Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I should give credit to Senator Cormann. We need to further examine that matter. We need to further examine the MRRT. Senator Cormann quite rightly sought to suspend standing orders yesterday in order to move a motion which would prevent further consideration of that legislation until such time as the government has complied with the orders that this Senate has already passed to provide information on the MRRT. That was appropriate for Senator Cormann to do. Unfortunately, the Senate did not grant a suspension of standing orders and we did not have the opportunity to move that motion. But the opportunity to vote on that motion will present later this week.

These are all very serious matters of public policy, and the opposition takes its job of holding the government to account very seriously. The opposition takes very seriously the role of the Senate as a house of review. As I said the other day, often when it comes to legislation and often when it comes to matters of public policy those in this chamber are often the first people to turn their mind to it. They do not always do so over in the other place. They do not always do so in the caucus. They do not always do so in the cabinet. Often it is the case that the first time that a matter of public policy or a piece of legislation is seriously examined and seriously probed is in this place and in the committees of the Senate. We take that responsibility very seriously.

It is for that reason that we think it is inappropriate that tertiary and VET be transferred from the education committee to the Economics Committee. We do think it is a little inappropriate that the arts and sports area finds its way into the Rural and Regional Affairs portfolio. We do need to take our committee system seriously. We should not support the subtle and not so subtle undermining of the Senate estimates committee process and of the other accountability mechanisms of this place. We are unable to support a motion that seeks to do that. We will not be supporting the motion. I would recommend to the govern­ment that they reconsider this portfolio reallocation. It is not too late for them to do so. They can simply say, 'Look, we didn't actually have any bad intent here; this was just good old-fashioned incompetence, something which we are well known for,' and I think everyone would accept that and recognise that as a statement of truth. For those reasons, we will not be supporting this motion.