Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

Let me let you in on a secret. I made a mistake earlier today. I understand why Senator Lazarus moved the motion he did today. I do not support it, but I understand it. I even understand why the Australian Greens supported Senator Lazarus' motion. I understand it; I do not support it. But like Senator Abetz, I cannot believe that the Australian Labor Party—Australia's oldest political party and the alternative government—is also supporting it.

I have had some big debates in this place against Senator Cameron and Senator Wong over the years but that is politics. As Senator Abetz has pointed out, this is principle. I have an even greater authority then Odgers, Senator Abetz. I have been here long enough to remember Senator Robert Ray in full flight. The thing that annoyed Senator Ray more than anything else was when the privileges of the Senate were taken for granted. He always said, 'You do it to us, we'll do it to you. You set a bad precedent, we'll set a bad precedent.' Do not do it. The Australian Labor Party should know much better than this.

I have had debates in this place ranging over all sorts of issues over many years. As Senator Brandis said earlier today, I have never, ever come across the motion quite like this that traverses and, indeed, trashes Senate principle. When you have the idea that a parliament of this country can sit in judgement of another parliament—not a government, but another parliament of this country—you are setting a precedent and hell knows where it will go. I have never in all my time, Senator Cameron, come across this from the Australian Labor Party, for all the arguments we have had over the years—and there have been a few, I accept, and I have not won all of them.

This is an issue of principle. I am really surprised that people like Senator Ludwig, Senator Moore and others would come at this because this leaves the door open in the future. I may not be around to—how shall I put this?—secure action against the Australian Labor Party or others in the future, but if I was so minded I would have a very good precedent now. This should never happen and I am surprised that the Australian Labor Party—the alternative government—has let this happen. It is cynical. It is totally and utterly cynical. The idea that the Senate, its powers and procedures, should be used to settle a personal economic and fiscal score is absolutely outrageous.

I do not know about Mr Palmer's dispute with Mr Newman. I have no idea about it. My friend Senator O'Sullivan has a much better idea. But the idea of hauling the upper house of the Australian parliament in a direction it should not go in pursuit of personal fiscal and economic satisfaction is absolutely outrageous. I have never seen this in my entire time in the Australian parliament. The idea that the Palmer United Party would do this I can understand, but the idea that the Australian Labor Party would adopt this stance is virtually unbelievable.

Let me go where Senator Abetz started to go before: if you have a look at the motion itself, it has all the cogency of a dartboard. It is a miscellany of misgivings. I am not a very good lawyer and I am certainly not up to arcane Senate procedure, as you well know, Mr President, but I will do my best. The idea of the motion is that there would be a select committee established to inquire into the amount of Commonwealth funds allocated or paid to Queensland, with particular reference to the purposes for which the funds were appropriated by the parliament. Do you know what? How those funds were appropriated is a matter for the Commonwealth parliament, and we were elected last year to do that.