Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the proposals to alter the structure of the Senate committee system, announced by the Leader of the Government on 20 June 2006, be referred to the Procedure Committee for inquiry and report by 17 August 2006.

In moving this motion, I seek to refer the issues that Senator Minchin outlined in his letter to party leaders yesterday concerning a restructure of the Senate committee system to the Procedure Committee. I want to make it clear that I do not do so with any expectation that the government will change its basic position. But Labor at least is interested in paying adherence to proper process in this chamber. Certainly, going on past precedent in these matters, these sorts of suggestions have gone to the Procedure Committee so that all senators have an opportunity to comment on these things and to participate in a discussion about changes to procedure in the Senate. The government has made it quite clear that it has made its decision and it is imposing the decision on the Senate, but there are some minor matters that the Procedure Committee can deal with.

Essentially, the government has exercised its power. It says: ‘We have the power. We will change the system to suit ourselves,’ and that is what it is about to do. It is in stark contrast to what John Howard, the Prime Minister, said after the previous federal election when it became clear that the government had gained a Senate majority. Prime Minister Howard said, ‘It will be a modest, even humble, government.’ I am inclined to remember the old Mac Davis number Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble. It goes:

Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble when you’re perfect in every way ...

This is what we are seeing today: the Prime Minister’s arrogance, the government’s arrogance, reflected in the fact that it is seeking to assert its power over this chamber. I would have thought that government senators would have been a bit wary about this because, as everyone knows, the wheel turns. We have had a commitment across the chamber in recent years to ensure that the Senate plays the role it has come to play in Australia’s democracy—a role that includes providing accountability to the executive, acting as a review mechanism on actions of the executive, and helping to build greater scrutiny of the actions of the executive in a world where, increasingly, the executive has more power over the parliament. Serious parliamentarians would be concerned by moves that restrict that ability.

Certainly, in the past, the Liberal-National Party have been concerned about it. I could quote page after page of speeches from Liberal-National Party senators about the need to protect the powers of the Senate—about the need, in fact, for the committee system to be supported. This was very much a strong position of the Liberal and National parties when they were in opposition. It seems their view of the world has changed. You have got to ask yourself, ‘What has changed?’ Have the principles they supported changed, or is it really the fact that all that has changed is that they now have a majority in this chamber, that their power is unchecked and that they seek to use it and abuse it?

That is what is occurring today. What we have seen over the last year is a slow erosion of the power of the Senate to hold the executive accountable. We knew this would occur, and we knew that it would increase as the government’s arrogance and hubris grew. But this measure that Senator Minchin dropped on us yesterday is fundamental to the way the Senate operates. It is fundamental to the Senate’s review role and its accountability role. So all of the sleights and measures designed to increase the government’s power over the last year look small in comparison with this measure. This is fundamental; this is an attack on the Senate’s power in a very central way.

Since July last year we have seen the number of questions reduced, the gag applied and the farcical one-day inquiry into the sale of Telstra. We have seen the guillotine and we have seen the opposition of the government to any reference that might allow a committee to look at government actions. Recently we saw the measure designed to reduce by eight days the capacity of estimates committees to examine the financial aspects of the government’s activities and hold the government accountable for the expenditure of taxpayers’ money. One after another, these restrictions have been placed on the Senate’s capabilities. But that was not enough for the Liberal-National government. It needed to go the whole hog. One of the three things left to us was the references committee process, the process that allowed this Senate, by its own reference, to determine and inquire into matters that were of concern, matters that perhaps the government did not want looked at and that the government preferred to not be exposed to the light of day, matters that went to the failure of the government to be held accountable and the government’s avoidance of scrutiny.

This was the role that the references committees sought to play. That is the proud role that these committees have played since 1994. They have played it, I might add, at the initiation of the Liberal Party of the time. I pay credit to them. In those days they saw what the role of the Senate could develop into, and we have seen the evolution of that role as an important part of our democracy. All that has changed is the ability to use and abuse power. This is arrogance of the first order. It is a sign of the decay of the government commencing, because it is clear from this that the government is trying to avoid scrutiny and accountability, and it is trying to express its arrogance by not allowing the Senate to deal with issues that could force it to account to the Australian people.

There are no principles involved here. Senator Minchin makes no attempt to defend this on the question of principle. He dresses it up as a question of reducing 16 committees to 10; anyone who knows anything about the Senate knows that it has nothing to do with that. It is about getting control of the references committees. They have traditionally worked on the basis of having a non-government majority. Why would a government inquire into itself? Why would a government allow any committee the power to look at things that might embarrass the government? This was a point made by Liberal senators when this system was established. They knew that the pressure on a government senator to accept a reference or to inquire properly into something the government did not want revealed meant that it was not practical and it would not happen. So they argued that you had to have a non-government majority and a non-government chair in order to make sure the executive was held accountable. They were right then, and they are dead wrong now. This is purely about the abuse by the majority. It is purely about the tyranny of the majority. The government has got the power; it will use the power because it suits it. The only interest at stake here is self-interest, to protect the government from proper scrutiny.

Senator Minchin’s rationales are breathtaking in their flimsiness. He describes the Senate committee system as a ‘failed experiment’. When did anyone else notice that it had failed? If it had failed so badly to hold the executive in check, why would you seek to abolish it? He said this was part of the ‘evolution’ of the Senate committee system, but then argued that we are taking it back to 1994. Is it an evolution or is it a reversal? There is no logic or principle to the position. The original decision was not based on a majority; in fact the Liberal and National parties did not have a majority in this chamber. This was a process established by the Senate with the agreement of all parties: the Liberal and National parties, the Democrats, the Greens and the Labor Party. It was a decision taken to improve the function of the Senate, to provide for a more powerful committee system and to provide for a system that held the executive in check. It was a good system. It has evolved, and it has become a central part of the Senate’s role and function in holding the executive to account. It mirrors in part the powerful USA Senate committee systems, which have been used in that country as well to develop the role of the Senate and its power and capacity to hold government to account. On any measure, this evolution, this maturing, of the role of the Senate has been a highly beneficial process.

Nobody but Senator Minchin has previously said that this was a failed experiment. Senator Minchin had not described it as a failed experiment until yesterday. This is a device invented over the last couple of days to try to justify a most retrograde step, taking the Senate back—he says—to the position of 1994. This is allegedly evolution! The system has got better, the accountability mechanisms have got stronger and the Senate’s ability to scrutinise has got stronger. That is unashamedly a good thing. Every senator in this place knows that, and every senator knows that the accountability mechanisms and the role of the Senate will be diminished by this. Government senators ought to think twice about this, because they know things will turn. They know that their capacity to operate effectively in this chamber will be reduced—not only in opposition but also in government. They are signing away a lot of their own capacities. Over recent years, we have seen that a great deal of the work by these references committees has occurred because the government was forced to have inquiries. That has allowed government senators to make a contribution by helping change government policy. But that has gone.

You have to ask yourself why the government is doing this. It is not defensible on any other basis than that it is designed to increase the power of the government—to increase the power of the executive. Why would we bother having a Senate or two chambers if we were to be a mirror of the House of Representatives, if we were to merely roll legislation through in an unquestioning way or if we were to merely do what the government asked us to in terms of the role of the committees? No committee with a government majority is going to look at things that the government is embarrassed about. No committee with a government majority is going to go where the government thinks it would be an embarrassment to go. And so some of the great work done by the Senate in recent years will be wiped. It is a retrograde step and it is a sign of a government that is increasingly arrogant, increasingly out of touch and increasingly focused on protecting its own power rather than being willing to defend itself in a proper way with proper accountability mechanisms.

We all know that this is about entrenching government power. Currently, the Senate has the power to refer matters to Senate references committees, chaired by non-government senators—not only Labor senators but also Greens and Democrat senators. The non-government majority has the power to decide where they go, how often they meet and who they hear from. The great power of this system has been the ability to engage Australian citizens in the debate about issues of public concern. People can come before Senate committees and can seek to influence the Senate. That has been one of our great strengths. But now the government will say who can come before us, who will be heard and when they will be heard. We have seen instance after instance in recent times of the government saying: ‘We need to meet in Canberra only. We do not need to go out to the Northern Territory and talk to the petrol sniffers,’ or, ‘We do not need to go out and talk to the pensioners or those affected by the GST proposals.’ Each time, the non-government majority have said: ‘No. We want to engage with the people. We want to hear their views and use their submissions to make our democracy stronger.’

This is purely about the government asserting control, squeezing the Senate and ensuring that the few mechanisms left to us are further tightened so as to prevent accountability and scrutiny. The government have the numbers. We all know the government have the numbers, apart from when Senator Joyce has a bit of an escapade or there is the occasional bit of rebellion on their backbench. The government come in and exercise their numbers. I accept that, because they were elected by the Australian population. I have no trouble with the fact that the government have a majority, and I expect them to use their numbers in this chamber. While I do not agree with nearly anything they do, they are entitled to use their numbers in this chamber to support government positions.

But what the government are not entitled to do is emasculate the Senate. What they are not entitled to do is remove the checks and balances that our democratic system provides. What they are not allowed to do, and what they should not be allowed to get away with, is emasculate the capacity to hold them to account, to review their actions and to inquire into matters which the government would prefer to hold secret. As I have said, in the last few days we have seen what I see as signs of the decay of the government. You see this in governments when they are getting near the end—when they are starting to get tired and out of touch and are starting to believe that the electorate is out of step with them. The IR legislation is a classic example. Rather than responding to the electorate, which has been John Howard’s great strength—I give him that credit—the government’s view now is: ‘The electorate are out of step with us. They just do not understand how good these things are for them. If only they better understood.’ It is the beginning of the end.

And what do governments do when that starts? They look to entrench their power. They look to ensure the maintenance of power. They seek secrecy. They seek to avoid questions and scrutiny. They look to institutionalise their power, fearful of one day losing power. They seek to change the rules. We have had a classic of it this week: the government changed the electoral laws. Why? It was to encourage dirty money in Australian politics, to encourage secrecy about who donates to whom and to deny the vote to Australians that the government think do not vote the right way. Again, it is purely about their self-interest, purely about entrenching their power and purely about protecting their interests. And today we have the start of a new process—another step in emasculating the Senate, entrenching the government’s power and reducing our capacity.

Our great strength in this chamber has been our capacity to hold the executive to account. As we all know, executive government has become more and more powerful across the world; that is a development that is broadly occurring. But every democracy has sought to respond by putting other checks and balances in place. This Senate has matured. It has developed mechanisms that have allowed the Senate to operate and to play a role. If that role is not allowed the Senate, there is no point in us being here. And Labor has changed its position on the Senate. We have sought to make the Senate an institution that works for Australian democracy. We have recognised its emerging role and recognised that it adds to accountability, to the role of the parliament and to a check on executive power. I think all senators recognise that. I really cannot understand why Liberal and National Party senators are allowing this to occur, because the worm does turn. They will get their chance in opposition, and I think they will find that even in government this undermines their power.

Labor will take the fight up to the government. We will take the fight up on this issue and we will take the fight up on any further erosion of the Senate’s powers. But it is getting to the point where there is not much left. This is one of the most important and fundamental strikes against the capacity of the Senate, and we may have to concentrate more on the fight outside the parliament. Australians need to be concerned about this issue. They need to take an interest because, if they think about it, they know that unchecked executive power is not in their interests. They know that power corrupts. They know that absolute power corrupts absolutely. And this is about giving the Howard government absolute power. There is no principle at stake here. The government have no principled defence of this proposal. Why have they not argued for it in the last 13 years? It is because there is no basis for it in principle. It is not good for democracy.

The one thing that has changed is the numbers in the Senate. The government have the power to exert their self-interest and they are prepared to do it. It took them a year to work up the courage and decide that they really could go the whole hog. We have seen the step-by-step erosion of the Senate’s capacity. We are down to five opposition questions per question time, we are seeing estimates committees eroded, we have seen the government muttering darkly about restricting the matters that estimates can inquire into and then, when introducing that measure, saying ‘You’ve always got estimates.’ The attacks come from all fronts, but this is the most blatant abuse yet of the Senate majority. This is the tyranny of the majority at work. It is arrogance, it is a reflection that the government are out of touch and that they are trying to shape the parliament to reflect their will rather than debate their performance in the proper forums. This is a strike against the role of the Senate and against our democratic institutions. Government senators ought to hang their heads in shame because they know it is wrong. (Time expired)

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move an amendment to the motion moved by Senator Evans as follows:

Omit “17 August”, substitute “10 August”.

The government does not oppose the reference to the Procedure Committee, but it does take issue with the reporting date for a number of reasons. We ought to put this in context. Yesterday, we had a leaders and whips meeting. The Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Minchin, gave by hand a letter outlining the government’s proposals to the various people who attended—the minor parties and the opposition. I will return to that letter in a moment.

Suffice it to say, the government has suggested an alternative method of considering the proposals. The opposition has come forward and said that it wants to have the matter referred to the Procedure Committee. The government does not oppose that, but it does believe that the report should be at the end of the first sitting week, when we return to the Senate after the winter break. It does that for the reason that it will allow debate on the issue in the following week of the sitting fortnight so that this matter can be determined then, rather than leaving it to the last sitting day of that sitting fortnight which would mean that debate and consideration of the matter would not be until the fortnight commencing 4 September. We have a heavy schedule in relation to legislation in the second half of the year, and we believe that this is an issue which should be dealt with in the first sitting fortnight. We believe it is a rational approach in the interests of good management of the Senate, and that is why we propose it. I say again that we do not oppose the reference to the Procedure Committee.

I return to the letter dated 20 June from the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Minchin. That letter outlined the proposals by the government. As stated by Senator Minchin, the proposal is designed to achieve greater efficiency and greater effectiveness in our Senate committee system. As part of that reform, the government proposes that the current 16 committees across eight portfolio areas are streamlined to a system of 10 general purpose committees. What we are doing is changing the current system of having eight legislation committees and eight reference committees to having 10 general purpose committees. Remember that the legislation committees deal with the corresponding portfolio areas of the reference committees.

We believe that this will be more efficient and will still provide the scrutiny necessary in the Senate. In fact, when you look at it you will see that it returns to the position that we had with the Senate system in the years 1970 to 1994. That covered a period when the government, during 24 years of Senate committee history, had not only the chair of the committees but the majority of numbers on those committees. That applied even when the government of the day did not have a majority and it applied across both persuasions of government. So there is a good deal of history to this proposal, running from 1970 to 1994. In 1994 the system was changed as a result of the government not having a majority in the Senate and a proposal that we should have reference committees which reflect the make-up of the Senate of the day.

Senator Evans touched on the question of consultation. Senator Minchin’s letter stated: ‘I would like your input into whether there should be eight or 10 committees, what portfolio areas they should cover and the number of members on each committee.’ That is an entirely reasonable course to take in the consultation period over the winter break. That is not the act of an arrogant government or of someone who is dismissing opposition and minor party claims outright. Indeed, it proposes that there is consideration over the break and that, in the first sitting week of August, we will address those issues.

Senator Evans raised a number of issues and touched on estimates. I would like to remind the Senate that if we had 10 estimates committees rather than the eight estimates committees that we have, we would be increasing estimates scrutiny of the government by 25 per cent with our proposal. Where is the diminution of scrutiny in that?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That depends on the days. How many days are you guaranteeing? That’s not in the letter. You’re just making it up.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is the proposal. Senator Evans does not want to hear that. He overlooked this, of course, and he does not want to relate that to the—

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where’s that in the letter?

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is clearly in the letter. In relation to estimates committees, which are at the core of Senate scrutiny of the government of the day, we are proposing an increase of scrutiny. But, of course, that is not something that the opposition wants to dwell on. In fact, what we need to look at with the opposition’s record is that, when we had the reference committees, which were set up to deal with issues that had to be looked at and that were important and were regarded as such by the Senate, the opposition and minor parties used their numbers to send legislation to reference committees, and that was not what was designed by the system of legislation and reference committees.

What we have seen is that the opposition, when it wanted to use its numbers, perverted a Senate system by sending legislation to reference committees when in fact we had legislation committees set up to deal with that legislation. Indeed, I can point to a number of examples. In 1998 we had aspects of the new tax system bill sent to a references committee. In 2002 we had the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2002 sent to a references committee when it should have gone to a legislation committee. It was equally so with the portfolios of Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, and Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. We have other examples. Indeed, there are numerous examples. In the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee we had, over a period of four years, the migration legislation amendment bill—a bill sent to a references committee. When we look at the opposition’s track record—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So much for the system!

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, so much for the system indeed! Thank you, Senator Ferguson. What we have is an arrogance by the opposition, teaming up with the minor parties to pervert the current system. That is their record and that is what should be looked at.

What we are proposing is a reasonable reform to the Senate committee system. We have done it in a way which brings in the opposition and minor parties. We have proposed that it be discussed over the break. The opposition has said that it wants this to go to the Senate Standing Committee on Procedure. We agree with that. But what we do say is that this matter should be resolved in that sitting fortnight when we return from the winter break. We do not want to delay this any longer than it needs to be. We have adequate time for this to be looked at. The opposition, of course, wants to string this out. It is not interested in seeing legislation get through in the second half of the year. It is not interested in an orderly Senate program. It wants to delay and obfuscate. That is what it is about.

Finally, I just want to touch on the reaction of the Leader of the Opposition. We had the Leader of the Opposition quite seriously saying that this is an act of evil. I say to those people listening in the community at large: how can you take the leader of a major party seriously when he looks at a reform of this nature, which will increase Senate estimates scrutiny, and calls it an act of evil? Such is the desperation of the Leader of the Opposition and such is the hysterical aspect that you find in the opposition in the current environment. It was taken further by the member for Lilley, Wayne Swan, who said that Darth Vader would be very proud of the Howard government this morning. He said, ‘What is next—the Death Star?’ Can you take a bloke like that seriously? Who does he think he is—Yoda? Does he think he is Luke Skywalker, or R2D2 maybe? When you get a reaction like that, you have to ask yourself whether these blokes are really serious.

What we are proposing here is a Senate committee system which reflects the majority of the government of the day, which existed for 24 years from 1970 to 1994 and which increases the number of estimates committees which in turn scrutinise government activity. Where is the evil in that? Indeed, where is the Death Star? I seriously think that the opposition should have a good look at itself and see how it can contribute constructively to this debate rather than carrying on in a shrill and hysterical matter.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Democrats support the reference of this matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Procedure. We certainly do not support the government’s amendment. Even on a simple, clear-cut procedural matter like this—such a fundamental matter—they show their colours by once again trying to restrict the opportunity for proper consideration by reducing the reporting date to an earlier period. The government are quite extraordinary. I suppose by now people should have learned not to take any truth in anything that the Prime Minister says, but there was some faint hope I think amongst many people when the Prime Minister did say after he unexpectedly managed to get control of the Senate after the last election that the government would use that power humbly and responsibly, they would not let it go to their heads and they would not use it arrogantly. Of course, every single action of the government since then in the Senate over the last 12 months has given the lie to the Prime Minister’s statement.

There has been a clear indication time after time of a willingness by the government to deliberately and calculatedly use their majority in and their control of this Senate to slowly strangle and asphyxiate the ability of the Senate to do its job as a house of review. Whatever else you might ask the public of Australia on the role of the Senate—and there are a lot of people, of course, that do not know an enormous amount of detail about how our parliamentary system works and how politics works—if it is one thing they know that the Senate is there for, it is as a house of review and a check and balance on the government. That is the one thing that this government has set about, in a very calculated way and slowly but surely, trying to eliminate.

It is interesting, though, to hear Senator Ellison’s pledge. He said it a number of times. He said that the government’s proposal will increase the amount of Senate estimates scrutiny. I hope that does not just become yet another misleading statement to add to the enormous pile of dishonest statements that we have had from senior members of this government over many years and particularly over the last 12 months, when they seek to falsely describe what they are doing in regard to the Senate. Up until the last Senate estimates hearings, you had the total number of Senate committees that have Senate hearings—and there are eight committees—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I was waiting for you to perhaps pick Senator Bartlett up. I do not think it is in order for Senator Bartlett to refer to senior members of the government as dishonest.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, I did not hear him say that. If you did say that, Senator Bartlett, you should withdraw it.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that the advice you have received?

The Acting Deputy President:

If you said it you should withdraw it.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not sure that I described it precisely the way it has been referred to by Senator Ferguson but, unlike the government, I do not have total contempt for the Senate, so I will withdraw any comment that was seen to be disorderly. The simple fact is that this government’s misuse of language is so extreme that, frankly, even George Orwell would not believe it. What we have is a deliberate use of words to try to create a perception of reality that is the exact opposite of what this government is doing. The government is continually acting in a deliberate and calculated way to restrict the ability of the Senate to do its job as a house of review—and every step along the way it has continued to deny that that is what it is doing.

We saw at the last Senate estimates committee hearings, an elimination of the Fridays that Senate estimates committees normally used for their spillover days. Those days have of course not been abused. They have been used to ensure that committees can have an extra day to look at areas that require extra time. Almost inevitably, those days are used for areas that are most contentious. It was quite a calculated attempt by this government to remove those days for scrutiny by Senate estimates. So the government’s own actions have reduced the number of days that Senate committees have been able to scrutinise. The government has actually reduced Senate estimates scrutiny by its own actions just in the last month; yet it has the gall and the hide to come in here and say, ‘Our desire is to increase the amount of Senate estimates scrutiny.’

We saw the unprecedented actions the time before last of the government making a blanket direction to all government officers that they were not to answer any questions about an entire area, and a crucial area, of government activity—namely, the AWB issue—under the totally farcical and dishonest excuse that there was a royal commission under way and therefore no questions shall be answered. And this is a government that now comes in here and says, ‘We want to increase Senate scrutiny under estimates.’ Last Senate estimates, we had 32 days in total through those eight committees—four days each. We had 32 days of Senate estimates scrutiny. Normally, it would have been up to 40 days. It was reduced by taking away the Friday for each of the eight committees.

So let us see whether under this proposal from the government—with however many committees we end up with and however many days each of those committees will have to have Senate estimates—we actually have the same total number of days of Senate committees examining budget estimates. If you go over 40, I will be the first to stand up here and say that I was wrong. I hope that government members—particularly Senator Ellison—will equally take up the challenge and, if we do end up having fewer total days of Senate estimates committee hearings as a result of the restructure, they will stand up and say that they were wrong and say that there is not a greater amount of Senate scrutiny available through estimates as a result of these changes. I will not hold my breath. But, given the government’s record of reducing the amount of scrutiny that estimates committees have been able to carry out, it would be a strange thing to suddenly turn around and be increasing it.

Senator Ellison said that there is a good deal of history behind this proposal and that from 1970 until 1994 all committees were government controlled and had government heads to them—and that is true. When the Liberals were in opposition, the Senate, with very heavy involvement and initiation from the Democrats, particularly from then Democrat Senator Vicki Bourne, instituted a better system—a system that all sides, even many in the then Labor government, acknowledged was a better system. I am not saying that there should be no change whatsoever from the current set-up, but how going backwards to having government control of all committees, purely because the government have a majority of one most of the time on the floor of the chamber, is an improvement and a positive development that enhances scrutiny—how that is anything other than a step backwards into history into a period when the government last had control of the Senate, back in the 1970s—is something that Senator Ellison did not actually manage to describe. All he said was that there was a good deal of history. There is a good deal of history. The history was that the government of the day used to have the numbers in the Senate and they did what wanted. The present government likes that idea and wants to go back there. That is not a history that I suggest is one that we want to repeat.

Of course, the government did not just come out on day one and decapitate the Senate and Senate committees; the government has slowly and deliberately strangled and asphyxiated them. In addition to the restrictions on Senate estimates committee hearings, we have had restrictions on the information that is provided and restrictions on the areas of questioning, where officers are directed not to answer things. We have also had a very dramatic restriction in the operations of the legislation committees. In those committees that are already chaired and controlled by government, most of the time—although not all of the time—we are still being allowed to have legislation sent to a committee. But the amount of time that those committees are being given to do their job is being reduced to farcical levels.

Who can forget the utter joke, the absolute farce, of the so-called committee inquiries into the Telstra legislation and the workplace law changes—the most radical changes to our industrial relations system in over a century? Those committees were given absolutely minimal scope for inquiry and a minimal amount of time for public hearings, with the government controlling the number of hearing days, where they would be and who could appear. And, of course, we should not forget the restrictions on the significant anti-terrorism laws and the Welfare to Work changes. All of that was as a result of government controlled committees and a government controlled Senate dramatically reducing and basically strangling the ability of Senate committees to do their job properly. They are just a few examples.

We have this furphy thrown up time and time again that the Senate used to abuse things because it would sometimes send legislation to references committees. I might say that, on occasion, that was done with the support of all sides because those references committees were having broad-ranging inquiries, rather than the more specifically focused legislation inquiries. If there was legislation that was broad ranging and touched on broader policy issues, there were arguments from time to time to send it to a references committee. But it should be pointed out that that was very much in the minority. It should also be pointed out that, from time to time, we have had policy matters that were not legislation sent to legislation committees—most notably, the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee inquiry into citrus canker, which tabled its report just yesterday.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Exactly.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why is it somehow atrocious to send legislation to a references committee but not atrocious to send a references matter to a legislation committee? It is a simple matter, and that has happened a number of times in the past. I am not saying it should not have happened, let me say.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Still, it was chaired by a government member.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator McGauran, you are out of order!

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps you might get my point here, Senator—the notion that, occasionally, in a minority of cases, having a policy matter sent to a legislation committee is no more out of order or a deliberate distortion of the Senate than occasionally having legislation sent to a references committee. It has happened both ways. It happened again with a committee that reported just yesterday. I am not saying it should not have happened. There are occasionally reasons why it happens. The point is that it has happened more than once with the legislation committees, particularly with the rural affairs legislation committee, and that is fine. The key aspect is that the broader purpose of having wider committees that are able to take comprehensive inquiries that are not controlled by any one party is something that has been widely accepted by all sides of politics ever since those changes were brought in in 1994. The only thing that has changed now is that the government sees an opportunity for a power grab to try and entrench its power and try to further restrict the opportunity for proper scrutiny.

Let me say that this is not just a matter of contempt for the Senate—although it is certainly that. Of much greater concern to me is the fact that it is a contempt for the public. We all know that there is a growing disillusionment amongst the community about their inability to connect with the political process. They are feeling that they cannot make a difference, that politics is just a bunch of politicians who come to Parliament House and do what they want and the community can get stuffed. One of the key areas where the public has felt that they have been able to make a clear difference, one of the key areas that still retains credibility as a viable mechanism for public consultation in the political and parliamentary process has been Senate committees. That is why this government want to destroy and discredit them. They want to discredit them because it suits this government to have the public alienated and disconnected from the political process. It suits this government to have the Senate discredited. It suits this government to have the parliament seen as an irrelevancy, because then they can do whatever they want. Everybody will feel that there is nothing they can do about it to change it, so they will just sit there and leave it alone, and maybe they will vote differently come the next election, but in between elections the government can just get on with doing whatever it feels like. That is the definition of an elected dictatorship, and that is clearly what this government most desires to achieve. I believe it is a serious degrading of the credibility of our democracy with the public.

We all know from Senate committee inquiries we have been involved in that many of the public do make an enormous effort to get involved in them. People spend a lot of time putting together submissions. Community organisations that are often overstretched nonetheless still put in the effort to put in submissions. We would all know that, even when we do go to hearings outside of Canberra, to other capital cities, people from regional areas will still drive four or five hours each way just so they can come and have half an hour before our Senate committees to tell us what they think. For them to feel and to realise that that process is going to be further restricted, that we will have fewer hearings outside of Canberra, that we will have fewer hearings at all, that we will have shorter inquiries with fewer opportunities for submissions and that we will have more reports that pay less attention to what people say when they do get the opportunity to have a say will degrade the credibility of the political process as a whole.

If there is one other thing that this government have done that quite clearly discredits the inquiry process and which they are continuing to do regardless of these changes—they are already doing it—it is their lack of interest in responding to committee reports. We have all of these processes and even government members who are genuinely involving themselves in the committee process, putting a lot of work in and genuinely trying to reach common ground to pull together all of the evidence from people across the community, and putting forward a comprehensive report with solid, non-partisan, unanimous recommendations with guidance for government and others in the community, and there is no government response.

I could use the example of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee, which I currently chair. Prior to my taking on the chair, the committee did a unanimous report in to the very important area of invasive species and made very substantial recommendations, based on a lot of input from people, including of course people in regional areas, where it is a major problem. More than two years later, even though it was a unanimous and non-partisan inquiry and report, there has been no response. It does not mean that nothing has happened. Things have happened that reflect what the committee has recommended, but there has been no response from the government.

It is important to emphasise that, whilst I do not say every committee inquiry has been perfect or even of enormous value, a very large number of significant and important reports have been brought down by these committees which have had non-government chairs, as there have been important reports brought down by committees with government chairs. I am not saying that government members should never chair committees, but I am saying that if you have Senate committees that, in every single case, are simply another vehicle for channelling the desire of the executive arm of government then you will inevitably have fewer and fewer occasions when those inquiries are of genuine value and are actually open-minded attempts to try and explore the full range of possibilities in the community.

We have had a large number of unanimous, constructive, non-partisan reports from committees that have been chaired by non-government senators—and I will not just point to my own committee, although I could use another example, that of the salinity inquiry report that was just tabled by the Senate environment committee that I chair. I could use the example of Senator Moore from the Senate Community Affairs References Committee, who, just yesterday, tabled a very important report into petrol sniffing. It had unanimous recommendations not just from Labor and Liberal senators but from Democrats and Greens senators as well.

We had the Senate Select Committee on Mental Health, chaired by my colleague Senator Allison. Again, that was a very important and very influential committee which produced a number of unanimous recommendations. We had the inquiry of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—which I think was chaired by you, Acting Deputy President Hutchins—into the military justice system. It produced a very important, very influential and unanimous report.

In saying this, I am reflecting positively on the role that government members play in that context. This is not a reflection on all Liberal Party members of the Senate back bench. What it is saying is that the inevitable consequence of all Senate committees simply being another mechanism through which the executive arm of government can control proceedings is a strangling and a suffocating of what is happening. We all know that, unfortunately, not always for the best, Senate committee chairs are prizes to be handed out. They are another mechanism for controlling people, where people can get a prize if they behave in the right way and do not get that prize if they do not.

This is another mechanism for further restricting the opportunity, I would suggest, even for government senators to more fully be able to independently express their own views. It will further restrict the ability of government members to have freedom because they will have less excuse, if you like. If they are in a committee that is chaired by other people and where nobody has control of the numbers, there is much more of an understanding that they have to try to find common ground and find a way through. If a government member is seen as controlling that committee then there is much greater pressure on them to act and deliver in accordance with what the government wants. There is much greater interest in any potential minor shift from the government line. That, I suggest, leads to further constraints in the ability of the Senate as a whole—all of us, from all parties—to do our job in a much more constructive way. This is a very serious move. Let us not underestimate how significant this can be if it is done in a way that further allows government control. (Time expired)

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens support this reference to the Procedure Committee of the extraordinary letter from Senator Minchin to some of us which said that the government was about to take the axe to the Senate committee system. I had thought that when the Prime Minister said, ‘I am going to be humble and I am going to be modest about my new majority in the Senate and so should we all,’ there was a touch of Uriah Heep about it. Dickens knew how to read people very well, and he would be writing a new novel if he were around at the moment. It is a Uriah Heep attitude. It says: ‘I’m ever so humble, I’m ever so much a servant of the people, I’m ever so much there to do the bidding of the Australian people, but watch out, because really I am much more of a power monger who has no respect of the sort that I would have you think I have for the parliamentary procedures, the democracy and the great institutions of this country if they are going to get in the way of me exercising that power.’

This has now become a presidential style, an executive style, government. The Prime Minister is applying the triple rubber-stamp process to this parliament. He has a rubber stamp in the House of Representatives, where he has a majority. I will come back to that in a moment. He has a rubber stamp in the Senate, where he has a newfound majority, and a backup on most things through the Family First senator. Now he is going to convert the great Senate committee system into a rubber stamp as well by appointing to the chair of each of the reduced number of committees—10 of them instead of 16—a government appointee. Sure, he will get a vote through this place, but that will come at the direction of the party room, which comes at the direction of the executive.

The wonder of all of this is that in a party that bears the name ‘Liberal’ there is such a herd instinct. There is so little individuality. There is such fear of standing out against the dictate of the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister’s office. We will see that expressed in the new Senate committee system. It is a reversion to the situation that existed before 1994, as various government people have pointed out. We look forward to the next episode, which will be to revert to the situation that existed before 1970 by abandoning the committee system altogether. In the Prime Minister’s mind that would be an easy way to get the same result. The Prime Minister knows he is going to get his way here because he has a majority in the Senate—that majority that he is going to be humble and modest about and that he has told other members of the party they should not get intoxicated about. I think the Prime Minister is a little drunk on political power at the moment, and it is showing. When you get that way you lose your sense of judgment.

I do not think that the Australian people will feel the same way about this. The Australian people are very defensive of the Senate and its long history of, its role in, being a hand on the shoulder of government, a backstop, a house of review and, in ancient times in particular, a states house—that is, a house where regional and state concerns could be addressed when the government of the day had lost sight of regional Australia. One of the wonders of all this is that the party that purports to support regional Australia, which is The Nationals, is likely to support this new system without a whimper and, in doing so, to cement even further the power of the Prime Minister in this situation.

The Greens will oppose this change. If the Prime Minister thinks that paying deputy chairs to quietly and neatly go and occupy the chairs is going to make a difference to our opposition, forget it. On the other hand, if you expect the Greens to abandon the committee system and turn our backs on it because it is temporarily being usurped in its purpose and its significant role in this democratic parliament, forget that as well. We will make the best of it that we can and look forward to the time when the government loses control of this place again. That, of course, is in the hands of and awaits the wisdom of the Australian people.

There is some sense—and I have heard this hubris coming through in the last couple of days, including from Senator Abetz—that, because the government has control of the Senate, in some way or other the Australian people want that. It is a false perception. Very few voters at the last election expected when they cast their vote for the coalition that it would mean that the Senate would become a rubber stamp of the prime ministerial office. My sense is that the Australian people do not like that at all. That is not how they see the Senate. They think it is a very welcome check on the excesses of government and the tendency for authoritarianism that sneaks into all governments, particularly when they have been there for a long time. So let us wait and see.

I can tell the Senate that the Greens, while appalled by the proposal to emasculate the committee system and to put in patsies—because that is what they will be; wait and see—

Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s outrageous!

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry?

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just carry on, Senator.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. I noticed some braying opposite, but it does not affect the fact that the people who sit in those chairs are going to know exactly to where their first allegiance is: not to the people of Australia but to the prime ministerial office—and watch out if they do not get the signal. I do not use any of those words without forethought and without meaning them. We will see. People have a good memory about this and a good sense of fairness. They do not and will not like this move by the government and this breach of the promise by the Prime Minister that he would be modest, that he would not be intoxicated and that he would be humble about the use of the Senate. There is nothing humble about the sledgehammer that is being taken to the Senate’s noble committee system, and it is—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Noble?

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz might quibble with the word ‘noble’, but I think it is noble. He can apply whatever adjective he likes. But let us be direct about this: the Senate committee system is a vehicle for the Australian people, for organisations, businesses, churches, schools, environmental organisations, business organisations, charities, a range of sporting organisations, when issues come up that affect them, to feed into the democratic process and give information to the democratic—

Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ferris interjecting—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is more braying from opposite, Acting Deputy President. The Australian people can give information to the democratic system—and, as Ralph Nader, when he visited this country back in 1980, said to me: ‘Information is the currency of democracy. It is the gold of democracy.’ This move means that the government will be able to restrict who comes before committees. It will be able to restrict what information the committees get. It will be able to restrict where those committees go, because we travel more and more outside Canberra—and that is a good thing. We go to the people and do not force them to try to get here. I am sorry, Acting Deputy President, that Senator Abetz looks so miserable about that.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. If a senator is sitting in this chamber, it is absolutely outrageous and surely out of order for somebody like Senator Brown to try to get into Hansard how somebody may or may not be looking, when in fact I was in contemplation of a completely different issue. It ill behoves a senator to try to put that on the public record. We know that Senator Brown continually does this, but surely there must be a limit to his antics in this place.

The Acting Deputy President:

There is no point of order, but you should address your remarks through the chair, Senator.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, and I will continue to do that. That was a wise ruling, thank you. I might say that I think it is a good practice for people in this place to have their minds on the subject that is being discussed. It is a very important matter, and I do not think it would hurt if Senator Abetz were to apply his mind to it while he is in this chamber.

I go back to the important role that the Senate committee system has in allowing people to express their feelings, their information, their wishes and their fears to this parliament before we make decisions that affect their lives. My colleague Senator Siewert was telling me last night about a couple of Senate committees that have made a difference. For example, people who are home carers were going to be done in by the Welfare to Work requirements which might have taken them out of that caring situation, but a Senate committee picked up on that. It did a great favour not just to the people who are home carers and those being cared for but to all of us by alerting us to a change that was required, and the government subsequently took that up.

There is also the example of the clothing outworkers, who have pretty difficult working situations in the clothing industry and do not have very much backup. Their safeguards under the new industrial relations system are not very good, but they would have been worse if it had not been for the Senate committee system. On and on it goes. The inquiry into the plight of people behind razor wire in this country—women, children, men, families—has no doubt embarrassed the government with its revelations, which came through many other agencies but were gathered together by the Senate committee system. It has made a big difference. In fact, because it keeps us grounded with the Australian people, the Senate committee system is of enormous ethical value to this parliament and to our democracy.

For members of the government and for the Prime Minister to come into the parliament and say that now they have a one-vote majority in the Senate they are going to do away with the multipartisan make-up of the Senate committees and the way they are balanced and replace that with a government dominated system is appalling. It is disgusting. We have to live with that. It will change. Decency and commonsense will come back in, if not after the next election the one after that. The Greens will be campaigning to rescue the Senate from this appalling situation at the next election. That is already striking a chord with people who are giving us feedback.

Let the government stand on its record, and if the government and the bright people at the back of the Prime Minister’s office who cooked this up think that this time next year people will have forgotten about it they are going to be very wrong indeed. The Procedures Committee ought to look very carefully at this. It will be interesting to see whether the Procedures Committee can come up with a well-rounded and unanimous view which is based above all on the democratic values of our committee system not being in the hands of the government party but in the service of all the people of Australia.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion of Senator Chris Evans. The Howard government has had control of the Senate since 1 July 2005 as a result of the Liberal Party winning the sixth and final spot in my home state of Queensland. Like many Australians I did not welcome the prospect of coalition control of the Senate. Like many Australians I suspected that the coalition would abuse the numbers. Like many Australians I was willing to suspend my suspicion and listen to the sweet promises that dripped from the Prime Minister’s tongue. He said:

... I want to assure the Australian people that the government will use its majority in the new Senate very carefully, very wisely and not provocatively.

We intend to do the things we’ve promised the Australian people we would do, but we don’t intend to allow this unexpected but welcome majority in the Senate to go to our heads.

That is what he said. He added:

We certainly won’t be abusing our newfound position. We will continue to listen to the people and we’ll continue to stay in touch with the public that has invested great trust and confidence in us.

Almost 12 months to the day the Senate has suffered the most massive blow yet from this arrogant government. The powerful Senate committee system that is prized around the world by functional democracies is set to have its heart ripped out by a coalition government. The move by the government to reduce the number of Senate committees from 16 to 10 will strengthen the government’s stranglehold on the Senate.

The committee system has evolved since the 1970s into a powerful voice to hold the government to account. This attack by the government is nothing more than a backward step for Senate oversight. The current system was established in 1994 and has served Australia well. It is important to note that there was no government dissent up until now about the workings of the Senate committee system. The present system involves eight pairs of committees. One of the pairs is the reference committee, which examines matters referred to it by the Senate, such as—and you might all recall—the inquiry into government advertising and the inquiry into military justice. The second of the pair is the legislation committee, which, as the name implies, deals with bills that have been referred to the committee by the Senate and undertakes the estimates work. The government chairs the legislation committees, the opposition chairs four references committees and the minor parties chair two.

Today, in a move of unprecedented arrogance, the government wants to scrap the paired committee structure in the Senate. The government argues, wrongly, that there is no good reason for the duplication of paired committees in the Senate. That is completely wrong. There is no duplication. The committees do different work and meet separately. The Australian people have a right to ask: what does this mean for the chamber’s ability to hold the government of the day to account? In other words, what are the practical effects of the government’s attack? What the attack basically does is tilt the balance of the committee system firmly towards the government. At the moment, the opposition and minor parties can form a majority report on major issues that are referred to the references committees.

Be under no illusion. What these changes are about is removing the one place in the whole system where the opposition party and minor parties can be guaranteed that the government cannot put the fix in. That is totally unreasonable. When the government has control of the chamber it already has control of what the reference committees can look into. Not content with controlling the issues, it makes this bold-faced attempt to ensure, having granted a reference, that the committee can only look at the areas the government wants it to. What these reference committees do, when allowed, is sometimes shine a light into the dark corners of this very shady government. But this government recoils from the cleansing light of public scrutiny. They are creatures of the dark that scuttle into the corners as soon as the light falls upon them. Under this extreme government we are witnessing a steady attack upon, and the slow but sure destruction of, our public institutions.

Like no other government in history, this government has sought to stack the Public Service, Australian embassies and agencies like the ABC with political appointees. It has commenced an attack on both workers and the Australian Constitution with its hideous Work Choices legislation. It has only today passed legislation to corrupt the political process by making it possible for all parties, but in particular the Liberal Party, to hide donations. It has sought wrongly to influence public disclosure in this country by mas-sively increasing the entitlements for sitting members and by an advertising blitz the like of which we have not seen before. The message in all this is as follows: when Mr John Howard makes you a promise, he speaks with a forked tongue. He guaranteed all of us a Senate safe from tampering. But today we see its power under attack.

Is it any wonder even his own backbench called the Prime Minister a ‘lying rodent’? Never before has this nation seen such a mean, tricky, cunning individual with such a deep resentment of public institutions as this Prime Minister. This is yet another Howard attack on public institutions. These reference committees, as we have known them, act as a powerful accountability mechanism. Without such a mechanism in place democracy is poorer as a result. Senate committee inquir-ies such as the inquiry into the effectiveness of the Australian military justice system and the inquiries into the government’s obscene expenditure on advertisements and into the Regional Partnerships Program which exposed regional rorts will simply no longer appear. This is a tragedy for public accountability and a tragedy for anyone with an interest in robust democracy.

It did not start here, of course. When the government got to power in the Senate, as early as August 2005 it unilaterally altered the allocation of questions at question time. Since then it has routinely rejected non-government amendments to bills even where support was found from government members of committees. The government has continued in the last 12 months to block references of bills to committees for no reason. Examples are the legal and constitutional provisions of the Migration Amendment (Detention Arrangements) Bill 2005; in the economic area, the Tax Law Amendment (2005 Measures No.2) Bill; the employment, workplace relations and education amendment to the terms of reference provisions of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005; and again in the economic area, the Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation Contributions Splitting) Bill.

In addition, the government has reduced the time available to committees to consider bills, with no reasons given. They have taken early report-back dates and used their numbers to enforce that in the Senate. Drunk with power, the government has sought to use the gag and the guillotine to pass legislation. It has chosen not to consult on the first occasion and to allocate times in the Senate. It has done these things in order to control the Senate. Since 1 July 2005 the government has gagged the Senate 16 times and used the guillotine five times. Bills, such as the Telstra bill, were gagged. It has also reduced the number of sitting days in the first half of 2006, ensuring that there is a reduction in scrutiny of its programs. Also, as I earlier stated, it rejected proposals for references to committees often with no reason and even against the wishes of its own back bench. Such matters included a reference to the Legal and Constitutional References Committee on the detention of Cornelia Rau; an employment, workplace relations and education reference on the impact of the package of industrial relations changes; a foreign affairs, defence and trade references with regard to involvement of the AWB in the Iraq food for oil program; and a regional affairs and transport reference. They have all been knocked back.

At the last budget estimates this government took eight hearing days away from estimates to make sure that the Senate could not use all the time available for estimates to hold the government to account. The government also refused to answer questions in respect of the Australian Wheat Board. What the government has also done is delay answering questions on notice. The estimates also saw the refusal to allow a particular witness to appear. You can all recall that in February 2006 there was a rejection of the motion to have Mr Sol Trujillo appear at an estimates hearing. The government has also, through expanding the hours of the Senate, ripped away from the time available for opposition general business when you can seek to have a debate. Clearly, this government is about hiding from scrutiny, shunning the spotlight on its abuses, misuses, mismanagement, mistakes, mischief and waste.

Let me now examine in detail how the government proposes to take a knife to the Senate. Under this proposal the government controlled Senate committees will be able to decide not only what references they will accept but also what evidence they will have presented to them. The witnesses to be called will also be determined by the chair of the committee. The chair will also write the majority report. Effectively, the committee secretariat and the resources of the committee will shift none too subtly to government control. Then, of course, we have the powers of committees to send for documents, to travel to different locations to hear evidence, to determine the length of the inquiry, and to meet and appoint subcommittees.

Clearly, the work of the Senate and its ability to do its work without interference will now be significantly affected. If it is the will of the government, the government can also use its power to refuse in camera hearings, to resist evidence being introduced and also ensure what evidence may be heard. Under this proposal that government could also foreshorten inquiries. The government has not even bothered to send the proposal in the first instance to the Procedures Committee. The opposition had to raise the issue for the government to take it seriously and we had to come here to move a motion to obtain it. This would have allowed real debate on the merits of the proposal to be aired. That is what the government should have done first. It had to be embarrassed into it. A report would have been completed to inform the Senate of the merits of the proposal first rather than having to do it after we forced the government’s hand. I suspect the government’s strategy was to try to avoid this procedure and come up with a lesser process.

The government is not going to be allowed to get away with this outcome. Why? The government knows that the changes proposed would not be subject to critical examination by the Procedures Committee. It has since realised the error of its way and has backed down to allow the matter to go now to the Procedures Committee. A healthy democracy is where a government can be held to account effectively and openly. Without transparency and scrutiny a lazy, arrogant government can hide many things from public view and can convince itself that it is in the best interests of the people for it to do just that.

This is a change that the government has wrought on the opposition and minor parties without prior consultation. The government had originally offered, disingenuously, to seek feedback on three issues only—that is, whether there should be eight committees or 10, which portfolios the committees should cover and the number of members within each committee. That was really an insult, because it did not go to the principle involved here. It did not go to the real issue; it went only to peripheral matters.

The legislative and general purpose standing committees appointed under Senate standing order 25 are described in the bible of the Senate, Odgers, as the ‘engines’ of the Senate’s committee system. This proposal will cause the engines of the Senate to splutter and die. These new proposals will result in the government controlling all of the Senate committees. This will mean that the work of the Senate committees will be dictated by the Prime Minister. The committee chairs will do the government’s bidding in their work. Mr John Howard will select committee chairs in the same vengeful way he has selected ministers, thus giving him a veto over the work they will do. I suspect he will also determine what work they can do.

Above all, the Senate committees allow for the public to engage in the Senate process with confidence that their views will be carefully considered. Thus, there is the ability for the public to engage in policy and law making. More particularly, the Senate committees allow for grievances to be aired by the public and throw light on any mischief of government. The dynamics of the current paired committee system allow government and opposition senators and minor parties to find common ground on issues. All this will be thrown away with government dominated Senate inquiries which will only be given work of the most perfunctory type to keep coalition backbenchers busy and out of harm’s way.

There may be some who voted Liberal at the last election listening to this speech tonight who say: ‘Oh, well. They won the election. Why shouldn’t they do what they want with the Senate?’ I will tell them why: the Senate is yours. It is your property, and one of the last safeguards of your right to good government. It is not the property of the Howard Liberal government. This is a house owned by the Australian people. I say to the government: it is not yours to dismantle brick by brick.

It is pretty clear to me what will happen overnight: there will not be another reference to a Senate committee that the Howard government does not want or another majority report that the government disagrees with. This is a wrong and arrogant path and it should be rejected outright. It is a massive intrusion by the executive into the role and independence of this chamber. If you do not believe me, look at the hand that signed the paper. This warrant was delivered not by the hand of the President, but by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Minchin. The government holds the whip hand in the Senate and it has now demonstrated that it is prepared to use it. There is no justification for this abuse other than a government that is using its numbers to crush all opposition, no matter how reasonable it in fact might be.

This government cannot argue that this is an improvement. It has not come to this Senate with clean hands. This is nothing short of a done deal designed to reduce the ability of the Senate to hold the government to account. This government does not like open, accountable processes. This government does not like transparency. This government does not like the light shone on its workings, because it is afraid of having those workings exposed for what they are. It is afraid that there might be mismanagement and mischief hiding there. This is a government that is demonstrating that it likes to hide its intent, cover up its mistakes and shun publicity when it is being criticised. There has been no statement before from this government that the current system of committees is not functioning well. What the Liberal government has tried to do today is, basically, shaft the Senate.

To the Australian people who may be listening at home or on the road tonight, never forget what the Prime Minister said just five days out from Senate control. He said this to the Sydney Morning Herald:

I’m not going to allow this unexpected majority to go to my head.

That is what he said. He went on:

I want to make that clear, I’m not going to do that. Because that would be disrespectful to the public, and it would disrespect the robust nature of the Senate, even with a Coalition majority.

Never forget that quote—I won’t. Never forget to ask yourself, ‘How on earth did I ever put my trust in this man?’

What we now have is a government that is prepared to use its majority across the board. We have now seen it all. We have seen a government that is prepared to affect question time and shift it in favour of the government. We have seen a government that has sought to affect the legislative program in this place by using the gag and the guillotine. We have also seen that this government is prepared to attack the Senate committee system—the engines of the Senate. The government is prepared to mercilessly attack the ability of the committees to look into things and throw light into dark corners. This government has abused its majority in the Senate within 12 months. Never forget the promise that the Prime Minister made, because he has broken it; he has snapped it clean in half. This Howard government should be ashamed of itself, but it will not be. It relishes the nastiness that surrounds it.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President Chapman, like you and Senator Abetz, who I notice is in here too, I am a longstanding member of the Senate. We have all been party to many debates in this chamber, so we have a good instinct. My instinct regarding this particular debate is that it is starting to peter out.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree. The Democrats are gone.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Democrats have not even turned up, Senator Abetz. I am meant to be the last speaker on this motion, and I have shot up the list because the Democrats have not turned up for the debate. The last speaker, Senator Ludwig, the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate no less, who should be the most outraged, had his head down and read the speech word for word. Obviously someone else wrote it. The hyperbole was quite unbelievable, even for Senator Ludwig. Some of that hyperbole was beyond the pale. It was only matched by his leader, Mr Beazley, who said, ‘This is one evil action.’ Can anyone believe that a potential Prime Minister would reserve such a word—the word ‘evil’—for this issue?

How pathetic! Talk about losing the plot! For those who are listening on broadcast, I would like to outline what exactly we are debating today, about which Mr Beazley used the term ‘evil’. That is desperate. That must be embarrassing for you on the other side. We are debating today a motion to refer a matter to the Procedure Committee. It might surprise those listening to this debate on broadcast that, in fact, the government support this motion. We accept this motion to refer a matter of Senate restructure to a committee. We have no objection to that. I would have thought that that was the first test of scrutiny and accountability. I think you can tick us for that one; I think we have passed it. We are accepting that this matter of Senate reform or restructure—or damnation, as you would have it—be referred to the Procedure Committee. I wonder if Senator Ray is on that committee.

Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, for 25 years.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For 25 years. Senator Ray, one of the great scrutinisers of this Senate, is actually on that committee. We do not fear the scrutiny of this Senate reform, particularly as it is going to a committee of someone who is fearless himself. He will put down what he thinks in the report—and he is about to speak, I see. It is good to see that they have revived the speaking list, quite frankly. They must have done a quick ring around.

Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s the Democrats who have missed out, and Senator Coonan.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is true; they have shot me up the list. Lucky me! I have a good 15-plus minutes to go. So that is the first test, for those listing on broadcast. After all that hyperbole and exaggeration—and it was unbecoming of you, Senator Ludwig—I hope Senator Ray will have a far more balanced approach to this. Senator Ray, for all his rantings and ravings, his spittings and explosiveness, does not go for hyperbole. I will give him that. He, too, would be embarrassed by your leader’s comments with regard to this ‘evil’ act. I think you reserve the word ‘evil’ for far more dramatic and worse actions than what we are doing here today.

What the government will not accept in this motion—and we have moved an amendment accordingly—is the move by the other side to, typically, stretch this inquiry out beyond the time the Procedure Committee normally need to have a decent look at such a matter. We are not going to fall for that again, because that is your habit. Your habit is to go on fishing expeditions in committees, to stretch what you would think is a political advantage in all of this. We believe there is enough time for this to be investigated by the Procedure Committee over the winter break and to report back to the Senate in August. That is fair enough. Perhaps you could just put it down to a difference of opinion, but the point is the motion is going to the Procedure Committee. All we differ on is the time to investigate it.

Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We don’t.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We do not, Senator Ray?

Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You know that; we’ve already called a meeting for 10 July. That’s a nonsense.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can see you are going to join the hyperbole. I gave you some credit—

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is pronounced hyperbole.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It depends on what school you went to. Senator Ray, you are no better; you are in deterioration in the latter years of your gallant career. Perhaps you had better shunt him back to New York!

Grant Chapman (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator McGauran, I remind you to address your remarks through the chair.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course. In truth, the change the government is proposing to introduce is to merely revert back to the system pre 1994—a system which the Labor government of the time worked under for over a decade and were quite happy with. If I remember rightly, when it was changed in 1994—and I would like to see in the Hansard what Senator Ray had to say about this at the time—they were none too happy about the changes then that we forced on them, with the Democrats’ support. All we are proposing is a reversion back to a system that you worked under previously.

This government is simply seeking to hold the chairs of the committees, and that is really the essence of the debate. Past Hansards will show that the Labor government were in strong objection to the change of the committee system at that time when they held the chairs. Of course, now that you are in opposition you take a different view, and that is not surprising because you have consistently taken different views from those you held in government to those you hold in opposition. You have no consistency in Senate procedure, let alone in policies, at all. There is enough evidence to say that. You have ditched just about every philosophical policy you ever held while you were in government, and you are singing a completely different tune with regard to your principles in opposition. And there are any number of examples of that, even in the past couple of weeks, when you backflipped on your industrial relations policy.

No-one doubts that, if you had a chance—if you did get into government at some point—you would revert back to your preference prior to 1994. That is the model that you preferred in government and that is the model—and no-one has any doubt—you would revert back to if you had a chance to be in government, and that is a pretty simple model. The government of the day holds the chairs of the committees.

Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And you changed it.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is exactly right. Given that, in this place, the coalition government has been elected to the majority, it ought to control the committee chairs. Frankly, like the House of Representatives, it would be odd for it not to.

Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you on a promise?

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am not. But I have absolutely no doubt that in government there will be a rush for the chairs, as there will be for the deputy chairs. I suspect the Labor Party will hold all 10 of the deputy chair positions.

In essence, it would be odd not to take up the chair positions. It would be like rejecting your own mandate—how absurd! Now we have been given the majority, we ought to take up the mandate that people have given us. What each speaker from the other side—one after another, be it from the Labor opposition or the minor parties—is really crying about here is the fact that we have a majority. They still will not accept the people’s choice. They will not accept this government’s mandate. They seek to frustrate, to filibuster and to use the procedures. They use every single tactic, including no less than the Senate committee system. It is a wreck. You have abused it. It ought to be changed and streamlined, and the government ought to hold the chairs.

The system that we are proposing is really one that, as you know, combines the legislation and the references committees. It might surprise some of those listening, but currently the legislation committees and the references committees have the same policy portfolios, the same secretariats and quite often the same members. You get this absurd situation, as I know from the rural and regional affairs committee, to which I have belonged, where, when the legislation committee changes to the references committee, there is a new chairman, who was the deputy of the legislation committee. So the deputy and the chairman switch places, and it is an absurdity. It is an efficiency to simply combine the two and just have one. It is in disarray. The duplication ought to be rectified. It is in disarray because you have abused the reference system, as has been outlined here by Senator Ellison.

The abuse of the reference system in here is mostly by the minor parties, who bring spurious references onto the floor, trying to get their political points up to a committee to which the opposition hold the majority. They have already made up their minds how they are going to bring down their recommendations. One of the best examples that I was involved in was the moving of a motion by one of the Greens—Senator Siewert, I believe—in relation to the AWB and the Iraqi trade situation. In the middle of the Cole royal commission, they wanted to set up a reference committee inquiry—by a committee that she chaired, I believe—to bring down their own points of view and political slant on the whole matter. The government had set up a royal commission headed by the respectable chairman and Chief Justice Mr Cole, with all its openness, accountability and scrutiny. But they wanted to take it a step further, simply because they controlled a Senate committee.

It is true to say that since 2004 the government has controlled the referral of references on the floor of the Senate. So all we are discussing is the chairmanships of these committees. The government already controls the references, so do not come in here and say that there are going to be fewer references being referred to the Senate committees now that they have been combined. We already control the number of references that go to the committees, on the floor of the Senate. So all we are debating is chairmanships. I think what you are really upset about is the loss of the chairmanships, and the loss of the payments that goes with them. Equally, the legislation committees have been very free flowing. You need not fear the level of scrutiny that will come out of the new legislative committees, given the vigour and the rigour with which they already undertake inquiries.

You only need to look at two reports—both from committee inquiries chaired by the government—that have been handed down in the last week or two. One was from an inquiry by a legislation committee chaired by Senator Heffernan and it handed down the citrus canker report. It is a very strong, rigorous report that is quite critical of AQIS and government departments. That was chaired by a government chairman. Also, as you all know—as it has been a source of debate—the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee has inquired into the provisions of the migration amendment bill. This is another rigorous report from a legislation committee, chaired by a government member. This side of the house has the freedom to scrutinise and to bring the government to account if it sees fit. And it has, and the evidence is there. When was the last time a Labor Party member—or a minor party member, for that matter—stood out and wrote a dissenting report against his own party’s position? There has been no such thing. When was the last time a Labor Party member crossed the floor? You never see it. They are the ones who cannot scrutinise. They are the ones who act in uniformity. They are the ones without the freedom that this side of the house has to bring the government to account or to improve the legislation. As I say, we have had two reports in the last couple of weeks that prove that.

Let us go through the absurdity of the previous speaker, who raised the matters of a lack of debate, with the use of the guillotine, and the reduction of questions in question time. On question time: the government—now holding the majority, with its numbers increased by two—simply went from four questions to five questions. The Democrats, who lost numbers, lost the question that the government picked up. That is pretty fair. The Labor Party did not lose any questions at all; it had six questions prior to the government holding the majority and it still holds six questions post 2004.

Where is the injustice in that? It is just ranting and raving. And we have the two biggest ranters and ravers in the chamber now; watch the decibels go up when Senators Faulkner and Ray stand up. They will be putting on all the feigned complaint and expressions that they can. There are no two people that would act more on a majority, should they be lucky enough to get one, than those two over there. Watch all the feigned anger and disgust, as we saw with the last piece of legislation. It is becoming tiresome, if nothing else, Senator Faulkner. You only have one gear. We saw you stand up yesterday in relation to the electoral bill and heard the same thing: damnation. You will get up soon and do the same thing again. The truth of the matter is that these changes are both efficient and necessary. This is simply the government carrying out its mandate, as it ought to.

When it comes to guillotines, according to the record I have in front of me, Senator Ray has 52 times enacted the guillotine—the so-called stifler of debate. I might agree with Senator Ray and say that it was simply time management, that it was necessary for his government to carry out its mandate and that there may have been a little bit of filibustering going on by our opposition. It may well have been the case. But the point is that you did not hesitate to bring in the guillotine. Of course, Senator Bob McMullan held the record of 57 times. So do not come in here and say we have used the guillotine to stifle debate when, when you were in government, you did exactly the same thing.

One of the reasons we are moving to change the system—and I made this point before—is efficiency. And the change is efficient: 10 legislative committees to match 10 portfolios, instead of 16 committees. We currently have the same secretariat and, basically, the same members representing two committees—what an absurdity! I think anyone would agree that that ought to be concertinaed into one. We wish to hold the chairs because we are not going to be party to the opposition and minor parties’ abuse as chairs and majority holders in the references committees. Legislation has been shunted off to those committees. Senator Ellison listed an array of legislation shunted off to references committees—

Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When?

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The New Tax System, for example, the GST, as far back as 1998—when you had a chance. That legislation ought not to have been shunted off to the references committee, and that is one of the prime examples. The migration bills are another example where you have shunted off legislation to references committees. And it is done for one single reason: so you can bring down a report that favours the opposition. That is taking a politically opportunist approach to the report simply to grab a headline. Now that we have the majority, you equate our majority and acting out our mandate and program with arrogance. But we are simply carrying out our mandate. Now that we have the majority, there is no proper reason why you should hold the chairs, given the point that you have abused them endlessly and will continue doing so. The exaggeration and hyperbole is exampled by the Labor Party’s pathetic leader’s description of what this change is, when he called it ‘evil’. What an absurdity!

Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am convinced Senator McGauran is the source of most of the world’s foie gras—what a performance today! He accuses us of backflipping—us! Has anyone here changed political parties in the last year? Senator McGauran has, without explanation. Senator McGauran has betrayed the electors of Victoria—he was elected as a National Party senator and transferred over to the Liberal Party. So we will not hear any lectures from Senator McGauran on consistency or on principle. A rodent is a rodent is a rodent—a fact of politics.

It is interesting that a lot of people in here talk about the reforms of 1994; but none of them really know the details, because no-one on that side was involved.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ferguson interjecting—

Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you were not.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was not involved in the intimate detail.

Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You were not involved and you were not properly briefed on the negotiations. What happened was that in 1994 the rather dispirited coalition parties decided they were a bit alienated from the system and would take all the chairmanships. Then they took a deep breath and thought: what will happen if we win government and all the chairmanships were always in the hands of the opposition? So they set up negotiations. Who negotiated? I did and former senator Noel Crichton-Browne did.

And isn’t it interesting that we, people that do not have a reputation for the ‘vision thing’ and who are not regarded as necessarily the most humane people on earth, in the system we developed, actually came up with one that did honour to the Senate—that balanced the competing rights of government and opposition, that recognised proportionality and that introduced a system that both sides could take something out of. That system was put to the Procedure Committee and was adopted by the Senate, I think, in August 1994. And only I was party to the full negotiations. I do not know how it was reported back to the coalition party room.

Of course, within two weeks, the spirit of that agreement—the main thrust of the legislative committees was to replace the committee stage in this chamber—had been broken. We were supposed to have the minister and public servants confronted by a legislative committee to replace the committee stage. And what did we get? We got public witnesses coming from all over Australia, and, in fact, the committees were then distorted.

While I am on the subject of distortion, Senator Ellison and Senator McGauran say the references committees are distorted. It was never intended that legislation not be referred to references committees. That was not the intention. The legislative committees were to deal with the committee stage, on the broad principle that the references committees could deal with legislation, provided the second reading speech had not been agreed to in the Senate. I cannot guarantee that on every occasion that was not the case; but I cannot remember a case of a general issue related to legislation going to a references committee when the bill had already passed the second reading stage in the Senate. The government is wrong in that accusation. It is part of the paranoia of the coalition.

Those changes were brought in in 1994. But what do we have now? We have the Prime Minister of this country saying, ‘In the previous 24 years until then the system worked well.’ Then why was it changed in 1994? If the operating principles from 1971 through to 1994 were so good, why was the system changed? I postulated in the Hansard of 24 August that I hoped this was not a matter of avarice and greed, that it was not just a grab for the money. At the time, I assumed, on balance, that it was not that. I assumed that it was people wanting change for the sake of the improvement of the system and not just to pick up a chairman’s salary for several of the coalition members at the time. I hope I am wrong on that.

I hear Senator McGauran make cheap shots in here and say that we are opposing this only because of the money. That has never been mentioned on this side. That is an unfair and an unjust accusation. It only demeans Senator McGauran. This is not about the money for chairs. Senator McGauran, if you want, let us take the payment off chairs. We will accept that. Take it off chairs and deputy chairs, make it about a matter of principle and see how many on your side front up and vote for it. Absolutely none. That is a typically despicable accusation, without any evidence, from a transferee from the National Party to the Liberal Party.

What this is really about is the attitude of the Howard government. The Howard government basically hate unions. We acknowledge that. They hate state Labor governments and they quite despise the ABC, but the thing they hate the most and the thing that they have been most particular about is their hatred of scrutiny. They have always objected to scrutiny. I have tried to work out why they hate scrutiny so much. I think it is because they have an image of themselves as being pure, principled and unimpeachable. The moment scrutiny exposes that they are not, they cannot cope with it. Therefore, they are determined to not have scrutiny or, as much as possible, to reduce scrutiny. So what do they do? Typically in the Liberal Party, they try to kill the ABC board, they bully the media and they make sure that the pesky old Senate becomes yet another Uncle Tom institution.

In Senator Minchin’s letter—and it was an interesting letter—he makes claims about efficiencies. The words ‘efficiencies’ and ‘effectiveness’ appear in his letter. I will come back to the word ‘effectiveness’. What efficiencies is he talking about? Is he talking about saving money with these mergers? If he is, I would like him to quantify it. I would like to know how much money we are going to save by reducing the number of committees. I would also like to know how many staff are going to go in these efficiencies. I think it is fair to tell staff of the Department of the Senate what the government has in mind. Are their jobs safe or is there going to be a purge of Senate staff? I would like to know that because the word ‘efficiencies’ appears in his letter.

In the same letter there is the classic government quote: ‘The government is proposing reform to the system.’ That is a perversion of the English language when you use the word ‘reform’ in that particular way. I could be equally provocative and talk about this being a rort, but I do not. This is about change. We can argue about whether it is regressive or progressive change, but do not use the word ‘reform’—one of the most abused words in the English language.

I hope Senator Minchin’s letter leaves open for negotiation the matter of how many committees there will be. It has been explained to us today that 10 is a virtue. I am very doubtful about that. I am extremely doubtful that expanding the number by another two is a virtue. It will spread scrutiny, it will make running the estimates process extremely difficult, given that the constraints of Hansard allow us to run four committees at once. I do not make the accusation, but I hope that the extra two committees is not about an extra two chairs. If it is not, let us sit down and negotiate rationality around the committee system.

I like to say that there has been a death in the family and that the Procedure Committee will deal with the will. That is the way we should approach things. Like Senator Evans, I acknowledge that the government has a majority and it has decided to do this. I do not like the fact that it has done it, but I do not believe in taking the bat and ball home. I think we should sit down and try to get the best system for the Senate—

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We agree.

Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

not just say, ‘It’s going to be 10 committees.’ I hope that is genuinely open for negotiation. I notice that Senator Coonan is nodding, and I hope that she will acknowledge that in her speech.

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will.

Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could I also say that there is a more puzzling aspect to this. Maybe it is the defensive mechanism, but suddenly Senator Minchin says, ‘We could have eight members per committee.’ Wasn’t it just five years ago that the coalition came to us and begged us to reduce the number on references committees from eight to six? They did. We could see the sense in that, we discussed it at the Procedure Committee and the number was reduced. I just say this to the government: if you are intending to have 10 committees with four government members—that is, 40 positions—remember that, once you eliminate the frontbench, the President and probably the whips, you will have to have 14 of your backbenchers on two committees. How are you going to cover the workload? Not at all. If you think that we are going to do all the work to make up for your absenteeism, the answer is no.

Around this building we have had complaints about absentees from committees, and no side is without guilt. I am getting more and more complaints, especially about joint committees, that people are not turning up. That is not my experience, because for the joint committee that I am on everyone turns up. Sometimes, one way or another, there is a five to one ratio. So let us think seriously about the ability of the opposition and the government to fully staff these committees so that they are committed to the committees and are not just a name on a committee, because nothing will destroy the committee system faster than non-attendance et cetera. So I hope that not only the size of the committee but the composition of the committee is given some sort of commonsense.

I have to put this on the public record in terms of these matters: the government has a majority in the Senate—we acknowledge that—but it should use it responsibly. I am not issuing this as a warning; I am issuing this as a threat. If you misuse and abuse that power, then when you lose that majority do not expect fair treatment. Retribution will come, and it will come on the basis of unfairness. You as a majority are perceived to act and do act in a blatantly partisan and unfair way to a minority. Some day, that minority will pay it back, and I do not want to see that situation. This is a great institution. We should honour it and not be into some sort of payback system.

If these matters go to the Procedure Committee, people are given a fair hearing and there are reasonable negotiations, I am not saying there will be any retaliation. I am saying that there will not be. But there are other ways that oppositions can act in this political system, especially in regard to statutory committees, that you on that side do not want to contemplate. We should have fair and proper negotiations.

Senator Ellison moved an amendment on the reporting date. It is almost a nonsense now, because both he and Senator McGauran made a big point about it. We know that Senator McGauran would not know but I would have hoped that Senator Ellison already knew that our great chairman of the Procedure Committee, sitting here and attentively listening to the words of wisdom I am about to offer, has already scheduled the Procedure Committee meeting for 10 July. Surely that shows good faith. We scheduled it in a city and at a time that suits government members. We will discuss it then. I will make a further offer. If in fact you want that report tabled out of session, we will agree. So you can debate it the first day you come back here and not the first or second week. We do not mind. We will debate it whenever you like and everyone can have a look at that report, debate it and study it. We are not trying to slow the process down—not at all. That is a most unfair accusation that both Senator Ellison and Senator McGauran made. Of course, as to Senator McGauran, let us face it—he would not have known. If you asked him what day it was you would have an even money chance of getting the right answer.

I want to say one other thing about this. Finally this at least revealed the great joke of the week. For this we can congratulate the member for O’Connor, Mr Tuckey, at his doorstop this morning. The member for O’Connor said: ‘I support these changes—it will save money. It is a great saving. It will save money.’ Oh, really? Ten committees with paid chairs and deputy chairs make 20 payments. Currently we are paying 16. Apparently Mr Tuckey believes that the extra $50,000 paid out is going to be a saving. That is a nonsense. This is not about money on either side of the chamber. For him to say as a justification that there will be savings is an absolute nonsense. He should stick to frequent flyer points and charter flights, which he is absolutely numerate with, and leave us to get on with our particular business.

In conclusion, I want to return to the fact that it is not a valid argument, unless you can justify it, to say that this system applied between 1971 and 1994. Why did it change? No-one from the other side has explained why they demanded change, why they acceded to change and why they allowed that system to exist for 10 years in their government other than that they are now in a majority thanks to distant preferences from Pauline Hanson and One Nation. That is the difference. It is rule 39-37. You can do it so you are going to do it. But do not do it in such a way that it is not negotiated out and the finer detail is not looked at. Maybe in the spirit of that you can actually come up with a system that is better than what it could be if you just used your numbers on this particular matter. I do not believe these committees will be more effective. I do not believe there will be great savings to be made. I just do not believe that will happen. But what we do not want to see is the emasculation of the Senate as an institution.

Sure, you have to recognise that the current government has a majority. I am not denying that. I am not berating against that. But in any democratic political system the test of the greatness of that political system and of the institution is quite often how well minorities are treated and how well those rights are recognised. That will be the great test that the government has to face over this particular issue. I would just say that I look forward to discussing these matters to try to develop a system that works. I made reference to this by interjection to Senator McGauran when he asked whether I have been on the Procedure Committee. I have been on the Procedure Committee—bar the time when Joe Ludwig purged me for three months—for 25 years. I have followed every rules change in this place in that 25 years. I think it is probably an Australian parliamentary record to serve on a committee for so long. It is true to say that generally we have approached all matters on consensus. It will not be possible on this occasion to approach it on consensus. But I appreciate, endorse and acknowledge the fact that the government is willing to send it to the Procedure Committee. We appreciate that part of it—that it is going there. I do not want to see changes to standing orders come off the floor, be belted through and bypass the Procedure Committee. We have never done it particularly. I think that the televising of parliament was the only time I can remember it being done in a big way. That did not go to the Procedure Committee. This one should go to the Procedure Committee. We will deal with it in mid-July. We are happy to see the report tabled out of session so that everyone can look at it. We are happy to debate it on the first sitting day here in August.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened with interest to Senator Ray’s contribution because we are all aware, on this side and the other side, that he is one senator in this place who has seen the changes that have taken place, particularly over the past 10 or 15 years but even prior to that. I do not necessarily agree with everything he said, but can I say that there are one or two misconceptions that ought to be cleared up because of the contributions that were made by some of the other previous speakers to this debate who were not here at the time the changes were made. Senator Ray informed me of a couple of things that I did not know were quite the case in relation to the changes that someone outside would say that he notoriously negotiated with former senator Noel Crichton-Browne. We were here at the time and there was not anybody on our side who objected to it, I can tell you that.

I am concerned when I hear people say that this is the Prime Minister imposing his will on the Senate. I just had a chance to do an interview on the radio with Mr Kelvin Thomson from the other place and it only confirmed my view on how little those who work in the House of Representatives know about Senate procedures and the way we run the committee system in this place. I would suggest that, if the Labor Party want to get spokesmen talking about Senate changes, they should get someone from the Senate rather than somebody from the House of Representatives because of all of the misquotes and misapprehensions he put in place.

Although senators may not believe this, this has been driven by senators on the coalition side. That was where it started. It had nothing to do with the Prime Minister’s office, as Senator Brown would like to think. It was driven by senators on this side. We have been talking about it for 12 months. Senator Ray might well say, ‘Why have you waited 10 years to bring this up?’ We have waited 10 years, Senator Ray, for the obvious reason that we did not have the numbers beforehand. That is the obvious reason that this has been raised. And, in fact, it has taken us a long time to convince the Prime Minister that we want to make these changes and they should be made.

This is not about money, as somebody suggested. One of the hang-ups about this was the fact that those of us on this side felt that deputy chairs of Senate committees should receive some remuneration and that, if we had remuneration for deputy chairs of Senate committees, it would only be fair that remuneration should be paid to deputy chairs in the House of Representatives. That was a bone of some contention. So that has been the hold-up and is one of the reasons that this has not been brought forward before.

I listened carefully to what Senator Ray said about the two-committee system of references committees and legislation committees. In the early days of this dual system, there was a respect that legislation would go to legislation committees and that committees would generate references and would conduct inquiries into those references with an opposition majority or a government minority. I do not believe that members on this side actually became perturbed about the committee system until it reached the stage in the late nineties when legislation was being sent to references committees, where the government was in a minority. Legislation was being sent to references committees when in fact it was the understanding on this side of the chamber—it was certainly my understanding in 1994—that references committees would deal with references and all legislation would go to legislation committees.

I think it is fair to say that, at that time, the one reason for the change was the fact that the government had only 30 senators, the coalition had 36, the Democrats had, I think, seven, the Greens had two and there was Senator Harradine. That was the state of the chamber at that time. As Senator Ray mentioned, there were murmurings about the coalition taking over chairs of committees because they were the majority party. I happened to be of the view that governments should chair those committees—although, being a reasonably new senator in 1994 I was not outspoken about it because I really did not know enough about the committee system at that time to state that point of view. The only other comparable committee system that I know of is in the United Kingdom, where there are opposition chairs of committees—based on the numbers in the House of Commons—but the opposition never has a majority on those committees. The government always has a majority, but they do share the chairmanship around so that the opposition do actually chair some committees in the House of Commons.

I was disappointed to hear some of the comments made, particularly by Senator Brown, about this being all the Prime Minister’s doing and that it is the government drunk with power. The generation of this proposal came from within the Senate, from coalition members of the Senate. That is how it originated—within our backbench. I was on a small committee almost 12 months ago looking into this, but it has taken us until today to manage to come up with this proposal. One of the reasons that many of us wanted this is that we knew that ministers and others were very unhappy about political references or any other references going to a references committee where the opposition would control the reporting of that committee and would have a monopoly on the majority report. So it has been the practice in this chamber to refuse to send the references to the committees.

I think that the Senate should be looking at many matters of public interest, but the government and government senators will only be confident of looking into these important matters of public interest when they know that the report will not be controlled by a minority of members of the Senate—that is, those who are opposition chairs or Democrat chairs. I am hopeful that these changes will give us an opportunity as coalition senators to have more references in the public interest. Members opposite might not always like the report that is prepared.

Debate interrupted.