Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Palmer United Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate—namely, a motion to give precedence to a motion circulated in the chamber to establish a select committee on certain aspects of Queensland government administration.

The Australian Constitution states that there must me a clear separation of powers between the parliament, the executive government and the judiciary in Australia. The separation of powers and functions ensures that no single body is able to exercise total authority or to misuse power. The system is considered to be one of the fundamental elements of a fair, democratic and honest government.

In my home state of Queensland our parliament consists of one house, the lower house. There is no upper house to provide the critical checks and balances needed for open representative and transparent governance in parliament. Over the last 18 months, serious issues have been raised across the community regarding Queensland government appointments, judicial appointments, project approvals, quarry approvals, use of funds, policies and practices, environmental degradation, and various other matters. In fact, on 9 September, at only a few minutes to midnight, the Queensland government moved a last-minute amendment to the Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Bill 2014 to remove the rights of land owners to object to mining on their property.

The Commonwealth allocates significant funds to the state of Queensland, and Australian taxpayers need and deserve clarification in relation to the appropriate use of these funds by the Queensland government. I constantly receive many phone calls from Queensland residents who are crying on the phone and desperate for my help to stop the terrible things that are happening in my home state of Queensland.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should see what Newspoll says!

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Palmer United Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The people of Queensland feel abandoned and threatened. They feel as though their voices of desperation, worry and absolute and utter frustration are not being heard. They are worried.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Only by your leader!

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my right.

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Palmer United Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today, I am calling on the Senate to ensure that the people of Queensland are heard. This inquiry must happen. It must go on. The Commonwealth has an obligation to ensure that the funds supplied by the Commonwealth are being used for appropriate purposes. The select committee will consult with the Queensland community to undertake this assessment. I urge my colleagues to support my actions to ensure that the motion is considered by the Senate. As I have already said, this inquiry must happen and it must go ahead.

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

The government opposes this second attempt to breach the fundamental conventions that surround the Westminster system. The last time we debated this, which was just a few days ago, I pointed out what Odgers had to tell us on page 77 about the comity between parliaments and how singularly unwise it is for one parliament or one house of a parliament to seek to inquire into another.

I thought we had that debate and common-sense prevailed. Clearly, common-sense has not prevailed and we now are confronted with this, quite frankly, personal vendetta by the leader of the Palmer United Party to pursue Mr Newman, the Premier of Queensland. We heard from Senator Lazarus just then that there were concerns about judicial appointments in Queensland. Guess what? If you are concerned about it, run for the Queensland parliament. Use the Queensland parliament and its forums, because if you think that you can use the federal parliament's forums to overcome what you consider to be shortcomings in the Queensland parliament, guess what? The Queensland parliament can then start adopting exactly the same tactics against Palmer United, Senator Lazarus or anyone else.

Is this the way we want to trash our democracy? Democracy is a fragile flower. It does require convention, it does require precedent and it does require people to remain within their bailiwick. We could have a situation where technically you could have the Queensland parliament having resolutions about the Senate and then, when any senator arrives in Queensland, they could be picked up by the Queensland authorities and be brought before the bar of the Queensland parliament to answer questions. That is what can happen and that is the route we are going down.

Way back in 1996, this was attempted in relation to the Victorian parliament in relation to a casino licence. Common-sense finally prevailed and that inquiry, quite rightly, did not go ahead. I would have thought the lessons of history should be learnt. As I said last week, I can understand that the Palmer United Party is relatively new to this place and is not fully across all of the precedent and all of the practice. But I say to those colleagues opposite, especially from the Australian Labor Party, that you know the precedent and you know the embarrassment that you got yourselves into in 1996 with the Victorian casino inquiry. That went nowhere. Why? For exactly the reasons that will confront this inquiry.

Chances are, lawyers will make some money out of it and the High Court may well be entertained as well. I might add that Mr Newman, the Premier of Queensland, is doing an excellent job. If Newspoll is any guide, the people of Queensland are now saying that he in fact is doing a good job. As he has taken the tough decisions, the people of Queensland are now accepting what has occurred under that government as having been within their best interests.

When we start using one parliament to fight another parliament, we get into a territory that is singularly foolish and singularly designed to bring these institutions of parliament into disrepute. I do not lay that charge on Palmer United, because I am still willing to give them the benefit of the doubt; albeit that benefit is shrinking by the moment, given all that was said about this just last week. But those opposite in the Australian Labor Party know the folly of this move and they know that this should not be entertained.

Interestingly, when this motion failed last week there was a collective sigh of relief around this place, knowing that the right thing had been done by this parliament and its institutions. Now, one assumes that some dirty deals have been done behind the scenes, which allow this matter to be re-ventilated. It will be interesting to see if it is the Australian Greens or the Australian Labor Party who have done a backflip in relation to this. Whichever party it is, they have done a great disservice to this place. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry, I do not have the standing order; but perhaps I could seek your assistance. This motion was dealt with just a week ago. This seems to me, on my very quick reading, to be exactly the same motion. Is it possible for senators to raise the same motion day after day?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Macdonald. This is actually a procedural motion, so the provision of the standing order that you are correctly referring to does not apply to this particular aspect, which is a suspension motion.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a further point of order. I was aware that this is a procedural motion. But what is the point of dealing with this if there is a provision in the standing orders—which in the back of my mind there is; I just cannot refer you to the actual standing order—that prevents this substantive motion from being dealt with. If that is the case, then the procedural motion is also irrelevant.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Macdonald. It is standing order 86, for your reference. There have been rulings on this in the past, and Odgers does make mention of it. It indicates that this rule is rarely invoked—that is, the same question rule—simply because generally with the passage of time and changing circumstances it could happen that the same text could refer to a different question. Senator Macdonald, in this instance in relation to the suspension motion, it will not apply; but, post the suspension motion, that might be another question.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, could I indicate that the motion has actually been amended and is not in the same form as was debated last week. Can I turn to the arguments put forward by Senator Abetz. This is a government that has trampled on every single convention that you can imagine. It has called royal commissions to pursue its own nasty political vendettas. We have had a waste of taxpayers' money that will be over $100 million by the time they are all finished. We have had two royal commissions with no other purpose than to try to smear, abuse and vilify the former governments. This is a government that knows no decent bounds whatsoever. Do you want to know what the final arbiter of that decision would be? Even former Prime Minister John Howard has said, 'I wouldn't have called those royal commissions.' When Senator Abetz stands up here and talks about the decent and right thing to do—

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The motion that we are debating is a motion to suspend standing orders to permit debate of a motion to establish a Senate inquiry on the terms circulated by the Palmer United Party. It has absolutely nothing to do with a royal commission that is currently in progress into the subject of trade union corruption.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Brandis. As is the general nature of suspension of standing orders, the debate does venture into the topic which the suspension of standing orders relates to. I allowed that with the previous speaker, and I will allow it with Senator Conroy.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. I thought Senator Abetz roamed widely in his particular contribution. He spoke extensively about what is the decent and right thing to do. Let us be clear: $100 million is being wasted by those opposite to pursue their political opponents. This is an absolute abuse of process. These royal commissions are nothing but a stunt. Senator Abetz said that we have a convention whereby we do not investigate each other's chambers. This is not an investigation of a chamber. This is an examination of the conduct of a government—not the chamber and not the institution of parliament in Queensland. It is looking at a thoroughly corrupt bunch of individuals in Queensland and their conduct behind the scenes.

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. You cannot accuse members of another parliament of corruption.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I said a group of individuals.

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

You said a government—the Queensland government. As you know, all members of the Queensland government are members of the Queensland parliament.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, I draw your attention to the standing orders. You have the right to continue.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can understand why those opposite, particularly those Queensland senators who have turned up now en masse to try and defend those up in Queensland, do not want any scrutiny. They won a large majority. You would have thought, Mr President, that, after winning a large majority, you would not have to behave in the nasty and vindictive way in which that government has behaved. You have wiped out the opposition pretty much. You have only got the one chamber. You would have thought you could have behaved decently—yet, the Campbell Newman government has behaved anything but. This motion says, 'Let us have a law—

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. It is one thing to have a debate in relation to what is happening here, but the point of order is that the senator continues to make aspersions against another government. Section 193(3) of the standing orders is very clear where it refers to imputations and personal reflections on those members of other houses. The standing orders refers to it in one of the only places it does as 'highly disorderly'. The senator should be reminded of the order and should abide by it.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator O'Sullivan. Senator Conroy, I did give you a warning on the previous point of order. You cannot reflect on the good character and reputation of another parliament or a member of another parliament. Senator Conroy, continue your remarks but be observant of the standing orders.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. I will confine my remarks to the conduct of the government as a whole rather than any individual to save you having to respond to total furphies from those opposite. The conduct of the Campbell Newman government is something that deserves scrutiny. In Queensland, where Sir Joe Bjelke-Petersen described press conferences as ’feeding the chooks', there is a long history of such behaviour by Queensland National Party members of parliament, and some of them went to jail. What we are seeing is the beginnings of the conduct highlighted by the terms of reference that are before us today. Those opposite are very sensitive—and they should be very sensitive!

Government senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my right!

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh dear!

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Conroy, you have the call.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. We can see how sensitive a button you have touched, Senator Lazarus, with this motion. You can see just how sensitive the Queensland Liberal-National Party machine is. They will do anything. They will smear anybody. They will put up any furphy whatsoever to defend their mates in Queensland.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Conroy has been here long enough to know the standing order that he must address his remarks through the chair and not direct to Senator Lazarus.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Macdonald. That is a technically correct point of order. Senator Conroy, you have the call.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been guilty, Mr President. Senator Macdonald's strongest case in defence of his colleagues and mates in the Queensland Liberal-National Party is exactly that—that I was facing in the wrong direction. What a committee this is going to be! With strong, intellectual points of order like that, Senator Lazarus, you will have your hands full. Through you, Mr President: Senator Lazarus will have his hands full in dealing with this committee and the sort of raucous abuse, smear and innuendo that you have already seen from those opposite. We will see where this committee leads us. I indicate that the Labor opposition will be supporting this suspension.

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

To understand what a contemptible political stunt this is, you only have to remember that this is the very same motion, with just a tiny bit of cosmetic amendment, that seven days ago not a single senator was prepared to vote for—not one. Not the Labor Party, not the Palmer United Party, and the Greens voted against it—although apparently they have now stitched up a deal with Senator Conroy. But this is the same motion with a tiny cosmetic change to give it a simulacrum of credibility; the same motion that not one senator was prepared to vote for seven days ago. Of course, this is a stunt. We saw Mr Palmer, the member for Fairfax, in the back of the chamber a moment ago vigorously, heatedly negotiating with Senator Conroy and with the leader of the Australian Greens.

We look at the terms of the motion. This is a motion to establish a Senate committee, and, as every member of this Senate knows, the composition of Senate committees is broadly required by convention to reflect the political composition of the chamber. Do you know how many government senators will sit as members of this committee, Mr President? One government senator. There are 33 government senators of the 76 members of this chamber. So the Senate proposes to establish a committee of the Senate in which the government is represented by one senator. This is a breach of convention, as I pointed out in the debate on the equivalent motion last week, and probably a breach of the law. Do not take my word for it, Mr President; take the word of the illustrious former Clerk of the Senate, the late Harry Evans, who, when in 1996 a somewhat similar political tactic was tried but on a much narrower basis to examine one aspect alone of the Victorian government—that is, the Victorian racing inquiry—provided advice to the Senate in which he said that, as a matter of convention and probably as a matter of law, such a motion could not validly be passed by this chamber. In some advice to former Senator Kemp, dated 8 October 1996, the late Mr Evans summarised advice from Professor Dennis Pearce, an eminent public lawyer, who said this:

There is probably a legal barrier to the summoning of members of state parliaments … The Senate's powers of inquiry are probably limited to matters within the legislative competence of the Commonwealth Parliament.

Yet, if we go through the subparagraphs of paragraph 1, which set out the terms of reference in eight subparagraphs, most of them bear no relationship to the legislative powers of the Commonwealth parliament. He went on to say:

There is probably a limitation on those inquiry powers in relation to the states in so far as inquiries may not curtail the capacity of state governments to function.

Yet this motion goes to the heart of the legislative, the executive and the judicial arms of the Queensland government. He went on to say:

These probable legal limitations on the Senate's powers of inquiry would provide a basis for a legal challenge to any particular inquiry …

That is the advice given by the illustrious former Clerk, the late Harry Evans, based on, in turn, the legal and constitutional advice of one of Australia's greatest public lawyers, Professor Dennis Pearce. That was about a motion that went to one aspect of the operations of the Victorian government of the day, some 18 years ago. If that inquiry was unconventional, a breach of the Senate's conventions and practices, and, in Professor Pearce's views, probably unconstitutional, how much more unconstitutional is an inquiry that goes to the plenitude of the legislative, executive and judicial arms of the Queensland government? Senator Lazarus, you have been sold a pup. You have been sold a pup by the Labor Party and by the Greens. This motion is out of order, it is unlawful and it is a disgrace.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In Queensland it seems that we are back to the Joh Bjelke-Petersen days. Here we 'Joh' again. I have said before in this place—and, no doubt, I will have cause to say it again—that the Queensland government has been on a brutal agenda of attacking the environment, public servants and civil liberties in Queensland. We have seen thousands of public servants sacked. We have seen more than 20 environmental laws overturned and an agenda of infringements—if I can be so polite about it—about civil liberties for Queenslanders. There is clearly an urgent need to look into this brutal agenda, which is why the Greens are, and always have been, supporting this inquiry.

On those environmental changes that the Newman government has rolled out, sadly there has been an absolute denigration of the environmental laws. There has been a tax on the native vegetation laws in winding back protections for riparian vegetation and regrowth vegetation. There have been repeals of coastal protection laws which will damage the Great Barrier Reef in completely overturning our state planning policy for coastal areas. The Wild Rivers legislation has been repealed and overturned, particularly for Cape rivers. There has been a program to allow grazing in national parks, which are supposed to be for the conservation of nature, and logging in areas that had been earmarked to become national parks. Just this month, as I mentioned last week, the Queensland government passed a bill through the state parliament at three minutes to midnight removing public objection rights to the biggest mines in Queensland. That is the biggest step backwards that we have seen in community rights to protect the environment and to uphold the law in living memory. It is pretty clear that the Queensland government are trying to silence Queenslanders in favour of letting the big mining companies run absolutely riot. They consistently put the big mining companies ahead of the people of Queensland.

That is precisely why it makes no sense at all that this state government be given more responsibility for the environment and to in fact be given, as this government intends, the responsibility for environmental approvals that the current federal environment minister has. The Abbott government has been set on turning us back by 30 years in giving away its environmental powers completely to the Queensland and other state governments.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

It is the foreign affairs power, Senator Brandis. Please, you of all people should know your Constitution. I am pleased that we have had discussions with the Palmer United Party along those lines.

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. My colleague is entitled to make her contribution and be respected. I would ask Senator O'Sullivan to stop his disorderly behaviour.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask senators on my right, in particular, to stop interjecting.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, the appalling track record of the Newman government in Queensland on the environment is precisely why they should not be given more powers over the environment, and they specifically should not be given the federal environmental approval powers under the EPBC Act that this government is proposing to give them.

I am pleased that we have had discussions with the Palmer United Party along those lines. We have clearly put the position that, if the Newman government are so awful as to warrant an inquiry into their terrible track record, clearly they should not be given more powers over the environment. I am pleased that the Palmer United Party have agreed with that logical conclusion.

I am also pleased that we have been able to secure amendments to the terms of reference for this inquiry to clearly bring in both the appalling track record of the Newman government and the track record of Commonwealth oversight of coal seam gas approvals in Queensland, which have been a very vexed issue no matter which government has been in power. I am pleased that we will now be able to look at those issues.

I am also pleased that the terms of reference are broad enough to consider Mr Clive Palmer's environmental track record through his company in relation to the Yabulu nickel refinery on the shores of the Great Barrier Reef and the Galilee Basin coalmine.

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I know you have already been addressed on the subject of standing order 86. As I understand your ruling, if standing orders are suspended then standing order 86 is also suspended and provides, therefore, no limitation on the capacity of the Senate to discuss the substantive motion. If I understood you correctly, that was your ruling before.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My ruling before was that we were dealing with a suspension motion and, as such, being a procedural motion, standing order 86 was not applicable because we were dealing purely with the suspension. When the suspension matter is resolved, if there are any other points of order in relation to other standing orders, I will be happy to entertain them then. But it is not applicable at the moment. Your point of order at the moment, Senator Brandis—

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

I have not made my point of order yet.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay, but your point of order should directly relate to the substance we are discussing now.

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

As a matter of fact, my point of order relates to the validity of this debate. The reason before I took the point of order I wanted to clarify the rationale for your ruling is that if standing orders were to be suspended, if this motion were to be put and carried, then there would be no capacity on the substantive motion to invoke the standing order under section 86. If that be the case then in circumstances such as these section 86 could never be invoked, so it becomes circular. For that reason, I am taking a different point of order now not in relation to the substantive motion but in relation to the procedural motion. Because, just as the substantive motion is substantially to the effect of the motion that was defeated last Tuesday prior to that motion coming on to be voted on, there was a procedural motion to suspend standing orders. My submission to you, Mr President, is that the motion which is now before the chair is identical to the motion that was decided on last week. Therefore, it is in fact at this stage of the debate that standing order 86 can be invoked. If standing order 86 cannot be invoked at this stage in the debate then it cannot be invoked at all because if this motion is put and carried then section 86 will be suspended. Obviously, that cannot be the intention of the standing orders because, were that so, section 86 could never be made effective or operative because by the device of moving a procedural motion a senator could always render it inapplicable. That is why I submit to you, sir, that it is on the procedural motion, in fact, that you ought to entertain a point of order that this debate itself is a violation of section 86, because the same question on substantially the same motion was put and determined last week.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Brandis. Senator Milne, I am going to take advice, but I am happy for you to add directly to the point of order I understand Senator Brandis is lodging.

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

I do want to comment on Senator Brandis's desperate move to prevent this vote being taken. I think it is pretty evident now why he never made it onto the short list of the Queensland bar association.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order.

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

I want to say in relation to this matter—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Milne, you are now deviating from a point of order by casting personal remarks against Senator Brandis. I will allow you to continue if your point of order is directly relevant to the point of order that has been raised by Senator Brandis.

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

Mr President, the point at issue here is that there has been a move for a suspension of standing orders. That is a procedural matter that ought to be determined. Then the question might be raised as to whether it is the same question. And it is not the same in substance, because there is a substantially different amendment which has been added, and we will have that debate once the suspension of standing orders has been dealt with. You cannot stop a suspension of standing orders on the basis of something that may be determined at a later time.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the same point of order, Mr President, the motion that we dealt with a week ago, before we dealt with the substantive motion, was that so much of the standing orders would be set aside as would prevent Senator Lazarus from moving a motion relating to a particular three-page motion that he then proceeded to deal with. Senator Brandis's point, which I reinforce, is that this motion we are dealing with today—dealing with setting aside standing orders so that Senator Lazarus could in fact move this three-page motion, which would be incorporated into the Hansard record—is exactly the same motion and, for the reasons Senator Brandis gave, is exactly the reason by-law 86 provides.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the same point of order: the points raised by Senator Milne have a certain Alice in Wonderland quality to them. There is a circularity to the argument, which means that standing order 86 could never in fact be invoked; there would never in fact be the circumstances where it could be cited. We are not actually talking about something in the abstract here, because Senator Lazarus has in fact already circulated to the chamber the wording of the motion he seeks to move. So, we are not just talking about the suspension of standing orders in the abstract in order to allow Senator Lazarus to move a motion that we are unaware of the wording of. Senator Lazarus has circulated the motion in the chamber. He has made reference to it in his suspension motion. I would have thought that for the chamber to determine whether standing orders should or should not be suspended one of the very relevant considerations would in fact be the wording of the motion Senator Lazarus has circulated—which clearly, according to standing order 86, falls foul, because it is the same in substance as that moved last Tuesday. So, the only opportunity for yourself, Mr President, to form a ruling in relation to Senator Lazarus's substantive motion is now.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Sullivan, I do not intend to take any further points of order in relation to this particular aspect. I have a clear direction as to where I am heading with this. I appreciate Senator Brandis's point of order and understand where he is coming from. And Senator Fifield in particular, in relation to your point of view, the actual substantive motion, if we get there—because there is yet to be probably two questions before the chair before we get to the substantive motion—I do not accept that argument. Standing order 86, Senator Brandis, can come into effect on any ordinary day of business. We have now just stepped out of the ordinary in relation to the same question or the same matter, because we have set aside what standing orders we need to. This is the motion—to set aside what standing orders we need to. We are debating that. It is a procedural motion. So, this procedural motion cannot be subjected to standing order 86. Otherwise we would have all sorts of problems with standing order 86 and suspension motions in their own right may not be able to be moved. So, I am ruling that there is no point of order, although I do understand and respect the point of order that has been raised. Senator Waters, we will come back to you. You have 35 seconds left in which you can continue your remarks.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was attempting to communicate—albeit it was a little difficult, with the noise in the chamber—clause 2 of the proposed terms of reference is clearly a new insertion, and that is precisely the clause that we will be able to use to look at the Commonwealth's oversight of coal seam gas in Queensland, which clearly has been inadequate and needs in my view to be much stronger. This will be a Senate inquiry, and it is clearly within the legislative competence of the federal parliament. It has been drafted to ensure that, and it is an inquiry that the Greens will support. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought it was too good to be true last week. I noted that Senator Milne was away from the parliament and that in her absence the more rational and less motivated members of the Greens political party—

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

Mr President, a point of order: I did withdraw a remark that you deemed to be disrespectful, and I would ask that Senator Macdonald be required to withdraw a similar disrespectful remark.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was just conferring with the Clerk, but, Senator Macdonald, if you did make a remark that you consider needs withdrawing, it would assist the chamber. In the absence of that, I have not heard any remark, Senator Milne, but I am happy to review it.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am mystified as to what the remark is. I will start again, with the same words. I could not believe it last week when the Greens political party for once had some honesty and integrity. They did this during a time when Senator Milne—

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

Mr President, a point of order: I have been refraining from being involved in this discussion around points of order, but I do think that Senator Macdonald now has clearly put an imputation of improper motives towards Senator Milne and the Greens party.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not take that from Senator Macdonald's remarks, and I was listening quite carefully in relation to the point of order Senator Milne had raised. I will let Senator Macdonald continue.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just could not believe it when the Greens decided that if the motion Senator Lazarus moved last week was to be at all fair, it should not just look at a particular government; it should look at any recent government in Queensland. So Senator Abetz moved, and the Greens, much to my surprise, supported, an amendment that said that not only would we look at the current Queensland government but we would look at the previous one as well—the one that actually introduced coal seam gas mining into Queensland, the one that had the Tahitian prince ripping off millions of dollars and the one that had a cabinet minister sent to jail for bribery.

Sure, go ahead and look at the Campbell Newman government! I, quite frankly, have no problem with looking into the Campbell Newman government, because it is an honest government that is full of integrity. But what we were looking forward to was using the inquiry to look into the actions of the Palmer United Party and Mr Clive Palmer—and the threats that he may or may not have made to the Deputy Premier of Queensland over whether or not there was a railway line to his mine. I am quite happy to look into that part of Campbell Newman's government, but what about the Labor Party government, the one with cabinet ministers actually in jail for bribery and with Tahitian princes ripping off $10 million?

When the Greens supported Senator Abetz's amendment, I thought, 'At last the Greens, most of whom I know and most of whom I have great respect for, have seen sense and have agreed to include the rotten Bligh Labor administration.' I looked over and I thought, 'Why do the Greens have this new-found openness and accountability?' Then I noticed that Senator Milne was not there. Senator Milne is an effective operator on some occasions, some might say, but her pathological hatred for anything on our side of the parliament is known to every single person.

So we had this farcical situation last week where the majority of the Greens said, 'Okay, let's have an inquiry, but let's bring in the government that actually introduced coal seam gas mining into Queensland.' Perhaps there were some dirty deals there, perhaps done with my namesake, the Labor minister Ian Macdonald from New South Wales, who used to hand out mining leases with his morning tea to all his mates in the union movement. I thought, 'Well, that's fair enough; let's have a look at the Bligh government as well as the Newman government.' But then the penny dropped and the Labor Party suddenly realised that a motion that they had been planning to support was now going to expose the Bligh Labor government to real accountability.

Now we have this farcical situation. The substance of the motion being proposed is exactly the same as the last one. It is all about Mr Palmer's hatred of Mr Campbell Newman. That is the substance of it. You can add all the little words you like. If Senator Waters says that this is a new issue, I am sure she will want to include the Labor government again, because—I repeat—it was the Labor government that introduced coal seam gas mining into Queensland, the coal seam gas mining that Senator Waters is so concerned about. As I mentioned last week, this makes a farce of the whole parliamentary system. I cannot believe that the more sensible and rational people in the Labor Party are going along with this farcical, fraudulent situation.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Lazarus to suspend standing orders in order for him to move a motion be agreed to.