Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I will make some brief remarks on this debate. The opposition has moved to suspend standing orders because the motions do deserve immediate decision by the Senate, and it is regrettable that the government would not grant leave for the motions to be taken as formal, given that they relate to matters of procedure. These motions are a direct response to the way in which the Abbott government has treated the Senate since it was elected, so I do want to briefly highlight some of the examples of that treatment. The opposition is moving these motions today and seeks to suspend standing orders to move them now because we want to safeguard this chamber's role as a house of review and to enhance the Senate's ability to scrutinise legislation, policy and administration. The motions that we wish to move strengthen the role of Senate estimates committees, affirm the accountability of the Australian Public Service to the parliament and explicitly reject the attempts by ministers in this government to avoid scrutiny. These proposals are a direct response to the Prime Minister's broken promises on transparency and accountability, and the action we are taking today would not be necessary if the Abbott government respected the practices of this place. It is action which is necessary now and it should not be subject to further delay to enable the rights of senators to be protected immediately.

Let me outline why we need to suspend standing orders to enable the motions to be moved. What we have seen since the 2013 election is the government using stonewalling, bullying and evasive tactics in the Senate, including: the Leader of the Government in the Senate suggesting that freedom of information requests were an excuse to avoid answering legitimate questions in this chamber; long delays in providing answers to questions on notice; obstructionist behaviour in estimates hearings; early adjournment of estimates committees without agreement—unprecedented. So if the Manager of Government Business in the Senate wants to come in here and complain, maybe he should talk to his chairs who have behaved in ways during Senate estimates which, frankly, are unprecedented in terms of the behaviour of senators in this chamber. Of course we have had the misleading of the Senate by a minister of this government, which has resulted in her censure but no other censure and no other action being taken by the Prime Minister. The Senate belongs to all senators—and, of course, fundamentally, to the Australian people—not to the government and certainly not to government ministers.

The Manager of Government Business made the point that maybe we should show some respect for the crossbenchers. We agree. We will not be bullying them by writing them letters and telling them that they have to sit till they do what we want, which is what the government has done. We will not be doing that. The opposition will ensure—Labor will always work to ensure—that this chamber works in a way that ensures that every senator can do the job they have been sent to do.

So I ask the government: what do they object to in these motions? What is objectionable? Is it affirming that declining to provide documents or to answer questions on the basis that a freedom of information request has been made for the same material is unacceptable? That is motion No. 298. Is it providing a statement to the Senate about the provision of answers to questions on notice from estimates—motion No. 299? Is it enabling a senator to seek an explanation by a minister for his or her failure to answer questions on notice from estimates by the due date, in line with the procedure for other questions on notice—motion No. 300? Is it facilitating spillover days to ensure proper consideration of estimates—motion No. 301? Is it allowing additional hearings to take place on estimates—motion No. 302? Is it ensuring that estimates committees meet from 9 am until 11 pm, as scheduled, so long as senators have questions to ask—motion No. 303? Is it upholding the principle that agency heads and departmental officers are accountable to inquiries of the Senate and its committees—motion No. 304? Is it confirming that the chair of an estimates committee hearing cannot unilaterally conclude a hearing when senators still have questions to ask—motion No. 305? Which of those questions does this government find so objectionable?

The motions I propose to move protect the rights of senators, and they ensure that appropriate practices exist in this place to scrutinise the government and that those practices can continue. Labor's move to strengthen Senate procedures will ensure that all senators have the capacity to do the job we are elected to do.