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

I do not in any way seek to suggest I have followed this issue as closely as the two opposition speakers certainly have, but I have endeavoured to at least keep an eye on the issue in amongst everything else. And certainly as a senator for Queensland I am very much aware that the tragedy of Lockhart River is still being very much felt today by many people who are affected by it.

Of course, tragedies happen in all sorts of circumstances and in all situations in life, but that is no reason to compound them—to compound the tragedy, to compound the hurt and drag it out—by the inadequate sort of response that we have had in relation to this issue and that circumstance in the more than a year since. And I know Senator McLucas, who is from the far north of Queensland, would be able to give—as she has just done—a much stronger and more direct indication of just how much of an effect this continues to have on those people. Senator O’Brien went more widely, and this is not solely about Lockhart River—there is a range of other issues here. I think he put a very strong case for why there are sufficient grounds for a comprehensive Senate committee inquiry.

Let us just remember that it is actually not that long ago—it might feel like it, but it is not that long ago—since the government did not control this place; it is less than 18 months. And in all of the period prior to that, for 23 years prior to that, we did have a continual recognition in this place that, when there was a solid case built for a Senate inquiry for proper examination of the issues—not the sort of revisiting it briefly every three or four months, in the way that is required through Senate estimates, as Senator McLucas has described, but actually having a good, thorough, solid look at the evidence—99 times out of 100 the Senate would agree.

The case has been made. It is a valid issue, and we should examine it. We should have an opportunity for the public to raise some of those issues, for some of the facts that have come forward and some of the extra information that people are prepared to put into the public arena to be able to be properly examined in a consistent way. That is really one of the tragedies that has happened since the government got control of the Senate—that anything that a minister decides he or she does not want to happen just does not happen. Frankly, that is a tragedy in terms of this totally supportable, totally valid proposal from Senator O’Brien, which we all know many on the government benches recognise and would and should support.

Over the last couple of days we all had what is called a conscience vote. I do not suggest that we just have a free vote on every single issue, including committee references and procedural matters, but we really need to have much greater scope and recognition, particularly in the Senate—it is not the house of government; it does not determine who is in government or whether votes pass or fail—for coming to a decision based on the merits of the case.

With respect to missed opportunity—and this is a missed opportunity for the public—this is not just a missed opportunity whereby the Senate can say, ‘Hooray, we have a Senate inquiry,’ or Senator O’Brien can put out a press release and get some recognition for the work he has done. All of that is totally valid, but that is not the missed opportunity. The missed opportunity is to properly examine the issue, which we all know is a very important and substantive issue and that valid concerns have been raised.

I do not profess to put forward a position or express an opinion about some of those concerns. I have not followed the issues closely enough, but that is part of the point with Senate inquiries—that senators who have not followed the issues thoroughly, who have only a passing acquaintance with the issues, get the opportunity to see all the information together in one place, see public submissions and get a better understanding of issues that they need to know about. If we as a house of review are going to be serious, as we used to be for 23 years, then those are the sorts of things that we have to do.

I would urge, whether on this vote or future votes, as people are reflecting over the Christmas break, that government senators give more thought to exercising their independence in these sorts of matters, thereby enabling valid Senate inquiries to be established. It does not mean you have to support everything. The Democrats do not support every proposal that is put forward. There has to be a valid case made. We know the statistics of the massive increase in the number of inquiries and the proposals for inquiries that are being knocked back purely on the say-so of government senators and, in most cases, their actions are purely on the say-so of the relevant minister. So we have one minister in the ministerial wing of this parliament making decisions as to what the Senate does and does not do. That is not satisfactory. It has happened time and time again. The percentage of proposals for inquiries that have been knocked back has increased dramatically—monumentally—since the government gained control of the Senate.

I could name—I will not go through it all now—a number of cases where, collectively, every single member of the Senate committee, including government members, has agreed: ‘This is a good topic for inquiry; these are good terms of reference. We all agree the committee should do this.’ It goes back to the government party room and the minister says no. The coalition members of that committee are put in the impossible—or awkward, anyway—position of then having to vote against an action that they fully accepted just days before in the meeting of the relevant Senate committee.

That is a perversion of the process—and let me emphasise, again, that it is a lost opportunity. Inquiries are about providing opportunities for public concerns to be heard and for valid areas of concern to be examined. At least on this occasion, unlike the last occasion, we had a government senator come in here and put a case. I suppose that is a tiny increase in respect being shown for the Senate, the process and the people who have concerns about this issue, so I would, at least, welcome that. With all due respect to the relevant speaker, I do not think it was a terribly compelling case. Unlike the major parties, the Democrats do have a bit more flexibility to make up our minds on how we vote, based on the case that is put. As I said quite openly before, this is not an area I have huge expertise in. I am quite willing to hear the case for and against. It was not a very compelling case and, by contrast, I think the contributions of Senator O’Brien and Senator McLucas put the case very well.

This is not some politically motivated point-scoring exercise. Most people in the general community will not be changing their vote on the basis of the minutia of how CASA does its job. It is not that sort of inquiry that is being put forward. It is a legitimate policy inquiry, it is a legitimate area of public interest and it is a legitimate area of public administration, where legitimate concerns have been raised and where existing accountability mechanisms, such as the estimates process, have been found to be wanting. I think Senator McLucas detailed that quite well. It is not one of those situations where there is one problem, one incident, and people say, ‘Let’s have a Senate inquiry.’ Some people like to do that a lot. It is a good way to get a quick headline. Something happens and someone is concerned: ‘Just put out a media release, saying, “We’re going to call for a Senate inquiry. We won’t bother to tell anybody and the committee won’t bother to make a case. We’ll just put out the media release.”’ This is not one of those situations. Senator O’Brien and Senator McLucas, as we all know, have been fighting on this issue for a long time. They have pursued the mechanisms that are available to them, including the estimates process, which they have found to be inadequate for the task and the importance of the issue. Whether that is because of the attitude of CASA or whether that sort of piecemeal approach is just not sufficient, I will not pass judgement.

Again, I repeat, a case has been made. To conclude, specifically in my own position as a senator for Queensland, I know the ongoing frustration, anger and pain resulting from the Lockhart River tragedy and the way the matter has been handled and mishandled since then. Sadly, some of that is often due to people feeling as though they are not getting the facts—not getting a straight story. While Senate committee inquiries are not perfect, they do at least provide some mechanism—a greater opportunity, a greater prospect—for more of the facts to get out into the open. People can get an idea of what the story is, and at least there can be some greater recognition and acknowledgement shown towards their very valid concerns. I hope that on this occasion we do get an opportunity to enable the Senate committee process to perform that valuable task.