Motion to Establish a Joint Select Committee to Inquire into Tasmania’s COVID-19 Response and Recovery
Meg Webb – Motion to Establish a Joint Select Committee to Inquire into Tasmania’s COVID-19 Response and Recovery
Mr President, I move —
Noting the significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the lives of Tasmanians and given the emergency response by the Tasmanian Government including Coronavirus related expenditure, legislative and public policy developments, that a Joint Select Committee be appointed with power to send for persons and papers, with leave to sit during any adjournment of either House, with leave to adjourn from place to place and with leave to report from time to time to inquire into and report upon—
(1) (a) The State’s immediate and ongoing COVID-19 response and recovery measures;
(b) the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the health, economic and social lives of Tasmanians; and
(c) any other matter incidental thereto; and
( 2) That the number of Members to serve on the said Committee on the part of the Legislative Council be four.
And requests the concurrence of the House of Assembly.
I distributed the draft text of the proposed motion to all MPs last week, in an attempt to balance the need for adequate time for consideration and the constraints imposed by the current parliamentary sitting schedule to consider this motion before we head into the winter recess.
At the same time, I also circulated a Background Briefing paper comparing the parliamentary scrutiny of interstate legislatures during the COVID-19 pandemic, along with a summarised Rationale document making the case for the establishment of this committee.
Rather than take up time reading large chunks of those document into the Hansard now, I instead seek leave to table them…
It is likely that all here would have experienced within their lifetime emergency and catastrophic events, either personally and within their communities.
I reflect on previous disasters in our state, whether it be floods, the bushfires of 1967, 2013, or 2019, the Port Arthur tragedy, the Beaconsfield mining disaster and many more that time prevents me from honouring here now, but they all reverberated throughout our community beyond any localised point of immediate impact.
We would all recognise the pattern of response to these events; the activation of our emergency services and communal efforts, as well as a subsequent period of individual and community reflection, mourning and rebuilding.
And now we have faced a challenge like no other in our lifetimes – the coronavirus pandemic.
In this, we are all affected. Every single Tasmanian has been, and will continue to be for some time, affected by the coronavirus pandemic.
While some Tasmanians may be fortunate enough to be able to pick up the pieces and resume something that resembles their lives prior to the summer of 2020, for many their lives have changed irrevocably.
Similarly, at the macro level the full extent of the impacts upon our economy and society are yet to be fully fathomed. It must also be acknowledged, as the Premier has had the unenviable task of having to do, there are real, tragic costs, with Tasmanians losing their lives.
You do not need me to tell you the extent to which this pandemic has resulted in unprecedented challenges, changes, and loss. The sheer magnitude of that impact is of great relevance to this discussion.
I’m conscious that in normal circumstances, when contemplating a proposed Joint Select Committee, it is valid to ask ‘how does this issue merit a formal parliamentary inquiry? Why should there be a dedicated joint select committee to address this issue?”
But given the scale and magnitude of this pandemic and its ramifications, I believe that question is redundant in this instance.
Rather, as responsible elected representatives I think we must ask ourselves – have we put in place all fundamental and comprehensive mechanisms available to us as Parliamentarians?
Are we throwing everything we have, within our democratic role, at helping all Tasmanians get back on their feet in the face of this pandemic?
My answer to that question is, ‘not yet’.
As Parliamentarians, we have a key role to invest in Tasmanians’ trust and public confidence in their systems of governance. Tasmanians must have confidence in how and why decisions were, and continue to be made which limit and restrict their day to day lives.
The Premier is upfront with his warnings that there are still tough months, possibly years, ahead, and that we all still need to do our bit.
I regard the establishment of a Joint Select Committee inquiry into Tasmania’s COVID-19 Response and Recovery to be an appropriate and necessary mechanism by which we elected representatives do our bit for the Tasmanian community.
When thinking about this matter over recent months, I went back to the basics.
I asked myself –
What is the responsible role for Parliament, particularly in relation to that core function of scrutiny, during times like these?
Helpfully, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association very promptly turned its mind to this question of the role and functioning of Parliament during the COVID-19 crisis and produced a toolkit for our reference.
Fellow CPA members will have received it, as I did, by email on 28 April this year.
For those Members who may not have seen this document, I now seek leave to table it…[see below]
The CPA’s toolkit, emphasises the responsibility of Parliament to scrutinise all legislation and policies proposed by government including routine laws and any emergency powers proposed during the pandemic.
While the toolkit does not dispute the necessity for emergency legislation, and I quote from page 13, “Emergency, fast-tracked legislation … is used to take decisive and rapid action in response to emergencies such as the current COVID-19 global pandemic”, it also identifies a range of good practices which should be employed for any such emergency legislation.
One identified mechanism is the Parliamentary Committee system which should play an important role during a crisis in relation to post legislative scrutiny.
Under the heading Action Points for Parliaments on p 16, Action Point 3 focuses on Post-Legislative Scrutiny, it says:
In the absence of robust scrutiny during the passage of Emergency Legislation, it is even more important during this period for Parliamentarians to identify any unintended effects of emergency measures and to suggest changes where necessary. Post-legislative scrutiny can also examine procedural issues in addition to the implementation of legislation, particularly as the rapid passing of bills can place additional pressure on processes within Parliaments
The toolkit also highlights the fact that while Emergency Legislation may be necessary, it brings with it some potential problems, which increase the importance of scrutiny to hold the government to account.
Under the heading Challenges for Parliament on p.15 it says:
The massive extension of Executive power and the curtailing of certain civil liberties in society, in conjunction with a restricted Parliament, means that Parliamentarians are crucial to ensuring that scrutiny is applied and that any government is held to account as far as possible…”
This CPA toolkit provides broad guidance on the expected role and responses of a parliamentary democracy. I commend it to my colleagues.
We can look to other Australian jurisdictions for an indication of what this looks like in practice.
Interstate comparison
The Background Briefing paper that I’ve provided lays out a picture for us which shows that six of our eight subnational legislatures and our Federal parliament have instigated committee inquiries into their respective jurisdiction’s COVID-19 responses and recovery efforts.
Western Australia has not done so as yet, but they also took a different direction from the rest of the country by being the only jurisdiction to increase its parliamentary sitting schedule since the emergency was declared.
Which leaves Tasmania as the outlier in terms of formal parliamentary scrutiny.
No two jurisdictions look exactly alike. Our interstate counterparts have all approached this in a way that suited their particular arrangements, but in each there is an identifiable mechanism that fulfils a comparable function of the Joint Select Committee that I propose here.
Clearly, all other parliaments not only recognised but acted upon the principle expressed by the CPA of heightening parliamentary scrutiny and oversight during this crisis which saw unprecedented consolidation of power being exercised in an extraordinary manner.
And to be very clear, those other jurisdictions also have a range of other parliamentary and non-parliamentary efforts in play, including committees of inquiry with a more narrow or specific remits, parliamentary sitting with Question Time, subordinate legislation committees, advisory bodies both within and external to government departments, media scrutiny and, in some cases, elections on the horizon.
Of course, it is our decision how best to respond to our local context and act in the most appropriate way for the needs of our state.
That we may look to other jurisdictions is not a suggestion that we mimic exactly what they are doing, but more to get a steer on what has been regarded as the norm when it comes to the appropriate amount of scrutiny from Parliament.
Why Joint House Select Committee?
I regard our lack of a broadly focused joint select committee of inquiry on the COVID-19 response and recovery thus far to be a failure of this Parliament to deliver the appropriate amount of scrutiny on behalf of the Tasmanian people.
We can recognise and value other efforts in place to capture, review and evaluate elements of this challenging time. But pointing to them and acknowledging their work does not elevate them above a piecemeal approach.
These disparate parts do not cobble together to form a whole and do not deliver the value and outcomes that I believe would be delivered by the committee I propose.
Nor should we have to pick and choose between them. I don’t believe we are in a situation of having to ration the democratic options available to us in this Parliament, most especially not at this time, under these circumstances.
It is widely established that a vibrant and responsive parliamentary committee system is crucial to the health of, and public confidence in, our systems of governance.
Parliamentary Committees are an essential feedback loop between the Executive and the Electorate – they are a core parliamentary responsibility.
When dealing with an issue of the magnitude of this pandemic, a joint select committee provides a parliamentary response that is as representative of the full parliament as possible, with all parties able to be represented and inclusive of a breadth of independent representation.
I believe it would be appropriate for the load to be shared equitably across both chambers; with the entire Parliament working together on behalf of the Tasmanian community.
A joint select committee carries a non-partisan credibility that may be missing from other committee options.
Some other jurisdictions were able to task this kind of broad scope of inquiry to an existing joint standing committee. Here in this state, we do not have an existing joint standing committee that could encompass similar breadth.
A number of our existing joint standing committees can and are playing a key role in addressing specific areas of scrutiny and documentation of this COVID-19 time as it falls with their particular functions and scope. The Subordinate Legislation Committee and the Public Accounts Committee would be examples of this. In each case, these committees are undertaking COVID-19-related scrutiny functions within their statutory role.
Alongside its regular role, the Subordinate Legislation Committee is scrutinising Notices issued under the COVID-19 Disease Emergency Act. This is a valuable and appropriate role for this committee, however it tightly circumscribed in its scope.
The Public Accounts Committee will be engaging in scrutiny of public expenditure and the economic response and stimulus measures related to this COVID-19 time. Again, that will be valuable and appropriate work within the prescribed remit of that committee.
Does the work of these two existing committees complement the joint select committee I’m proposing? Absolutely.
Do these two committees fulfil the role and accomplish the outcomes that can be delivered by the proposed joint select committee? No, they do not.
My assertion, is that we need not limit ourselves to these siloed efforts; we do have the capacity for those committees to fulfil their function and to also meet our broader scrutiny responsibilities. We can reap the benefit of a full suite of parliamentary activity.
I know some members here feel wary of having what they would describe as ‘too much scrutiny’, with the sense that it is a burden.
I prefer to ask ‘do we have too much transparency?’
And I wonder what level of transparency we would regard as being too burdensome?
Unique offering from a Joint Select Committee of Inquiry
My intent in promoting the establishment of this committee is to be constructive.
It would an appropriate mechanism by which the parliament can deliver near real-time scrutiny of unprecedented and extraordinary governance through executive actions, legislative changes, and policy implementation.
It also offers an input mechanism by which all affected Tasmanians can place before the Parliament for consideration a diverse range of individual and stakeholder experiences and ideas
Further, the proposed committee is timely.
Best value will come from this work while still proximate to the execution and impact of those unprecedented and extraordinary actions.
Parliament will soon go into the traditional winter recess period, which is the time when many parliamentary committees get a lot of their work done.
In short, I believe this committee process could provide a unique opportunity for an overall evaluation and documentation of our state’s COVID-19 experience.
It would provide a comprehensive public record through systematically gathering evidence of what worked, what didn’t, and what people may have done differently with the benefit of hindsight. Were we as prepared as we’d presumed? What lessons can be identified for future reference? The answers to these questions are all crucial contributions to good future policy development as well as a matter of public record.
For example, this committee would have the broad remit to invite and review the perspective of the State Controller on the governance arrangements connected to his statutory role – did he have all the tools necessary to undertake his role as best as he wanted to? What difficulties did he experience, if any? What would he identify as potential improvements and why?
Similarly, the remit to be looking at the Tasmanian Emergency Management Plan, to examine whether it was fit for purpose for a pandemic, compared with say a natural disaster.
I contend it would be both appropriate and the responsibility for a joint select committee to examine and review the degree to which such official and statutory preparation requirements played out during the COVID-19 crisis, and during the transition and recovery stages, and any reforms necessary.
And, of course, there are many other official roles and processes, statutory and otherwise, which have not yet been truth-tested – we need to capture that feedback and insight while it is fresh.
These are just some suggested matters that I don’t believe readily fall with the remit of existing or planned Parliamentary committees and inquiries, but which could appropriately be considered under this proposed committee of inquiry.
The scope of inquiry proposed for this joint select committee is a unique opportunity for posterity. It will deliver an important and unique public record, a non-partisan governance resource for future reference, at the local, national and international levels. Such a governance record would also reflect Tasmania’s unique status, including our challenges & opportunities, as an island state.
I believe that the Tasmanian government should want this story told. And it is one that is best told objectively.
An aspect that I regard as particularly valuable is that this committee would, in an expansive way, invite public involvement into this exercise of accountability – providing an opportunity for the community to speak directly to Parliament, their elected representatives, on matters they wish to contribute as a formal part of the public record. This goes beyond feedback or consultation.
Now is the time to encourage individuals and organisation to come forward and place their experiences upon the public record to test and ground truth against policy decisions already enacted, as well as assist in informing the development of good public policy moving forward.
Recovery is not just about rebuilding or restoring as important as they are. It is also an opportunity to draw on the experience we have shared and reimagine, reinvent and reset where we want Tasmania to be.
There can be a number of avenues for this work – it is by nature a collaborative effort – and it is appropriate that the Parliament, as the people’s elected representatives, plays a formal role through the respected mechanism of a joint select committee.
Support from Government
So far, here in Tasmania we have picked off the low hanging fruit of scrutiny; the straightforward parts, the already allocated and in some cases, the more comfortable parts. All of which are valuable and appropriate in their own right. But we have so far missed what should be the fruitful harvest of fully meeting our parliamentary responsibilities.
It may be that the Government chooses not to support this committee or other similarly broad oversight in this time, but with all due respect to them, it is not the Executive that should decide the level of Parliamentary scrutiny that is applied to it – that is a decision for the Parliament.
As members well know, in our democracy the Parliament is supreme, the Executive in answerable to it. That is our role on behalf of the Tasmanian community. It is a pillar and strength of our democracy.
And while any Government of the day may chafe at that, I firmly believe that a mature, responsible, confident Government should welcome that accountability. I encourage the government to recognise it not just for the appropriate place it has in our democratic system, but for the value it holds in delivering opportunities for better governance.
It’s easy to pay lip service to transparency and accountability, and then to shy away from delivering on it in the ways that count most. I encourage the government not to do that in this case.
In recent times when it has come to the health of our people, this Government has demonstrated strength, courage and leadership. I hope that those qualities don’t fail them now, when it comes to ensuring the health of our democracy.
Conclusion:
To conclude, I wish to acknowledge that there are many others who have called for, and continue to do so, a dedicated parliamentary inquiry such as this over the last few months. This effort includes those in the other Chamber, as well as in the broader community.
Similarly, I need to thank you all once again for allowing this matter to be expediated here today, as well as for the frank and respectful discussions I’ve had with many of you these last few days in the lead up to today’s debate.
As we emerge from the most extraordinary period of disruption our state, and nation, has experienced in living memory, I genuinely believe that it is appropriate for elected representatives to utilise all parliamentary processes available on behalf of the community, including this proposal for a comprehensive dedicated joint select committee of inquiry into our COVID-19 response and recovery.
I commend the motion to the House.
Read Meg’s letter to the Premier re a establishing a Joint Select Committee to Inquire into Tasmania’s COVID-19 Response and Recovery
Read Meg’s recent media relating to establishing a Joint Select Committee of Inquiry
