Annual Report 2003–04
Clerk’s Review
Legislative and committee activity
In the Clerk’s review in the 2002–03 Annual Report, the failure of legislative activity to return to normal levels after the previous election year was observed, and it was speculated that the country might be entering a non-legislative period, with the legislature sidelined by the executive. This year, however, has seen a distinct revival of legislative activity, with both the Senate and its committees as active as ever.
This year, there were more sitting days, more written advices given,
more bills dealt with, more amendments drafted and processed, more
select committees established, more committee inquiries referred
and more reports presented, than in each of the previous years of
the Fortieth Parliament. This might be regarded as a familiar pattern
towards the end of a parliament, but also represented a heartening
return of parliamentary scrutiny.
There was a large increase in the number of bills referred to committees. There were many difficult committee inquiries, because of either the technical complexity of the subject matter or their harrowing nature.
There were times when staff felt overwhelmed by the volume of work, the deadlines required, and concern that they could not produce their best work under the circumstances. Their efforts, however, were greatly appreciated.
It has been said many times that the number and scope of committee inquiries are limited by the available time of senators, and that more financial and staff resources cannot substitute for the scarce resource of senators’ time. The department will monitor levels of committee activity closely over the coming year, and, if they increase or continue at present levels, will undertake a review of committee support with a view to seeking additional resources. The last such review was undertaken 10 years ago and resulted in funding for an additional research officer for each legislative and general purpose committee secretariat. If such a review is not warranted, the department will continue its flexible and responsive approach to meeting the changing needs of committees.
Staff development
The Senate Department has always been a knowledge-based organisation whose greatest asset is the expertise of its staff. As our workload has changed over the years, the department has found ways to ‘work smarter’ to optimise limited budgets. Staff training has been vital.
In 2003–04, all staff participated in continuing professional
development under the department’s certified agreement. PEP UP,
a formal development program which had previously been offered to
executive and APS Level 6
staff, was provided this year to staff at APS levels 4
and 5, with STEP UP, a supplementary program, provided for the
higher level staff. Participants in the WISE program
again supplemented the department’s resources and, in return,
took back to their home departments an enhanced knowledge of parliamentary
processes.
Public education
The Senate Department continued its work in the fields of public information and education, as a provider of services and an encourager of research and writing about the Senate and Parliament.
The inaugural Richard Baker Prize, named after the Senate’s first president, was presented by the current President in October 2003 to joint winners: Dr Stanley Bach, for his monograph Platypus and Parliament: The Australian Senate in Theory and Practice; and Verona Burgess, for a substantial collection of articles about the Senate and public accountability in The Canberra Times. Dr Bach, a former officer of the United States of America’s Congressional Research Service, wrote his book while visiting Australia on a Fulbright Senior Scholar Award, and also held a Senate Fellowship during his stay.
The second volume of the Biographical Dictionary of the Australian Senate, which covers senators who completed their terms between 1929 and 1962, was launched to general acclaim in June 2004. Cockatoo Island, a large‑format book and associated teaching resources for young children, about concepts of parliamentary democracy, was short‑listed for the Australian Publishers Association’s Australian Awards for Publishing Excellence, to be announced in August 2004. These quality publications are a credit to those Senate Department staff and others who worked so diligently on them.
A good deal of work was generated by the Prime Minister’s proposals to reduce the significance of the Senate as a legislature by changing the requirements for a joint sitting of the two Houses under section 57 of the Constitution to deal with deadlocked bills. A discussion paper, Resolving Deadlocks, was tabled in October 2003 and widely circulated in the community. A consultative group was formed to canvass public opinion, but only 237 people, mostly hostile, turned up to public meetings held across the nation.
The department’s contribution to this process was both direct, in the form of submissions (see Appendix 5), and indirect, in the form of advice to senators and other interested persons. The report of the consultative group, tabled in June 2004, concluded that there was little public interest in or support for the Prime Minister’s proposals. The Senate Department played a significant part in drawing attention to the ill-conceived nature of the proposals, but it was encouraging that so many other citizens appreciated that the schemes would simply increase prime ministerial power.
Budget and parliamentary administration
The 2002–03 Annual Report referred to a proposal to amalgamate the three joint departments, following the transfer of security staff to the Joint House Department. The amalgamation, proposed in a consultancy review known as the Podger review, was approved by the Senate on 18 August 2003. In approving the proposal, senators were critical of an apparent attempt by the government to force the amalgamation by cutting the parliamentary budget to the extent of the supposed savings of the amalgamation in order to pay for enhanced security requirements in Parliament House. The Senate passed a resolution to the effect that, if the savings of the amalgamation fell short of the increase in security expenditure, the shortfall should be fully funded.
The previous report referred to the role of the Senate Department as a sceptical questioner of the amalgamation proposal. This role was vindicated when the secretary of the new joint department revealed at the estimates hearings in May 2004 that the savings of the amalgamation would not approach those claimed for it in the Podger review.
In spite of the Senate’s resolution, and emphatic statements by the President at the estimates hearings in February 2004 that any savings attributable to the amalgamation of the three joint departments should be found in the new Department of Parliamentary Services, the government attempted to impose a cut in the Senate Department’s budget to reflect the supposed savings of the amalgamation.
The Appropriations and Staffing Committee, however, in its fortieth report, recommended to the Senate a scheme for the rearrangement of funding, adopted by the President on the recommendation of the Senate Department, whereby the cuts would be transferred to the joint department and the Senate Department’s budget would not be affected. This arrangement involved the transfer of funds for security formerly held by the Senate Department and paid to the joint department under a purchaser–provider system. The Appropriations and Staffing Committee recommended that additional steps be taken to ensure that this would not reduce the ability of the Senate and senators to oversee the security system. The committee suggested that its terms of reference be amended to provide it with the explicit capacity to scrutinise security funding and administration, and that the interdepartmental Security Management Board be put on a statutory basis.
These recommendations were adopted by the Senate on 16 June 2004. This action by the Senate, the Appropriations and Staffing Committee and the President also prevented the budget of the House of Representatives Department being cut.
This administrative and financial rearrangement leaves the Senate
Department much smaller in terms of budget and staff, but no less
dedicated to its central functions of providing advice and support
services to the Senate and its committees. It is hoped that the safeguards
put in place by the Senate, the Appropriations and Staffing Committee
and the President will ensure that the greatly enlarged joint department
does not become a ‘black hole’, sucking resources out
of the key legislative functions which remain the responsibility
of the Senate Department.
These events demonstrate both the danger of executive absolutism to the Parliament as a legislative institution, and the value of the Senate and its committees being able to exercise their current degree of independence from the executive government. They make up a vital institution for accountable government. All Senate staff are proud to serve such an institution.
Harry Evans
Clerk of the Senate
