The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Cameron ) (10:00): Thank you. Senator FIFIELD: Senate estimates is essentially an opposition forum and we have seen that eroded. In fact, Senator Faulkner, one of the substantial figures of this chamber, has always said that estimates is an opposition forum. So I cite no higher authority than Senator Faulkner on this matter. I think it is important that we return Senate estimates to being an opposition forum—to being what they should be, which is one of the great accountability mechanisms not just of this parliament but of parliaments worldwide. Our estimates committee process is recognised as one of the best and one of the most robust accountability mechanisms in any parliament and we need to reinforce that. I think this reallocation of portfolio responsibilities between committees is yet another subtle undermining of the role that our committee system should play. We have seen this pattern over the life of this government. We saw it with the carbon tax legislation. It was bad enough that that legislation was presented to this parliament by a government which formed office on the back of a lie—that was bad enough. What was also outrageous was the fact that this Senate denied that package of legislation the opportunity for scrutiny by the committees of the Senate. Legislation of such significance has always gone to Senate committees. The goods and services tax legislation and the A New Tax System package of legislation went through multiple Senate committees simultaneously for the best part of six months, yet that economically significant package of carbon tax legislation was denied the opportunity for that scrutiny. That is just another example of where the various forums of this parliament are continually undermined by this government in subtle and not so subtle ways. We are seeing this here again. We have another curious element to this motion: the reallocation of arts and sport to the rural and regional affairs portfolio. Minister Arbib, who is in the chamber, is the Minister for Sport, and when I look at him I do not see a regional figure—I have to say that. I do not think regional when I look at Minister Arbib, the sports minister. Senator Brandis: He is in the region of Sussex Street. Senator FIFIELD: That is right. I know as a senator for New South Wales he represents the whole state, but I suspect he has a particular focus on more metropolitan areas of the state. Senator Mason: I'm very regional, Mitch. Senator FIFIELD: As opposed to Senator Mason, who is very rural. The rural and regional affairs committee is a very curious location for the arts and sports portfolio. But our main concern is that of the overburdening of the economics committee. I know you take a close interest in the economics committee, Senator Cameron. Senator Brandis: There has to be a socialist voice! Senator FIFIELD: That is right. The committee is a place for alternative points of view and, boy, you sure provide an alternative point of view, Senator Cameron. But, in all seriousness—and, I think, Mr Acting Deputy President, we probably have some sympathy for this view—the economics committee really is one of the flagship committees of the Senate estimates committee system. It looks at monetary policy, fiscal policy, competition policy, Corporations Law, financial services and retirement incomes—there is no significant area of economic regulation or economic policy that it does not have coverage of. If there is one committee that this parliament should think very carefully about when it comes to allocation of responsibility and ensuring that there is adequate time for appropriate scrutiny, it is the economics committee. We have heard time and again from the government that they are good economic managers. We have heard time and again from the government that they, supposedly, saved Australia from the effects of the global financial crisis. We have heard time and again from the government that they are good budget managers. We have heard all these things—no-one believes them, but we hear them frequently. The Senate economics committee is the place for those propositions to be examined and challenged—to challenge the proposition that the government saved Australia from the full effects of the global financial crisis. I would contend that they did not, that it was not a massive spend on school halls and pink batts that saved Australia but that it had perhaps a little more to do with the fact that we have a floating exchange rate, that there was strong demand from China, that Australia has some of the best prudential regulatory arrangements in the world, courtesy of the Howard-Costello government, and that we have an independent Reserve Bank and monetary policy did a fair bit of the heavy lifting in the face of the global financial crisis. Monetary policy could have done more. There could have been more space provided for the stimulatory effects of lower interest rates, but the massive spend by this government denied that opportunity. Those are things which still should be fully examined by the Senate estimates process. This government have told us time and again that they are good fiscal managers, that they will have this budget back in surplus in the next financial year. Again, no-one believes that. It may well be that on budget night the Treasurer stands up and declares that he forecasts a surplus for the next financial year. But, as we know, a forecast in a budget speech counts for nothing. In Wayne Swan's very first budget speech he forecast a surplus. We have not seen a surplus from this government. What really matters is the final budget outcome, and we need to examine in Senate estimates the assumptions on which the next budget will be based. We need to probe and examine those, and that opportunity should not be denied as a result of the Economics Committee being overburdened with other tasks of examination of the VET portfolio and of the tertiary portfolio. We need to have that opportunity. We need to have the opportunity in the Senate estimates committee to look at the effects of the carbon tax. This government are still not being forthcoming with all of modelling work behind the design of the carbon tax. We need to examine the focus that the Leader of the Opposition has put on this in the last few days, where we know from Treasury's own work that there will be a $1 trillion cumulative hit on the economic output of the nation up to 2050. Senator Cormann: That was discovered at a great Senate inquiry. Senator FIFIELD: I should give credit to Senator Cormann. We need to further examine that matter. We need to further examine the MRRT. Senator Cormann quite rightly sought to suspend standing orders yesterday in order to move a motion which would prevent further consideration of that legislation until such time as the government has complied with the orders that this Senate has already passed to provide information on the MRRT. That was appropriate for Senator Cormann to do. Unfortunately, the Senate did not grant a suspension of standing orders and we did not have the opportunity to move that motion. But the opportunity to vote on that motion will present later this week. These are all very serious matters of public policy, and the opposition takes its job of holding the government to account very seriously. The opposition takes very seriously the role of the Senate as a house of review. As I said the other day, often when it comes to legislation and often when it comes to matters of public policy those in this chamber are often the first people to turn their mind to it. They do not always do so over in the other place. They do not always do so in the caucus. They do not always do so in the cabinet. Often it is the case that the first time that a matter of public policy or a piece of legislation is seriously examined and seriously probed is in this place and in the committees of the Senate. We take that responsibility very seriously. It is for that reason that we think it is inappropriate that tertiary and VET be transferred from the education committee to the Economics Committee. We do think it is a little inappropriate that the arts and sports area finds its way into the Rural and Regional Affairs portfolio. We do need to take our committee system seriously. We should not support the subtle and not so subtle undermining of the Senate estimates committee process and of the other accountability mechanisms of this place. We are unable to support a motion that seeks to do that. We will not be supporting the motion. I would recommend to the government that they reconsider this portfolio reallocation. It is not too late for them to do so. They can simply say, 'Look, we didn't actually have any bad intent here; this was just good old-fashioned incompetence, something which we are well known for,' and I think everyone would accept that and recognise that as a statement of truth. For those reasons, we will not be supporting this motion.