Supply Bills 3 & 4 2021

Ms WEBB – Thank you, Mr President, I have a few remarks to make although I agreed with much of what the member for Murchison has just said.  For the record, we had similar thoughts on a number of those things so let me pick up on a few of them.

At the outset it is worth noting there does not appear to be anything untoward or suspicious regarding these two Supply Bills (No 3) and (No 4) and no reason to dispute the Government’s reasoning for their necessity.

Clearly, given the identified ongoing uncertainty due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to be prepared for the risk of going into a snap lockdown, we need to ensure we keep paying our hard-working public servants, our essential frontline workers and keep providing the services that Tasmanians rely upon.  Nobody is disputing that, I believe.

Also, it is worth acknowledging the Government did attempt to provide a courtesy heads up that not only would they be asking parliament to consider these two supply bills prior to the established appropriation bill processes but to also allow the highly irregular and arguably undemocratic rushing through of these bills to the extent of tabling, debating and passing the bills in one sitting day.

As I said, we were provided with that prior notification, the bills and their support information and the reasoning alongside them was provided via email to us at approximately 4 p.m. on last Friday 20 August.

However, via the media the public were notified on Monday of this irregular request.  That was the day before the resumption of parliament and the expected debate on these bills in the other place.  However, I am not really aware and might be corrected, that the public did not have access to those bills prior to them being tabled and debated on that same day.  They were tabled, they were debated and although it had been put into the public domain that they were coming, they themselves were not available.

This gets me to the point that really needs to be made that no matter whether the intention is good or not, a rushed and unnecessarily secretive process here in this parliament is problematic.

Mrs Hiscutt – I object to the secretive process.  This was an emergency to take care of an emergency plan that was here and now; it was not worked on for months and months and then introduced.

Ms WEBB – If I may continue then.  The withholding of information from the public is the antithesis of an open, transparent and accountable government, no matter how genuine and good the intentions may be.  Yes, it may only have been three days since we were provided with the bills and with the justification for the irregular and extraordinary processes which see the bills debated and passed on the same day, but the principle here is important. 

This approach, unfortunately, makes the rest of us here in this place complicit in what is an undemocratic process because we were provided earlier access.  We were taken into the Government’s confidence to some degree and it is unclear to me why the Tasmanian people could not also have been taken into the Government’s confidence at the same time.  Why not put it into the public domain on that same day it was provided to us?

Yes, it was a matter of a couple of days, but it is the principle that democracy is open and transparent.

The point I want to emphasise and request is that the Government seriously consider, yes, the ongoing nature of the pandemic and the serious risks of Tasmanians being plunged into lockdown does provide challenges.  Extraordinary ones that have to be tackled and yes, we as a parliament need to be prepared and flexible, but it is imperative we still deliver on those fundamental democratic parliamentary principles, rather than just resorting to shorthand ways of getting around them as if those principles are expendable inconveniences.  In fact, we need to make an effort – and be seen to overtly be making an effort – to demonstrably be delivering open and transparent governance at these extraordinary times under these significant challenges.

The manner in which these supply bills are being dealt with cannot be considered, I think, to represent a precedent or a prototype, should the Government find itself in a legislative bind due to the pandemic disruptions at some further point down the track.

To reiterate, I do not dispute the genuine intent of the Government to secure essential supply with these bills.  However, I do hold reservations with the current process.  I warn that the support for parliament for the passage of these supply bills should not be interpreted by the Government as an endorsement of this process as some sort of precedent for future pandemic-related reasons to rush legislation through this place.

Instead, this situation and the identified need to be prudent highlights that the next step the Government should already be considering as part of its COVID-19 lockdown planning, should be to work with other MPs and MLCs in this place as to how to keep the Tasmanian parliament functioning appropriately and safely should a lockdown be required. 

There are other examples, nationally and internationally, of quorum-only parliaments or parliamentary sessions being held remotely, et cetera.  Today’s debate is not the forum for us to resolve the specifics of what that could look like.  However, given that today’s debate is being conducted on the premise that we need to be prepared for the likelihood of our parliamentary schedule being disrupted again by a lockdown, it is reasonable to expect that the Government must also be preparing to safeguard the functioning of our parliament more broadly in the case of that eventuality.

Members here would recall that this Chamber did vote last year in support of the establishment of a joint house select COVID-19 response and recovery committee, which, unfortunately, did not receive Government support in the other place and did not get up.  Suffice to say, this rushed debate today on supply bills outside the standard appropriation process illustrates one of the reasons that committee was necessary and remains necessary. 

How to maintain democratic and responsive parliamentary scrutiny during a lockdown is another reason it remains necessary.  We are now 18 months into this pandemic.  One of its first impacts 18 months ago was to shut down this place – our parliament, the foundation of our democracy – for a period during which the Tasmanian people were deprived of their right to democratic representation. 

When parliament is shut down, we are effectively operating in a dictatorship.  The primary mechanism by which we hold the government of the day to account is not available in that circumstance and our representative democracy is not in operation.  While many may regard what occurred as a benevolent dictatorship, perhaps, and did not observe any overt or inappropriate misuse of power during the times we have seen, without our parliament in operation it is a dictatorship nonetheless.  It is unnecessary that we remain in a situation in which the risk of a parliamentary shutdown still hangs over our heads. 

While our focus today is on continuing our financial arrangements – so that they can operate during a possible COVID-19 shutdown – is important and necessary, I have to question why we have not also seen this Government presenting parliament with a plan.  Where is the plan, Mr President, and, potentially, the associated legislation to give effect to that plan to put in place arrangements for parliament functioning during a lockdown period?  Where is the demonstration from this Government that it regards the full functioning of our parliamentary democracy as a matter of utmost priority? 

Let me remind us here that in our system of parliamentary democracy, parliament is supreme.  The Executive is answerable to parliament.  If, through this Government’s neglect to plan and legislate for alternative arrangements, this parliament is shut down for, potentially, an extended period the state of Tasmania will be operating under a dictatorship again.  A dictatorship that has been facilitated, whether by design or neglect, by this Government. 

I call on the Government to demonstrate immediately that it is not in the business of securing unfettered power for itself.  I call on the Government to present forthwith its plan to secure instead the proper and effective functioning of our parliament in these uncertain times.

See more Legislation speeches from Meg here