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

The Democrats share the concern about the unprecedented attempt, through this motion, to further restrict the ability of Senate committees, and in this case Senate estimates committees, to do what is widely recognised as one of their most fundamental jobs—to scrutinise the actions of the government of the day and of government departments. It is another example of the quite calculated endeavour by this government to slowly strangle any semblance of accountability and genuine meaning behind the word ‘democracy’. It gives the lie once again of the Prime Minister’s pledge and promise that he would not misuse the Senate majority that the electorate gave him so narrowly at the last election.

Let us not forget that it is less than one year since this government has had control of the Senate. Senator Ludwig outlined quite a long litany—not a full litany, I might say—of examples where this government has clearly prevented scrutiny and acted quite arrogantly and dismissively in the most blase and contemptible manner imaginable in order to just do what it wants, to ignore any alternative view and to blithely sweep aside many attempts to scrutinise or even question the actions of the government, statements of the government, legislation from the government or activities of government departments.

We have seen a few examples of the sort of absolute mess, mayhem and chaos that can occur when a lack of accountability and a culture of contempt and arrogance for due process develop. We have seen it with the immigration department over a number of years, where things got so bad that eventually the government had to acknowledge that there was a massive culture problem within that department, whilst somehow or other managing to suggest that none of that culture problem was the responsibility of the government itself, that somehow or other it all developed completely independently of ministers, government policy or legislation.

Apart from the cost of that being an enormous injustice for a significant number of people—the personal cost and the individual cost—there is also the financial cost. For those who follow an approach that sadly seems to be a little more commonplace these days, which is, ‘What’s in it for me?’ or ‘What does it cost me? If it doesn’t affect me, well, that’s nothing to do with me,’ and if they want to make it all about them and all about money, the fact is that poor management costs enormous amounts of money. Bad administrative practice costs enormous amounts of money. We have seen that with the immigration department—not just with the flagrant waste on unnecessary aspects of the policy but also with the hundreds of millions of dollars that now have to be pumped into that department to try and fix up the intrinsic problems that the government now acknowledges exist.

Unfortunately, as has been quite clear in recent times, that problem does not exist in isolation in the immigration department. We have seen it fundamentally in departments like foreign affairs and we are seeing it writ large with the AWB scandal. The big problem with the AWB scandal, leaving aside the specifics of the outrageous breaches that have been involved, is what it represents about the culture across a wide range of departments. That really is the problem. It is not an isolated example. The specifics would be isolated, but the general commonplace culture and attitude that led to that are widespread; indeed, one would suggest endemic. We have seen people such as former secretaries of the Department of Defence write openly about the appalling administrative practices and the deliberately shoddy and misleading approach from government ministers that have been common practice for many years.

Somehow or other that does not seem to ring sufficient alarm bells with some that report about things in this place. Some who report on this place seem happy to say, ‘That doesn’t bother the average punter in the street.’ I do not know if it does or not, but it certainly should bother us because that is our job. The people put the Senate here in particular to examine what the government does. To simply take away two days out of the 10 that are normally available for the major scrutiny period of the budget, the budget measures and the budget estimates is clearly a flagrant and deliberate attempt to cut off scrutiny. It is also a reflection on the ability of the chairs of those committees, who are all government senators, to adequately manage the business before their committees and the process of questioning at the estimates committees.

As Senator Ludwig has pointed out, this is not a process that has been abused. Having spill-over days on Fridays has not been abused and taken up on every single possible occasion up to the last possible minute. It has clearly only been used where there has been a genuine necessity by specific committees. The suggestion that it is not necessary is clearly false because it has always been used. The suggestion that it has been abused or misused is also clearly false because the record shows that that is not the case.

The other aspect that has to be put alongside this is the growing practice on the part of the government to simply refuse to answer questions put at Senate estimates and in other areas. At the last estimate committee hearings we had the unprecedented and laughable excuse that questions regarding the AWB matter could not be answered in any way, shape or form—any type of question to any government body—because there was a royal commission under way. That was completely unprecedented and completely unjustifiable and untenable; nonetheless, the government insisted on it. These were the first estimates committees after the government had control of the Senate, so it was no surprise that they tried that stunt for the first time in such an extreme way. It is the sort of action that would never have been possible had the government not had that rigid control of the Senate. The Senate has had other mechanisms to require questions to be answered and to require information to be produced, but now we do not have those because of the government majority.

We have seen other smaller examples perhaps where particular officers have simply refused to answer a question and, despite Senate standing orders, refused to give any indication why they would not answer a question. We have seen refusal to provide documents to some Senate estimates committees where they have been requested or where questions have been on notice in regard to them. You have to wonder what areas will be quarantined from exploration at these upcoming estimates. I would be willing to bet a lot that there might be some sudden excuse given as to why there has to be a blanket ban on any questions regarding Private Kovco and what happened in that regard. I am sure that they will use some excuse that there is a coronial inquiry or some other inquiry under way and they cannot possibly answer anything about that because that would prejudice the inquiry. I have no doubt that we will have those sorts of things put forward. Basically, the fact that there is any inquiry under way anywhere will now be used as an excuse by this government to prevent any sort of accountability or scrutiny of the actions of ministers or their officials.

We are getting a larger and larger pile of these sorts of examples and the consequences are very serious. People should not wait until it is about an issue that specifically affects them personally. The deliberate, systematic dismantling of the fabric of democracy going on under this government, piece by piece, is a matter that concerns everybody personally. That is what is happening here. This is only one small part of that, but it is nonetheless a clear-cut part of it. We in this place all know the clear-cut change that has happened since the government has had that power to ignore all opposition.

Another impact of this is that, while it will curtail questions from Labor Party senators, Democrats senators and others, it also will give the government much more ability to curtail awkward questioning from their own side. There is the occasional time when government senators pursue lines of questioning that ministers in the government wish they would not. The removal of the safety valve of the spill-over days on Fridays will make it much easier for the government to say that there is not time to pursue a particular matter. They will be able to put that pressure on to silence awkward questioning in that area. So there is a wider impact than just the attempt to prevent scrutiny from opposition parties. It also is yet another mechanism for the control—a control that is already well past the strength of a straitjacket—of any government senators that are potentially going to do something that might displease or cause discomfort to the government.

We have also seen—and Senator Ludwig might have referred to this—a huge number of rejections of proposals for Senate references committee inquiries by this government. I am not suggesting every single one put forward had merit—I think I might have voted against one or two of them myself—but the simple fact is that, going by any statistical reading over recent years, there has been a massive leap in rejections of proposed references of matters to be examined by Senate committees. That is just the ones that have been put before the chamber. I can speak from personal experience that we have not bothered to move others because we know they would not be supported. So, in effect, the number of proposed inquiries that have been rejected is actually much higher. Undoubtedly, a number of them that would have got up in the past have been in areas which would have caused embarrassment for the government but nonetheless would have enabled needed information to get out in the public arena.

So we have less opportunity to pursue matters through the normal process of Senate references committees because they are being continually restricted and slowly reduced to the ridiculous situation where we have at least two, if not three, references committees at the moment which have no business before them at all and have had no business before them for some period of time, certainly for this year. That reflects particularly badly on the Senate as a whole. It might not be the fault of us on this side of the Senate that that situation has occurred, but the reality is that it does reflect badly on the whole institution of the Senate.

That probably does not concern the government. Generally I do not think that making the parliament come into disrepute bothers the government at all, because they do not see the parliament as having any value at all. Clearly, the way the government operates is to completely dismiss the parliament as having any significant relevance other than as some sort of ceremonial stage or as an opportunity for posturing now and then. But, in terms of the parliament’s proper constitutional role—its key role as the balance in the separation of powers—it is quite clear from the government’s actions that they just do not see the parliament as having a value.

Indeed, I have heard the Prime Minister talk a number of times about the great institutions that make up our democracy but he has not mentioned the parliament. He talks about the executive, or the government, the courts and the media, as though the media has the other role of scrutiny rather than the parliament. I have heard the media talk that way themselves, and perhaps there is some reality to it, but as far as I know they are not written into the Constitution as being one of the key arms of our system of governance, beyond the implied right to freedom of speech, which of course I strongly support.

So it is a serious problem. It is much wider than just the inability to hold a hearing on a few days. When you combine it with the reduction in the ability of Senate committees to examine specific areas through precise references, it means that, in more and more areas, the only place to pursue those matters is in Senate estimates, because other avenues are being blocked. On top of that, of course, we have had a record low number of sitting days in the Senate this year and last year. We have the absurd situation that today is just the 14th day the Senate has sat this year, even though we are into May. We have sat just 14 days this year and, after today, we will not sit again until the middle of June. By the time we get to the second week of August, we will have had 22 sitting days for the first seven months and one week of the year.

That is a disgrace. That again reflects badly on the Senate and the parliament and is another indication of a reduction in the number of opportunities that senators have to pursue particular issues. It means that, more and more, we are channelled into only being able to use estimates—and then what do we find? The number of days made available for estimates is being reduced. On top of that, the number of instances where specific areas and lines of questioning are being refused is also increasing. It is a very insidious pattern, but it is a very consistent and very dangerous pattern. I suggest that the public needs to wake up to it before it is too late.

People often talk about the price of liberty being eternal vigilance and about the fragility of democracy and the fact that, if you do not continue to fight to protect its institutions, then before you know it it can be gone and it is pretty hard work to get it back again. That might sound overly dramatic, but I do not believe it is, when you put together all the different things that are happening in this country. This is only one small part of it, but it is a part of it and it is a serious matter. It is a deliberate, calculated attempt to reduce the opportunities for the parliament, and through the parliament the public, to scrutinise the actions of the government and its departments at a time when the general level of competence, honesty and integrity in many of the activities of governments is being questioned to a greater degree than ever before.

It is a very serious matter and it reflects a very serious stage in the history of our democracy. I seriously suggest that, unless we can find a way to put a halt to this continual chipping away at these mechanisms for proper checks and balances and scrutiny of the activities of the government of the day, then we really will be starting to live in a democracy in name only. That is not only a great sadness but a serious danger.