Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Can I urge those senators who are claiming some interest in this matter to actually read the amendment? I know this is a shockingly militant approach to take towards the legislative process, but read the amendment. The amendment that the Labor Party is proposing in the name of Senator Keneally actually refers to the point of the regulations that are under discussion. It actually says, 'We are seeking to retain regulations, retain the power of the Senate.' Again and again and again it is pointed out on the sheet that has been distributed in the chamber.

Labor's concern about this bill is the fact that the level of transparency that the government is now pursuing is to reduce the power of the Senate and to reduce the capacity of the parliament to hold the Public Service accountable. Their argument is: 'Well, you did it in the past, so you should do it now.' The argument is: 'Well, you might've made an error in the past but you should keep on doing it.' The argument seems to be: 'We haven't had cause for corrections in the past and we don't need do it in the future.' It's like a person sitting in the middle of a bushfire zone saying, 'We don't need insurance policies, because we've never actually had our house burn down.' That's the logic that we are being presented with. You've got parliamentary scrutiny. You've got JSCOT—a rubber stamp committee dominated by the government in which these matters will be treated on the evidence presented to the Senate committee as minor matters, not subject to proper capacity for this chamber to say no to, presented as a fait accompli. We are told, 'You should accept that because you've accepted it in the past.' That's the line of logic we've been told is now the standard by which we should accept.

My problem is this: I've been here a long time and, yes, I've sat down the front bench and, yes, I have read out the Labor Party position on these things—freely read it out—and argued a case, as your job is to do, but I've now had the capacity to undertake other work. As a result of the work done through the committee on delegated legislation and scrutiny of bills, and proper Senate inquiry processes gathering research and proper evidence, we do this far too often. Of some 2,000 bills a year now we're passing—tick and flick, unread—up to 50 per cent of those bills contain legislative instruments, which are effectively delegated legislation, where we pass over our responsibilities to someone else, and in one in five of those cases without the capacity of the Senate to say no if the Public Service makes a mistake.

I suppose you're going to tell me the Public Service never made a mistake in this country. I suppose you're going to tell me that, in trade matters, there's never been a definition that the Public Service has got wrong. I suppose you're going to tell me that there's never been a rort pulled when it comes to the transhipment of goods in free trade agreements. I suppose you're going to tell me now that there aren't countries out there that seek to manipulate free trade agreements for their national advantage and to our national disadvantage. And I suppose you're going to tell me there aren't public servants who go along with it. You can tell me all of those fairytales. It's a bit like all the modelling that we've seen time and time again—well, we haven't actually seen it, because we don't get to see it. We get told about it. We are told that this magnificent bonanza is coming our way. We never actually get to see it before the documents are signed. We don't actually get to debate the agreements before they're signed; it's always post facta.

So we're asked to buy this fairytale and not have an insurance policy, which we currently do have. That's what the Senate has with these five agreements; we still have that insurance policy. We're being asked to rip up that insurance policy. That's the point of these amendments—to protect the right of the Senate to actually have a look and to make a judgement on the decisions being made by public servants. And let's be clear: it's not ministers who sit around and write definitions for trade agreements. It's the Public Service that does it. And who are the biggest advocates for delegated legislation? The public servants. They don't want to have the confusion, the administrative burden, and the stresses and strain of having to deal with elected representatives, because they know better than the rest of us. They don't want to be subject to public scrutiny. JSCOT doesn't even have to have a public inquiry. It can all be done in secret. It can all be done under the counter.

If we've learned anything in trade policy, it's that the world consensus on how the trade system works really should be subject to a bit of public debate and public scrutiny, not to mention these technical definitions. You will say to me: 'It's too complicated for you mere mortals as politicians. It should be left to the experts—the unelected, faceless experts'. I have this advantage that I've been here for coming up to 28 years in March, so I've seen it come and go. I've sat on both sides of the chamber. I've played many different roles in this place, and I get presented with the evidence. Fifty per cent of our legislation is now being shovelled out the door to someone else, and in relation to 20 per cent of that, we then say, 'We want to hear no more about it'—until there's a political problem. We hear about it then, because the Public Service doesn't want to know about it then. 'That's the government's problem,' or 'It's the opposition's problem.' The real issue here is that it's the problem of the people who suffer. We fail in our proper duties to protect the interests of Australians and protect the interests of Australian workers and Australian companies because we've handed it over to some expert.

I don't expect much from One Nation, but they've sunk to new depths where they've just become some lapdog for the Liberal Party, just some incredible—

An opposition senator: Lickspittles.

Well, yes. 'Lickspittle' is the appropriate word here. Their idea of research is pressing a button and getting their instructions from the minister's office. They claim to be representing ordinary Australians, but if only those ordinary Australians knew. They've put up a proposition that is reducing the power of the Senate—their power, their capacity, their insurance policy to say: 'Hang on, you can get this wrong. You have got this wrong in the past, and it is our job to say enough's enough.' That's what these amendments do. They're pretty straightforward. They retain regulations. Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 'retain regulations'. Schedule 1, items 19 to 21, page 10 'retain regulations'. Schedule 1, items 27 and 28, page 15, 'retain regulations'. Schedule 1, items 34 and 35, page 19, 'retain regulations'. Schedule 1, items 41 and 42, page 24 'retain regulations' and so on. That's to retain your capacity as senators to do your job, to fulfil the obligations for which you were elected and not to shove it off to someone else and claim you know nothing about it! (Time expired)