Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the proposals to alter the structure of the Senate committee system, announced by the Leader of the Government on 20 June 2006, be referred to the Procedure Committee for inquiry and report by 17 August 2006.

In moving this motion, I seek to refer the issues that Senator Minchin outlined in his letter to party leaders yesterday concerning a restructure of the Senate committee system to the Procedure Committee. I want to make it clear that I do not do so with any expectation that the government will change its basic position. But Labor at least is interested in paying adherence to proper process in this chamber. Certainly, going on past precedent in these matters, these sorts of suggestions have gone to the Procedure Committee so that all senators have an opportunity to comment on these things and to participate in a discussion about changes to procedure in the Senate. The government has made it quite clear that it has made its decision and it is imposing the decision on the Senate, but there are some minor matters that the Procedure Committee can deal with.

Essentially, the government has exercised its power. It says: ‘We have the power. We will change the system to suit ourselves,’ and that is what it is about to do. It is in stark contrast to what John Howard, the Prime Minister, said after the previous federal election when it became clear that the government had gained a Senate majority. Prime Minister Howard said, ‘It will be a modest, even humble, government.’ I am inclined to remember the old Mac Davis number Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble. It goes:

Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble when you’re perfect in every way ...

This is what we are seeing today: the Prime Minister’s arrogance, the government’s arrogance, reflected in the fact that it is seeking to assert its power over this chamber. I would have thought that government senators would have been a bit wary about this because, as everyone knows, the wheel turns. We have had a commitment across the chamber in recent years to ensure that the Senate plays the role it has come to play in Australia’s democracy—a role that includes providing accountability to the executive, acting as a review mechanism on actions of the executive, and helping to build greater scrutiny of the actions of the executive in a world where, increasingly, the executive has more power over the parliament. Serious parliamentarians would be concerned by moves that restrict that ability.

Certainly, in the past, the Liberal-National Party have been concerned about it. I could quote page after page of speeches from Liberal-National Party senators about the need to protect the powers of the Senate—about the need, in fact, for the committee system to be supported. This was very much a strong position of the Liberal and National parties when they were in opposition. It seems their view of the world has changed. You have got to ask yourself, ‘What has changed?’ Have the principles they supported changed, or is it really the fact that all that has changed is that they now have a majority in this chamber, that their power is unchecked and that they seek to use it and abuse it?

That is what is occurring today. What we have seen over the last year is a slow erosion of the power of the Senate to hold the executive accountable. We knew this would occur, and we knew that it would increase as the government’s arrogance and hubris grew. But this measure that Senator Minchin dropped on us yesterday is fundamental to the way the Senate operates. It is fundamental to the Senate’s review role and its accountability role. So all of the sleights and measures designed to increase the government’s power over the last year look small in comparison with this measure. This is fundamental; this is an attack on the Senate’s power in a very central way.

Since July last year we have seen the number of questions reduced, the gag applied and the farcical one-day inquiry into the sale of Telstra. We have seen the guillotine and we have seen the opposition of the government to any reference that might allow a committee to look at government actions. Recently we saw the measure designed to reduce by eight days the capacity of estimates committees to examine the financial aspects of the government’s activities and hold the government accountable for the expenditure of taxpayers’ money. One after another, these restrictions have been placed on the Senate’s capabilities. But that was not enough for the Liberal-National government. It needed to go the whole hog. One of the three things left to us was the references committee process, the process that allowed this Senate, by its own reference, to determine and inquire into matters that were of concern, matters that perhaps the government did not want looked at and that the government preferred to not be exposed to the light of day, matters that went to the failure of the government to be held accountable and the government’s avoidance of scrutiny.

This was the role that the references committees sought to play. That is the proud role that these committees have played since 1994. They have played it, I might add, at the initiation of the Liberal Party of the time. I pay credit to them. In those days they saw what the role of the Senate could develop into, and we have seen the evolution of that role as an important part of our democracy. All that has changed is the ability to use and abuse power. This is arrogance of the first order. It is a sign of the decay of the government commencing, because it is clear from this that the government is trying to avoid scrutiny and accountability, and it is trying to express its arrogance by not allowing the Senate to deal with issues that could force it to account to the Australian people.

There are no principles involved here. Senator Minchin makes no attempt to defend this on the question of principle. He dresses it up as a question of reducing 16 committees to 10; anyone who knows anything about the Senate knows that it has nothing to do with that. It is about getting control of the references committees. They have traditionally worked on the basis of having a non-government majority. Why would a government inquire into itself? Why would a government allow any committee the power to look at things that might embarrass the government? This was a point made by Liberal senators when this system was established. They knew that the pressure on a government senator to accept a reference or to inquire properly into something the government did not want revealed meant that it was not practical and it would not happen. So they argued that you had to have a non-government majority and a non-government chair in order to make sure the executive was held accountable. They were right then, and they are dead wrong now. This is purely about the abuse by the majority. It is purely about the tyranny of the majority. The government has got the power; it will use the power because it suits it. The only interest at stake here is self-interest, to protect the government from proper scrutiny.

Senator Minchin’s rationales are breathtaking in their flimsiness. He describes the Senate committee system as a ‘failed experiment’. When did anyone else notice that it had failed? If it had failed so badly to hold the executive in check, why would you seek to abolish it? He said this was part of the ‘evolution’ of the Senate committee system, but then argued that we are taking it back to 1994. Is it an evolution or is it a reversal? There is no logic or principle to the position. The original decision was not based on a majority; in fact the Liberal and National parties did not have a majority in this chamber. This was a process established by the Senate with the agreement of all parties: the Liberal and National parties, the Democrats, the Greens and the Labor Party. It was a decision taken to improve the function of the Senate, to provide for a more powerful committee system and to provide for a system that held the executive in check. It was a good system. It has evolved, and it has become a central part of the Senate’s role and function in holding the executive to account. It mirrors in part the powerful USA Senate committee systems, which have been used in that country as well to develop the role of the Senate and its power and capacity to hold government to account. On any measure, this evolution, this maturing, of the role of the Senate has been a highly beneficial process.

Nobody but Senator Minchin has previously said that this was a failed experiment. Senator Minchin had not described it as a failed experiment until yesterday. This is a device invented over the last couple of days to try to justify a most retrograde step, taking the Senate back—he says—to the position of 1994. This is allegedly evolution! The system has got better, the accountability mechanisms have got stronger and the Senate’s ability to scrutinise has got stronger. That is unashamedly a good thing. Every senator in this place knows that, and every senator knows that the accountability mechanisms and the role of the Senate will be diminished by this. Government senators ought to think twice about this, because they know things will turn. They know that their capacity to operate effectively in this chamber will be reduced—not only in opposition but also in government. They are signing away a lot of their own capacities. Over recent years, we have seen that a great deal of the work by these references committees has occurred because the government was forced to have inquiries. That has allowed government senators to make a contribution by helping change government policy. But that has gone.

You have to ask yourself why the government is doing this. It is not defensible on any other basis than that it is designed to increase the power of the government—to increase the power of the executive. Why would we bother having a Senate or two chambers if we were to be a mirror of the House of Representatives, if we were to merely roll legislation through in an unquestioning way or if we were to merely do what the government asked us to in terms of the role of the committees? No committee with a government majority is going to look at things that the government is embarrassed about. No committee with a government majority is going to go where the government thinks it would be an embarrassment to go. And so some of the great work done by the Senate in recent years will be wiped. It is a retrograde step and it is a sign of a government that is increasingly arrogant, increasingly out of touch and increasingly focused on protecting its own power rather than being willing to defend itself in a proper way with proper accountability mechanisms.

We all know that this is about entrenching government power. Currently, the Senate has the power to refer matters to Senate references committees, chaired by non-government senators—not only Labor senators but also Greens and Democrat senators. The non-government majority has the power to decide where they go, how often they meet and who they hear from. The great power of this system has been the ability to engage Australian citizens in the debate about issues of public concern. People can come before Senate committees and can seek to influence the Senate. That has been one of our great strengths. But now the government will say who can come before us, who will be heard and when they will be heard. We have seen instance after instance in recent times of the government saying: ‘We need to meet in Canberra only. We do not need to go out to the Northern Territory and talk to the petrol sniffers,’ or, ‘We do not need to go out and talk to the pensioners or those affected by the GST proposals.’ Each time, the non-government majority have said: ‘No. We want to engage with the people. We want to hear their views and use their submissions to make our democracy stronger.’

This is purely about the government asserting control, squeezing the Senate and ensuring that the few mechanisms left to us are further tightened so as to prevent accountability and scrutiny. The government have the numbers. We all know the government have the numbers, apart from when Senator Joyce has a bit of an escapade or there is the occasional bit of rebellion on their backbench. The government come in and exercise their numbers. I accept that, because they were elected by the Australian population. I have no trouble with the fact that the government have a majority, and I expect them to use their numbers in this chamber. While I do not agree with nearly anything they do, they are entitled to use their numbers in this chamber to support government positions.

But what the government are not entitled to do is emasculate the Senate. What they are not entitled to do is remove the checks and balances that our democratic system provides. What they are not allowed to do, and what they should not be allowed to get away with, is emasculate the capacity to hold them to account, to review their actions and to inquire into matters which the government would prefer to hold secret. As I have said, in the last few days we have seen what I see as signs of the decay of the government. You see this in governments when they are getting near the end—when they are starting to get tired and out of touch and are starting to believe that the electorate is out of step with them. The IR legislation is a classic example. Rather than responding to the electorate, which has been John Howard’s great strength—I give him that credit—the government’s view now is: ‘The electorate are out of step with us. They just do not understand how good these things are for them. If only they better understood.’ It is the beginning of the end.

And what do governments do when that starts? They look to entrench their power. They look to ensure the maintenance of power. They seek secrecy. They seek to avoid questions and scrutiny. They look to institutionalise their power, fearful of one day losing power. They seek to change the rules. We have had a classic of it this week: the government changed the electoral laws. Why? It was to encourage dirty money in Australian politics, to encourage secrecy about who donates to whom and to deny the vote to Australians that the government think do not vote the right way. Again, it is purely about their self-interest, purely about entrenching their power and purely about protecting their interests. And today we have the start of a new process—another step in emasculating the Senate, entrenching the government’s power and reducing our capacity.

Our great strength in this chamber has been our capacity to hold the executive to account. As we all know, executive government has become more and more powerful across the world; that is a development that is broadly occurring. But every democracy has sought to respond by putting other checks and balances in place. This Senate has matured. It has developed mechanisms that have allowed the Senate to operate and to play a role. If that role is not allowed the Senate, there is no point in us being here. And Labor has changed its position on the Senate. We have sought to make the Senate an institution that works for Australian democracy. We have recognised its emerging role and recognised that it adds to accountability, to the role of the parliament and to a check on executive power. I think all senators recognise that. I really cannot understand why Liberal and National Party senators are allowing this to occur, because the worm does turn. They will get their chance in opposition, and I think they will find that even in government this undermines their power.

Labor will take the fight up to the government. We will take the fight up on this issue and we will take the fight up on any further erosion of the Senate’s powers. But it is getting to the point where there is not much left. This is one of the most important and fundamental strikes against the capacity of the Senate, and we may have to concentrate more on the fight outside the parliament. Australians need to be concerned about this issue. They need to take an interest because, if they think about it, they know that unchecked executive power is not in their interests. They know that power corrupts. They know that absolute power corrupts absolutely. And this is about giving the Howard government absolute power. There is no principle at stake here. The government have no principled defence of this proposal. Why have they not argued for it in the last 13 years? It is because there is no basis for it in principle. It is not good for democracy.

The one thing that has changed is the numbers in the Senate. The government have the power to exert their self-interest and they are prepared to do it. It took them a year to work up the courage and decide that they really could go the whole hog. We have seen the step-by-step erosion of the Senate’s capacity. We are down to five opposition questions per question time, we are seeing estimates committees eroded, we have seen the government muttering darkly about restricting the matters that estimates can inquire into and then, when introducing that measure, saying ‘You’ve always got estimates.’ The attacks come from all fronts, but this is the most blatant abuse yet of the Senate majority. This is the tyranny of the majority at work. It is arrogance, it is a reflection that the government are out of touch and that they are trying to shape the parliament to reflect their will rather than debate their performance in the proper forums. This is a strike against the role of the Senate and against our democratic institutions. Government senators ought to hang their heads in shame because they know it is wrong. (Time expired)