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

I move an amendment to the motion moved by Senator Evans as follows:

Omit “17 August”, substitute “10 August”.

The government does not oppose the reference to the Procedure Committee, but it does take issue with the reporting date for a number of reasons. We ought to put this in context. Yesterday, we had a leaders and whips meeting. The Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Minchin, gave by hand a letter outlining the government’s proposals to the various people who attended—the minor parties and the opposition. I will return to that letter in a moment.

Suffice it to say, the government has suggested an alternative method of considering the proposals. The opposition has come forward and said that it wants to have the matter referred to the Procedure Committee. The government does not oppose that, but it does believe that the report should be at the end of the first sitting week, when we return to the Senate after the winter break. It does that for the reason that it will allow debate on the issue in the following week of the sitting fortnight so that this matter can be determined then, rather than leaving it to the last sitting day of that sitting fortnight which would mean that debate and consideration of the matter would not be until the fortnight commencing 4 September. We have a heavy schedule in relation to legislation in the second half of the year, and we believe that this is an issue which should be dealt with in the first sitting fortnight. We believe it is a rational approach in the interests of good management of the Senate, and that is why we propose it. I say again that we do not oppose the reference to the Procedure Committee.

I return to the letter dated 20 June from the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Minchin. That letter outlined the proposals by the government. As stated by Senator Minchin, the proposal is designed to achieve greater efficiency and greater effectiveness in our Senate committee system. As part of that reform, the government proposes that the current 16 committees across eight portfolio areas are streamlined to a system of 10 general purpose committees. What we are doing is changing the current system of having eight legislation committees and eight reference committees to having 10 general purpose committees. Remember that the legislation committees deal with the corresponding portfolio areas of the reference committees.

We believe that this will be more efficient and will still provide the scrutiny necessary in the Senate. In fact, when you look at it you will see that it returns to the position that we had with the Senate system in the years 1970 to 1994. That covered a period when the government, during 24 years of Senate committee history, had not only the chair of the committees but the majority of numbers on those committees. That applied even when the government of the day did not have a majority and it applied across both persuasions of government. So there is a good deal of history to this proposal, running from 1970 to 1994. In 1994 the system was changed as a result of the government not having a majority in the Senate and a proposal that we should have reference committees which reflect the make-up of the Senate of the day.

Senator Evans touched on the question of consultation. Senator Minchin’s letter stated: ‘I would like your input into whether there should be eight or 10 committees, what portfolio areas they should cover and the number of members on each committee.’ That is an entirely reasonable course to take in the consultation period over the winter break. That is not the act of an arrogant government or of someone who is dismissing opposition and minor party claims outright. Indeed, it proposes that there is consideration over the break and that, in the first sitting week of August, we will address those issues.

Senator Evans raised a number of issues and touched on estimates. I would like to remind the Senate that if we had 10 estimates committees rather than the eight estimates committees that we have, we would be increasing estimates scrutiny of the government by 25 per cent with our proposal. Where is the diminution of scrutiny in that?