Senator STOTT DESPOJA (5:16 PM) —I rise briefly on behalf of the Australian Democrats in my capacity as their foreign affairs spokesperson and, indeed, as a member of the Senate committee to which this reference will go if it is successful. I indicate our support for this motion. I do not intend to rehash the arguments in favour of the reference because I think Senator O’Brien and Senator Siewert have done a comprehensive job of explaining why this inquiry is necessary. I also do not wish to pre-empt in any way the outcome of this proposed inquiry. Suffice to say that the Democrats believe that there are a number of questions that still need to be answered in relation to this particular issue. Clearly one of them is to do with the role and responsibility of the government. That is what Senator Siewert’s motion intends the committee to examine. In relation to the time frames, the Australian Democrats’ understanding is that Senator Siewert put forward her time frame for this investigation and report before the government put forward its time frame. I am informed that we are correct, so I think that those who have made adverse comments in relation to the timing or the motivation of this motion should perhaps retract their statements because they are an unfair reflection.

I indicate that I, on behalf of the Democrats, had some concerns about the initial wording of this motion, in particular the original part (a), which talked about the conduct of AWB management and employees throughout this period. As senators would know, this motion has been amended to take into account the fact that there is an inquiry—the Cole inquiry has been proposed and will be under way. This motion now deals specifically with an area that is within our purview. It is within our responsibility—that is, the conduct of Commonwealth regulators, including the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Wheat Export Authority and any other relevant agencies—so it is thoroughly appropriate for the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee to examine these particular issues.

If the government and honourable senators who are members of the government in this place are so sure that there is no case to be answered and there is nothing to hide—and I am not pre-empting this in any way—then they should say that they are quite comfortable putting the department and relevant agencies up for examination. They should not be scared of this inquiry; in fact, they should welcome it. They should welcome it in the sense that it gives the government an opportunity to show their hand, to make clear what dealings they had, how those dealings were conducted and what knowledge, if any, existed.

Senator McGauran —We welcome the royal commission.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA —I do not want to respond to that interjection, but, Madam Acting Deputy President Kirk, although you have heard today arguments as to why the Cole commission is an appropriate forum for some of the issues, I think that in fact, as of today’s revelations, it is exposed as having terms of reference that are not far ranging enough. I am conscious of the Prime Minister’s argument that he believes that the commission has enough teeth, but there are some of us in this place who believe there should be broader reflection, broader investigation, specifically when it comes to the role and responsibilities of government. That is what this motion seeks to do.

It is an important motion. These are not insubstantial issues. Let’s face it: this is a huge international scandal. The Volcker report has identified AWB as violators in this program. There are issues associated with that that we should have clarified for a whole range of good governance, accountability and transparency reasons. That is what we seek to achieve here. I think also it is a reflection on government at the moment that people are actively and loudly questioning the role of departmental officers and officials. An article in the Independent Weekly from 27 November by Lee Eckermann, the national affairs writer for that newspaper, says:

It goes on to say:

That is quite a reflection and raises quite a good question. It probably reflects a good deal of scepticism and concern in this chamber, let alone in the community and obviously in the fourth estate. Let’s face it—these implications and assertions need to be examined. I would have thought that good governance would dictate that we had an inquiry of this kind.

I will not go further into some of these issues, although I might say that there are a number of related issues, perhaps not germane or specific to this particular proposed reference. But the whole issue of postwar reconstruction contracts is something that is going to be under examination, not just in this country but more broadly. People have argued that this is potentially the tip of the iceberg. I am very conscious of the anticorruption watchdog Transparency International, who have indicated that, unless some steps are taken to have stricter and tighter rules for awarding those kinds of contracts, this scandal and others will just be the start. Again, that is not specific to this particular inquiry.

On the matter of process, I heard Senator O’Brien’s comments that the government had the numbers and obviously I heard Senator Julian McGauran’s contribution, which indicated the government’s ‘firm resolve’, I think it was, to oppose this motion.

Senator McGauran —It was our firm resolve to get to the bottom of the matter.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA —I am happy to take that interjection. ‘Get to the bottom of the matter’—I think that is what we are all hoping to achieve here; we just seem to have different ways of going about it. I acknowledge that. The fact that the government is not supportive of this motion is a bit of a red flag. People in the community who are observing and listening to the Senate, and members of the media, wherever they may be, should be very conscious of what is happening in the chamber today and in the last couple of weeks—the flagrant abuse and use of power and numbers in this place; the guillotines and the gagging; the way that we roll through legislation no matter how comprehensive, serious or significant—

Senator Kemp —Which the Democrats have supported before.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA —I will accept that interjection because I want to clarify a point. People in this place on all sides, including the Labor Party and the Democrats, have voted for the guillotine. I think I have voted for one in my life—on the legislation to do with research involving human embryos. There was a guillotine on that. I am not suggesting that in itself a guillotine is wrong. I am not suggesting that, when we have had days, potentially weeks, of comprehensive and satisfactory argument, or when we have debated individual amendments, or at least put them individually, as opposed to the sausage factory approach that we have seen in the last week, there are not occasions in which a guillotine is appropriate.

But I think we should make it very clear for the record that there have been very few occasions, if any, in this place where not only has a guillotine operated but it has operated so soon into the debate on a piece of legislation, without consultation, negotiation or information—particularly involving the opposition—in a way that has not only cut off the speakers list but has actually cut off debate on all or most of the amendments. It is also very rare for a guillotine to take place in this place without the support of another party. I am sure the Labor Party would be the first to admit that in most cases when we have seen the guillotine in the past they have joined with the coalition. This is what I find so interesting—the way the government conveniently ignore their history when they were in opposition, because they worked with the ALP in relation to the guillotine when the ALP were in government.

I do not want to be waylaid on this point, because I think honourable senators, the public and the media are quite conscious of what is happening in this place now. I think people have had the wake-up call. We need a check on executive power. They are not happy about what is going on. I think everyone acknowledges that a mandate to form government with a majority in the Senate is one thing but to completely erode the house of review capabilities or responsibilities of a chamber is another.

The issue I want to draw attention to, which relates to this motion and the likely outcome of this vote, is the issue of committee references. I know on this side of the chamber non-government senators are awfully conscious of the number of committee references that seem to be getting opposed or knocked off. I can see Senator Marshall champing at the bit, ready to put forward what I and the Australian Democrats think is a first-class motion to do with an inquiry involving the CSIRO. It does not look like that is going to get up. I think Senator McLucas has a committee reference as well, and there are others that have been knocked off in recent days or weeks. On today’s red we will see a number of proposed references completely knocked off.

That begs the question as to what role this government now envisages for the committee system. Certainly we have seen the role it envisages for the legislation committees—that is, to deal abruptly, inadequately and inconveniently with legislation that comes to this place; get it through; have a committee that preferably does not travel too far or take too many submissions over too long a period of time; and then see what it can do to inconvenience senators who might want to go to more than one committee. I look at you, Madam Acting Deputy President Kirk, and I refer that to Senator Siewert, who I know was feeling a bit angry about this issue today when accused of not attending the radioactive waste committee—never mind the fact that there were a few other committees on at the same time. Minor party senators certainly know better than most that when there are only, say, four of you, it is very difficult to get to every committee reference.

I think we have all seen the way this government wants its legislation committees to work, but how does it want its references committees to work—or does it want them to work? I do not think it wants them to work anymore. I think the government wants to close them down. I do not know about many of the committees that people are on in this place, but it seems to me that the references are drying up and any proposals that are coming from opposition are getting knocked off. The flimsy arguments being used to knock them off are a bit like the one we have just heard in relation to Senator Siewert’s reference to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on the Australian Wheat Board issue.

I think it is a red flag, people. Perhaps it is something we should be keeping some interesting statistics on and checking on because I think you have seen it now. We have all seen it—the new role of the Senate: we will not do references inquiries; we will do rushed legislation inquiries. We will not do references inquiries, where, of course, the government does not have the numbers or the chair. So maybe we should be envisaging a bit of a change in the composition of those inquiries or those committees. Maybe we should be envisaging that most of the references, if any, are going to come from government. I am wondering what, if anything, they will involve.

We support this motion because it is a good motion. We are not pre-empting the outcome. We think that there are reasonable and legitimate grounds for an inquiry of this sort. The issues that we had some difficulties with in this motion have since been amended, and that is where this motion would have pre-empted the outcome of the Cole commission. It is something that we think is appropriate and we support, albeit arguing now for perhaps expanded terms of reference, particularly in light of today’s revelations. But this is a red flag: no more references inquiries, no more committee inquiries and no investigation into matters that the Senate has a responsibility to investigate. So this is the new curtailed, truncated Australian Senate. This is the new house of review provided we do not do any review. I commend the motion moved by Senator Siewert. She will have our vote, but I cannot say that it is looking too positive for the outcome.