Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the days of meeting of the Senate for 2008 be as follows:

Autumn sittings:

Tuesday, 12 February to Thursday, 14 February

Autumn sittings (2):

Tuesday, 11 March to Thursday, 13 March

Monday, 17 March to Thursday, 20 March

Budget sittings:

Tuesday, 13 May to Thursday, 15 May

Winter sittings:

Monday, 16 June to Thursday, 19 June

Monday, 23 June to Thursday, 26 June

Spring sittings:

Tuesday, 26 August to Thursday, 28 August

Monday, 1 September to Thursday, 4 September

Monday, 15 September to Thursday, 18 September

Monday, 22 September to Thursday, 25 September

Monday, 13 October to Thursday, 16 October

Spring sittings (2):

Monday, 10 November to Thursday, 13 November

Monday, 24 November to Thursday, 27 November

Monday, 1 December to Thursday, 4 December.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion is to set the days of sitting for the Senate for this year. As some senators would know, but others may not, it is the Senate itself that chooses the days that it meets to conduct business. The Democrats have expressed concern for a number of years about the inadequate number of days of meeting for the Senate. Under the previous coalition government we saw a consistent decline in the number of days that the Senate met to conduct business—at the same time, I might say, as a consistent increase in the number of pieces of legislation that were put before the chamber. It is very disappointing that this decline in the number of sitting days will continue under the new Labor government. There has been some media coverage of the fact that the House of Representatives is now sitting on Fridays for the first time and that the number of days the House of Representatives is sitting has increased. That has been used to create the perception of the new, hardworking Rudd government. As usual, the media has completely ignored the very different reality in the Senate. I am not going to get into the debate about what the House of Representatives is doing on Fridays and whether or not that constitutes hard work. That is a matter for them.

For the Senate, which is after all the primary chamber where legislation is actually considered in genuine detail—and particularly after July, when no one party or grouping will have control of this chamber—it will be absolutely critical to ensure there is enough time to properly consider different amendments to legislation that are put forward. The parliament and the Senate in particular is a legislature. The Senate is not—or should not be—a debating chamber in which to score political points. It is a chamber that is the primary mechanism for determining the adequacy of the laws that are passed by the national parliament, the laws that affect every person in this country and, indeed, many people outside this country. We should be ensuring that there is adequate time to properly consider those proposed laws and, I might say, any other matters that deserve proper consideration.

We have literally thousands of regulations and ordinances—subsidiary legislation. We also have hundreds of reports that are tabled in this chamber that rarely get consideration. But my primarily concern is the inadequate time to properly consider the legislation itself. Of course, we have Senate committees that meet outside of this chamber and we have estimates committees that meet in addition to the sitting days spent here. We have had estimates committees for a long period of time and have managed to have them meet alongside a much greater number of sitting days than are being put forward here. In total there are just 52 days, spread across 14 sitting weeks, scheduled for this year in the motion before the chamber. As far as I can see, that is the lowest number in a non-election year going back at least 30 years.

When the Howard government first came to office in 1996—and that was in a year when the election was held in March, if I recall correctly, so we did not even sit for the first three months of that year—there were 71 sitting days spread across 16 weeks. In contrast to that, in its first full year the Rudd government—and we will have an entire year—are suggesting just 52 sitting days across 14 sitting weeks. During the previous Labor government, it was basically the norm to have 70-odd sitting days. Back in 1983, the first year of a Labor government—again, an election year—there were 63 sitting days. In the following years there were 62, 74, 86 and 85 sitting days, and then 89 sitting days in 1988 and 92 sitting days in 1989. I think it is unacceptable for the number of sitting days to have declined so dramatically—to just 52 in a full year when there is no election—particularly with a new government coming in.

As we heard yesterday from the Governor-General, the government has a comprehensive program of reform—I appreciate not all of it will require legislation but it certainly will require examination and there will be a lot of legislation. So I think the proposal is inadequate. Perhaps it is understandable, although not necessarily excusable—it is understandable given Realpolitik—that the government wants only 21 sitting days in the first part of the year when the coalition still has a majority. But to have only 31 days in the second half of the year, when the balance of power situation will be back in operation, I think is grossly inadequate.

As usually happens when a new government comes in, there is talk of taking the parliament more seriously and treating it with more respect. I do not think this is a good sign of that. It is more important than just the formality of showing respect; it is important for doing the job properly. I am quite conscious of the fact that I will not be here to take part in the job being done after July—and neither will anyone from the Democrats—so to some extent people could say it does not have anything to do with me in particular, but I think there is a broader message. It is not about any particular party or individual; it is about the job that the Senate has done, certainly from the time the Democrats first appeared—and hopefully after the Democrats disappear—of holding the government to account and properly examining what the government is doing. This is the only chamber that can do that. We all know the House of Representatives is not capable of doing that properly and we do need to ensure that the Senate does meet on a sufficient number of days to properly provide that opportunity and to ensure that the senators themselves have sufficient time to make fully informed decisions. That particularly applies to views and amendments that are put forward by people outside of government. It might seem a long time since the election, but I am sure all on the government side can remember what it was like to be in opposition for that long period of time—it was not that long ago. I am sure you can recall how frustrating it is not to have sufficient time to properly consider amendments and to feel that things are being railroaded through. I think this is quite a bad start in that respect.

There are other aspects of the Rudd government’s start which I think are quite positive. As you know, Madam Acting Deputy President Moore, I always try to take a balanced view of these things, but I think this is not a particularly good sign. To have the lowest number of sitting days for decades, for at least 30 years and probably for many years before that—and quite clearly in a non-election year—is unsatisfactory. It certainly gives the lie to any suggestion that the new government will be a hardworking one, at least in regard to work done in the Senate chamber. I think it is unfortunate. In previous years, when the coalition was in government and motions like this were moved, I moved amendments proposing extra sitting weeks. I have not bothered to do that this time around because of the assumption that it would not be likely to receive support. I think it is quite clear when you look at this schedule that there are number of spaces where at least a couple of extra sitting weeks could easily have been fitted in. I think that would have sent a better signal to the community about how serious the Senate is about doing its job. Even more importantly, it would mean that the Senate would actually be doing its job more effectively than it will otherwise be able to do.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure I have heard before in this chamber the points that Senator Bartlett makes. In respect of the program, it is a planned program. What the Senate does—and has done in the last couple of years—is to ensure there is sufficient time for legislation to be debated by expanding the hours where necessary to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to speak. Given the numbers in this place, I am sure we will continue to debate legislation properly and appropriately and utilise the committee system as we have done in the past to foreshorten debates in the Senate. Of course, Fridays are reserved for Senate committees to meet, and I would encourage the committee chairs to plan their days to ensure that Fridays are utilised for committees to meet to consider legislation and other matters that committees look at.

When a new government comes into parliament, the reality is that in the first half of the year the new government will be working on delivering its election commitments, taking the necessary steps to bring forward its legislative agenda, and ensuring that stakeholders are properly consulted and that the Senate committees can do their work. This means that it is more likely that the second half of the year will be even busier than the first half.

However, the Senate has in the past adjusted its program accordingly to ensure that there is sufficient time to deal with the legislative program. In the past that statement has proved correct. The Senate has adjusted its hours and its times to ensure that debate has been had and that all of those who wanted to speak could speak on these matters. I will not prolong this matter. I do understand the point that Senator Bartlett made; however, I do not agree with it in this respect. The Senate will determine the appropriate times for sittings, as they will do now, and of course the program will generally adjust itself to ensure that we can deal with the legislation that comes forward.

Question agreed to.