Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Hansard source

withdraw or change the arrangements in relation to the scope of the estimates. There has been a lot of hyperbole and hysteria in this debate and it is obviously continuing this morning, despite the tone of my address, where I am trying to be constructive about how we will consult and deal with the detail. We have heard this proposal described as evil. We have heard it likened to parliamentary dictatorship. It is nothing of the kind. I do not believe, quite frankly, that much is to be gained by a slanging match. What does that achieve? I also, however, wish to say that, whilst I think a slanging match is not to be entered into here, lecturing the government as others have sought to do about its alleged shortcomings on a number of fronts is little more than sanctimonious windbaggery. Some speakers have talked, for instance, about some of the time management issues of this government. That is farcical, quite frankly, when you look at the way in which the Labor Party rammed bills through the Senate during their time in government. It is interesting that Senator Ray interjected during someone’s contribution yesterday about this, because the record for top guillotiner rests with former senator Bob McMullan, who guillotined 57 bills in one motion on 16 June 1992. He is closely followed by Senator Ray, who guillotined 52 bills on 13 December 1990.

So, rather than being sanctimonious about this, why not recognise that when you are in government there are time management issues that are important to actually achieve the passage of bills? I am not here cavilling about the fact that I have a list of 52 bills that Senator Ray rammed through during a guillotine session. It ill behoves those on the other side to criticise this government for getting through time-critical bills in a very measured way when time is an issue. All governments need to do that and it is entirely appropriate that that in fact happens.

There have been complaints about question time. I think the number of questions this week has been averaging six, which is what I think the opposition sought. One of the problems is that, if there are continual objections and if nobody can hear what is said, obviously, the time for question time becomes very limited. Half the time it is almost impossible to hear what is being said in question time. With a bit of decorum on both sides, I think we could get through a hell of a lot more. This is not a one-sided issue; both sides can contribute to a constructive question time, and the opposition would get their questions if those kinds of matters were observed.

There have been other suggestions during this debate that, somehow or other, this is some grab from the Prime Minister’s office, which is absolute nonsense. I want to address this very briefly. The senators control the processes of how we see procedures and matters operating in the Senate. The Prime Minister has certainly not instigated this matter or sought to change any of these procedures; they are changing for the reasons that I have outlined.

Senator Faulkner told the committee in his contribution yesterday that the Senate committee system stands with the best accountability mechanisms in the world. I agree that Senate committees do play an important part. They do important work and they do play a very important role in the proper functioning of the Senate. Even from Labor’s perspective, however, latitudes towards the paired committee system were not always so positive. A lot of us have gone back and had a look at the debate in 1994. If we look back to 1994, we see that Senator Ray himself was quite ambivalent about the proposal. He said in the Senate at that time that there was no government ownership of the proposals. He acknowledged that this was not the perfect system—that is what he said. He went on to say:

I suppose these reforms arose out of the view of the opposition—I think shared by the minority parties in the Senate ...

It was certainly far from an idea that was welcomed wholeheartedly by the Labor government at the time. Senator Ray went on to say:

Even if I may be somewhat dubious about all the motives involved here, one of the good things about bringing in some reforms in the Senate is that more often than not a lot of good things emerge out of it.

So why couldn’t that occur out of this current process? I hope that Senator Ray and those opposite would bring the same positive sentiment to the reforms that we are proposing at the moment. I believe that he will. I believe that Senator Ray will play a constructive role in this matter. I am sure that we can come to an appropriate and workable solution in the Procedure Committee that fleshes out the detail of how the committees will be constituted and how they will work. I must say that I was gratified to hear both Senator Ray and Senator Faulkner proffer some sensible and constructive questions and give an indication to the Senate of their willingness to sit down, look at the detail and come up with an appropriate and workable solution. I hope that others will do so too, including Senator Hogg, who chairs the committee.

For the record, I repeat that the government is very happy for this matter to be referred to the Procedure Committee. I certainly welcome Labor’s acceptance of an earlier reporting date than originally proposed. I am quite certain that the reality of this matter and the reality of the numbers will mean that we can have an effective and functioning committee system, that the sky will not fall in and that, when we look at it on the next occasion, we will look back on these debates and wonder what all the fuss was about.