Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

You do not need select committees established when you have a government that can govern correctly, properly and for the people. When you have a government that cannot govern correctly you need select committees to clearly monitor the activities of government and to ensure taxpayers’ funds are adequately, properly and wisely spent. I think these points that Senator Ludwig has raised are furphies.

Senator Ludwig then referred to quorums. He wanted to know whether the opposition would attend. I will reverse that. Will the Labor Party commit to it? Will the Labor Party attend these very important committees? Will they become a part of these select committees? Will they nominate? They have provision to nominate for these select committees. Will they fill the number of vacancies that they are allowed to fill? Will they, like us on this side, put every single senator as a participating member, which they can do, on these select committees? Will they also do that? Will they then open it up to allow for the select committees to be fully staffed or manned by their senators and allow each of their senators to become participating members? The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Senator Ludwig’s words may come back to haunt him if he does not provide for every single member on the Labor side to be a participating member and fill the vacancies that will be there.

Another thing that Senator Ludwig particularly indicated was that, somehow, we are feathering the nests of senators for the winter break. How ludicrous! The committees have not yet started. When the committees are established—and, hopefully, the motions will be passed by resolution in this chamber today—they may not even meet to appoint a chair or deputy chair at this particular time. I might indicate that we have only really got one sitting day left in this place, tomorrow, which has been confirmed, and potentially Friday.

The committees may not have a chance to meet; they may not meet for some time. Existing committees are also running around the country on important inquiries. That leads me to another furphy of Senator Ludwig’s—and he had a bet each way—when he said that the legislative and general purpose committees are designed for some of these purposes. Senator Ludwig is on the Selection of Bills Committee, as are Senator Ellison and I. We are constantly referring matters to legislative and general purpose committees for inquiry and report. A number are in existence at present. Some would consider that some are overloaded and they need the assistance of select committees.

Did Senator Ludwig bother to take into account the fact that we are easing the burden on committees which, at times, struggle to meet their commitments with the number of references and legislative matters that have been forwarded to them, as well as other inquiries? That, again, was a distraction from the main game, which is to establish committees to inquire correctly into two important matters and to supplement the existing committees of this Senate, which are a hallmark of the Australian Senate committee system—that is, to effectively examine issues and, in particular, legislation that come to this place. I would ask that Senator Ludwig reconsider some of those views and look properly at the committee system and be considerate of his own members whom I know, from speaking with them in the corridors of this place, are burdened by having to participate and be full members of so many committees. We are relieving senators of those important tasks, allowing them to continue their current committee inquiries by establishing committees outside the terms of references of those current legislative and general purpose committees.

I turn now to the amendments moved by Senator Bob Brown. The opposition agree to the terminology change of ‘minor party’ that Senator Brown has requested. But in relation to (j) we certainly say that this relates to emissions rather than to what the committee will be looking at. The committee will be looking at the cost of fuel and alternative sources of energy. Emissions is a separate issue; it is peripheral to this inquiry, so we will not agree to that. In relation to (k), which Senator Brown has asked us to consider adding in as an amendment, we believe that that is particularly covered in 1(d) and 1(g) of our terms of reference in the first motion, so we do not believe we need an additional clause, as Senator Brown has indicated.

I turn to the opposition’s amendments which we will be moving. Obviously, we will be removing the word ‘not’ which Senator Ludwig pointed out. It is a typo. Who knows how that occurred but, I think from time to time, those things occur in this place. We are not here to apportion blame, but I think it would have been obvious to anyone that it was a word simply out of place. It was in brackets; it stood out, and it was obvious that it was an error.

I turn to the substantive amendment that we will be moving in relation to notice of motion No. 136. Could I indicate that both of these notices of motion, Nos 136 and 137, were drafted concurrently. When they were drafted the terms of reference for the so-called technical management of the committee were to be identical. For some reason there is an error in paragraph 7 of notice of motion No. 136. That particular subparagraph 7 will need to be deleted and be replaced. When I eventually move the amendment, I will be moving the words in paragraph 9, on page 12, of today’s Notice Paper. That is how it was originally intended that paragraph 7 should have read in notice of motion No. 136.

I draw the Senate’s attention to that so that senators are aware that, when I do move the motion, that is the reason behind it and that is why we are doing that. It is to provide flexibility to appoint a deputy chair other than from the government. That will allow for it to be a coalition member, a Liberal Party member, a National Party member, a Family First member, an Independent or indeed a member of the Greens. We feel it is discriminatory to nominate one particular party to undertake the role of deputy chair. We are broadening that scope, as we have done in notice of motion No. 137. That is the fairest possible way to appoint a deputy chair. It is very important to have a wide scope.

If I could recap, I think Senator Ludwig reflected quite unjustly on his colleagues when he basically indicated that the work of Senate committees and the select committees would be worthless. He indicated that he thought it was all about travel and sipping coffee. That to me was exceptionally offensive. And it would be exceptionally offensive to the hardworking senators on the Labor side of this chamber, because I have travelled on a variety of committees and I have been in Canberra on a variety of committees with very hardworking and dedicated Labor Party members. Even though we have a different philosophical and political bent at times, we work at our best and hardest and are most cooperative on committees. We have established these committees in that same vein, with that same theme in mind: that we can cooperate, we can work together. We have opened it up to every party in this Senate to be a member of those committees. I again call upon Senator Ludwig to apologise to his backbench members. He is obviously too far removed now to consider the hard work of the committees.

I believe the committee system is one of the most valuable things that this Senate does. I have heard retiring senators say in speech after speech that one of the things they miss the most about becoming a minister or leaving this place is this. The value of the committee work is that the often bipartisan approach taken and the integrity of that process of genuine investigation and inquiry lead to better legislation. In fact, it should give the public of Australia greater faith in how the Senate manages its affairs and how the Senate can work with that bipartisan approach to really do valued work. I know that that is a view shared by many senators, in particular backbench senators.

For those ministers who would like to imagine that committee work is worthless, like Senator Ludwig indicated, I ask them to really reflect on Senator Ludwig’s comment. He needs to personally apologise to every backbench member of the Labor Party who does that tireless work. And if having a cup of coffee whilst you are sitting at a committee table is something that he thinks is a luxury, can I tell him, ‘Resign from the ministry, get back into the real work, get back into committee work and develop a good value set again before you ever consider yourself or nominate yourself for ministry again if that is how you think that the committee system in this place works.’ Before my time expires, could I move motion No. 136? Will I do it later?