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

I am not sure that I described it precisely the way it has been referred to by Senator Ferguson but, unlike the government, I do not have total contempt for the Senate, so I will withdraw any comment that was seen to be disorderly. The simple fact is that this government’s misuse of language is so extreme that, frankly, even George Orwell would not believe it. What we have is a deliberate use of words to try to create a perception of reality that is the exact opposite of what this government is doing. The government is continually acting in a deliberate and calculated way to restrict the ability of the Senate to do its job as a house of review—and every step along the way it has continued to deny that that is what it is doing.

We saw at the last Senate estimates committee hearings, an elimination of the Fridays that Senate estimates committees normally used for their spillover days. Those days have of course not been abused. They have been used to ensure that committees can have an extra day to look at areas that require extra time. Almost inevitably, those days are used for areas that are most contentious. It was quite a calculated attempt by this government to remove those days for scrutiny by Senate estimates. So the government’s own actions have reduced the number of days that Senate committees have been able to scrutinise. The government has actually reduced Senate estimates scrutiny by its own actions just in the last month; yet it has the gall and the hide to come in here and say, ‘Our desire is to increase the amount of Senate estimates scrutiny.’

We saw the unprecedented actions the time before last of the government making a blanket direction to all government officers that they were not to answer any questions about an entire area, and a crucial area, of government activity—namely, the AWB issue—under the totally farcical and dishonest excuse that there was a royal commission under way and therefore no questions shall be answered. And this is a government that now comes in here and says, ‘We want to increase Senate scrutiny under estimates.’ Last Senate estimates, we had 32 days in total through those eight committees—four days each. We had 32 days of Senate estimates scrutiny. Normally, it would have been up to 40 days. It was reduced by taking away the Friday for each of the eight committees.

So let us see whether under this proposal from the government—with however many committees we end up with and however many days each of those committees will have to have Senate estimates—we actually have the same total number of days of Senate committees examining budget estimates. If you go over 40, I will be the first to stand up here and say that I was wrong. I hope that government members—particularly Senator Ellison—will equally take up the challenge and, if we do end up having fewer total days of Senate estimates committee hearings as a result of the restructure, they will stand up and say that they were wrong and say that there is not a greater amount of Senate scrutiny available through estimates as a result of these changes. I will not hold my breath. But, given the government’s record of reducing the amount of scrutiny that estimates committees have been able to carry out, it would be a strange thing to suddenly turn around and be increasing it.

Senator Ellison said that there is a good deal of history behind this proposal and that from 1970 until 1994 all committees were government controlled and had government heads to them—and that is true. When the Liberals were in opposition, the Senate, with very heavy involvement and initiation from the Democrats, particularly from then Democrat Senator Vicki Bourne, instituted a better system—a system that all sides, even many in the then Labor government, acknowledged was a better system. I am not saying that there should be no change whatsoever from the current set-up, but how going backwards to having government control of all committees, purely because the government have a majority of one most of the time on the floor of the chamber, is an improvement and a positive development that enhances scrutiny—how that is anything other than a step backwards into history into a period when the government last had control of the Senate, back in the 1970s—is something that Senator Ellison did not actually manage to describe. All he said was that there was a good deal of history. There is a good deal of history. The history was that the government of the day used to have the numbers in the Senate and they did what wanted. The present government likes that idea and wants to go back there. That is not a history that I suggest is one that we want to repeat.

Of course, the government did not just come out on day one and decapitate the Senate and Senate committees; the government has slowly and deliberately strangled and asphyxiated them. In addition to the restrictions on Senate estimates committee hearings, we have had restrictions on the information that is provided and restrictions on the areas of questioning, where officers are directed not to answer things. We have also had a very dramatic restriction in the operations of the legislation committees. In those committees that are already chaired and controlled by government, most of the time—although not all of the time—we are still being allowed to have legislation sent to a committee. But the amount of time that those committees are being given to do their job is being reduced to farcical levels.

Who can forget the utter joke, the absolute farce, of the so-called committee inquiries into the Telstra legislation and the workplace law changes—the most radical changes to our industrial relations system in over a century? Those committees were given absolutely minimal scope for inquiry and a minimal amount of time for public hearings, with the government controlling the number of hearing days, where they would be and who could appear. And, of course, we should not forget the restrictions on the significant anti-terrorism laws and the Welfare to Work changes. All of that was as a result of government controlled committees and a government controlled Senate dramatically reducing and basically strangling the ability of Senate committees to do their job properly. They are just a few examples.

We have this furphy thrown up time and time again that the Senate used to abuse things because it would sometimes send legislation to references committees. I might say that, on occasion, that was done with the support of all sides because those references committees were having broad-ranging inquiries, rather than the more specifically focused legislation inquiries. If there was legislation that was broad ranging and touched on broader policy issues, there were arguments from time to time to send it to a references committee. But it should be pointed out that that was very much in the minority. It should also be pointed out that, from time to time, we have had policy matters that were not legislation sent to legislation committees—most notably, the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee inquiry into citrus canker, which tabled its report just yesterday.