Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

What we have just witnessed again from Senator Bob Brown is yet another example of what I could only kindly call a clumsy deflection. He has attempted to direct the focus away from himself and from his colleagues because they do not like scrutiny and they do not like being accountable for their actions. I have listened to Senator Arbib preaching to us about what he considers to be good behaviour and all I can ask him is: what would the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd say in response to your comments about good behaviour? Your actions speak far louder than words and you have an incredibly high-handed approach to others that you do not practise yourself. Be very careful of what you preach to others if you are not prepared to practise it.

I have sat in this chamber with a heavy heart all this week. I agree with the concerns that Senator Arbib raised because Senator Brown continued to impugn the integrity of the presiding officer of this place, directing an unprecedented attack against the President, casting aspersions on his judg­ment, accusing him of prejudice and bias and, even more concerning, challenging the integrity in his presiding over the procedures and conduct in this chamber. There probably is not one senator that has not disagreed with a ruling that has been made at some time and I disagreed with one against myself only yesterday. It is the nature of this place. It is the nature of politics. We are elected to serve and to represent our constituents and, in so doing, the issues and debate in this place can become understandably heated, if not combative. It is the very nature of politics as we scrutinise and assess legislation and issues on the basis of what we believe is in the best interests of the nation.

Tragically, we have witnessed Senator Brown taking this prosecution to a new level. As for many footballers in the heat of a grand final or tennis players sweating over a tie-break to win game, set and match, the umpire is the ultimate arbiter. While we individually may not like his decision, it is essential for the integrity of any particular institution that the umpire's decision is final and, most importantly, respected. Regretta­bly, we have heard ad nauseam this week the protestations from Senator Brown that the umpire of this place—the presiding officer, the President of the Senate—should not have the final word. The events that have unfolded this week have reflected poorly on the judgment of Senator Brown rather than that of the President.

As the matters I referred to the Privileges Committee are currently under consideration, I do not wish to touch on those matters either, notwithstanding the fact that Senators Brown and Milne sought to do so earlier on in the week. I respect due Senate process and I believe it should be allowed to follow its due course. I note that Senator Brown has left the chamber. One wonders whether he has left the building, but he has most certainly left the chamber. The man who has created this issue has left the chamber.

What we have witnessed this week is a broadening of the vitriolic spray that the Greens leader directs at anyone who chooses to disagree with him. We all witnessed that with his dissent motion on the ruling of the President and his continued criticism of the President. As Senator Cash just mentioned, the first target of Senator Brown's wrath was Senator Ludwig following the Senate passing a motion of reference to the Privileges Committee as he gave notice of a motion to censor Senator Ludwig over the Tasmanian forests intergovernmental agreement. Senator Brown, for reasons which have already been speculated on, then withdrew this, only to give notice of a second motion calling on Senator Ludwig to report on the Prime Minister's failure to uphold the Tasmanian forests intergovernmental agreement.

On the last day of the Senate last year, Senator Brown engaged in a further tit-for-tat exercise with a letter to the President seeking precedence over allegations in relation to Senator Boswell—matters that had been clarified some 12 months earlier. Yet again, over the recess he wrote to the President in relation to Senators Joyce and Cash on matters that had already been declared in the senators' interest register. Unfortunately, what this has demonstrated is the obsessive behaviour of a leader who continues to shy away from personal public scrutiny and who is brutal in his language and demeanour when he seeks to deflect the focus. What we witnessed in this chamber this week was sadly nothing but bullyboy antics. I would suggest it was intimidatory behaviour, which only serves to diminish the standing of this place in the community. It most certainly diminishes the credibility of the individual. The significance of this behaviour cannot be underestimated as the attacks on many in this chamber, not least of all the President, have taken place while the cameras are rolling and Hansard records every word.

It begs the question: do these same histrionics happen behind closed doors or is it something else? When the cameras are turned off, what happens behind the scenes? This is a particular concern when Senator Brown is dubbed the Deputy Prime Minister and is privy to weekly private meetings with the Prime Minister. If his behaviour is erratic when the cameras are rolling, what is it like when the cameras are turned off?

When Senator Brown announced early in January that his weekly meetings with the Prime Minister were off until she honoured her commitment to Tasmania's native forests, I have to confess that I did wonder whether the Prime Minister considered it her lucky day and the best Christmas present she had received, even if it was a belated one.

An insight into the wobbly relationships among the Greens is starting to emerge. You know there are problems afoot when members inside the Greens party start briefing out on each other—and we saw evidence of that in the recent publication of the Monthly. Senator Brown has been making a great show of unity with Senator Rhiannon of late but, unfortunately for them, the facts do not support this. According to the Monthly:

While both Brown and Rhiannon insist they work well together—and others attest to this—there is little love lost between them. "I know Bob doesn't like Lee and I know Lee doesn't like Bob," says one insider. In 2009, Brown opposed Rhiannon's nomination for the Senate, instead backing Kate Faehrmann, the then 39-year-old executive director of the New South Wales Nature Conservation Council, who went on to win election to the New South Wales upper house. "We need to be bringing new blood into the Greens. Those of us who came out of the 1980s have contributed a lot, but our job is becoming one of elder statespeople," Brown said in a pointed reference to Senator Rhiannon.

Without going to the substance of the allegations against Senator Brown, Senator Rhiannon and her 'eastern bloc comrades' have been excoriating about the Wood donation. On 10 January 2011, New South Wales Greens MP John Kaye issued a statement, which is on the Democracy for Sale website, disassociating the New South Wales Greens from this donation. He said:

Almost none of Mr Wood's $1.6 million was spent in New South Wales. … The Greens New South Wales election campaign did not have any involvement in accepting this money or determining how it would be spent.

On 12 January, Democracy for Sale featured an editorial from the Australian headed '$1.6 million donation sits strangely with Greens rhetoric'. On 17 June, Democracy for Sale featured another piece from the so-called hate media, an article entitled 'Brown faces conflict call over logging query'. And there is yet more. Since November last year, Senator Rhiannon's calls for donations reform have gone into overdrive. Senator Rhiannon has now gone on record in the Monthly to say this about the Wood donation:

We, the New South Wales Greens, would have considered that a large donation from one person, considering we have worked very hard and in some ways we have led the campaign around political donations, may not have been wise for us.

If this is not putting the skids under Senator Brown then I do not know what it is. We know about the friction between the Australian Greens and the New South Wales Greens. As recorded by the Monthly, the New South Wales group, who habitually refer to the Australian Greens as though they were another party, has staunchly resisted Brown's attempts to strengthen the Greens' national organisation. Members of the old guard have been heard referring to Brown as a megalomaniac. Another insider says:

They have poisoned Bob's image in New South Wales. They have made him out to be a centrist and trying to bully them and control everyone and take away the power of states' rights.

Senator Brown is still not in the chamber, but I am sure he can get this on Hansard. I might send him an email just to make sure he sees it. Senator Brown, we can see right through your facade. We can see that your wild and random attacks on senators are driven not just by the predicament you find yourself in right now but by the internal politics and dissension within your own party. I support Senator Cash's call. I think you should apolo­gise to the President, to Senator Ludwig, to Senator Boswell, to Senator Cash and to Senator Joyce. I think you should come clean on this whole thing. It was disclosed only last week that Mr Graeme Wood's $1.6 million donation to the Australian Greens was an in-kind donation. Senator Brown, how does one give an in-kind donation of advertising to the Australian Greens?

I understand that Senator Brown has been dragooning all his young Greens senators to support him in the chamber here this evening. I find that a tad strange when he himself is not sitting here in the chamber. But I would like to note that Senator Rhiannon is sitting up in the back. Senator Rhiannon, where do you stand on this? I look forward to hearing from you in this chamber now to defend your leader, Senator Brown.