Production of Documents Select Committee Report

Ms WEBB (Nelson) – Madam Acting President, interestingly, this committee was formed on my very first day sitting in this place, which was exactly one week after the result of my election was declared.  So, in the very early stages of my time.  When I came to this elected role, I had what I believed to be, a relatively reasonable knowledge of parliament and how a Westminster parliamentary democracy works.  However, this committee was an incredibly timely opportunity, right at the outset of my parliamentary term, to delve into the powers, the structures and the processes of our parliamentary system.  I found it highly interesting and useful.  

All of us here know that unlike most other jobs on the planet, you are not required to have any particular experience or qualifications for this job of being a member of parliament.  In fact, technically, you do not even have to know anything about this job before you find yourself doing it.  You do not need to necessarily know about its full functions and powers, the functions and powers of parliament broadly, your powers, what your responsibilities will be when you are a member.

Members do arrive here with varying depths of knowledge about their role and varying degrees of previous contact or interaction with this place.  I recall the member for Murchison mentioning to me when she walked into this building as a new member it was the very first time she had ever entered the place, which is really interesting.

Given that, this committee process was highly valuable for me.  I am particularly keen to point to one of the recommendations in the report.  Recommendation number 5 reads:

Government and state service employees, Government Business Enterprises and state-owned company employees and members of parliament receive education and training regarding the role and functions of the Tasmanian Parliament under the Westminster system of responsible and representative government.

That is a really excellent recommendation to highlight and promote.  The value of this would then play out for, not just those employees of Government, public service and other entities, but for members here to be provided with education and training in a way that is impartial and independent, but robust. This would be a very valuable thing.  We are all, as I mentioned in another context this week, custodians of this democracy we have in Tasmania while we are members of this place.  We need to be well informed and well‑equipped custodians to undertake the role.  That is a little preamble really around this committee process report. I felt it was valuable.

If nothing else and in the intervening time before perhaps, that recommendation 5 is enthusiastically adopted by the Government and taken forward, in the meantime I would certainly encourage all members of parliament, certainly members of this place, new members, but also longstanding members, to take some time to read this report from this committee process.  All of us would find it valuable, even if it is a refresher of things you are already well aware of, or if it is new and additional information to take on board in the earlier stages of your time here.  I commend it to you as useful.

Mr Valentine – You are never too long in service to learn something new.

Ms WEBB – Indeed, absolutely, or be reminded of some very key things.  I must admit, when I began in the committee process I was very interested to hear about events that occurred prior to my time that had given rise to the committee being formed.  The member for Murchison has outlined some of those in her contribution.  Those unresolved instances of conflict over the production of documents, where we had the executive refusing to produce documents called for by Legislative Council committees are very interesting examples to contemplate.  There is a parliamentary record of these that can be tracked.  They are certainly tracked throughout the report from the committee.  Again, very interesting to contemplate, learn from and think about for all of us here.

Given that, there were these clear triggers and matters unresolved.  It was disappointing and a telling thing the Government did not support the formation of this committee.  To obstruct really, or attempt to obstruct the actual formation of a committee’s inquiry that would seek to gain information, evidence and build a picture around an issue relating to the fundamentals of how our parliament and democracy functions.  To seek to obstruct that would indicate an unfortunate attitude to this place.  That is a shame.  We should all be mature and confident enough to welcome any opportunity for us to examine, inquire into, look at and build a picture around these fundamental aspects of our democracies, our parliamentary system and the way that functions.  To ask ourselves how we might assist with and contribute to through that process, making those things more robust and stronger, as we are here as representatives for our community to do that.

It is a shame.  That attitude of trying to obstruct even the formation of a committee to look at this issue is not just a reluctance to be held to account.  It is actually, unfortunately, some indication of disrespect for this place and the functions that it undertakes.

Following on from that, in this process we received 17 submissions and they were excellent submissions by and large.  They came from expert scholars in the area.  They came from people with extensive experience of parliament and extensive experience of the public service, a really good range.  Engagement with the inquiry through those submissions, through the hearings that we held, the content and quality of the evidence that was produced through both those functions, really demonstrates the value of what we have now reported on here and the relevance of holding an inquiry to look at this issue.

It was a real shame – again perhaps not surprising given the Government’s reluctance for the existence of the committee in the first place – but it was a shame that the Government did not participate more wholeheartedly in this committee.  Providing a submission that did not contain a great deal of substance unfortunately and I am saying that not to be finger wagging; I am saying that to express disappointment.  It was an opportunity to engage in a full and worthy debate of this issue and I do not think that is what we had from the Government.  We did not have a willingness to engage in a full and worthy debate through a fairly insubstantial submission and then a refusal from members of the executive to actually appear at hearings.  That is a real shame.

However, that aside, the submissions we received were valuable and interesting.  The hearings were particularly useful.  We had hearings here in this state with those who had submitted to us.  Many of those scholars and those with extensive experience of parliament, which I found quite informative.

I found the interstate hearings particularly useful because in those circumstances as a committee we were able to delve into how this is dealt with elsewhere.  We as a parliament are not unique in encountering issues, the tensions between the powers to call for documents and the executive to then maybe refuse.  Others have dealt with this and it was particularly useful to go and hear about and interrogate how that has played out in those other jurisdictions. 

I thank those who gave their time for us in those hearings in other jurisdictions to provide us with their insights and their experiences.  It certainly painted an interesting picture and emphasised for me that each jurisdiction will be unique in taking this forward and deciding how and what manner best suits their own jurisdiction to manage this situation.

It was particularly interesting in New South Wales.  We were able to physically go and be escorted by the clerk there to see the room where the documents are then produced and held and where their Legislative Council members are able to go and view how the record keeping happens.  It was really useful to see that play out.  New South Wales is the jurisdiction that has the longest standing and most frequently utilised process in place to manage the call for documents and the arrangements for adjudicating disputes that may arise.

The member for Murchison spoke about – and I will not go into detail, but I think it is worth repeating that pertinent point:  from 20 years of that system operating in New South Wales where upper House members have ready access to all manner of documents through the calling for document process and have viewed and interacted with those documents frequently, there have been absolutely no leaks.  No leaks at all.

Ms Forrest – The point I did not make and maybe you might like to reiterate is the fact that members can talk amongst the members about these documents.  They can discuss it like I could discuss it with any member here if I was reading the document but they cannot speak to anybody else about it.  Not their staff and certainly not the media or anybody else.  They have been able to do that and still kept it contained.

Ms WEBB – Thank you for adding that in.  The relevance of that should be highlighted.  We are all asked to be members of this place with integrity and ethics and to take our responsibilities with the utmost seriousness.  At times it can be easy to throw accusations around or dismiss people’s motivations or the levels of integrity and ethics they might hold.

That system in New South Wales and the lack of leaks, the fidelity of that system, has shown us that members of parliament do take their roles seriously in that way.  When they have been provided with an avenue genuinely to undertake their full role, not blocked and not obstructed but actually facilitated in that, the system works well.  People behave as they should and I think that is a wonderful thing to have observed and to have highlighted here. 

Unfortunately, if there is an instinct to block and obstruct this place and its members doing their role and undertaking very standard and routine parliamentary functions as part of that, then you are inviting and expecting members to behave badly or behave to a lesser standard.  That is a shame.  We should and can assume that all members are here to do a good job and to do it with integrity and with the highest ethics.

The government of the day, whichever it might be, is well-served to stand aside and allow that to happen.  It is in their interests to be able to be shown to be transparent and accountable and to be able to engage with and defend, if necessary, the actions that they are undertaking as Executive Government.

There were many matters that arose in the committee process that I found very interesting to hear discussion and different views about.  I will just touch on a couple here very briefly because, again, the member for Murchison has covered them off in more detail.  I would encourage people to look at this report and delve into it.  It may sound dry but it is incredibly interesting to those of us who care about the functioning of this place and want to act well in it.

Some of the matters I found interesting were the exploration that occurred in this post-committee process and are reported on here about the principle of public interest immunity and the things that can be captured in that.  In particular, also that aspect of, what are the parameters that may be considered Cabinet documentation, and what would be covered by Cabinet confidentiality?  To hear about the way that is dealt with in different jurisdictions is highly interesting.  I was particularly interested to be informed about the New Zealand model where Cabinet documents are made public within 30 days of Cabinet meetings.  It is a genuinely open government approach that they have there.

Ms Forrest – It is only in recent times, since Jacinda Ardern became Prime Minister.

 Ms WEBB – Indeed.  It is a great example of a modern, mature democracy functioning as it should.

It is easy to pay lip-service to transparency and accountability or open government but the rubber only hits the road when you see it in action; when you see that it is not just in the talk but also in the walk.  Certainly, New Zealand is leading most jurisdictions in Australia and nationally.  Releasing Cabinet documents within 30 days is an incredibly accountable and open way to conduct your business.

From that jurisdiction we also heard quite clearly their belief or their evidence that this had led to a better quality of public service advice to government and that is fascinating and really valuable to contemplate.  We heard different views from other people, and it is actually captured in the report, about the potential to constrain public service advice through the potential for things to become public.

I did delve into that, to see if it was based on actual experience and evidence of that occurring or it was an assumed potential outcome.  I am not sure we gained a full demonstration that there is evidence that it occurs; whereas the New Zealand side says their experience is that it does improve the advice of the public service to government.  There is still room for contemplation there.  Those were some particular matters of interest that I enjoyed engaging with, and hearing arguments and learned views, through this process.

This report from the committee process is an excellent foundation of evidence for consideration by which this matter can be taken forward.  We now have a starting point for action. The report provides a pathway and suggests how we might proceed from here.  Fundamentally, under the system of responsible government, parliament is supreme.  The executive government is answerable to it.  We know that is the case on paper but that only plays out in reality if parliament is prepared and willing to exercise that power in holding government to account and where the government is prepared to be a participant process.

There is always going to be tension there; but to the greatest extent possible I believe it is of most benefit for a strong and well-functioning democracy if the parliament and the executive are able to navigate those roles and those powers in the most respectful and least antagonistic way.

I believe that the path that has been mapped out here would deliver us a well-defined and agreed dispute resolution process around the production of documents.  That process is important in averting the need for – and perhaps the inevitable degeneration into – those more politically charged adversarial avenues that are available to us but would be preferable not to implement.

I have not yet encountered one of the scenarios that have been triggers for this committee.  However, I believe this place should not be reticent in exerting its powers and pursuing those avenues that are available if we still find ourselves at a hypothetical future date of another matter of dispute.  If we should find ourselves without an agreed and defined resolution process, I hope we can navigate our way through it, and firmly exercise the powers available to us.

I finish my contribution in the same way as the member for Murchison, with heartfelt thanks to the committee staff who helped facilitate this process, organise us through it and assist in the production of an excellent report which is a valuable document for the records of this place.

I commend the report to all members.

Read the final Porduction of Documents Committee Report here

See more Motion speeches from Meg