Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

At the request of Senator Heffernan, I move:

(1)

That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Agricultural and Related Industries be appointed to initially inquire into and report by 16 June 2008, on the following matter:

The pricing and supply arrangements in the Australian and global chemical and fertiliser markets, the implications for Australian farmers of world chemical and fertiliser supply and pricing arrangements, monopolistic and cartel behaviour and related matters.

(2)

That the committee consist of 6 senators, 2 nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 3 nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and 1 nominated by minority groups and independent senators.

(3)

That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.

(4)

That the committee elect an Opposition member as chair.

(5)

That the committee elect a deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting.

(6)

That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote.

(7)

That the quorum of the committee be 4 members.

(8)

That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to examine.

(9)

That the quorum of a subcommittee be 2 members.

(10)

That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and interim recommendations.

(11)

That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.

(12)

That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such documents and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.

(1)

That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on State Government Financial Management be established to inquire into and report upon:

Commonwealth and state and territory fiscal relations and state and territory government financial management, including:

(a)

Commonwealth funding to the states and territories – historic, current and projected;

(b)

the cash and fiscal budgetary positions of state and territory governments – historic, current and projected;

(c)

the level of debt of state/territory government businesses and utilities – historic, current and projected;

(d)

the level of borrowing by state/territory governments – historic, current and projected;

(e)

an examination of state/territory net government debt and its projected level – historic, current and projected;

(f)

the reasons for any government debt including an analysis of the level and efficiency of revenue and spending;

(g)

the level of investment in infrastructure and state-owned utilities by state and territory governments;

(h)

the effect of dividends paid by state-owned utilities on their ability to invest;

(i)

present and future ownership structures of current and former state-owned utilities and the impact of ownership on investment capacity; and

(j)

the effect of investment by state-owned utilities on Australia’s capacity constraints.

(2)

That the committee present its final report on or before 16 June 2008.

(3)

That the committee consist of 6 senators, as follows:

(a)

2 to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;

(b)

3 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; and

(c)

1 to be nominated by minority groups or independents.

(4)

That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.

(5)

That the committee elect as chair one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

(6)

That the quorum of the committee be 3 members

(7)

That the chair of the committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the committee to be the deputy chair of the committee, and that the member so appointed act as chair of the committee at any time when there is no chair or the chair is not present, at a meeting of the committee.

(8)

That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.

(9)

That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider, and that the quorum of a subcommittee be 2 members.

(10)

That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.

(11)

That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.

(l2)

That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.

(1)

That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Housing Affordability in Australia be established to inquire into and report upon:

The barriers to home ownership in Australia, including:

(a)

the taxes and levies imposed by state and territory governments;

(b)

the rate of release of new land by state and territory governments;

(c)

proposed assistance for first home owners by state, territory and the Commonwealth governments and their effectiveness in the absence of increased supply;

(d)

the role of all levels of government in facilitating affordable home ownership;

(e)

the effect on the market of government intervention in the housing sector including planning and industrial relations laws;

(f)

the role of financial institutions in home lending; and

(g)

the contribution of home ownership to retirement incomes.

(a)

2 to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;

(b)

3 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; and

(c)

1 to be nominated by minority groups or independents.

I am obliged to the Senate. These motions cover a range of very important issues in Australia today. We are dealing with issues which affect regional Australia with the cost of fertiliser and associated agricultural products. That is something which might not be keenly felt in the city, but it is keenly felt in regional Australia. Similarly, we have the select committee on housing affordability. Housing affordability was a huge issue in the recent election and one which continues to be a matter of great concern to many Australians. It is no secret that the price of housing in this country has risen and that there is a lack of availability of housing for average Australians. It is essential, therefore, that we have a select committee to deal with this issue rather than simply referring it a legislative standing committee, which would otherwise be the case. In fact, as for the fertiliser referral that I have mentioned, the Senate standing legislation committees have a great deal of work and, these being substantial issues, it would certainly burden those committees and reduce their ability to give adequate scrutiny to legislation brought into this chamber.

The third select committee deals with state government financial management. This is an extremely important issue for the economy of this country. We have state governments around this country racking up debt and affecting this nation’s economy. No matter what good policies there may be at a federal level, we have state governments which are running up debt and mismanaging their finances to such an extent that this requires particular scrutiny from this chamber.

Select committees are set up by the Senate from time to time to deal with issues of the day and, especially since we have reduced the number of Senate committees—we have done away with reference committees—it is important that those legislative standing committees be given the time and resources to deal with legislation which is brought in. It is also important that we have available select committees to deal with other important issues. If people oppose the establishment of these select committees, they are also opposing the very fact that these are very important issues. They will not get the adequate scrutiny from a legislative standing committee because of the other tasks that those committees have. It is normal for us to have select committees in the Senate. On average we have had up to four—

How many did you have the last time? Have many did you have?

Senator Ray has asked how many. Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I ask Senator Ray how many he sought to set up. We have had select committees in the past and I remember being a member on one of them. I remember the one on media ownership—it was 12 years ago, I think—which shone a light on a very important issue. But that was 12 years ago. Today we are talking about housing affordability, which affects average Australians. We are also talking about the mismanagement of state government finances, which affects the economy of this country, and we are talking about agricultural and related industries, such as fertiliser, and the cost therein to our farmers. People in this chamber might not feel this impact, but out there in regional Australia it is being sorely felt. We have to give these issues just attention and that can be done via a Senate select committee.

The make-up of these committees is in accordance with general practice—that is, we would have three opposition senators, two government senators and one from the minor parties, and an opposition senator as the chair. That is in accordance with practice and with convention. There is nothing untoward in that.

This is an important exercising of the role of the Senate to scrutinise such issues. I note that during the last election campaign the government made much of this and tried to capitalise on the fact that the previous government was ‘abusing’ the Senate process and not providing sufficient scrutiny, and here they are today saying that they do not want Senate select committees looking into such things as housing affordability, which is of such importance to average Australians. I appreciate the government might not acknowledge the importance of these issues, but out there in the community they are regarded as important. The financial status of the state governments around this country is of vital importance to those people who have to pay higher taxes via stamp duty and other associated costs. Average working Australians feel that impost acutely. In regional Australia, they want this inquiry into agricultural and related industries.

I commend to the Senate the setting up of these select committees and the particular issues that will be subject to scrutiny. They are vital to Australia and we should get on with the business of what the Senate is supposed to be doing—that is, providing scrutiny and attention to those things in the community that average Australians regard as important.

I have circulated proposed amendments to general business motion No. 21, dealing with state government financial management, and to motion No. 22, dealing with housing affordability. I seek leave to move those amendments.

Leave granted.

I move:

After paragraph (3), insert:

(3A)

(a)   On the nominations of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and minority groups and independent senators, participating members may be appointed to the committee.

(b)

Participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee.

(c)

A participating member shall be taken to be a member of the committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if a majority of members of the committee is not present.

This is a matter of procedure and the make-up of the committee and accommodates the minority groups and Independent senators in this chamber. I understand that Senator Fielding was keen that this be included. We are very keen to accommodate Senator Fielding’s request.

How amusing is it to hear Senator Ellison talk about the need for scrutiny by the Senate when he comes off a track record of three years—when the opposition had the numbers in this place—of always avoiding scrutiny. A classic example was seen yesterday during question time when the opposition got six questions and the government got three. That is not a privilege they extended to us the moment they got the numbers in this chamber; it is the one they took back for themselves.

I happen to agree, by the way, with the breakdown of questions in this place, not on the basis of proportionality or on where the power lies in this place but on the basis of the necessity for scrutiny. Of course the opposition should get the first question and every alternate one, but that is not something they ceded to the Labor Party when it was in opposition. They always mistreated the Labor Party in opposition and the minor parties when it came to scrutiny. If Senator Ellison is so keen on scrutiny, why did we not have any returns to order acceded to when they were in government and had the numbers in this chamber? It did not matter which document Labor Party or minority senators requested, it was refused without proper reason. They come in here and talk about scrutiny. Yes, they want to scrutinise when it was they who avoided it at every possible opportunity in the past. What double standards and hypocrisy. It will not be the road back to government for those in opposition now to simply change all their views and principles because they have just walked to the other side of the chamber. It does not gel.

I want to go through a little of the history of select committees. Senator Ellison today outlined a case for three inquiries. I am not going to challenge him on the substantive nature of those inquiries. What I am going to challenge him on is who does the inquiries. When they were last in opposition, in 1995, they had seven select committees going in this chamber, in spite of all the other committees. Every time some narrow pressure group came along, they would not answer them or give them a policy alternative. They said, ‘We’ll set up a select committee to look at that,’ so that they did not actually have to respond.

To have seven committees was putting an enormous financial burden on Senate finances. We must have been mugs after the election—and we lost—because we sat down with the government and discussed a rational outcome for select committees. We agreed on having a maximum of four select committees at any one time. Indeed, that is the deal the Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing and President Reid struck with Finance, and that is what the current Senate is funded for for select committees. Yet, from 1996 through to 2005, before the Liberal Party and the National Party got a majority in this place, we averaged two right throughout that period. We were not just setting up select committees out of political cowardice; we set up rational ones. As a result, Senate finances have prospered ever since.

But let us have a look at the last parliament. How many select committees did we have? In the last parliament we had one. Every time we put up a proposal for a select committee it got smashed by the government majority of the time. That is what happened. And here we are two days into the sitting and, all on the one day, the coalition are demanding that three committees be set up. Every one of those inquiries could be done by one of the legislative committees. Remember: this is a mob that collapsed all the committees into eight, saying, ‘We don’t need 16 committees; we need eight.’ ‘This is an economic rationalistic proposal,’ they told us. This was not about them jumping and grabbing every chair and every payment for every chair, we were told, this was a matter of principle. Yet, two days into this sitting, all those principles have gone out the window, and here they are setting up three more committees. As I said, we had only one select committee in the last parliament for over three years; we are now getting three after two days here. The duplication is obvious. I have no dispute with the subject matter that Senator Heffernan and his colleagues want to look into in terms of agriculture. Of course an existing committee can do it, and of course an existing committee can look into housing affordability or into state finances and the way they operate there. This is just a way of creating jobs for people.

Just look at the way the committees are so balanced. The coalition get three members on it and the chair and the casting vote. You might as well not have anyone else—they basically grab the lot—and all three are exactly the same. At least back in the 1990s when we set up a select committee the chairs and membership rotated around, but not in this case—everyone is exactly the same. Each one has a special clause in it, and that is clause (11), which talks about staffing et cetera and that it will be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purpose of the committee, with the approval of the President. That is not an unusual clause, but essentially we will be keeping a very close eye on this particular one. You are not going to use this as another way of supplementing opposition staff. If you do appoint experts, let them do their job and not just supplement Liberal senators and shadow ministers in this chamber. I am sure the President will make sure that that is not the case.

Partly this is about snouts in the trough. Partly this is about giving some opposition members committee chairmanships, just as it was three years ago when you reorganised all the committees and grabbed control for yourselves. I know the full history of this; I was involved in the 1994 negotiations, when after years of frustration in opposition you said that the committees should be shared amongst the whole of the Senate—and so it was done. But the moment you got the numbers, your attitude was, ‘No more shares here; we’ll take the lot back,’ and a whole range of arguments were invented at the time that this was economically more rational and that it concentrated the efforts on these committees. But possibly the mistake you made here was to entrench these matters in standing orders. So then you lost the election, you front up here and—oops—you do not have any more chairs of committees. We even read in the newspapers that the Leader of the Liberal Party, Dr Nelson, has bottled up the great prizes of deputy chairs of committees and is doling them out as some sort of patronage, which borders on the pathetic. It is absolutely pathetic for someone like Dr Nelson, who was once in government with all the patronage they then had, to be reduced down to doling out deputy chairs of committees as a way of shoring up his shaky leadership. Why not let the Liberal Party party room determine who its deputy chairs will be. By the way, who will determine these three chairs? Will it be the Senate party room or will it be Dr Nelson? Will it be another three positions of patronage for Dr Nelson to hand out? What the opposition are doing here today is quintessential hypocrisy at its worst.

There is a case over time for select committees—we would not have left them in standing orders if there were not—but they do pre-date this current committee system and so the necessity for select committees is far less today than it once was. But it is absolute greed to shove them up on the first day. It is duplication and a waste of resources, and I think this is just the thin end of the wedge. You are going to see more select committees set up over the next year. You shake your head, but are you going to guarantee there are not going to be more set up in the next few weeks or few months? By the way, Senator Heffernan, if you are to chair one of these, why don’t you actually apply yourself and chair it. Don’t get up and wander around the room, intimidating people; actually apply yourself for once in your life. I know that life is less relevant now—and your mentor, the former member for Bennelong, has gone—but see if you can retrieve your career through this and actually do something positive for once in your life, instead of going around the building and smearing everyone you can find. Surprise me and prove me wrong. Make this select committee, when you get control of it, a decent, honourable committee. That is your challenge; we will see if you are up to the mark. I am not going to bet my life savings on it, though, I have to tell you, Mr Acting Deputy President.

In summary, the move to set up three select committees in one day reflects the opposition’s desire to capture three chairs—to put their snouts in the trough. It is nothing more than that; that is what it is about. Any one of these inquiries could have been done by a current standing committee. I remind you that, when you controlled the government benches and the numbers, there was only one select committee in three years, and there were no returns to order and no scrutiny. Every matter that we wanted referred to a committee was knocked off. There were unrealistic timetables for reporting. So by all means come out and say you have got the numbers and you will do what you like. I will accept that, but as for the hypocrisy of Senator Ellison and everyone else saying, ‘This is a matter of Senate scrutiny’: nonsense it is! Nonsense it is a matter of Senate scrutiny. It is a ruthless exercise in the numbers to line your own pockets.