George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

To understand what a contemptible political stunt this is, you only have to remember that this is the very same motion, with just a tiny bit of cosmetic amendment, that seven days ago not a single senator was prepared to vote for—not one. Not the Labor Party, not the Palmer United Party, and the Greens voted against it—although apparently they have now stitched up a deal with Senator Conroy. But this is the same motion with a tiny cosmetic change to give it a simulacrum of credibility; the same motion that not one senator was prepared to vote for seven days ago. Of course, this is a stunt. We saw Mr Palmer, the member for Fairfax, in the back of the chamber a moment ago vigorously, heatedly negotiating with Senator Conroy and with the leader of the Australian Greens.

We look at the terms of the motion. This is a motion to establish a Senate committee, and, as every member of this Senate knows, the composition of Senate committees is broadly required by convention to reflect the political composition of the chamber. Do you know how many government senators will sit as members of this committee, Mr President? One government senator. There are 33 government senators of the 76 members of this chamber. So the Senate proposes to establish a committee of the Senate in which the government is represented by one senator. This is a breach of convention, as I pointed out in the debate on the equivalent motion last week, and probably a breach of the law. Do not take my word for it, Mr President; take the word of the illustrious former Clerk of the Senate, the late Harry Evans, who, when in 1996 a somewhat similar political tactic was tried but on a much narrower basis to examine one aspect alone of the Victorian government—that is, the Victorian racing inquiry—provided advice to the Senate in which he said that, as a matter of convention and probably as a matter of law, such a motion could not validly be passed by this chamber. In some advice to former Senator Kemp, dated 8 October 1996, the late Mr Evans summarised advice from Professor Dennis Pearce, an eminent public lawyer, who said this:

There is probably a legal barrier to the summoning of members of state parliaments … The Senate's powers of inquiry are probably limited to matters within the legislative competence of the Commonwealth Parliament.

Yet, if we go through the subparagraphs of paragraph 1, which set out the terms of reference in eight subparagraphs, most of them bear no relationship to the legislative powers of the Commonwealth parliament. He went on to say:

There is probably a limitation on those inquiry powers in relation to the states in so far as inquiries may not curtail the capacity of state governments to function.

Yet this motion goes to the heart of the legislative, the executive and the judicial arms of the Queensland government. He went on to say:

These probable legal limitations on the Senate's powers of inquiry would provide a basis for a legal challenge to any particular inquiry …

That is the advice given by the illustrious former Clerk, the late Harry Evans, based on, in turn, the legal and constitutional advice of one of Australia's greatest public lawyers, Professor Dennis Pearce. That was about a motion that went to one aspect of the operations of the Victorian government of the day, some 18 years ago. If that inquiry was unconventional, a breach of the Senate's conventions and practices, and, in Professor Pearce's views, probably unconstitutional, how much more unconstitutional is an inquiry that goes to the plenitude of the legislative, executive and judicial arms of the Queensland government? Senator Lazarus, you have been sold a pup. You have been sold a pup by the Labor Party and by the Greens. This motion is out of order, it is unlawful and it is a disgrace.