Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The public has a right to know, to hear both sides of the story and to judge for itself the merits of the case. To argue otherwise is to set this chamber up as some kind of judge, jury and executioner combined in the court of public opinion. It is one thing for this chamber to say that it does not agree with the Prime Minister’s view of its actions. It is quite another to say that his expression of those views is an unprincipled thing to do. The public is more than capable of deciding for itself which view of reality to accept: the Prime Minister’s or that of senators opposite.

I very much doubt that the public wants the Senate to take on the role of censoring the Prime Minister for expressing an opinion on this or any other matter. Are those opposite really suggesting that the Prime Minister, if he believes that this chamber is thwarting, undermining, obstructing or delaying the policy intentions of this government, should not be allowed to say so—that he has no right to express his views? It is an absurd proposition. What do those opposite suggest the Prime Minister do in such a situation? Do they want him to lie and concoct a reason other than the real one, or do they want the prime minister to say, ‘I’m sorry; I can’t tell you why this measure has been delayed, deferred or defeated, because if I did the Senate might be offended?’ It is patently ridiculous.

We hear a lot in this chamber about the need for our own standing orders to be interpreted with sufficient latitude so as to allow robust debate. All kinds of liberties are taken in this chamber and in the other place on this basis, and I for one am quite glad of it, because the last thing we want to be part of is quashing the very to-and-fro of ideas and arguments that allow the public to hear all sides and make up their own minds about issues of importance. Whether or not the Senate is thwarting the government’s legislative program or budget, either in whole or in part, is surely a matter of public importance. It is surely within our fine traditions of robust debate, both within the parliament and within the media, for the Prime Minister to express his views forcefully, whether in the other place, to the public directly or to the media. To describe such an action as an unprincipled attack on the chamber is simply ridiculous.

I will give those opposite the benefit of the doubt. I will assume that what they actually meant to say was something like: ‘The Senate believes that the Prime Minister’s description of its actions in relation to the government’s legislative program is inaccurate.’ Let us say that is the proposition. That might be a legitimate matter for debate. It is a debate that I am more than happy to have, a debate I will address today, for I am very much convinced that the Prime Minister’s description of this chamber’s attitude and actions is in fact all too accurate. That is not to say that I do not take the role of this place very seriously. I do. I take very seriously the role of this place in reviewing and amending legislation, as does the government, but I also share the government’s frustration. Too often the delays and knock-backs have not been about expressing legitimate views of senators but of political posturing. This has been, I believe, at the nation’s expense.

We came to government with a big agenda, after 12 years of coalition neglect, and it is right that we are keen to prosecute this agenda. But it is a plain fact that the numbers in this place have made that a hard job to do. Opposition senators have crossed the floor to vote with the government and yet the legislation concerned has still been defeated. The government does not have this luxury. A single government senator crossing the floor would guarantee the defeat of any government bill. The fact is that this chamber has a small number of senators with a narrow support base that holds the balance of power. Furthermore, while the opposition requires the support of just one of those senators to frustrate the government’s program, the government requires the support of all seven crossbench senators, a group that is comprised of individuals with very divergent views on many critical issues confronting this country. The opposition, on the other hand, picks and choose its supporters on the crossbench, depending on the issue—and it is not a luxury that the government has. The Liberal opposition have exploited this for all it has been worth. It might have been in their political interest to do that, but I do not think it has been in the national interest—and we are entitled to say so.

The Prime Minister is quite justified in drawing the nation’s attention to this and in expressing his frustration. There are no fewer than 37 bills that this place has either rejected or passed with amendments unacceptable to the House. These bills include the Australian Business Investment Partnership Bill and associated bill; the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill; the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill (No. 2); the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill; the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill and associated bills; the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill (No. 2); the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill; the Horse Diseases Response Levy Bill 2008; the National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) Bill—and I could go on.

None of these measures were purely trivial or technical. These measures concerned issues that were of great concern to the general public or of particular concern to specific communities and specific issues. There were important issues like the effectiveness of this nation’s response to climate change, the need to ensure a sustainable health and aged care system in the face of an ageing population, the viability of student services and representative organisations on our student campuses, and the ongoing struggle to ensure that political donations enhance the dynamism of our political culture without undermining its integrity. None of these issues are trivial—far from it. They are all important issues—issues that impact on our democratic traditions and our ability to confront issues in the national interest. Many of the measures frustrated by the opposition sought to deliver on Labor’s election commitments. And at least one measure, the CPRS, which was defeated not once but twice, sought to deliver on a promise that was also supported in principle by both the Greens and the coalition—namely, swift action to put a price on carbon emissions

Other measures which were frustrated by the opposition sought to address critical issues, because changing circumstances or review and public consultation had established a strong case for action and yet you did not act. These included measures to make private health insurance fairer and more sustainable for the future, to allow for more dental services to be delivered to hundreds of thousands of needy Australians, and to establish Australia’s first ever preventative health agency.

On top of all of this, the opposition has also delayed government legislation for measures to make the Medicare levy surcharge fairer on middle-income Australians and measures to deliver an economic stimulus to Australian businesses and households.