Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate adopt the recommendations of the second report of 2015 of the Procedure Committee.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to acknowledge the Deputy President's sterling chairmanship of the Procedure Committee—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that's illegal in some states!

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It does not happen very often! Keep going.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is worth pausing for a moment to reflect on the fact that the Procedure Committee is one of the places where the Senate really manifests its best self—where colleagues come together, seek to determine what are the best, fairest and most efficacious procedures for this place.

This particular Procedure Committee report is of some significance because there are a number of temporary orders which are becoming part of the standing orders. I know that is something that is of particular interest to Senator Wong, who I think has shared the frustration of many of us for some time of having to leaf through standing orders and various addendums in the form of temporary orders. The clerks will now have the opportunity to bring forward a new and consolidated set of standing orders, which I am sure we all look forward to.

Many colleagues will be very excited to know that the temporary orders relating to adjournment arrangements which saw open-ended adjournment on Thursday nights will not be continued and that we will in fact, in that area, revert to what the standing orders currently are. I know that many colleagues have been exercised about that.

While I am on my feet, I might talk a little more broadly about the Senate and procedure. What prompts me to do this is that earlier in the week I was speaking at the CEDA State of the Nation conference. I was on a panel with Mr Palmer from the other place, Senator Xenophon and Senator Wong. We each had the opportunity to address CEDA's proposition, which was 'That the Senate is a battlefield'. I did note in my contribution at the CEDA conference that it had sort of echoes of Pat Benatar's Love is a Battlefield!There were enough people in the audience who were of an age to appreciate the cultural allusion that I was making.

The other propositions of CEDA were that, in effect, it is the end of reform as we know it, and that it is not possible for the government to achieve significant reform in this place. I contested those particular propositions by CEDA and pointed out that the Australian Senate is probably the most misunderstood of Australia's 15 legislative chambers. I also pointed out that I do not think that the Australian Senate has ever had a rap quite as bad that of the New South Wales Legislative Council, which, up until the mid-1980s had 12-year terms, no constituents and no electorate offices. Indeed, up until the mid-1980s, when then Premier Wran introduced some constitutional changes, members were not even elected; the Legislative Council was appointed by the Legislative Assembly on the basis of the proportion of the vote that particular parties received at the preceding general election. Also, it only took members one term to be entitled to the pension. Anyway, I do not think that we have ever had a reputation as bad as the one the New South Wales Legislative Council used to have.

I think that another significant misapprehension is that the Senate was, in some way, modelled on the House of Lords. Of course, all of us here know that that is not the case, and that the Australian Senate was very closely modelled on the US House of Representatives. As we know, there are equal numbers of senators from the states, and it was designed to be a strong upper house. Indeed, it was designed to be equal in powers to the House of Representatives in all respects other than in money bills. So I think that that is a misapprehension; we have a different role and function compared to that which is in the United Kingdom, where, obviously, the House of Lords has the capacity to delay but not to deny.

We have a good and important role in terms of scrutiny. We have our 16 purpose-built Senate committees; we have the eight legislation committees and the eight references committees. So I think that our role is not well appreciated in terms of our responsibilities. The truth is, as I think we know, that federations are hard. We have 15 legislative chambers and nine jurisdictions, compared to New Zealand, which has one legislative chamber and one jurisdiction. But the federated nature is the price that we pay for unity in the first place. We do have a very different history which sees us in this place as a place of significant review.

I also pointed out to CEDA that that we have, in fact, had a fairly productive time in this Senate. I pointed out that, as of a week or so ago, since the election we have in this Senate passed 234 bills, not including the ones of this week, and 161 packages of legislation. We had 15 bills negatived in old Senate and 18 bills negatived in the new Senate, but many of those were subsequently passed into law. I thought that this might be a good opportunity to indicate that I gave a very spirited defence of the Senate at the CEDA conference. I indicated that we have had a good degree of success in this place, as a government.

I did not want to let the opportunity pass, as I commenced my remarks, of paying tribute to Deputy President Marshall for his chairmanship of the Procedure Committee and, of course, for his role as chair of committees in this place. Anyway, I thought that some of the discussions which took place in relation to the Senate in another part of this building earlier in the week might be of interest to the Senate.

Question agreed to.