Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the Procedure Committee's second report of 2021. I move:

That the Senate adopt the recommendation in paragraph 1.2 of the report.

In June 2020, the Senate adopted temporary orders limiting the number of general business motions that may be proposed as formal. These orders also placed a limit of 200 words on such motions and asked the Procedure Committee to review the changes. The committee has met to review the orders at meetings in February, March and June this year, and hopes to consult with senators on alternative arrangements early in the 2021 spring sittings. The motion I have moved would extend the current temporary orders until 9 August 2021 to enable that consultation to take place.

I commend the report to the Senate.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to take note of that report. What we have just seen is the rollover of a one-year change to a process of this chamber. It will continue that restriction on motions for another couple of months, after which time we fully expect that there will be an even-less-democratic change to the Senate program.

We know that both of the big parties frequently vote together and that this is yet another issue which they are in lock step on. They want to diminish the rights of all senators—but the impact will be felt most disproportionately on the crossbench—to bring matters of importance to the attention of the Senate. They want to put restrictions on that. It's known as motions; obviously, it's a highly procedural issue. But it's a really important method for accountability and for bringing to the attention of the chamber issues that the government doesn't want to put on the agenda.

There are very few options that crossbenchers have to raise an issue that's not already the subject of a government bill and to require parties to vote on that issue. We get very few opportunities to do that, but it's a crucial accountability mechanism and a crucial transparency mechanism. This government, in extending this temporary order—which restricts a senator's ability to move as many motions as we used to be able to—and in flagging that there will be some future change, which we have very little hope will be an improvement, shows an attempt by both of the big parties to set the agenda and not give any power to the crossbench to raise additional issues.

As senators, we represent constituents and we want to put issues on the agenda. We want the public to know what the policy positions of the two big parties are. That doesn't suit them, because they don't actually want to be held to account—they don't want to be forced to tell the public what their position is. I want to run through some of the really positive reforms that motions have been able to achieve, just to make clear what's at stake here and why the crossbenchers are fighting so hard to keep our ability to move formal motions and force the big parties to vote on the policies that are mentioned within those motions.

Perhaps the most well-known one is the fact that motions led to the banking royal commission. The Greens moved motions in this chamber, which were concurred with down in the House, calling for accountability for the awful behaviour of banks. The very existence of those motions and that folk in fact crossed the floor—former senator Wacka Williams crossed the floor to support that banking motion—increased the pressure and led to the government creating the banking royal commission. That was reluctantly, I might add, and after far too long a delay. But it was those motions which were the genesis that led to a royal commission into the banks, and that has improved some of the regulations that pertain to the conduct of banks.

Motions also culminated in the disability royal commission—following a similar process. We fought for many years for marriage equality, and much of that began with motions in the Senate. I have a few other examples, including Senator Lambie's recent concurrence motion calling for a royal commission into defence and veteran suicide—that passed the Senate. After the threat of various members crossing the floor, the government then allowed it to pass the House. Shortly after that, the government, again, announced that they would, in fact, call a royal commission. A motion that we passed in March of 2021—a Greens' motion—opposing the Crib Point gas import terminal was supported by all parties and shortly afterwards the project was rejected by the Victorian state government.

Motions can lead to real outcomes. The very existence of the crossbench being able to raise issues that might not suit the political agenda of the government of the day, or even of the opposition, and requiring those parties to put on the record what their policy position is on those issues are a crucial part of accountability. That is a crucial part of being open and honest in a representative democracy. For both of those reasons, we will fight to keep motions and to keep our ability as representatives of our states and territories to raise issues of importance that the government of the day might not see fit to move legislation on, or don't want mentioned, or they want to try and stay quiet about their real policy position.

We think transparency is actually a really good thing. With the move here to extend on the restriction of motions and the likely restriction that will come after that, this government just doesn't want the accountability. It doesn't want the transparency. We have seen an hours motion to ram legislation through. We see an increasing trend to have policy changes made by instrument. Sometimes that instrument isn't even allowed to be disallowed. And we've seen members of the government raise their concerns about this trend towards executive power and the lack of accountability, the lack of the role of parliament to have a say in important policy changes. This is another example of that. And, sadly, it seems to be done with the full support of the opposition.

This is the two big parties ganging up against the crossbench to stop us from raising politically inconvenient issues, to stop us from raising those issues that our constituents care about, that future generations care about, that are important for matters of public interest, because they don't want to be embarrassed into saying what their real positions on those topics are. Well, are you embarrassed about what your policy positions are? If so, change your policy positions rather than running and hiding from the accountability. Motions force you to reveal your policy position. Just change your policies if you are that embarrassed by them. We are very concerned at this trend of manipulating the chamber in an attempt to restrict the rights of the crossbench to use what measures are available to us to hold the government and the opposition to account. We will fight these measures.

This is a procedure committee report. Not many folks are on that procedure committee, but the other members of the crossbench have also been very strong, for the last year, in resisting these restrictions. I fully anticipate that that will continue. We will await what proposals are to come to further change how motions operate. But I have a sneaking suspicion that it will result in less accountability and that it will be an attempt to restrict the crossbench's ability to force a vote on issues, to force both of the big parties to reveal to the public what they actually think about issues.

I know you don't like transparency, and this government are taking secrecy to a whole new level, but it's not right. It's antidemocratic. I think it will be seen for what it is—you trying to consolidate power and shield yourself from accountability and transparency—so be very wary. This is the biggest crossbench that we've ever had in the history of this nation. There is a reason why people are not voting for the two big parties. I think you will simply give them more reasons for that if you continue to try to shut down the crossbench from representing our constituents and raising issues that we think the public want to know the answers to. You might not want to go on record with what your position is, but the Australian people deserve to know what it is that you stand for. Motions serve that purpose. Motions have also led to real outcomes, which I've listed off before. They've led to several royal commissions and to changes of policy at the state level. They are a real force for change and a force for accountability.

So it is desperately disappointing that both of the big parties want to continue to shut them down, to silence the crossbench and to continue to try to sew up procedure in a way that gives even more power to the government of the day. So much for being a house of review. It's almost like you're treating the Senate as a tick and flick. The tragedy is that the opposition seems to be fully on board with that proposal. Well, we will continue to fight this, and I know the rest of the crossbench will continue to fight this, and we await this future proposal on 9 August to see just what nefariousness you hope to have in store.

Question agreed to.