Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

Well, numbers is numbers! In a place like a house of parliament you respect the numbers. The government has the numbers and that is it. What we are left with, of course, is two things: firstly, explaining how we feel about the process and, secondly, explaining how we feel about the policy. And the process is an issue. There is an old-fashioned expression: be careful of whom you kick on your way up in case you pass them on the way down. I would suggest to you that rushing contentious legislation like this through with insufficient warning to the major participants is not just bad process; it is a bad look. It contributes, eventually, to a payback mentality.

I would be very surprised if, when the government does eventually lose office—whether it is next time or the time after that—there was not a bit of payback for bad process. I will not be here, but I know enough about the Labor Party to know that they have long memories. You are very unwise to do this sort of thing, to bring something on in a rush with insufficient warning. Senator Bartlett has expressed his lack of appreciation with respect to that quite clearly, and I concur.

Moving on to the next issue, which is of numbers, the government senators—except for the very brave amongst them—will, by and large, follow their leader. This is legislation which has been ticked off by the cabinet and they will support it as such—sometimes with a full knowledge; sometimes with very little knowledge. The people who have to justify their vote outside of the government—because it is a job of government members to back government legislation—are those who give their vote to the government.

As some of the participants in this debate will know, many are the times I have had to stand and justify supporting the government of the day, or indeed supporting the opposition of the day, with respect to particular amendments or bills. You need to be very clear as to your principles and why you are doing things. Those who have been in the balance of power position before include Senator Colston and Senator Harradine, Senator Harradine, by himself at times, and two Greens—believe it or not. Senator Bob Brown and Senator Margetts had the balance of power once on the constitutional convention bill. Incidentally, I am talking about in my time, not before then. And, of course, the Democrats have. You have to be very clear on what principles, and on what basis, you are supporting one side or the other.

The difficulty for Senator Fielding is that his policy positions, the principles under which he has based his decisions in various key areas, probably have not been expressed or outlined as fully as they might be. If I were to give him some advice from the hard rock of experience it would be that he is very clear as to exactly why he has made a decision to support the government. Having made those remarks, of course he is perfectly entitled to support the government. It is an entitlement of every senator in this place, to vote as they see fit. I just wish that more senators, both from the opposition and the government, had the courage and gumption of somebody like Senator Joyce, who does indeed vote on conscience. I should name in those brave ranks Senator Humphries, of course, who recently voted on conscience. I think it is a good thing.