Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Senators would know I only came back into this chamber a few months ago. I know some things changed in the 10 or so years that I wasn't here, but I'm fairly sure there used to be a convention when I was here previously that, if senators decided they were going to launch what was clearly a fairly direct, pre-meditated pile of personal attacks on a fellow senator, they would give that senator notice of that. That convention may be dead now, along with many other conventions in this place that, sadly, have crumbled to dust in the meantime. Nonetheless, I think it's not too bad a convention to look at trying to revive.

Clearly, I wasn't part of this particular committee and the hearing and the various incidents that have riled the two previous speakers, so I don't profess to express an explicit opinion about what did and didn't happen. But I will say in regard to my colleague Senator Hanson-Young that to suggest that she has some sort of feigned temporary interest in the Murray-Darling because of the South Australian election is clearly wrong. I'll leave it at that. The evidence on the record in this chamber is very clear, including today in question time. The South Australian election is over. If her interest were solely because of that, she wouldn't be continuing to pursue the matter as she did in question time today. She has a long history over many years of involvement, activity and engagement with the issue of the Murray-Darling Basin and its impact, particularly on her home state of South Australia. Certainly, from the period of time prior to my coming back in this chamber, I know well and truly more than enough to be able to say that it is simply incorrect to imply or, in some cases, explicitly allege that Senator Hanson-Young's engagement with this issue is somehow just a transient thing as a result of the South Australian election.

I do agree with the previous speaker that it is important to try to have our Senate committees function in a way that is collegiate and as cooperative as possible. Again, I think that is something that became far less frequent in the intervening decade when I wasn't here. I'm not saying it would have been any better if I had been here during that period, but that is also something that has clearly declined. Where those committees—those groups of people—do operate collegiately and are working reasonably effectively and cooperatively, that's great, but we all know it's not always possible, particularly on an issue as vexed as the Murray-Darling Basin.

To try to single out just one person from all the individuals and say that they are somehow destroying collegiateness with regard to the operation of a Senate committee I think is grossly unfair. If no-one else is going to speak on this, I will seek leave to continue my remarks later, to enable Senator Hanson-Young to respond at some stage. To suggest that she doesn't care enough because she is not here—how many people normally turn up on a Thursday afternoon to talk to committee reports, except for me?

Senator Sterle interjecting—

Senator Sterle does occasionally; I will give you that. Many of these reports are tabled with barely a comment at all or they are reserved for other times for people to speak on, or people cover them in other contexts. We all know that. Half the time I have polite jibes from people from other parties about how much time I spend talking about various reports that get tabled here. I think it's a valuable thing to do, but I can appreciate that people have many demands on their time when it comes to what they do when they are in this place and they have many opportunities to put on the record their views and their concerns about a particular issue. Again, I would very much emphasise that Senator Hanson-Young has repeatedly, much to the irritation of the government, in particular, put on the record her views and her concerns about the Murray-Darling Basin. Clearly she gets under the skin of some on the government benches, in particular—