Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

(1)

That the 2006-07 Budget estimates hearings by legislation committees be scheduled as follows:

Monday, 22 May to Thursday, 25 May (Group A)

Monday, 29 May to Thursday, 1 June (Group B).

(2)

That committees meet in the following groups:

Group A:

Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts

Finance and Public Administration

Legal and Constitutional

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport

Group B:

Community Affairs

Economics

Employment, Workplace Relations and Education

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.

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

It is clear that the Labor Party does not agree with this motion. This motion seeks to remove the spillover days from budget estimates. That might be regarded as a technical term, but let me reduce it to what it in fact is. It is a diminution of the ability of this Senate to scrutinise budget estimates and this government during that time. This motion takes away the opportunity to have spillover days—that is, two Fridays in the fortnight—which we use to question this government and to keep this government accountable to its commitment to the budget and other matters more generally. This says to the opposition, to minor parties and to the Senate more generally, ‘We’re going to remove the ability for you to continue to use Fridays to scrutinise and keep this government to its promises and to keep it accountable for its actions.’

The argument that is going to be run by the government is that the spillover day is not used very much—but that is precisely the reason that the spillover day is necessary. Committees that have met through the week—say, on the Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday—and have not completed their task in that time can utilise the spillover day, the Friday, as a safety valve to keep this government accountable. In other words, these committees can use those spillover days to scrutinise the machinery of government. That ensures that the four days can be used effectively and, where necessary, the fifth day can be used by those committees. It allows the committees to use Friday not as an ordinary day as part of the budget estimates week but as a spillover. In other words, the Friday can be used as additional day if the work of the committee has not been completed and so any additional matters can be dealt with.

What is more astonishing is that this government is sending the message that it does not even trust its own committees. The committees are chaired by government senators and are in majority control by coalition senators. Therefore, this motion is a double whammy. It not only says, ‘We’re going to take away your ability to use the Friday as a spillover, as a safety valve, to allow scrutiny,’ but also says, ‘We don’t trust our own committee chairs, dominated by coalition senators, to be able to control the committee or to use the spillover, or the extra day, wisely.’ This motion is corralling its own coalition senators and saying, ‘We don’t think you are capable of making that decision so, rather, we will make that decision for you, as a government that dominates and uses its Senate numbers to whack the Senate.’ This motion says that we cannot have what we have had for many years now—that is, the safety valve of the spillover day.

If you go back through the records to 1995-96, the statistics show that the Fridays have not been abused. So the argument cannot be run by this government that there has been abuse of the Friday or that the Senate committees have run wild and need to be corralled or its own coalition senators need to be reined in. If you look at the statistics, you see that Fridays have been used for what they were intended to be used for—that is, as a safety valve to deal with matters that were not finalised during the week. They have not been used as a 9 am to 11 pm slot. They have generally been used for matters that were not completed in the estimates week. When you go through the list you see that the Fridays have been used by various committees through the years. For example, in 2001-02 the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee dealing with the maritime incident—more generally known as ‘kids overboard’—used the Friday because the committee’s work was not completed and they required the additional day, the Friday, to finalise their scrutiny of the budget week and to finalise the estimates process that was required.

The foreign affairs, defence and trade committee’s hearings spilled over on the Friday in 2004-05 to look at Abu Ghraib. It is another good example of where the foreign affairs, defence and trade committee required additional time to look at a particular issue. They used the Friday to allow the scrutiny of the committee to continue and for their work to be finalised. Put simply, a committee will sit during the week. It might deal with a very difficult issues such as Abu Ghraib through the week and not complete its scrutiny. Therefore the Friday is used to finalise its work—and not fully. Generally speaking, it is completed on the Friday when those matters have been dealt with and the committee is finalised. SIEVX, in 2001-2002, as I indicated earlier, occurred in the same fashion.

Again, if you look at the Rau matter—the immigration debacle—this government did not want to allow a spill-over day. The Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee in 2005-06 spilled over onto the Friday with the Cornelia Rau matter. Why? Because on the Cornelia Rau issue it took up a significant amount of time to get to the bottom of what had happened. As we know, the government had a lot to answer for. The Friday was again used to allow the ordinary work of the committee to be finalised, as well as to allow any return to that substantive issue. If that was not enough, the following year legal and constitutional had the Solon and Alvarez issue and the Friday was again used.

We have a government that says: ‘In terms of spill-overs, the committee will have time through the week to deal with issues as they may arise. But if it wants ordinary scrutiny, if it wants to continue looking at those matters which are important and need scrutiny’—and clearly they need scrutiny—‘then we won’t allow the spill-over day to be used at all because we’re going to remove it. We’re not going to have the additional day at all.’

The government’s clear message to not only this chamber but the Australian people is: ‘We want to continue to have a situation where we can control the Senate to such an extent that we can close down scrutiny, not allow scrutiny, because we’re going to remove the ability for that committee to do its ordinary work, to complete it and to use the spill-over days as needed.’ As needed—that is the point that the government seem to have missed in this whole debate. As I have said, the chair of the committee might decide that the work has not been finalised and to use the spill-over day.

We will have an additional problem that this government has avoided: the spill-over day has been an important mechanism not only to ensure that those issues are scrutinised but also to ensure that the debate about additional time for committees does not come back in here as a notice of motion to allow the committee to sit on a Thursday night, a Wednesday night or another night when parliament is sitting or another day through the year. That is what will happen. Where spill-over days are removed from this process, committees will then seek additional days and argue for that time, if it is not a matter that is arrived at or agreed to by the committee—and much of it is, quite frankly. So it is not only going to be confined to the committee arguing about it. If the committee says, ‘No, you have had your time,’ then there will be notices of motion moved in the Senate seeking additional time for committees to debate the issue that is at large because the spill-over day was not available to be used.

Another problem will be created by the government’s arrogance because the committees that have been unable to use the spill-over day to finalise a matter, to look into a matter, to complete a matter or to ensure that there has been proper scrutiny of a coalition or a government bungle will come in here and move a notice of motion. We will argue why a committee should not have additional time to deal with it. The government will be faced with the problem of arguing against it. Given that it has already said no to a spill-over day, it will be in a worse position trying to convince the Australian population, let alone the Senate, why it should not accede to further scrutiny of this issue because it has taken away the ability of a committee to look at matters.

The government is becoming so arrogant that it has ignored the real debate that will occur down the track. It will have to shut that debate down. It will have to say, ‘No, we don’t want you to look into that particular issue,’ and it will have to justify why it will not want the committee to look into a particular issue at another time, whereas the short answer is: the spill-over day could have been used for that. Again, all this government has done is highlight its arrogance by trying to shut down scrutiny and reduce the effectiveness of the committee process to do its ordinary work of scrutinising the government.

You will have committees unable to discharge their functions. You will have arguments about unreasonable or insufficient time being given for important issues. You will have committees asking for extensions of time. The committee chairs, I suspect, will be coming back to the government and saying: ‘We didn’t get the work completed. We want additional time. You’ll have to find time for that as well.’ You will have senators on those committees coming into this chamber and moving motions asking for additional time. Rather than sensibly allowing a process of spill-over days, the government has opened Pandora’s box, effectively, and will not be able to argue that there is the safety valve of a spill-over day to be used. It beggars belief that the government has fallen for this, but perhaps it thought that it could arrogantly deal with this by simply removing the spill-over day and saying, ‘We’re going to close down scrutiny.’ It really does beggar belief.

The wider issue, of course, is that that is what the government is in fact doing. This is another nail in the coffin for the ability of the Senate to scrutinise the government’s work. When former Senator Hill was the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, he recognised that the Senate plays a very important role in scrutinising the government. I looked for a statement from Senator Minchin, but perhaps he has not been the leader long enough to be able to echo those phrases here. It is completely unseemly that this government will not allow itself to be scrutinised by the Senate. It seems to be another nail in the coffin, as I have said, with this government wanting to abuse the Senate process and gain absolute power.

Let us examine the range of things that the government has already done. It has knocked back the ability to have a censure motion. It has curtailed question time. The Telstra bill, the Work Choices bill, the Welfare to Work bill and the voluntary student union bill are just some of the bills that the government exempted from the cut-off, meaning they were subject to less scrutiny. The government gagged the Telstra debate and guillotined it. That was the Howard government imposing the guillotine on a debate concerning about $30 billion of taxpayer assets in five bills. The gag was used three times in that debate. In the Telstra inquiry, the government allowed only one day of hearings. Because of the arrogance of this government, it sought to ensure that the speakers list for debate on the Telstra bill would be curtailed. It also denied committee references to allow scrutiny into more general areas. Back on 11 October, the debate on the variation of routine of business and sitting hours was gagged twice by Minister Ellison.

This issue of no spill-over days came up this year, and the government has moved the motion today. The government gagged the Work Choices inquiry. In that debate, if senators proposed amendments to the reference of the Work Choices inquiry, they were stopped. When you start to add up the abuses in this place, you see that the government has managed to accumulate many abuses in a very short space of time. This is simply one more we will catalogue of where the government has said: ‘This government does not want to be scrutinised. This government does not want or allow scrutiny into its affairs.’ The antiterrorism bill and the welfare bill were guillotined and the debate was gagged on 5 December last year. Senator Abetz’s attack on the Clerk was one step too far. Similarly, Senator McGauran’s finger was one step too far.

If this government thinks we are going to let those abuses slide, it should think very carefully about the abuses I have listed. I will be raising them, as I have said in the past, every time I come here to ensure that this government recognises its abuses in this place and what it has been doing to take away the ability of the opposition and the minor parties to scrutinise this legislation, these bills and, of course, the budget and our ability to keep this government accountable. This government has also ensured that there will be less time available to debate bills.

These outrages of this government continue, and not having the spill-over days is just one more example of the removal of the ability to scrutinise. This government should take this as a wake-up call and allow the spill-over days for the purpose for which they were intended—that is, as a safety valve for committees to do their work.

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

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is worth while putting this in context and getting a sense of reality about the scrutiny of the government in the Senate. Much has been said about it today. Senators Ludwig and Bartlett have said very strongly that this government is all about taking away that scrutiny, and that is totally incorrect. When you look at the Senate’s sitting days this year and you add to that the number of estimates days, you see that 25 per cent of the Senate’s time is devoted to scrutiny of the government through estimates hearings, where there are questions of the government from 9 in the morning until 11 at night. When you look at the total sittings of this Senate and you include the estimates, because estimates are a form of the Senate’s sitting, you see that 25 per cent of that total time is dedicated to scrutiny of the government and its actions. I think you would be battling to find a similar situation in any other parliament in the free world.

Estimates are a very important part of the political process in this country. They are essential for the scrutiny of the government and for a legitimate opposition to carry out its role. We have three estimates sessions a year. We have estimates after the budget in May, additional estimates in February and supplementary budget estimates in November. So the opposition has three opportunities throughout the year to question the government. Looking at the total number of days that are available, the largest estimates sitting is that which occurs after the budget, and that covers a period of two sitting weeks. We have eight committees and they have four days each. Effectively, there are 32 hearing days to question the government on the budget.

What we have said here is that, instead of having the four spillover days, 32 days is adequate for the scrutiny that should be carried out. The additional days in the past have not been entirely taken up in number and in time. As well as that, we agreed in 2003 to extend the time for estimates in November. I repeat that—we agreed to a request to extend the time of the November supplementary budget estimates. We previously had eight committees sitting for one day with the option of four of them being able to sit for another four days. That gave in total 12 days. We changed that. We now have a situation where eight committees can sit for two days, which equals 16 days. So in those November sittings we now have four extra days in addition to what we previously had.

If I were in opposition, I would certainly aim for a situation whereby I had the ability to question the government over a period of 12 months and to extend the period of time that I could question the government on each occasion, rather than having all that time being concentrated after the budget. We are approaching this in a more even manner by having the February, May and November estimates spread more evenly in time. That does not detract from the ability of the opposition to hold the government accountable. In fact, this is a much more efficient manner of conducting estimates.

The 32 days in total for the opposition to question the government on the budget provide more than adequate opportunity for scrutiny. Taking into account that we have allowed an extra four days in November, the total number of estimates days remains the same as it previously was. When you look at the total sitting time of this Senate combined with estimates, you see that 25 per cent—I repeat, 25 per cent—of its total sitting time is devoted to questioning the government. That does not take into account an hour’s question time each day. That system gives more than adequate opportunity to hold the government of the day accountable. It is a situation which is unequalled in the free world. I would suggest that there is no other country that has that level of scrutiny and accountability in its parliament.

We certainly believe the process is important. We have said that time and time again. When I was in opposition, I saw the importance of estimates hearings. We do not detract in any way from the role of estimates in the processes of the government and the parliament in this country. However, I would say that, strictly speaking, estimates are for questions on expenditure. Over time that has become a rule more honoured in the breach than in the observance. We now have wide-ranging questions on issues of the day which are of an entirely broad nature, the least of which is the relevance to the expenditure in the budget and additional estimates.

To say that we are cutting back or restricting accountability is totally wrong. It is incorrect. I think people should look at those statistics in the context of the whole and see just how much accountability and scrutiny there is in our system, and so there should be. For the opposition and the Democrats to say that this government is raping and pillaging our democracy is entirely over the top and a total distortion. This measure is a continuation of the process we have always had. With it, we will have the same total number of days that we had previously. So I reject the comments of the opposition.

Senator Ludwig talks about a restricted question time. I remind those listening that the previous government had a Prime Minister who did not even roll up for question time. He rolled up when he felt like it. We have a Prime Minister who is there at every question time for the total time. The previous Prime Minister did not attend every question time. He rolled up when he felt like it. That was the height of arrogance and a mark of total disrespect by that person in relation to the parliament. You could not get anything worse than that.

Question agreed to.