Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to follow Senator Ian Macdonald, a man whose knowledge of Australian fisheries and environmental protection measures is, I would say, second in this chamber only to that of Senator Richard Colbeck. Among the very good points that Senator Macdonald made, one that particularly resonated with me was the fact that in this place we often do not recognise the skills and talents of others in a public fashion, and I want to praise, firstly, Senator Macdonald, for his outstanding contribution in this area over many years as a minister—and indeed as a shadow parliamentary secretary he has maintained his interest, for the people of Australia—and, secondly, Senator Colbeck, whose initiative it was to bring forward the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bioregional Plans) Bill 2011.

Outside the specifics of what it addresses, in essence this bill also speaks volumes about the coalition's approach to parliamentary scrutiny. Parliamentary accountability, openness and transparency are hallmarks of the coalition's ethos in government and accordingly, by introducing this bill, Senator Colbeck is saying that we would like the parliament to be able to maintain its voice on how Australia's fisheries and biodiverse zones are managed. That is a very simple proposition. It is a proposition that is put forward by a man who has a commitment to openness and transparency—a Tasmanian senator. I cannot help but contrast the attitude of Senator Colbeck from Tasmania and, perhaps, one of his Tasmanian colleagues, Senator Bob Brown from the Greens party. Senator Bob Brown has this week continued to vote against allowing scrutiny and discussion of bills. It is called the guillotine motion, Mr Acting Deputy President Back; of course, you would be well aware of that. In my time in this place it is unprecedented for bills to be put through with not a word of debate, not a skerrick of discussion, not any examination of things that are important to the Australian people. I think that is outrageous. I think it is wrong. I think it makes a mockery of our democratic system and makes a mockery of this place. It devalues the contribution that every single senator makes in this place. And so I contrast the attitude of the Greens, and the Tasmanian Greens in particular, with the attitude of Senator Richard Colbeck, a great Tasmanian senator with a firm commitment to this area

I come back to this point: if parliament is not able to enter into a discussion about serious matters, about matters that pertain to an economic area and region that in fact is greater than Australia's total land mass—I am talking about our marine zones—then why are we here? Why are we here if at the stroke of a pen a minister can make any decision that he likes in respect of the economic livelihood or mining—