Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

There are a couple of points I want to make to clarify the record or at least give my perspective on some of the things people have said. I think we are getting into a waxing lyrical stage here, which is sort of interesting. I also have some questions about other aspects of the bill to do with the permit issue we dealt with before dinner and some other sections to do with pornography et cetera. It might be my anal nature but I would rather move onto those sections before we have to ask more of those questions. So I am suggesting it might be good to put the question, although having said that I want to say a few things before we do because I am being a bit helpful—but not too much.

There has been some useful broader philosophical contributions from the previous speaker. I want to give my recollection of the record in regard to a couple of the points that were made with a purpose beyond just correcting the record. I am 99.9 per cent certain the legislation that Senator Brown is referring to that dealt with mandatory sentencing was a joint piece of legislation of the Labor Party, the Democrats and the Greens—Senator Bolkus, Senator Greig and Senator Brown from memory. As you would know, Madam Chair, that sort of cooperative effort tends to increase the chance of success that occurred on that occasion. Purely for the record, I want to acknowledge the Democrats’ equal contribution in that particular process but also to use the petrol sniffing inquiry example and contrast it with what we are doing now.

As you would know, Madam Chair, having been heavily involved in the petrol sniffing inquiry yourself, my recollection is that there was an initial Senate inquiry put up by Senator Brown which focused on petrol sniffing, which I think the Democrats supported but some others felt was too narrow. It was focused too much or solely on Opal and not on other things. There was an effort, if I recall—it might even have been by Senator Scullion—to try and amend the motion put up by Senator Brown, and that was not agreed to. He did not want to amend it, so it did not get up and everybody got nothing; no inquiry at all. It did not help anybody very much; a chance to beat up on the government of course for not going ahead with the inquiry.

I think it was Senator Scullion’s motion that did initiate the final inquiry after consultation with other people, including me. It might have been a bit broader than others wanted it to be, but we worked through it and we got an inquiry up. That inquiry was conducted over a period of a few months and went to a number of places, including Mount Theo, which I think got recognition through the Order of Australia award today for their work in that area. We produced a unanimous report after that consultation. The government acted on it because of ongoing political and public pressure and all those things, but it was recognised to have been a great success—although I would caution to say it was not the universal problem solved forever, as has occasionally been reported, but it was still a great success done in conjunction with and listening to Indigenous people.

My points are firstly to acknowledge that it was partly the role of people within the government, specifically Senator Scullion, who wanted to work constructively with people to get that inquiry initiated and then it was conducted properly and a good result was produced. I acknowledge the contribution that Senator Scullion made because he might have been, no doubt inadvertently, left out of history in the way it was described. I use that to contrast with what we are doing now, which is exactly the opposite: no consultation, no cooperation, no listening, no engagement, no nothing on a range of issues far more complex than petrol sniffing. That is why I have concerns about this working. It is nothing to do with all the philosophical to-ing and fro-ing we have had, interesting though it is. I hate to be a stick in the mud and put all that great, broad philosophical encountering to one side and pull it back to what is before us now and whether or not it will work in practice on the ground—that is my concern. I have some more questions on that but perhaps I should focus things and move it forward a little bit. It might be worth putting the question and moving on; it is just a suggestion.