Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Democrats will of course support this referral to the Procedure Committee of the proposed changes to the Senate committee system. It is, of course, what the government should have done in the first instance, but it has been forced to do so now because of the reaction to this proposal, I think. I want to start today by quoting the Prime Minister. He said, just after the 2004 election:

I want to assure the Australian people that the Government will use its majority in the new Senate very carefully, very wisely, and not provocatively.

Twelve months later, it seems that neither the Prime Minister nor the government members of the Senate could contain themselves any longer, and they are now saying: ‘We have to do this. We have to take over the committee system, we have to close down the references committees and we have to put coalition chairs in charge of those committees. Therefore, we need a majority of coalition members on those committees.’

I think it was Senator McGauran who said, ‘We have to do this because we are now in a majority.’ I remind senators opposite that they are in a majority—as has been pointed out many times in this debate—but it is a majority of one. Had it been the case that the Australian people had voted for only coalition members to represent them in the Senate, this might be a cogent argument. But it is not, because there is a balance in this place—and this place depends on that balance in order to work effectively.

While I am on the subject of Senator McGauran, I note that he came into the chamber and said—as he often does—that the Democrats had not spoken on this debate. They had. If he had been listening, watching or looking at his monitor he would have known that. So, as usual, taking no notice of what anyone says in this place, he declared that the Democrats had not spoken. My colleague Senator Bartlett had spoken in this debate just a couple of speakers before Senator McGauran. So wrong again, Senator McGauran.

Senator McGauran and others said, ‘All we are doing here is going back to the situation we had in 1994.’ How that is an argument, I do not know. In 1994 very sensible reforms were put in place to make the committee system work in terms of being a check on government and a scrutiny of what the government was doing, and to give the committee system the capacity to inquire into not only bills but also broader references—which have been the hallmark of this place and why people regard the Senate as such an important institution.

The government says, ‘It will be more efficient if we have government chairs, and we will stop all those frivolous proposals for inquiries that have been getting up in the past few years’—all of it total nonsense! This is a sledgehammer approach. This is parliamentary dictatorship writ large. It is a grab for power. It is an attempt to make the Senate into the twin, if you like, of the House of Representatives—for it to be no more able to be a check on government than is the House of Representatives, which is a rubber stamp, as we all know. It will stifle criticism and it will stifle scrutiny of government actions—or inactions, as the case may be.

I want to refer to the Senate inquiries that were not given the go-ahead over the last 12 months that would have otherwise been up and under way at this point. One of them—I think one of the most important—was the impact of the welfare changes on people with disabilities. This was an extraordinary decision on the part of the government. There is huge criticism out there about what is going to happen to people with mental illness and people with disabilities across the board when the new changes come in. Matters also not given the go-ahead included issues of overtime and shift allowances and the impact on work and family; the deportation of Mr Scott Parkin; the involvement of the Wheat Board in the Iraq oil for food program; and the adequacy of the aviation safety regime in this country—criticised hugely by pilots and others in the aviation industry, but, no, we are not going to look at it. Other matters include the processes for assisting refugees and humanitarian visa holders—again, knocked back by the government and yet we know that there are people who are destitute and dependent on charities to exist, to eat; and the impact of the proposed changes to cross-media laws. And we have just debated a reference for an inquiry on social security regulations today, which was knocked back but would otherwise have been sent to a committee for a proper inquiry.

I have just gone through a couple of the issues that would otherwise have been agreed to but were not because the government had the majority in this place. As I understand it, the situation is that the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee currently has no inquiry—previously unheard of—and it is the same with the Senate Economics References Committee, which has no inquiry at the present time into a references matter.

What will be the effect of the government taking over the chairs of these committees? The chair writes the report—making this a very influential position—and can add or take out whatever he or she chooses. It is a very important role in that sense. The chair is also very influential in deciding about the hearings, the witnesses who will appear and, of course, the all-important recommendations. If the government decides that there is no case for the government to answer or it disagrees with a lot of the people who come before that committee, government members can decide on a report which does not take those into account and then the opposition is left with doing a dissenting report, additional remarks or something of that sort.

As I said earlier, a lot of the argument from the government, from those on that side, is that we are just returning to 1994. So I went back to have a look at what happened in 1994. As I understand it, at that time, a subcommittee of procedure was set up, which included former Senator Vicki Bourne for the Democrats, Senator Kemp, Senators Ray and Faulkner and former Senator Reid. They sat down and carefully considered suggestions and ways of improving our Senate committee system and came up with a proposal which was then adopted by the Senate. Even though the Labor Party was in government at that time, quite a lot of the suggestions came through from opposition members and they were adopted.

I came across the submission that was made to the Procedure Committee by coalition senators. It drew attention to the British House of Commons and how the system there worked:

... the chairs of specialist select committees, which are the equivalent of the Senate’s legislative and general purpose standing committees and somewhat equivalent to estimates committees, are shared among the parties by agreement—

that is, the chair is shared amongst other parties. It continues:

These committees elect their own chairs and are free to choose any member of the agreed party. Before the membership of the committees is reappointed at the beginning of each Parliament, an agreement is negotiated between the parties as to which parties will take the Chair of which committees. In the absence of agreement, the matter may be settled by the House, but the occasion for this has not arisen.

Chairs are shared in this way because they are seen as parliamentary positions and not government positions and are seen as such by the public. When chairs meet to discuss matters of mutual interest and coordinate the activities of the committee, all parties are represented. Thus, in this instance, there is a meaningful separation of powers between the Parliament and the Executive.

…         …         …

Sharing of chairs on standing and estimates committees in the Senate could enhance the parliamentary character of their work and improve the public standing as well as give representation to the non-government parties or the chairs’ group.

Its recommendations were:

The chairs of the Senate standing committee should be distributed among the parties in a way which reflects their representation in the Senate.

That is all those on this side of the chamber are arguing for. We are not saying that the opposition should chair more of the committees than the government; we are saying: let us look at the fair proportion within the chamber and have it reflect that proportion. Just because you have a majority of one does not mean you take over the whole chamber.

The recommendation goes on to say:

Chairs of the estimates committee should also reflect party strength in the chamber.

It does. The government has the chair of the estimates committee by virtue of them being the responsibility of the legislation committees.

Chairs of the domestic standing committee should be divided equitably between the parties, chairs and composition of select committees should be continued by the chamber and there should be one government chair and one opposition chair for the two legislative scrutiny standing committees.

They were the recommendations of the coalition back in 1994. It makes a difference that they were in opposition and not in government. When you are in government you take whatever advantage you can grab, and that is exactly what this government has done.

Senator Kemp had quite a lot to say about the debate on this, and I think it is worth repeating what he said. He poses the question: why do we need this radical change? He says:

With the changes in the chairs of committees, the balance of incentives has been altered. We do not want to think ill of our opponents, but if one is a government chair of a committee it is not in the interests of the government or the Senate to pursue with great vigour a contentious issue which may cause embarrassment to ones colleagues and the government. I do not say that that has happened, but on the incentives basis there is not that need or desire to get out and investigate issues which may well cause some difficulty to the government.

On the other hand, as non-government senators will now be chairing committees there is more incentive for those people to show their spurs and to show what an effective committee system can do. This will cause a reinvigoration of the Senate committee system and a reassertion of what most people would understand to be the role of the parliament. We will act more effectively as a parliament. When we look back on this after a decade I will be surprised if we do not see this as radical reform—reform which will have major effects. It will cause problems to this government and to subsequent governments. Any change in the parliamentary system which requires governments to be more accountable has that effect.

The Democrats could not agree more with that coalition senator’s submission and, as I say, my former colleague Senator Bourne was one who pushed very hard for those changes to be made and some others, which I will mention in a moment.

This is hypocrisy writ large. We have got government members coming in and saying, ‘The system isn’t working from the government’s perspective.’ Too many committee reports have come out criticising government and challenging it over a whole range of issues. But to come in here and say, ‘It’s not efficient. It doesn’t work. Frivolous things are taking place’ is a nonsense.

What I am interested in in this whole debate is what happens next. I am pleased that this has been referred to Procedure and I hope that Procedure considers carefully some of these other matters. Many of them were not mentioned in Senator Minchin’s letter to leaders and whips the other day—leaders and whips, I might add, have become a farce as well because we are simply told what the government is going to do, and there is very little by way of negotiation, as has been the case for the last 12 months.

There was no mention about select committees: are we going to get rid of them; are the two extra committees that are going to be added to the current standing set of eight going to effectively be the select committees? I notice there is no inquiry under way that is using the select committee process. I feel very strongly that that is a very necessary part of the options that are available to us. In the case of the mental health inquiry, the select committee was the choice that we made and it allowed senators to opt onto that committee because they had an interest in that issue. I think that is a worthwhile option for senators. It is also the case that when we put that Senate inquiry forward, the community affairs committee already had many inquiries under way and it would have been inappropriate for us to land another one on them. So there are often very good reasons for us to move to a select committee.

The government has criticised the fact that in this place we have now and again referred legislation to references committees. I think the minister said that this was one of the reasons why the government was now moving. There was a case, I remember, where we referred the federal environment laws to a references committee, and we did that because the references committee had some years earlier done a major inquiry into the powers of the federal government in terms of the environment. That was the precursor to the legislation which finally came through, so it was appropriate that that committee continue its work by looking at the legislation.

At the end of the day, there were something like 500 amendments put to that legislation which strengthened and improved it and with which the government agreed. I would like to hear from the opposition why that was a problem. What was problematic about that very rare instance of legislation being referred to a committee which had the expertise to do it?

It is not true to say that they are the same people on the two sets of committees; they are not. There are many committees where I am on the legislation committee as a participating member but not on the references committee, and that is true of other senators in this place. Another very important part of the change that was made in 1994 was to allow senators who were not full members of committees to be participating members. Senators in this place have used that provision very extensively and very appropriately so that all members of this place can opt onto a committee. They do not have voting rights necessarily, but they can be part of the hearings, they can be part of the whole process, they can receive the information, the reports and the submissions and they can, in every other respect, be a member of those committees. That is part of the democracy which is so important in this place. We heard nothing about participating members. Are we going to undo that as well? Is it going to mean that participating members will not get a look in; that they will have to wait and rely on the report of the chair to make up their mind on how to deal with legislation or even with references? That is a question that I pose.

The other big question for us is whether this is not really the beginning of an opportunity to reshuffle chairs more generally. Much has been made of the fact that legislation committees have come down with reports which criticise government. We have them frequently—whether it is about immigration, whether it is about ASIO, whether it is about a whole suite of government legislation—and for people on this side of the chamber they have had disastrous implications, and for some on the other side as well, including the chairs of some committees. Is this a chance for the government to reshuffle those committees and get rid of the people who currently chair those committees and are not afraid to speak out? They are afraid to cross the floor, I might say, but they are not afraid to speak out when it comes to hearing the evidence and accurately putting it into the report, therefore suggesting that the bill either should not go ahead until the problems are resolved or should not go ahead at all, in some cases. I think that in the current climate that is a really courageous act and I congratulate those chairs who have done it. Mind you, it would be very difficult to ignore the evidence that comes before you, I would have thought, and to come to any other conclusion in those instances. Maybe this is just the thin edge of the wedge. Maybe we will see the government come along and move those chairs to committees where they cannot do so much damage to government. Maybe we will see Senator Payne heading up the library committee—not to disparage the library committee; it is very important, but it does not have quite the same impact in terms of criticising government legislation as the current ones do.

I urge the Procedure Committee to very carefully consider this proposal. I hope they make a recommendation to the government that they toss it out and that it does indeed get tossed out. It does diminish the ability of the Senate to scrutinise government. It does diminish the ability of the Senate to conduct the sort of inquiries to which people feel confident to make submissions. And I think that was a good point made in the chamber last night: that people are going to be less likely to go to the effort of making a submission and turn up for the hearings, knowing that it is chaired by the government and that, possibly, if they are critical of the government position, their views will not be reflected in the report. I think that is a really significant consideration. People do regard the Senate process in terms of its inquiries and hearings as a really good one at the present time, but this is likely to lose favour, I think, with people if we go down this path.

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an important motion. I have listened with interest to the contributions and I am now going to, probably more briefly than earlier speakers, sum up on behalf of the government. I appreciate that, especially for many of those who were in this place when the present paired committee system was negotiated in 1994, there is a high regard for and a strong attraction to the existing system. And I will refer to some of the specific constructive matters raised in this debate, particularly by Senators Ray and Faulkner, shortly. The fact that I will not be referring in detail at this stage to every speaker’s contribution is in no way to diminish the importance of their contributions. Of course, this is going to a Procedure Committee and we will be able to tease out those constructive suggestions at that point.

I acknowledge that the current Senate system is not all bad. However, I firmly believe that it faces some difficulties in both principle and practice and that it can be improved without destroying the positive features of the system. Every institution evolves and the Senate committee system is, in my view, no exception. After 10 years in this place and with the reality of a government Senate majority for the first time in 25 years, I and my colleagues believe it is time to propose some changes. The basis for seeking change is no great mystery, although some speakers have claimed to be completely perplexed by it. The fundamental point that does not seem to have been acknowledged by previous speakers is that a majority destroys the very rationale for the separate references committees. When there is a different political composition in the Senate, an opposition dominated references committee can play a distinctive role because its deliberations are backed by the Senate. When the governing party has the majority in the Senate, the rationale for separate or paired committees is undermined.

In those circumstances, it is logical to look at how the committee system should be better aligned to the composition of the Senate, as elected by the Australian people. Therefore, the proposal seeks to streamline and augment the system, not to gut it as claimed in this debate. How do we propose to do this? The proposal is that the 16 paired committees be merged into eight single committees undertaking the same functions and that the eight committees be expanded to 10. Most of the current committees, although I acknowledge not all, have a commonality of membership and cover the same portfolio issues.

If I am correct in my assertion that the rationale for separate references committees has gone, at least while the government has a Senate majority, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the core functions of committees, such as the consideration of references and the examination of legislation, will continue. It is just that this will occur in one entity and not two. The expertise and resources on each subject will be concentrated in one committee rather than spread across two. The Senate as elected by the Australian people will continue to decide which matters are referred to committees and which matters will not be referred. This would be the same after the proposed changes as it is today.

Having thought carefully about this, I believe most of the arguments for retaining the existing paired system are rhetorical or at least based on a set of numbers that do not support these arguments—whereas I am firmly of the view that we can have a revamped Senate committee system that will meet the democratic requirements of accountability. I am not expressing hollow sentiments here, and I now move to address some of the questions and points that were specifically raised by Senators Ray and Faulkner during their contributions.

Senator Ray raised the issue of the government seeking to deliver a more efficient system and asked how much money would be saved and how many jobs would be lost. I would remind Senator Ray and others that ‘efficiency’ is not a synonym for ‘job cuts’. What we are talking about here is a system which delivers better results for the resources that are committed to the task. There is no reason to expect that proposals would be linked to staff reductions. Senator Ray also said that he wanted some reassurance that the government was genuinely open to consulting on these issues. I can say to Senator Ray and to all of those interested in this question that we are seeking to implement these changes in a genuinely consultative way. That is why the Leader of the Government in the Senate outlined the proposal to party leaders and sought their input. That is why we have advised senators of the changes now—to allow the six-week winter recess for discussions. And that is why we have no objection to this matter being referred to the Procedure Committee.

Senator Ray acknowledges the government’s majority in this place and is well aware that the government could have simply moved a motion this week to implement the reforms. We did not. Senator Ray indicated he would like to discuss the number of new committees, suggesting that he thinks there should be eight rather than 10. He also raised the issue of the number of members of each committee. I think these are reasonable questions to ask and I look forward to hearing and considering his views when the Procedure Committee meets on this proposal in July. I also note his agreement to bring forward the reporting date.

Senator Faulkner also made a lengthy contribution and I would like to address some of the points he made. Senator Faulkner asked whether the committees would retain the powers of the existing committees: I can reassure the Senate that this proposal does not relate to reducing or diluting the powers of committees. The senator also asked for guarantees that there would be no further limitations on time for estimates and no restriction on their scope. With regard to time, as Senator Minchin and others have said, the proposal as it stands would lead to more time for estimates hearings and, with regard to scope—although Senator Faulkner may not like to acknowledge this—there are limits on the scope of estimates hearings and they are set out in the standing orders.

Despite the fact that in many respects I think Labor senators would like to ignore the standing orders, they do set down limits on the scope of estimates hearings, and this proposal does not involve altering the scope—although I should add here that I think this debate is an opportunity to make the comment and remind opposition senators that, certainly from the point of view of a minister sitting there from 9 am to 11 pm on successive days of estimates hearings, they are in many respects excruciating. That is not because of the way in which matters are probed but because of some of the rudeness to witnesses and the rudeness to officials, and the fact that senators turn up late, and that witnesses have to travel and are often kept there for hours on end simply because those questioning them cannot get to the point. I think setting limits is appropriate because, if you expect officials to do their jobs, part of it is to also play the part and treat them with courtesy and try to minimise the amount of time they have to hang around for and attend estimates.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Having said that, there is no proposal to—

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senators!

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

withdraw or change the arrangements in relation to the scope of the estimates. There has been a lot of hyperbole and hysteria in this debate and it is obviously continuing this morning, despite the tone of my address, where I am trying to be constructive about how we will consult and deal with the detail. We have heard this proposal described as evil. We have heard it likened to parliamentary dictatorship. It is nothing of the kind. I do not believe, quite frankly, that much is to be gained by a slanging match. What does that achieve? I also, however, wish to say that, whilst I think a slanging match is not to be entered into here, lecturing the government as others have sought to do about its alleged shortcomings on a number of fronts is little more than sanctimonious windbaggery. Some speakers have talked, for instance, about some of the time management issues of this government. That is farcical, quite frankly, when you look at the way in which the Labor Party rammed bills through the Senate during their time in government. It is interesting that Senator Ray interjected during someone’s contribution yesterday about this, because the record for top guillotiner rests with former senator Bob McMullan, who guillotined 57 bills in one motion on 16 June 1992. He is closely followed by Senator Ray, who guillotined 52 bills on 13 December 1990.

So, rather than being sanctimonious about this, why not recognise that when you are in government there are time management issues that are important to actually achieve the passage of bills? I am not here cavilling about the fact that I have a list of 52 bills that Senator Ray rammed through during a guillotine session. It ill behoves those on the other side to criticise this government for getting through time-critical bills in a very measured way when time is an issue. All governments need to do that and it is entirely appropriate that that in fact happens.

There have been complaints about question time. I think the number of questions this week has been averaging six, which is what I think the opposition sought. One of the problems is that, if there are continual objections and if nobody can hear what is said, obviously, the time for question time becomes very limited. Half the time it is almost impossible to hear what is being said in question time. With a bit of decorum on both sides, I think we could get through a hell of a lot more. This is not a one-sided issue; both sides can contribute to a constructive question time, and the opposition would get their questions if those kinds of matters were observed.

There have been other suggestions during this debate that, somehow or other, this is some grab from the Prime Minister’s office, which is absolute nonsense. I want to address this very briefly. The senators control the processes of how we see procedures and matters operating in the Senate. The Prime Minister has certainly not instigated this matter or sought to change any of these procedures; they are changing for the reasons that I have outlined.

Senator Faulkner told the committee in his contribution yesterday that the Senate committee system stands with the best accountability mechanisms in the world. I agree that Senate committees do play an important part. They do important work and they do play a very important role in the proper functioning of the Senate. Even from Labor’s perspective, however, latitudes towards the paired committee system were not always so positive. A lot of us have gone back and had a look at the debate in 1994. If we look back to 1994, we see that Senator Ray himself was quite ambivalent about the proposal. He said in the Senate at that time that there was no government ownership of the proposals. He acknowledged that this was not the perfect system—that is what he said. He went on to say:

I suppose these reforms arose out of the view of the opposition—I think shared by the minority parties in the Senate ...

It was certainly far from an idea that was welcomed wholeheartedly by the Labor government at the time. Senator Ray went on to say:

Even if I may be somewhat dubious about all the motives involved here, one of the good things about bringing in some reforms in the Senate is that more often than not a lot of good things emerge out of it.

So why couldn’t that occur out of this current process? I hope that Senator Ray and those opposite would bring the same positive sentiment to the reforms that we are proposing at the moment. I believe that he will. I believe that Senator Ray will play a constructive role in this matter. I am sure that we can come to an appropriate and workable solution in the Procedure Committee that fleshes out the detail of how the committees will be constituted and how they will work. I must say that I was gratified to hear both Senator Ray and Senator Faulkner proffer some sensible and constructive questions and give an indication to the Senate of their willingness to sit down, look at the detail and come up with an appropriate and workable solution. I hope that others will do so too, including Senator Hogg, who chairs the committee.

For the record, I repeat that the government is very happy for this matter to be referred to the Procedure Committee. I certainly welcome Labor’s acceptance of an earlier reporting date than originally proposed. I am quite certain that the reality of this matter and the reality of the numbers will mean that we can have an effective and functioning committee system, that the sky will not fall in and that, when we look at it on the next occasion, we will look back on these debates and wonder what all the fuss was about.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in reply to the motion I moved. I think Senator Coonan’s contribution is one of the most disingenuous I have ever heard. It is quite clear to everyone listening to the debate what this is about. It is not about the number of committees, it is not about the number of people on the committees, it is not even about referring this matter to the Procedure Committee. Senator Minchin made it very clear that the decision about the government control of the committees had been taken. The argument about how many people are on them and how many committees there are is something that will be examined by the Procedure Committee, but Senator Minchin will not countenance the Procedure Committee reviewing the key aspect of this. Labor know that in referring this matter to the Procedure Committee. We wanted to observe the normal process of the Senate, but we understand the stark political reality. This is the abuse of the government’s power. This is the culmination of their use of their numbers.

Senator Coonan was not able to raise one principle underlying this move. There was not one suggestion that this was not somehow driven by a principle other than that one. I give her credit: on a couple of occasions, she slipped into the discussion the underlying principle of this—numbers and power. The government say, ‘We have the numbers; we’ll seize the power.’ That is all this is about. This is not about an evolution of the Senate process. The government says: ‘It’s an evolution. We’re taking it back to 1994.’ I do not get it. How could it be an evolution and a return to 1994? I thought John Howard wanted to return to the fifties. I suppose it is an improvement that we at least have him returning to 1994. This is about power. This is about numbers. This is about the exercise of raw power, and it is about abuse of that power.

Senator Coonan’s key argument is that, effectively, because the numbers have changed, we must change the committee system. Because they have the numbers, they must control everything. That is the contention being debated here. The contention is: should the government control everything because it controls—

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You do not even follow the argument!

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Coonan, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do!

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are not at a Labor Lawyers meeting now, Senator Coonan. You ratted then; we understand that. This is clearly about the argument that government control is good. That is the central proposition of the government. They say, ‘We should be able to control everything because we have the numbers of the Senate.’ That is what this is about. If you are to support the government contention, you have to support the contention that government control of the Senate committee system is a good thing.

We say it is not a good thing. We say there ought to be a check, there ought to be a balance on absolute government control. That is at the core of this. All the other arguments are completely disingenuous and fail to address the key issue: do you accept that the Senate should be controlled by the government? There are two points to that. The government has a majority on the floor of the Senate and, therefore, it can use its numbers to pass legislation. That is absolutely accepted by Labor. The balance of power in the Senate is the result of a democratic election, a decision by the Australian people, and we absolutely accept the result. We must accept some fault for the fact that it occurred, but we absolutely respect the result.

If the government could control its backbench, if it were not so racked by division and so unable to respect the Prime Minister that he cannot even get a resolution through his party meetings anymore—he is fearful of his backbench and that the unity of the government is dissolving and the decay of the government has set in—then the reality is that the government could pass any legislation in this place that it wants. Whatever our view about that is, that is the reality. But now it wants to go another step.

What is the Senate best at? What is it best known for? It is known for its ability to review legislation, to review government action, to scrutinise and to hold government accountable. None of that overturns the numbers in this place. None of that undermines the government’s ability at the end of the day to pass what it wants to in the Senate, provided it can control its own people—and I can see that that is proving to be an increasing problem for it. But none of that goes to the question of the government’s capacity to control the Senate. It goes to what the Senate does best: its capacity to review, to hold government accountable and to scrutinise government actions which otherwise would not receive scrutiny and would not have the light of day shone upon them. What does that? The Senate committees do. The Senate committees provide that scrutiny, that accountability and that review.

What we and the minor parties argue is that that capacity ought to survive against the government’s majority. They still have the power in the Senate. They have the power to argue their case, to participate on the committees, to examine and review, to argue their intellectual case and to present their evidence, knowing that at the end of the day they will win inside this chamber. But what this does is to prevent that process. They will decide which matters are inquired into, what process occurs, when the committees meet and who can appear to give evidence. They will control everything, so the committees will be effectively emasculated. Their power to inquire into things that the government do not want to see examined will ensure that they are not examined.

Government senators who were then in opposition made that very point in 1994. Senator Kemp eloquently made the point that governments do not like to be held accountable. Whether Labor governments or Liberal governments, they do not like being held accountable. As leader of Labor in the Senate, I am prepared to concede that. All governments are guilty of that. The great strength of the Senate is that it has been able to hold governments accountable because they have not controlled the Senate’s committee process. The government, as I said, can pass its legislation and it can implement its will, but this measure prevents it from being scrutinised in doing that. It does not in any way undermine its legislative capabilities or its capacity to proceed as it wants to through the parliament, but it does force it to be accountable, to be reviewed and to be scrutinised.

I ask all thinking Australians to apply their minds to this. If you voted for the government in the last election, fine. If you support the government having a Senate majority, fine. I have no argument with that. That is a perfectly legitimate political view, and it was expressed by many at the ballot box in the last election. But I do not believe those people expressed the view that the government should not be scrutinised. I do not think they expressed the view that the government should be unaccountable. I do not think they expressed the view that the government’s actions should not be reviewed. And that is what is at stake today.

A lot of people who voted for the government in both the House of Representatives and the Senate are and should be worried about holding government accountable, because all governments, particularly when they are dying and in decay like this government, seek to entrench their power. They seek to isolate themselves from critique, they seek to isolate themselves from review and they seek to impose secrecy to prevent the basis of their actions being made public. That is what this is about. So it is important for democracy. This change is fundamental.

We have been dying in the Senate from a death of a thousand cuts: restrictions on questions, restrictions on inquiries, restrictions on returns to order and restrictions on all our accountability measures. But this is a fundamental attack. This is the big one, because it seeks to stop us inquiring into the things that make government accountable. People have to ask themselves: is democracy best served by government being held accountable or by government being able to hide its actions, prevent review and operate in secret? That is what this, at its heart, is about. It is not about all these other issues about numbers on committees. It is about power, it is about control and it is about the government preventing review, scrutiny and accountability. So it is important.

I do not know why the government has been driven to this, other than the sense of decay. It might well be that it fears losing one senator at the next election and, knowing that it will not be able to implement these sorts of changes in the future, is trying to enshrine this in the rules. But, whatever its motive, when the government seeks to abuse its mandate or its functions by using taxpayers’ money on outrageous advertising campaigns, when it seeks to misuse grants and to use them politically rather than according to the needs of the Australian population, and when it seeks to hide donations to its parties by introducing secrecy provisions, or when it wants to appoint its mates to boards like the ABC or the Reserve Bank, those sorts of issues will never be scrutinised because the government will not allow it. We would not have had the ‘children overboard’ inquiry, the regional rorts inquiry or the inquiry into the GST on food.

Whatever your view about those matters—whatever your view on the outcome—the ability of the community to participate in that debate, the ability to have those issues reviewed, the ability to have those issues examined to the discomfort of the government was good for our democracy. That is the role the Senate has played; that is the role that has evolved. That is when the Senate is at its best. To turn back the clock to abandon that development, that evolution, that improvement in the Australian democratic institution of the Senate is a retrograde step driven by power, the need to protect power and the need to protect the government from review, accountability and scrutiny.

This resolution merely seeks to deal with the details. We know the government has made its decision. This seeks to work through some of the details that Senator Faulkner and Senator Ray have raised, which are important issues. But the fundamental issue is government control. At the heart of this is the decision of the government to further exert its control over the Senate by looking to emasculate the Senate references committees. It is a retrograde step. It is against everything that has been good about the development of the Senate’s role. People of all political persuasions ought to be fearful of this development, ought to regret this development and ought to support the reversal of this decision to provide for greater strength of the Senate in exercising its contribution to the democratic process in this country.

No government should be allowed to avoid accountability. It is not good for our democracy. It is essential that the role of the Senate is protected. As I say, whatever one’s political views, this is important for accountability and for the political process in Australia, and we ought to hold this government to account. So Labor supports this resolution. We will fight the government’s attempt all the way. We will fight this when it returns to the Senate next session. This is a classic case of power corrupting and absolute power corrupting absolutely. It is an abuse of the power of the government, and it ought to be opposed by all thinking Australians.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.