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

I appreciate, Senator Macdonald, that there is no way I could win that particular competition. So you can have it hands down—there is no doubt about it. We have had the coalition here suddenly saying, ‘Yes, we need proper time to look at this legislation,’ when everybody in this chamber and in the wider community knows, because it is part of the reason you got thrown out, that you debauched the Senate committee process as comprehensively as possible by preventing proper scrutiny of legislation and by railroading through bill after bill, including the massive changes of Work Choices itself. These were huge, revolutionary reforms bulldozed through without adequate scrutiny.

The Democrats complained at the time that there was inadequate time. We always agree with the principle that there needs to be adequate time for examining legislation. It is concerning that the Labor government, in the very first piece of legislation it puts forward, wants to try and push it through very quickly. It is also ironic that, having complained all of last year about the then government using the Selection of Bills Committee process to refer their own bills to committee to try to use that to push them through as quickly as possible, the Labor government then start off straightaway by also using the Selection of Bills Committee process to refer their own bills to committee when there is already a motion on the table.

Having said that, the government has now put forward a reporting date of 17 March—I think that is what I heard Senator Ludwig say—and that does provide slightly more than a month for the committee inquiry. That is hitting about the minimum acceptable level. I draw the Senate’s attention to the answer from the Department of the Senate to a question on notice in estimates in February last year that my colleague Senator Murray put forward seeking an outline of a reasonable minimum time for a committee inquiry on a bill. It detailed a time line of about 28 days. So this does go slightly above that. This is an important issue. It is not about the whole of Work Choices; it is just one part. We know that all of the argy-bargy about Work Choices and AWAs has been a key political point-scoring exercise and a key political football over the last 12 months or longer. We here in the Senate now should not just be about continuing the political point-scoring; with this particular matter before us now we are considering what the law will be. It is one thing to look at the point-scoring opportunities for vote winning leading up to an election, and that is all part of the political process; it is another to make sure that you get the law right and look at what the actual impact will be beyond the political impact for the main parties. That is part of what we are doing and that is why we have to do this properly.

Having spoken yesterday in this place to the motion about sitting days—and, I might say, I was the only person who spoke to that motion—I am pleased to now hear the coalition joining with the Democrats in expressing concern about the inadequate number of sitting days. I wish they had shared my concerns last year and the year before that when I expressed concern about the inadequate and historically low number of sitting days that the then coalition government inflicted upon the Senate. I wish they had supported my motions to create extra sitting weeks. Of course now that they are in opposition suddenly they see that there is a problem with an inadequate number of sitting days.

I would say that you had the opportunity yesterday to amend the motion that was put forward to create that extra sitting week. I should also emphasise that it is not the government that sets the sitting days for the Senate; it is the Senate that sets the sitting days. So you can move a motion to amend the sitting days and put it through. You do not need to rely on the government to agree; you can do it—and I will support it. I spoke about that yesterday. The coalition were silent. If we were that keen on getting back into the job then we should have been sitting last week.

I put on the record yesterday how there is a historically low number of sitting days for this year, so of course we would support an extra sitting week. At least as I understand it, it does not need the government’s agreement; it is a decision of the Senate. The Senate should decide that, and we would support it. So we are left with the obvious fact that this is all about politics again. I can understand that, but let us not forget that we are actually about considering the impact of what will go into law. I would suggest that that is much more significant to the Australian people than whether or not there are some more political points to be scored on the floor of the parliament here today.