Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Banking and Financial Services) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Labor opposition, I will make a few points. Firstly, the Labor Party will not be supporting the amendments as moved by Senator Murray to the Public Works Committee Amendment Bill 2006. I share some of Senator Murray’s concerns. Indeed, I have referred to the approach of this Liberal Party government—and I do not even say ‘National Party’ these days. I mean, what is the National Party? It is just the doormat of the Liberal government, quite frankly. As I have said, we are concerned at the approach that has been taken, since the Liberal government has had a majority in this place, to the accountability of parliament through the committee system as it operates. The committee system, particularly in the Senate, is important to accountability and a check on the executive power in this country. We have started to see that wither, given at least some of the measures this government has enacted since it has had total control of the parliament and a majority in the Senate, through a range of pieces of legislation that indicate a government that is out of touch, extreme and going a step too far in a number of areas that were not even mentioned in the run-up to the last election—industrial relations is but one of them—and in the changes that have been made to the committee system since the last election which, again, were not mentioned at all prior to the last election.

That is an issue, along with others, that the people of Australia will make a decision on at the next election. If the people of Australia want a continuation of this approach in a range of areas, that will be their decision. If they want to allow this Liberal government total power through a majority in the Senate, and substantial power as the government of the country by re-electing them in the House of Representatives, that will be the decision of the Australian people.

But we are not dealing with the parliament as such ‘giving up its rights’, to quote Senator Murray. I think it is more a matter of how the parliament delegates its rights in a sensible and reasonable manner and of the parameters that we set, in this case around the delegation to the parliament of the examination of public works in this country. We see the proposed amendments to the Public Works Committee Amendment Bill as reasonable in the circumstances.

I understand the Australian Democrats in the sense that they are keen to hold the government accountable and are not going to ‘tug the forelock’—I think that was the expression that Senator Murray used. I could cast my thoughts back to the time of the famous GST debate, Senator Murray—but time is not going to allow me to do that—when I reflect on the position of the Australian Democrats on some other issues that have come before this chamber.

We do not believe that the provisions and the amendments contained in the bill we are considering are unreasonable in the context of the issues that we have canvassed as part of the amendments to the bill. The increase in the threshold from $6 million to $15 million is not an unreasonable increase. There has to be a threshold. The figure matched against the consumer price index or, particularly, construction costs, which would be higher—I do not have those figures to hand, but I think they would be higher—is reasonable in the circumstances. The committee cannot examine every area of public works. It could get to the absurd position where the committee was examining repair of the footpath outside Parliament House. There has to be a line drawn somewhere—obviously there will always be some projects that fall on just one side or the other in a particular area of expenditure.

I appreciate that Senator Parry and my colleague Senator Forshaw are extremely hardworking and dedicated members of this committee, along with the other members of parliament. I appreciate that this is work that it is necessary to do, and that unfortunately receives very little public accolade, recognition or acknowledgement. It is part and parcel of the everyday behind the scenes work that we as legislators have to do. But we have to draw the line somewhere in terms of the committee’s examination of some areas of public works. The demands on the committee members’ time, as we all know—on the time of all of us—are significant.

In that context the threshold is reasonable. The inclusion of PPPs as a new area of public financing of public works is reasonable. The provision for change by regulation is a reasonable approach—rather than having to amend the bill. I can recall—Senator Colbeck would be aware of this—the area of, for example, agricultural levies. Every time a change to an agricultural levy is necessary, an amendment to a bill is required in this place. I had to handle that legislation from 1993 to 1996. There were more pieces of legislation on amending agricultural levies than almost any other bills coming into the place over that period. Where we can, and where it is good public policy and relatively speaking not an issue of great contention, it is sensible that it should be done by regulation. That is sensible and practical given the time constraints that any government—and, I would say, any crossbencher—has to operate under in this place.

For those reasons, Labor does not support the amendments moved by the Australian Democrats. Over the years, Senator Murray and I have worked very closely together on many issues in this place. We respect Senator Murray’s views. His views are strongly held; generally we agree with the parameters and the principles he operates in. But on this occasion the practical balance falls on the side of supporting the amendments that are before the committee and not going beyond those amendments.