RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS - Queensland Parliament ...

31 Oct 2012 Appropriation (Parliament) Bill; Appropriation Bill 2267
In recognition of the committee’s statutory role as a board of management for the Parliamentary
Service, the examination of the areas that fall under the responsibility of the committee took place
through an open and public meeting process. Under new standing order 181A, the stakeholders, who
are the members of parliament, were invited to attend a public meeting on 9 October 2012 and ask the
committee questions relevant to the parliamentary appropriations. The Clerk of the Parliament was also
available to take questions in accordance with that standing order as the CEO and employing authority
of the service’s staff.
Members’ questions at the public meeting covered a wide range of matters—from
accommodation in the parliamentary precinct through to cost of signage for members’ electorate
offices—as detailed in the committee’s report tabled on 29 October. In regard to my own responsibilities
as Speaker, I was particularly pleased to receive questions regarding two matters in which I have taken
a keen interest. Firstly, the question regarding the ways that the parliament has honoured and is
planning to honour the service of Queensland’s first Indigenous member of parliament, Mr Eric Deeral,
gave me an opportunity to outline the important steps the parliament has taken. These included
renaming the Indigenous Youth Parliament in his honour, making a short documentary about him and
the condolence motion, which is scheduled for tomorrow. Secondly, the question regarding safety and
evacuation procedures in the parliamentary precinct gave me an opportunity to expand on the important
steps that have been taken in this area in the 54th Parliament and to flag the upcoming reviews being
conducted in relation to the security on the precinct.
In conclusion, I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the valuable assistance
provided to the committee by the Clerk and other parliamentary staff and to thank the members of the
committee for their contributions throughout the year.
Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (3.34 pm): I rise to contribute to the debate on the report of the
Committee of the Legislative Assembly. There are several observations that I wish to make on behalf of
the Labor opposition. Obviously, a most disturbing aspect of the hearing into this committee was the
overwhelming weight of questions that were allocated to members on the government side of the
House.
As all members are aware—or at least they should be—the Queensland parliamentary committee
system underwent a massive overhaul last year. This included a new approach to the estimates
committee hearings, with time limits removed from questions and answers to allow a more free-flowing
debate between the parliament and the executive on various topics, on various themes and issues. The
previous government approached these changes in the appropriate spirit in 2011 and there was
widespread recognition that the estimates process improved. I know it did improve, because I was the
chair of an estimates committee.
We are all aware that the LNP government made some amendments to the Parliament of
Queensland Act earlier this year. I remind the House that those changes were supposed to be a high
priority. They were brought in on the very first full sitting day of this Newman LNP government and they
were supposed to be more important than every election promise made by the LNP. The main change
involved the LNP giving every member of its massive backbench a pay rise when, without any warning
to the Queensland community, the government stacked the portfolio committees. It was the day that the
Newman government first breached the trust of the people of Queensland. The government breached
the trust of the people of Queensland and it is something that this government has continued to do with
alarming regularity week in, week out, day in, day out. The people of Queensland are saying, ‘Trust
Newman? Can’t do.’ Stand up for Queensland? People are enrolling with the union movement by their
hundreds day by day.
The LNP government has also made changes to the way in which the Committee of the
Legislative Assembly would operate—changes that were, in fact, supported by the opposition. However,
like so many things about this Newman LNP government, the devil was always in the detail. There it
was, buried away, burrowed down. Some of the detail was revealed on 11 October 2012, the very first
day of the estimates committee hearings. At the hearing into the Committee of the Legislative Assembly
we found ourselves in a bizarre situation where literally any MP could turn up and be given equal
opportunity to ask questions. In a parliament where the government comprises some 87 per cent of the
members, this is literally bordering on the farcical. The estimates process is intended to be the one time
of the year when the opposition has an opportunity to explore issues and interrogate the government
about its proposed expenditure. Yet when it comes to the CLA, we are suddenly given some inane line
like a ‘once upon a time’ fairytale that this committee is above partisan politics. If the CLA is apolitical,
why was the opposition kicked out of this parliamentary precinct? If the CLA is above politics, why did
the executive direct the Clerk to shift the opposition off site?
We have a half-baked argument from the Deputy Premier that we should be coming to the
committee to ask questions as members of parliament, not as members of a political party. Let me
remind the Deputy Premier and his boss that there was nothing bipartisan about the LNP’s decision to
stack the portfolio committees and give all the backbench a pay rise. There was nothing bipartisan about
the LNP’s decision to ignore the recommendations of its own chair of the PCMC and refuse to allow the
Leader of the Opposition to nominate the chair of that most important committee. Shame on you! There