Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

After discussions with government, and on behalf of Senator Heffernan, I seek leave for motion No. 9 and motions Nos 21 and 22, standing in my name, to be dealt with together. As I understand it, formality will be denied. This is rather an unusual step but it will save the Senate’s time if we embark on this path. I seek leave to have those three dealt with together so that the matter may then proceed.

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

by leave—The government thinks that it is in the interests of time. The three motions are in fact on the same issue and can be dealt with together. We would normally deny formality and then go into a suspension to have the debate. We oppose the establishment of the select committees. In the interests of time it is far more convenient for the Senate to deal with the substantive debate now with those matters being dealt with together. It is not an unusual practice. I think the practice has been done before, although I am sure that the Clerk will correct me if I am wrong about that. But in this instance the most sensible way is to proceed into the substantive debate so we can put our view about the select committees.

Leave granted.

Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the request of Senator Heffernan, I move:

(1)

That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Agricultural and Related Industries be appointed to initially inquire into and report by 16 June 2008, on the following matter:

The pricing and supply arrangements in the Australian and global chemical and fertiliser markets, the implications for Australian farmers of world chemical and fertiliser supply and pricing arrangements, monopolistic and cartel behaviour and related matters.

(2)

That the committee consist of 6 senators, 2 nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 3 nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and 1 nominated by minority groups and independent senators.

(3)

That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.

(4)

That the committee elect an Opposition member as chair.

(5)

That the committee elect a deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting.

(6)

That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote.

(7)

That the quorum of the committee be 4 members.

(8)

That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to examine.

(9)

That the quorum of a subcommittee be 2 members.

(10)

That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and interim recommendations.

(11)

That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.

(12)

That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such documents and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.

(1)

That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on State Government Financial Management be established to inquire into and report upon:

Commonwealth and state and territory fiscal relations and state and territory government financial management, including:

(a)

Commonwealth funding to the states and territories – historic, current and projected;

(b)

the cash and fiscal budgetary positions of state and territory governments – historic, current and projected;

(c)

the level of debt of state/territory government businesses and utilities – historic, current and projected;

(d)

the level of borrowing by state/territory governments – historic, current and projected;

(e)

an examination of state/territory net government debt and its projected level – historic, current and projected;

(f)

the reasons for any government debt including an analysis of the level and efficiency of revenue and spending;

(g)

the level of investment in infrastructure and state-owned utilities by state and territory governments;

(h)

the effect of dividends paid by state-owned utilities on their ability to invest;

(i)

present and future ownership structures of current and former state-owned utilities and the impact of ownership on investment capacity; and

(j)

the effect of investment by state-owned utilities on Australia’s capacity constraints.

(2)

That the committee present its final report on or before 16 June 2008.

(3)

That the committee consist of 6 senators, as follows:

(a)

2 to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;

(b)

3 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; and

(c)

1 to be nominated by minority groups or independents.

(4)

That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.

(5)

That the committee elect as chair one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

(6)

That the quorum of the committee be 3 members

(7)

That the chair of the committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the committee to be the deputy chair of the committee, and that the member so appointed act as chair of the committee at any time when there is no chair or the chair is not present, at a meeting of the committee.

(8)

That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.

(9)

That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider, and that the quorum of a subcommittee be 2 members.

(10)

That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.

(11)

That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.

(l2)

That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.

(1)

That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Housing Affordability in Australia be established to inquire into and report upon:

The barriers to home ownership in Australia, including:

(a)

the taxes and levies imposed by state and territory governments;

(b)

the rate of release of new land by state and territory governments;

(c)

proposed assistance for first home owners by state, territory and the Commonwealth governments and their effectiveness in the absence of increased supply;

(d)

the role of all levels of government in facilitating affordable home ownership;

(e)

the effect on the market of government intervention in the housing sector including planning and industrial relations laws;

(f)

the role of financial institutions in home lending; and

(g)

the contribution of home ownership to retirement incomes.

(a)

2 to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;

(b)

3 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; and

(c)

1 to be nominated by minority groups or independents.

I am obliged to the Senate. These motions cover a range of very important issues in Australia today. We are dealing with issues which affect regional Australia with the cost of fertiliser and associated agricultural products. That is something which might not be keenly felt in the city, but it is keenly felt in regional Australia. Similarly, we have the select committee on housing affordability. Housing affordability was a huge issue in the recent election and one which continues to be a matter of great concern to many Australians. It is no secret that the price of housing in this country has risen and that there is a lack of availability of housing for average Australians. It is essential, therefore, that we have a select committee to deal with this issue rather than simply referring it a legislative standing committee, which would otherwise be the case. In fact, as for the fertiliser referral that I have mentioned, the Senate standing legislation committees have a great deal of work and, these being substantial issues, it would certainly burden those committees and reduce their ability to give adequate scrutiny to legislation brought into this chamber.

The third select committee deals with state government financial management. This is an extremely important issue for the economy of this country. We have state governments around this country racking up debt and affecting this nation’s economy. No matter what good policies there may be at a federal level, we have state governments which are running up debt and mismanaging their finances to such an extent that this requires particular scrutiny from this chamber.

Select committees are set up by the Senate from time to time to deal with issues of the day and, especially since we have reduced the number of Senate committees—we have done away with reference committees—it is important that those legislative standing committees be given the time and resources to deal with legislation which is brought in. It is also important that we have available select committees to deal with other important issues. If people oppose the establishment of these select committees, they are also opposing the very fact that these are very important issues. They will not get the adequate scrutiny from a legislative standing committee because of the other tasks that those committees have. It is normal for us to have select committees in the Senate. On average we have had up to four—

How many did you have the last time? Have many did you have?

Senator Ray has asked how many. Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I ask Senator Ray how many he sought to set up. We have had select committees in the past and I remember being a member on one of them. I remember the one on media ownership—it was 12 years ago, I think—which shone a light on a very important issue. But that was 12 years ago. Today we are talking about housing affordability, which affects average Australians. We are also talking about the mismanagement of state government finances, which affects the economy of this country, and we are talking about agricultural and related industries, such as fertiliser, and the cost therein to our farmers. People in this chamber might not feel this impact, but out there in regional Australia it is being sorely felt. We have to give these issues just attention and that can be done via a Senate select committee.

The make-up of these committees is in accordance with general practice—that is, we would have three opposition senators, two government senators and one from the minor parties, and an opposition senator as the chair. That is in accordance with practice and with convention. There is nothing untoward in that.

This is an important exercising of the role of the Senate to scrutinise such issues. I note that during the last election campaign the government made much of this and tried to capitalise on the fact that the previous government was ‘abusing’ the Senate process and not providing sufficient scrutiny, and here they are today saying that they do not want Senate select committees looking into such things as housing affordability, which is of such importance to average Australians. I appreciate the government might not acknowledge the importance of these issues, but out there in the community they are regarded as important. The financial status of the state governments around this country is of vital importance to those people who have to pay higher taxes via stamp duty and other associated costs. Average working Australians feel that impost acutely. In regional Australia, they want this inquiry into agricultural and related industries.

I commend to the Senate the setting up of these select committees and the particular issues that will be subject to scrutiny. They are vital to Australia and we should get on with the business of what the Senate is supposed to be doing—that is, providing scrutiny and attention to those things in the community that average Australians regard as important.

I have circulated proposed amendments to general business motion No. 21, dealing with state government financial management, and to motion No. 22, dealing with housing affordability. I seek leave to move those amendments.

Leave granted.

I move:

After paragraph (3), insert:

(3A)

(a)   On the nominations of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and minority groups and independent senators, participating members may be appointed to the committee.

(b)

Participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee.

(c)

A participating member shall be taken to be a member of the committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if a majority of members of the committee is not present.

This is a matter of procedure and the make-up of the committee and accommodates the minority groups and Independent senators in this chamber. I understand that Senator Fielding was keen that this be included. We are very keen to accommodate Senator Fielding’s request.

How amusing is it to hear Senator Ellison talk about the need for scrutiny by the Senate when he comes off a track record of three years—when the opposition had the numbers in this place—of always avoiding scrutiny. A classic example was seen yesterday during question time when the opposition got six questions and the government got three. That is not a privilege they extended to us the moment they got the numbers in this chamber; it is the one they took back for themselves.

I happen to agree, by the way, with the breakdown of questions in this place, not on the basis of proportionality or on where the power lies in this place but on the basis of the necessity for scrutiny. Of course the opposition should get the first question and every alternate one, but that is not something they ceded to the Labor Party when it was in opposition. They always mistreated the Labor Party in opposition and the minor parties when it came to scrutiny. If Senator Ellison is so keen on scrutiny, why did we not have any returns to order acceded to when they were in government and had the numbers in this chamber? It did not matter which document Labor Party or minority senators requested, it was refused without proper reason. They come in here and talk about scrutiny. Yes, they want to scrutinise when it was they who avoided it at every possible opportunity in the past. What double standards and hypocrisy. It will not be the road back to government for those in opposition now to simply change all their views and principles because they have just walked to the other side of the chamber. It does not gel.

I want to go through a little of the history of select committees. Senator Ellison today outlined a case for three inquiries. I am not going to challenge him on the substantive nature of those inquiries. What I am going to challenge him on is who does the inquiries. When they were last in opposition, in 1995, they had seven select committees going in this chamber, in spite of all the other committees. Every time some narrow pressure group came along, they would not answer them or give them a policy alternative. They said, ‘We’ll set up a select committee to look at that,’ so that they did not actually have to respond.

To have seven committees was putting an enormous financial burden on Senate finances. We must have been mugs after the election—and we lost—because we sat down with the government and discussed a rational outcome for select committees. We agreed on having a maximum of four select committees at any one time. Indeed, that is the deal the Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing and President Reid struck with Finance, and that is what the current Senate is funded for for select committees. Yet, from 1996 through to 2005, before the Liberal Party and the National Party got a majority in this place, we averaged two right throughout that period. We were not just setting up select committees out of political cowardice; we set up rational ones. As a result, Senate finances have prospered ever since.

But let us have a look at the last parliament. How many select committees did we have? In the last parliament we had one. Every time we put up a proposal for a select committee it got smashed by the government majority of the time. That is what happened. And here we are two days into the sitting and, all on the one day, the coalition are demanding that three committees be set up. Every one of those inquiries could be done by one of the legislative committees. Remember: this is a mob that collapsed all the committees into eight, saying, ‘We don’t need 16 committees; we need eight.’ ‘This is an economic rationalistic proposal,’ they told us. This was not about them jumping and grabbing every chair and every payment for every chair, we were told, this was a matter of principle. Yet, two days into this sitting, all those principles have gone out the window, and here they are setting up three more committees. As I said, we had only one select committee in the last parliament for over three years; we are now getting three after two days here. The duplication is obvious. I have no dispute with the subject matter that Senator Heffernan and his colleagues want to look into in terms of agriculture. Of course an existing committee can do it, and of course an existing committee can look into housing affordability or into state finances and the way they operate there. This is just a way of creating jobs for people.

Just look at the way the committees are so balanced. The coalition get three members on it and the chair and the casting vote. You might as well not have anyone else—they basically grab the lot—and all three are exactly the same. At least back in the 1990s when we set up a select committee the chairs and membership rotated around, but not in this case—everyone is exactly the same. Each one has a special clause in it, and that is clause (11), which talks about staffing et cetera and that it will be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purpose of the committee, with the approval of the President. That is not an unusual clause, but essentially we will be keeping a very close eye on this particular one. You are not going to use this as another way of supplementing opposition staff. If you do appoint experts, let them do their job and not just supplement Liberal senators and shadow ministers in this chamber. I am sure the President will make sure that that is not the case.

Partly this is about snouts in the trough. Partly this is about giving some opposition members committee chairmanships, just as it was three years ago when you reorganised all the committees and grabbed control for yourselves. I know the full history of this; I was involved in the 1994 negotiations, when after years of frustration in opposition you said that the committees should be shared amongst the whole of the Senate—and so it was done. But the moment you got the numbers, your attitude was, ‘No more shares here; we’ll take the lot back,’ and a whole range of arguments were invented at the time that this was economically more rational and that it concentrated the efforts on these committees. But possibly the mistake you made here was to entrench these matters in standing orders. So then you lost the election, you front up here and—oops—you do not have any more chairs of committees. We even read in the newspapers that the Leader of the Liberal Party, Dr Nelson, has bottled up the great prizes of deputy chairs of committees and is doling them out as some sort of patronage, which borders on the pathetic. It is absolutely pathetic for someone like Dr Nelson, who was once in government with all the patronage they then had, to be reduced down to doling out deputy chairs of committees as a way of shoring up his shaky leadership. Why not let the Liberal Party party room determine who its deputy chairs will be. By the way, who will determine these three chairs? Will it be the Senate party room or will it be Dr Nelson? Will it be another three positions of patronage for Dr Nelson to hand out? What the opposition are doing here today is quintessential hypocrisy at its worst.

There is a case over time for select committees—we would not have left them in standing orders if there were not—but they do pre-date this current committee system and so the necessity for select committees is far less today than it once was. But it is absolute greed to shove them up on the first day. It is duplication and a waste of resources, and I think this is just the thin end of the wedge. You are going to see more select committees set up over the next year. You shake your head, but are you going to guarantee there are not going to be more set up in the next few weeks or few months? By the way, Senator Heffernan, if you are to chair one of these, why don’t you actually apply yourself and chair it. Don’t get up and wander around the room, intimidating people; actually apply yourself for once in your life. I know that life is less relevant now—and your mentor, the former member for Bennelong, has gone—but see if you can retrieve your career through this and actually do something positive for once in your life, instead of going around the building and smearing everyone you can find. Surprise me and prove me wrong. Make this select committee, when you get control of it, a decent, honourable committee. That is your challenge; we will see if you are up to the mark. I am not going to bet my life savings on it, though, I have to tell you, Mr Acting Deputy President.

In summary, the move to set up three select committees in one day reflects the opposition’s desire to capture three chairs—to put their snouts in the trough. It is nothing more than that; that is what it is about. Any one of these inquiries could have been done by a current standing committee. I remind you that, when you controlled the government benches and the numbers, there was only one select committee in three years, and there were no returns to order and no scrutiny. Every matter that we wanted referred to a committee was knocked off. There were unrealistic timetables for reporting. So by all means come out and say you have got the numbers and you will do what you like. I will accept that, but as for the hypocrisy of Senator Ellison and everyone else saying, ‘This is a matter of Senate scrutiny’: nonsense it is! Nonsense it is a matter of Senate scrutiny. It is a ruthless exercise in the numbers to line your own pockets.

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

As I have said once already this morning, it is a competition for hypocrisy. We have certainly got a lot of it here with regard to this motion before us, as Senator Ray, as always backed by his knowledge of history, has pointed out. I am not going to join in that: having railed against the lack of scrutiny of the previous government and their using their numbers to prevent it, I am not then going to vote against an opportunity to put scrutiny on the new government. Nonetheless, it is impossible not to make the point, as Senator Ray did, that over the last 2½ years, since the coalition had control of the Senate, not a single select committee was established. The last one was the Senate Select Committee on Mental Health—which, I might say, did an extremely good, non-partisan job—set up in March 2005 before the coalition got full control of the Senate. As I said, it did a good job, which makes it all the more inexcusable that there was no support provided for any attempts to set up select committees after that.

Of course, there were not a lot of motions put forward to establish select committees, so in that sense I suppose the coalition might try the furphy that there was only a few actually proposed: ‘You didn’t try.’ But the reason why people did not try is that they knew it would not succeed. We could not even get references up to the existing standing committees half the time, let alone set up select committees. It is worth looking at the history of this.

I would genuinely urge all senators here to look at the history of this. One of the issues that I think is very real, and that will become more real after July, is that in July we will have about 14 new senators coming in. We had 16 new senators coming in after the last election, so there are 16 people here already who know nothing other than the coalition having control of the Senate. We will have another 14 coming in. That is nearly half the Senate who will have no recollection and no corporate memory of the long history and tradition behind the Senate committee processes and why it often works so well.

I would recommend people look at the history. Senator Ray has touched on it a bit. It is outlined in Odgers in great detail. If you look at appendix 9 of Odgers, it lists all of the Senate select committees that have been set up since 1984—including, for example, one into agricultural and veterinary chemicals, which has some overlap with the one Senator Heffernan is trying to put forward now. Perhaps more relevantly to the point before us, appendix 8 of Odgers lists the number of select committees that were in place in the Senate each year since, I think, 1977. Perhaps it is not surprising but it is nonetheless interesting to read that the last time there were zero select committees in existence was back in the 1970s, which just happened to be when the coalition had control of the Senate and prevented any select committees being set up then. It was not until 1980, with the arrival of the Democrats and balance of power role, that select committees started to be established again.

Since that time we have had the standing committees put in place. They were permanent standing committees that looked at policy issues and often carried and examined the sort of references that are before us today and that are proposed for these select committees. Even at that time, as Senator Ray pointed out, select committees continued to operate. If you look through that list, in 1984, for example, which was the first full year of the new Labor government, six select committees were in place, although not all of them at the one time. The next year there were six. The next year there were four. The next year there were four. The next year there were five, then five, then four, then four, then five, then six, then five, and then six until in the final year of the Labor government in 1995, as Senator Ray pointed out, there were nine separate select committees put in place. As Senator Ray also pointed out, that then reduced in most years to no more than four—again, not all at the one time. As he said, there were an average of two. It went up to six in 2004 and dropping down again in 2005, until we hit the end of 2005 when the coalition got control of the Senate and it went to zero.

It simply cannot pass without us emphasising the extraordinary gall here. I know you need a fair bit of gall in this place, and perhaps I have never had enough and that is part of my problem. It shows an overpowering level of gall to be able to come in on the first day, after not allowing any select committees for three years, and then try and make an argument based on principle that we need to have three, particularly at a time when most of the standing committees have nothing before them. So you would be giving them something to do. I am not saying they are not all about to work on putting in place references, and I am sure they will get busy fairly soon. But you cannot even use the normal argument that the existing standing committees are all too busy, because they are not.

Having said that, I am not opposing the arguments that have been put forward for the specific inquiries here. As a person who, probably more than anyone else in this chamber, has argued repeatedly over many years for the need for a much greater focus to be put on the crisis in housing affordability, I would be hypocritical myself to then argue against setting up a committee precisely to focus on that. So I actually welcome that one in particular, because of my own personal longstanding interest in it. I have had less interest in fertiliser, I must say, but I am sure there is an argument there—I am not trying to belittle that. As I have repeatedly said in this place, in past years, it has been a real problem that there has not been adequate opportunity for the Senate to really put the heat on the government of the day.

So I welcome the fact that the new government will have scrutiny put on it from day one. It is still an open question of how the Senate committees will perform now that they have Labor government chairs and a Labor government majority, and that is not casting any aspersions on chairs. As an example of their dedication to the cause, I see that we have two new Senate committee chairs in the chamber here. I congratulate them both on their appointments. I think the fact that you are here listening to this debate shows how committed you are to an effective committee process, so I am sure you will both do well in that role. But the jury is still out on how the new government will use its numbers on the Senate standing committees. Will they use them fairly and reasonably or will they use them for partisan political purposes? I am still reasonably hopeful in that regard. To some extent I am sure it will come down to the individual chairs.

But there is no reason for the Senate not to immediately put the pressure on the new government and apply scrutiny, including by setting up select committees not controlled by the government of the day to examine matters more forensically. Even if the standing committees do not have a lot of other work before them, there can still be a benefit in having a committee set up that does nothing else but that one job—because there is the issue of the loss of continuity on standing committees when you have three or four different inquiries before you and different people shifting onto or off the committee depending on the issue. So having a committee where the people on it all know they are there for one task—that is, to focus on this one issue—can be valuable regardless of whether the relevant standing committee is busy or not. So I am not arguing against the substantive value of putting in place select committees on these issues, but it is impossible not to join with Senator Ray, at least in the main, in expressing astonishment at the level of hypocrisy from the coalition in suddenly turning around and making the argument for putting the scrutiny on the government of the day when every single person now sitting on the opposition benches voted time and time again to prevent that happening. Every one of you individually could have voted on many occasions to apply even just a tiny bit of extra scrutiny on the government of the day. If that had occurred in a few cases—not least in the Work Choices arena—then perhaps things might have been different in terms of the general election result.

I do not join with Senator Ray in his assertions about this being about lining people’s pockets. I think that is a little bit harsh, frankly. I have no knowledge of Dr Nelson’s leadership shakiness or otherwise, and I am not particularly interested. I do not believe this is particularly about lining pockets. But the hypocrisy is nonetheless undeniable and cannot pass without remark. Part of the reason it needs to be remarked on is that we do need to shift back to what the Senate is about. I guess, at least with regard to that, in setting up these committees there is the opportunity for the Senate to get back to doing its job: that is, not only scrutinising that government of the day—it is not just about using their numbers in the Senate to put the blowtorch on the government of the day, although that must be part of it—but also using the Senate’s role as a chamber independent of the government of the day to examine issues in a non-partisan way. That means not looking solely for opportunities to put the heat on the government but rather looking for opportunities to get better ideas out into the public arena, to get a more informed public debate and a more informed parliamentary debate, and ideally to get better policy proposals across the board and better legislation to improve things for the Australian people.

I would make the point again that the more we can depoliticise and ‘departisanise’—if that is a word—the Senate the better it will be for the Australian community. We can spend all our time in here scoring points left, right and centre—we have spent most of the morning doing it. I would remind the Senate of the complete lack of interest from the press gallery in anything that happens in this chamber, either today or yesterday. There was so little interest in the Senate’s role in the stolen generations apology that they were having morning tea while we were still having the debate here. That shows how little interest not only the House of Representatives but also the press gallery has in the Senate. If it has happened in the Reps, then it has happened. Whatever happens here, the interest is minimal. So, frankly, 99 per cent of the points we think we are scoring fall on stony ground, waste everybody’s time, make everybody more and more irritable, and do nothing for what we are supposed to be doing here—which is to achieve better results for the Australian community. So, having said that the jury is out on how well or otherwise Labor will use its numbers on the standing committee, the jury will also be out on how these select committees will perform. Obviously they will get through—the coalition has the numbers even without the Democrats’ support, which we will provide. I say that not so much from the point of view of what it means for the Democrats—which is obviously not very much given what is happening on 1 July from the Democrats’ point of view—but from the point of view of the public’s respect for the political process, and particularly for the Senate.

The Senate has a real opportunity, particularly come July, to re-establish some credibility not just for itself but also for the parliamentary process and the political process. I would suggest that it would be to the benefit of all of us, particularly those of you who will be continuing on here, if I might give some gratuitous advice, if the Senate could really rise above more frequently. I do not expect the press gallery to care because they rarely have—but I think people in the wider committee do notice, particularly those who do engage with the political process and the policy process. There is a real anticipation amongst those people, minority though they may be, who actually engage with the public debate and policy debate on its merits rather than on its point-scoring and talking points aspects, looking forward to the Senate starting to operate effectively again—not just in putting pressure on the government of the day but also in providing an opportunity to get ideas out there and considered more fully. That opportunity now presents itself once again. I hope these select committees will operate in a way that will enable that to happen.

I must admit that I particularly have my doubts about the committee on state government financial management. I hope I am proven wrong but I find it hard to see that one being used for anything other than an exercise in state government bashing. I will be pleased if you prove me wrong. They may well deserve it, but they are not the only people who deserve it. Ending the blame game might be a bit of political rhetoric from the new Prime Minister, although I am sure there is some genuineness in there. Whether it is genuine or not from the Prime Minister, I have no doubt there is a real desire, a huge desire, amongst the Australian community to end the blame game, and that includes the blame game and finger-pointing occurring across the parliamentary chambers here. So if that committee can actually do its job effectively rather than just turning into a ‘beat up state governments’ exercise then that would be good. I will suspend my disbelief on that one. Nonetheless I think the broader points have been made. I will not oppose putting forward any of the select committees. I do hope that this is an actual new dawn in proper and genuine scrutiny, but it is hard to look past some of the extraordinary gall shown here today—even for politicians I think there should be some limit on the level of two-facedness in the positions we put forward.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can only assume from Senator Bartlett’s comments about the gallery that he does not intend pursuing a post-parliamentary career in journalism, but his points are nevertheless well made in relation to the observation of what occurred yesterday. It is a fascinating debate today because what was wrong is apparently now right. Senator Ray trotted out today to raise these matters. I actually thought it was probably the worst speech I have ever heard Senator Ray make. I have a lot of respect for Senator Ray, but that was the worst speech he has made in this chamber, because he was trying to justify the unjustifiable. He said that the substance of these matters was significant. So, if it is significant, there can surely be only two reasons for him to not support the select committees: one is political and the other is utter churlishness. I will go to the latter first. This is not about select committees; this is about the government this morning being knocked off in relation to an inquiry by the Senate on industrial relations legislation. This was a very childish and churlish act this morning in relation to that legislation and you stand condemned for it. You failed the very first test of transparency and you failed abysmally. It was the very first test of your complaints about the workings of the Senate being taken over by the executive and you failed. On the second day of sitting in this place you failed your own test, imposed over the last three years.

Senator Ray cannot have it both ways. He said that there is now no need for those select committees because of the change of structure to the committees, but those changes occurred three years ago. He then complained about select committees being knocked off in the last term. He cannot actually have it both ways. Either the select committees are important or they are not. You cannot rewrite history and say, ‘Well, now they are not quite as important as they were, because of the changes to the standing orders.’ Those standing orders were changed three years ago. He was complaining about select committees being, in his words, knocked off in the last term. So he is trying to have it both ways and he cannot do so, despite his endeavours.

Let us look at the substance of those committees. My colleagues will remember that, in the 12 months leading up to the last election, housing affordability was a matter that was apparently absolutely fundamental to the Australian Labor Party. I will not talk about the agriculture select committee proposal because Senator Heffernan will do that; I will confine my comments to the other two. For 12 months, all we heard about was the issue of housing affordability. At the very first test of this by the Australian Labor Party, they are refusing to have a bipartisan committee—not an opposition committee but a bipartisan committee—look at the issue of housing affordability.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Marshall interjecting—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Anyone listening to this today will say, ‘Why, when presented with the opportunity to actually get the men and women of the Senate to look into this, are you trying to knock it off?’ What gross hypocrisy. How dare you come into this place and talk about housing affordability!

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s a bit late to care now—it really is.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Quite frankly, the very silly interjections from Senator Marshall will not change the dynamics of this. You have failed your first test in relation to your complaints. We saw crocodile tears over the last 12 months in relation to housing affordability. Your hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You did nothing about housing affordability—nothing.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We did nothing—is that right? So is this committee going to do something or not?

John Watson (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ronaldson, address your remarks through the chair.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, you cannot have it both ways: it is either an issue or it is not. I cannot believe that the Greens would not support this select committee, because they have also been talking about housing affordability. If they sit in here and vote against this, as they did in the test before in relation to industrial relations, then it only proves again that—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—you are one and the same: the Australian Greens and the Australian Labor Party are one and the same. Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President to Senator Siewert, until you have the guts to cut yourselves away from the Australian Labor Party and start putting in place the sorts of processes you have been complaining about in this place, then you are also completely and utterly hypocritical. You are hypocrites.

I want to turn to the state governments. I think Senator Bartlett was absolutely right when he said that there may well be matters that need to be looked at in relation to the state governments. Well, they are—absolutely.

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! You cannot address a senator as a hypocrite. It is unparliamentary.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was referring to the senator’s party, but I will withdraw it if she believes I was addressing it to her. I actually hold her in high regard. It was her party that I was referring to, and they are gross hypocrites. The Australian Greens are grossly hypocritical in relation to these matters.

I now return to the issue of state government financial matters. The Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate has quite rightly, in my view, asked for the establishment of a select committee to look into state government financial management. If Prime Minister Rudd—who I think called himself a fiscal conservative during the campaign and beforehand—is serious about this and if he is a fiscal conservative, how can Mr Rudd stand back and watch what has happened with the state governments around his country, who are spending like drunken sailors? The last reports I saw showed that in the out years there will be some $80 billion of state government debt—in the next three or four years. Is Mr Rudd going to impose on the states the same fiscal restraints that he is apparently going to impose on himself—we will see if that occurs—or will he let the states go off as they will?

The only reason that he is not prepared to let this Senate—a bipartisan committee—look at the state governments’ financial management is that they are all Labor. I can tell you now, if there were coalition governments around the country the government would be jumping over the chairs to support this. You would have to beat them back with a stick. But as soon as the pressure is turned back onto the government in relation to their state Labor mates, what do they do? When this Senate and a bipartisan committee had the opportunity to look at the sort of fiscal rectitude that they have been talking about, they roll over. They stand condemned for that.

This is just a churlish and childish payback for our decision this morning to insist on the Senate looking appropriately at the industrial relations laws. You said, before the federal election, that it was the most significant issue. As the Manager of Opposition Business said today, it is a significant issue. But what do you do when asked by the Senate to have a proper and full inquiry in relation to this matter that you believe is so important? You try to cut it off for your own cheap political purposes. This openness and transparency which we heard about for 12 months before the last election is a complete and utter farce. The farcical response of Senator Carr yesterday to a question put to him is an indication that you will do and say everything that is required to maintain the position you have found yourselves in at the moment.

Why haven’t you got a level of support and trust for this Senate to allow it to look at housing affordability? You cannot talk about the people around Australia who have very significant housing affordability issues—renters, those with mortgages and those who desire to build the accommodation that is required to make up for a deficit of some, I think, 40,000 houses a year to address this situation—when you are not prepared to let the Senate look at that.

The Australian Greens stand up here and say they are not prepared to let the Senate look at that. You cannot have it both ways: you cannot cry crocodile tears when you go on television and then, when asked to form part of an inquiry, not do so.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert interjecting—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So you are going to vote with us! Are you going to vote with us or not?

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Ronaldson! Please address your remarks through the chair.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Mr Acting Deputy President. I am fascinated as to whether the Australian Greens are going to support us in relation to these issues. I suspect, from the lack of response from Senator Siewert, that they are not going to do so. I thought Senator Bartlett was absolutely right: the particularly cheap shot of Senator Ray’s in relation to remuneration for committee chairs was an appalling reflection on his Senate colleagues.

I know that my colleagues Senator Heffernan, Senator Joyce and others are passionate about this select committee, and I will confine my remarks. But I will say that we are not going to tolerate the sort of hypocrisy that we have seen today. We are not going to tolerate the childish churlishness that we have seen. When the government did not get its way it started attacking the integrity of this Senate to hold the executive to account. We will not tolerate it. If this is the start of the battle then I can assure the Australian Labor Party that it is game on.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I feel as if I am in the twilight zone—truly! It is as if the last 2½ years did not happen. This morning I went into my concerns about the coalition having amnesia. They have forgotten how they opposed virtually every committee that we tried to get up last year. Maybe Senator Ronaldson was not here in the chamber when we had numerous discussions about housing affordability, when we were trying to push the then government into having an inquiry into housing affordability. All of a sudden they have a road to Damascus experience, over the last couple of months, in relation to housing affordability. Well, the public of Australia know exactly what is going on. It is only because they are in opposition that the coalition have suddenly discovered housing affordability as an issue and have suddenly decided that the Senate has a role in scrutiny.

As I have said just recently, I am gobsmacked. They talk about other parties having hypocrisy! The hypocrisy of them coming in here and, all of a sudden, deciding that the Senate does have a role is simply astounding. I think most Australians are probably feeling as if they are in the twilight zone at the moment if they are listening to the arguments we have had this morning about the role of the Senate. However, I am not going to take too much time in expounding on my astonishment because it is boundless.

The issues that are being raised here to be inquired into by select committees are very important issues. The fertiliser issue is very important. I am passionate about agriculture and passionate about this issue, but I would have preferred to see it referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport. That is the committee it belongs with. That is the most appropriate committee, so I am a little frustrated that the opposition wants to set up a select committee.

I would also like to add that we need to consider the issue of peak oil when we are considering the issues around fertiliser because the two are intimately linked. The impact of restricted oil supplies is necessarily linked to the issues around fertiliser.

I have touched lightly on the issue of housing affordability. The Greens, the Democrats and the previous opposition, the ALP, tried numerous times in this place to raise the issue of housing affordability. So we do think it is important that we inquire into these issues. We are just astounded that all of a sudden the opposition have decided that they need select committees to inquire into these issues. So the Greens will not be opposing this motion, because we will not oppose motions that in fact lead to better scrutiny by the Senate. We are deeply concerned about the way the opposition have gone about doing this, trying to put these committees in place. We believe that they should be using the existing standing committees rather than setting up select committees. But, as I said, we will not be opposing it.

We will, however, seek to divide the opposition’s amendment, because we do not support opposition amendment (3A)(c):

A participating member shall be taken to be a member of the committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if a majority of members of the committee is not present.

Under the existing quorum rules, my understanding is that we need a member who has been nominated by both the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the government. We are very concerned that participating members might be used to form a quorum and we do not believe that is an appropriate process. We will be seeking to divide the amendment so that amendments (3A)(a) and (3A)(b) are put and then (3A)(c) is put separately. So I am giving notice that that is our intended approach to that amendment.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to advise you, Senator Siewert, that item (c) is now part of the standing orders of the Senate. You are entitled, of course, to divide the question, and I will put that question when we come to the conclusion of the debate.

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

I am gobsmacked by what I have heard today, absolutely gobsmacked. Let us put it into context: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, it is a duck. This is about money, money, money. It is about Senator Heffernan.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don’t insult me with that!

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

It is about money. It is about 11 per cent. It is about ensuring that they can line their pockets, because if they were serious about this—

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan interjecting—

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Ludwig, as you are aware, you are entitled to make general remarks, but I think it would be wrong to imply a particular senator has a particular motive.

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

It was not about implying anything; it was about the facts of the matter. If you are the chair of a select committee, you receive 11 per cent. Those are the facts of the matter. And we have the establishment of three select committees being proposed today—three.

Since July 2005, no select committees have been established. Why that date? Because from that date the Liberals had control of the Senate. They did not want scrutiny. They did not allow select committees to go forward. In the past the usual process was that, if you wanted inquiries into matters, individual senators would take them to the standing committees and say, ‘We want an inquiry into x, y or z,’ and it would go to one of the standing committees. That is what standing committees are there for: they are deliberately set up to inquire widely into matters. We had reference committees and legislation committees, but the Liberals combined them into one. So those committees are there. But the Liberals did not go through that process. There was no attempt to put these matters to one of the standing committees to be inquired into—no attempt. What we see is a straight-out, sit-down attempt to establish three select committees in one day. So I stand by what I said: if it looks like a duck then it can only be a duck.

Now we have Senator Ellison from the Liberals getting up and putting his hand on his heart and saying this is about scrutiny. If it was about scrutiny, why not use the standing committees? No argument. But have they suddenly turned over a new leaf? That is what I thought they had accepted, that they had in fact turned over a new leaf, that they had understood that they were arrogant and out of touch—that prior to the election they were in fact completely arrogant and completely out of touch. But what do we have now? The Liberals again being arrogant and out of touch by trying to set up three select committees in one day in this place, to ensure that they can continue to have their will imposed on this Senate rather than taking these matters to the standing committees that are designed to inquire into such matters; that is what they are for. Next I will hear Senator Ellison talk about throwing light into dark corners. I am sure I will hear that from him eventually in respect of these committees.

These matters—housing affordability, and agricultural and related industries—for which the opposition is trying today to establish select committees to inquire into, may be important matters. I am not here to judge how important they are. But those matters should be referred to standing committees, for those standing committees to do their work. There should at least be an attempt by the Liberals to do that. But we do not have that. We have them walking into the Senate today to try to establish select committees—three extra committees, with the resources that go with them.

As for the Liberals’ record, I can recall standing on the other side of the chamber proposing a reference to a standing committee and getting knocked back, and proposing references to select committees of matters that were considered to be important and getting knocked back. There have been no select committees since July 2005. That is their record that they want to stand on—arrogant and out of touch. And they are continuing it. They certainly have not learnt their lesson between when they were in government and now. I took Mr Brendan Nelson at his word when he said they had changed their approach. They had heard from the electorate and understood what the change in government was about. But, clearly, they did not hear one jot of what the electorate said to them.

If you look at the select committees that were established, they were mental health, in 2005; superannuation, in 2002; the Scrafton evidence, in 2004; ministerial discretion, in 2003; Medicare, in 2003; the Lindeberg grievance, in 2004; free trade, in 2004; and the administration of Indigenous affairs, in 2004. Eight select committees have been set up since 2002, but today we get three proposed in one day. That gives you an indication of their pursuit of these issues. Is it about the issues or is it about the resourcing? Is it about the money? I leave it to this chamber to determine that on the evidence that is being put here today.

When you look at the way that the Liberals ran this chamber where they had control of the Senate, they ensured that, even if we were able to inquire into legislation, it was confined to one day, a weekend in one instance and less than a week in others. They ensured that proper scrutiny was not undertaken in this place. We now have statements from the Liberals to say: ‘We are about scrutiny; we want to ensure that we can inquire into things. We are about ensuring that we can “throw light into dark corners”.’ But is that the truth? Is that the real argument that they are progressing today when only a very short while ago they demonstrated clearly by their actions that they did not subscribe to that view one bit? Their view was entirely different from that. Have they changed? I do not think so. That leaves me with the only conclusion I can draw from their actions today: that they are going to pursue setting up three select committees—with the resources and the chairs that go with that—for only one reason. And I leave that for the chamber to decide.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an insult to rural Australia. I want to speak just about the rural matters. To say that this is about money is an insult. You do not come here if you are about money. I would like to put this to bed. I will not refer to the generous speech that Senator Ray made, because it is too insulting. You would only come here for the money if you were a bloody crook, in my view. You do not come here for the money. You come here to do good for your country.

I want to put paid to the idea that this could have gone off to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport and to tell why. Three weeks ago, I did an interview with the ABC up here because Australian farmers are being ripped off by a world cartel in fertilisers and chemicals. It is a bloody insult to Australia’s farmers, who have to cop it.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan!

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw that; I will tone it down. In the interview for the ABC’s Country Hour, I said that we should have a reference to the rural, regional and transport committee. After a week, when the ABC did not run the interview, I rang up the girl in the ABC and asked: ‘How come you didn’t run it?’ I was told that they had had editorial direction from Melbourne that they are not allowed run stories about opposition propositions until they get a response from the government. I rang the editorial directors in Melbourne, and they used all these weasel words about why they could not run the story. I asked, publicly, for this to be referred to the rural and regional affairs committee. So what happened? The ABC rang up Chris Bowen. I have spoken to Chris, and he said: ‘No, we won’t let it go to the rural, regional and transport committee. We’ll send it off to the ACCC and tack it on to the end of the food inquiry.’ The government is entitled to do that—just as we are entitled to say that it should go to the rural, regional and transport committee. That is your doing, not our doing. You put the argument that this could have gone off there—but you knocked that back. You cannot eat your own weasel words—you knocked it back.

This is not about damaging the government. This committee is about protecting our farmers. This is about assisting the government. Let me tell you another fact that you probably do not know. There is only one person in the government who has lived in the bush and has had to make a living in the bush, and that is the new member for Leichhardt.

Yesterday was a great day for Australia. Democracy is a great thing. The election changed the government. You face the reality for rural Australia that the government has changed. So what do you do? You think, ‘We’ve got to make sure that the government does not mess up rural Australia.’ That is my attitude. I was pleased to see that Penny Wong, given that the government had changed—

The Acting Deputy President:

She is Senator Wong, please.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, I mean Senator Wong. I was pleased that she was given the portfolio, because she is a high intellectual driver. We are pleased in the bush. We want a high intellectual driver running it. I was pleased that Tony Burke was given the job—even though I was disappointed for Senator O’Brien—because he is a high intellectual driver, has a clean sheet of paper and is a good listener. So I have not been going around blowing raspberries; I have been giving cheerio calls. I actually think this is about assisting the government in good decision making. This is about protecting rural Australia. It is very disappointing for a farmer to rock up to a fertiliser agent—who is intimidated by the monopoly supplier—when there is a shed full of superphosphate there, which back in November was worth a worth about $780 a tonne, and be told by the agent, ‘Mate, I can’t quote you a price or give you a delivery.’ And that super is sitting in the shed. We have been had! The price has now gone up $400 a tonne in the meantime, and now you can have some! The argument being put to the agents by the fertiliser monopoly supplier is: ‘Tell them the price of wheat has gone up, and that justifies the price of super going up.’ That is what this is about. It is about these sorts of issues. There are serious issues in the meat market at the present time.

We are not here to pull the government to pieces on the issues of rural Australia; we are to here to protect rural Australia. I implore the government to understand that this is not about money. This is not about resources. This is about a voice for rural Australia in this place. That is our job. I came here to represent the concerns of the bush. You can ring me at three o’clock in the morning if you have a problem. I do not mind—I will do something about it. With those few words, I want to put to bed the idea that somehow the government did not take the view. It is on the transcript of the ABC. They said they would take it to the ACCC. I do not mind if it goes to the ACCC, but I want to give farmers the opportunity to come in here and tell their story, because they have been had.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With this new government, it is very important that we get back to a respect of the Senate and that the Senate move to where it should be, which is a position based more on the American system than that of the House of Lords. The first thing that we should do—because people should know this—is understand what a Senate select committee is about. Odgers states:

Select committees are an extremely versatile inquiry vehicle. Because they examine single issues, select committees permit a concentration of focus and effort on those issues.

What could be more concentrated than an inquiry into the pricing and supply of diammonium phosphate? That would have to be a very focused and ad hoc issue. And so such a committee would be appropriate in dealing with this issue, which Senator Heffernan has rightly brought up. This is a disease through a number of sectors in the economy. There is evidence of cartels being manipulative and extracting unreasonable premiums from the Australian consumer and, at this point, unreasonable premiums from the farmer. When diammonium phosphate was $120 a tonne, I remember thinking that that was dear. Last year, we were purchasing it for about $750 a tonne. This year, it is $1,350 a tonne and heading north. There is one reason for that: there is a monopoly. This monopoly is extracting an unreasonable premium from the Australian citizen and the Australian farmer. This issue definitely warrants a Senate select committee to look into it. I believe the information that will come from such an inquiry can overlay into so many other areas of trade practices issues and trade practices laws and how this nation is run.

The belief that the government have put today that such an inquiry is not appropriate and that they are not happy with it seems to be in stark contrast to their rhetoric about the extremism of the government when they were in opposition. If that were the case then and if they truly believe it, then we should revert this place to what it should be—that is, an independent chamber that does its business on behalf of the Australian people, that does not work solely on the direction of the executive that exists in the other place. We should be doing that.

Further, I propose that the chairs of the standing committees be elected by the will of the Senate. If the will of the Senate is that a certain chair should be a member of the opposition then it should be a member of the opposition, or if it is a member of the government then it should be a member of the government. It should be based on talent and not so much by appointment. That is something I think we should move towards. I have heard some people say, ‘That’s not what happens in the House of Lords in England.’ It may not be what happens in the House of Lords in England but it is certainly more a reflection of what should be happening in the Senate in Australia, which is based primarily on the Senate in the United States.

The reintroduction of the primacy of the Senate brings about what we really need in our Commonwealth, which is the capacity to protect states rights, and this house has the ability to do that. This Senate should have the ability to appoint select committees to deal with those so-called ad hoc issues that arise from time to time. If the Senate requires three committees, then it is three; if it is four, then it is four. If it is five or more, then that should be the will of the majority of the Senate. If it is the will of the majority of the Senate that innumerable select committees are wanted, then that is its right. Once you say, ‘We don’t want that because of tradition and because of what is coming as an instruction from the other place,’ then you straightaway step away from the belief in the independence and primacy of the Senate. That is a dangerous proposition because it means that we then become a house that works under instruction. A house that works under instruction is pointless.

Unfortunately, I live with the situation of a unicameral parliament in Queensland, where we do not have the protection of an upper house. We do not have the protection that comes from someone having the capacity to raise an issue and pursue it. I heard that one of the select committees was established to hear the Lindeberg grievances. There should be the capacity for a committee to pursue certain ad hoc issues and to bring some sense of solace, some sense of inquiry and some sense that you do not have to go to the other place and get the majority of the numbers in the executive down there to pursue a case here in the Senate.

This is not brought about by the opposition. If these select committees get up, they will be brought about by the will of the majority of the Senate. That is the key issue here. So if it is the will of the majority of the Senate today that the vote should go forward, there will be select committees that will have the capacity to deal with ad hoc issues, including housing affordability, state government financial matters and rural issues, especially the cartel arrangement in diammonium phosphate which is financially stripping down those who are coming off the back of one of the worst droughts in the history of our nation. I believe that is a just and proper position for us to pursue.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There being no further speakers, I shall divide the question on Senator Ellison’s amendment to general business notices of motion Nos 21 and 22 as follows. The first question is that paragraphs (a) and (b) amending motions Nos 21 and 22 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The Acting Deputy President:

The next question is that paragraph (c) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The Acting Deputy President:

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 9 and general business notices of motions Nos 21 and 22, as amended, be agreed to.