Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

The chamber knows that I have been the Democrats’ workplace relations spokesperson since 1996. For nine years we had the balance of power. Of course, we were pressured constantly by the government to pass their legislation and get committee inquiries done in a short time. During the time the Senate was not in the hands of the government, committee inquiries took their proper course, reports were produced and the legislation was dealt with properly. It is my view that neither the Democrats nor the Senate should change their standards. Governments are governments and oppositions are oppositions. Governments will always argue for mandate, for short sitting times and for having their legislation rushed through, and oppositions have a duty to look at it from a Senate perspective. So I am less interested in the hypocrisy of the past, even where that exists, than I am in the standards we should apply now. I am always very disappointed when I hear those who argued previously for higher standards arguing the reverse just because it suits their particular political case at the time.

I would note with respect to sitting days that, given this is the first year of a new government—with, I assume, a great deal of legislation and new policies to be assessed and debated—both the Senate and the House each probably need to sit at least up to 100 days, or 20 to 22 weeks. I remind the Senate that the House sits for 82 days and the Senate sits for 52 days this year. The Senate sits for 21 days in the first half and 31 days in the second half of the year. Frankly, that is an absolute disgrace. Senators who belong to the Labor Party should never have allowed themselves to be railroaded by the House of Representatives, which determined these sitting times.

I would also support my colleague Senator Bartlett, who holds the view that the Senate is entitled to set the sitting days it wishes. That should normally be done cooperatively. But, frankly, the Senate cannot deal with the sort of legislative program that is before it with the number of sitting days that we have this year. We started too late in February; we have far too few sitting days in the first half of the year; the recesses are too long. It is going to be a lazy Senate and that is not the right look for a new government. I suggest that the opposition go away, decide on when it wants extra sitting weeks, put the motion to the Senate and let the Senate decide when it wants to sit and then sit accordingly to deal with the matters. I would urge the opposition to do that and, if possible, do it today and bring it on as special business.

Turning to the matter at hand: frankly, if I were the government, given the importance of the workplace to the people of Australia, I would have introduced an exposure draft in January, referred it to a committee in January and advertised for submissions in January. We could have been reporting in March and had it all done in time. Again, we are dealing with a lazy government that has come at this far too late. The issues are not that difficult. I am unimpressed, frankly, with being presented with a bill of this importance this late. Having said that, we need a minimum of 28 days for advertising, submissions, hearings and report writing, and then we need considerable time for debate and writing amendments and reports. I would suggest, based on historical circumstances, that somewhere between 28 days and 42 days is the right period for this particular bill—28 being the minimum. I certainly think the coalition is too far out with the date of 28 April, but, given the fact that you think it is unlikely that the bill would be ready for debate and the report ready by the time the last week of March sitting comes, it probably does not matter that much. However, introducing an extra week of sitting at a time other than the last week before May makes sense, frankly—I would not be disturbed by that—and of course the Senate can always give leave to those who have already fixed other engagements. I would urge the government to accept a compromise date which allows the Senate to properly consider legislation which needs to be examined carefully and reported on, as the Senate always should with legislation that matters enormously to the people of Australia.