Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Hansard source

Let's be under no misapprehension as to what this motion is about, because the Leader of the Palmer United Party in the Senate has described it himself in his motion, which is 'the establishment of the Select Committee on Certain Aspects of Queensland Government Administration'. That is what this is all about. Let's be very clear: the motion miraculously has the date of 26 March 2012 and requires a reporting date before 31 March 2015. What occurred between March 2012 and March 2015? That would just happen to be the first term of the Campbell Newman LNP government in Queensland.

There is a lot of suspicion and assertion that this motion is purely and utterly motivated by a personal grievance by one member of the other place against the Premier of Queensland. I do not know whether that is the case, but I think the dates in the motion tell us that that is in fact the case. We will find out whether that is or is not the case when my good friend and colleague Senator Mason moves an amendment to delete '26 March 2012', which was the date of the election of the Newman LNP government in Queensland. We seek to insert the date 21 March 2009, which would allow the examination of the Bligh Labor government in Queensland as well. I am not hearing a chorus of support from the Australian Labor Party on this, nor from Palmer United, so I am just wondering: what is the principle that started on 26 March 2012 and will somehow be gone by March 2015? This is purely and cruelly only designed to spoil the chances of the re-election of the LNP in Queensland.

I say to the member in the other place and to those who are motivated to see the destruction of the LNP government in Queensland: the government is doing a fantastic job in cleaning up a Labor legacy and a Labor mess. That aside, if you want to do so, do so by all means. Go to Queensland, go and campaign, knock on the doors, stand at the street corners and advocate the cause for re-electing a Labor Party that so destroyed the state of Queensland. Be my guest. That is the way we operate in Australia. That is what freedom of speech is about; that is what a robust democracy is about. What a robust democracy is not about is flouting the precedence of centuries of Westminster convention, which says that one parliament does not seek to investigate another parliament, that one House of parliament does not seek to investigate another House of parliament.

As I said earlier in a shorter contribution—in the event honourable senators did not hear it—on page 77 of Odgers there is a very clear statement, and that which I have just stated is the principle. Indeed, allow me to quote the whole paragraph:

The Select Committee on the Victorian Casino Inquiry presented a report on 5 December 1996 indicating that it had decided not to continue its inquiry because of advice provided by the Clerk of the Senate and by Professor Dennis Pearce in relation to limitations on the Senate’s powers to compel evidence from state members of parliament and—

this is the important bit—

other state office-holders. The committee’s report provided a comprehensive analysis of this matter and copies of the advices.

Being somewhat long in the tooth in this place I sat on that committee and I actually wrote to the Clerk of the Senate at the time seeking his advice. I wrote to the Clerk of the Senate on 14 August 1996 and he was good enough to respond the very next day, 15 August 1996. That full letter is part and parcel of the Senate committee report that was then tabled in this place. It is there for each and every senator to read, digest and understand.

Indeed, I have every confidence that our friends in the Australian Labor Party know that this is the wrong track to go down. That is why the normally very considered and proper Senator Claire Moore made such a very, very short contribution in relation to the suspension of standing orders. She had to say Labor had agreed to the suspension, but she could not find many reasons to justify it. It was the Labor Party decision, so she did the right thing by her party to tell us why. But the paucity of argument gave the game away. This is the Australian Labor Party hoping to be able to piggyback on this Palmer United motion to help them win state government in Queensland.

We all know that politics, from time to time, makes people do things that they would not normally do. But can I simply say especially to the Australian Labor Party: do not go down this path because, if you do, it is fraught with danger. Parliamentary committees have the power to compel witnesses. If the Queensland government were so minded, it could set up an inquiry into the activities of certain senators in this place. Looking across the chamber at random, I see Senator Wang. I wish him all the best with his first speech later today and I am sorry that the name of Palmer United has been so sullied by the moving of this motion on a day that should have been his day. If Senator Wang were to go to Queensland to campaign, the Queensland authorities, acting on the advice of the Queensland parliament, could take Senator Wang off the street and to the bar of the Parliament of Queensland and require him to answer questions. Is this the sort of farcical path that we want to go down?

Senator Lambie interjecting—

Senator Lambie seems to agree that yes, she would like to. Senator Lambie, I have a fundamental disagreement with you because I do not think it is healthy for the reputation of our institutions in this country. Let us just remember that democracy is a very fragile flower. It is a beautiful flower but it is fragile. And its fragility is based on the fact that people behave responsibly, within convention and according to principles. We have no less an authority than Odgers and the former Clerk of the Senate, Harry Evans, whom we all eulogised a few days ago saying he was a man who put the reputation and principles of the Senate first and foremost on every single occasion. Well, if those who contributed to that debate actually believed that which they said, they would not be voting against that which the then Clerk of the Senate strongly advised the Senate all those years ago in 1996.

Let us make no mistake: in relation to this particular motion, we are being asked for this Senate committee to look at the administration of the Queensland courts and judicial system. I would have thought that was clearly within the province of the state parliament of Queensland. We are then asked to look at the extent to which Queensland state government policies and practices are consistent with Australia's obligations. Well, let us have a look at what Australians obligations are and, if there are Australian obligations internationally, then it is for this parliament to legislate. Why must we have this ridiculous ruse of suggesting that we need to investigate the Queensland parliament, especially in circumstances where we know that the officials should not be compelled and, chances are, cannot be compelled and, in the event that it were ever contested in court, would not be compelled.

So why are we going down this track? Regrettably, it is, it would appear, because of the vendetta of a person in the other place who has representatives in this place who are willing to move this motion. I can understand why that has occurred. They have only appeared in the parliament since the last election. Reasonably, they would not have been aware of Odgers, the Victorian casino inquiry of 1996 and the correspondence to which I have referred. Reasonably, one could not expect them to have known. But the Australian Labor Party know. They were there. Senator John Faulkner, who likes to hold himself out as the great doyen of the Senate and Senate practice and a great historian, knows about the Victorian Senate inquiry. We might even forgive Senator Wong because she was not in this place at the time. But there are long-term senators sitting opposite who actually do know the various convolutions the Senate went through in dealing with this issue. It was not pretty. It did this place no credit and, thankfully, we extracted ourselves in a relatively dignified way in the circumstances to which the former clerk refers to in his commentary in Odgers as 'the principle'.

If the view is that we are just going to throw out Odgers, the conventions and the principles, then we are saying that the basis of the Westminster system, which we rely on in this country, can also be thrown out. This is a very fundamental threshold issue and it is why we as a government put up speaker after speaker in that short 30-minute period on the suspension of standing orders, because we will fight this all the way on the basis of the fundamental principle—the overarching principle—which is so vitally important in relation to this matter.

You then get into the tawdry politics. We have read in the newspapers about a member in the other place having a personal feud with a Premier of Queensland. If they want to have that feud and carry it on in Queensland, that is fine. Be our guest. But do not subvert the Senate and its processes in the execution of that feud. The Senate, its principles and its precedents are just so much more important than subverting them all for the purpose of pursuing a petty vendetta.

As I indicated earlier, my colleague Senator Brett Mason will be moving an amendment later on to change the date of the terms of the inquiry, to commence with the election of the Bligh government. In the event that the Palmer United Party are genuinely concerned about how Commonwealth funds are used in Queensland, why are they only interested in the use of those funds during the term of the Newman LNP government? Why would they not be interested in how these funds may have been expended during Labor's term of government? Because if we were to change the date to that which my colleague is going to move, namely, 21 March 2009, we might be able to investigate the basis and the background of a press release, dated Friday, 6 August 2010, which was a statement by former Premier Anna Bligh:

Premier Anna Bligh, Treasurer Andrew Fraser and businessman Clive Palmer have today reached a settlement after mediation over defamation action brought by Mr Palmer.

Wouldn't that be an interesting little inquiry as to the use of government money? It will be very interesting to see whether the Palmer United Party will agree to such an amendment. Having said that, lest there be any doubt, in the event that that amendment is carried, we as a coalition will remain absolutely true to our principles by voting against the substantive motion. Make no mistake about that: we are putting up this amendment to test those opposite, especially in the Australian Labor Party, as to whether they believe it is appropriate to have a Senate inquiry into state governments—plural—or just a Liberal-National Party government. That will be their test and that will expose them for what they are in relation to this debate.

As for the Australian Greens, they always protest about the integrity of parliament. They join in with Labor each and every time—42 bills guillotined through this place, without a single word of debate, and then they say, 'It's important to have transparency. That is why we want this inquiry.' Give me a break! The hypocrisy of the Australian Greens in these matters is there for all to see.

Can I again say, especially to the Labor Party: you know what this is about. It is about a personal vendetta—the absolute abuse of the Senate and its procedures to help in a personal vendetta. As to the conclusion date for this inquiry, why March 2015?