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

All through the system since 1994: non-government majorities. Do you know why? Because we agreed with you. We agreed with you when you had some courage, when you had the courage of your convictions, when you argued for the accountability mechanisms of the Senate and when you said the accountability role of the Senate was important. Where have you gone now? You have run away. You do not believe that stuff anymore because you have government.

As Senator Ray said, that will not last forever. The wheel will turn, but I will not be talking about retribution because I fundamentally believe in the institution of the Senate. I think it has taken on a proper function in our democracy. I think it does good work. I actually think the Senate committee system has improved accountability and has improved parliamentary democracy in this country. If it has done so, why would you try and turn the clock back? Because your interest in control and power drives you to that. That is the only reason, and all the farcical arguments that are advanced about improving Senate efficiency, providing more committees, greater participation and greater allocation of work among committees—all are nonsense and all have disappeared. When we got down to the guts of it there was only the one thing that the government wanted and that was power. They wanted control of the committee system and that is what is at the heart of the proposition today. All the rest has been stripped away.

It is about the government seeking to emasculate the power of the Senate to hold it accountable. We have seen that arrogance and we have seen that abuse of power in everything this government have done since they got control of the Senate. Since 1 July 2005, at every step, they have sought to emasculate the Senate, to entrench their power, to use their numbers to alter the way the Senate works and to reduce the scrutiny upon them. They have acted in self-interest on all occasions, be it question time, be it the powers of return to order, be it the timing of committee inquiries and be it on the capacity of the Senate to examine legislation.

At one stage we had 300 amendments dropped on the table and we debated them within the hour. No-one had a clue what was in them. We were denied the capacity to look at important legislation. More importantly, we were denied the opportunity to hear from Australian citizens. One of the key functions of the Senate, one of the things it has done best, is it has engaged the Australian community in debates about legislation and issues of public concern. People appearing at committee hearings have provided valuable input. They have provided advice, opinion and technical advice and they have allowed for us to have a much better system. They have actually enhanced the role of the Senate and the role of the parliament. That fundamental enhancing of our role has been as a result of us being able to invite in people with an interest in a subject, with an interest in a piece of legislation and to hear from them, to test their views and to use that to improve legislation or contribute to public policy debate.

The government does not like that. It does not like community involvement and it does not like debate because when you get that clash of opinions, when you get the debate, the government has to answer—it has to be held accountable for a policy decision it has taken. We have seen that with the migration legislation. The government has been unable to win the argument. The legislation was wrong, it was wrongly based, and even the government’s own members came to that view. That is the sort of process we want in our democracy. That is the sort of process that the committee system of the Senate has done well. That is what has served parliament and this chamber well over the years as the system has developed.

For the government to try and wipe that out is a very retrograde step. They stand condemned for it because it is not what the Australian people want. The government have overreached. It is often a sign of a decaying government that they seek to entrench their power when they cannot win the political arguments. They seek to abuse the system, to change the rules, to express their contempt for debate and criticism by seeking to shut down that debate and criticism. What we have seen in recent times is the government increasingly inclined to do that because they cannot win the debate. They have run out of ideas, they have run out of an agenda, and the decay is eating away inside the government. How do they deal with that? They deal with it by trying to shut down criticism and trying to shut down the debate: if you cannot win the argument you end the argument. This is what this is about. The government seek to end the debate, they seek to end the argument, by removing the mechanisms that allow the Senate to do that.

It is a most important matter. I know that the Procedure Committee report will be carried. The work that the committee has done on the minutiae of the processes is important because it will allow the committees to function within the constraints of what the government is doing. But make no mistake: this is about removing the capacity of the Senate to act as a check on the executive. This is the legislature being restricted in its capabilities. It is about the Senate being prevented from doing the sort of work that has proved so effective as a check on the executive power in this country. The Senate’s ability to do its work and the Senate’s ability to do what it does best is being seriously curtailed.

I know that we will not win that debate inside the chamber. We cannot win that argument with the government, because the government is too fixated on its own needs and its self-interest. It thinks that, by changing the rules, it will entrench itself and cling to power. But it will have exactly the opposite effect. Whenever governments have gone down this path, it always turns against them, because people recognise it for what it is.

I have been talking to a lot of people about what has been happening in the Senate in recent months—a lot of people who are not Labor supporters; a lot of people who take an interest in public policy, in governance and in the national life. They are all expressing concern to me about these types of measures. They all know that no government ought to be totally unchecked. They all know that a government that is allowed to operate in the shadows, in darkness and without being held accountable is good for neither governance nor democracy.

I think people will consider these issues very seriously when the next election occurs. People will examine whether it is smart to allow any government to have a majority in the Senate. Certainly no matter what will happen in the next election—and I hope and will be working for a Labor victory—it is important that people examine closely whether having a coalition majority in the Senate, be it with a conservative or a Labor government, is a good thing.

I would argue very strenuously that it is not a good thing and this sort of step proves that argument. This sort of measure shows that a government that is unchecked will seek to entrench its power and will seek arrogantly to abuse the processes and change the rules in furtherance of one end and one end alone—preservation of its power. That is all this is about—preservation of the government’s power.

We think there is a better way and that we can do much better than this—that the Senate can continue to play its proper role, the role that it has taken on in recent years, and that we can make a useful contribution to the parliamentary process and to Australian democracy. But these sorts of measures will make that very difficult indeed. These measures, combined with the restriction in the number of questions, the control over the legislative process and the failure to allow proper debate in a whole range of areas, mean that the government and the executive are getting a tighter grip increasingly on the parliament. They are getting a tighter grip on the capacity to hold them to account. That is not good for our democracy and it ought to be opposed.

Labor will be opposing the measure that lies at the heart of the government’s grab for power and the government’s attempt to entrench in the standing orders of the Senate its control over all the Senate’s activities. The things that the Senate has done best will be severely curtailed. The role of the committees in holding the government to account and in shining the light into areas of government administration where governments prefer there not to be a light shone will be restricted by the measures contained in this Procedure Committee report.

The government is entrenching its control over what the committees inquire into, how they inquire into matters of public importance, when they do it and whom they may speak to. We have seen already in the legislation committees the government trying to restrict who may appear as witnesses, to restrict the time available to committees to a day in Canberra when they are matters of great importance around the country, to restrict what we may look at and to restrict how we might look at those things. That is not good for our democracy. That is not good for the ongoing role of the Senate.

The Senate ought to be able to act as a check on government and act as a strong accountability mechanism. The government seizing control of the committee system will not allow Liberal senators to be more independent, which is the perverse argument some have advanced. It will allow the executive and the government to determine what work the committees do, how they do that work, when they do that work and whom they speak to. The executive and the minister will have total control over the work of the committees and their areas. That means the government will not be held to account as it should be.

Labor are strongly opposed to the changes to the standing orders that flow from this Procedure Committee report. We think they are a backward step. We pledge to reverse them. We hope that, following the next election, the Senate is composed in such a way that the coalition will not have the numbers to continue down this path of seeking to entrench measures which work against the Senate’s important accountability role. We hope that these will be reversed quickly. (Time expired)