Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

In my speech in the adjournment debate this evening I wish to raise the issue of the role of the Senate and the recent derogatory comments of the Prime Minister in which he attempted to direct the Senate to forego its important role as a house of review and agree to pass legislation without proper consideration or scrutiny.

I refer in particular to Mr Rudd’s comments at a media conference held last Tuesday, 15 June 2010 in which Mr Rudd attempted to direct the deliberations of the Senate in regard to certain Labor legislation and encourage the Senate to forego its constitutional role to scrutinise legislation by saying to the Senate: ‘Get out of the road, guys. Just get on with it.’ Unlike Mr Rudd, I believe the proper discharge of the role of the Senate, by both government and non-government senators, to be an important part of the Australian democratic process. One only has to refer to the debates of the Australasian Federation Conference, held in Melbourne in February 1890, the debates of the National Australasian Convention, held in Melbourne in March and April, 1891, and the debates of the Australasian Federal Convention of 1897 and 1898 to learn and appreciate the intentions of our founding fathers when they recommended the creation of the Federation and the establishment of a federal parliament in Australia which was to consist of the Queen, a House of Representatives and the Senate.

It seems that Mr Rudd has overlooked the fact that the passage of legislation requires debate in both the House of Representatives and the Senate on the substance or principles underpinning a bill and, additionally, an examination or scrutiny, often in committee, of the actual clauses of a bill to ensure its intentions are sound and its impact is properly considered in the interests of the Australian people. It seems that Mr Rudd’s ego has now expanded to the point that he wants to assume the role of a despot and impose his views on the Australian people without scrutiny or debate. There is no doubt that Mr Rudd is unable to accept constructive criticism. He has demonstrated to the Australian voter that he will listen to no-one and, because of his arrogance, will consult with no-one except himself. Clearly, by his actions, Mr Rudd sees the Senate as an inconvenience that has the impertinence to question his judgment on what is best for the Australian people. It is clear from the polls that the Australian voter is of the view that it is Mr Rudd who demonstrates his impertinence by attacking the Senate for discharging its lawful role of scrutinising government legislation and holding ministers to account for their actions as members of the executive.

Prior to being elected to government in November 2007, Mr Rudd promised that a Rudd Labor government would be both transparent and accountable. Clearly, that was just another promise that was to be broken by Mr Rudd because, since the election of the Rudd government, we have all witnessed the culture of secrecy and deception that has pervaded this government.

It is clear from what we read in the newspapers that the public is sick and tired of this culture of secrecy and deception that has pervaded the Rudd Labor government. The public is sending a message to Mr Rudd, via comments in the media—in particular, letters to the editor—and communications with members of parliament, that it wants a government that is accountable and transparent.

Clearly, the voters in the New South Wales seat of Penrith were keen to send Mr Rudd a message on the weekend, that they do not trust him and that, by his actions, he is clearly an object of ridicule within the wider Australian electorate. The Australian electorate now recognises, more than ever before, that by his ever-changing position on matters of policy, Mr Rudd is consistently inconsistent and not to be believed.

I have to say that I have been both appalled and dismayed by the failure of the Rudd Labor government to answer legitimate questions in the Senate or to table documents that the Senate has ordered to be tabled. As an elected member of the parliament of Australia, every senator has fundamental rights conferred upon them that they are entitled to exercise in this chamber. There is no doubt that it is a fundamental right of a senator, as an elected person, to ask questions of the executive and to receive considered answers to those questions.

To enable the discharge of a senator’s constitutional duty it is critical that the government answer the substance of the question and the various issues that are raised. It is not good enough for a senator to be given an answer that seeks to avoid the very question that has been asked. It is not good enough for a government to refuse to answer questions or table documents in this parliament and in so doing reinforce the culture of secrecy and deception that the community believes exists within this Rudd Labor government.

As I said earlier, prior to the 2007 election Mr Rudd promised the people that a future Rudd government would be transparent and accountable in all of its dealings. Regrettably, in reality, now that it is in government, the Rudd government shows no pretence of transparency and accountability and operates in a secretive and clandestine way to avoid legitimate parliamentary and public scrutiny of its actions and in particular its management and stewardship of public funds.

Every day the Rudd government demonstrates to the Australian people that it is prepared to put secrecy before accountability. The Rudd government consistently fails to recognise that accountability and openness in government require that those who exercise power while performing the functions of government must be able to demonstrate in an open and practical sense that they are doing so with honesty, integrity and candour.

Ministers must also be able to show that they have discharged their constitutional or ministerial duty using appropriate skill and judgment and in a proper manner, for the common good and in the public interest. Mr Rudd and his ministers have got to recognise that those who are entrusted with public power are required, when called upon, to justify the use of that power to their master. In the case of the public servant, the minister is the master; in the case of the minister, the parliament is the master; and, in the case of the parliament, the people are the master.

In a democratic system the acceptance of government decisions relies on the government being sufficiently accountable and transparent so as to maintain the trust and confidence of the people. On almost a daily basis the Rudd government makes out that it is transparent and accountable, and yet senators ask questions of the government on a daily basis and are given non-answers.

Any claim about the Rudd Labor government being transparent and accountable is nothing more than hollow and cynical media spin that is intent on undermining and emasculating the procedures of the Senate. Parliament is entitled to be properly informed, and information about issues that concern the parliament should be made readily available to it. If Mr Rudd is truly committed to ensuring that his government is transparent and accountable then he has a long way to go to prove this to the public of Australia.