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

I think it is worth while putting this in context and getting a sense of reality about the scrutiny of the government in the Senate. Much has been said about it today. Senators Ludwig and Bartlett have said very strongly that this government is all about taking away that scrutiny, and that is totally incorrect. When you look at the Senate’s sitting days this year and you add to that the number of estimates days, you see that 25 per cent of the Senate’s time is devoted to scrutiny of the government through estimates hearings, where there are questions of the government from 9 in the morning until 11 at night. When you look at the total sittings of this Senate and you include the estimates, because estimates are a form of the Senate’s sitting, you see that 25 per cent of that total time is dedicated to scrutiny of the government and its actions. I think you would be battling to find a similar situation in any other parliament in the free world.

Estimates are a very important part of the political process in this country. They are essential for the scrutiny of the government and for a legitimate opposition to carry out its role. We have three estimates sessions a year. We have estimates after the budget in May, additional estimates in February and supplementary budget estimates in November. So the opposition has three opportunities throughout the year to question the government. Looking at the total number of days that are available, the largest estimates sitting is that which occurs after the budget, and that covers a period of two sitting weeks. We have eight committees and they have four days each. Effectively, there are 32 hearing days to question the government on the budget.

What we have said here is that, instead of having the four spillover days, 32 days is adequate for the scrutiny that should be carried out. The additional days in the past have not been entirely taken up in number and in time. As well as that, we agreed in 2003 to extend the time for estimates in November. I repeat that—we agreed to a request to extend the time of the November supplementary budget estimates. We previously had eight committees sitting for one day with the option of four of them being able to sit for another four days. That gave in total 12 days. We changed that. We now have a situation where eight committees can sit for two days, which equals 16 days. So in those November sittings we now have four extra days in addition to what we previously had.

If I were in opposition, I would certainly aim for a situation whereby I had the ability to question the government over a period of 12 months and to extend the period of time that I could question the government on each occasion, rather than having all that time being concentrated after the budget. We are approaching this in a more even manner by having the February, May and November estimates spread more evenly in time. That does not detract from the ability of the opposition to hold the government accountable. In fact, this is a much more efficient manner of conducting estimates.

The 32 days in total for the opposition to question the government on the budget provide more than adequate opportunity for scrutiny. Taking into account that we have allowed an extra four days in November, the total number of estimates days remains the same as it previously was. When you look at the total sitting time of this Senate combined with estimates, you see that 25 per cent—I repeat, 25 per cent—of its total sitting time is devoted to questioning the government. That does not take into account an hour’s question time each day. That system gives more than adequate opportunity to hold the government of the day accountable. It is a situation which is unequalled in the free world. I would suggest that there is no other country that has that level of scrutiny and accountability in its parliament.

We certainly believe the process is important. We have said that time and time again. When I was in opposition, I saw the importance of estimates hearings. We do not detract in any way from the role of estimates in the processes of the government and the parliament in this country. However, I would say that, strictly speaking, estimates are for questions on expenditure. Over time that has become a rule more honoured in the breach than in the observance. We now have wide-ranging questions on issues of the day which are of an entirely broad nature, the least of which is the relevance to the expenditure in the budget and additional estimates.

To say that we are cutting back or restricting accountability is totally wrong. It is incorrect. I think people should look at those statistics in the context of the whole and see just how much accountability and scrutiny there is in our system, and so there should be. For the opposition and the Democrats to say that this government is raping and pillaging our democracy is entirely over the top and a total distortion. This measure is a continuation of the process we have always had. With it, we will have the same total number of days that we had previously. So I reject the comments of the opposition.

Senator Ludwig talks about a restricted question time. I remind those listening that the previous government had a Prime Minister who did not even roll up for question time. He rolled up when he felt like it. We have a Prime Minister who is there at every question time for the total time. The previous Prime Minister did not attend every question time. He rolled up when he felt like it. That was the height of arrogance and a mark of total disrespect by that person in relation to the parliament. You could not get anything worse than that.

Question agreed to.