Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Could I also say that there is a more puzzling aspect to this. Maybe it is the defensive mechanism, but suddenly Senator Minchin says, ‘We could have eight members per committee.’ Wasn’t it just five years ago that the coalition came to us and begged us to reduce the number on references committees from eight to six? They did. We could see the sense in that, we discussed it at the Procedure Committee and the number was reduced. I just say this to the government: if you are intending to have 10 committees with four government members—that is, 40 positions—remember that, once you eliminate the frontbench, the President and probably the whips, you will have to have 14 of your backbenchers on two committees. How are you going to cover the workload? Not at all. If you think that we are going to do all the work to make up for your absenteeism, the answer is no.

Around this building we have had complaints about absentees from committees, and no side is without guilt. I am getting more and more complaints, especially about joint committees, that people are not turning up. That is not my experience, because for the joint committee that I am on everyone turns up. Sometimes, one way or another, there is a five to one ratio. So let us think seriously about the ability of the opposition and the government to fully staff these committees so that they are committed to the committees and are not just a name on a committee, because nothing will destroy the committee system faster than non-attendance et cetera. So I hope that not only the size of the committee but the composition of the committee is given some sort of commonsense.

I have to put this on the public record in terms of these matters: the government has a majority in the Senate—we acknowledge that—but it should use it responsibly. I am not issuing this as a warning; I am issuing this as a threat. If you misuse and abuse that power, then when you lose that majority do not expect fair treatment. Retribution will come, and it will come on the basis of unfairness. You as a majority are perceived to act and do act in a blatantly partisan and unfair way to a minority. Some day, that minority will pay it back, and I do not want to see that situation. This is a great institution. We should honour it and not be into some sort of payback system.

If these matters go to the Procedure Committee, people are given a fair hearing and there are reasonable negotiations, I am not saying there will be any retaliation. I am saying that there will not be. But there are other ways that oppositions can act in this political system, especially in regard to statutory committees, that you on that side do not want to contemplate. We should have fair and proper negotiations.

Senator Ellison moved an amendment on the reporting date. It is almost a nonsense now, because both he and Senator McGauran made a big point about it. We know that Senator McGauran would not know but I would have hoped that Senator Ellison already knew that our great chairman of the Procedure Committee, sitting here and attentively listening to the words of wisdom I am about to offer, has already scheduled the Procedure Committee meeting for 10 July. Surely that shows good faith. We scheduled it in a city and at a time that suits government members. We will discuss it then. I will make a further offer. If in fact you want that report tabled out of session, we will agree. So you can debate it the first day you come back here and not the first or second week. We do not mind. We will debate it whenever you like and everyone can have a look at that report, debate it and study it. We are not trying to slow the process down—not at all. That is a most unfair accusation that both Senator Ellison and Senator McGauran made. Of course, as to Senator McGauran, let us face it—he would not have known. If you asked him what day it was you would have an even money chance of getting the right answer.

I want to say one other thing about this. Finally this at least revealed the great joke of the week. For this we can congratulate the member for O’Connor, Mr Tuckey, at his doorstop this morning. The member for O’Connor said: ‘I support these changes—it will save money. It is a great saving. It will save money.’ Oh, really? Ten committees with paid chairs and deputy chairs make 20 payments. Currently we are paying 16. Apparently Mr Tuckey believes that the extra $50,000 paid out is going to be a saving. That is a nonsense. This is not about money on either side of the chamber. For him to say as a justification that there will be savings is an absolute nonsense. He should stick to frequent flyer points and charter flights, which he is absolutely numerate with, and leave us to get on with our particular business.

In conclusion, I want to return to the fact that it is not a valid argument, unless you can justify it, to say that this system applied between 1971 and 1994. Why did it change? No-one from the other side has explained why they demanded change, why they acceded to change and why they allowed that system to exist for 10 years in their government other than that they are now in a majority thanks to distant preferences from Pauline Hanson and One Nation. That is the difference. It is rule 39-37. You can do it so you are going to do it. But do not do it in such a way that it is not negotiated out and the finer detail is not looked at. Maybe in the spirit of that you can actually come up with a system that is better than what it could be if you just used your numbers on this particular matter. I do not believe these committees will be more effective. I do not believe there will be great savings to be made. I just do not believe that will happen. But what we do not want to see is the emasculation of the Senate as an institution.

Sure, you have to recognise that the current government has a majority. I am not denying that. I am not berating against that. But in any democratic political system the test of the greatness of that political system and of the institution is quite often how well minorities are treated and how well those rights are recognised. That will be the great test that the government has to face over this particular issue. I would just say that I look forward to discussing these matters to try to develop a system that works. I made reference to this by interjection to Senator McGauran when he asked whether I have been on the Procedure Committee. I have been on the Procedure Committee—bar the time when Joe Ludwig purged me for three months—for 25 years. I have followed every rules change in this place in that 25 years. I think it is probably an Australian parliamentary record to serve on a committee for so long. It is true to say that generally we have approached all matters on consensus. It will not be possible on this occasion to approach it on consensus. But I appreciate, endorse and acknowledge the fact that the government is willing to send it to the Procedure Committee. We appreciate that part of it—that it is going there. I do not want to see changes to standing orders come off the floor, be belted through and bypass the Procedure Committee. We have never done it particularly. I think that the televising of parliament was the only time I can remember it being done in a big way. That did not go to the Procedure Committee. This one should go to the Procedure Committee. We will deal with it in mid-July. We are happy to see the report tabled out of session so that everyone can look at it. We are happy to debate it on the first sitting day here in August.