Keeping tabs on government in Queensland

We are all used to hearing, and saying, Queensland is different. When we hear it from outsiders it is often said in an outdated condescending tone. When Queenslanders say it, it is with a sense of pride.

There are a lot of things that make Queensland different. They are many and varied, and add to the Queensland experience. For decades people have recognised that, whatever those factors are, they make Queensland a unique and attractive place to live. As a result migrants have been flooding into our State from all the States of Australia, and from around the world.

One thing that definitely makes Queensland unique in Australia is our unicameral Parliament. After the Legislative Council was abolished by the Theodore Labor government in 1921, it has left Queensland as the only Australian jurisdiction with no Upper House. While the issue of reintroducing the Upper House is hotly debated (even within households as is the case with my wife and I) it is unlikely to ever happen as neither the Labor Party nor the LNP advocate for it. It is also unlikely that when put to a referendum the voting public would vote for more politicians.

While supporters of the current system argue that it allows an elected government to govern, and a bad government to be thrown out at the next election, it provides no genuine process of review. With this absence of any effective system of review, four-year terms should not be introduced into Queensland with its unicameral parliament. Electors should be provided with a regular franchise so that a bad government can be replaced.

The New South Wales experience of four-year terms, even with an upper house - a House of Review - is instructive. The current Rees Labor Government, beset with problems and scandals, will not face the electorate until 2011, leaving NSW facing turmoil for another two years.

Since the 2001 Queensland election when the Beattie Labor government was re-elected with 66 of the 89 seats in the Parliament, there have been huge Labor majorities, a very small Opposition, and no process of review. The size of the Parliamentary majority in Queensland is not healthy. It has in the past proven to be unhealthy whichever side of politics has been in power, and is producing bad and arrogant government.

A factor that compounds the lack of scrutiny on the government is the number of MPs who sit in Executive government. Eighteen Ministers, and 11 Parliamentary Secretaries, making up one third of the 89 Members of the Legislative Assembly, are in the Executive. The concept of the Separation of Powers or independence between the Parliament, the Judiciary, and Executive government is severely tested by the current Labor Government. The Executive Government in Queensland at best pays lip service to the Parliament, and at worst completely ignores it.

One way of delivering the desperately needed reform of the Queensland Parliament is to genuinely reform the Parliamentary Committee system. Parliamentary Committees in Queensland have had a chequered past and today work with varying degrees of success within a limited framework. There is a range of committees including Standing and Select Committees, and Estimates Committees which supposedly review the budget in detail.

All of the committees consist of seven MP’s; four government and three non-government; giving the government control of them. The Chair also has a casting vote. Former Premier Beattie increased committee membership from six to seven in 2001 to provide his huge backbench with jobs and additional pay. Like his decision to dramatically increase the number Parliamentary Secretaries, it was made to court favour within the Labor Caucus rather than to improve the operation of Parliament.

The committees have very limited and specific jurisdiction, have little ability to call and question witnesses, and are controlled by government members so do not usually deliver reports critical of the government or investigate contentious issues.

The major exception has been where the government has wanted a difficult issue investigated by a committee to insulate itself from the ramifications of making a decision, or to give it the semblance of a bipartisan recommendation. In these cases it has referred specific matters to a Select Committee. Ironically, having been established for purely political motives, it is these committees that have probably produced the best results. MPs have approached these issues with diligence and bipartisanship, and generally the results have been very thoughtful and balanced.

The recent examples, such as the Review of Organ and Tissue Donation Procedures Select Committee, and the Investigation into Altruistic Surrogacy Committee have produced worthy outcomes with committee members genuinely working to achieve a positive result.

Notwithstanding the efforts of the MPs on any of parliament’s committees, most people would be hard pressed to name any of the work or outcomes of their deliberations. Some may remember the Gordon Nuttall effort at the Estimates Committee; reports from the Travelsafe Committee regarding new and learner drivers; or even some of the high profile cases contemplated by the Members Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee; but even their greatest supporters would say committee successes have been few and far between.

While their current usefulness in Queensland is limited, a reformed committee system provides an answer to increasing parliamentary scrutiny of the government.

Queensland’s unicameral parliament may be unique in Australia, but it closely resembles our close neighbour New Zealand which also has no upper house. It is to New Zealand we can also look to provide a blueprint for what is widely recognised as the most effective committee system in our region, if not the Commonwealth. It has a system that does provide the review role normally played by an upper house.

Committees should be restructured so that they encompass a number of like portfolios within their jurisdiction. The major political parties base their own parliamentary legislative committees around portfolios, so it makes sense to extend the concept to the parliamentary committees. They could easily encompass the work carried out by the current committees, and be extended to provide real input.

The New Zealand system provides for legislation introduced to the Parliament to be normally referred to the relevant committee immediately after the first reading, before it is debated at all. The committee then reviews the legislation, consults with the Department; public, stakeholder and industry groups, and is able to hold public hearings to enhance their consideration and make recommendations and even suggest amendments. The committees report is debated prior to the second reading debate and a vote proceeds in the Parliament.

A portfolio-based committee could also fulfil the current role of the Estimates Committees, examining the budget for each portfolio. It should also be able to launch inquiries on its own initiative.

With a specialised and increased knowledge of each portfolio, committee members should be able to make a more valuable contribution to the process. Specialist committees such as the Members Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee would remain.

Most importantly however, these changes would provide an increased level of scrutiny and transparency to a system that inherently is open to abuse and corruption. Queensland’s Parliament has experienced significant criticism over the years and major improvements can still be made to it to provide Queenslanders with improved representation.

Whichever political party goes into the coming election promising real and meaningful parliamentary reform will have a policy worthy of support.