Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to join my colleague the member for Werriwa in speaking on the report of the inquiry by the Joint Committee on Publications into the distribution of the parliamentary papers series. I am a new member of this committee and it has fallen to me to represent government members in making a presentation to parliament on this subject. The parliamentary papers series has been in existence since 1901, when the Commonwealth of Australia was founded. Documents presented to the parliament of a substantial nature are included in the series by a resolution of either house of parliament, usually on the recommendation of the Publications Committee. On average, some 430 documents out of 800 presented to the parliament are selected in the series. We know that recipients of the series include national, state and parliamentary libraries, as well as university libraries throughout the country.

On 12 May 2005 the Presiding Officers wrote to the committee, informing them of changes to the distribution of the parliamentary papers series to take effect from 1 January of this year and seeking advice on further and more extensive changes to the series. The committee received 20 submissions, and public hearings were held in Canberra from 31 October through to 28 November last year. In February this year members of the joint committee also conducted inspections and received briefings from the National Library of Australia on the PANDORA web archive project and from CanPrint Communications, the parliament’s distributor of the series, regarding the processing of the documents which comprise the series.

The committee considered changes made by the Presiding Officers to take effect from 1 January 2006. I would like to draw to the attention of the parliament two recommendations in particular. Firstly, the committee recommended that the Commonwealth departmental libraries be reincluded in the eligibility guidelines for the series. The Presiding Officers had, in their wisdom, made changes to the series which excluded these libraries. The committee received evidence that departmental libraries considered the series essential in supporting their agencies in the development and delivery of government services. The PPS is a vital source of information on the activities of government and the parliament, including, of course, the reviews of previous policies and programs. Secondly, the committee recommended that the collated set of parliamentary papers, which are commonly known as blister packs, continue to be available as the extra cost for libraries in sourcing, collecting and collating their own sets would turn out to be greater than the savings of $30,000 realised by the chamber departments.

I want to refer to other recommendations in the context of eligibility guidelines. Recommendation 6 contains the amended guidelines for eligibility for the free distribution of the parliamentary papers series. This recommendation takes into account the changes proposed in recommendation 1, 2, 4 and 5. These include limiting the number of free sets of the series to one and instigating regular surveying of recipients to check that they still wish to continue receiving the series. There can be a delay of up to 30 months—somewhat astonishingly—in the supply of the collated blister packs of the parliamentary papers series to recipients. This is caused by agencies not supplying their documents in a timely manner or supplying the incorrect number of copies. The committee made several recommendations to address this noncompliance by agencies with their obligations in respect of not only the parliamentary papers series but other distribution schemes. The recommendation relevant here was to stipulate that the chamber departments notify the committee of any agencies not complying with the requirement of the series; the committee would then report these agencies to parliament, asking the Presiding Officers to seek an explanation from the relevant minister.

In the context of production standards for reports, the committee has identified potential savings across the whole of government in the cost of production of reports presented to parliament. Many reports presented are in full colour, which is contrary to the guidelines set down by this committee. These guidelines encourage restraint in the presentation and quality of documents and state that colour should only be used if necessary to make information more distinctive or clearer, for example with graphs. In most cases, single colour text should suffice. The committee is concerned that agencies get value for money in the production of their reports, recommends that printing standards be adhered to, intends to monitor compliance and will regularly report to the parliament those agencies that fail to adhere to the required standards.

An important aspect is the electronic distribution of the parliamentary papers series. The committee considered the wider issue of electronic availability of all government publications, before turning to the issue of an electronic version of the parliamentary papers series. The recommendations made by the committee attempt to address this issue—of agencies not making their publications available online permanently, or at all—and suggests a method for making a digital version of the parliamentary papers series a reality. Due to the issues surrounding long-term availability of online documents and the uncertainties surrounding digital storage formats such as CD-ROMs, the committee recommends very warmly that any digital version of the series augments the hard-copy series.

The committee recommends that the Australian National Audit Office regularly monitor the online availability of government documents, especially those presented to parliament as part of its regular audit program. We all know that the Australian National Audit Office has great respect throughout the Australian community. The committee also recommends that the Australian Government Information Management Office continue to work with agencies to ensure that all government publications are made available online, in the first instance, followed by being online permanently.

I want to comment on the National Library of Australia and its very generous offer to store a digital version of the series through its PANDORA web archive. The benefits of this are that the National Library of Australia would already have the necessary knowledge and the architecture, but would require additional funding to expand the archive. It would require some $200,000.

The committee has no objection to the National Library hosting a digital repository for the PPS, but this should be done in consultation with the chamber departments. An alternative is, of course, to set up a new repository, or an interim measure could be to utilise the Department of the Senate’s digital imaging project. The project will capture digital images of all documents tabled in the Senate and then place them online. The only parliamentary papers not included in this project are the reports of the House committees tabled only in the House of Representatives and the Department of the House of Representatives’ annual reports. The committee recommends that the Department of the House of Representatives investigate making available online the digital images of the House committee reports and departmental annual reports to complement the Senate’s collection of digital images of reports. This could be used as an alternative to a stand-alone repository.

Finally, I want to touch on the issue of copyright. To aid the National Library in its work with the PANDORA web archive, the committee very strongly recommends that the legal deposit provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 be widened to include electronic copies of documents. This will go a very long way to improving the ability of the National Library to collect and provide access to the publications they store on the PANDORA web archive.

Costs borne by the chamber departments in administering the series are approximately $115,000 to $130,000 per year. The costs of printing the documents for the series are met by author agencies. The committee accepts that cost recovery for the series is feasible. However, it opposes full cost recovery and recommends that any cost recovery measures partially recover the administrative costs of the chamber departments.

I am delighted, on behalf of the government members of the committee, to make comments on the distribution of the parliamentary papers series. As I said, I am a new member of the committee, replacing one of my colleagues. I look forward to making a contribution as a member of that committee.

Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned.

See this speech in context