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

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the annual report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee.

The report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee is tabled. I again thank the very hardworking—albeit new since the new parliament—staff of the committee secretariat for their work in producing this report, subject of course to oversight by the committee. I thank them for their efforts to date. I also thank the harmony of the committee—albeit, again, that it has only been in place for a couple of meetings. But it is good to see this relatively new committee working well together in the responsibilities the committee has.

These annual reports place a great deal of information about government departments and agencies on the public record. They are an important element in the accountability of these departments to the parliament and, through parliament, to the people of Australia. What committees looking at these annual reports of the various government departments and agencies are required to do is to report to the Senate whether the reports are 'apparently satisfactory'. In making this assessment the committee considers such aspects as compliance with relevant reporting guidelines.

The committee found all the reports submitted to be in 'apparently satisfactory condition', describing the functions, activities, performance and financial positions of the department and agencies, and I congratulate the Attorney-General's Department, the minister himself and all of the agencies in that portfolio for their work in producing annual reports that comply with the requirements and give information to the parliament and to the people of Australia on what those particular agencies are doing.

Whilst our committee considered all reports presented during the period, on this occasion it was decided to examine in detail the reports of the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Australian Institute of Criminology, because these agencies had not been covered by the committee in recent years. It has been the committee's practice over the years to pick one, two or three agencies—to look more closely at their reports and to report on them in detail.

Those two agencies—the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Australian Institute of Criminology—were considered by the committee, and the committee found that both reports were apparently satisfactory. I congratulate both agencies on getting their reports in, providing information to the parliament and doing it in the right way.

The committee also decided to look into another agency, the Australian Human Rights Commission and its report. The committee did this and found that the information provided in the annual report gives a good overview of the commission's role, functions and work throughout the reporting period. However, the committee wishes to express its disappointment—and I am quoting from our report here, 'at the commission's continued disregard for some of the reporting obligations in orders and for the advice of the committee. In particular, the committee is concerned about the repeated omissions of a mandatory compliance index as prescribed in the orders and available in the annual requirements for annual reports issued by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.'

Interestingly, these concerns have been raised in the committee's previous reports on annual reports, in August 2011, at the time of the previous Labor government, and in March 2014. The committee reiterates the mandatory nature of the compliance index and urges the commission that it be included in future reports. The committee also noted that in previous years performance information was not always evaluated against deliverables and KPIs as presented in the portfolio budget statements.

The committee considers the 2014-15 report of the Australian Human Rights Commission to be apparently satisfactory, but expresses an ongoing concern about the absence of some reporting requirements and the disregard of the committee's previous advice. The committee strongly recommends that the commission take the opportunity to review the structure and contents of its annual report in the light of new guidelines for annual reports for corporate Commonwealth entities from the 2015-16 year onwards, with particular focus on compliance with mandatory reporting requirements and improved performance reporting against deliverables.

One would expect that all government agencies would comply with the mandatory compliance index, which has been drawn to this commission's attention on two previous occasions—one, I think, when I may have been chairman, in March 2014, and one in August 2011, when I certainly was not the chairman. It distresses me that there are some agencies that seem to think they do not have to comply with the rules. I am disappointed that this is so with the Human Rights Commission, which is often very quick to give advice on the conduct and operations of Australian citizens and others, and yet this commission itself does not seem to think it is bound by those laws.

Unfortunately, there have been instances with other statutory officers who seem to think the normal rules do not to apply to them. There will be more said about that and particular instances—it has been a matter of some comment in recent days. But these officers should understand that politicians—that parliamentarians and ministers—are elected by the people of Australia and are answerable to them.

Some of these statutory officers seem to think that they hold the final view—the final opinion—on what is right, wrong, good or indifferent. But they should always remember that they are giving, in many cases, advice to people who are elected to discharge roles and who are accountable to the Australian public, whereas some of these statutory officers are not accountable to the Australian public and in some cases do not seem to be accountable to anyone at all.

It is an important principle of our governance that everyone understands their roles. Just because a paid permanent official gives advice, it does not necessarily mean that advice has to be accepted—those are not the rules. The giving of advice to an elected minister or parliamentarian is simply that—giving advice. It is well within the role of parliamentarians and ministers to seek other advice as well, as should be the case, because not all wisdom sits in one person's mind or in one person's view of the world or of a particular issue. For the whole system to work it is important that everyone understands their role and what part they play in the system of governance—remembering that in the end, in a democracy such as ours, elected politicians are there to make the decisions and they are answerable for their decisions to the Australian public. To the Australian voter that is what the system is all about. I urge all those that this might involve to understand that principle.

The Human Rights Commission is the only agency in this department where the committee has found it necessary to, for the third time, draw attention to the rules and the fact that the rules should be followed—even though in many cases they are only technical rules or rules that are there for a particular purpose. They are not the rules that will bring down the nation, but they should be followed. I would urge the relevant agencies to comply in the future.

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

On the Legal And Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report, I am glad I was here to listen to Senator Macdonald's contribution as chair of this report. Senator Macdonald's comments have to be taken in the context of his behaviour when dealing with the Human Rights Commission, especially Ms Gillian Triggs, the Human Rights Commissioner. It is clear, and it is on the public record, that Senator Macdonald has a particular dislike for the commissioner. Senator Macdonald was reported in the press as to be bullying in his approach towards the commissioner. When you talk about rules being followed and when—

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

That is a lie.

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

Senator Macdonald, you might say it is a lie. Certainly, it was quite clear in relation to the reports that were out there, and it was quite clear by the vision of that meeting, that you did behave in an extremely aggressive, bullying manner towards the commissioner. It did not do you any credit. It certainly did not do the Senate any credit. I would hope that you consider your position on that in the future—

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

I am entitled to have a point of view on it, Senator Macdonald.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

You can interject as much as you like. Through the chair, when we talk about rules being followed, when Senator Macdonald has to get in there and nitpick against the Human Rights Commissioner, when Senator Macdonald still has to get his bias and dislike for the whole Human Rights Commission on the public record—as he has done tonight—and when he simply looks to nitpick in the report, then I find it a bit hard to take.

I agree with Senator Macdonald that if there are rules there then they should be complied with. I do not disagree with Senator Macdonald on that point. If the Human Rights Commission is not following the rules to the letter of the law about what their obligations are, then they should. I hope that the next time the fair work building commission are criticised for not following the rules, for not providing enough support to the public servants that are in that commission, when they are identified in the context of the ombudsman's report for not following the rules that apply to them, then maybe we will see Senator Macdonald stand and deal with that issue on the same principle that he has outlined here.

He has said: 'Here is a principle. There are rules and regulations to be followed, and the Human Rights Commission should follow them'—I agree. That is the principle that Senator Macdonald has outlined. I will have a bet that Senator Macdonald will not go and have a look at the ombudsman's report into the fair work building commission and then do a speech in the same terms that he has outlined here, because it is one rule for the Human Rights Commissioner and another rule for the fair work building commission. I think that is hypocrisy. It is outrageous that you can come here and get a sermon from Senator Macdonald about following the rules and following the law when he turns a complete blind eye to the breaches of rules, to the breaches of law and to the contempt for parliamentary process by Mr Nigel Hadgkiss from the fair work building commission.

I hope that there will be some balance and a lack of hypocrisy. I hope I am wrong about Senator Macdonald and this approach, but I doubt I will be, because there have been many examples of the fair work building commission and the commissioner, Mr Nigel Hadgkiss, not playing by the rules and not following what is laid out in the act. In fact, there are examples of ignoring a whole range of responsibilities that the fair work building commission has under the act so that it can—

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Senator Macdonald?

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, I hate to interrupt Senator Cameron, and I know we do allow a bit of—

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Flexibility, yes.

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

wide-ranging debate, but this is about the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's report on annual reports. It has nothing to do with Mr Hadgkiss or the Fair Work commission.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So your point of order is on relevance?

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

Yes.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Senator Cameron, would you resume and perhaps make sure you confine your discussion to the topic before the chair.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for that help and direction. I would argue that what I am talking about here is a principle that Senator Macdonald has applied to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report. I am entitled, I think, to point out that I support Senator Macdonald on that principle. I wholly support Senator Macdonald on that principle. I am simply saying that Senator Macdonald has not applied that principle to other areas where public servants and independent organisations under government auspices have not followed that principle. I think I am entirely on point. I accept the position that you have adopted in relation to the report, I must say, apart from the nitpicking approach. I agree, even though it is nitpicking, that the commission should ensure that it complies with its obligations.

All I am saying is that the next time we get an Ombudsman's report into the Fair Work building commission on its lack of adherence to the rules and regulations that apply to the Fair Work building commission, maybe, just maybe, Senator Macdonald will be on his feet about the Fair Work building commission and Mr Nigel Hadgkiss—probably the most incompetent public servant I have come across in my experience in almost a decade in this place—and point out how incompetent that commissioner is in relation to his adherence to the principles that Senator Macdonald is espousing should apply to the commissioner of the Human Rights Commission.

I must say that I would probably have differences with Commissioner Triggs from time to time on some of the issues, but I think generally she is seen to be an extremely competent, an extremely diligent and an extremely effective commissioner for the Human Rights Commission. There are those from the extreme Right in the Liberal-National party who, every time they see the commissioner, see that their weird and misconstrued views about how the commission should work are epitomised in the commissioner, so they take every chance to have a go at her. It was clear that Senator Macdonald's publicly displayed behaviour—on the record—in relation to Commissioner Triggs did no service to the committee process in this parliament, did no service to the Senate and did no service to Senator Macdonald himself. It was full of bullying. It was full of standover tactics. It was an absolute disgrace.

Senator Macdonald continues to look for every opportunity to have a go at the Human Rights Commission and Commissioner Triggs, and this is just one of them. It shows how petty Senator Macdonald is getting. The longer Senator Macdonald is here the more petty he becomes, the more narrow he is in his views and the more reviled he is by even his own side on some of the issues that he raises. But that is Senator Macdonald. I have absolutely no argument about Senator Macdonald's work ethic, no argument about that at all. I just wish his work ethic was used for the good of the parliament and the good of the community, and that he stopped the nitpicking and he stopped the bullying. That would be good for the Senate.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I believe the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Senator Macdonald.

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

Under standing order 191, which says in part: 'A senator who has spoken to a question may again be heard, to explain some material part of the senator's speech which has been misquoted or misunderstood', I seek to just inform the Senate that Senator Cameron's representation—

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, you must seek leave. I will inquire of the chamber whether or not you have leave. It is a point of explanation only?

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

Not 190.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are seeking leave for an explanation statement only? I haven't yet called the motion. Senator Macdonald has sought leave to speak for one minute.

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

Leave is not granted.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is not granted, Senator Macdonald, thank you. A point of order, Senator Macdonald?

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

With due respect, under 'Personal explanations', standing order 190, by leave of the Senate a senator may explain something. I am talking about standing order 191, which says:

A senator who has spoken to a question may again be heard, to explain some material part of the senator's speech which has been misquoted or misunderstood—

And leave is not required.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Only that the debate has finished, Senator Macdonald, and on that basis I cannot call you to speak on standing order 191, so I do ask you to resume your seat. It is on the basis that the question has been put. So I will now put that question. Those in favour say aye, to the contrary no.

Resume your seat, Senator Macdonald. Senator Cameron, on a point of order?

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

Yes; it is quite clear: the point of order is that the debate had finished. That means that the debate cannot go on, and everything that Senator Macdonald has argued is nullified, in terms of the debate.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Cameron, but it is the case that when Senator Macdonald rose to his feet I had actually not yet at that point in time put the question. Senator Macdonald, I am going to allow you one minute, under standing order 191, to give your point of explanation.

Senator Cameron interjecting—

Senator Cameron, that is my adjudication.

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

Acting Deputy President, that might be your adjudication—

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is.

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

but I would certainly ask that this part of the Hansard is reviewed, because it is quite clear that this debate had been finalised. So I would ask you to have a review and have a look at this decision.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will request that the President does that, but I come back to the point that, at the time that Senator Macdonald rose, I had not put the question. Therefore, under standing order 191, I am allowing you one minute for your explanation, Senator Macdonald, after which time I will put the question.

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

Senator Cameron misunderstood my speech if he thought I was bullying the President of the Human Rights Commission, or otherwise attacking her, or saying I disliked her or hated her, as it seems Senator Cameron understood from my speech. I cannot understand how he got that impression from my speech, and I urge him to read my speech, where I did not even mention the President of the Human Rights Commission, or Ms Gillian Triggs—Senator Cameron mentioned her, I certainly did not. I was talking about the Human Rights Commission, a commission which I might say included a former commissioner who is now a member of my party in this parliament. So I was talking about the commission, not individuals, and Senator Cameron, as always, simply misunderstood or did not understand or simply, as always, does not know. (Time expired)

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Macdonald, your time has expired. I now put the question. All those in favour say aye, to the contrary no. I believe the ayes have it.