Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a statement about the Senate committee system and its engagement on a particular issue. I think it's a very troubling precedent that we've seen in this place over the last week, where the Senate has voted to close down a legitimate area of inquiry. I am talking about the inquiry into the ABC's complaints-handling system; this inquiry has been deferred and effectively thereby cancelled.

The Senate committee system, which was put in place permanently in 1970—and, of course, last year we reflected upon the 50th anniversary of that system—I would say gives Australian people the greatest possible access to our democracy. It is an incredibly successful system in that it provides for scrutiny of government. There has been much legitimate debate about corruption and about integrity issues, as you would expect in a country like Australia. I often think that the debate misses the point that there are already strong integrity measures in existence. You have an Auditor-General. You have parliamentary scrutiny. You have parliamentary scrutiny through Senate estimates and through those standing committees which were established in 1970 during the Gorton government.

About 10 years ago, Stephen Holt wrote a very interesting piece about the history of this system. In the fifties, Jim Odgers, I think, was the first person to propose this system, but it was adopted, as I said, in 1970, largely at the behest of Lionel Murphy and some others who put in place this system, which, of course, is modelled on the US committee system, which Odgers himself went to study in the United States.

So I think this is a system that everyone would agree has served the country very well, and I think we want to be mindful of the precedents we set. We need to be very careful that we don't walk back scrutiny or accountability, because the principle here is that any government agency that receives an appropriation is accountable to the Senate and its committee system, and that is an important principle which I think we all should be very careful to preserve. After all, we are the custodians of this system.

So I regret that this judgement was made, although I respect the judgement, and I think we should reflect upon the policy contribution of these committees as well. It's not just scrutiny of government; it's also been the case, often through the select committees over the past 50 years, that significant policy developments have followed, including scrutiny of government and freedom of information. The adoption of the metric system was sent to a select committee. There was a very long running committee into superannuation. I may have a different view about how that's all landed, but the reality is that these committees have done very significant policy development and they've also done very important scrutiny of government.

I would say that the worst thing we do in Canberra is the run-of-the-mill question time stuff. You could not find a person who would say that that is a good use of taxpayers' funds. But I would say the best thing that we do is through the committees. The committees provide a high level of collegiality, an opportunity for policy development and an opportunity for government agencies and the government itself to be scrutinised.

That is why I asked to have this time today to make the point that the Senate voting against having an inquiry into a government agency which receives an appropriation is a very dangerous precedent indeed. The terms of reference for this particular inquiry, which was to be conducted through the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, established under the standing order 25(2)(a)(v), was to look at the adequacy of the existing arrangements on the accessibility, responsiveness and efficiency of complaints handling. This has nothing to do with anything other than that. It has nothing to do with editorial independence, as some have argued. It has nothing to do with internal interference. It has to do with how a Commonwealth funded agency deals with the public. It has nothing to do with editorial independence, which is preserved under the ABC's act, the charter and the editorial standards. I don't think anyone of any political stripe would ever want to interfere with that, although we may at times be disappointed with the coverage.

The reality is that there are many groups in our community that are unhappy with the complaints-handling function of this agency, and that is a matter of public record. You need only to look at what some multicultural groups have to say, what some veterans groups have to say and what many individuals have to say, which is that they are unhappy with the way that their complaints are handled. Either they have not been treated seriously, or they have not been answered in a timely manner or mistakes have been made on a repeated basis.

I would say that this quite extraordinary intervention from the ABC, asking the Senate not to do something, is a really risky precedent for the Senate and for the committee system. It is not a highly unusual inquiry. There are already three or four similar inquiries being conducted through legislation committees, which are reviewing the performance of government agencies. So it is not a highly unusual inquiry. Equally, it is not a very good principle for officials appointed by the government to try to direct the elected parliament in any way. Sure, people are entitled to provide their advice, but the explicit nature of how this was done is, I think, very dangerous in a democracy like Australia. I don't think that any government agency should be trying to force the elected parliament to do anything other than provide advice which is frank and fearless. I think that sort of direct politicisation is very risky, and, as I said, I regret very much the precedent that has been set here.

The Senate committee system is one of the strongest institutions in our democracy, and it ought to be protected and defended by all. There are legitimate issues here that the Senate committee was proposing to look into in a very surgical manner and I think they are entirely legitimate. And so I regret the judgement that has been made and I place on record that I think this is a precedent that people will regret, because closing down the house of review's capacity to conduct legitimate inquiry into taxpayer funded organisations is a very important role for the Senate.