John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Rarely have I heard a Senate contribution so lacking in insight as the one I have just heard from Senator Mason. I am going to approach this debate a little differently: I am going to be rational, because nobody can pretend that managing this Senate chamber is easy. As the Manager of Government Business for the majority of the life of the Keating government and also as Leader of the Opposition in the Senate for the best part of a decade, I know this as well as anybody who sits in this chamber.

It is true: we now have a higher proportion of crossbenchers than at any time since 1910. I have got to be honest—and I am disappointed to say this—and I should acknowledge that the Australian Labor Party's representation is at the lowest proportion of Labor senators we have seen since 1938. I do not pretend it is easy for anyone—the government, the opposition, the minor parties or the Independents—to fulfil their chamber management responsibilities. But the principles of chamber management are clear, and we have known them for a very long time.

Much of the negotiation in this chamber of course has to happen off the floor and, in that negotiation, a government has to be clear. It has to be forthright. It has to be frank and straightforward in what it says and what it puts to all non-government senators. A government cannot afford to engage in trickery, shenanigans or double-dealing in this place.

This means that any motion or amendment that the government wants to put to the chamber it has to provide with adequate notice to every non-government senator. It must fairly and openly share information with all parties. The government of course also should use all the resources it has at its disposal, particularly with the advantages of incumbency from agencies and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel who are expert in drafting amendments so they can meet all the technical and legal requirements of amendments.

I would have more respect for the coalition minister who apparently described the new senator as 'stark raving mad' if instead of saying it to a journalist that they had said to them. I would have more respect for a minister if they said an amendment was 'crazy, crazy, crazy' if they were to say it directly to the chamber. I would also strongly suggest that a government should never waste time by moving procedural motions when it does not have the numbers to pass them or, if it does have the numbers to pass them, then finds its own proposal unhelpful to its own management. Of course, that is what happened last week.

What we saw last week was the government move and lose two procedural motions on Monday as well as have a suspension of standing orders motion lapse before question time that day. They lost a motion to have the package of carbon bills declared urgent on the Wednesday and had eight carbon price repeal bills and schedule 5 of the clean energy legislation repealed negatived. This is the worst, most amateurish and ham-fisted chamber management I have seen since I have been here.

But, as I said, I do not want to be like Senator Mason; I would like to finish my contribution on a positive note. So, finally, let me say this: we are lucky that the Senate Clerk's office provides such a professional and impartial service to all senators—government, opposition, minor parties and Independents in this place, because I would say that without their integrity we would be lost.