Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate notes the reflections of the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Bob Brown) on the President of the Senate, the Prime Minister (Ms Gillard), the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Ludwig), Senator Boswell, the Leader of The Nationals in the Senate (Senator Joyce) and Senator Cash.

I rise to contribute to the debate on this motion. It is a very serious motion, and at the outset I wish to point out that I will not be canvassing the material from Senator Kroger, which the Senate has referred to its Privileges Committee, in relation to Senator Bob Brown. Suffice it to say that Senator Kroger has argued:

… it is necessary for the Senate to be protected from the corrupting influence of a senator negotiating a $1.6 million corporate donation for their party, which has led to questions being asked, points of order taken, and votes being cast in the interests of the donor.

What concerns me today—hence the motion that we are now debating—is Senator Brown's behaviour since this reference and, in particular, his indiscriminate attacks on the President of the Senate, the Prime Minister, Senator Ludwig, Senator Boswell, Senator Joyce and me.

Senator Brown's reaction to the passage of Senator Kroger's motion referring him to the Privileges Committee was to give notice of a motion censoring the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Ludwig, over the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement. Senator Ludwig was, of course, at that time the Manager of Government Business in the Senate. I believe that the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Evans, probably talked Senator Brown out of this attack on the Greens' alliance partner, as Senator Brown withdrew his notice of motion. However, Senator Brown, whilst obviously admonished, was undeterred. Two days later he gave notice of a similar motion calling on Senator Ludwig to report on the failure of the Prime Minister to uphold the Tasmanian Forests IGA. He then gave notice of another highly disrespectful—indeed, one might say pitiful—motion suggesting that the President had allowed the Privileges Committee to be politicised by giving precedence to a SLAPP-writ-style reference from Senator Kroger. SLAPP stands for 'strategic lawsuit against public participa­tion'. However, consistently with so much of what Senator Brown does, I have no idea what relevance this could possibly have to a Privileges Committee reference.

But it did not end there. Senator Brown's deliberate and completely unfounded assault on the integrity of other members of the Senate continued. On the last day of the Senate sittings we learned that, in a tit-for-tat exercise, Senator Brown had concocted a charge against the father of the Senate, Senator Boswell, and had written to the President of the Senate asking that he give precedence to a motion to refer his allegations—which are no more than deliberate slurs against Senator Boswell—to the Privileges Committee. Anyone in this place who has served with Senator Boswell would agree that he, above all of us here, is a man of principle and integrity and does not have a corrupt bone in his body. Being a man of principle, despite being deliberately and unfairly targeted by the Australian Greens, he will not be silenced or deterred in his fight against the anti-Semitic boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign being spearheaded by Senator Rhiannon.

The President quite rightly rejected Senator Brown's request. Senator Brown, of course, refused to accept the ruling of the President, moved a motion of dissent and then turned his attack on the President of the Senate. A considered person would have taken the time over the parliamentary recess to consider their ill-informed behaviour. Senator Brown did not do this. What we have witnessed this week, the first sitting week of 2012, was a continued and sustained attack on the President of the Senate, with Senator Brown accusing Senator Hogg of bias, of a remarkable error of judgment, of a failure of presidential prudence, of a double standard, of facilitating an ambush on Senator Milne and him, and of a disgraceful detriment to the Senate's tradition of fairness. This was not only unwarranted but an unprecedented attack on the President of the Senate which could not pass unanswered.

Sadly, Senator Brown's childish behaviour does not end there. Over the parliamentary recess, Senator Brown continued his petulant attack and turned on the Prime Minister over the Tasmanian IGA by unilaterally breaking off his weekly meetings with her—weekly meetings which, I note, are a condition of the Labor-Greens agreement. Then, as senators resumed this year, we discovered that Senator Brown had also written to the President in relation to Senator Joyce and me with more trumped-up charges that he wanted brought before the Privileges Committee. Unsurprisingly, the President determined that they should not be given precedence. The fact that these are trumped-up charges was admitted by Senator Brown yesterday in a statement to the Senate, when he said in relation to the President's ruling:

I think your decision to effectively reject my application in the matters regarding Senator Boswell, Senator Cash and Senator Joyce was correct.

Yet, despite this admission in the Senate yesterday, Senator Brown continues to waste the time of the Senate and continues to treat the Australian people with contempt. He has now put on the Notice Paper notices of motion in relation to these matters, matters that Senator Brown himself has admitted that the President was right to dismiss.

Senator Brown's statement and his ensuing actions confirm that Senator Brown sees himself as the leader of an elitist party with no regard for the practices or procedures of the Senate or, indeed, the parliament and, ultimately, has contempt for the Australian people. However, whilst it may well be disappointing to so many of us that a political party leader would use the Senate in this childish manner, it is hardly surprising. I am, however, like so many others, amazed that the other Greens' senators put up with such erratic behaviour from their leader. Clearly, Senator Brown's actions in lashing out at everyone in a scattergun approach is an attempt to distract attention from his own predicament. We know that some members of the Greens are onto this and believe that Senator Brown is out of control. To quote from the Monthly's feature on the rift in the Greens:

Members of the old guard have been heard referring to Brown as a 'megalomaniac'.

Senator Brown's behaviour, as I have outlined, is surely an example of this personality trait. We see motions and privileges references from someone with no real insight into why people believe that he behaved corruptly and who is lashing out at anyone and everyone in an attempt to justify himself and his own diminishing relevance.

We all know why Senator Brown's relevance and his grip on the Australian Greens is diminishing: because Senator Rhiannon is consciously and deliberately undermining Senator Brown's leadership. While Kevin Rudd has been white-anting Ms Gillard, Senator Rhiannon has been red-anting Senator Brown on this very issue. This started last year, when Senator Rhiannon's Democracy4$ale website featured criticisms of the Graeme Wood donation and reported allegations of Senator Brown's conflict of interest in relation to the Triabunna mill sale.

Since November, after Senator Brown was referred to the Privileges Committee for investigation over this matter, Senator Rhiannon's harping about the evils of corporate donations, particularly from property developers, has reached fever pitch. To quote a report from the Australian:

Angry Greens believe Senator Rhiannon set out to embarrass her leader over the privileges reference with a string of media releases and press conferences over donations and a notice of motion on lobbyists as the Senate vote loomed and in its aftermath … 'It's too much of a coincidence,' one Greens insider insisted.

I'll say it is! Now Senator Rhiannon's criticism has become explicit. In the current issue of the Monthly, featuring the rift in the Greens, Senator Rhiannon is quoted as saying this about the almost $1.7 million donation to the Greens negotiated by Senator Brown with Wotif founder, Graeme Wood:

We—

the New South Wales Greens—

would have considered that a large donation from one person—considering we have worked very hard and in some ways we have led the campaign around political donations—may not have been wise for us.

It is no wonder that Greens insiders believe Senator Rhiannon is deliberately undermin­ing Senator Brown's leadership. What she is saying to Senator Brown, to her colleagues and to the Greens membership, is that Senator Brown was unwise to take the donation from Mr Wood and that, had Senator Rhiannon been in the same position, she would not have.

As each day goes past, the Australian people are recognising that the Australian Greens are a party of contradictions. On the one hand they garner votes by pretending to be a cuddly party of tree huggers who are holier than thou in their approach to their finances and policies, whilst on the other hand they harvest massive political donations which they attempt to hide from the public. The Greens holier-than-thou claim that they cannot be bought is put to rest when you look at some of the political donations that they themselves have received. Corporate donations are horrendous. They are bad and they corrupt the democratic process—unless, of course, the Australian Greens are the beneficiaries of that donation. Absolute hypocrisy. The Australian people are waking up to the way that the Australian Greens operate and their gross hypocrisy. Led by Senator Bob Brown, their actions show them to be deceptive, dishonest and duplicitous. The Greens' hypocrisy is rank.

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order—two matters that might help guide the senator. One is that a matter has been put to the Privileges Committee and she should not trespass on that. The other is that there are standing orders about reflecting on honour­able members in this place. Senator Cash is new here, but she might read that standing order.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, I accept that those points should be considered; I have the standing orders in front of me. This debate will ride very close to the standing orders all the way through by nature of the content. There is a matter before the Privileges Committee, and I know all senators are aware of that. I will continue to listen very closely, Senator Brown. I am aware of the sensitivities, but my ruling is that it has not gone too far beyond normal debate at this point. I draw senators' attention to the issue of the Privileges Committee.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The hypocrisy of the Greens is rank and transparent, and the Australian people are finally waking up to how the Greens do their politics in Australia—it is deceptive, it is dishonest and it is duplicitous.

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, on the matter of calumny: it is not allowed in this place to use epithets such as 'dishonest' against honourable members by using a class or generic term such as 'the Greens'. I ask you to look at that matter, Madam Acting Deputy President, and, if you do not care to judge it now, to ask the President to rule on it.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, I will do that. My understanding, though, is that such terms have been regularly used in this place and that therefore there is considerable precedent. Direct imputation cannot be used; however, at this stage it is general. I will seek a ruling—I think that is appropriate—and I ask Senator Cash to be aware of that as she continues her contribution.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is exactly what the Australian Greens represent in this place: one standard for everybody else and a completely different standard—or is it rather absolutely no standards?—for the Australian Greens.

I say to Senator Bob Brown: withdraw your criticisms of the President of the Senate; apologise to him and apologise to Senator Ludwig; stop scapegoating the Prime Minister of Australia for your own predica­ment; and then remove your trumped up notices of motion against Senator Boswell, Senator Joyce and me from the Notice Paper. I do not expect an apology from Senator Brown, but I do think that Senator Bob Brown should think very carefully about apologising to both Senator Joyce and Senator Boswell.

I finish with a question to Senator Bob Brown. Last week it was revealed that Mr Wood's almost $1.7 million donation to the Australian Greens, which we know funded the Australian Greens' advertising campaign, was in kind; I ask Senator Brown whether or not Mr Wood received any benefit for that donation?

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

Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, that is clearly trespassing on a matter which the honourable senator's party put before the Privileges Committee via the President. Senator Cash does not know or understand the rules, even with Senator Abetz sitting behind her—though he is unable to advise her—but she should be asked to desist from breaching standing orders.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, you make a valid point, and I draw Senator Cash's attention to it. The Senate has referred the issue to the Privileges Committee, and the issue is before it.

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

How ignominious it is that Senator Cash ended by breaching the rules which she came in here to say should be upheld and that she did so in such a way that Senator Abetz has now fled the chamber. It is quite extraordinary.

Senator Cash's motion was debated at great length in the chamber just the day before yesterday, and Senator Cash took no role in it—she had no contribution to make. But today, no doubt aided and abetted by people who have more influence on the opposition then she does, she has brought forward this motion and made quite a hash of trying to substantiate any point in it. It is, of course, a motion to discuss personalities and politics rather than anything germane to or with any impact on the electorate. Therefore, to raise the level of debate from where Senator Cash began it, I intend to move that her motion be amended so that the following words are inserted after 'Senator Cash':

but considers the call from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Abbott) to debate Australia's economy, and his proposals which would lead to a $70 billion deficit and extensive job losses, as a more appropriate matter for debate in the Opposition's private senators' time.

The honourable Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, began the week saying 'bring it on'—he wanted to discuss the economy. However, I understand from news reports that he has not been able to do that in the House. Here we have a sterling opportunity to have a debate about the economy, and Senator Cash crashes right across it with this very petty and pretty poor motion, thereby using up the opposition's own private senators' time. Any reader of the Hansard is going to wonder what on earth has happened to this opposition. Senator Cash has only two colleagues in here out of the whole lot of them—there is nobody in here to listen to the debate. According to the opposition, the time allotted to debate this notice of motion is an opportunity to waste time. But as far as the Greens are concerned it is an important opportunity to talk about issues which the electorate is interested in reflecting upon. My proposed amendment to the motion is currently being circulated amongst members so that they can see the merit in it and, hopefully, vote for it so that at the end of the day a substantial motion, rather than the frivolous one Senator Cash brought before the chamber, is passed.

When, as we moved halfway through this period of government, Mr Robb, the honour­able shadow finance minister, revealed that there was a $70 billion deficit in the opposition's policies, there was a fair amount of shock. I was among those who were shocked; I had had the excellent economist in my own Greens policy unit look at the opposition's policies, and the report had come back to me saying that, in the assess­ment of the economist, there was a $70 billion deficit in what the opposition was putting forward. I am loath to admit this, because I know how vulnerable one is to any admission in parliament, but I said to my policy unit: 'Look, that's incredible; the public won't believe that. Can you come back with a more modest deficit in the opposition policy?' They were working on that at the time Mr Robb came out and confirmed that the economists were correct. This opposition says, 'Put us into office and we'll give you a $70 billion deficit.' Mr Hockey said that the coalition faced the task of finding $50 billion, $60 billion or $70 billion and Mr Robb again confirmed that $70 billion was 'the order of magnitude' as recently as November. What an extraordi­nary failure this is of a conservative opposi­tion which is dedicated to returning a surplus in the interests of the Australian people.

What is the penalty clause for that $70 billion that Senator Cash and her colleagues would run Australia into deficit with if we put it into more human terms? I can tell you that this would facilitate their friends at the big end of town at the expense of average Australians and their hospitals, their schools, their security, their roads, their public trans­port, Indigenous welfare, the environment, rural extension services. Senator Cash and her colleagues would rip that apart with massive spending in the interests of their particular section of the community, but to the detriment of everybody else.

We know that the first point of attack of the opposition, were they to get into government under their honourable leader Mr Abbott, will be the Public Service. We have heard from the opposition themselves—Senator Cash has not said this, but her more senior colleagues have—that some tens of thousands of Public Service jobs will go immediately. This country's voters need to know that and to understand that there will be a lot of breadwinners who are going to find themselves at home without a job if Senator Cash and her colleagues make it into government. I am not making this up; this is their own assessment of their own policies.

Senator Cash does not want to talk about that. She wants to be petty and to recycle debates from earlier in the week—during which she failed to make any contribution whatsoever—to fill up time on a Thursday afternoon, when you would think the opposition, if it did want a debate on the economy, would be in full flight. The only flight it is making is out of this chamber. All but three of them are missing right now. You have to wonder if this is an opposition the public expects in any way. It is totally bereft.

The government says it wants to end up in the black. The coalition wants a one per cent surplus rather than the 0.1 or 0.2 per cent that the government intends. That would mean finding more than an additional $10 billion. Take that out of health and education and transport and housing and so on. If it is to start funding the dental health and disability insurance aspirations to which Mr Abbott referred at the Press Club, it will need even more tax increases or spending cuts.

Mr Acting Deputy President Bishop, you would know that at the moment the Green's spokesperson on health, Senator Richard Di Natale, who is from Victoria, is negotiating with the Minister for Health on the health insurance legislation, which is before us at the moment. The Greens have a long-held policy based on community feedback that would produce a much better dental health scheme for this country. We have led that debate here. I have been pursuing that, even through the long drought of the Howard years, which represents the philosophy of Senator Cash. Not only did we not see an improvement in dental health care services, but we also saw a perfectly good scheme that helped pensioners and others get ripped out while the coal industry and others were being given hundreds of millions of dollars under the rule of Senator Cash and her colleagues. She was not here when pensioners were having their dental health scheme abolished, but she was part of the apparatus.

That is only a shade of what is to come if Senator Cash and her colleagues have their way. All her senior colleagues are missing from the chamber in this important debate. If the Abbot-led coalition, which I see is on the slide in the polls, were to come to govern­ment—I note in passing that Senator Cash's criticism about the appearance of the Greens in public comes with an increase in the Greens' position in the poll this week from 11 to 13 per cent. Senator Cash finds that amusing and so that is something we can celebrate together.

Senator Cash has an obsession with my good colleague from New South Wales, Senator Lee Rhiannon. Senator Cash is there with the poor old Murdoch media trying to create division and isolation. Is it me who is isolated, or is it Senator Rhiannon? I don't know. Use your time on that, Senator Cash, as you will, but the public see it as a missed opportunity and an abrogation of your duty if you do not come forward with policies other than the $70 billion black hole. They see it generally as a failure to get on with the job of putting forward a program that the voters of Australia might find exciting. I think it is far too much for me to suggest that there be a vision as well as a program brought forward. The amendment that I am proposing, which I hope the Senate will take up, leads me back to the issue of the Hon. Mr Robb, the shadow finance minister, suggesting that commodity prices could come off more than the govern­ment is forecasting in the coming years and there would consequently be a deficit of $50 billion. He did that in an interview on Lateline on 29 November last year. Given the rhetoric of the coalition about avoiding deficits, you are left with the conclusion that this would require them to find that addition­al $50 billion in savings. What we get to here is a completely hollow concoction from the opposition if they are going to respond with more than criticism of this minority Gillard government and where it is going.

We have an opposition that has no substance. It is very good at personal abuse. It does not like putting on the boxing gloves if it cannot fight below the belt—and Senator Cash has just demonstrated that again here today. What a sad lot of opposition members we have in this chamber. You would have thought that, if this situation in the country is as difficult as they say it is, the opposition would have a very substantial motion before the Senate in private members' time on Thursday afternoon with some constructive alternative to put to the people of Australia. Instead of that, as their shadow finance minister, the Hon. Mr Robb, has pointed out, their current policy platform would lead us into a $70 billion black hole.

What Senator Cash has done in bringing forward this motion is just attack personalities and events. She failed under the Senate program to make any contribution whatever, and left this till Thursday after­noon. If she had wanted to make a real construction for the Senate in this important private members' time of the week, there would have been a motion presenting legisla­tion, presenting an innovation, testing out the Senate to take a lead in public discourse. Instead of that, it has all been scuttlebutt and petty personality disputation coming from Senator Cash. What a lost opportunity.

Mr Acting Deputy President, for 13 years there was effectively no private members' time for discussion of bills during the Howard years. And you will remember that they took over the Senate and used it as a rubber stamp; they dishonoured its long tradition of being a watchdog for the people. But, having got the opportunity after the vote of the people of Australia in 2010, the Greens established, amongst other things, private members' time dedicated to legislat­ion in both houses of parliament. When I asked my office to look at this just this week, it found that my team—every one of whom works hard and is an innovative thinker and is constructive in this place—has produced no fewer than 45 pieces of legislation to benefit the people of Australia. The coali­tion, with three times as many members on the opposition benches in the Senate, has produced the princely sum of five. There you get it: a ratio where the Greens output in constructive legislation per person is 20 times-plus that of Senator Cash and her colleagues. And if Senator Cash has got a piece of legislation on the slate I do not know where it is.

It is very easy to come in here and waste time. It is much more difficult to come in with constructive ideas. Senator Cash menti­oned the intergovernmental agreement on forests in Tasmania. It was a Labor govern­ment which made the monumental break­through, in the wake of great public protests in Western Australia, on the back of moves by the Liberals at the time to protect at least a substantial component of the great forests of Western Australia, though there is more work to be done there. But Senator Milne and I and, indeed, the whole team of Greens are very proud to be working towards the protection of the world renowned forests of Tasmania. The National Geographic, for example, has been in Tasmania and is well aware that the tallest flowering forests on the face of the planet are a perfect complement to the giant redwood forests of California, which are of enormous interest right around the planet.

But Senator Cash and her colleagues—not least, of course, Senator Abetz—are chain­saw driven. They want to put the bulldozers into these World Heritage-value forests. They are flying in the face of 80 per cent of public opinion around the country that says 'protect them'. Again, she raised the issue. I would say to Senator Cash: go out and talk to the people of Australia, not least in your own state, and see what they think about protect­ing wildlife habitat, about preventing the extraordinary rate of extinct­ion of species in this country. Go beyond the carping and petty politics that so often is exhibited at this time on Thursday afternoon and, instead, think about what it is that makes a community happy.

I have adverted to the failure of the opposition to come up with an economic policy—except one which will leave a $70 billion black hole and see the wholesale sacking of public servants and the defunding of hospitals, schools, housing and public transport. But there are other values in life as well. This is an opposition which is riddled with climate change sceptics and opposed to action to prevent the pollution of our atmosphere, which is an enormous threat to lifestyle and happiness as well as to the future economy. Wouldn't this have been a great opportunity for Senator Cash to have outlined the opposition's environment poli­cies? Certainly if she had done that her 17-minute speech might have been more like 17 seconds—but there must be something there. There must be some recognition of the environment somewhere in the opposition that they could latch onto and bring forward here. How different it is to the days of the Hon. Malcolm Fraser, who not only protect­ed Fraser Island but stopped whaling in this country and had a regard for the environment which was nowhere to be seen in opposition ranks in 2011.

My amendment is to change this pretty poor-quality motion to one that has substan­ce. I recommend it to the Senate. I hope that the Senate will see fit to alter the words in the way that I have proposed when the vote comes up.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, do you intend to table that amendment?

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

Yes.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say this is a disappointing end to the sitting week. I am not surprised, given that sniping from opposition senators has typified the sitting period. Opposition senators apparently think it is more useful to use the chamber to snipe at other senators than to use their time to develop and detail alternative policies for the nation. As ever, there are no plans, no policies, no alternat­ives that the opposition Liberal and National parties are prepared to discuss. Really they should be in here outlining their ideas for managing the Australian economy, making the country more productive and helping Australian workers, families, pensioners, farmers and small businesses. But alas, that is too much to hope for.

The government has been consistently clear on this issue: the Senate should not become a Star Chamber. The government has been consistent in its view that it will not use Senate motions to condemn individuals, the public, members of the House or other senators. The use of motions as tactics to personally attack or name senators is completely inappropriate. There are proper procedures to deal with any matters which may arise regarding the behaviour of sena­tors. If we are to be respected as a chamber, we must respect the processes of the chamber. There are processes in place that should be used, and the Senate should always provide procedural fairness.

The Senate is not and should not be the place to examine a senator's individual behaviour as has happened in motions such as those we have seen in the last two days for general business debate. There should be no room for undermining the processes of the Senate or indulging in personal attacks. It reflects poorly on the opposition and, more importantly, it reflects poorly on the chamber and all senators. The government will not be addressing the substance of the issue raised in Senator Cash's motion today, nor will we partake in such ad hoc debate in the future. I am disappointed that during this week estab­lished processes have been tested. In my opinion and in the opinion of the government the Senate has wasted its time on personal attacks. This should not be a place of duel­ling motions attacking individual senators. This is a chamber for considered review of legislation.

I know I am quite new to the position of Manager of Government Business, but I had expected that the element of cooperation for reaching the best outcomes for the Australian community would be more typical of Senate debate.

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

If you mean what you say, will you chastise Senator Conroy?

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me be clear: the government believes there are established and well-tested methods for dealing with the conduct of senators, and Senator Brandis knows them quite well. It is our intention to support these processes and we will support the rulings of the President in relation to matters of determining precedence on any privilege motions. The position of President will continue to be respected by the govern­ment. The position of President is an inher­ently difficult one—we all know that—and we will continue to support the duties he exercises with proper process and fairness. I remind the chamber that, as the President said yesterday, a determination of whether a matter requires precedence is in no way a reflection on, or a preliminary assessment of, the facts. It is for the Senate as a whole, not the President, to determine whether matters should be referred to the Privileges Committee.

As I have already said, general business should be about discussing matters of substance. This chamber should have a high standard of debate on issues and challenges facing this country. Debating quotes out of context, and senators spending time settling scores and pursuing minor personal argu­ments, should not become the standard of debate in this place. The government has a significant agenda of reform. During a period when the world faces ongoing insecurity about economic stability, the government is determined to keep our economy strong, create new jobs, invest in our country and make our economy more productive. The opposition unfortunately rejected most of those policies last year and we have seen that typified in the debates this week.

We have all heard their noes, but what are the opposition's answers? What plans do coalition senators have for this country? We await their policies. I am sure that senators opposite do have views and do have ideas. Why do they not use the opportunities in this place to argue for their alternative vision? Even I am not so jaded that I assume oppo­sition senators have no ideas and just want to indulge in petty squabbles. Now is the time to outline for the country your policies to make this a better place and to improve the quality of life of our people. Use the time; end the squabbles. These are the critical issues challenging the country. These are the critical issues that should be debated in this chamber. The government will not support the motion and will not support any motions like these in the future.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we have just witnessed again from Senator Bob Brown is yet another example of what I could only kindly call a clumsy deflection. He has attempted to direct the focus away from himself and from his colleagues because they do not like scrutiny and they do not like being accountable for their actions. I have listened to Senator Arbib preaching to us about what he considers to be good behaviour and all I can ask him is: what would the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd say in response to your comments about good behaviour? Your actions speak far louder than words and you have an incredibly high-handed approach to others that you do not practise yourself. Be very careful of what you preach to others if you are not prepared to practise it.

I have sat in this chamber with a heavy heart all this week. I agree with the concerns that Senator Arbib raised because Senator Brown continued to impugn the integrity of the presiding officer of this place, directing an unprecedented attack against the President, casting aspersions on his judg­ment, accusing him of prejudice and bias and, even more concerning, challenging the integrity in his presiding over the procedures and conduct in this chamber. There probably is not one senator that has not disagreed with a ruling that has been made at some time and I disagreed with one against myself only yesterday. It is the nature of this place. It is the nature of politics. We are elected to serve and to represent our constituents and, in so doing, the issues and debate in this place can become understandably heated, if not combative. It is the very nature of politics as we scrutinise and assess legislation and issues on the basis of what we believe is in the best interests of the nation.

Tragically, we have witnessed Senator Brown taking this prosecution to a new level. As for many footballers in the heat of a grand final or tennis players sweating over a tie-break to win game, set and match, the umpire is the ultimate arbiter. While we individually may not like his decision, it is essential for the integrity of any particular institution that the umpire's decision is final and, most importantly, respected. Regretta­bly, we have heard ad nauseam this week the protestations from Senator Brown that the umpire of this place—the presiding officer, the President of the Senate—should not have the final word. The events that have unfolded this week have reflected poorly on the judgment of Senator Brown rather than that of the President.

As the matters I referred to the Privileges Committee are currently under consideration, I do not wish to touch on those matters either, notwithstanding the fact that Senators Brown and Milne sought to do so earlier on in the week. I respect due Senate process and I believe it should be allowed to follow its due course. I note that Senator Brown has left the chamber. One wonders whether he has left the building, but he has most certainly left the chamber. The man who has created this issue has left the chamber.

What we have witnessed this week is a broadening of the vitriolic spray that the Greens leader directs at anyone who chooses to disagree with him. We all witnessed that with his dissent motion on the ruling of the President and his continued criticism of the President. As Senator Cash just mentioned, the first target of Senator Brown's wrath was Senator Ludwig following the Senate passing a motion of reference to the Privileges Committee as he gave notice of a motion to censor Senator Ludwig over the Tasmanian forests intergovernmental agreement. Senator Brown, for reasons which have already been speculated on, then withdrew this, only to give notice of a second motion calling on Senator Ludwig to report on the Prime Minister's failure to uphold the Tasmanian forests intergovernmental agreement.

On the last day of the Senate last year, Senator Brown engaged in a further tit-for-tat exercise with a letter to the President seeking precedence over allegations in relation to Senator Boswell—matters that had been clarified some 12 months earlier. Yet again, over the recess he wrote to the President in relation to Senators Joyce and Cash on matters that had already been declared in the senators' interest register. Unfortunately, what this has demonstrated is the obsessive behaviour of a leader who continues to shy away from personal public scrutiny and who is brutal in his language and demeanour when he seeks to deflect the focus. What we witnessed in this chamber this week was sadly nothing but bullyboy antics. I would suggest it was intimidatory behaviour, which only serves to diminish the standing of this place in the community. It most certainly diminishes the credibility of the individual. The significance of this behaviour cannot be underestimated as the attacks on many in this chamber, not least of all the President, have taken place while the cameras are rolling and Hansard records every word.

It begs the question: do these same histrionics happen behind closed doors or is it something else? When the cameras are turned off, what happens behind the scenes? This is a particular concern when Senator Brown is dubbed the Deputy Prime Minister and is privy to weekly private meetings with the Prime Minister. If his behaviour is erratic when the cameras are rolling, what is it like when the cameras are turned off?

When Senator Brown announced early in January that his weekly meetings with the Prime Minister were off until she honoured her commitment to Tasmania's native forests, I have to confess that I did wonder whether the Prime Minister considered it her lucky day and the best Christmas present she had received, even if it was a belated one.

An insight into the wobbly relationships among the Greens is starting to emerge. You know there are problems afoot when members inside the Greens party start briefing out on each other—and we saw evidence of that in the recent publication of the Monthly. Senator Brown has been making a great show of unity with Senator Rhiannon of late but, unfortunately for them, the facts do not support this. According to the Monthly:

While both Brown and Rhiannon insist they work well together—and others attest to this—there is little love lost between them. "I know Bob doesn't like Lee and I know Lee doesn't like Bob," says one insider. In 2009, Brown opposed Rhiannon's nomination for the Senate, instead backing Kate Faehrmann, the then 39-year-old executive director of the New South Wales Nature Conservation Council, who went on to win election to the New South Wales upper house. "We need to be bringing new blood into the Greens. Those of us who came out of the 1980s have contributed a lot, but our job is becoming one of elder statespeople," Brown said in a pointed reference to Senator Rhiannon.

Without going to the substance of the allegations against Senator Brown, Senator Rhiannon and her 'eastern bloc comrades' have been excoriating about the Wood donation. On 10 January 2011, New South Wales Greens MP John Kaye issued a statement, which is on the Democracy for Sale website, disassociating the New South Wales Greens from this donation. He said:

Almost none of Mr Wood's $1.6 million was spent in New South Wales. … The Greens New South Wales election campaign did not have any involvement in accepting this money or determining how it would be spent.

On 12 January, Democracy for Sale featured an editorial from the Australian headed '$1.6 million donation sits strangely with Greens rhetoric'. On 17 June, Democracy for Sale featured another piece from the so-called hate media, an article entitled 'Brown faces conflict call over logging query'. And there is yet more. Since November last year, Senator Rhiannon's calls for donations reform have gone into overdrive. Senator Rhiannon has now gone on record in the Monthly to say this about the Wood donation:

We, the New South Wales Greens, would have considered that a large donation from one person, considering we have worked very hard and in some ways we have led the campaign around political donations, may not have been wise for us.

If this is not putting the skids under Senator Brown then I do not know what it is. We know about the friction between the Australian Greens and the New South Wales Greens. As recorded by the Monthly, the New South Wales group, who habitually refer to the Australian Greens as though they were another party, has staunchly resisted Brown's attempts to strengthen the Greens' national organisation. Members of the old guard have been heard referring to Brown as a megalomaniac. Another insider says:

They have poisoned Bob's image in New South Wales. They have made him out to be a centrist and trying to bully them and control everyone and take away the power of states' rights.

Senator Brown is still not in the chamber, but I am sure he can get this on Hansard. I might send him an email just to make sure he sees it. Senator Brown, we can see right through your facade. We can see that your wild and random attacks on senators are driven not just by the predicament you find yourself in right now but by the internal politics and dissension within your own party. I support Senator Cash's call. I think you should apolo­gise to the President, to Senator Ludwig, to Senator Boswell, to Senator Cash and to Senator Joyce. I think you should come clean on this whole thing. It was disclosed only last week that Mr Graeme Wood's $1.6 million donation to the Australian Greens was an in-kind donation. Senator Brown, how does one give an in-kind donation of advertising to the Australian Greens?

I understand that Senator Brown has been dragooning all his young Greens senators to support him in the chamber here this evening. I find that a tad strange when he himself is not sitting here in the chamber. But I would like to note that Senator Rhiannon is sitting up in the back. Senator Rhiannon, where do you stand on this? I look forward to hearing from you in this chamber now to defend your leader, Senator Brown.

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

Mr Acting Deputy Presi­dent, the standing orders provide for matters to be raised through the chair, not through a direct call across the chamber. I ask Senator Kroger to respect the standing orders.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All senators should abide by the standing orders at all times.

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

I rise today to comment on a matter that Senator Cash has raised, and I share the concern of my leader, Senator Bob Brown, that this private members' time is being taken up by a matter allowing the coalition to continue a personal attack instead of dealing with matters of public importance. I mentioned this yesterday when Senator Sinodinos took the opportunity, in an incredible fall from grace, to spend his first matter of public importance for the year engaged in a personal attack on another senator rather than outlining a coalition policy or strategy.

The normal procedure for matters of public importance is to talk about matters that are important to the future of the nation, and I move:

That Senator Cash's motion be amended to insert the following words after 'Senator Cash':

but considers the call from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Abbott) to debate Australia's economy, and his proposals which would lead to a $70 billion deficit and extensive job losses, as a more appropriate matter for debate in the Opposition's private senators' time.

I have a signed copy of the amendment and ask that it be delivered to the chair.

As to the matter of the coalition's black hole, it is quite extraordinary that the coalition would prefer to use private members' time to, in Senator Kroger's own words, 'be clumsily deflective and to refuse to have scrutiny and accountability for their actions'. That is precisely what the coalition is doing in relation to economic policy. What we have already is confirmation by Mr Robb, the shadow finance minister, of a $70 billion black hole, and Mr Hockey, of course, confirmed that, saying that the coalition faced the task of finding $50, $60 or $70 billion worth of savings. Mr Robb again confirmed in November last year that $70 billion was the order of magnitude of the coalition's black hole.

People listening to this debate must be asking themselves, 'How are the coalition going to deliver the surplus they say that they are going to deliver, when there is a $70 billion black hole already in their promises?' The coalition have said they want surpluses of one per cent of GDP rather than the 0.01 to 0.02 per cent that the government intends. That would mean finding more than an additional $10 billion a year. We heard from the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, at the Press Club, his aspirations on dental health and disability insurance—

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 90(3):

An amendment must be relevant to the question to which it is proposed to be made.

I am aware, of course, that when it comes to debate on the MPI a great deal of latitude is given to recharacterise the question before the chair by way of amendment. However, I submit to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that an amendment in the form which this has proposed goes a very long way beyond the latitude that is customarily given. The proposition it advances is that the Senate form the opinion—the amendment has just been handed to me—that a particular subject matter would have been a more appropriate matter for debate in opposition senators' private time. I do not recall ever having seen an amendment of this character. It is not an amendment which addresses the substantive issue which it seeks to raise—that is, the economy and criticism of the opposition's alternative policy proposals—but rather something entirely different. It is as it were by way of commentary upon the appropriate­ness of Senator Cash moving the motion she has moved.

Mr Acting Deputy President, I invite you to rule that this amendment falls beyond the terms of standing order 90(3) because it is utterly irrelevant to Senator Cash's motion. The expression of an opinion that Senator Cash would have been better off moving a different motion is utterly irrelevant to the issue which Senator Cash has placed before the Senate. Indeed, in substance—to take the point further—it is not really an amendment to the motion at all. It is grammatically in the form of an amendment, but in substance it is not even an amendment. It is a comment on whether or not Senator Cash should have moved the motion. In that sense as well it is beyond standing order 90.

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order, I think Senator Brandis hit the nail on the head when he indicated that a great deal of licence had been allowed in these debates. I think that is right and, while I do not feel strongly on the issue, it seems to me, given the nature of the debate, it is probably not unreasonable to rule that the amendment is in order. But I have to say that senators ought to think about how they are treating the Senate and their own behaviour. This motion is a disgrace. The attempt to use general business and the time of the Senate in this way is a disgrace. It brings no credit on anyone; it brings no credit on the Senate, and this tit-for-tat, childless behaviour that is going on in the Senate is an embarrassment to us all. Mr Acting Deputy President, however you rule, I encourage all senators to have a good think about it.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order, the amendment has not been distributed throughout the chamber. As opposition whip, I do not have a copy of it, and I understand the normal courtesy of the senator moving an amendment is to provide one so that we have an opportunity to look at it. We do not have copies throughout the chamber.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not a point of order that a proposed amendment has not been circulated.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can we ask the attendants to circulate it?

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, we will ask the attendants to circulate the amendment, but I am aware that Senator Brandis has received a copy of the amendment. Senator Brandis, on the point of order, the motion that is before the chair is extraordinarily wide. Its opening words refer to the reflections of a range of members of this place and another place, and in no way is that limited by the remaining content of the motion. The amendment that has been mov­ed by Senator Milne certainly to a limited extent comes within the known deliberations of a range of the persons referred to in the motion. By 'known deliberations' I mean comments that I have heard reported in the press or comments I have heard persons make in either chamber. Accordingly, whilst the amendment is very wide and at a distance from the motion, I do rule that it is in order. However, I have not had sufficient time to give more than cursory consideration to the points you raised, and the point you raised does have, in my mind, some substance and certainly some consequence. Accordingly, I will seek that the issue you have raised, whilst I rule against it now, be referred to the President for more considered deliberation and report back to the Senate, if he thinks appropriate, at a future time.

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

As I was indicating, what we have at the moment is rhetoric from the coalition about avoiding deficits that would require them to find an additional $50 billion a year in savings. In the Press Club speech the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, said that by the end of a coalition government's term tax cuts 'will be in prospect'. What does that mean? Will be in prospect? Taken at face value, that suggests that there will be no tax cuts for at least four or five years. This policy seems to have lasted less than a day, because media reports then had spokespeople for the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, saying there will be tax cuts within the first term.

I also go to the issue of the clean energy package which passed through the Senate last year and in which there is considerable benefit to Australians, with a $10 billion investment in clean energy—a huge investment in energy efficiency—announced today. I urge people in the community to be aware that there is over $200 million that the community can now apply for for energy efficiency grants that have been announced today as part of that package. The coalition would abolish all of those and yet it is out there telling the community that it supports renewable energy whilst at exactly the same time saying it will not support the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

Interestingly, in that context in Tasmania you have the opposition—the Liberal Party in Tasmania—saying that the government should try to leverage off the Clean Energy Finance Corporation for Tasmania to have a whole strategy in renewable energy. It is quite clear that Mr Groom, the spokesperson, and Mr Hodgman, the Leader of the Oppo­sition in Tasmania, have not spoken to their federal colleague Senator Abetz, because Senator Abetz would be able to tell them that they ought not talk about leveraging off the Clean Energy Finance Corporation when he intends to make sure it does not happen and that Tasmania gets no benefit from it in that circumstance.

Equally, we have Mr Groom and Mr Hodgman out there saying they want a second Basslink. They want to get that out of the Connecting Renewables Initiative, which the federal government has on the go. They are saying, 'We want some of that money for Tasmania.' Meanwhile we have the coalition saying that it has a $70 billion black hole. It is going to sack public servants and somehow it is going to add tax cuts. It is going to get all the benefits, supposedly, of compensation and so on. This is a complete mess from the coalition in terms of an economic policy. No wonder Senator Cash does not want to talk about the coalition's policy; she does not want to have any scrutiny or any accountability for her actions in relation to the economy.

Let me move onto the issue of the mining boom. The Greens supported the resources super profits tax that was broadly in line with the Henry proposals. And we regret the fact that the government backed off the super profits tax, because it would have been appropriate to take excessive profits in the midst of a minerals boom and put them in a sovereign wealth fund in order to help Australia invest in public health and public education—particularly in light of the fact that under the Howard years there was such underfunding of education.

We hollowed out the manufacturing sector. We failed, under the Howard govern­ment, to invest in education and training. We turned this economy into a far less sophisticated economy. We turned it into a quarry economy, and that is why the coalition are now struggling with their economics. They have a situation where they cannot indicate how they intend to make up the $70 billion black hole in their strategy.

I want to go onto the super profits tax and the mining issues because Senator Cash is one of those who thundered against the proposal that the standard petroleum excise would apply to condensate from the North West Shelf. She was one who wanted to make sure that they did not pay an appropriate return—that they did not pay the taxpayers for the resources they were taking, that are owned by the community. There is an appropriate return to be had by the community from the resources of this country, and in the view of the Greens that should be spent on building the new economy—on building diversification and sophistication in the economy, investing in new manufacturing sectors and, in particular, investing heavily in education, training and pure research as well as applied research, because Australia happens to be very good at innovation. Australia happens to be very good at coming up with solutions to problems in particular technological areas. That is why we have such a fantastic global reputation when it comes to the solar industry in particular and the renewable industry. I am very pleased to say that it is because of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the clean energy package that we now see people wanting to come home from overseas, back to Australia, to get behind the transition to the low-carbon economy and create the manufacturing industries of the future.

We are at a stage in Australia and in the world, in fact, where the race is on to make the breakthroughs that are necessary in the technologies, whether that is solar, wind or batteries for electric cars. We are looking at a global race to be first in getting the breakthroughs that will rapidly accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy. That is what the Greens have been working on with the government to try to achieve through the clean energy package. We have seen the coalition oppose it, oppose it, oppose it. They do not want to see a transition to a low-carbon economy; they want to lock in coalmining—a massive expansion of coalmining in Queensland. In fact, they are massive coalmines that will lead to an increase in global greenhouse gas emissions. They talk up cheap energy at the expense of the environment and an acceleration of climate change and global warming. They deny global warming exists for the most part. They want to see an expansion of fossil fuel industries at the end of the fossil fuel age, when our whole competitive advantage in the future depends on us leaving those fossil fuels behind and making the massive transition. It is a fundamental difference of approach. That is where these debates ought to go.

As I was indicating a moment ago, in terms of fairness and income equality, we had here this morning a motion that I brought forward to address the duopoly of Coles and Woolworths, which is absolutely undermining the farm-gate price return for rural communities across Australia. The coalition, the National Party and the Liberal Party, voted it down with the government.

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

Since when have you cared about farmers? What are dairy farmers going to do with a carbon tax?

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

You voted it down and, tragically, there are farmers across the country who are going to the wall. We had the Queensland dairy farmers showing exactly what the milk price war has done to them, including the losses at the farm gate over time—the downward spiral that is going on. Exactly the same will now occur with Coles's discounting of fruit and vegetables—a 50 per cent reduction in the price of some lines of fruit and vegetables. Where will that leave the growers? How long is that discount in place?

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Senator Ryan interjecting—

The word 'hypocritical' has been used in here. Let me say, in relation to the Liberal Party and National Party's position when it comes to farmers and farm-gate prices, whenever Coles and Woolworths are mentioned they get up on their soapbox in communities around Australia saying they are doing everything they can to address the duopoly. Then, when you bring things in here which will actually start to address that, they vote against it because, when push comes to shove, they are not prepared to stand up for a decent farm-gate price.

This goes to the bigger picture issue of food security and food sovereignty in Australia. I would love to have a private member's debate in here at length on the issue of how you keep farmers on the land in Australia when they are under assault from coal seam gas, which the coalition totally support. Every last one of them is out there supporting the gas companies against the farmers. We are seeing the water resources of Australia compromised by coal seam gas miners and, behind them, the coalition totally support them and then get up and say they support farmers. Well, they are not support­ing farmers in the Year of the Farmer. They are not supporting lifting productivity on farms. How is it lifting productivity when you drive a farmer off the land with coal seam gas expansion? How is that lifting productivity? How is polluting and compro­mising the Great Artesian Basin lifting agricultural productivity? It is not.

We have got a situation here where, if you are serious about keeping farmers on the land and protecting and sustaining the land for food and agricultural production, you would be looking at issues like, first of all, the planning laws that allow so much agricult­ural land to go under urban expansion around the country, you would be looking at issues like forcing the supply chain, and you would be looking at issues like the margin of each stage of the supply chain, so that we could find out with Coles—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Mr Acting Deputy President, don't you love it when people stand up and make a big issue of respecting the procedures of the chamber and then they just cannot help themselves but interject at length. I am on my feet now speaking. They will have their turn in a moment.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Opposition speakers in this debate were listened to in absolute silence. The same courtesy should be extended to Senator Milne. Senator Milne, you were correct to raise that with me.

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

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I was just discussing the Coles and Woolworths duopoly and what is going on with Coles at the moment. What we should be debating in here this afternoon is how we can get an answer out of Coles. They are saying on the one hand that they are going to reduce the price of certain lines of fruit and vegetables by 50 per cent and they are saying that that will not have a long-term impact on farmers. In fact, they are saying that they are doing a great thing by the farmers by taking their surplus product. However, what is going on is that they have clearly negotiated a lower price with the farmers without guaranteeing a volume in return that they will take or a period of time over which they will take any particular volume. What is to say that farmers have not signed onto a low price in a time of glut, if you like, around the country and then will be forced to take lower prices into the long term?

Furthermore, while Coles will deny it, it is very clear that Coles will not be suffering a margin drop in its profits. It will spread the loss across the supermarket to make sure that it is not out of pocket, but the farmers will be pushed to a lower level of return at the farm gate. At some point farmers have to decide whether it is worth continuing in the business of farming, and that is why we are suffering in Australia at the moment. With the average age of farmers increasing, younger people are deciding that they are not going to go on the land because they have watched their families struggle all these years for less and less of a return. That is the kind of debate we should be having in here this afternoon, and we should be taking on this duopoly. We should be looking at it.

On Australia Day I was sickened to see big Australian flags over the tops of canned products in supermarkets. The assumption of the consumer is that if you buy this product then you are supporting something Australian, but we do not know that. The labelling laws in this country would allow the supermarkets to import vegetables from overseas by the container load, put them in those cans, stick an Australian flag on the front of the can and then lead consumers to believe that they are somehow supporting Australian farmers. That goes to the heart of the issue of trade, which is another issue we should be debating in here. We do not have fair trade under the current arrangements that have been entered into.

Opposition senators interjecting—

The coalition members are interjecting but they are the ones who oversaw the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement. The former Minister for Trade Mark Vaile ran around the country telling people in rural Australia that there would be hundreds of thousands of jobs created in Australia because of the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. It was a sell-out, and the Productivity Commission has now pointed out that the claims were wildly exaggerated and that the benefits have not ensued as a result of that agreement.

Now the US is coming back with the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement, which is being negotiated as I speak. The whole Australian community has no clue what the Americans will ask for under this Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement because the US is insisting that the negotiating documents are kept secret for four years after it is negotiated. That is not on. I understand from leaks that have been made in other countries that are in these negotiations that the US is coming back with big pharmaceuticals to try to extend the patent period so that the generic medicines cannot be made sooner. The result will be more expensive medicines for people in Australia and in developing countries. Equally, Monsanto is coming into that agreement wanting to overturn any restrict­ions on GMOs. We have a moratorium in Tasmania and we do not allow it there, but Monsanto will be coming back to try to overturn that. We also have proposed changes to copyright. They are trying to get rid of Australian content in the Australian media and communication rules. We have an issue here that warrants a debate.

We have been asking the government to come clean and tell the Australian people what they are negotiating in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. What are they going to sell and give up? What are they about to trade away under an agreement where there is no indication at all that this is anything more than a big geopolitical move to suit the United States, rather than offering any benefit to this country? That is what we should be debating. We should be looking at the broader issues; and, frankly, the Abbott opposition is not up to it.

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

Before I address the substantive motion of Senator Cash I cannot let some of the allegations of Senator Arbib and Senator Milne go past. Being lectured to by Senator Arbib about good behaviour in politics is like being lectured to about the respect for law by Chopper Read. New South Wales is a killing field of disgrace and Labor leaders due to his influence and that of people like him. Under his guidance the New South Wales ALP became as much a racket as it was a political party. And who were the caporegimes of that mob? They were the New South Wales state secretaries—the heads of the New South Wales right.

He asks for ideas, as Senator Milne has. We have been pushing these ideas for several years now. They are simple: stop the new taxes, cut red tape, cut spending, balance the budget and pay back debt. It is actually pretty simple, but it is so hard for Labor to do because they have never ever managed it. If you do not get the basics right, all the grand schemes, all the best endeavours and all the highest aspirations are nothing short of meaningless.

Senator Milne has talked about the use of time in this chamber, which just proves that the Greens have no sense of irony. Day after day we sit in this place amid meaningless divisions that serve no purpose other than to print new bumper stickers for bikes in Fitzroy, where the Greens can run around and claim to be morally superior, pitching themselves to the morally superior class who do not bear the cost of the policies they seek to implement. For Senator Milne to come in here and talk about the impact on farmers when the carbon tax is going to force up the costs of Australian dairy farmers, who make the milk that Senator Milne is talking about and who are going to see cost increases of 10 to 20 per cent in only a handful of years, is nothing short of complete hypocrisy. I have little doubt that Senator Milne would have opposed the repeal of the Corn Laws, because cheap food is apparently a bad thing.

What we saw yesterday in the comments by Senator Bob Brown with respect to the ruling of the President represented a new low. All the President did was not grant precedence to a motion moved by Senator Brown; nothing more and nothing less. This is entrusted to the responsibility of the President's judgment, granted by the Senate by virtue of his election to the office. Senator Brown illustrated his complaint by outlining that the ruling of the President in such matters is often adopted by the chamber, quoting a report from several decades ago. This does not strengthen his argument; it merely reinforces that his grievance was with the decision itself rather than with a substant­ive issue. It is not formally determinative and it merely illustrates that the judgment of the President, which was exercised in this place, is important.

Senator Brown confused the issue here. The fact that allegations are made does not necessarily warrant any particular outcome. That is a matter for consideration at another time. As Senator Brown did not get his way in his motion of dissent, he used extraordin­ary language. The key tactic of the militant left was again illustrated when they failed to get their desired outcome: sledge and impugn the decision, judgment, person and indeed the motives of those with whom you disagree. To Senator Bob Brown and the Greens civil disagreement is not possible. Senator Brown also filed notices of motion, which he then admitted should not have been granted precedence. That represents an abuse of the procedures in this place. It does him, the Greens in particular and this parliament no favours.