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

You finally have a bill to bring on, do you, Nick? Very well done! So it is not a complete crisis around there at the ministerial wing. You are starting to get your act into gear. It has only taken you a few hours since the bill was pulled this morning. Let me quote what Ms Penfold QC said in this letter that has been tabled. Paragraph 3 is about proposed changes to the committee system. It states:

To provide transcription, broadcasting and security services for the proposed fifth committee—

I interpolate: this is Senator Minchin’s fifth committee—

DPS would require additional resources to cover costs associated with increased overtime, employing and training additional casual staff, or increased outsourcing of transcription work.

What a pity that Senator Minchin and Senator Coonan did not think of any of that before they went for the money grab for the two extra chairs. Nobody bothered to think of that. Then there is paragraph 5 of Ms Penfold’s quite interesting letter to the Procedure Committee. It states:

Even using the current staffing and panel arrangements to full capacity, if the Senate committees convene during a House of Representatives sitting period (when a variable and unpredictable number of House committees also convene), it will not be possible to meet current transcript turnaround timeframes. Further research would be needed to determine whether it is possible to extend the present panel arrangements to new companies, but it might also be necessary to re-negotiate transcript turn-around times.

Nobody thought of that either. After all, when you go in the dash for cash, you do not worry about all these logistical issues of whether the committees can actually meet. Then Ms Penfold went on to say:

If television broadcasting of the fifth committee is required, there may not be a suitable room available.

We will have the committee meet out on the lawn if there is no suitable room available! She goes on to say:

The current four estimates committees are televised from committee rooms 2S1, 2S3, 2R1 and the Main Committee room. The only other committee room that has television broadcasting equipment is committee room 2R3—which is used by the House of Representatives Main Committee. In time, it may be possible to fit out another Senate Committee room to provide televised broadcasting capacity but this work is not currently included in DPS forward work plans, and any such proposal would require appropriate funding support.

Nobody thought about that. No-one worried about the logistics of whether you could actually have the committees meet, whether you would have the rooms available, whether there would be staff available, whether you could have transcript and Hansard services available, whether you could broadcast them or whether there would be the usual audiovisual services—no-one gave a damn about any of that. After all, when you are in the big race for the money, the big race for the brown paper bag, why would you worry about that sort of thing? Senator Coonan and Senator Minchin have been badly exposed on these matters.

I am pleased, I have got to say, that Senator Minchin has backed down on this—that is, he is showing a bit of leadership. It is becoming a pattern. It is the second backdown of the day. We have had Mr Howard’s backdown on the unauthorised arrivals bill and now we have had Senator Minchin’s backdown on the Senate committee issue; and it was the right issue to back down on. I have heard some nonsense in my time, but the speeches I have heard from coalition senators about the way the Senate is working since the government majority are absolute rubbish—absolute nonsense. We know, Madam Acting Deputy President Moore, that we do not have referrals to existing committees on any matter that is contentious. Forget that; it does not happen anymore. We do not have the establishment of select committees on any matter that is contentious. The sort of Senate inquiry we had into a certain maritime incident—the lies of ‘children overboard’—will never happen while there is a government majority in this place.

We have had the rorting of question time—the order of questions in question time—to get a few extra dorothy dix questions for the government. And how bad those dorothy dix questions really are! What benefit does it really give to have a couple of ministers get up and make a complete goose of themselves during question time? For example, consider the puerile performance of Senator Ian Campbell in question time today on the scientific basis for environmental decisions. It was a bit of a laugh. We were laughing. His own team were laughing at him. Everyone was laughing at him. But it is a real waste of time, when it is all said and done. And, of course, we do not have orders for the production of documents passed in this chamber anymore. There are no more returns to order. You do not see that happen anymore.

The accountability mechanisms of the chamber have been massively watered down. What was said by the previous speaker about estimates committees is not true. Estimates committees are meeting for fewer days; have a look at the pattern. They are meeting for less time and there is less opportunity as a result to hold the government and the executive accountable. I happen to believe that the Senate committee system is the best accountability mechanism we have in this parliament. The Senate committee system working well is the Senate at its best. And it is not only the best accountability mechanism in this parliament; it is the best accountability mechanism in any parliament in this country.

What a pity that we have continual attempts by the Howard government to neuter that accountability system. I think that it is self-defeating, actually. You see, I accept that the Senate estimates committees can, for example, be a good forum for oppositions. I accept that. If they are well used—and they are not always well used—and effectively used they can be good forums for oppositions. I also happen to think they are good for governments too. I think it is a good thing that a minister or an official knows that a question might be asked at a Senate estimates committee, meaning that perhaps a corner will not be cut. I think that is good for government and good for the accountability process. There are benefits, not only to oppositions but also to governments.

What we have now is the government using its majority in this chamber to literally run wild and change these accountability mechanisms as best it can. The government has been very embarrassed by these changes to the Senate committee system; Senator Minchin, who can be quite a smart political operator at times, realised this, so he pulled stumps, decided to get the best possible system—that is, eight committees and not the 10 he originally proposed—and called it quits. These changes are unnecessary; they should not have occurred. They represent nothing else but an unnecessary power grab by a power-hungry and manipulative government. (Time expired)