John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also support the proposal that stands in the name of Senator Evans for this matter to be referred to the Procedure Committee—as, I believe, is appropriate for any change to the operations or standing orders of the Senate. I thought I might commence my contribution tonight by making a very clear point about the approach the opposition have taken to the Senate. The Australian Labor Party have many critics, but one thing we cannot be criticised for is the fact that we have been very consistent about what we view as being the appropriate role for the Australian Senate. We have said that the Senate is at its best when it is undertaking its proper role of scrutiny and review. That is the primary function of this chamber. We in the Labor Party have always understood that governments are not made or unmade in this chamber, but there is a proper role for the Senate, a crucial and important role for the Senate, and that is its accountability and scrutiny role.

The Senate committee system is of course a fundamental element of that accountability role. It is the key element of that role. There is no doubt in my mind that the Senate’s committee system is the best accountability mechanism that this parliament has. There is no doubt at all that that is the case. In fact, I am convinced that the Senate’s committee system is the best accountability mechanism we have in any parliament in this country. It stands at least with the best accountability mechanisms in the world. There is none better.

The modern committee system has developed since 1970, when massive reforms were driven by the then leader of the opposition and leader of the Labor Party in the Senate, the late Senator Lionel Murphy. As for the current committee system, we have heard something about the history of its development. It is true that this chamber agreed in August 1994 to a new system of paired committees. That period of the last Keating government, from 1993 to 1996, saw massive changes to the procedures and standing orders of this Senate. It saw massive changes to the way the Senate did business.

I am fairly well versed in those changes because, for the entire period of that parliament, as a minister in the Keating government, I was the Manager of Government Business in the Senate and I had responsibility for oversight of these issues. It was not just changes to the Senate committee system, as senators who were present at the time would know. We had major changes to the routine of business in this place, to the length of second reading speeches—a raft of very substantial changes were made to the way the Senate worked, the way the Senate did its business. You have heard some of the history of this from Senator Ray, who during that period was the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate. In August 1994 he was the acting manager of government business. I am pleased to say it was one of the two periods in which I have ever, in my 17 years in this parliament, taken leave from the chamber. Senator Ray was passed the baton and had the job of making sure that those changes to the Senate committee system passed this chamber. He was also responsible for negotiating the changes. We did a huge amount of work behind the scenes in the Procedure Committee, where this sort of work ought to be done, to try to get this system right.

I have to acknowledge that it was not just the Labor Party, the then Labor government, and the then coalition opposition who were involved in the changes. The minor parties were very serious contributors to that outcome, particularly the Australian Democrats, who at that time were better represented in the chamber—in terms of numerical strength—than they are now. They played a very active role. Anyone who cares to revisit the debates of that time will see that that is the case.

We negotiated it out. We talked it through. We solved the problem. We talked through the issues and came up with an appropriate and workable solution. And it has stood the test of time. It was a new concept of paired legislation and references committees, and it has worked well. The fundamental principle was that the government would have the chairs and the majority on the legislation committees, which would have responsibility for the estimates process and legislation, and that the references committees would have a broader remit in relation to matters referred to them by the Senate. It did actually work well. I would say that you cannot argue against the fact that, in the 35 years since the Senate’s committee system was developed, it has been honed and improved.

Today is the first time in 35 years that we are going to see a backwards step. And it is a very substantial backwards step indeed. You have to ask yourself: ‘Why is the Senate committee system, the best accountability mechanism in the Commonwealth parliament, under attack? Why are the government proposing to change it?’ Unfortunately, the answer is clear: the government do not like the role that these committees play. They hate scrutiny. They hate being held accountable for their actions. They do not want this sort of examination of their activities. They do not like this sort of investigation. They just do not like scrutiny at all.

There are many great examples. One example was the Senate Select Committee into a Certain Maritime Incident. That was so effective that the phrases ‘kids overboard’ and ‘children overboard’ have actually gone into the lingo for ‘deceitful actions of government’. Chalk one up to the best parliamentary committee system in the world. Of course, now we do not have any select committees into issues of concern. The government has the numbers in the Senate; no such committee will ever be established. The government has the numbers in the Senate; no reference will go off to an existing committee if it does not suit the government.

The proposal before us leaves many unanswered questions about the operation of the Senate committee system: questions about quorums of committees; the role of the Selection of Bills Committee; the role of participating members in the estimates process; the powers of the committees; and the issue of logistics, which was canvassed by my colleague Senator Ray. It has always been said, and I understand it still to be the case, that as well as the standing orders that limit the number of legislation committees meeting at any one time to four, there is also a limitation because of resources and logistics. There is not the capacity in this parliament to have any more than four legislation committees meeting at any one time. I want to ask the minister, when she responds later in this debate, whether she will guarantee that the new committees proposed by the government will retain the powers of existing committees. I think this Senate is entitled to an answer to that question. I want to ask the minister whether the government will guarantee that estimates hearings will continue with no further limitations on time and certainly no restriction on their scope. I ask Senator Coonan to respond to that as well.

You see, the government is seeking complete control over committee processes. This chamber determines which references go to committees, and since the government established a majority in this place on 1 July 2005, 16 references to committees have been knocked off—nine from the opposition, six from the Australian Greens and one from Family First. All of this is the gift of the government. Any one of those could have gone forward if the government had agreed with it. A huge number of references have not been referred by the Senate and yet the references committee workload is starting to reduce. It is a deliberate strategy, a deliberate tactic, on the part of the government, and it is going to get worse.

One minor advantage at the moment is that if you eventually get a reference at least the non-government majority on a committee can determine issues in relation to the conduct of the inquiry. That will absolutely change. This is part and parcel of a step-by-step destruction of the Senate’s roles and powers. There are all sorts of examples of this: the new limits in relation to opposition questioning in question time; the cover-up in relation to questions relating to AWB in estimates; the reduced number of committee references that have gone forward; the use of the guillotine; the use of the gag; and now a proposal that the committees themselves become vassals of the government.

This really is the ultimate winner-take-all approach to politics. It is the ultimate in arrogance from the government. I am not surprised that the government will go to this extent to avoid scrutiny. I am not surprised that the government goes to the extent of dismantling parliamentary institutions and the mechanisms of accountability that we have. The way this government operates and conducts itself, which is underhanded and shady in my view, can only thrive if people do not know what is going on. It can only thrive in the dark. Of course, the government thinks it will be easier to get away with this deceit if they gut the Senate committee system. Maybe they are right; I am sure they are. In the short term they will be right. They will think that if they gut the Senate committee system then parliament will not catch up with what they are doing.

I say, and I have always said, in government and in opposition, that a strong committee system might be good for oppositions, it is obviously good for parliament, and it is good for governments as well. It is an excellent thing if an official or minister can think twice before a corner is cut or before the approach of near enough is good enough becomes standard operating procedure—the natural order of things. It is good for government.

I do not know what drives this proposal. I hear from senators on the other side that it is not greed. I believe it is at least small-mindedness. I believe it is at least short-sightedness. I believe that this government always has the view that it is a good time to pay back and pay out on political opponents. But most important of all, it is a lack of acceptance of accountability, and accountability is what the Senate is on about and should be on about—review, examination, scrutiny and accountability. That is what we are best at and that is what we should be able to pursue—opposition, government, minor parties, Independents; all of us. That is the role of the Senate and it is that role that is going to be gutted by this proposal. This is a very serious change to the way the Senate has worked for a very long period of time—for decades. It is a massive step backwards.

Debate interrupted.