Senate debates

Wednesday, 28 February 2007

Committees

Economics Committee; Hansard Record of Proceedings

5:47 pm

Photo of Michael RonaldsonMichael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection. Senator Stephens is acutely aware—and I do not want to betray conversations between chair and deputy chair—that we made endeavours to meet in an up week and it was not possible to coordinate arrangements to do so. My preferred course of action, as the new chair of that committee, was to have that hearing prior to the Monday, but the members could not be accommodated, for a variety of reasons. Endeavours were made by the secretary, by me and, indeed, by the deputy chair to try and facilitate that, but it could not be done. This is not the first time in this place that people have had to accommodate time frames to get matters dealt with before reporting times. This is not something new that has jumped out of someone’s Weeties. This is a process where there are time lines and people have to meet those time lines. We could not facilitate a meeting beforehand. The meeting was held on the Monday, and as much time as possible was given to everyone. I did not close that meeting. That meeting closed because everyone had had their opportunity to speak in relation to this matter.

Having listened to Senator Ludwig, what concerns me is that there is some implication of impropriety on my part, which I categorically reject, or on the part of the government, which I equally categorically reject. The disappointing aspect of this is that, having been dealt up the pie once, the Australian Labor Party put it in the fridge. They could have put it in the oven and they chose not to do so. This time around, given another opportunity, they have suddenly, for the cheapest of political reasons, chosen to put the pie into the oven. To me that indicates a duplicitous approach to taking up time in this chamber. There are other matters that we should be debating. This has been a duplicitous approach to score a cheap political point. That should disappoint all the senators in this place, not just those on this side. The opportunity had presented itself, but the Australian Labor Party had not taken that opportunity.

I invite any member of that committee to say that due process was not given to the committee’s deliberations on this matter. In fact, I will go through the process. The submissions were sent out. The committee distributed a list of potential witnesses. The secretary requested indications from all senators of other witnesses whom they might want to call. There were no other requests from the Australian Labor Party senators for anyone else to appear at that committee other than those who did appear. Ample opportunity was given. When senators were asked whether they required anyone else, there was not one response requesting other attendees for that hearing. Therefore, the whole committee agreed on a group of attendees as the most appropriate ones to attend that hearing. Ample time was given. In fact, if my colleagues look back they will probably find that the anticipated finishing time was 12.30—that time had been allocated by the committee. That hearing finished at 11.20, from recollection.

The allegation that there was not due process, that there was not an appropriate opportunity for these matters to be canvassed, I categorically reject. The principles underlying this debate this afternoon are about scoring a cheap political point, which is totally in line with other commentary in relation to the way the government’s majority is utilised. This is a political line which bears absolutely no relevance at all to the substance of the matter before the chamber today. This is only to reinforce a cheap political point, which we will all hear time after time between now and the federal election. The process in this matter was appropriate. The Labor Party had the opportunity to pull the pie out and put it in the oven. They chose not to do so. Now, they come in here bleating about the fact that they put it in the oven rather than the fridge, and they do not like the outcome of it. For someone to plead that this matter is deserving of 45 minutes— (Time expired)

Comments

No comments