REFERENCES

I move:

That this house requires the Environment and Planning Legislation Committee to  inquire  into,  consider  and  report on  the  following  departmental  annual  reports, together with  the estimates of expenditure, for 2012-13 that  are to  be tabled in the coming weeks —

(1) Department of Premier and Cabinet;

(2) Department of Sustainability and Environment; and

(3) Department of Planning and Community Development;

and calls on the committee to write to the respective departmental secretaries  to  invite  them and other relevant senior staff to give  evidence  at  public  hearings  at 8.00  p.m.  on Wednesdays of  sitting  weeks throughout  October,  November and December 2012 in the completion of its inquiries.

— — —

I rise to speak  in support of the  motion I moved  in  this debate. I am chair of the Environment  and  Planning  References Committee  and  deputy   chair  of  the  Environment  and  Planning  Legislation Committee. Mrs Peulich is chair of the legislation committee and deputy chair of the references committee.

Initially all parties  in the  committee process as well as in this chamber were quite  supportive of and  optimistic about the new  committee system because  we knew that it  provided a new opportunity for a greater number of  people in this chamber to  scrutinise  and analyse the  legislation that would come  before the house.  It would give us an opportunity to go through and look at annual reports and other areas under the portfolios of the various committees  that  have  been set up, and also,  in terms  of the  references committees,  there would  be the potential of really dealing with some key issues confronting the community.

The work and the workload of the committee structure is largely dependent on the government and the house endorsing the sponsorship of the work  that  is  generated  by the government. I find it unfortunate  in  terms of the two committees I  am  on that work has not been  provided   to  the  committees.  In  fact  the  Environment  and  Planning Legislation  Committee has  not met since 21 February; it has not met  for eight months. The  committee I chair has not met since 3  May this year. We provided a report but have not been given  another  reference. I should have thought, given that sitting on a Wednesday night is the norm for this house, that any member of the voting public would expect us to sit on committees if we were not sitting in the  house.  That  was the  intent of  the  people  who  were  involved  in  the negotiation  and  setting up  of  the  committee structure;  that  is  what they believed would happen.

We can talk about the  standing orders and about the word ‘may’ versus the  word ‘must’, but quite seriously the  people who negotiated the  arrangements for the new committee  structure believed the new  structure was important enough to use the usual time in which Parliament sits to conduct investigations,  whether that be proposed  legislation  or  new trends and topics that needed to be discussed. There was also an expectation  that  the  work  of  those  committees  would  be properly  supported.  When  I  say  ‘supported’  I  also mean that they would be provided with work to  do. In  certain quarters  there has  not been enough work given to the committees to undertake.

In terms of the point raised by Mrs Petrovich when she said, ‘We’re not going to have a situation where  the committee system is going to be used  by Labor to do Labor’s work’, quite frankly I consider that to be an appalling statement.

In  all  honesty the committee system  was  set  up  for  really  good,  genuine bipartisan work to be done, but from my experience  it has been a seriously lost opportunity. It was fantastic to hear stories today about at least one committee that works, but  in  terms of the experience  I have had in the  environment and planning  area it just has not  happened. I  do not  think the  Victorian public would  seriously accept that it is a good practice that  if a committee of eight people has a meeting it  means  everyone else in the chamber goes home.  It is a situation that  would not be acceptable to anyone, regardless of their political affiliations.

We  need to  give  due  regard  to the  workings of  staff behind  the committee structure. They need to know whether they are going to be required to work on  a Wednesday night way in advance of what the current practice is.

It is simply not  fair to have situations like we have had in the past  where we are  expected to  stay here on business that is not necessarily urgent until all hours — 2 o’clock or 3 o’clock in the morning — and then find  out that we are not required on a Wednesday night, which is within the so-called normal  working hours when Parliament operates.

In  terms  of  the  annual  reports  that  are  submitted and the opportunity to scrutinise them, it is a concern that when you talk to members of the government about the opportunity to do  that  in a proper process through a work  plan in a committee they say they do not want that to happen because it would be a fishing expedition.  If  that  is  the view of members, it is quite unfortunate  because there  are  some  real lessons  to be  learnt about  a whole  range  of  things, particularly  when  there have  been  significant changes  in  the machinery  of government.  It  is  a very  good  learning experience  for  backbenchers  to be involved in that process.

Unfortunately my experience has been that people are not even prepared to have a work plan; they are just sitting  back and waiting for the government to provide them with a reference. As I said, it has been eight months since the Environment and Planning Legislation Committee met and the references committee has not  met since May.

I also  take this opportunity to talk  about the committee itself. I do not want to go into the dysfunctional elements, even though I  have  been  quite provoked today  by comments  made by  Mr  Elsbury in  another debate.  A number  of other comments have been made by committee members  that  are reported in Hansard, but as I have said  on previous occasions, I am simply not  going  to feed into that frenzy, because what I am interested in are the actual issues dealt with and the content of reports, not all the  other accusations about people operating within the standing orders and other such things.

In terms of  the latest  reference the committee I chair reported on, a minority report  was attached. The  terms  of reference  were  strongly sponsored by  the minister, and I recall him — —

  Hon. D. M. Davis — Ministers.

  Ms TIERNEY– As I understand it, though, Mr Davis was the lead minister. Yes, I understand Matthew  Guy as Minister for Planning was part of it,  but Mr Davis was the lead minister. I recall that most of the committee  members attended the launch  of the state conference held by the Planning Institute of Australia.  We also had an opportunity to talk to a whole range of stakeholders about the terms of reference.  There  was  an  upbeat attitude in the room; almost everyone said they were  very happy  with the  terms  of  reference  and  that  they would  be participating.

It is fair to  say it was a fairly trying exercise. This  committee did not meet just on Wednesday nights, because we thought it was unfair for community groups, not-for-profit groups and individuals to  have  to  come to public hearings on a Wednesday  night.   Of  course  those  who  wanted  to  had   that  opportunity. Departmental secretaries and  senior  bureaucrats who  are  used to doing  those sorts of things did come  in, and  other machinery  matters were  dealt with  on Wednesday nights too. We had full-scale public hearings here as well as on site. A lot of energy went into  that inquiry. There were a lot of  written and verbal submissions, and there was a lot of media coverage as well.

I was  quite surprised  when I  finally  got  a  response  this  morning  to  an adjournment matter which essentially said the standing orders do not require the government to respond to upper house committee reports.

We know that, but in terms of this being a clear government reference, and given the activity  around this inquiry,  the minority report from  government members and the very large stakeholder community, I would have thought that at least the minister would  have responded to the stakeholders — in his own time frame, but one that he could at least have alluded to.

But that time  frame  is  not  contained  in the adjournment response I received today,  which essentially  says the government will take it on board and it will use it to inform their positions when they deal with certain matters,  and there you go. That is  not  a  good enough response for all  the  people  who  took an enormous  amount  of  time  and  energy  to  make  submissions  to the  inquiry. Stakeholders really want to know where the government is going on this. While it is a multidisciplinary area, it  is an area on its own and  it  can inform other areas. It really needs the direct attention of the government.

It  would  be interesting  for  the  stakeholders to  understand  the views  the ministers — both of them, Mr  Guy  and Mr David Davis — have of  the  minority report.  Stakeholders  should know  what  the  views of  the  ministers are with respect to  the majority  report and  the minority  report.  As  it  is the  one reference  the  committee has had, it has been quite disappointing  in  a  whole range  of ways. I do  have  to  say that it  was  a  good reference and  a  very interesting  reference, but  in  terms of almost  everything  else it  has  been extremely disappointing.

It is  unfortunate that I have  had  to move this motion  today, but when people realise that our committees have just not been meeting they will  understand why we have had to go to these lengths. We have raised it at our committee meetings, and we are not getting  anywhere. At the end of  the day the Victorian community expects a lot more of us than what they are getting at the moment.

It is  particularly  easy  for  people  to  come  to  the  conclusion  that this government does not want to be held accountable or to have transparency. From my perspective,  it  seems  the  government,  by  not   making  sure  there  is   a collaborative approach, is not really  interested in having the committee system work  at an optimal  level  or  in pulling people  into  line. When there  is  a collaborative approach we can move mountains. We have lots of  evidence of that. But when  there is not a collaborative  approach it  is very  difficult. I  have tried. I have even allowed government members to have  caucuses during committee meetings so that they could come to a position. Everything has failed.

Mrs Peulich interjected.

  Ms TIERNEY– Unfortunately, as we are already hearing now, it has been — —

  Mrs Peulich  — You are the  most uncooperative, uncollaborative person I have ever worked with in my 17 years in Parliament.

  Ms TIERNEY — Acting President,  I do not think  I need to say anything  more. Mrs Peulich continues to demonstrate not just behind the doors  of the committee room but also  in this chamber how disruptive  she is and how  difficult  she is trying to make the work of this committee. I request — —

Honourable members interjecting.

  Ms TIERNEY  — This is  only an element and a degree of what I have had to put up  with, and I continue to  not make further comment because  it just feeds the bad behaviour of the government members.