David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome this debate concerning Senate obstructionism. I noticed, having listened to the last speaker, that she in no way felt constrained by the topic of this debate. It is customary in this place to at least make a gesture in one’s speech towards the topic, but there was no danger of Senator Fierravanti-Wells even drifting onto the right subject today.

The subject that is at the heart of this motion is a subject that Labor is happy to debate at length. As I said in my very first speech in this place, I am a believer in bicameralism. I believe that the Senate does, should and can play a useful and important role in the process of government as a house of review and that it is a house in which senators represent the interests of their states within the practical context of their party loyalties. I also made some remarks in that first speech about how the Senate should not become a house of obstructionism, a house from which the opposition can behave as though it were a government in exile. I said in that speech that the Australian people did not want to see the opposition stage a rerun of 1975 in this Senate. Sadly, that is what the opposition has done persistently ever since the 2007 election. That is, unfortunately, conduct which is continuing undiminished today.

Having now been a member of this Senate for nearly two years, I still hold the view that I held when I first came here. I believe that the parliament passes better legislation when governments have to negotiate and argue their case in this place. We have a stronger democracy when legislation is properly scrutinised by the parliament and when the power of the executive government is held to scrutiny by a strong upper house, including the very strong committee structure of which the Senate can boast, a Senate committee structure which does very good work scrutinising both legislation and the actions of the executive. These are all good and proper processes and structures, and they all do credit to this house.

I must say that I have my doubts about whether those opposite in fact hold any of those values, whether they believe in effective bicameralism. Unfortunately, that is a pronouncement I can make on the basis of evidence. In the last parliament, when the Liberal and National parties had a majority in the Senate, they treated this place as a rubber stamp. From 2005 to 2007 the Howard government enjoyed a majority on virtually all Senate committees and processes and used that majority to control every Senate process through which bills were scrutinised. Work Choices was legislation for which the government had no mandate; nonetheless, it was legislation that was rammed through this Senate with minimal scrutiny. When the rubber hits the road, that is the commitment to effective bicameralism of those opposite—none. Objections from the opposition and also from the crossbenchers were completely ignored during that period when those opposite had the numbers.

The Howard government’s cavalier attitude to Senate scrutiny undermined the role of the Senate as a house of review. To think otherwise is to fail to understand the lessons of history. Rebuilding the reputation of this place as a proper house of review, as a proper place for scrutiny, is a task that only again commenced in 2008, when the new Senate finally met. It is of course a task in which we must sadly reflect on the fact that those opposite have done their dead level best to continue to destroy the reputation of this Senate. Senator Abetz, Senator Brandis, Senator Macdonald, Senator Scullion, Senator Mason—they were all members of that government. Their attitude to the Senate during that period was a far cry from the position and pronouncements they are putting forward today.

It seems that for the Liberal and National parties there are two standards for Senate behaviour. When they are in government, and particularly when they have a majority in the Senate, the Senate is a rubber stamp and bills are to be pushed through the processes of the Senate as quickly as possible. The opposition is an irrelevant nuisance which should sit still and be quiet. But, when Labor is in office, the Senate suddenly becomes the great bulwark of democracy for those opposite. It must subject every bill to the most minute scrutiny and months of repetitive committee hearings. Even then, even after all of the filibustering and delaying tactics, the coalition reserves the right to reject legislation for which the government has a clear electoral mandate. Those are the two different standards that one political party opposite offers in this debate.

This motion reflects the desire of the coalition parties to retain control of government policy, despite having been rejected by the Australian people at the 2007 election. The Liberal and National parties have never accepted the outcome of that election. They still think they are born to rule or, in the case of the Nationals, born to extract more largesse for their local regions. That old slogan springs to mind: socialise the losses and privatise the profits. They still think they can dictate from the Senate which policies will be enacted and which will not be enacted. Mr Abbott seems to think that he can make himself Prime Minister just by wishing it to be so and that he does not actually have to win an election first, that obstructionism in this place will simply deliver it to him. In fact, he seems to think he is Prime Minister already and that the parliament should enact his half-baked, uncosted, irresponsible policies just because he says so—policies that have not been through the shadow cabinet process, I hasten to add, given the 20-minute diatribe we have just received.

This is what the Liberal and National parties always do when they are in opposition. During the Whitlam government, they threatened to block the 1974 budget, forcing that government to call a double dissolution election. In the following year, 1975, they pulled the same stunt again, blocking the budget and bringing on the 1975 constitutional crisis. During the Hawke and Keating governments, although they never had outright control in the Senate, the coalition nevertheless obstructed the government wherever and whenever they could, and of course the 1987 double dissolution election is testament to that fact. Mr Abbott and senators opposite seem to think that they can obstruct government legislation and insist on their own partisan views and policies, whatever those policies happen to be on any given day—and Lord only knows they do seem to change—just as they like. They think they can dictate our climate policy. They think they can dictate our health policy. They believe they can dictate the economic policy of this nation. They seek to dictate our trade policy and our foreign policy.

I think the Australian people will reject this arrogant notion that senators opposite have developed. The Australian people gave the Rudd government a mandate in 2007. They expect us to carry out that mandate and we have been trying to do so, but we are having to do so in the face of constant obstructionism from the unholy alliance of senators opposite. That alliance is a shifting composition. Sometimes the Greens vote with the opposition and sometimes they vote with the government. Sometimes Senator Xenophon votes with the opposition and sometimes he votes with the government. Sometimes Senator Fielding votes with the opposition—perhaps I should say usually—and sometimes, very occasionally, he votes with the government. But one thing never changes: the persistent and stubborn opposition and obstructionism of the Liberal and National parties.

I think it is useful to reflect at this moment that the attitude of coalition senators does not simply pertain to the policy of this government. They will obstruct, hinder and destroy the policy of their own parties when it does not meet with their approval. Of course, we watched aghast—