Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to speak to the motion. Again we see this government move a guillotine. Why? Because of this government’s incompetence to manage the legislative program and the incompetence of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts herself to handle the passage of the legislation through this house. The government has to rescue the minister from scrutiny and so this guillotine ensures that there will not be further scrutiny during the committee stage of this legislation and that the Senate will not be able to hold the government to account on these bills. But it is not the first time this government has done this.

This legislation is four broadcasting bills in a package. A total of 25 bills have now been guillotined by this government to push legislation through the Senate to ensure that it will not get scrutiny, that it will not get the proper attention it deserves. We now have an outrageous use of both the guillotine and the gag to make sure that the legislation will not get proper scrutiny.

It is worth mentioning some of the highlights—one could almost say the lowlights—of these bills because what this package of bills represents is one of the most significant changes to media ownership in this country in the last 20 years. It is likely—in fact, more likely—to lead to an increased concentration of media ownership, a rationalisation of news and production services, a loss of diversity of media content and the boosting of the power and influence of a small number of media owners. That in itself deserves scrutiny in the Senate, to ensure that those things can be properly looked at and properly seen.

Not only did these bills suffer at the hands of this government but, instead of ensuring scrutiny in the debate, the government’s handling of the legislation has been a complete shambles, culminating in the government today guillotining the debate, rushing the bills through, giving them the bum’s rush, because the government could not get its act together earlier in the week. The Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts was not given sufficient time to have a look at this legislation. What you now have, though, are echoes from the government’s own backbench about this bill. Senator Ian Macdonald, during the committee stage in here, expressed disappointment at the very rushed nature of the inquiry. So we now have even the backbench starting to get a little bit nervous about how this government is dealing with its legislative program.

The report by the Senate committee was not tabled until Friday afternoon, and senators were expected, on the government’s original program, to arrive here and debate the legislation on Monday morning without having had time to properly digest the report, without having had time to properly go through it and to contact people who might have an interest and look at issues. But it did not happen on Monday. Why? Because the government was not ready again. On Tuesday it was on again, off again. The way this government runs this place is a complete shambles.

Senator Coonan insisted on the importance of the legislation and that it had to be passed in this sitting, while she scratched around trying to win over senators on her own side, playing to the National Party, playing to the Liberal backbenchers, playing to anyone she could. When the Prime Minister himself sensed that support for this legislation might be flagging, his tune changed. You could see that. He distanced himself from Senator Coonan and distanced himself from the bill. He was letting her hang out to dry. And you could see then, when he said, ‘It’s a second-order issue,’ that he was sidestepping the blast that might have been coming his way and putting Senator Coonan in its path.

But The Nationals came to the rescue. They rescued the Prime Minister, to ensure that the legislation would be passed. It was not only Senator Fielding but also The Nationals who ensured that this bill would be passed.

Since the Howard government has had a majority in the Senate, the committees—the proper forum for scrutiny, where proper debate should happen—have been ground down by this government, ground under its heel. Instead, we now find the government makes shabby and shady backroom deals with coalition senators, with the minister conducting individual negotiations.

That surprised me, really—allowing the backbenchers, the National Party members, to be split up and picked off, one by one. When you look at it, though, it is what the Liberals are doing to you Nationals anyway in each seat—they are picking you off one by one. So it is not surprising that the minister, when she wants to talk to the National Party, talks to them one at a time.

Instead of this, we should have proper process, we should have proper review and we should have proper scrutiny and debate. But this government has abandoned that. If the Prime Minister thinks that that is the appropriate process, that is not what he said when he first got an inkling that he might have control of the Senate. What he said back then was:

But I want to assure the Australian people that the Government will use its majority in the new Senate very carefully, very wisely and not provocatively. We intend to do the things we’ve promised the Australian people we would do but we don’t intend to allow this unexpected but welcome majority in the Senate to go to our heads.

How surprising! I am sure he is now distancing himself from those words as well. He went on to say:

We certainly won’t be abusing our newfound position, we’ll continue to listen to the people and we’ll continue to stay in touch ...

This is now an arrogant, out-of-touch government that is not listening to the people, not ensuring proper scrutiny—and indeed ensuring that the debate will not be aired. What we have is a minister who manages to hide behind the coalition, the backbench, the National Party, Senator Fielding and anyone else she can hide behind to ensure that she does not have to answer questions in respect of this bill. Ultimately this motion will ensure that there will be reduced committee time, so the minister will not have to answer questions. I would not be surprised as well if some of the coalition backbenchers come down to filibuster during that committee debate to take oxygen away from the Senate. I would not be surprised if the minister has already distributed notes for them to come down and ask her some dorothy dixers so that she can filibuster during the committee stage, because she really does not want to take any questions from the opposition about this bill. She can then scurry out of this place and say, ‘I’ve got through another committee process, although reduced.’ We will see if the backbenchers want to participate in that: shame on them if they do.

We saw the same thing happen with the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006. All week the government dillydallied with it. They said that we might deal with it or we might not deal with it. Ultimately the government kept the Senate waiting while they tried to sort out their own internal divisions. Finally they did not bring the legislation on until right at the death knock really. I had come down to give my speech in the second reading debate on that bill and the government told me as I walked in the door that they had pulled it. In this case they have managed to convince the National Party to support them.

The government did not bring this legislation on until Tuesday this week. What we have now is very limited time and very limited debate. When you look at the National Party role in this, you see that they have done nothing short of abandon rural and regional Australia. They have abandoned it in Victoria. The tide is running out on them in New South Wales. And they have now made sure that in Queensland they will also abandon it. This week’s events have been an abuse of the Senate—an absolute abuse of the Senate. They should be ashamed. They should understand that the role of the Senate is to scrutinise and to hold the government to account. They have turned their back on that role. It is an indictment also of the Howard government’s mismanagement and internal division. It shows how ragged and ratty this government is becoming—it really does.

These bills had a very short life, and it is worth considering exactly how these bills went through. The bills were introduced, as I have said, on the last sitting day of the previous session. They were listed for debate on the first day of the sitting session, but the government’s own ineptitude and internal division made sure that they did not come on then. The debate was finally brought on. We had a second reading debate, but we are not going to have scrutiny in the committee stage. You only have to look at the range of amendments that are being proposed and put forward—there are pages and pages of them that are being dealt with in respect of these bills, but we are not going to get proper scrutiny in respect of that. We are not going to find out what all the parts of the deals were that this minister put together because this government is not going to allow a fulsome committee debate to occur. In total what we have had is three short days on the Notice Paper before the government started forcing its changes through parliament.

We had the inquiry referred to the Senate committee on 14 September. You had submissions required by 25 September. So this government is treating with contempt not only this place but also those people who want to make proper submissions to Senate committees when you look at that short turnaround—it was only 11 days. But people did turn their minds to it. There were 71 submissions received. That is because this is a very important matter, and they turned their minds to it in a very short space of time to provide a view. Hearings for the inquiry took place on 28 and 29 September, meaning the committee had only two days to consider all of the submissions in time for the hearing. The committee was then required to finish in just one week, by 6 October 2006. The report was then tabled on 9 October, the same day the debate was meant to commence—but it was available, as I said, on the Friday before. So that is the compressed period we had for debate. That is what the government are now doing in respect of these debates: they are sending them to committees and they are ensuring that the committees do not function properly because of the limited time they have available.

We heard yesterday another complete outrage: the government are now sending bills to committees without the bill. They are simply referring the bill, sight unseen, to a committee. Goodness knows when the committee is actually going to get the bill. Hopefully it will be introduced within that week, but there is no guarantee. So what they have done is say: ‘We have referred the bill to a committee.’ But the committee cannot start the examination because, of course, there is no bill. In any other place it would be a farcical circumstance. I will sell you a Demtel square plastic box with nothing in it as well. That is what the government are doing. They are not setting out the reasons for the referral, what will be in the bill, what the committee should be looking at and what submissions it should be seeking from interested parties. None of that can start because what they did was to send bills off to a committee without the bills themselves.

Sandy Macdonald (NSW, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, are we going to get onto this bill?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course, what we have is a government that is trashing our democratic principles in this place. The Senate is a check on government. It is a politically dumb act to take the course that this government is now taking in respect of this Senate—

Sandy Macdonald (NSW, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, let’s get on and debate it.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have interjections from the backbench again, but it is interesting that they come from a senator who also thinks that the committee’s time is being rushed. I also welcome his contribution to this debate. Over the last 12 months, the government have slowly been reducing the ability of references committees, or committees at large, to do their work. But it did not start there. It started when they got control of the Senate. What you then had was routine abuse that has continued, and it has continued unabated. It is about squeezing the ability of the Senate to actually hold the government to account. But that will not deter Labor. We will continue to press forward.

The government have unilaterally altered the allocation of questions at question time to take away questions. You have routinely rejected amendments to bills, even where they are supported by government members of committees. The government have blocked references of bills to committees with no reason—and references to committees with no reasons as well—and even without the bill. You have reduced the time for committees to consider bills. You have also used the gag and the guillotine to pass legislation, as I have said, 25 times. You have reduced the number of sitting days for the first half of this year. You have rejected many of the proposals for proper references for committees to look into issues, such as private health insurance, the detention of Cornelia Rau and a range of other matters in relation to which you then have said, ‘We don’t want the government to look at those.’

The government have rejected motions for the production of documents because you want to hide them from scrutiny. You have rejected requests for committees with respect to the consideration of information in the last 12 months. You have removed the spillover days from estimates hearings in May 2006 because you do not want estimates hearings to scrutinise the government. You want to take away those eight days to ensure that you cannot be examined and that the ministers would not feel a bit precious if a question were asked.

The government has refused to answer questions at estimates. You will all recall that senators are not allowed to ask a question about the AWB—heaven forbid! You have produced longer delays in answering questions. You have also increased the number of claims that answering questions on notice would be too expensive. This is a government that I have painted as having drawn itself into a little bundle to protect itself over the last 12 months from scrutiny, accountability and review. Now you are trying to pull the wool over your own eyes. The backbench should open up and should not be party to this outrage. What you have also done is ensure that witnesses would not appear at committees.

Those are the charges that are being put to you. I hope senators on the other side will be able to agree and start standing up for themselves—and for the government, because the government will not stand up for itself—to defend the ability of the Senate to hold this government to account and scrutinise the legislation, but I doubt it.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What hypocrisy, what a whole lot of crocodile tears from the Labor Party. I do want to debate this bill. I have some concerns regarding the amendments that I want to explore with the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. As Senator Ludwig has indicated, and I have said this in my speech on the second reading, I do have some concerns, to a degree, about the constricted nature of the Senate committee inquiry. The Labor Party’s principal spokesman was not available on the day, otherwise we would have had a little extra time.

I want to get on and debate it now. Senator Ludwig has spent 18 minutes waffling, talking about Cornelia Rau and other people—nothing to do with this—and holding us up from getting on with the bill. I have taken, I think, 30 seconds. I am going to stop now because I want to get on and actually debate the bill in whatever time is available. There are a number of things that need to be addressed and the minister needs to explain those to us. We want her to explain them to us but, for as long as we carry on with this sort of ridiculous debate, we will not get to the bill and give it the sort of scrutiny that it deserves.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If Senator Ian Macdonald wants to genuinely explore these issues—I agree there are genuine issues to explore—then there is a simple course of action: do not vote for this gag. He can explore them completely and fully to his total satisfaction, and the same goes for Senate Joyce, who, I know, also has legitimate concerns. This is the absurdity of the situation: people on the coalition side who express genuine concerns, whether it is about the shortness of the committee process or a lack of opportunity to examine very detailed amendments which only appeared yesterday, then go and vote in favour of motions that restrict their own opportunity to do so. That is the great tragedy here.

I fully understand that we are all in parties. To some extent, we all have to operate within the wider collective good, as it is perceived, for our various parties. But if we are to have any hope at all for democracy—and Senator Joyce was referring to this, I think, yesterday in his second reading contribution—there must be a greater ability for individual senators to vote on issues in a way that reflects the public interest. That is what this is about, when it all boils down to it. I will not go on for long, either, because I recognise that the perverse impact of what the government are doing—even taking up time pointing out the perverse aspect of what they are doing and the travesty of process that they are inflicting on us—takes away time from debating and examining the legislation. So I will be brief.

The absolutely atrocious perversion of democracy that occurs and is occurring consistently with this process, with these most fundamental and crucial pieces of legislation, in a whole range of areas for the last 12 months or more since the coalition government got control of the Senate, simply cannot pass without comment. Senator Ludwig went into those in detail, so I will not repeat them. This simply cannot pass without comment. This motion here will restrict to less than three hours the opportunity for all senators to simply get on the record what the impact of these wide-ranging and complex amendments will be, to put the minister under scrutiny as to what the impact will be and to ask questions and clarify what the impact will be.

It also has to be said that this is not just a matter of gagging ourselves and the Senate by passing motions like this; it actually gags the general public. It seriously restricts the ability of journalists, reporters and independent experts to examine what is before us. This stuff is going to become the law. It is not just some debating tactic or a technique to win the day to get a tick on some political point-scoring board. This is going to become the law for years and years to come. It is simply impossible for people, whether they are in the press gallery or in the wider community and have expertise in this area, to properly and adequately go through the detail of the changes that have been tabled in this place just in the last 24 hours—let alone during the ridiculously short time frame for the legislation as it was initially presented—and examine, highlight and make others aware of what the consequences will be. It is as much a problem of gagging and putting a blindfold on the wider community and people with expertise as it is about the Senate itself. It is a serious undermining of democracy, and it only occurs because every single individual coalition senator votes for it time after time. If they have concerns about the legislation, as I know many of them do, and if they want to explore the impacts then they should not vote for this motion and they will have ample opportunity to explore the legislation fully.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is an outrageous process that is taking place here, but it is part of the fact that the government, with the numbers in this place, has the ability to guillotine the legislation unless government members vote against that guillotine and allow a proper debate in this place. While the numbers prevail, so the guillotine will prevail. The one very important fact here is the fact that the government has also got behind it in this matter the vote of Family First. I would not be surprised if the Family First senator came in and voted against the gag, because he has now safely committed his vote to the media barons and the government through this legislation.

I want to take this opportunity to comment on that vital vote and the speech that has been so decisive in this matter, delivered in here yesterday by Family First. It is a completely incoherent speech when you look at it. Senator Fielding said:

... Family First is concerned about the possibility of a monopoly of our major media outlets and the potential abuse of power that that represents.

He also said that Family First believes that the arguments against this legislation are strong, but then he said that people out there—and that includes families—do not care; they want to be entertained. Then, extraordinarily, without the debate being enjoined on the reasons why we should be concerned about this legislation concentrating media ownership, Senator Fielding committed Family First strongly to backing it. What a dereliction of duty that was.

He is absent from the chamber, as he has been through most of the process, and of course now we are going to get the debate truncated. But what is very significant here is that Family First, put in here by the Labor Party through its preferences in Victoria, has become a de facto part of the Howard government when it gets to vital legislation like this.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a change from having the Labor Party putting you into power.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whatever you like, Senator. The fact is that in Victoria the Greens got over nine per cent of the vote and Family First got just over one per cent of the vote, and it was the Labor Party preferences that made the crucial difference there. I do not know what your vote was.

I would expect that Senator Fielding, who has the crucial role, would be here at the moment defending the failure of that speech yesterday and giving some sense to the crucial position that he has taken. He was not here through the series of very important motions that we divided on a while ago, and he is not here now, and I think that is an extraordinary dereliction of duty by Family First. Senators have a duty to be right on top of legislation like this and to make considered votes based on what goes on inside the chamber. I do not know what goes on outside the chamber. I do not know what it is that has motivated Family First to put an argument against this legislation and then vote for it, but that has not been comprehensible to anybody who has been in this chamber watching this piece of legislation move towards finality. Thank you, Family First. Family First is effectively voting to limited the diversity of media that families in this country see.

Having disparaged the ability of families—ordinary Australians—to discern that it is good for them that they should have greater diversity, not less diversity, Senator Fielding effectively says that families do not care. What nonsense! What a put-down of families in Australia that is. There are great concerns about this potential concentration of media ownership and foreign ownership of what we read and see—the news gathering that we get put before us. Family First say, ‘We’ll vote with the government to do just that.’ That is an extraordinary dereliction of the commitments that Family First say they have to average Australians, who are being sold out here this morning in this Senate in Senator Fielding’s absence.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are concerns. It was interesting to watch what the markets did yesterday. Austereo, for instance, went up by five per cent. We might be fooling ourselves, but the market certainly is not; it knows exactly what is about to happen. There is going to be a wave of mergers and a centralisation of media content, and we are going to change the democratic process in this nation. That is what is going to happen.

It is good to see that Senator Ludwig has left, because the Premier of Queensland, Mr Beattie, refers to the Labor Party as hacks in today’s Financial Review. He said they are not doing their jobs as senators, that this Senate is irrelevant and that it needs to be replaced because it is not representing the states any more. He is taking that argument to his federation or whatever conference down in Melbourne.

Today is going to be an interesting test of whether we prove Mr Beattie wrong or whether we prove Mr Beattie right. I believe absolutely in the process of this Senate. I believe absolutely in ideals, of people rising above their political masters and, on a very important piece of legislation, voting for what is right for this nation. I know the Labor Party has signed a pledge that they cannot do that; I hope that we have not. That is a debate the Australian people will have, whether this Senate is relevant.

This is a major issue. We are talking about the free flow of information out to the community, the free flow of the fourth estate. As such, I think there are a lot of issues that need proper debate and need proper attention. We need to have a look at what the issues are in these amendments that we are dealing with. It is disappointing, and it is on the record, that Family First have decided they are going to allow, without challenge, the centralisation of media content without any protection mechanisms that will change the nature of our democracy. People voted for Family First because they thought they would have another voice that would be a decent voice. If they let these things through today without challenge, I suspect they have defrauded the general aspirations of what people expected them to be. That has to go on the record.

How can Family First vote for something that they did not even turn up to the committee on? They were a no-show at the committee. There was no dissenting report from Family First, because they were not interested in it. What they do today is vitally important for the future of our nation, because the people who become very powerful in this are the people who control the media—the fourth estate. That is not the actual media or the journalists; it is the major shareholders in media companies who have an interest in what goes on.

This is one of the most important pieces of legislation we are ever going to deal with, it really is. It is about democracy and what happens. It is interesting about regional groups and the two out of three rule, but the final question is: are we going to get an overcentralisation of the media? And, if we get that, what is our remedy to fix that situation? If we do not have the courage to fix it now before there is an overcentralisation of the fourth estate, before there is an overcentralisation of opinion, then we have got no hope of fixing it afterwards. If the political weight of certain groups that have inspired this legislation is so strong now, what hope have you got if you bring about a duopoly? What hope have you got of changing it then?

The responsibility of your vote today is for our nation in 10 years time. This is very important for everybody. Mr Beattie has laid down a challenge to the Senate: prove yourself relevant or hand it over to someone else. I believe that this place is relevant. I believe absolutely in the honour that is bestowed on you to be in this place and that you rise above that. Today is going to be an interesting test to see whether that exists or not.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be very brief, because we want to get on with the debate of this bill. I remind the Senate that we have had a Senate committee report in relation to these bills—there was three weeks of deliberation in relation to these bills—and that there has been adequate scrutiny of this process. We have also had extended debates on the second reading speech as well.

There has been some comment in relation to the Family First senator, Senator Fielding. In fairness, I must rise to his defence. When you only have one senator, it is very difficult to become involved in every process of the Senate. It is much easier when you have parties where you have a number of senators to draw on.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown didn’t turn up at the committee.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the Greens, they have a number of senators and we do not often see them at committees.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens weren’t at the hearings.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Senator Macdonald reminded me, they were not at the committee hearings. For the record, when you compare this government to the previous government, we have a record of scrutiny of legislation in the Senate which is a much better one than that of the previous government, which applied the guillotine rule more than double the number of times we have. It is essential that we manage the government’s legislative program for the remainder of the year. We have some three sitting weeks left and some 40 packages of legislation left, we have an estimates week and we have a week designated specifically for the therapeutic cloning bill. We really do have a heavy schedule for the rest of the year, and I remind senators of that when considering time management of legislation in this chamber.

I totally reject Senator Ludwig’s concocted outrage in relation to the arrogance and dismissal of the Senate powers by this government in Senate scrutiny. We have demonstrated time and time again that we are willing to accommodate Senate committee references. We have allowed time for debate and time for committee scrutiny of bills. When I first came into this chamber as an opposition senator, we used to have a Friday committee and that was the total sum of scrutiny of bills that was given. I remind senators of that. But I will not hold things up, and I commend the motion to the Senate.

Question agreed to.