Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion which would allow Senator Sarah Hanson-Young to explain to the Senate for five minutes her contact with the Commonwealth Ombudsman and questions at Senate estimates arising therefrom.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion to allow Senator Sarah Hanson-Young to explain to the Senate for five minutes her contact with the Commonwealth Ombudsman and questions at Senate estimates arising therefrom.

In moving this motion, let me say it has been well accepted practice that people will from time to time have contact with witnesses that appear before Senate estimates. That is accepted practice. But what is unbelievable is the gross hypocrisy of the Australian Greens, because two years ago Senator Bob Brown, the Leader of the Australian Greens, said that if you do something like that you should have the decency to warn the committee, to tell the committee beforehand that you have had such contact. It is a bit like corporate donations, isn't it? Corporate donations are horrendous, they are bad and they corrupt the democratic process, unless the Greens are the beneficiaries of that donation. Similarly it seems that it is a corruption of the democratic process to have contact with a witness before Senate estimates unless you are a Greens senator. Then it is all okay.

The hypocrisy is rank, the hypocrisy is transparent, and the Australian people are finally waking up to how the Greens do their politics. It is deceptive, it is dishonest, it is duplicitous. It is exactly what the Greens represent in this place: one standard for everybody else and a completely different standard, or should I say no standards whatsoever, for the Australian Greens. That is why Senator Hanson-Young should come into this place, not so much to explain what she has done but to explain the rank hypocrisy of the Australian Greens as was displayed by the Leader and his deputy leader of the Australian Greens and indeed by the Australian Labor Party. It is so indicative that Senator Milne, who was more than willing to pontificate two years ago when a coalition senator found himself in that place, at the doorstop this morning said, 'Senator Brown and Senator Hanson-Young will be discussing that.' She did not want to talk about the rank hypocrisy. And we know why: because Senator Hanson-Young is challenging her for the deputy leadership of the Australian Greens. That is why she was not willing to defend Senator Hanson-Young, and of course you cannot defend the hypocrisy of the Australian Greens. The Australian people are slowly but surely waking up to this hypocrisy, this duplicity, this double standard—

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can talk about hypocrisy!

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Senator McEwen, we will continue to highlight hypocrisy and duplicity as shown by the Labor Party in going to an election saying no carbon tax and then conniving with the Greens to bring in a carbon tax. Unfortunately the Labor Party has caught the green disease. They think they can say one thing and then do something completely different. That is why I have warned the Labor Party time and time again that if you lie down with dogs you will get up with fleas. You have lain down with the Australian Greens and you now have the fleas of duplicity and betrayal of the Australian people on your fur. You know what? I hope the Australian people de-flea you very shortly. But they will also, hopefully, get rid of this government and allow sensible government and mature government to be restored to this country.

Back to the matter at hand. The Australian Greens and Senator Hanson-Young do need to explain to the Australian people why it is so outrageous, why it is so improper, for a coalition senator to have contact with a public servant prior to a Senate estimates hearing but it is all okay when an Australian Green does it. It is the hypocrisy, and that is what the Australian Greens stand for. It is hypocrisy writ large and we have seen it again. Of course, what was the only media outlet willing to really give it a good run? The Australianthe 'hate media', because any media outlet that exposes the duplicity, the hypocrisy and the dishonesty is labelled the hate media and threatened with an inquiry and threatened with licences.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senators on my left, Senator Bob Brown is entitled to be heard in silence.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. Yes, the rabble on your left do not know how to behave in this parliament and, as we have just seen from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Abetz, they can never get to a policy issue in the interests of the Australian people. It is always: aim at the person, throw the nasty epithets, put out the hate message which the hate media might take up, but do not get down to discussing the issues of the day for the Australian people.

On that issue, it was just yesterday that I had to go across and ask Senator Abetz to have removed from the Liberal Party website an epithet from the public regarding the Prime Minister which said, 'Shoot the f'ing b…'. That is the standard of the stuff we see on Liberal Party websites.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, you might think that is funny. Liberal senators might think that is funny; I think it is absolutely disgusting. I think you should be ashamed of yourselves. I think you should have a bit more control of the way some of the people who think your way act and behave. The fact that outside this parliament just yesterday we saw security guards removing supporters of this coalition after they had disrupted question time in the other place while down on the lawns in front orderly Australian citizens were putting forward a point in favour of action on climate change shows the difference between the extremists who back the Liberal Party and Senator Abetz and the decency of people who are concerned about issues and want them properly debated in this place.

The Australian's front-page story today has come out of a committee release which was a result of questions put by Senator Crossin, and I have this question to ask of those opposite: don't they want information coming out? Is it the case that the Ombudsman and the information coming from the Ombudsman should not be on the public record? Is it the quest of the opposition to suppress such information? I find it more than passing strange that the Australian today did not run the fact, from our press release yesterday, that I asked questions of the Ombudsman which were instigated by the Ombudsman's office because the answers to those questions should be on the public record.

Of course, we have the ABC coat-tailing on the Australian today on a press release yesterday that they missed. I and Sarah Hanson-Young and my Greens team are very happy to be on the side of getting information out into the public and defending the Ombudsman's office. It is, after all, not something that ministers on either side happen to like. The Ombudsman is there as the watchdog of the public interest, and ministers do not like that—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, you're a hypocrite. You're a fraud and a hypocrite.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and nor does the member opposite, on behalf of the Liberals, interjecting in this debate 'fraud and hypocrite'.

What a level of debate we are seeing from this incompetent opposition, hurting from losing yesterday's vote in the House of Representatives! They know that a massive change in the politics of this country occurred yesterday and will be followed up in this Senate in a couple of weeks time. We have a Leader of the Opposition who has made a 'pledge in blood' which he cannot and will not keep. So you would expect when you have people who are losing an argument on a monumental issue like climate change that they will go for the person, not the issue. Well, bring it on, because we will give you the public rebuttal you deserve.

What is happening here is that the opposition are trying to prevent debate on important matters in private members' time, which is about to come up. They will not succeed.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We all seem to enjoy a bit of sport in this place sometimes. I think in this instance this is rank hypocrisy from the opposition in relation to this.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You reported me to the Privileges Committee for a matter like this.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened to you in silence and I would ask you to respond in kind. You come in here without notice, without the courtesy of telling the Manager of Government Business in the Senate that you are going to undertake this work. If you want to talk about rank hypocrisy then I think it is reasonable to say that if you do want to undertake—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who are you addressing?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the opposition—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Mr Deputy President: I have suffered a lecture from the Manager—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order, Senator Abetz.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point of order is that the Manager of Government Business is trying to tell us how to abide by the procedures—

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

it is; just hear me out—of this place and one of the most fundamental of them all is that you address your comments through the chair and not directly at senators.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The substance of the point of order is that all senators should direct their comments through the chair. Senator Ludwig, you have the call.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In my response, Mr Deputy President, that is precisely what I was doing. I used the term, Mr Deputy President, because Senator Abetz has come in here without notice and moved a motion to take away the opportunity for this Senate to deal with private senators' business, to deal with legislation. Of course, Senator Abetz has also removed the opportunity—which Senator Abetz has named himself—for an explanation, because there are many ways in which this may be dealt with other than by upsetting this Senate through a procedural motion to direct a specific senator to undertake a particular task. That is a ridiculous position to put any senator in. There are many opportunities to have the Senate deal with this issue. As Senator Abetz indicated, one avenue is privilege. Senator Abetz would understand that, having had—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, senators!

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And the opposition should let me get to that point, but they cannot. They want to continue to shout and complain. If they had listened to me in the first place, I would have gone on to say that Senator Abetz did face up to the issue, did face up to Privileges, did explain his position and did take the proper course in all of that. The Godwin Grech issue was not something that anyone would be proud of in this place, but Senator Abetz did face the music in respect of that matter—and we did not, from the position of opposition or from government, undertake this particular task. We gave senators an opportunity to respond in this place or referred them or used the procedures in this place to deal with it rather than walking in here without notice and using this opportunity as a stunt to run a couple of arguments.

It was not only the argument in relation to the substantive matter that you are seeking to suspend standing orders over; you then tied in your complete negativity in relation to the clean energy bills. You just want to come in here and say no. All that Mr Abbott wants to do in relation to that legislation is say no. What the opposition are doing is rank hypocrisy—to come in here and undertake this task without giving the Senate an opportunity to deal with it in the usual way. You want to simply rerun your hatred of and pathological difficulties with the Greens from the opposition, it appears. That is all it seems to be and what you simply want to do.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So you don't have a dislike of the Greens; that's interesting.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not a personal one. We differ on policy. We differ on a range of matters. And you would see that come through in many of the debates that we have opposed in relation to the Greens' policy or the opposition's policy. But we do not take a personal view, which is what seems to be reflected in this motion. We do not take a personal view. Why? Because senators in this place have a responsibility at first principles. You have not allowed that to occur and you should. You should take that position rather than sneak in here without notice and throw a motion on the table, because that is in effect what you have done. (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sadly, I come to this motion today. I should be shocked by it. I should be shocked by the hypocrisy shown by the Greens. But my experience with them over a decade plus shows that one cannot be shocked by it. Yesterday we saw the constant application of the gag and the guillotine. The party in the corner of this chamber preaches but does not act. It is like an American television evangelist in the 1980s. It comes in here—I very soon expect to see tears and I am sorry if they find themselves on the other side of the chamber.

Senator Brown and the Greens have never shown a willingness to measure themselves by the same standards they measure everyone else by. If it is about donations, apparently corporate donations are evil, except if they are in the largest donation in history, received by Senator Brown. If it is about the gag—it is okay if rich people give you money, Senator Brown, is it? It is not okay if small businesses give a bit of money to someone. It is okay, just like it is with the media. Those who write things you like, those who support the green agenda, you do not subject to scrutiny.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left!

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. You have ruled that Senator Ludwig must address the chair. I think this senator should follow the same rule.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I did earlier, I remind all senators to address their remarks to the chair.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, my apologies. Quite correct: I will address my remarks through the chair. But I have to disagree with the comments of my leader on this when he described the fleas that are on the Labor dog right across the country, because I think it is more like a tick. A tick is a true parasite. It sinks its teeth into something and then tries to suck it dry. What we have with the alliance we are seeing opposite, which prevents issues like this being discussed, is an alliance where not only is the tail wagging the dog but the tick is sucking the life out of a once-great party—and they have to stand here and defend them. They have to stand here and not subject the people to the same standards that they wish to subject the other side of this chamber to.

When we had heads of state in this parliament, the leaders of our closest allies, we saw a student-like protest in the House of Representatives chamber. Are you proud—

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just like this; just like what you're doing now.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection, Senator McLucas. Are you proud that you have to work with these people? I bet you are not. I bet you are not, just like most people on your side. Because when the President of the United States was here, Senator McLucas—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through the chair.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, when the President of the United States was here, it was like watching a student protest on television as the leftovers from the Vietnam marches of the 1960s suddenly lived out their baby boomer dreams and tried to disrupt a joint sitting of the parliament for a foreign head of state. That was a low point, Mr Deputy President, an absolute low point.

What we see from the Greens is a history of deception, duplicity and double standards. They are a group of people, a party, that talk about freedom of speech yet actually want to have an inquiry into the media, and they openly attack some private newspapers as the 'hate media'. Why do they do that? Why are those journals attacked? They are attacked because of the issue of being subjected to scrutiny. We have seen supporters of the Greens challenge television journalists and launch GetUp! campaigns because someone was not questioned in a nice way on what used to be the 'Greens Broadcasting Corporation'. How dare someone on the 'Greens Broadcasting Corporation' occasionally question them! What we are seeing right through this chamber—and I have been here for only just over three years—is a pattern of duplicity, deception and double standards.

All the opposition is asking is that Senator Hanson-Young have the opportunity to live up to the standards set by her leader—nothing less and nothing more. The modern-day Inquisition that is the Greens party is one where if you do not like the Greens they will subject you to a government media inquiry, where if you do not like the Greens they will set the mob upon you. We know the antecedents of the Greens party. We know what their supporters are like when they see people that we do not like. We were all opposed to the messages of Pauline Hanson, but it was not members of this side who were throwing urine bombs; it was not members of this side trying to blockade public meetings of people they do not like. We challenged their ideas, but the Greens seek to shut down debate. Today, just like we are seeing in the media, just like we have seen with the gag, just like we have seen with the guillotine and just like we have seen with their behaviour when foreign heads of state visit this chamber, we see nothing less than complete duplicity. The tick that is the Greens is sucking the Labor Party dry, and it is sad to see them not even willing to subject the Greens to some basic scrutiny.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would be very difficult for people listening to this debate to know what the question before the chair is. I would like to take people away from a torrent of personal abuse and back to the substantive matter under debate here, which concerns a number of emails that were pasted on the committee website. They were there the night before last, but the coalition apparently had not seen them, even though they have members on that committee, and did not recognise that there was anything substantive to do something about. They had to wait for the lead from the Australian before they realised there was a story here to pursue. So, a day and a half after the matter appeared on the committee website we now have the matter at hand. The real issue is that if you look at the emails—there were more than 150 emails there—the story with the overwhelming majority of them is the attempt by the government to influence the Ombudsman. Some of those emails from a minister's office were actively criticising the Ombudsman, saying that they were not happy with the way the Ombudsman was speaking out on several issues et cetera. That is the issue here: an attempt by a minister's office to influence and silence and call on the Ombudsman to reign in his remarks and actions in the public arena.

There is also the issue of whether the Ombudsman is well-enough funded to conduct the inquiries that the Ombudsman thinks is an appropriate thing to do. Surely, that is something the community needs to think about. The matters at hand are whether we do want to have a strong Ombudsman's role and whether we do want to have an Ombudsman who is not afraid to speak out and wants to have the money to fund the inquiries that he or she thinks are appropriate. As a house of parliament what we should be looking at is (a) the ministerial response to the Ombudsman and (b) the adequate funding or otherwise of the Ombudsman.

I can understand that the coalition is not coping with the fact that they are now so far on the back foot they are about to fall over backwards. They are about to fall over backwards about carbon pricing in Australia because we have a situation now where the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Tony Abbott, has backed himself so far into a corner with his totally over-the-top remarks about his 'blood oath'. One wonders whether he will next descend to a tattoo. That is about the level of engagement we have had from the Leader of the Opposition.

The issue is that the Leader of the Opposition will be out there saying that he will repeal the bills, but in fact that is the next great big lie of Australian politics. He will not repeal these bills, and he knows he is not going to be able to do so. It will be interesting to see how he is going to weasel out of his commitment over the next couple of years, or whether it is even tenable for the coalition to go into the next election with him as leader, if he cannot weasel himself out of the box he has put himself into. The reason for this is that business is going to back this in. I can tell you that now. Business is going to back in this carbon price. When that starts to happen, where is the coalition going to go for a constituency? Business is not going to want the investment they make in carbon permits rendered valueless after they have had to put millions into buying them. And that is not to mention reducing the tax-free threshold and the increased compensation. We are going to have a situation now, and we have all been watching with interest— (Time expired)

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an absolute show of hypocrisy from that side of the chamber from the holier-than-thou Greens. We have sat on this side of the chamber, colleagues, for years and years and years listening to Senator Bob Brown railing about how we had to have honesty in this chamber, how we had to have opportunity for free speech and how we had to be accountable. Well, all that this motion does today is ask for similar treatment for the Greens, as was expected of our side of the chamber. I think, colleagues, that is an entirely fair thing. I think anybody in the community would think that was an entirely fair thing—and we finally have Senator Sarah Hanson-Young join us in the chamber. I understand that she will not have an opportunity to speak, so good timing! So we have got silent Sarah, we have got squibbing Sarah, we have got squirrelled away Sarah, who has turned up now to make it look good, so she is in the chamber.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Nash, you have to refer to Senator Hanson-Young by her correct title. Senator Milne, did you have a point of order?

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, thank you. The point of order was precisely in the rules of debate—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have ruled on that, Senator Milne.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

personal reflection is unacceptable.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Senator Nash, you have the call.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So—Senator Hanson-Young, who is silent; Senator Hanson-Young, who is squibbing; Senator Hanson-Young, who has been squirrelled away; Senator Hanson-Young, who wants to have a shot at the deputy leadership. But this is extraordinary, given the hypocrisy. What we have is the Greens, who have one standard for themselves and one standard for everybody else. They have one rule for themselves and one rule for everybody else. What is really interesting, colleagues, is they have always had that. They have always had that, but it is just that now we have this cobbled together Greens-Independents-Labor government there is finally some scrutiny from out there in the community and from the media of what the Greens are actually doing.

Senator Bob Brown interjecting—

Jump on in if you like, Senator Brown, because goodness knows what you said before did not make a lot of sense—very, very touchy. What we need to see is some equity here. Isn't it interesting that the minute anybody in the media actually questions what the Greens are doing all of a sudden it is the 'hate media'? It cannot possibly be a balanced inquiry about what the Greens are actually doing on an issue. No, it is the 'hate media', because there is no way in the world that the Greens could possibly be wrong on anything, apparently, according to the Greens. According to the Greens, they are correct on everything and God forbid that anybody should question what they are doing. Isn't the timing interesting, colleagues, as to the moment Senator Hanson-Young arrived? So we have seen this morning the Leader of the Greens and the current Deputy Leader of the Greens protecting their senator, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, because I reckon it is not very far from Senator Hanson-Young's office to the chamber. I am pretty close to her and I reckon I could do it in about 20 seconds or so. But, no, Senator Hanson-Young arrived in time not to speak. Normally we try to arrive in this chamber in time to speak. Normally it is a bit of a rush. Normally we have to fly. Normally we have to dash in here by the skin of our teeth to get in here to speak. Senator Hanson-Young is the only senator I have ever seen arrive in time not to speak. It is extraordinary, when we have given Senator Hanson-Young the opportunity this morning to have her say. All we have said is about the opportunity for Senator Hanson-Young to respond, which is only right and fair, and yet she had to hide behind her leader and her current deputy leader and swan in and sit down like a good little girl. Perhaps Senator Brown actually gave her a call and said, 'Leave your office now.' What we have seen from this side of the chamber is absolute hypocrisy. When we saw yesterday Senator Siewert stand up and talk about the coalition guillotining in the past, given that we had a guillotine yesterday—

Opposition senators: No, five!

Thank you, there were five. The ultimate hypocrisy is why yesterday Senator Siewert did not take it up with the government for guillotining. Why on earth was she talking about us guillotining? If she and the Greens were so concerned about a guillotine, they should have taken it up with their coalition partners, the Labor Party senators over there—the Labor government. They were the ones that put the guillotine on, not us. This is the hypocrisy and the complete lack of principle that we have seen from the Greens yesterday and in previous times and it is only now that finally it is starting to get out there among the public that the Greens are nothing but a party of hypocrisy with one rule for themselves and one rule for everybody else. Question put:

That the motion (Senator Abetz's) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [10:08]

(The President—Senator Hogg)

Senator Feeney did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Coonan.

Question negatived.