Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the second interim report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on the integrity of the water market in the Murray-Darling Basin.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I move:

That the Senate adopt the recommendation contained in the second interim report to extend the time for the presentation of the report of the committee 29 November 2018.

I am going to take the 10 minutes allocated to me to make a contribution to the Senate that I didn't think I would ever have to make, but unfortunately I have been pushed to this. In three months time, I will have served on this committee for 13 fantastic years. From the time I first came in here to being a fully-fledged member, I have chaired either form of the committee, being legislative or references, for 10 of those years and I have always tried to do the best in the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee for those in the regions who are our food producers, whether they be farmers, horticulturists, graziers, aquaculturalists, viticulturists—whatever. With the fantastic cooperation of former Senator Heffernan as chair and now with Senator Barry O'Sullivan as chair, I have always put the interests of the nation first. I am proud to say that this is one of the few committees in the Senate that does everything to keep the political crap out of our investigations and not play stupid little games where certain political parties can run off on tangents when there is an election. Most of the time we have been successful. Unfortunately, a few times, the standards have slipped. I have always been mindful that when we tour the regions or we invite those from the regions—and not just the regions, but if it is agriculture, transport or regional affairs—everyone gets a fair hearing and we appreciate their input.

We have an unwritten agreement amongst the committee. The committee has a magnificent group of senators, even though not all of them are permanent members of the committee. We've had senators come in and out who have skills in certain parts of the committee, like transport or agriculture, and we value their input. But what I cannot tolerate is when the blow-in will come in and try to tip upside down the fine work of the committee. I am going to the crux of the matter. We are doing the Murray-Darling inquiry, and, so it is very clear to each and every person listening, I don't give a fat rat's backside about the accusations of certain bad dealings of certain members of certain parliaments—I don't care. The work of our committee is to get up and down the Murray-Darling and find out how we can improve the lot for those who rely on the Murray-Darling to feed us. Other forums will investigate the accusations of water theft, and I'm not going off at a tangent here, because we know it all started after a 7.30 report or a Four Corners report. We don't care. We want to be able to go back after taking evidence from those who it matters to. And when I say 'those who it matters to', I don't mean members of parliament in other states.

We had a fantastic start to this inquiry; we spent two days in Broken Hill. This goes to show how fair dinkum we are in the Broken Hill region. I'm from Perth. I've got no problems going to Broken Hill to meet with the people that this affects in Broken Hill. I have got no problem with my fellow senators—Senator Gallacher, Senator O'Sullivan and Senator McAllister, who was with us as well, and Senator McCarthy from the Territory—because it needs to be done. We warmly welcomed the opportunity to sit in the bus all day as we visited the Menindee Lakes and the surrounding suburbs and met with the people that live and breathe this stuff. We saw the demise of grapevines and all things that had happened, and we saw the Darling River at its lowest point. But we had a senator—and I'll tell you who it is; it is Senator Sarah Hanson-Young—who had absolutely no interest. She didn't give a darn about the people that were affected, but there was an election coming up in South Australia, and she wanted to showcase. She wanted to show-pony and carry on. She never turned up to a meeting. She didn't turn up to Broken Hill. She didn't come on the bus to the Menindee Lakes and the surrounding area to hear from the people. No, no; that's too hard. But she turned up in Adelaide for our South Australian hearing to show-pony and carry on.

I'll tell you what happened and I'll go to the crux of it. This is my unwritten rule in the committee that I have always had and lived by, and I've been ably supported by all other senators. The last thing I want to hear is from politicians. When we visit the communities and the regions, we want to hear from the people. If a politician wants to come in and have a rant or a rave or even a contribution, they can do that through other means. They can do that through their local rag or through their billboards. I don't care. It's not for us; we want to talk to the people. But one certain member of parliament wanted to come storming in. He wanted to come to the inquiry, and we said: 'With the greatest respect, Minister, we don't have politicians, but we do want to hear from your department. We want to hear from the experts.'

To cut a long story short, he thought he was clever. He turned up; he didn't get to say anything. We voted unanimously as a committee, although some didn't like my ruling. I am ably backed up by the senators who were on that committee doing all the hard yards with their sleeves rolled up and not show ponies who float in to a capital city for a four-hour rant or just so they can get a photo. The worst part that came out of this, I'll tell you right now, is that I've been trying to work behind the scenes with Senator Hanson-Young to try and resolve this and to avoid this situation. But, when a senator walks into our committee and then walks outside to the waiting media and accuses me, Senator Gallacher, Senator McCarthy, Senator O'Sullivan and crew of running a protection racket for the Nationals, I've got to tell you, then I will take offence. And that is what happened.

Behind the scenes, I desperately tried to work with Senator Hanson-Young. I said, 'Let's fix this up quietly.' My deputy chair, Senator O'Sullivan, spat the chewie. I tell you, the dummy came flying out of the cot, and he was off. He recused himself from the committee, and I don't blame him, because he is a Nationals senator. He doesn't want to hear that rubbish, the same as I wouldn't want to hear that rubbish against a Labor senator, when we were trying to take the proper evidence to come up with a good report on how we can help the farmers up and down the Murray and all those who rely on it for survival and producing food for us. Unfortunately, with Senator Hanson-Young, there is form here; there is absolute form. She can come screaming down here, and she can tell me I'm wrong. You know, Senator Hanson-Young, that I tried to work behind the scenes so we could avoid this. Fortunately, I can say, the government senators are back in the tent. The government senators have recommitted because they can see through the nonsense too, and they can speak for themselves, alongside the Labor senators. We will continue this fine work because there's nothing worse.

At Broken Hill, we had the Mayor of Brewarrina who came all the way down—and I haven't driven from Brewarrina to Adelaide, but I know it's a long, long way and there are a few aeroplanes and whatnot—to come and present to us. What we actually said in Broken Hill was, 'Mate, we really want to hear from you.' This man's got a lot to say. He's been elected the mayor, for crying out loud; he's not self-appointed. But we wanted to show respect for the people of Brewarrina, and we said: 'Stop! We'll come to you. We'll come up. We'll meet you and we'll meet people that might not agree with you. We'll meet your community. You can show us; you can tell us.' That is the way the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee operates. It has operated like that for the 13 years I've been here, and it will continue to operate that way for however many more years I am here. I can guarantee it. And I know my fellow senators all have that same feeling. Anyway, there will be others to speak, but I want to make this very clear, from some reports out there.

I bet you Senator Hanson-Young doesn't turn up at Brewarrina. Senator Hanson-Young, I bet you don't turn up to any meetings. You haven't turned up to any meetings since. You didn't turn up to any meetings before. I know we won't see you. The South Australian election has come and gone. I'm not interested in how the Greens went there either. We'll continue to roll our sleeves up. We'll continue to do the hard work. I just want to make sure, when senators are making statements to the community. Senator Hanson-Young is not a full-time member of the committee. In fact, I can't remember the last time Senator Hanson-Young has been on one of our inquiries. She would've been earlier in her career. I haven't seen her around the agriculture or transport sphere for years.

Anyway—to get back to where we're going—we intend to develop a final report. We intend to give the minister every opportunity. The voices of the bush will be in our reports, and other forums can worry about other things that there are accusations against. It's just sad that it gets down to this, if this is the type of senator that we're now starting to put in, if those young ones out there think that this is clever—if you admire people that come in, you admire people that go to the media, and you admire these senators who tell blatant lies about committees. I tell you what: there are 75 others of us in here who do not operate like that. There are another 75 of us from a number of political parties who will continue to do the work that we were elected to do to represent our communities, our states and the industries which our inquiries are looking into.

I think that, before I go off into a real tailspin, I will leave it at that. I will not be daunted by one show-ponying senator who had nothing better to do that morning than to try and grab a headline.

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

I too want to make a contribution to discussions about this tabled report. Firstly, I want to attach myself to every single element of all the statements made then by Senator Sterle. This is a committee that I operated in firstly as a participating member, then as a voting member and more recently as the chair of the legislative dimension, which, as you know, Madam Deputy President, is a mirror of the position held by Senator Sterle.

This committee has had a tremendous reputation for as long as I've been in the parliament and, insofar as I can assess the folklore, almost since its inception. I think the reason for that is that there is so much at stake with the work of this particular committee. It oversees some very, very important areas of government performance, including transport, which is significantly important to this country, to its productivity and to the movement of goods and the provision of services; aviation, and we've got some real challenges in that space that this committee's been working away at; and, close to my heart as a member of the National Party here in this coalition government, matters to do with primary production of the type described so aptly by Senator Sterle. This committee can only do the work it does, and the good work that it does, through the collegiate nature of all the members of the committee. Politics are quite literally left at the door by committee members in RRAT in my experience. I've served on a number of committees in this place, and I'd have to say that that's not always the case.

I just want to go into a little bit more detail because the circumstances here can prove to be very, very damaging and permanently damaging to the reputation of this valuable committee work. In fact, the conduct of committees, their work, their conclusions, their recommendations and their policy recommendations are, in my mind at least, almost the most significant function undertaken by the members of this chamber. When one measures a government, one measures a government by inclusiveness; one measures a government by openness; one measures a government by transparency. They're three of the major five accepted measurements of the performance of a government. I've got to say that, if you look at the conduct of the committees' work, they score very, very highly, significantly highly, in all of those areas. It is one of the few times when the parliament formally goes to the people to ask for their input on very, very important questions and to see what their views are and what their ideas are so that the parliament can take their input and build on it and make recommendations to the government of the day. It is significantly important and it is one of the pulse tests that one would take, in my view, with respect to the conduct of a healthy democracy.

What could be the most damaging thing one could do to the reputation of this process? The most damaging thing one could do would be to make allegations against the conduct of a committee—or the committee members, in this case. Senator Sterle is right. You could not have made a more egregious allegation than to suggest that the committee, and, therefore, the members of the committee and the conduct of the committee, was running a protection racket for, in this case, the National Party, who are coalition partners in the presiding government. Is a senator entitled to make allegations against the conduct of a colleague or colleagues? Of course they are. They may have before them information or evidence of a serious nature—and there could be nothing more serious, of course, than suggesting that a protection racket is being run. That would underpin an argument of corruption with respect to this Senate, this place. With that comes the burden of being able to produce the evidence. We have other mediums in this place, including this very chamber. If you want to present evidence and share with us allegations that are made by individuals or groups or entities, then there are many mediums in order to be able to do that without damaging the committee system. The worst way you could share your concerns would be to walk out of a committee meeting because you are unhappy—in this case, with a decision of the committee with respect to one of your stool pigeons who you've brought into the committee—and make this sort of allegation, a baseless allegation, as it turns out, to the media.

Senator Hanson-Young, of course, has a history of this. I don't know whether it's because she's not that bright—think Sea Patrolor whether she is just trying to damage the inquiry because it's not going in a direction of her choosing. Nonetheless, she was afforded an opportunity by the committee to either particularise and substantiate the allegations or withdraw them. She declined to do that. Before I recused myself, when the committee resumed in public hearing, she was called upon to provide details and to particularise and table her evidence, and she declined to do that. In meetings held subsequently, she was invited again to take those measures so that the allegations she made could be assessed. I then challenged her in this chamber. You might remember. I bet every member of the chamber a carton of beer—this was some months ago—that we will never see her here in her place repeating these allegations or allowing herself to be tested and examined on the credibility of her statements.

There is a pattern here with Senator Hanson-Young. We heard it again today. She says $10 million was offered to an Aboriginal community to bring about something favourable, she says, to the then Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. I know she's watching. I don't know which camera to look at, but I'm sure you'll get the point, Senator Hanson-Young: you are telling lies—and that makes you something. I won't go there because I don't want to lose any of my time having to withdraw.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I raise a point of order. I'm fairly sure that's a breach of standing orders.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. Senator O'Sullivan, would you please withdraw that comment.

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

Madam Deputy President, that reference—that people aren't telling the truth—has been made frequently in this place.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Sullivan, place resume your seat. I've asked you to withdraw what is considered to be unparliamentary language. There is no question about it. I would ask you to please withdraw.

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

I withdraw. Senator Hanson-Young has made a practice of not telling the truth to our committee and to this chamber. She's had every opportunity—in fact, she's got two minutes—to get herself down here and prove me to be wrong on this particular issue. She's not even here to talk to the interim report, this thing so precious to her, yet she says that the work is damaged and that the integrity of the committee is damaged. The government is going to resume and participate with the committee, because we've given this senator ample time to particularise issues relating to her allegations. She'll again be invited today to particularise what she's done.

The senator is quite an incompetent operator when it comes to challenging issues in committee systems. We've all been exposed to that frequently. She is a perennial offender, making allegations and interrogating witnesses in committees and in estimates without one single iota as a basis for the statements she makes. Senator Hanson-Young, if someone were to challenge my integrity and indicate that I had not told the truth, I'm telling you that, as fat and old as I am, I would come through the doors of this chamber and they would come off their hinges. So I wonder where you are, Senator Hanson-Young. Where are you? Let us all just pause and listen for her defence of herself. Nothing but silence.

She needs to be condemned for these actions, Madam Deputy President. She needs to be condemned for the potential that these actions have for the integrity of the entire committee system. She needs to be condemned for the potential damage they can have on this Senate, because these committees are, indeed, sitting as the Senate. I call on her one more time: Senator Hanson-Young, make your way down here and defend yourself.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senators would know I only came back into this chamber a few months ago. I know some things changed in the 10 or so years that I wasn't here, but I'm fairly sure there used to be a convention when I was here previously that, if senators decided they were going to launch what was clearly a fairly direct, pre-meditated pile of personal attacks on a fellow senator, they would give that senator notice of that. That convention may be dead now, along with many other conventions in this place that, sadly, have crumbled to dust in the meantime. Nonetheless, I think it's not too bad a convention to look at trying to revive.

Clearly, I wasn't part of this particular committee and the hearing and the various incidents that have riled the two previous speakers, so I don't profess to express an explicit opinion about what did and didn't happen. But I will say in regard to my colleague Senator Hanson-Young that to suggest that she has some sort of feigned temporary interest in the Murray-Darling because of the South Australian election is clearly wrong. I'll leave it at that. The evidence on the record in this chamber is very clear, including today in question time. The South Australian election is over. If her interest were solely because of that, she wouldn't be continuing to pursue the matter as she did in question time today. She has a long history over many years of involvement, activity and engagement with the issue of the Murray-Darling Basin and its impact, particularly on her home state of South Australia. Certainly, from the period of time prior to my coming back in this chamber, I know well and truly more than enough to be able to say that it is simply incorrect to imply or, in some cases, explicitly allege that Senator Hanson-Young's engagement with this issue is somehow just a transient thing as a result of the South Australian election.

I do agree with the previous speaker that it is important to try to have our Senate committees function in a way that is collegiate and as cooperative as possible. Again, I think that is something that became far less frequent in the intervening decade when I wasn't here. I'm not saying it would have been any better if I had been here during that period, but that is also something that has clearly declined. Where those committees—those groups of people—do operate collegiately and are working reasonably effectively and cooperatively, that's great, but we all know it's not always possible, particularly on an issue as vexed as the Murray-Darling Basin.

To try to single out just one person from all the individuals and say that they are somehow destroying collegiateness with regard to the operation of a Senate committee I think is grossly unfair. If no-one else is going to speak on this, I will seek leave to continue my remarks later, to enable Senator Hanson-Young to respond at some stage. To suggest that she doesn't care enough because she is not here—how many people normally turn up on a Thursday afternoon to talk to committee reports, except for me?

Senator Sterle interjecting—

Senator Sterle does occasionally; I will give you that. Many of these reports are tabled with barely a comment at all or they are reserved for other times for people to speak on, or people cover them in other contexts. We all know that. Half the time I have polite jibes from people from other parties about how much time I spend talking about various reports that get tabled here. I think it's a valuable thing to do, but I can appreciate that people have many demands on their time when it comes to what they do when they are in this place and they have many opportunities to put on the record their views and their concerns about a particular issue. Again, I would very much emphasise that Senator Hanson-Young has repeatedly, much to the irritation of the government, in particular, put on the record her views and her concerns about the Murray-Darling Basin. Clearly she gets under the skin of some on the government benches, in particular—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bartlett, please resume your seat. Senator Gallacher, on a point of order?

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Mr Acting Deputy President. I draw to the attention of the Senate and yourself that this is taking note of the second interim report. I'm not sure that Senator Bartlett has touched on the second interim report as yet in his 4½-minute contribution.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand the motion before the chair is that the recommendation that the reporting date be extended be agreed to. That's the question before the chair. And just to clarify with you, Senator Bartlett: you indicated you might seek leave to continue your remarks later, but this motion in fact has to be dealt with and will not be saved by that mechanism.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In that case, I'm sure Senator Hanson-Young will find another way to deal with it. With regard to the motion, certainly it's something that the Greens are not going to oppose. It looked like Senator Gallacher might want to speak to the motion as well, although if the purpose of the motion was to spend one minute talking about the need to extend the committee's reporting date and nine minutes slagging off another senator without warning them, then to complain about me and to try to prevent me from responding to those attacks, again, is hardly an act of collegiateness or allowing people to put their side of the story.

If we do want to talk about ensuring our committees operate in a collegiate way, I'm sure all of us could point to multiple examples of people from other parties in this place making allegations far more serious than what seems to have got under the skin of Senator O'Sullivan, including people from the government side who are actually chairs of committees. If you want to look at trying to clean up behaviour with regard to Senate committees, don't worry about the specks in other people's eyes and look at the log in your own. I suggest that would be the way to go. There is plenty of cleaning up to do with regard to, particularly, one government member who is a chair of the committee. I won't single them out and name them, because I don't want to send this off down another tangent. But there is plenty of room for improvement for people on all sides.

I hope this newfound principle of polite behaviour that Senator O'Sullivan is putting forward to us all is a creed that he's sowing amongst his colleagues as well, going around the various committees and saying that we need to be more collegiate in the way we behave in committee hearings. I'll go along with him if he likes, through some of the different committees—around estimates time perhaps, when we see some unduly harsh and combative behaviour by fellow government or Labor senators. I'll be there with him in the spirit of collegiality and improving behaviour for everybody. If he wants to put that principle out there, then let's see how well it's followed by his colleagues.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of this report and, in particular, to support the committee's recommendation that the Senate grant an extension of time for the committee to report.

I do that for a very simple reason. When you are on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, you visit rural, regional and outback areas, where people place an enormous amount of faith in the Senate committee system. They come to these hearings in quite large numbers; they give their evidence in a very truthful, honest and forthright way; and they hope, fervently, that there is going to be a careful evaluation of the evidence, some strong recommendations from the committee and, as is the case with a references committee, perhaps some action and recognition from the government. The only way that we can actually achieve that is when we're quorate. That requires a government senator to sit and give quorum to the references committee. If the actions of a senator—or a number of senators—drive apart the cohesive nature of the committee, it is detrimental to the whole process and the whole history of Senate committee work.

I chair the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee and have quite enough to do, but, when an issue that affects South Australia comes along, and one as important as this issue, I will do everything I can to attend those hearings. In this case, I was a substitute voting member of the committee. The actions in South Australia were quite untoward, and I felt equally as offended as the committee chair, Senator O'Sullivan, by the allegation that there was somehow a protection racket for the Nationals and, in particular, a protection racket for the Hon. Barnaby Joyce.

Now, all the people who know me, Glenn or any other members of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee would know we are a pretty robust crew and we don't run protection rackets for anybody. For a senator to step outside the committee hearing, into the hallway, address the media and say, 'The committee is running a protection racket for the Nationals,' I found extremely offensive—extremely offensive. As a matter of fact, my immediate reaction was to say, 'Why I am bothering to participate in this inquiry, give it oxygen, so someone can misuse Senate procedure and protocol in such an ordinary way?' There will be people who say, 'They're all attacking Senator Hanson-Young because she's a Green, she's progressive,' whatever. Well, there's a bit of history to this.

I didn't ask, but the Senate, through whatever process it is, asked me to chair the inquiry into the allegations about Nauru. I found that inquiry quite confronting. I found that for the people dealing with the evidence that was given to that committee—you can't read this stuff endlessly and remain the same. There was a lot of really confronting evidence put to that committee. And it was on that committee that I first saw the modus operandi of Senator Hanson-Young. I wasn't particularly happy with that operation, but we participated. The government, the opposition, the Greens and the cross-bench parties went through and produced what I thought was a substantial report, and we did get some success.

Then, when we moved on to another inquiry that I ended up on that was not part of my normal duties in the Senate, which was the inquiry into the Great Australian Bight, I was accused of selling my soul for 5,000 pieces of silver—for a donation to the South Australian Labor Party—and of being in the thrall of the mining and exploration companies. I thought, 'That isn't what the Senate process is all about.' But we battled our way through that.

But then we come to the inquiry on the Murray-Darling Basin—100 years of negotiation eventually reduced to a plan. When we knew that South Australia probably had the best compliance and the best metering, and the best bureaucrats at actually working out how to be very frugal and use water properly, we went to that state to take evidence about that, only to have that completely derailed by what appeared to be a gratuitous, unfair, incorrect comment. I found that completely reprehensible and not worthy of what this great Senate committee system does.

We wanted to take evidence about what was going right in the system, at the end of the system. And if there was untoward activity in New South Wales or the upper northern basin or anywhere, then we could use that evidence and make genuine recommendations about how to make it better. We knew that there were various inquiries going on in the New South Wales jurisdiction. We knew that the minister was looking at things. We knew that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority was looking at it. But we were on an evidence-gathering exercise, to make clear and concise recommendations based on evidence taken, and, hopefully, to keep all of the quorum of the committee together, and to get a just result for those people who came and really put their heart and soul into it and gave evidence and, in some cases, almost pleaded with us to produce a report that would deliver them some fairness, some equity, and at least get their viewpoint heard at the upper levels of government.

I do pride myself on working within the Senate committee structure. You will never find me, as the chair or not as the chair, talking to the media and making statements in the actual deliberation phase. When the report's finished, talk all you like. But, while we're in deliberation, let's work collegially and effectively together.

I point to the report that the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee did, The constant battle. Every government member and every crossbench member, and that includes the Australian Greens party members—everybody on that committee—worked collegially and effectively, and got a report up which had 20 of its 22 recommendations accepted by the government, and not only accepted by the government but funded.

That's what we were trying to do in this exercise. And I thought it was a disgrace and most unfortunate that the evidence of good, hardworking people around this country was all thrown into abeyance on the actions of, essentially, one person. Whatever their motivation was, they can speak to that themselves. I'm only talking about the facts here. I was so personally offended I didn't want to continue on that committee. But, having regard to the people who give evidence, you have to. So we'll get over this, and we'll produce a report, and hopefully it'll do exactly what these Senate committees do: produce evidence based recommendations that make life better for those people in regional and rural Australia.

We do not have to go down the avenue of a minister—and I've got to say this: he's one of mine; he's on our side; he's a Labor Party member—demanding that he appear before a committee to read a diatribe, and I say 'a diatribe', about the federal minister. That's not what Senate committees are there to take evidence about. His allegations were his allegations. He had his own parliament to raise them in. He had a media crew outside to raise them. On what basis could we use that sort of contribution as evidence?

I don't want to get too wound up about this, but I do think that the Senate process is an excellent process and it can work very well, and it's a shame that it didn't work as well as it should have in this case. But let's hope we can get on track again and produce a collegial report that does some good.

Question agreed to.