HANSARD EXTRACT
| Publications
Committee Report |
| 29 May 2006 |
Mr HAYES
(Werriwa) (5.15 p.m.)—The
terms of reference for this inquiry by the Joint Committee on
Publications was to inquire and report on the distribution of the
parliamentary papers series. The committee was to specifically look
into the potential impact of changes to the distribution of the PPS
made by the Presiding Officers, namely the tightening of eligibility
guidelines; the provision of the PPS in a digital format, either as
an alternative or in conjunction with the hard copy series; the
feasibility of a subscription service, either in digital or hard
copy form; and the possibility of partial or full cost recovery for
the series.
By way of some background, the parliamentary
papers series has been ongoing since 1901. Documents of a
substantial nature that are presented to the parliament are included
in the series, normally by a resolution of either house of
parliament. On average, as I understand it, 430 documents out of
about 800 are presented to the parliament in this way. The documents
that are not referred by resolution are considered by the
Publications Committee of both houses, which meets on a regular
basis. The committee then decides whether to recommend the inclusion
of those documents in the parliamentary papers series.
As it stands, the series is available in a
loose-leaf pamphlet form. At the end of each financial year, these
pamphlet copies are effectively collated and produced in a blister
pack, as it is called. That is made available to eligible
recipients. These blister packs are often delayed. The delays are
due to various reasons but, primarily, they are due to the failure
of various agencies to ensure that there are adequate stocks of
their particular document with the printers in order for them to be
distributed. Unfortunately, these delays have sometimes been in the
magnitude of 30 months, which is quite unacceptable and is something
this inquiry committee sought to do something about.
Before I go to the actual details of the
report, I would like to say that it has been a pleasure working on
this committee with my colleague
Mr
Johnson. The member for Makin held this committee together well.
Quite frankly, the work of this committee is quite laborious—going
through these papers and making the recommendations as required—and
the way the member for Makin has chaired this committee is a credit
to her. I have enjoyed working with her and my fellow members on the
committee. I would also like to pay regard to the secretariat, Jason
Sherd and Vicki Bradley, who have made a sterling contribution to
this committee.
Changes to the eligibility have occurred. There
was an exclusion of Commonwealth departmental libraries, various
foreign embassies, political parties and municipal libraries.
However, we understand from the evidence from municipal libraries
that two of the three involved would still want to be on our free
distribution list. The PPS service provides vital information to
these organisations about government and activities in the
parliament, including the review of past policies and programs.
Therefore the committee recommends that the Commonwealth
departmental libraries should be reincluded in those eligibility
guidelines. That is included in recommendation 1.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you will recall that I
mentioned the composition of these blister packs that occurs at the
end of each financial year, but the presiding officer decided that
from 1 January of this year those blister packs would cease to be
provided. As I explained earlier, the reason is somewhat twofold.
Firstly, there are the delays. As I indicated, some delays were for
up to 30 months and therefore the documents were hopelessly out of
date by the time they were disseminated. Secondly, there was an
issue of cost in storing, processing and distributing these
materials. In relation to the delays that have been experienced, we
as a committee do not believe that the abolition of the blister
packs will do anything to address the problem with agencies that are
not complying at the moment. The committee has recommended that we
should put in effect a procedure monitored by the Government
Information Management Office to ensure that agencies are complying,
and not abolish blister packs simply because they are not here and
available when they are required.
There is a cost factor here and it has been
estimated that around $30,000 a year would be saved by the abolition
of these compiled blister packs. But, having regard to the evidence
that this committee has received, we think that that $30,000 would
be something of an exercise in cost-shifting. Those libraries’
evidence to this committee indicates that if they had to go through
the process of sourcing the information, collating it and putting it
together in its proper order to ensure completeness then the
financial and administrative burden placed upon them would be more
than offset by the savings that we would seek to make by abolishing
this service. Therefore we think that it is not an argument simply
on cost to abandon the blister pack process. Therefore this
committee has recommended that blister packs be continued. We do so
in the full knowledge that that is an effective reversal of the
presiding officers’ decision in this regard.
There are issues about duplication and
efficiency that we can address. We have sought to task the
Australian Government Information Management Office with
investigating the prospect of reducing the duplication of a number
of reports from various committees and agencies and to report back
to our committee within six months, with any recommendations to be
implemented in a further six months. We think that is a constructive
exercise in trying to address cost and trying to ensure that
efficiencies work properly and adequately in our system. Other areas
where the committee found the capacity for cost savings include the
production of various agencies’ reports. You probably see many
yourself; many are in full colour and go to great lengths to
advertise their particular positions. However, agencies
participating in that style of publication are doing so in excess of
the publication guidelines as they are currently dictated. The
committee is concerned that if we are going to get value for money
we should be encouraging all agencies to adhere to those
guidelines.The committee is intending to monitor compliance and will
report to the parliament in that regard.
If I had more time I would have spoken about
the electoral distribution of parliamentary papers. One issue that
is of concern is that at present the National Library of Australia
estimates that only 10 per cent of agencies are currently meeting
their obligations to publish online. These obligations were spelt
out by the government online strategy in 2000, and that has not yet
been adhered to. (Time expired)
Return
to Speeches Menu.
