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

The Democrats are also strongly opposed to the motion put forward by the Manager of Government Business in the Senate. In his contribution, he said that this is just part of the evolution of the committee system. Without getting into a debate about the biology of evolution, normally when people use the word ‘evolution’ in modern-day language they are talking about something developing, improving, going on to the next stage. This certainly does not do that. It is the devolution of the committee system. It is a move backwards to a time when the committee system worked less well. That was the whole reason why not just both major parties but also the Democrats, through the whip at the time, Vicki Bourne, negotiated a comprehensive improvement to the structure of the committee system in the Senate. That was done as a way of making the Senate committee system more responsive—not just more responsive to the parliament but more responsive to the public. So any suggestion that this is some next stage in the enhancement of the committee system is simply false.

I follow on from some of Senator Ray’s remarks by saying that I think that there really is a lost understanding—if there ever was an understanding—of the parliamentary system and how the parliament is meant to work. We seem to have a mindset that the Senate is just a variation on the House of Representatives, just another arm of the government for the executive government to use as it chooses—that it is not meant to play, in any sense, a separate role from the executive and a separate role in scrutinising the actions of the executive.

In preparing for the Procedure Committee’s examination of this issue in July, when the Senate first referred the government’s proposal, I went back and looked at the committee’s report from 1994 that looked at what the rationale was for making the changes. I also looked at some of the submissions from that time. I noted the submission from the coalition senators devoted a lot of time to arrangements for chairing committees. It went on in detail about how the British House of Commons arranges the chairs of various committees, the equivalent of the Senate’s legislative and general purpose standing committees, and how they are shared among the parties by agreement. Those committees elect their own chairs and are free to choose any member of the agreed party.

The submission talked about how chairs are shared in this way because they are seen as parliamentary positions, not government positions, and are seen as such by the public. This is in the House of Commons, mind you—that is, the lower house of the British parliament—and, in the upper house of the Australian parliament, the coalition senators in 1994 noted the importance of a chair of committees being shared as a way of demonstrating that these are not just government positions to be handed out as gifts by the government of the day and that they would be seen by the public as such. I noted, particularly, the paragraph put forward by coalition senators back in 1994, which said:

The sharing of chairs on standing committees in the Senate would enhance the parliamentary character of their work and improve the public standing as well as give representation to the non-government parties on the chair’s group.

Back in 1994, coalition senators thought that the sharing of chairs of these various committees, in rough proportion to the parties’ representation in the Senate, would enhance the parliamentary character of their work. What has changed? We all know what has changed: the government have a majority, a very narrow one but one nonetheless. So they are quite prepared to take an action that, according to their own arguments in 1994, will detract from the parliamentary character of the Senate committees’ work and will reduce their public standing. But they do not care about that, because what it will do is enhance government control, and that is what this is all about. There is a suggestion that this is somehow about preventing the Senate from misusing its powers or, as Senator Ellison vaguely suggested in his contribution, because the government’s will is being thwarted by unreasonable actions. Find us an example of the government’s will being thwarted by unreasonable actions of Senate committees. Senator Ellison seemed to suggest that he should be congratulated because the government are allowing legislation to be referred to committees.

We used to have a convention in this place, which I note is also breaking down—there was an example last week—that any individual senator who wanted to have legislation referred to a committee was entitled to do so. There was a recognition that an individual senator had a responsibility and a right to ensure that they were satisfied that there had been proper scrutiny of a piece of legislation. That convention is going out the window. And, because the government is sending through legislation, they want to be congratulated. Let us look at the detail. It is not just a matter of sending legislation to a committee; it is a matter of how long the committee gets to look at that legislation, and that is where real changes have also been made—to the detriment of the system. We have major pieces of legislation being forced through Senate committee processes in the space of a few weeks.

We have all been debating the disgraceful, disrespectful debacle of the truncated inquiry into the land rights legislation where the government’s own committee members openly stated that there was insufficient time to properly consider the legislation. Senator Ellison wants the government to be congratulated for that, when even government senators openly state in their committee reports that there was inadequate time to consider the legislation. At any other time, prior to government control of the Senate, if a committee had been in a situation where they felt there was inadequate time to consider legislation, the Senate would have moved to extend the time. It is a logical, responsible and appropriate thing to do if you are interested in ensuring that a potential law is given proper consideration and public input is taken into account adequately—but not under the brave new world of coalition control.

Under coalition control, if there is inadequate time—even from the coalition senators’ point of view—bad luck. It is all pushed through because the minister says so. That is clearly what happened with the land rights legislation. The minister insisted, so the government senators on the Senate committee obeyed. We have seen that with the Telstra legislation, the workplace relations legislation, the terrorism legislation, the Welfare to Work legislation and a range of other pieces of legislation. The minister insisted on a truncated time frame, and the coalition senators agreed. We have even had coalition senators agreeing to vote in favour of gagging themselves for legislation in this place. That is how tame they all are. They will gag and prevent themselves from being able to speak in a debate on legislation by voting in favour of a ridiculously short time frame for Senate committee inquiries. Yet the Manager of Government Business in the Senate wants to get some sort of accolade because the government is still allowing legislation to be referred to Senate committees. I recall a vote last week where they prevented a piece of legislation being referred to a Senate committee because they could not be bothered looking at it.

I would also note what happens when government get control—when they get a majority on committees and when they chair all committees. If you add up all of the committees that look at policy and related issues, we not only have these eight legislative and general purpose committees but also have a range of joint committees: the Australian Crime Commission; Corporations and Financial Services; Public Accounts and Audit; Migration; Electoral Matters; Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade; National Capital and External Territories; ASIO, ASIS and DSD; and Treaties. All of them are chaired by government MPs and all of them have a government majority.

I recall a time, even before the government got control of this Senate, when a matter was referred by this Senate to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which is chaired and controlled by the government, and it just flatly refused to examine the issue. It was about the Australian government’s negotiations with the United States about exempting the US from the International Criminal Court. The committee reported back saying, ‘We can’t look at it.’ The Senate said, ‘No, you’ve made a mistake; you can look at it,’ and referred it again. The committee said, ‘No, we can’t.’ The Senate referred it to that committee a third time, saying: ‘Yes, you can look at it. You don’t need to wait for a treaty action to be able to examine it.’ The committee just flatly refused and said, ‘We will not look at this matter.’ That is what happens when the government gets control of committees.

Another thing that already happens with many of the joint committees and is starting to happen now with others is that matters do not get referred to committees in the first place unless the minister either says it is okay or provides the terms of reference. Is that what we are going to be reduced to? Will we just sit around waiting for the minister to give us some work to do so that we can hand down a report that will meet their needs and their desires? What is the point of having a parliamentary system if that is the direction in which we are going?

We have all of those joint committees that I mentioned and we now have the eight standing legislative and general purpose committees, and every single one of them will be chaired by a government member. Where is the proportionality in that? What happened to the argument that the coalition senators put forward with such strength back in 1994, saying that they should have proportionality with regard to the chairs of committees? As with many of these things, it went out the window as soon as the opportunity for some more power arrived. That, I suggest, is an example of the level of contempt that this government is clearly displaying towards the Senate. I believe it has always had that contempt towards the Senate. Governments tend to have contempt towards the Senate. They do not like the Senate because it gets in their way. In the past, this government has not had full reign and has not been able to display that contempt and neuter the Senate and slowly suffocate it. But now the opportunity is there, and certainly this government is not missing a chance to totally suffocate the Senate and its mechanisms for scrutiny. We all remember—I certainly do—the Prime Minister’s promise after the last election that he would use his Senate majority humbly and wisely. Clearly that is one of his more flagrant broken promises.

For the record, I indicate I have an interest in this issue and declare that I am currently chair of a Senate committee. If this motion goes through then I would not be a chair anymore. But I think all senators would recognise that that is not the reason for the position I am taking or, of course, for the position that all Democrat senators are taking. This is simply a clear and undeniable power grab by the government, and the defence put forward to date by the minister is so shallow that clearly there is no other reason for what is being done.

Again, to remove any possible doubt, I draw attention to the coalition senators’ own words from their own submission about committee structures, particularly chairs of committees, back in 1994. The clear issue at that time was about improving the public standing of Senate committees and enhancing the parliamentary character of their work. That is what we are stepping away from here. That is not of concern to the government. Indeed, I suspect it is of little concern at all to the government if Senate committees do lose some of their reputation in the public arena. I suspect it does not bother the government at all if the reputation of the Senate diminishes significantly, because the more the Senate’s reputation diminishes, the more we are left with just the government. That would mean moving closer to an elected dictatorship and closer to a lack of tolerance of any dissent or any alternative opinions that do not come from within government ranks. They have enough trouble tolerating alternative opinions within their own ranks, but there is a complete dismissing of any views from outside their own ranks.

Finally, I think it is worth noting one other point that needs to be raised whenever issues of Senate committee structures or processes come before this chamber. The other practice of this government that is becoming more prevalent is its completely appalling performance in responding to Senate committee reports. We are seeing longer delays between when the reports are tabled and when the government response appears. It is supposed to be within three months. You are doing very well if you get a response within 12 months from this government. Again, that leads to a situation where discredit is brought on the whole Senate. We all know how much work people put into preparing submissions and appearing before committee hearings, particularly when they are members of the general public rather than professional lobbyists. They treat it very seriously. People sometimes drive for hours in any direction to appear before a public hearing just to give 30 minutes of evidence because they think it will make a difference. How do you think they feel when the committee report appears and then there is nothing—no response from the government for 12 months, 24 months or longer? That practice is getting worse.

I noted in an investigation into this by the Sydney Morning Herald a year or so ago, somewhat to my surprise actually, that the government response time and delays were even longer when responding to House of Representatives committee reports. I can only assume that is because they do not take them seriously because they do not need to. That is the situation we are now facing in the Senate: tame Senate committees, totally government controlled, not doing references unless ministers agree and no need for urgency or a requirement to respond with timeliness at all, because there is no way that the Senate can impose any sanction or discipline on a minister or a government that does not respond. So another likely future deterioration is a government whose performance will become even worse than it already is in responding to the often very detailed, often very well thought through and often, I might say, cross-party unanimous reports of Senate committees.