Mr CREAN (Leader of the Opposition) (4:09 PM) —Labor welcome constitutional reform and we welcome the release of this paper. I also welcome the conversation that the Prime Minister has already alluded to between him and me earlier today to discuss these and other issues. I would like to indicate that not only did I find it a very useful discussion but that there was agreement that, depending upon how the debate progresses and subsequent to the release of his discussion paper and a discussion paper that I will be releasing today, it would probably make sense for us to meet again to discuss how we proceed.

Labor have consistently proposed constitutional reform—I think that is terribly important to acknowledge as a starting point in this—so we do not shy away from this issue. The difficulty with the paper itself is that it is a limited proposal. The Prime Minister calls it a modest proposal, but it is a limited proposal. The very strong view of the Labor Party is that it needs to be considered in the context of other proposals, and the discussion paper that I will be putting forward today outlines some of those. The Prime Minister is seeking Labor's support because he has acknowledged that, historically, the ability of referenda to succeed in this country requires, as a starting point, agreement by the two major political parties. That, of itself, does not guarantee success; but it is an important starting point. If we are to reach agreement between ourselves, it cannot be simply on the basis of the proposals that the Prime Minister puts forward. The consideration has to be genuine and it has to be comprehensive—not an exercise simply designed to help a government argue during an election campaign that the Senate has been obstructionist.

What we have to have is a circumstance in which, if proposals are being put forward, they are for the Australian people—not for political advantage. For that reason, we have said that consideration has to include other issues. I have also suggested—although I note the group of three that the Prime Minister has talked about—that, in progressing these issues, we need a joint select committee of the parliament to help consider the views of the Australian people in the context of constitution reform, to seek their support and their understanding of the reasons why this reform is essential for us, as a parliament, to modernise and, as a country, to move forward.

Constitutional reform needs a proper process to receive those proposals, and the joint select committee is an initiative that I have previously put to the Prime Minister. In fact I wrote to him on 28 May 2003 proposing a joint select committee. Regrettably, he wrote back to me on 6 June rejecting the proposal. I have again, in our discussions, asked him to reconsider that position and I do so formally in the House in the context of this debate. I acknowledge the importance of the group of three that the Prime Minister has announced. Indeed, as I told him this morning, I encouraged Michael Lavarch to be a participant in this process in the interests of advancing the discussions. But I repeat the point that if we are to seek constitutional reform and the support of the Australian people then it has to be reform that the Australian people acknowledge the need for, support and see as being in their interests, not in the interests of serving politicians.

We are talking about a major change that has the potential to take us forward, but I do underscore the importance of bringing the Australian people with us and I seriously ask the Prime Minister to consider the joint select committee again as a mechanism for the consideration of the broader context of constitutional reform. I turn now to the proposals contained in this document. The first model proposed by the government—the Howard model, the one that was first floated by the Prime Minister—is effectively an assault on the Senate. It seeks to deny the Australian people the right to have a vote on the outcome of a deadlocked parliament, and that is why I do not believe it will be supported. I do not support it myself, and I suspect—and we have not considered the detail of this because it has only just come out—that that would be the view of the Labor Party.

The second model does deserve further consideration, but it is an incomplete model. The Prime Minister refers to it as the `Lavarch model'; it is not, because Michael Lavarch has made it clear that he would not support this option unless it also removed the Senate's ability to block supply. That is the Lavarch model, and I think we should be honest about that in the way in which this proposal is presented. Labor would be prepared to consult on and consider the Prime Minister's second model, but only if it is accompanied by two other important reforms: the removal of the power of the Senate to block supply and the introduction of fixed four-year terms.

The Prime Minister has based his proposal for reform on the claim that it will overcome Senate obstructionism—something that he referred to in the debate. But I think that we really have to look at the question of how significant that obstruction has been. The real story is far less dramatic than the Prime Minister has made out. He has talked about the many pieces of legislation that have gone through and said that they were not controversial in the main. That is not true, Prime Minister; many of the pieces of legislation that have been passed by the Senate have been quite controversial, but they have been passed. In terms of your unfair dismissal bills, which you specifically alluded to, I simply say to you that there is another way to address this problem that does not involve deadlock mechanisms, and that is to negotiate on them, which Labor has consistently said it would do. It has put alternative proposals forward on many occasions when these bills have been reintroduced in the parliament.

Another important point is this: for 37 of the last 42 years, the government of the day has not had a majority in the Senate. That is the truth of it. What we are addressing here is not a new circumstance; for 37 out of the last 42 years the government of the day has not had the control of the Senate. Governments and Senates of both political persuasions have had to negotiate with each other to take the nation forward. It is the checks and balances in our political system, and it is what the Australian people have become comfortable with—voting for a member of the House of Representatives in a way that is different from the way they are voting for a candidate standing for the Senate. Overwhelmingly, the Senate has operated as it was intended and as the Australian people want it to—not necessarily as a states' house but as a house of proportional representation and a house not just of review but of checks and balances.

The previous Labor government never had a majority in the Senate for all of their 13 years, but they implemented one of the most wide-ranging economic and social reform agendas in the nation's history, and our nation is better for it. We had difficulties with the Senate, but to argue that we were incapable of governing because of the difference in composition between there and here is not true, because we sought genuinely to negotiate with them. I think it is also a tenet for those of us who firmly believe in the democratic process—and I take it that all of us do in this place—that governments may not always get what they want but the Australian people get what they need. That is reflected in the way in which they vote, and we have to understand it. The fact that the Australian people continue to vote differently for the Senate and the House of Representatives indicates also, I think, the importance of the role the Australian people see the Senate playing.

During the present government—and this comes specifically to the Prime Minister's point about how obstructionist the Senate has been to them—1,269 bills have been passed by the Senate, with or without amendment. Many of those have been controversial. Only 25 bills have been negatived in the Senate, and seven of them have been negatived twice. Eleven have been laid aside by the government, and four of them have been laid aside twice. Since 1996 the management of the Senate has also become much easier. The opposition has granted the government extra sitting hours, extra sitting days, extra sitting weeks and exemptions to allow early consideration of urgent legislation. Labor has ensured more time is devoted to government business.

The Prime Minister got his GST through the Senate—not with our support, of course, but he got it through—plus the first two tranches of the sale of Telstra. Of the six bills that are laid aside currently, interestingly only three would in fact satisfy the Prime Minister's second model, having also been rejected twice in the previous parliament. So the bottom line is that 98 per cent of the Howard government's agenda is through. This compares very favourably with the record of Senates controlled by the coalition when we were in government. From 1972 to 1975, under the Whitlam government, the opposition rejected a record 93 government bills—25 more than the total number of rejections in the first 71 years of the Senate's history. And it used, as we remember, the Senate's power to block supply to bring a government down. So, if you want to talk about obstruction, let us have a look at the historical context.

Labor believes that the debate about constitutional reform must be wider. I set out an agenda earlier this year, on 28 May, that indicated the other areas in which reform should take place. I believe very strongly that reforms designed to enhance the cooperation between the Commonwealth and the states must be a priority for us as a national parliament and for those seeking to govern in this place. More than any other reforms, these are the ones that can deliver real advantages to the daily lives of Australians. You only have to look to see that the Australian public is sick to death of the buck-passing between federal and state governments, whether it be on health, education or the environment. This is what the Australian people want us to resolve, but there are constitutional constraints on our ability to resolve it. I think that we seriously have to address it, and I have put forward initiatives that would do just that. A joint select committee would provide a perfect opportunity for us, as a parliament, to consider those proposals.

I also believe that any serious attempt to deal with the powers of the Senate and so-called Senate obstructionism must address the power of the Senate to block supply—that is, the effective ability of the Senate to bring down a democratically elected government. Let me pose a question. How can you talk seriously about dealing with Senate obstructionism if you are not serious about dealing with the Senate's power to block supply? That must count as the most obstructionist power that the Senate has. We, of course, would never exercise it; we have said that consistently. Not only is that our policy but we have never believed in the ability of the Senate to block supply. There has only been one group of parties that not only believed in it but exercised it, and they sit opposite.

The Prime Minister knows that removing the power of the Senate to block supply is fundamental to Labor. He also knows that the minor parties in the Senate also support that removal. The only current obstruction to removing that power is the coalition. So if the Prime Minister is serious about addressing the issue of Senate obstructionism he should be embracing that proposal as well. He knows it, and we know it; but the Australian people need to have it presented as part of a package which is broader than simply what is put forward in this document. There is no plausible rationale for keeping the power to block supply—particularly, Prime Minister, if your argument is that you want to resolve deadlocks. I know what the political argument is going to be in a wider context later; however this plays out, it is going to be about Senate obstructionism. I ask again, Prime Minister: how you can seriously pretend to talk about ending Senate obstructionism if you are not prepared to take away the Senate's power to block supply, the lifeblood for any government? It is the most obstructionist power that the Senate has, and it should be removed.

Labor also believes that an alternative deadlock provision would remove the necessity for early elections. That is, in essence, what we are trying to get to, because the argument for early elections is that the government wants a double dissolution because it is frustrated in its agenda. But, if the terms of parliament are to be addressed, for national planning and economic reasons Labor firmly believes that the House and the Senate should have fixed four-year terms. We also believe that, where the two houses of parliament are deadlocked, both houses, in full, should face the judgment of the Australian people. Therefore, each election would effectively become a double dissolution election in the context of the deadlocked issues, with the Australian people having the right to determine how to resolve that deadlock through a new vote and a new parliament sitting together to resolve the deadlock. That is what the Prime Minister's first proposal does not countenance; it takes away the right of the Australian people to be part of the deadlock mechanism. The second proposal gets closer, but serious consideration of it cannot be supported unless we are also prepared to consider the taking away of the power to block supply and the introduction of fixed four-year terms.

Moving the Senate to four-year terms would make that chamber more accountable to the people. I do not believe Australians would tolerate eight-year terms. If we are serious about saying we need more power in the modern context, we cannot look as though people are seeking to extend their particular terms unrealistically. The Prime Minister floated on Sunday—and he talked about it again today—the adoption of what he then called the Victorian model. He has acknowledged today that it is no longer the Victorian model, because the Victorian model has now moved to fixed four-year terms, as has the New South Wales model. When we look at how the elections have functioned in these states—whatever you may think about the composition of the governments, Prime Minister—we see that they have worked. There has not been an outrage about the extension of the time, because people know that governments cannot manipulate the timing to suit their own political advantage. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself acknowledged during the last Victorian state election that voters are entitled to be cynical about a government that chooses not to serve its full term. So let us take that choice out. Let us set the term. Let us fix it, and let us also ensure that we overcome the problem faced in the past about that doubling the terms in the Senate, by taking that out and saying that the Senate should have four-year terms as well. The truth is that the people are prepared to extend greater opportunity for the government to develop its plan but not in circumstances in which the Prime Minister gets more power to manipulate the election timetable to suit himself.

I do not have time in this debate, so I refer people to the speech I made in May that listed the issues that I think the constitutional reform should look at. I also make this point: we can talk as much as we like about obstructionism in the Senate, but we have to look to ourselves in this chamber. We have to look at the ability of this chamber to be more accountable and more responsive to the concerns of the Australian people. Likewise, Prime Minister, I put on the record almost 18 months ago suggestions as to how we can reform the proceedings in this place, including having an independent Speaker, for example. Those proposals are on the record. I note that at the time the Prime Minister said he would consider the proposals because they go to the question of the conduct of business in question time, greater flexibility and the way in which we use the parliament to debate and to consider issues. The Prime Minister said 18 months ago that he would consider those proposals. I have heard nothing since.

I make the point that the Prime Minister looks for bipartisan support and we are prepared to give it, but we want to be involved genuinely in a process that takes us forward and makes this parliament and this chamber more accountable and more respected. We have to earn that respect back. I think the Australian people do get sick of the squabbling, our frustration at not getting questions answered. We do have to address those issues seriously.

In conclusion, we welcome the opportunity that the Prime Minister brings to us today to consider reform of the nation's Constitution. It has served us well, but it needs to move on. We have got to constantly replenish and modernise it. But any reform has to accept some basic principles: there have to be checks and balances inherent to us in our bicameral system of government. We have to preserve the right of Australians to have a say when both houses disagree. We have to continue to ensure that the parliament and the government are accountable. We have to genuinely deal with unnecessary obstruction in all forms, including removal of the ultimate power of the Senate to block supply. If the Prime Minister is genuine, if he is prepared to give as well as take, then we can strengthen these principles, strengthen our parliament and strengthen our democracy with a modern Australian Constitution for the Australian people. I seek leave to table a further document that proposes Labor's suggestions as to what else should be considered in the context of the Prime Minister's proposals today.

Leave granted.