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

This is an important motion. I have listened with interest to the contributions and I am now going to, probably more briefly than earlier speakers, sum up on behalf of the government. I appreciate that, especially for many of those who were in this place when the present paired committee system was negotiated in 1994, there is a high regard for and a strong attraction to the existing system. And I will refer to some of the specific constructive matters raised in this debate, particularly by Senators Ray and Faulkner, shortly. The fact that I will not be referring in detail at this stage to every speaker’s contribution is in no way to diminish the importance of their contributions. Of course, this is going to a Procedure Committee and we will be able to tease out those constructive suggestions at that point.

I acknowledge that the current Senate system is not all bad. However, I firmly believe that it faces some difficulties in both principle and practice and that it can be improved without destroying the positive features of the system. Every institution evolves and the Senate committee system is, in my view, no exception. After 10 years in this place and with the reality of a government Senate majority for the first time in 25 years, I and my colleagues believe it is time to propose some changes. The basis for seeking change is no great mystery, although some speakers have claimed to be completely perplexed by it. The fundamental point that does not seem to have been acknowledged by previous speakers is that a majority destroys the very rationale for the separate references committees. When there is a different political composition in the Senate, an opposition dominated references committee can play a distinctive role because its deliberations are backed by the Senate. When the governing party has the majority in the Senate, the rationale for separate or paired committees is undermined.

In those circumstances, it is logical to look at how the committee system should be better aligned to the composition of the Senate, as elected by the Australian people. Therefore, the proposal seeks to streamline and augment the system, not to gut it as claimed in this debate. How do we propose to do this? The proposal is that the 16 paired committees be merged into eight single committees undertaking the same functions and that the eight committees be expanded to 10. Most of the current committees, although I acknowledge not all, have a commonality of membership and cover the same portfolio issues.

If I am correct in my assertion that the rationale for separate references committees has gone, at least while the government has a Senate majority, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the core functions of committees, such as the consideration of references and the examination of legislation, will continue. It is just that this will occur in one entity and not two. The expertise and resources on each subject will be concentrated in one committee rather than spread across two. The Senate as elected by the Australian people will continue to decide which matters are referred to committees and which matters will not be referred. This would be the same after the proposed changes as it is today.

Having thought carefully about this, I believe most of the arguments for retaining the existing paired system are rhetorical or at least based on a set of numbers that do not support these arguments—whereas I am firmly of the view that we can have a revamped Senate committee system that will meet the democratic requirements of accountability. I am not expressing hollow sentiments here, and I now move to address some of the questions and points that were specifically raised by Senators Ray and Faulkner during their contributions.

Senator Ray raised the issue of the government seeking to deliver a more efficient system and asked how much money would be saved and how many jobs would be lost. I would remind Senator Ray and others that ‘efficiency’ is not a synonym for ‘job cuts’. What we are talking about here is a system which delivers better results for the resources that are committed to the task. There is no reason to expect that proposals would be linked to staff reductions. Senator Ray also said that he wanted some reassurance that the government was genuinely open to consulting on these issues. I can say to Senator Ray and to all of those interested in this question that we are seeking to implement these changes in a genuinely consultative way. That is why the Leader of the Government in the Senate outlined the proposal to party leaders and sought their input. That is why we have advised senators of the changes now—to allow the six-week winter recess for discussions. And that is why we have no objection to this matter being referred to the Procedure Committee.

Senator Ray acknowledges the government’s majority in this place and is well aware that the government could have simply moved a motion this week to implement the reforms. We did not. Senator Ray indicated he would like to discuss the number of new committees, suggesting that he thinks there should be eight rather than 10. He also raised the issue of the number of members of each committee. I think these are reasonable questions to ask and I look forward to hearing and considering his views when the Procedure Committee meets on this proposal in July. I also note his agreement to bring forward the reporting date.

Senator Faulkner also made a lengthy contribution and I would like to address some of the points he made. Senator Faulkner asked whether the committees would retain the powers of the existing committees: I can reassure the Senate that this proposal does not relate to reducing or diluting the powers of committees. The senator also asked for guarantees that there would be no further limitations on time for estimates and no restriction on their scope. With regard to time, as Senator Minchin and others have said, the proposal as it stands would lead to more time for estimates hearings and, with regard to scope—although Senator Faulkner may not like to acknowledge this—there are limits on the scope of estimates hearings and they are set out in the standing orders.

Despite the fact that in many respects I think Labor senators would like to ignore the standing orders, they do set down limits on the scope of estimates hearings, and this proposal does not involve altering the scope—although I should add here that I think this debate is an opportunity to make the comment and remind opposition senators that, certainly from the point of view of a minister sitting there from 9 am to 11 pm on successive days of estimates hearings, they are in many respects excruciating. That is not because of the way in which matters are probed but because of some of the rudeness to witnesses and the rudeness to officials, and the fact that senators turn up late, and that witnesses have to travel and are often kept there for hours on end simply because those questioning them cannot get to the point. I think setting limits is appropriate because, if you expect officials to do their jobs, part of it is to also play the part and treat them with courtesy and try to minimise the amount of time they have to hang around for and attend estimates.