Last week, Senator Kristina Moore wrote an open letter to Senator John Le Fondré outlining a number of concerns about the introduction of ‘policy development boards’, which are composed of backbenchers who provide advice to ministers.
So far, the establishment of two PDBs has been announced – to review the best site for the new hospital and to examine the planned population policy, in particular the introduction of work permits and tougher criminal record checks.
In her letter, Senator Moore, in her capacity as chairwoman of the Chairman’s Committee, said that the move could drain the resources of Scrutiny panels, which are also made up of backbenchers.
She added that conflicts of interest could be created if Members both advise ministers and sit on Scrutiny panels, which are meant to criticise government policy.
Senator Le Fondré responded in writing about her concerns.
‘Firstly, you will know that we are proposing that a States Member can only sit on a [policy development] board if they are also part of the Scrutiny process,’ he wrote. This condition protects the Scrutiny function, ensuring that Members do not instead gravitate to boards.
‘Secondly, I have made it clear that a States Member could not serve on a board if they could reasonably expect to be on the panel reviewing a decision based on that board’s advice – the self-review threat, which I explained at the hearing on Tuesday. I have also committed to discuss any potential conflicts with the relevant panel chairs.’
The letter adds that PDBs do not determine government policy, act only in an advisory capacity, and that there are sufficient safeguards in place to protect the Scrutiny function while making the policy-making process more ‘inclusive’.
