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

I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me making a statement.

Mr President, I do that because what we have now before the Senate is a request, which you have granted, from Senator Abetz via Senator Kroger—which of course mentions Senator Milne on the way—to have me referred to the Committee of Privileges regarding a donation which came to the Australian Greens, and which I have stated on the public record was in no way an influence on me or a donation to me as a person. And then consequent to that were matters raised regarding the Triabunna woodchip mill sale five months ago.

The President has ruled that the donation is a matter which should be examined by the Committee of Privileges and that a matter having been raised five months ago makes it a further matter that should be examined by the Committee of Privileges. However, in the case of Senator Boswell, a donation directly to him, on the record, which was 12 months ago, does not receive the same ruling from the President. Here we have a President who is making contradictory rulings when it comes to a National Party senator as against a Greens senator. What we have in the President's ruling—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order on the basis of that being a reflection on a decision of the President.

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

I do not think there is a point of order, Senator Macdonald. Senator Brown, you have the call.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. What we have is a double standard coming from the chair—

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

The members opposite do not like that, but the reality is—and let me make this very clear—that we now have a ruling from the chair, directed at me, regarding a donation and a consequent referral to matters in the Senate, which does not apply, according to the President, to Senator Boswell or to a series of other senators who have gained monetary advantage or sought donations and then, in this Senate, prosecuted a case which was in favour, potentially or directly or indirectly, of the donors. So what we have is the Committee of Privileges, which has a time-honoured non-political role in protecting privilege in this place, being politicised by these contrary decisions from the chair.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order on two grounds: firstly, on the ground of reflection on the chair; and, secondly, on the ground of direct relevance. Senator Brown moved a motion of dissent from the chair, which is to be debated on the next day of sitting. The content of Senator Brown's contribution at present, though, is all about his dissent from the chair and nothing about the motion that he sought to make a short statement on and certainly nothing about the suspension of standing orders.

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

Senator Birmingham, there is no point of order. As in the past, these debates have ranged fairly wide and that has been accepted practice. Senator Brown, you have the call.

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

You are absolutely right, Mr Deputy President. What we have here is a situation in which there is a difference in ruling in very similar cases—and it must go challenged. Otherwise, every senator, including those who have shares—for example, in coalmining corporations—and who have a direct pecuniary benefit flowing from those shares ought not have spoken on the mining tax legislation before this Senate in the last week or ought not have spoken on the matter of the carbon so-called 'tax'—the carbon trading scheme legislation—in recent weeks. The chair has to be very clear about this, because the chair has blocked my application for Senator Boswell's case to be looked at by the Committee of Privileges while fostering Senator Kroger's application to have—

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

Senator Brown, you are going very close to reflecting upon the President.

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

Yes, but I am not.

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

I am just warning you, Senator Brown.

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

Mr Deputy President, I simply must put this case before the Senate. Let me be clear about the second matter, which was when Senator Kroger put the reference for me to the committee to the chair, she was informed an hour and a half before that statement was made by the President. Members of the Press Gallery from the Murdoch press were in the gallery then, but we were not told about it. I ask you: is it not a matter of privilege that senators should be left in the situation where the President does not inform them that they are victims of a proposal to go to the privileges committee but the press gets to know about it? That cannot be allowed to stand. That is an infringement of the rights of members of this Senate to be able to freely know that they are not going to be ambushed by the actions, or by the failure to act, of the chair. This is a serious matter; it should go to— (Time expired)

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I indicate on behalf of the government that we will not be supporting the motion for the suspension of standing orders. The President made his ruling regarding the precedence of the matter that Senator Bob Brown referred to him regarding Senator Boswell. He refused it precedence, which is a decision that is his alone to make. It is also perfectly appropriate for Senator Brown to disagree with that ruling and to give notice of his disagreement, which he has done—and that will come before the chamber on the next day sitting, as is the normal process. So the proper processes are being followed. The Senate will get a chance to consider Senator Brown's motion on the next day of sitting, and senators will be able to make a judgment as to those matters and whether or not they support his attempt to have that matter referred to the Privileges Committee.

The government support that proper process without expressing any view on the matters contained in the submission from Senator Brown to the President. I have not read it. We make no commentary on that. The President has exercised his duties and we support the President in following the proper process. I will say, though, that I absolutely reject the suggestion that the President has acted somehow in a partisan way. The President is meticulous about following proper process and trying to give fair treatment to all senators. I do not for one minute accept that his motives or his actions in this matter have been anything other than seeking the advice of the clerks and following the proper process, and I am absolutely confident that that is the case. I think the President and his deputy, Senator Parry, always do their best to reflect the best practices of the Senate and treat all senators equally and make fair and appropriate rulings. So I reject the suggestions in Senator Brown's contribution that call into question the President's motives in this matter. The President has taken advice and made his ruling. Senator Brown disagrees with that, which is his right. The Senate will get to consider that on the next day of sitting. That is the way it should be.

The government will therefore oppose the suspension of standing orders. But I reiterate that we do not accept in any way the criticisms made of the President and I think he has acted perfectly appropriately on this occasion. The merits of the case Senator Brown puts will be considered by the Senate at the appropriate time.

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

We are witnessing another display of pecksniffian petulance from Senator Bob Brown. If he had not voted to cancel parliament on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday next week, he would have been able to debate this motion come Monday. But of course he is hoist with his own petard by the fact that he now has to wait until next year.

This wilful and tawdry attempt to defame Senator Boswell is one of the most shameful attempts I have witnessed in my 17 years in this place. Senator Boswell would have to be one of the most honourable and decent senators in this place, and the President himself outlined the huge number of steps that Senator Boswell took. A well-known champion of small business, Senator Boswell seeks to look after them to the very best of his ability and, might I add, he is pretty effective at doing it. Because he is such a decent and honest man, he disclosed exactly what had occurred, that Metcash was supportive of the National Party et cetera. Might I add, he did not handle the money, unlike another senator. But here we have a classic example of somebody wanting to remove a speck of a donation from somebody else's eye when they have a boulder of $1.6 million in donations in their own eye. That is what Senator Bob Brown cannot overcome. The President made a clear and strong ruling against Senator Brown in relation to his donation that he personally sought to negotiate and obtain, and Senator Brown's attempt to get the same ruling applied to Senator Boswell's situation—which was clearly an immature tit-for-tat effort—failed. It fell flat, and now we have this display of petulance.

Let me just make another point. Senator Bob Brown talks about double standards. Well, try this on for size: he moved his notice of motion about the Privileges Committee and said the committee was in danger of politicisation by slap-wrist style references such as Senator Kroger's. Well, guess what? He is out there in the media saying, 'I voted for the reference to the Privileges Committee. We have nothing to hide. It'll be thrown out.' That is out of one side of his mouth. Then, out of the other side of his mouth, he says the whole committee of privileges system is endangered by these types of efforts! Then why did you vote for it? Why did you vote for it? You cannot have it both ways. But that is Senator Brown's political epitaph: he always wants it both ways. He wants a $30,000 donation to be treated as something outrageous, yet he has a $1.6 million donation that he himself has not been able to fully explain. He has asked questions about this matter in the parliament, on behalf of somebody who has given him money, without disclosing that prior to asking those questions. They are the matters that the Privileges Committee, in due course, will need to look at.

This matter in relation to Senator Boswell dates back some 12 months. So why raise it today? Because it is an immature little tit-for-tat tactic against the coalition for having put together a substantial case against Senator Bob Brown which the President found himself having to rule in favour of to give it precedence. So Senator Brown rushes to his office, digs into the archives, rushes out a motion and the President rules against him. What does he do? He wants to move dissent. Then when that doesn't work he wants to move another motion. I simply say, in the spirit of Christmas, Senator Brown, that this place is not about you; it is about serving the people of Australia and I suggest you get on with it. We as a coalition will be opposing the suspension.

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

I rise this afternoon to support the motion that standing orders be suspended so that the motion may be dealt with now. The reason for that is we need to take a very serious look at what is going on here. There has been a very clear attempt by Senator Abetz through this process to effectively put in place a SLAPP writ, which will stand over the next few months unanswered so that Senator Abetz can do as he did this morning: get on ABC radio in Tasmania and put this out as far and wide as he can. As for a notion about the spirit of Christmas, this has been a carefully planned SLAPP suit, effectively, from Senator Abetz on the last day of sitting. This matter of the sale of the woodchip mill is five months old. Why is it that it has taken Senator Abetz this long to spend so much time getting everything that is already on the public record? He has no case to answer.

The interesting difference is that had the President asked for any kind of explanation he would have discovered that Senator Brown, on the public record—which was not presented by Senator Kroger in her dossier—made a very clear explanation as to the donation that was made to the Australian Greens, whereas for the matter in relation to Senator Boswell the explanation did not come until after the whole thing was made public, and that is when the response came in here. But that is beside the point that I want to make here.

In relation to procedural fairness, I heard what Senator Evans had to say, but the fact of the matter is Senator Kroger was informed 1½ hours before the President made his statement that he intended to do so. A journalist was notified by somebody, and maybe Senator Kroger would like to explain how that occurred if the President did not allow that to come specifically into the gallery for that particular notice. What is more, having informed Senator Kroger this would occur, neither Senator Brown nor myself were informed by the President that he intended to make a statement in which we would be named.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

This is the problem with the conservatives. They cannot stand to listen to someone without interjecting. I am just trying to make the point—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, on a point of order: it looked as though Senator Di Natale was trying to film the chamber on his BlackBerry.

Senator Di Natale interjecting—

Maybe he wasn't, but that is certainly how it appeared.

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

Senator Fifield, thank you for that notation but Senator Di Natale has assured us he has not been taking photographs, and senators know that it is not appropriate.

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

The Senate really needs to think about the fact that we have a Senate chamber of which we should all be proud. It is a real privilege to serve the Australian community in our capacity as senators. However, what we have witnessed in the last few weeks is a level of personal abuse, nastiness and hatred that I have not witnessed in all the years that I have been in the Senate. I have never known the level of personal vitriol that has come across this chamber. There have been many occasions when senators could have, from the other side of the chamber, responded but have chosen not to and have risen above it.

What we have ended up with at the end of the year is a SLAPP suit from Senator Abetz, delivered by Senator Kroger, designed for a political outcome. It is unjust and is, in a serious way, compromising the whole process of privilege. As the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry said a little while ago, 'The Privileges Committee is an incredibly serious thing,' and all we have had since then is an attempt by several senators—ranging from Senator Bernardi to Senator Macdonald to Senator Abetz—to get up in all of their speeches and use this opportunity to maintain a public case. It is wrong and unjust. (Time expired)

Question put:

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

The Senate divided. [16:32]

(The President—Senator Hogg)

Question negatived.