Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I support the motion and I support the amendment that recognises that the coalition thinks the Greens should have the chair of the Environment and Communications References Committee. If they want to add the environment committee to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee—and indeed to the committee which Senator Siewert already so capably chairs, the Community Affairs References Committee—then that would be perfectly fine. We recognise the obvious competence available to chair these committees. But what came to mind as I was listening to the last speaker, Senator Joyce, was the phrase that 'when ignorance is bliss it is folly to be wise', because what we heard in the Senate was an ignorant diatribe from Senator Joyce. What should be putting fear into the hearts of people following this debate this morning is that the person who engaged in that ignorant diatribe aspires to be the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. That is what is so appalling. That is terrifying, and I think people listening would be horrified by that. Yesterday, in the contribution that he made on the carbon price, he articulated that there is a god-given right to pollute, that the atmosphere is free to be polluted. He said that putting a price on carbon in trying to restrain pollution—the polluter pays—was somehow contrary to his god-given right to pollute. So I think people listening would recognise that what we have heard is frightening. It is frightening from this point of view, that this motion is about democratic representation. I recognise that the coalition do not like the fact that they are an opposition party and they do not like the fact that opposition parties should be represented on Senate committees on a pro rata basis. Senator Joyce referred to Odgers on several occasions, and people ought to be afraid when they recognise that he completely misrepresented Odgers. Odgers makes it very clear that crossbenchers have a say in terms of committee chairs and committee operations in this Senate. Odgers makes that very clear, which Senator Joyce did not do.

After the last election, the Greens increased our representation in the Senate to nine senators. There is a recognition, in terms of pro rata, that we have the capacity to chair at least two committees, and that is the basis on which we have argued for the chair of another committee, and the legal and constitutional committee is the case in point. Given the standing orders of the Senate, you do not expect to have the kind of reflection that Senator Joyce engaged in with relation to Senator Wright. I would remind the Senate of Senator Wright's career to date. She has not only acted as a solicitor, both in this country and overseas, but has lectured at Flinders University in public and environmental health. She has been a member of a residential tenancies tribunal. She has been a solicitor on the Legal Practitioners Conduct Board of South Australia. She has been on the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. She has been a mediator at Relationships Australia and the Deputy President of the South Australian Guardianship Board. So, contrary to the assertions from Senator Joyce, Senator Wright is very able and well qualified and has life experience that will make her an excellent chair of this committee. I look forward to that being reflected in the make-up of the Senate committee chairs.

I do remind the Senate that what is so extraordinarily hypocritical here is that it is the coalition who opposes at every turn the implementation of democratic principles in Australia. Only yesterday the first of the Greens bills that restore to the ACT and the Northern Territory their democratic rights passed both houses of parliament—and that was opposed by the coalition. They took away the rights of the Northern Territory and the ACT parliaments, they overrode the laws of those parliaments and they continued to do so right up until the last minute yesterday, and in the votes they opposed it. So there we have the coalition, who want to take away the democratic rights of the ACT and the Northern Territory, and here we have the Greens who have restored, with the government, those rights to the ACT and the Northern Territory which the coalition would have continued to see taken away. So, when we talk about where the commitment is to democratic representation, I note (a) there is a pro rata distribution in Senate chairs and (b) there is a commitment of the Greens to democratic representation, as is evidenced by the passage yesterday of that legislation restoring the rights to the ACT and the Northern Territory.

But my experience in the Senate goes back further than that. I was elected in 2004 and took my place in the Senate in 2005, when the coalition government had control of both houses. It was then that we saw their complete belief in a god-given right to rule at any cost while ruling out any democratic representation. The coalition abolished the Senate committee system as it stood prior to that election. Not only did it do that but it took all 10 chairs for itself. There are other people sitting in here today who came into the Senate at that time who will recall that. Senator Polley, my colleague from Tasmania and a Labor senator, came into the Senate at the same time and Senator Polley will recall that is precisely the case—that the coalition abolished the tradition of the Senate committees, abolished the right of the opposition parties to have any chairs in the Senate committees.