Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Hansard source

I want to read a few words into Hansard. They are a couple of statements, a couple of quotes. The first one says:

It is outrageous that only one week was allowed for the committee to receive submissions …

The second one says:

To make matters worse, hearings were scheduled in the week following the closing date for submissions, which did not allow enough time for the committee to properly consider the more than 5000 submissions received.

The third quote says:

In placing an unreasonable limit on the time for this inquiry, the Government has shown its disregard for the important scrutiny role performed by the Senate and its committees. It has shown no interest in taking this inquiry to the people and involving them in the work of the committee.

These are not my words; these are words from the opposition senators' dissenting report on the Work Choices legislation. These are the words of Senator Marshall, Senator Sterle and Senator Wong. You know what? Those words were right then, I am willing to say, and those words are right today as well.

The opposition, this side, understand that we made some mistakes and, for those mistakes, we were criticised and punished at the ballot box. What we see today, though, is the government repeating those mistakes that we made and that they promised never to repeat. They said they would not repeat those mistakes. They attacked those mistakes on the record in a report tabled in this parliament. These were words from people opposite, including Senator Wong. Senator Wong, who comes in here and defends the process that this government is trying to undertake at present, actually helped author these words. She put her name to these words, saying that there was an unreasonable limit on the time for that inquiry and that the government was showing disregard for the important scrutiny role performed by the Senate and its committees. Well, this government shows a disregard for the important scrutiny role performed by the Senate and its committees. This government shows a complete disregard.

The Work Choices legislation was, of course, one bill. This is a package of 19 bills. This package of 19 bills, totalling more than 1,100 pages, is far more comparable to what happened when the GST legislation was considered by this place. You know what happened with the GST legislation? We had multiple references running concurrently to multiple committees to ensure thorough analysis of those bills. Those references went to committees that were chaired either by Labor or Democrats senators with non-government majorities. That is not even what Senator Fifield is asking for here. Senator Fifield is simply asking that the standard process of a legislation committee inquiry occur in regard to these bills, that proper process is followed and that the precedent is followed for such a sweeping reform.

Those opposite tell us this is a sweeping reform. They all come in here and tell us that this is fundamental reform of the Australian economy and yet they will not let it be scrutinised in the same proper way that tax reform of the Australian economy was scrutinised. The hypocrisy of those opposite, who complained bitterly when the Senate was denied the opportunity to scrutinise legislation properly under the previous government, is that they are now coming here and repeating the mistakes themselves. That is just an astounding position that they have taken.

They are denying the proper role of the Selection of Bills Committee, which the Senate's own website says:

… considers all bills before the Senate to identify any which are complex or controversial or which senators have indicated warrant further examination by a standing committee.

It says:

Bills are usually referred to a legislative and general purpose standing committee which has responsibility for that particular portfolio area.

All Senator Fifield's motion seeks to do is follow this practice. These bills are certainly complex. They are certainly controversial. They certainly warrant further examination, and that is exactly what should happen. That is what this motion will ensure does happen, and it is astounding that those opposite would wish to oppose such basic, relevant scrutiny by the Senate of their own legislation. Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Fifield's) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:34]

(The President—Senator Hogg)

Senator Wong did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Coonan.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.