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

Department of Finance performance measures; indeed, they differ depending on what the money is granted for, whether it is GST or whether it is for the national road system, school funding or hospitals. It all varies. If you go over the page to part (iv) you read: 'the proportion of the Queensland State budget derived from Commonwealth funds'—again, you can find that out from the budget papers. We are supposed to have an inquiry into something that is on the public record. This goes on and on.

I know the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, and Senator Abetz touched on this before. They spoke about part (b): 'the administration of the Queensland courts and judicial system insofar as it relates to cross vesting arrangements'. Yes, that probably is incompetent; but more than that, it is not the subject of proper attention by the Australian Senate. Again, it is a miscellany of misgivings. It is a fig leaf for an attack on the Queensland Premier and the Queensland government.

I turn now to part (c). This is important. It reads:

(c)   approval process for the development of projects for the export of resources or services insofar as they are administered by the Commonwealth or under a bilateral agreement with the Commonwealth …

So we have a bit of an examination, do we, of the private arrangements, the private interests, of a Queensland individual, through the course of a Senate inquiry, under part (c)? That is what could happen. Again I say to the Australian Labor Party: is that really what you want? I cannot believe that you do. I understand that the Palmer United Party would want that. And the Greens—well, who cares? But you are the alternative government. You are setting the precedent here. I cannot believe you would want the Senate specifically to be looking at that matter.

And it goes on. Part (f) reads:

(f)   the extent to which Queensland State Government policies and practices are consistent with Australia's obligations under international human rights instruments, with particular reference to:

(i)   the administration of prisons, and

(ii)   detention without trial …

Again, I am not the lawyer that Senator Brandis is or Senator Abetz is, but even I know that a Senate inquiry is not the place for that. The extent to which the Queensland government is complying with the law is a matter for who? For the courts, isn't it? Isn't it? So why are we having an inquiry into this? If there is a complaint then surely it is a matter for the Australian judicial system, not for one parliament sitting in judgement of another parliament—for the federal parliament to sit in judgement of a state parliament, Senator Lazarus. I understand your concerns, but this is not the right way to go about it. This is bringing in all these extraneous matters, where there are many other forms of accountability. And what we are going to do is to set an awful precedent for the future, whether it is the Department of Finance, matters for the Australian court system, or a matter solely for the Queensland parliament—these are not matters, principally or even at all, for review by the Australian Senate.

Finally, I suppose the big doozy is part (g):

(g)   any other matter the committee considers relevant.

Again, I am not a good lawyer at all, but one of the very few things I remember from law school was this. I think they used to call it, Senator Abetz, the general warrant. When those evil kings in medieval Britain did not know what they were looking for, they had what was called a general warrant. It was what today might be called 'drift-net fishing'. So you just go through everything if you can't find it. It is an investigation into everything but nothing in particular—that is what part (g   ) means. Again, I have never claimed to be a very good lawyer, but I know, Senator Lazarus, that that umbrella is far too broad and far too inconsistent to possibly have standing in the Australian Senate. It is ridiculous.

If we are frank about this, the only sentiment binding together this entire motion, this miscellany of misgivings, is nothing to do with Queensland government administration. It is not to do with the operation of the courts or human rights. It is not even to do with fiscal accountability. They are just the fig leaves for an attack on the Premier and the Queensland state government. That is what this is all about. So we end up here today debating this motion in the Australian Senate, and on we will go, talking about the Australian Senate reviewing Queensland government courts, administration and financial capacity.

Just take a second, Senator Lazarus, to think about the precedent you are setting. You can see what will happen, constitutionally. This will mean that, from now on and forever, you will have a situation where one democratically elected parliament in this country will sit in judgement of another. And perhaps, Senator Lazarus, a state or territory parliament will sit in judgement on us. I do not think that this is a good idea—this idea that somehow parliaments of this country, state or Commonwealth, sit in judgement of each other. As my friend Senator McGrath said, the people who stand in judgement of parliaments in fact are the people, not other parliaments.

The cynicism of this entire motion is easy to see. It is political; it is personal; it relates to business interests. As to the election date in Queensland: the reporting date, I note, is 31 March 2015. Is that right, Senator O'Sullivan?