David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Lately other senators have started talking about their achievements. They don't have much to talk about. That's not the case with the Liberal Democrats. We have clear principles, so we know what we want and occasionally, regularly, we get it. Last month I gave a speech in which I described a few of our achievements. There was no time to mention everything, so today I'll run through a few more. It won't be everything, again, so there will be more on this.

Soon after I started as a senator, I moved to disallow a regulation to increase levies on mangos, onions and mushrooms. It was clear that grower consultation was a joke and major producers were being screwed. My disallowance motion prompted an inquiry into the levy system by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. By the end of the first hour of evidence at the first hearing the committee could see what I knew already: the system was broken. Some farmer groups had never been consulted. Some voted to impose a levy the first time but never again. Some were asked to vote to increase the levy, but the vote was so rigged it was laughable.

It was also apparent that the collection system was a mess. Nobody knew whether all the growers were paying levies or paying them on the same basis. In most sectors there was no register of levy payers. Considering levies totalling more than $500 million a year are collected, this was alarming.

In response to the inquiry, the department embarked on a process of requiring each sector to establish databases of levy payers. That process is still occurring, but considerable progress has been made. My hope is that eventually levy payers will vote every three or five years to decide whether to continue paying levies, at what level and perhaps even on matters of general strategic direction regarding what their levies could be used for—for example, marketing versus R&D. This was all because of what I started with, a disallowance motion.

In the last parliament, former senator John Madigan sought my assistance to establish an inquiry into the health effects of wind farms. I helped prepare terms of reference and helped get the motion passed and took a leading role in the inquiry itself. I also took the lead on drafting the interim report. Then I led a crossbench deputation to then Prime Minister Tony Abbott to have its recommendations implemented. He needed our vote and he agreed. The result was that one of the outcomes was implemented, the creation of the Wind Farm Commissioner. I'm no supporter of wind farms, particularly when they're subsidised, but at least that's a question of opinion. Telling people it's their fault if they become sick when a wind farm is established near their home is just not on by any standard, and that's what was happening.

The commissioner has shown himself to be a solver of problems. He kicked the wind industry in the behind and forced it to deal with unhappy neighbours in a decent fashion and to take account of them when planning and developing a wind farm. He prepared guidelines, which state governments have adopted in their planning rules. So the potential for neighbours to be made sick by wind farms has been substantially reduced. Wind farm developers must now also abide by the conditions of approval, which they didn't used to think were necessary. Now that the WHO has agreed that wind farms can have adverse health effects, the inquiry and its results have been fully vindicated. The Wind Farm Commissioner was quite recently reappointed, with no objections.

We all know the ABC and SBS live in a politically correct bubble. They represent a certain section of society—green, left leaning, well-educated and prosperous—and are almost entirely unaware of how much they are out of touch with the rest of Australia. In an attempt to do something about that, I negotiated with the government to require the boards of both organisations to hold half their meetings in regional areas and to conduct public forums at the same time. I can't say I've noticed any difference yet, as both are just as remote from mainstream Australia as ever. But I live in hope that, sooner or later, contact with people outside of the bubble might make a difference.

I also negotiated with the government to promote a review of court suppression order regimes around the country via COAG. Courts in some states are very quick to suppress details of court proceedings, severely inhibiting media reporting. This is fundamentally dangerous to public confidence in the justice system, which relies on transparency. That review has commenced, although it has some way to run. I'm pleased to say the current Attorney-General is aware of my concern on this and is continuing to pursue it.

Another issue I have pursued is the Commonwealth's conduct when engaged in litigation. Notwithstanding a set of rules known as the model litigant rules, the Commonwealth is notorious for behaving in an abysmal fashion, using its bottomless taxpayer-funded pockets to run up litigant costs and force them to capitulate. I introduced a bill to allow parties harmed by this behaviour to seek relief from the court while the Ombudsman investigated. It wouldn't prevent all poor behaviour by the Commonwealth, but it would be a step in the right direction. An inquiry into the bill is in progress and seems likely to conclude that the bill is warranted. I unashamedly claim credit for the fact that this issue is now on the government's agenda.

In response to complaints from rural communities, I moved to establish a select committee to inquire into implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It was a particularly productive inquiry, with committee membership dominated by the crossbench. What the inquiry found is that water is being taken from productive agriculture in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland and is being sent down the Murray River and the Darling River to South Australia on the assumption that this will somehow improve the environment in the Lower Lakes, Coorong and Murray Mouth. The problem is that geography has been ignored. The barrages at the mouth of the Murray keep the lakes artificially fresh so that a lot of fresh water just evaporates and there's no real flushing effect. The Murray Mouth remains blocked, and the Coorong is dying. Clearly, the report of the committee hit a nerve. Since then there have been more inquiries and now the Productivity Commission is reviewing the implementation of the plan. Let's hope the government finally acknowledges that there is a problem.

Finally, I established a committee to inquire into personal choice, otherwise known as the nanny state inquiry. It's shone a light on a series of issues in which governments have imposed rules in order to save us from ourselves when nobody else is harmed. I can't point to any specific outcomes and, in any case, many of the issues were within the jurisdiction of the states; but the inquiry exposed a vast amount of community concern at being told how to live. The issue is still very much alive.

There are many more achievements I could mention, but I'll need another one or two more speeches to cover them. Of course, more needs to be done. Taxes and government spending remain far too high and red tape and nanny state regulations continue to put a straightjacket on Australians going about their business. But some progress has been made and, with more Liberal Democrats elected to the Senate, we can achieve much more.