SENATE

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Page 4 Senate Monday, 27 February 2017 departments sought to go outside that process, nonetheless it would be the Public Service Commissioner who would have a similar role in approving the bargain, and it is the same person who resides in both of those offices. I imagine that if the Parliamentary Service Commissioner and the Public Service Commissioner have the same view, then it would not really be possible to go outside the framework. But there is— Senator McALLISTER: So the Parliamentary Service Commissioner or the Public Service Commissioner could approve a proposed agreement that was outside the bargaining framework. Mr Pye: The Public Service Commissioner sets the terms of the framework, so presumably across the Public Service more broadly the Public Service Commissioner could take a different stance on the policy. Senator McALLISTER: Could the minister take a different stance? The minister can direct the Public Service Commissioner. Mr Pye: Which minister are we talking about? Senator McALLISTER: That is my question to you. Mr Pye: This is the point, I suppose. We do not have a minister; we do have the President in a ministerial-like capacity. But we have to remember that the President and the Speaker jointly look after two of the other parliamentary departments, and it would not be a decision for the President. I do not know whether there has been any discussion about that possibility. Senator McALLISTER: Mr President? The President: My inclination would be—and this is without consultation with the Speaker—certainly in relation to the Senate—and I assume the Speaker would have a similar view—that it would stay within the framework. There is a critical issue here. Whilst we are independent from the executive, and I think people around here understand that that is my strong view, we are nonetheless reliant upon the executive for funding for the parliamentary departments. If we go cap in hand to the finance minister asking for money and one of the reasons is that we have stepped outside the framework, I think that makes our case exceptionally difficult. Equally, we have already stepped outside the framework. We do not participate in the ERC process. I have direct negotiation with the Minister for Finance in relation to funding for the Department of the Senate. When we have gone and asked for realistic additional funding we seek, we get realistic additional funding. If we stepped outside the bargaining framework I think that would diminish our relationship and our legitimate cause for getting the funding we need to run the departments. Senator WONG: Mr President, can I start with question on notice No. 46. I asked you for a copy of a letter from former Prime Minister Abbott to you relating to a proposed extension by that Prime Minister to the ministerial wing. You have given me an answer that says this: The provision of this correspondence would not be appropriate due to the longstanding convention that correspondence to a Presiding Officer is not given to committees of the other chamber. In accordance with this convention— I am not aware of that convention, first— correspondence to a Speaker would not be given to Senate committees, similarly, correspondence to a President would not be given to House Committees. The correspondence in question was addressed to both Presiding Officers. What you are telling me is that because a Prime Minister writes to both of you in one letter, as opposed to two different letters, you are going to refuse to provide the letter to Senate estimates. The President: I can only release the letter if the other party agrees to me releasing it. The other party in this case would be the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Senator WONG: Have you asked him? The President: I think the letter you are referring to was to the former Speaker. Senator WONG: Have you asked her? Frankly, it is an episode out of Hollow Men. It is saying, 'If we had two different addresses you would have it but because we wrote to you together neither of you can have it.' And this is in relation to a proposal about this building. It is not party political or policy advice to government. It is a proposal about a proposed extension to the ministerial wing. I would have thought transparency would require that this sort of, frankly, trick was not engaged in. The President: I reject the notion of it being a trick. Senator WONG: Mr President, you do accept that if the letters were separately addressed you would provide it. The President: I do not accept that premise either. Senator WONG: But that is what your answer says. FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Monday, 27 February 2017 Senate Page 5 The President: Just a moment. Senator WONG: But that is what your answer says. The President: Let me go back. I do not have a copy of that. I would like to read that again. Senator WONG: Can someone give him question on notice 46? It is his answer. The President: Thank you. Secondly, Senator Wong— Senator WONG: Perhaps we could just get that so that you can see what you said. In fairness to you, Mr President, because your answer— The President: I will just make another comment, Senator Wong. Firstly, this particularly relates to DPS, really, rather than to the Senate. But I am happy to deal with it here if you want to deal with it here. Senator WONG: It would be useful if you could see what you actually said to me before you answer it, I think. The President: I have just been informed, Senator Wong, whilst we were waiting, that the Speaker said—and it was former Speaker Senator Bishop—not to release the document. Senator WONG: She does not want it released. The President: She did not consent for that particular document at that particular time. Senator WONG: So because she did not want to release it you are not going to release it to us. The President: It is a joint letter, Senator Wong, and the same would happen the other way. If there were a letter addressed to both of us and I did not want it released she would have to abide by that decision, if that was the reverse case. Senator WONG: Can you tell us what was in it? What was the request? There is a principle here, Mr President. I understand what you are saying about the other house but I think, given your answer, if the letters had been separately addressed, all other things being equal the correspondence from former Prime Minister Abbott about extensions to the ministerial wing could be provided. The President: You are relying on the last statement in the response to the question on notice, which is: 'The correspondence in question was addressed to both Presiding Officers.' Senator WONG: No, I am relying on the entirety of the answer. It says— The President: Senator Wong, you have asked me a question. Can I at least answer the question? Senator WONG: But that was incorrect, Mr President. The whole answer, the nub of the answer, is the 'longstanding convention that correspondence to a Presiding Officer is not given to committees of the other chamber.' Because the correspondence is addressed to both of you, you are saying you cannot give it to the Senate committee. The President: It says, 'correspondence to a Presiding Officer'; it does not say 'both Presiding Officers'. The last sentence, 'The correspondence in question was given to both Presiding Officers', is a statement of fact. It is not saying that that is the only reason; it is just a statement of fact. Each case where correspondence is considered to be released is taken on its merits—whether it is addressed to one or both, whether it is identical or not identical. Obviously if it was correspondence addressed to me in a non-identical manner to the Speaker then I would consider it on its merits. In this particular case, regarding the question you particularly asked the Speaker at the time, Speaker Bishop, she said she was not prepared for the correspondence to be released. Whether or not I wanted to consider it further is irrespective, because it is correspondence that was not dually considered to be released. Senator WONG: But if it had been to you separately she could not have vetoed its release. The President: If it had been to me separately and not identical in nature then I would have considered it on its merits. I could not get to that step because this was not the case. Senator WONG: So a former Speaker, who has resigned in disgrace, is able to ensure that you withhold from the parliament information about the government's plans to extend the ministerial wing? Just so we are clear. The President: You have had my answer, Senator Wong, and that was that we did not release the letter. Senator WONG: What was in the letter? What was the proposal in the letter? The President: Obviously if I am not going to release the letter I am not going to divulge the contents. Senator WONG: Why? FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Page 1 and 2: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Proof Com
Page 3: SENATE FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTR
Page 6 and 7: Page 2 Senate Monday, 27 February 2
Page 14 and 15: Page 10 Senate Monday, 27 February
Page 58 and 59:
Page 54 Senate Monday, 27 February
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144:
show all

SENATE

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?