Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too want to make a contribution to discussions about this tabled report. Firstly, I want to attach myself to every single element of all the statements made then by Senator Sterle. This is a committee that I operated in firstly as a participating member, then as a voting member and more recently as the chair of the legislative dimension, which, as you know, Madam Deputy President, is a mirror of the position held by Senator Sterle.

This committee has had a tremendous reputation for as long as I've been in the parliament and, insofar as I can assess the folklore, almost since its inception. I think the reason for that is that there is so much at stake with the work of this particular committee. It oversees some very, very important areas of government performance, including transport, which is significantly important to this country, to its productivity and to the movement of goods and the provision of services; aviation, and we've got some real challenges in that space that this committee's been working away at; and, close to my heart as a member of the National Party here in this coalition government, matters to do with primary production of the type described so aptly by Senator Sterle. This committee can only do the work it does, and the good work that it does, through the collegiate nature of all the members of the committee. Politics are quite literally left at the door by committee members in RRAT in my experience. I've served on a number of committees in this place, and I'd have to say that that's not always the case.

I just want to go into a little bit more detail because the circumstances here can prove to be very, very damaging and permanently damaging to the reputation of this valuable committee work. In fact, the conduct of committees, their work, their conclusions, their recommendations and their policy recommendations are, in my mind at least, almost the most significant function undertaken by the members of this chamber. When one measures a government, one measures a government by inclusiveness; one measures a government by openness; one measures a government by transparency. They're three of the major five accepted measurements of the performance of a government. I've got to say that, if you look at the conduct of the committees' work, they score very, very highly, significantly highly, in all of those areas. It is one of the few times when the parliament formally goes to the people to ask for their input on very, very important questions and to see what their views are and what their ideas are so that the parliament can take their input and build on it and make recommendations to the government of the day. It is significantly important and it is one of the pulse tests that one would take, in my view, with respect to the conduct of a healthy democracy.

What could be the most damaging thing one could do to the reputation of this process? The most damaging thing one could do would be to make allegations against the conduct of a committee—or the committee members, in this case. Senator Sterle is right. You could not have made a more egregious allegation than to suggest that the committee, and, therefore, the members of the committee and the conduct of the committee, was running a protection racket for, in this case, the National Party, who are coalition partners in the presiding government. Is a senator entitled to make allegations against the conduct of a colleague or colleagues? Of course they are. They may have before them information or evidence of a serious nature—and there could be nothing more serious, of course, than suggesting that a protection racket is being run. That would underpin an argument of corruption with respect to this Senate, this place. With that comes the burden of being able to produce the evidence. We have other mediums in this place, including this very chamber. If you want to present evidence and share with us allegations that are made by individuals or groups or entities, then there are many mediums in order to be able to do that without damaging the committee system. The worst way you could share your concerns would be to walk out of a committee meeting because you are unhappy—in this case, with a decision of the committee with respect to one of your stool pigeons who you've brought into the committee—and make this sort of allegation, a baseless allegation, as it turns out, to the media.

Senator Hanson-Young, of course, has a history of this. I don't know whether it's because she's not that bright—think Sea Patrolor whether she is just trying to damage the inquiry because it's not going in a direction of her choosing. Nonetheless, she was afforded an opportunity by the committee to either particularise and substantiate the allegations or withdraw them. She declined to do that. Before I recused myself, when the committee resumed in public hearing, she was called upon to provide details and to particularise and table her evidence, and she declined to do that. In meetings held subsequently, she was invited again to take those measures so that the allegations she made could be assessed. I then challenged her in this chamber. You might remember. I bet every member of the chamber a carton of beer—this was some months ago—that we will never see her here in her place repeating these allegations or allowing herself to be tested and examined on the credibility of her statements.

There is a pattern here with Senator Hanson-Young. We heard it again today. She says $10 million was offered to an Aboriginal community to bring about something favourable, she says, to the then Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. I know she's watching. I don't know which camera to look at, but I'm sure you'll get the point, Senator Hanson-Young: you are telling lies—and that makes you something. I won't go there because I don't want to lose any of my time having to withdraw.