The proposed changes to the Senate Committees structure are (in truth) relatively minor.
Currently there are 16, paired committees: 8 references committees and 8 legislation committees. The corresponding reference and legislation committees cover identical portfolio and subject matter areas.
The legislation committees inquire into legislation before the Senate, including Budget bills. These legislation committees are most famous for grilling public servants at Senate Estimates hearings. The legislation committees have 3 government members (including the chair), 2 opposition members, and 1 minor party or independent member.
The references committees enquire into policy matters referred to them by the Senate. The references committees have 3 opposition members, 2 government members, and 1 minor party or independent member. The chair of the each of the references committees is a non-government member.
Because the committees are paired, the change is really an increase from 8 committees to 10 committees. That is arguably more accountability. Effectively, the references committees are being abolished, and the legislation committees are being expanded in number and taking on the old references role.
This is not the end of democracy, as we know it. And it does not deserve the ‘act of evil’ appellation that Beazley gave it in a moment of hyperbole. Yes, the Opposition will be less influential. But that loss of influence is really a consequence of the 2004 election. In losing the Senate majority, the Opposition and minor parties lost the absolute power to prevent government legislation (and to prevent changes to the Senate procedures). That is the way our system of government works.
The current arrangements were introduced in 1994, when the then Keating government had only 30 Senate seats and the Opposition 36. The numbers on the day drove that change, just as the Coalition’s Senate majority drives the current change. You can safely bet that if Labor wins the next election, the Coalition will use its larger numbers in the Senate to maintain a firm grip on the Committees structure from the opposition benches. It can be a brutal numbers game.
So much for truth, what about the politics?
On political front, I think the ground is much softer for the Government. Labor’s strategy is clear. Use the changes to paint a picture of Howard the dictator: drunk on power, full of hubris, arrogant, not to mention mean and tricky. In short, the tables are turned and Labor is seeking to replay the Keating 1996 strategy that Howard played so masterfully over a decade ago.
On its own, the strategy probably would not work. Howard only has to remind the House that he attends every question time. As Michelle Gratten noted, Howard only need mention Lord Keating who once famously said: “Question time is a privilege extended by the executive to the Parliament.”
Labor’s strategy depends on the Wran doctrine: “If you throw enough mud, some of it will stick”. Howard’s problem is that collectively there are a number of recent decisions that are starting to look like hubris and arrogance. While it is not a long list, it appears to be growing. If he is not careful, Howard could be approaching a tipping in the mind of the public.
