Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Communications to a question without notice asked by Senator Bilyk today relating to the National Broadband Network.

It was really quite interesting to stand here and listen to Senator Collins's contribution.

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

I have just been accused by my colleague of misleading the Senate by saying it was quite interesting. The comment that we heard from Senator Collins about question time deteriorating because of actions on this side of the place is really quite extraordinary. I am sure everybody who was in this place today saw that the majority of the deterioration that occurred in question time certainly did not originate from this side of the chamber.

One of the things I must say is quite extraordinary is the absolutely incredible obsession by those opposite with issues such as the one Senator Collins has just been speaking about. If only we had the same level of obsession about the prosperity of this country from those opposite, maybe we would be a little further down the track than where we are currently, instead of wasting the time of those in this chamber and those who were unfortunate enough to have had to listen to the goings-on today.

The most important thing we could be discussing today is the prosperity of Australia. We should be talking about jobs, we should be talking about the economy and we should be talking about the government's agenda. To be prosecuting aspects of the broader government agenda in question time I would have thought was the purpose of question time. We should be prosecuting the issues of innovation, we should be prosecuting the issues of government agility and Australia's agility to be able to deliver for the future. Which made me all the more surprised when a senator opposite got up and asked a question about the NBN. I would have thought they would have learnt their lesson by now and realised that trying to defend the indefensible, which was the NBN under their watch, instead of working towards looking at the positive aspects that are happening with the NBN under our watch, is quite extraordinary.

How many times have those opposite talked about the NBN and about an article that had been leaked to The Australian? There is absolutely no doubt that Senator Conroy has a couple of friends in the media because of the number of times we have seen leaked documents coming out on the NBN which are then refuted by nbn co. They have not been peer-group analysed and they get put into this place as though they are fact. It is quite extraordinary.

I concede that the NBN is a nation-building transformative piece of infrastructure. I congratulate those opposite because there is no doubt that that is the case. However, the way it was being delivered under those opposite and the previous government was nothing short of absolutely farcical. But there is some good news around the NBN. So I thought I would take a quick opportunity today to tell you a few good things about the NBN, so people are not misled by the rubbish they read in the paper sometimes.

The NBN is powering ahead. There is a plan that 3.9 million premises will be passed over the next three years and using existing copper technology, in conjunction with the HFC infrastructure, which already exists, not only can the NBN be completed with much less cost but it can also be completed much quicker and will be more affordable to the taxpayer.

To be standing here and trying to continually prosecute something which occurred in the past, instead of looking forward, seems to me to be another political waste of time—as we see so often from those opposite. If we really want to talk about some negative things about the NBN, we only have to look at the extraordinary mismanagement of the project under those opposite. It was the most poorly managed project that I can remember since coming here.

When Labor embarked on this mammoth venture they were absolutely clueless. They deliberately avoided a cost-benefit analysis. They abandoned a normal cabinet process and just went for a rubber stamp policy. They then ignored advice from the Public Service about what was going on, instead favouring some advice that they got from agencies that suited their ultimate outcome. Then Senator Conroy even had the audacity to appoint nobody to the board who had any telecommunications experience. So I find it extraordinary that we should be standing here today prosecuting these silly things when there are so many more important things to be done for the country. (Time expired)

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we are: we had plenty of opportunity for those opposite to defend the member in the lower house, Mr Brough, but what did they talk about? The NBN. They were not game to go near this cabinet minister, who is under incredible attack not only in the lower house but in the Senate and in the media. Not one coalition senator was prepared to say that they stand by this man.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just you wait!

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi is going to stand by a cabinet minister who has misled parliament? It does not surprise me that Senator Bernardi would be getting up and supporting Mr Brough because what Mr Brough has done trashes what is supposedly a clear obligation of a minister to act according to Westminster principles and to not mislead the parliament. He has misled parliament and the issue which is very interesting right now is that it is clear that Senator Brandis has misled the Senate. Senator Brandis said in his initial responses to the issue of what Mr Brough had done that he had no knowledge other than that which he had read in the media. That position was clarified today, and we have a different position where they received an oral briefing after the execution of the warrant. So the standard of ministerial responsibility in this place, either in the House of Representatives or in the Senate, under this government, has deteriorated so badly that ministers do not find it a problem to stand up and mislead the Senate or to mislead the House of Representatives.

Senator Ruston said there was some incredible obsession on this issue and then she ran away from the issue as quickly as she possibly could. She did not want to talk about it. There is no incredible obsession. This is about ministerial accountability—a very low bar to jump when it comes to the coalition. Ministerial responsibility under this government is out the window

You can go on national television and admit to criminal activity, then come into the House of Representatives and deny it, mislead the House of Representatives and then claim that you are acting completely correctly. It is just nonsense. Ministers have a responsibility to tell the truth and not mislead either the Senate or the House of Representatives.

Senator Brandis has some questions to answer here as well. Senator Brandis has some explanations to make, because he told the Senate unequivocally that he had no knowledge of anything to do with Minister Brough's position other than what he had read in the media. Then he comes in today and indicates that he had an oral briefing after the execution of the warrant. So Senator Brandis has some explanation to make. Senator Brandis is absolutely doing the same thing that has been done by Minister Brough in the House of Representatives—that is, saying something that is not accurate and misleading the Senate. He has misled the Senate.

If we talk about courage and conviction in politics, surely it is about time that the Prime Minister acted with some courage and conviction. Surely it is about time that this Prime Minister had some backbone and actually stood up for the conventions and the rules that apply in both the House of Representatives and in the Senate, because this Prime Minister has shown no courage, no conviction and no commitment to the principles that apply in both Houses. (Time expired)

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

Once again—not for the first or even the second or even the third time this week—Labor senators have misrepresented the position and misquoted what has been said. What I said—and what I continue to say, because it is the case—is that I had no knowledge of the James Ashby affair beyond what I learned from the media, and that is the case. Senator Cameron has just said that I misled the Senate because I had said I had no knowledge of Mr Brough's position. That is not what I said. I said I had no knowledge of the James Ashby affair other than what I learned in the media, and that is the case. The fact of a search warrant being executed on Mr Brough's home, which was in the media, and the fact that I was advised of it by the Minister for Justice as a matter of course after the warrant had been executed, is not the James Ashby affair. It is an investigation.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I took that that you were speaking to the motion before the Chair, Senator Brandis.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the answer given by Senator Nash, representing the Minister for Health, to the question I asked about the suicide reduction target. Firstly, I was quite surprised by the response from Senator Nash when she answered the question. The question was: can the minister confirm that the government has not accepted the recommendation of the Mental Health Commission to adopt a suicide reduction target of 50 per cent? Her answer to that was, 'I understand that that is correct—that they have rejected that recommendation.' But she was not able to explain, despite being asked twice, why the government had rejected that and why that was the case.

This is a very serious situation here in Australia. Tragically, we have 2,500 people who lose their lives to suicide every year and another 65,000 Australians who attempt to take their own life. It is now double the annual road toll in any specific year, and it equals seven people losing their life to suicide every day. I think there certainly is unanimous agreement that we have to do something to reduce this number. We have to better support people and provide them with access to crisis support and with education, information and early intervention to prevent these tragic numbers becoming a permanent reality.

The Mental Health Commission's response to the review of mental health programs and services made it very clear that something further needs to be done and that it needs to be tackled similarly to ways that other terrible outcomes, such as the road toll, are being tackled, where you have a specific focus, pull in your effort behind it, set yourself a target and then measure progress against that target. We do that in a whole range of areas across public administration, particularly in government, when we are evaluating our programs. Targets are often included in there. There is simply no reason that is obvious to me or to others interested in mental health as to why, of all of the recommendations in this report, that one would have been rejected by the government without any explanation.

There are other questions, of course, about the government's response to this report. It is very light on detail. It is a 900-page report to which the government's response, I think, is 28 pages, if that. There is no indication of how it is going to be done, the cost of rolling out the program or the changes that will be made—and there will need to be significant changes if you can believe the overarching principles of what is in this document. There is no information about that. It is very light on in relation to suicide prevention and it is completely silent on the issue of the target or rejecting the target, although today the Minister representing the Minister for Health has very clearly answered the question—that they have rejected that target. She also indicated very clearly that, no, the government would not be reconsidering that recommendation. This is really disappointing, particularly when you look at the crisis that is suicide across this country and when you look at the disproportionate impact that suicide has on particular communities—particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and those Australians living in rural or remote Australia, without as much access to high-quality support services as would be available to people in the city.

It is the leading cause of death for people under the age of 44 in this country. It is staggering that we would have that result and the response from the government to perhaps the most comprehensive review of the mental health system in the last few years with a recommendation on which the government is simply silent. But they talk the talk, 'Yes, we need to do more and effort needs to be put in,' but then they do not indicate how that will be done, the timetable for doing it or why, indeed, they are refusing to measure progress against it. As anyone knows who has been in government before, when you put out a program and you attach targets to it, the reason you do it is not because you might fail—and you have to acknowledge that over time—but because you want to make progress and you want to measure where you are going and be able to work out whether you have been successful. The government should reconsider their position. (Time expired)

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I address the substance of what I really wanted to do in taking note, I want to comment on what Senator Gallagher has said. Suicide is an extraordinary epidemic in our country. I do not think there are too many families who have not been touched by it in one way, shape or form either through extended friends or experience. In my own case, it caused me to reflect to when I was an employer and one of my employees took her own life. A couple of us went to inquire as to her welfare and we found her. It was a devastating experience for all involved—family, friends, work colleagues and everyone else. While Senator Gallagher was talking, I thought 'Could we have done more?' and it may have simply been to inquire further after someone's welfare. I support whatever endeavours are taking place on either side of the parliament in respect to inquiring as to the mental health and wellbeing of other people.

However, during question time there were lots of allegations made about misleading the parliament and misleading the Senate. In question time, I made a contribution which was to wish everyone a merry Christmas. I was not misleading the Senate when I said that. I was absolutely genuine in my good wishes for all of those in this chamber. Christmas is a time for reflection, where we think very carefully about the blessings that we have, the great fortune that we have and extend goodwill and best wishes to those all across the Senate.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wondered how long this would take.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

if you could resume your seat. Senator McEwen, on a point of order.

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

Yes, a point of order. The question before the chair is to take note of answers to questions asked by Senators Cameron and Collins about Minister Brough and also answers to questions asked by Senator Gallagher about mental health. I know Senator Bernardi addressed mental health, but I have no idea which of those answers he is addressing in this part of his contribution.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, in response to the point of order. It was very clear that I referenced how the allegations in question time were about misleading the parliament or the Senate and I was merely contrasting the allegations on that side with the fact that I was absolutely genuine in my contribution during question time, and I think the segue is perfectly legitimate and plausible. If the Christmas grinches on the other side do not want to hear about goodwill to all, that is for them and they can leave.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I cannot actually rule on this point of order. I do not want to upset you, Senator Bernardi, but I was not listening to your contribution because I was getting instructions from the Clerk about how we are proceeding for the rest of the day. So you have the call and I think you are going to finish in about two minutes.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you looking forward to me completing my response? I will not take it personally that you were not listening to me. I will I send you the Hansard, if you like, and you can enjoy my contribution once again! There was certainly a segue from the allegations that were made in question time to my own contribution, which was on a point of order, and it may have been spurious but it was about saying Merry Christmas to everyone. In the cut and thrust of political battle, where we often make all sorts of allegations about others and motives on the other side, it is important to reflect on the importance of the Christmas season. You do not have to be a particularly religious person to embrace the culture that arises out of it. That is where we give thanks for—

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. It is quite clear that Senator Bernardi is responding to the motion before the chair. It is also quite clear that Senator Bernardi is not prepared to support his colleague in the House, Mr Brough. If he does not want to do that, he should just sit down.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you going to speak on the point of order, Senator Bernardi?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would be delighted to respond. Senator Brown may have been asleep while I was addressing the important thing of suicide, which Senator Gallagher raised, and also in my subsequent response which has been about the allegations of misleading the parliament. I am proving my bona fides in that I have not misled the parliament. It is very clear.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on the point of order. I just do not think Senator Bernardi has gone anywhere near the issue that is before the Senate. In relation to what he has been saying, it sounds as if he is looking for a new career outside of parliament as a Methodist preacher. He should not be doing an interview for a Methodist preacher and wasting the time of the parliament.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thankfully, I have been listening to Senator Bernardi's contribution since the last point of order and I think he may have strayed from the question before the chair. So I would remind him of the question.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who am I to disagree with your ruling, Mr Deputy President. I want to thank the honourable senator's on the other side for allowing me to make a contribution. With only 10 seconds left, I would really like to take this opportunity to once again wish all of my colleagues the spirit of goodwill and merry Christmas, no matter where they sit in this chamber.

Question agreed to.