, it would have enabled committees to table reports when Parliament is not sitting. The Bill was second read in the Legislative Assembly on 17 May 2001. It was to have amended the Constitution Act 1975 to provide for the publication of, and Parliamentary privilege in relation to, certain reports and documents laid before the Parliament when Parliament is not sitting. Clause 3 was to insert a new section 74AC into the Constitution Act 1975 to deal with Parliamentary committee reports as follows—
16.10 Another proposed provision provided that if a report was given to the Speaker and the President in accordance with section 74AC, the Speaker must cause each member of the Assembly, and the President must cause each member of the Council, to be so notified in writing, by fax, e-mail or other electronic communication. 16.11 The Committee notes that House Amendments moved by the government and supported by the opposition radically changed the Bill as described above. It became the Constitution (Metropolitan Ambulance Service Royal Commission Report) Act 2001 and its operation was limited to allowing the tabling of the MAS Royal Commission report during non-sitting time. 16.12 The Committee is of the view that a provision along the lines of proposed section 74AC of the Constitution (Parliamentary Privilege) Bill should be included in an Act dealing with Parliamentary committees. However, the Committee acknowledges that a government and opposition may, depending on the particular circumstances, be politically advantaged or disadvantaged by the tabling and release of a report which Parliament is not sitting. In order to maintain the bi-partisan nature of committee work in Victoria, the Committee believes that while the tabling of committee reports on non-sitting days should be permitted, an Act dealing with Parliamentary committees should provide that the option is only available if the committee which prepared the report has unanimously agreed to its tabling on a non-sitting day. Recommendation: 16. The Committee recommends that Parliamentary committee reports should be able to be tabled when Parliament is not sitting if the committee unanimously decides that this is appropriate. Ministerial response to reports17.1 Section 4O(2) of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 requires the appropriate responsible Minister, within six months of a Joint Investigatory Committee's report being laid before both Houses of the Parliament, to report to the Parliament as to any action that the Government proposes to take with respect to a recommendation made in the report—
17.2 In Queensland, by virtue of section 24 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1995 of that State, a responsible Minister must respond to a committee report within three months after which the report is tabled. Section 24 of that Act also gives a responsible Minister, if the Legislative Assembly is not sitting, the option of giving his or her response to the clerk of the Parliament for tabling on the next sitting day. 17.3 The Committee believes that there is value is adopting a similar procedure in Victoria. The business of government continues during the year when Parliament is not sitting; policy is formulated in preparation for the next session and administrative decisions are made, both of which may be influenced by the response of a Minister to a committee report. 17.4 The Queensland and South Australian Parliamentary Committee Acts require the ministerial response to include the recommendations to be adopted and the way and time within which they will be carried out and the reasons for not adopting any of the committee's recommendations. The Committee is of the view that the current Victorian practice should likewise be strengthened. 17.5 As mentioned above, one of the benefits of tabling a report when Parliament is not sitting is that the contents of the report do not go stale. It follows that prompt consideration of a committee's report after it is released is also preferred. The Committee formed the view that Ministers should be encouraged to respond to committee reports before the expiration of six months. The Committee suggests that a Minister be required to make an interim report within two months and that a final and detailed report along the lines of the Queensland and South Australian Parliamentary Committees Acts be tabled within six months after the committee's report is released. Recommendations: 17a. The Committee recommends that responsible Ministers should provide interim responses to Parliamentary committee reports within two months. 17b. The Committee recommends that responsible Ministers should provide final and detailed responses to Parliamentary committee reports within six months. 17c. The Committee recommends that the final Ministerial responses to committee reports should include the recommendations that are to be adopted and the way and time within which they will be carried out and the reasons for not adopting any committee recommendations. 17d. The Committee recommends that if Parliament is not sitting, responsible Ministers should be able to table their response to committee reports with the President and Speaker. Private Bills18.1 A "private Bill" (as referred to in Part II of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 and in the Standing Orders of the Legislative Council and the Assembly[77]) is a Bill for the particular benefit or interest of a person or group or a public corporation or local authority. Private Bills should be distinguished from Bills that have operation in a particular locality but nevertheless affect the public in general and are therefore public Bills. 18.2 The procedure for the passage of private Bills is different from the passage of public Bills. The President or the Speaker (depending on which House a Bill is introduced) has the power to rule that it is a private Bill. If the Bill is ruled to be a private Bill, notice of its purposes must be published in a newspaper circulating generally in Victoria and, if applicable, in the locality affected by the Bill. Objections to a proposed private Bill may be lodged; and the President or Speaker must appoint a panel of examiners to report to the House on the objections and to recommend whether a joint select committee should be appointed. If appointed, that committee considers the Bill in light of its preamble and reports to the House on whether it should proceed. 18.3 The Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 contains provisions allowing the recovery of costs where an objector to a private Bill has been unreasonably and vexatiously subjected to expense in defending the rights proposed to be interfered with by the Bill or where objections to a private Bill are unreasonable and vexatious. Before a private Bill can be read a second time, the promoter must pay $1000 towards the expenses of its passage. The promoter must also pay for the cost of the printing and circulating the Bill and the expenses of any joint select committee that is appointed. 18.4 Three submissions were made in relation to Part II of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968.[78] Each submission expressed the view that the provisions in Part II should not form part of an Act dealing with Parliamentary committees. The Committee concurs with this view. It seems to the Committee that these provisions would be better placed in a separate Act that dealt solely with private Bills. Those interested in private Bills would be able to find the relevant legislation easily. Others, who wish to know how the Parliamentary committees operate that are currently known as Joint Investigatory Committees, would not be confused by presence of provisions that have nothing or little to do with these committees. 18.5 The Committee notes that provisions in Part II of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 are long and difficult to read. Doubt has also been expressed as to whether the provisions accurately describe the procedures actually used by Parliament in relation to private Bills. As the topic of private Bills falls outside the Committee's referral, the Committee limits its recommendation to suggesting that separate legislation be prepared pertaining to private Bills. Recommendation: 18. The Committee recommends that an Act dealing with Parliamentary committee not include provisions pertaining to private Bills. Separate legislation may be appropriate. Appropriation19.1 Section 4T of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 provides that expenditure incurred by a Joint Investigatory Committee is payable out of the Consolidated Fund which appropriated to the necessary extent. This is a standing appropriation. A special appropriation is a standing authority which remains in force until amended or repealed by Parliament. It is in respect of specific once-off or ongoing payments that need to be made independently of the government's annual budget priorities. 19.2 It is the understanding of the Committee that the global budget in respect of all committees established under the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 is allocated by the Department of Treasury and Finance and that each year the Parliamentary committees submit budget bids which are considered by the President and Speaker and by the Clerks of Committees. Money that is not spent by the Parliamentary committees by the end of the financial year may not be retained by the Parliamentary committees but must instead be returned to the Consolidated Fund. As a result Parliamentary committees tend to increase spending near the end of the financial year so as not to "loose" their budget. 19.3 If the money allocated to the Parliamentary committees were given to the Parliamentary committees under the annual Appropriation (Parliament) Act, the committees would be less likely to increase spending towards the end of the financial year. This is because they would be able to roll-over up to 3 percent of unspent expenditure in respect of the next financial year. The President and Speaker are very keen that this reform occur as soon as possible.[79] Recommendation: 19. The Committee recommends that Parliamentary committees be funded by an appropriation made under the Appropriation (Parliament) Act each year. Committee staff20.1 The committees established under the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 are located at 35 Spring Street, Melbourne in office accommodation. Each committee has an executive officer, an office manager and one to three research officers. In addition, the Joint Committee Administration Office consists of a manager, a computer systems officer and about four administration officers who perform clerical duties. The executive officers have an overall responsibility for the proper running of the committees. They provide procedural advice, assist in drawing up inquiry schedules, arrange travel, organise hearings, keep committee minutes, research issues and write committee reports. Where appropriate, these tasks are delegated to other committee staff. 20.2 The Committee is of the view that adequate staffing is vital to ensure that the Victorian Parliamentary committee system provides Parliament with the information that it needs. To this end, the Committee believes that the status and role of committee staff should be enhanced and that staff should be provided with career development opportunities. 20.3 The Committee was interested to learn that in New Zealand committee staff, while being allocated principally to one particular committee, may also be provide services for other committees at the same time. This arrangement helps committees meet deadlines and ensures that staff are occupied between inquires held by their "home" committee. The Committee believes that this practice should be followed in Victoria, especially in relation to clerical duties and general administration. 20.4 Some committee work requires specialist staff, such as lawyers, accountants and scientists. The Committee believes that it is preferable that the executive officer of each committee has the qualifications and experience relevant to the committee to which he or she is attached. However, the Committee is of the opinion that where appropriate, research staff should be generalists to encourage the cross-fertilisation of ideas and experience. 20.5 In order to build up an excellent skills base, the Committee suggests that secondments to and from government departments should be encouraged. This would be of advantage to both the Parliamentary committees and the Public Service as their staff would gain a broader understanding of the role of, and connection between, the Executive and Parliament. 20.6 The Committee believes that this is an area that should be under constant review by the Clerks, President, Speaker and committee chairs in conjunction with the executive officers of each committee to facilitate best practice. Recommendation: 20a. The Committee recommends that the status and role of committee staff be enhanced and that staff should be provided with career development opportunities. 20b. The Committee recommends that Parliamentary committee staff be shared between committees and that a clearer career structure should be developed for research officers to Parliamentary committees. 20c. The Committee recommends that secondments of staff to and from government departments be facilitated and actively encouraged.
Scrutiny
of Acts and Regulations Committee |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||