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

I had an amendment circulated in regard to the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 and foreshadow that I will be moving that amendment. But I guess we all know what the issue is, in any case. It is becoming a bit of a case of ‘here we go again’ every time a Selection of Bills Committee report is tabled. I indicate that, whilst I am a member of that committee, I was not able to attend yesterday’s meeting. The cloning legislation was in the committee stage at the time the meeting was held and I did not think I was in a position to step out from that debate to go to it, particularly given that we all know what happens these days in Selection of Bills Committee meetings—we just get the legislation served up and the government insists on ridiculously unrealistic time frames.

The proposal here, if I heard the minister correctly, was 30 November for the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Bill. The Democrats believe that is far too short a time frame for what we believe is significant legislation which is of interest to the community and on which the parliament would benefit from having access to the expertise and views in the community.

I should emphasise that, with Senate committee processes, as a party and as senators we would like more time to be able to consider things—30 November is three weeks away. Whilst we have two non-sitting weeks in front of that, I do not know about the rest of us, but mine are pretty much wall-to-wall committees and inquiries already, given all of the other legislation and issues that we have jam-packed in and on which we have to report by the end of year.

It is not just about giving ourselves more time or making life more convenient, although I do think, frankly, it is appropriate, given the significance of the role that is entrusted to us, that we show respect in doing at least some semblance of a reasonable job. It is also part of the public education and public debate process. The Senate committee processes are not just for the convenience of senators; they actually play an important part in enabling the information to get out into the public arena. The people in the press gallery endeavour, of course, to forensically follow every piece of legislation that comes through here and ensure they give comprehensive coverage on all of the detail on significant matters. Also, of course, for people in the wider community—particularly these days, with more use of the internet, with submissions and Hansard being online and also often with committee inquiry hearings being streamed so that people are able to watch them—there is much more ability for those who are interested to be able to follow, react, respond and put the debate out quite quickly to interested sections of the community that may have nothing to do with the mainstream media.

I guess in that sense we can perhaps accept that we can be a little quicker than we were five years ago with some of these inquiries, but, once again, this is far too short a time frame—31 January is not stretching it out into the ether; it is still a fairly short time frame when you consider that Christmas will be intervening. A lot of people will obviously be focused on other things and having a bit of a break. To allow only three weeks in effect for such legislation, I believe, is really bringing the political process into disrepute.

This is not the first time; this is pretty much a weekly occurrence when we sit. Legislation is tabled, immediately bundled off to a committee, shunted to an extremely quick hearing with an extraordinarily short turnaround time for people to put in submissions, with absurdly short time frames for reports to be written and then bundled into the Senate and railroaded through before half of us even know what it is that we are looking at. It draws the Senate and the whole process into disrepute. Sometimes I wonder if it is not actually part of the government’s agenda to do that. Either way, we do not need to speculate on the agenda. The consequence is a very poor one. It is a poor process. We are not just debating points here; we are making laws and we should at least show the public the courtesy and respect of doing our job properly, given they have given us the responsibility of being in parliament.