Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Minister Assisting the Attorney-General on Queensland Floods Recovery) (09:30): On behalf of Senator Arbib, I move:

That, pursuant to standing order 25(9), the Senate determines:

   (a)   that the chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee shall be elected by that committee from members nominated by minor parties or independent senators; and

   (b)   that this order remain in effect until the President is duly notified of an agreement that meets the terms of standing order 25(9)(c).

I do not want to take up too much of the Senate's time since we have the continuation of the second reading debate on the clean energy package this morning. So I will be brief. This motion should not take up too much time as it is straightforward. It increases the number of chairs the Greens will hold on references committees. This is in line with previous practice of the Senate.

With the Greens having nine senators from July this year, it is appropriate to adjust their chairing role accordingly. I understand that the Greens raised this adjustment both informally and formally with the opposition—the opposition's response has not been positive—and finally the Greens raised it with the President, who in turn has brought it to the chamber to be resolved, hence the motion we are dealing with this morning. It would have been preferable for the committee itself to sort this matter out. Unfortunately, the committee was unable to settle it without reference to the chamber. That is why the motion is now before us.

Obviously there are differing interpretations of how Senate committee chairs should be allocated. I am certain the opposition will have an interesting inter­pretation to detail to the Senate, but let me outline the government's position on this, which is broadly in line with how the Senate committee system operated between 1994 and 2005. The Senate should have both legislation and references committees. The two sets of committees perform comple­mentary and valuable roles for the Senate. By convention, the government should chair all the Senate legislation committees and that continues. Chairing of the references committees is for the opposition and minor parties, with the opposition having the majority of these chairs, usually around six, and minor parties sometimes sharing and sometimes taking—depending on their proportion of representation in the Senate—both of the other two chairs. That is similar to the arrangement we had when the Australian Democrats were in this place and had similar numbers—nine seats. They were given the opportunity to chair two references committees. This motion reinstates this well-tested and successful allocation of chairs of Senate committees and I commend it to the chamber.

As I said, it would have been preferable had the committee itself sorted this matter out, but unfortunately they were unable to and so it has been brought before the chamber for resolution. What we are now proposing is in line with the proportional representation of this chamber and such procedure has been in place for a very long time.

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (09:35): I move:

That the words "Legal and Constitutional Affairs" be removed and replaced with "Environment and Communications" so that paragraph (a) now reads:

(a) that the chair of the Environment and Communications References Committee shall be elected by that committee from members nominated by minor parties or independent senators.

With all the issues confronting this nation—the carbon tax, the mining tax, the border protection policy in disarray—what is the first item of business the government brings into the chamber today? Another committee chair for the Greens. That is what is at the front of the government's mind—to placate the Greens, to keep their alliance together. I say to the Manager of Government Business in the Senate that in fact his party has a signed agreement with the Greens. Who can forget the spectacle of the table set out in the Prime Minister's courtyard, where Senator Brown and other Greens were sitting in their suits, wattle sprigs in their lapels? It had all the makings of a civil ceremony, of a marriage, in effect, between the Greens and the Labor Party.

The main issue we have been debating in recent times, the carbon tax, is proof positive. It was conceived out of that relationship because Labor had gone to the election saying that there would be no carbon tax. It is the Greens who have foisted the carbon tax on the Labor Party. Indeed, Mr Adam Bandt himself bragged about that in a media release which said that, when he met with Ms Gillard, he had said, 'There is one thing we need for an alliance and that is a price on carbon,' and she had said, 'Yes, deal done.'

Today another deal has been done between Labor and the Greens to give another Greens senator a $15,000 pay rise. Why are they giving it to a government alliance partner? These chairs should be going to genuine opposition parties. So for Senator Ludwig to come into this chamber and suggest that somehow the Greens should be seen as the Democrats were is absolutely and patently false because the Democrats never did a dirty deal with a government by signing up with them. They retained Don Chipp's motto—I know it is unparliamentary—which was 'Keep the bastards honest.' They would not side with either side but considered each issue on its merit—not so with the Australian Greens. They have signed up with the Australian Labor Party, and we have a Greens senator nodding in agreement. They have signed up.

What the Greens senators are now saying is, 'We want all the trappings and benefits of government and—whatever few there are—benefits of opposition as well.' This is, of course, typical of the Australian Greens. They love it both ways, don't they? Corporate donations are bad for political parties, unless it is a $1.6 million donation that the leader of the Greens himself negotiated. That is okay. If somebody happens to miss a division, that is bad. It shows a party in disarray—that is, of course, unless the leader of the Greens himself misses a division. That is different: it is all perfectly excusable, all perfectly understandable.

So what we have yet again in this place today is the suggestion that the Greens should get all the benefits of government and whatever benefits there are of opposition. We as an opposition say that you have to be either fish or fowl in this game. You cannot try to be both. Of course, that is what the Australian Greens are seeking to do throughout. But we believe that, in fact, the Greens should not even have the Community Affairs References Committee chairmanship, because they are part and parcel of the government. To make sure this place operates, we as an opposition were willing to overlook that for the time being to allow the system to keep running as it was. However, now the Greens are moving the goalposts, as is always the case, seeking further and further benefits for themselves. We are going to take a stand on this. We are opposing it.

It does not seem to be a coincidence that, of all the chairs that the Australian Greens could have chosen, the first one was the community affairs committee. I wonder why? Guess who the chairman of that committee was at the time? Senator Gary Humphries. We then say Senator Humphries is a very good man and should be chairing another Senate committee, and so he becomes the chair of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Com­mittee. Guess what? The Australian Greens say, 'Oh, we now want that committee as well.' Why are they in such hot pursuit of Senator Gary Humphries? It is because of his capacity to ensure that the Australian Greens do not win a Senate seat in the Australian Capital Territory, and so each and every time they seek to cut the ground from under Senator Gary Humphries. Can I say you will have to do better than that. You will have to have policies that actually resonate with the people of the Australian Capital Territory before you continue to pursue Senator Gary Humphries in this very ham-fisted way.

But just to assist the Australian Greens and to keep faith with their electorate, we as an opposition are going to move that the words 'legal and constitutional' be deleted from the motion and replaced with the words 'environment and communications'. That will give the Australian Greens the opportunity to tell the Australian people whether the environment is actually their No. 1 issue or whether their social agenda is in fact their real motivation. Indeed, their vote on this amendment will be indicative of whether they are genuinely the watermelon party of the Australian political scene or simply using the green veneer, thin as it is, to cover up a big red centre of social engineering, which we have always said was the case. Today will be the test for the Australian Greens on whether their No. 1 item is the environment or whether it is social engineering and that is why they have been in such hot pursuit of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee chairmanship.

The Australian Greens, who always want everything, who always move the goalposts, today will be given a free kick by the opposition in relation to the committee of their choice. We will, of course, oppose the Greens getting two committees. We believe they do not deserve one because they have signed up with the government and any committee chairmanships they want should be resolved in their Monday morning meetings between Senator Brown and Ms Gillard when they talk about all the affairs of the nation. I would have thought Senator Brown and Ms Gillard could have come to a solution in relation to this and determined which of the Labor chairs they would be taking. But here we have the Australian Greens wanting to take that which rightfully belongs to the opposition. We will give the Australian Greens the opportunity to vote whether or not they want an environment committee or the legal and constitutional committee. We will be opposing the suggestion that they should be entitled to these two committees. Senator Humphries—

Senator Carol Brown interjecting—

Senator ABETZ: It is a good interjection by Senator Carol Brown as to where Senator Humphries goes next, because one thing I do know is that Senator Humphries will continue to go up and up in the estimation of the people of the Australian Capital Territory and amongst his colleagues and in this place. That will continue to happen irrespective of the Labor Party and the Greens colluding to try to give the Greens a leg-up for another Senate seat in the Australian Capital Territory. To think that the Australian Greens have combined and colluded with the Australian Labor Party to form a government and now somehow claim that they are not part of the government and should get some of the spoils of opposition is indicative of the duplicitous and hypocritical stance they take.

We believe very strongly that this duplicity by the Australian Greens, which seems to know no end, needs to be explored and ventilated so the Australian people get to see what the Australian Greens actually stand for. Some of us get sick and tired from time to time of the puff pieces we see in the Australian media about the Australian Greens. I cannot help but remember the puff piece in the 'hate' media, the Weekend Australian, about Senator Brown and his nice house at Liffey. There were lovely pictures and panoramic views, but something caught my attention in the panoramic view. There was also a nice picture inside the house and something else caught my attention. I thought, 'How does this stand up against the Greens policy of not using wood waste for energy and biomass?' Do you know what was in that panoramic view? Smoke coming out of the chimney at Senator Bob Brown's house. Do you know what caught my eye in the view of his lounge room? The log fire—one of the most inefficient ways to heat a house. But, again, we should not be surprised. People should not be allowed to have wood fires! They should not be allowed to have biomass! Industry should not be allowed to! But, of course, Senator Bob Brown should because Senator Bob Brown is different. All those rules which he seeks to apply to everyone else should not apply to Senator Bob Brown because Senator Brown is the Leader of the Australian Greens. Senator Bob Brown is different and, therefore, the Australian Greens should be treated differently. Of course the list of hypocrisy and duplicity goes on and on.

That is why the Pecksniffian attitude of the Australian Greens needs to be exposed for all to see. The duplicity is there for all to see and today is another example of it. But what is most humiliating in all of this is that the Labor Party would stoop to do their dirty work, that the Manager of Government Business in the Senate would make this move in the Senate for and on behalf of the Australian Greens. There is no sense of shame and no sense of being independent from the Australian Greens. They are doing the dirty work for the Australian Greens, at a time when the Australian Greens are trying to say, 'We aren't really part of the govern­ment; we are really part of the opposition for this debate.' If that is the case, if they are not part of the government, why is it that the Manager of Government Business in the Senate is moving the motion? Why didn't the Australian Greens move it for and on behalf of themselves? Because the Australian Labor Party will do anything and say anything to placate the Australian Greens. And of course they will distort themselves to do it, as they have done in relation to the carbon tax—a tax which the Australian people do not want and that Ms Gillard is willing to implement just to keep the Australian Greens happy.

We were told by the Manager of Government Business in the Senate that he would not seek to delay the Senate for long in relation to this issue. I know why—he had no feathers to fly with. There is no justification for the government to do this. There is no argument. So I suppose that is the easiest thing to do if you have no arguments at all. Even if the highly paid spin doctor that the Labor Party got from Tony Blair cannot spin you the lines to try to justify this one, the best thing to do I suppose is to sit down, shut up and hope that nobody notices. Bad luck, Senator Ludwig and bad luck to the Australian Labor Party. We have noticed. Even your highly paid spin doctor from the United Kingdom could not spin you out of this one. He could not give you a form of words to even fill in half of the time that was allocated to you to justify this unprincipled move in support of your Greens alliance partners.

For the Senate to work and for the Senate to work appropriately, you need give and take. You need to accept that there has to be cooperation. That is why, for example, tomorrow the coalition have very graciously given the government time—the private members' time usually allocated to us—for the purposes of the carbon tax debate. That is why, given that there was a heritage issue in relation to the community affairs committee, we were not willing to push the boundaries in relation to Senator Siewert's chairmanship and we were willing to allow that to go through to the keeper. Now, despite the cooperation that they get from the coalition day after day, hour by hour in this place, they are throwing all that cooperation into our face and saying: 'We don't care about all that cooperation. We won't agree with your support in making this chamber move as it should. We will throw all that into your face and take another chairmanship from the opposition for a government alliance partner senator.' If that is the way the Australian Labor Party want to play the game, so be it.

We will continue to be cooperative. We will continue to be a responsible opposition. But what we will do on a regular basis is highlight when the hapless Manager of Government Business in the Senate has to move motions for and on behalf of the Greens because the Greens are too embarrassed to do it for themselves. Why the Australian Labor Party would stoop to such a low level today and make this the No. 1 item for today just beggars belief? The Australian people listening to this broadcast, few though there may be, will know that the top order business for today for the Australian Labor Party government is to give the Greens another chairmanship. Why the Labor Party would stoop so low one does not know. Why don't we know? Because the minister himself was not willing to use the allocated time to try to justify why the Australian Labor Party was doing it.

Senator Ludwig interjecting—

Senator ABETZ: The minister just interjected and said, 'Because we should be talking about the clean energy package.' You know what? I absolutely agree. I am in heated agreement. So it begs the question: why the urgency to move this motion today during a period when we should be debating the clean energy package? Why couldn't you have deferred it until next year, after the clean energy package? Because you wanted to do another deal. It is another down payment on this dirty deal that the Australian Labor Party have done with the Australian Greens.

It is always the way, isn't it, with blackmailers? One demand will be made and as soon as you have succumbed to that the next demand is made and then the next. We know what the first demand in this blackmail was. What was it? It was the carbon tax. The second one was to ruin the Tasmanian forest industry and throw thousands of Tasmanians out of work. We know that that was another part of the blackmailing, and now we have the third example. The Greens are saying: 'We demand a new chairmanship. We want another chairmanship, but we will not be moving it. You, the Australian Labor Party, will move it for and on behalf of the Australian Greens.' The Labor Party will bear all the opprobrium so that when it is passed with a combined vote the Greens can say: 'We didn't really want it. It was the Labor Party that moved it and it was foisted upon us.'

The arrogance of the Australian Greens knows no bounds. We read about this move and that a particular senator would be given the chairmanship before the Senate had the motion before it, because the Greens were bragging about this new chairmanship in the media clips yesterday. They were already bragging about their achievement, pre-empting the vote of the Senate, which indicates they had done a deal with the Labor Party. They were pre-empting the vote of the Senate and they are now dealing with this place with the same sort of arrogance that the Australian Labor Party does. That is why it is quite appropriate that they sign this formal agreement, that is why they are an alliance and that is the reason they do not deserve a second chairmanship. (Time expired)

Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (09:55): One thing Senator Abetz can never be accused of is boxing above the belt. The amendment moved by Senator Abetz, which proposes that the Greens be given the chair of the environment and communications committee, says two things. Firstly, it says that Senator Abetz and the coalition agree that a second chair of a committee should be given to the Australian Greens. That is very clear. It is written in this amendment. It also says that the determination of the chair should be made by the opposition. That is nowhere in the history of the Senate. What is proposed here is a very reasonable move for the Greens, with nine members in the Senate, to chair two of the committees. That is exactly the arrangement that the Howard government, which included Senator Abetz, made with the Democrats. When there were nine Democrat senators they had two chairs. That is exactly the parity that the Greens are seeking and that the government has accommodated through this motion.

I propose to amend the amendment moved by Senator Abetz to replace the words 'removed and replaced' with the word 'augmented' and, in section (a), to insert the words 'legal and constitutional affairs and' before the word 'environment'. This would effectively use the talent bank in the Greens ranks. I want to compromise with Senator Abetz here. I come here in a spirit of give and take with Senator Abetz. He has put up a very fine idea. I think it is a very good idea from Senator Abetz. It recognises that there is a talent bank here in the which should be tapped. He is proposing that the chair of another committee as well be taken by the Greens. I will not get into discriminating among the people in my ranks, but I could name a number of them who could take up Senator Abetz's worthy option. I see some here that I would nominate to that position of chair. So, in a spirit of compromise with Senator Abetz, I propose that his option be taken up and that we also take another chair. I move:

That the words "Legal and Constitutional Affairs" be augmented with "Environment and Communications" so that paragraph (a) now reads:

(a)   that the chairs of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs and Environment and Communications References Committee shall be elected by that committee from members nominated by minor parties or independent senators; and

When it comes to the history of chairs in this place, you simply have to look at what happened between 2004 and 2007, when the Howard government, including Senator Abetz, got control of the Senate, to see what an extraordinary piece of hypocrisy this is from Senator Abetz. They then used their numbers to take over every committee in the place—the whole lot—leaving none to the opposition and the crossbench of the time. Senator Abetz now has the hide to come in here and say that this is in some way or another a travesty, that it is somehow out of keeping or out of whack with Senate form.

Senator Nash interjecting—

Senator BOB BROWN: The poddy calves are braying in the National Party component of Senator Abetz's coalition now.

Senator Nash interjecting—

Senator BOB BROWN: Yes, I was. And so Senator Abetz—

Senator Nash: Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I would ask that Senator Bob Brown withdraw the reference to me as a poddy calf.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I do not think the reference was made directly to you, Senator Nash.

Senator Nash: It was.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I do not think there is a point of order. Senator Brown, you have the call.

Senator BOB BROWN: If it helps the senator, I loved feeding poddy calves straight out of a bucket in other parts of my career.

It is the case that the opposition's record in this place when utilising the talent right around the Senate in the committee system, particularly for the chairs of committees, was usurped in a way that will go down in the blacker annals of abuse of parliament in those years where the Howard government, after getting control of both houses of parliament, appointed to itself the chair of every committee in the place. We are not proposing that, even though there would be the numbers in here to do that if the government and the crossbench so decided. But we are proposing that the talent of the crossbench be utilised in the chair. I propose that Senator Penny Wright would be an admirable chair of this committee.

Senator Abetz: We read about her in the paper yesterday.

Senator BOB BROWN: I am glad to know that Senator Abetz reads the Adelaide Advertiserand reads it carefully. Senator Wright's legal career has included work as a private solicitor, lecturer, mediator and tribunal member. In fact, she was on the Guardianship Board of South Australia from 1996 through to 2010, a mediator with Relationships Australia and a member of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal—

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Senator BOB BROWN: Yes, a mediator, Senator Abetz. That means somebody who can take into account all sides and move towards resolution of problems. That makes her an admirable fit for a potential role as the chair of a committee.

Senator Nash has proposed that Senator Waters be taken up for the environment position. I do not know what reflection that may be on the current chair, but I would agree. Senator Waters would be an admirable chair of an environment committee. I see a little bit of recognition of the talent of Senator Waters from the good senator there. That suggestion from the National Party that Senator Waters take the environment chair will become available if the opposition supports the Greens amendment to the amendment. This process is a very reasonable one. It is based on precedent. It offers to take up the talent that is available and, of course, the Greens will be supporting it.

Senator KROGER (Victoria—Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate) (10:04): Senator Brown's comments then would have been laughable if the issue were not so serious. This is just another demonstration of the Greens' insatiable desire and lust for power and control over the processes of this place. We have seen that demonstrated with their formal alliance with the government. We have seen it in relation to the successful and effective way in which they have set the national agenda. And we are seeing it yet again today in the way in which they want to control more of the Senate processes.

Senator Brown was lauding the talent of those in the Greens. I think that it is quite right to acknowledge the talent and experience of your own colleagues, but he is actually suggesting Senator Wright—a new senator to this place—stacks up against Senator Humphries, who has been, if nothing else, the Attorney-General of the ACT. Senator Wright, how does that make you more equipped than him to be the chair of this committee? What an absolute nonsense!

Let me go on. I gave Senator Humphries two seconds to write two lines—

Senator Bob Brown: Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The senator should be addressing her remarks to the chair.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Ludlam ): Senator Kroger, I just ask that you observe the usual courtesies.

Senator KROGER: I wish Senator Brown would observe the same procedures of the Senate that he is very quick to point out to all other members, including the dress code of this place and recognising the presiding officer.

Senator Humphries is a former Attorney-General of the ACT and Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Is this enough experience for you, Senator Brown?

Senator Fifield: Chief Minister.

Senator KROGER: He was the Chief Minister, but these are the things that have direct correlation to the experience he brings to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. He was shadow minister for legal and consumer affairs, Treasurer and the list goes on.

There was an interjection by the minister, Senator Ludwig, before he left the chamber before the conclusion of this debate to the effect that the committee could not sort this out. You may be surprised to know that the committee has never discussed dumping—and that is all that you can call it—Senator Humphries from the head of this committee and replacing him with Senator Wright. Not once has this come up in a committee meeting, and it begs the question: why not? I understand that the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee meets on a weekly basis. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out that this committee has met probably close to 30 times already this year, but not once have those on the crossbenches or in the government deemed the democratic Senate process or the committee system important enough to raise in a committee meeting that they were interested in taking the chair's position. That smacks of total hypocrisy. The Greens know they control the agenda of the government. They control what actually happens here and, as Senator Abetz pointed out, they are pursuing and enjoying the spoils of being in both government and opposition. What this all comes down to is: who is actually wagging the tail of the dog of the government? We know that it is the Greens.

The day the Greens signed their formal alliance with the government was a very dark, sad day for this nation. On that day a minor party which managed to garner only 11 per cent of the primary vote—it had an electoral mandate of only 11 per cent—began to dictate to this nation the agenda that we have seen being rolled out. We are seeing it again today. This is an absolute indictment of the Greens. Their thirst for further authority and power knows no bounds, and this motion is yet another demonstration of that. We do not support Senator Brown's amendment to Senator Abetz's amendment. We do not support it at all. We do not question the integrity and the ability of the Greens senators; we question the rationale that a further committee chairmanship should be taken from the opposition. The reason we question it is pretty straightforward. It only takes a fairly sane and rational person to look at the Notice Paper to determine that this position should be taken from the government.

The opposition makes up about 44 per cent of the composition of the Senate; we are allocated about 43 per cent of committee positions. I am not going to quibble over one per cent. We consider that to be a fair and reasonable representation of our electoral mandate to this place. We know that the government and the Greens are in a formal alliance—others may call it a coalition. We on this side of the chamber, the Liberal and National parties, believe this is a coalition. They have a signed document, which they framed to forge their alliance—a formal alliance, to put it in the words of Senator Brown and the Prime Minister. Together they are seeking to increase their committee representation from over 52 per cent now to 62 per cent, so that three-fifths of the committee positions in this chamber will be allocated to the government and Greens alliance. No sane, rational person could suggest that that is a reasonable suggestion. There is no electoral mandate for this. The purpose of the Senate is that we represent our states, and this motion flies in the face of that.

I can never get past the photo opportunity, the press conference, after the Prime Minister negotiated with the Greens or, more to the point, effectively, the Greens negotiated with the government. I will never forget the day she did an interview after forming her minority government. If you had looked through a crystal ball you would have seen that that photo depicted what we could expect from this Labor-Greens government. In that photo were the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Greens, front and centre. Around them both were the Independents. The smile on the face of the Leader of the Greens was enough to light a light globe—probably all the light globes in this place. The expressions on the faces of those in the photo said it all. In that photo you could see the Prime Minister's realisation of just how far she had gone in selling your souls to the Greens so that you could form a minority government.

Senator Marshall: I don't have a soul!

Senator KROGER: Yes, Senator Marshall, we have seen that time and time again. I am so pleased that you have indicated you do not have a soul. We know that there are many on that side who do have or who claim to have a soul. This is an alliance that has caused more grief for your colleagues and yourself than for anyone else. This is an alliance whose consequences we will live with until we come to an election.

We do not support the amendment to Senator Abetz's amendment. We think that it is very hypocritical of the Greens to pitch themselves as the moral guardians, if you like, of the environment. They claim to hold that moral high ground, yet, when they sought to take a committee chair from the opposition, they chose not the environment committee, but the community affairs committee. In doing so, as we know, they took that chair from the very able Senator Humphries. Now they are seeking to encroach, to expand their territory, to take on another committee chair, and it is, once again, not the environment committee but the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. What is the hidden agenda here? Is it the social agenda that they are more concerned about than environmental pursuits? I go back to their primary vote at the last election. It is a sad day if a minority party can control the agenda of this country with a primary vote of only 11 per cent.

In conclusion, Senator Abetz referred to the Adelaide Advertiser article, which I also read first thing yesterday morning before I even saw the red that was circulated in the chamber. It smacked once again, very typically, of the absolute contempt that the Leader of the Greens and his colleagues have for this Senate, contempt in that they would advertise, in advance, something that the Senate had not even voted on. That shows their absolute arrogance and the confidence that they have in their position with the government in their formal alliance. Nothing demonstrates their hubris more than the confidence they have that they will effectively ensure that they can chair another committee.

As I said at the beginning, this would be laughable if it were not so tragic, to be honest. This is a total indictment of this place. I raised the hypocrisy of the senator in discussing standing orders of this place. What is good for him is not good for everybody else. The same principles apply here. We do not support this. We do not believe that it truly reflects our elected mandate to properly pursue the Senate processes of this place. We strongly reject the Greens' proposal to take the chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee.

Senator JOYCE (Queensland—Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (10:17): This is a very peculiar day, when we find that the Greens are apparently part of the opposition. I refer to page 373 of Odgers:

Under standing order 25 the chairs of the legislative and general purpose standing committees must be chosen from the government party members, and the deputy chairs from the non-government members. For procedures for electing chairs and deputy chairs, see below …

It further states that each legislation committee shall elect as its chair a member nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and, as the deputy chair, a member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. Each references committee shall elect as its chair a member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or a member of a minority group in the Senate and, as its deputy chair, a member nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The Leader of the Government in the Senate is now nominating someone from the Greens.

It is an interesting start for a person on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee when they do not even know their own Odgers. It is a very interesting position to kick off from, which goes to show, more than anything else, why they are not fit for the position. Let us go through and see how much role they have had with us. I have got a list of votes by the opposition—that is us; apparently it is you now as well, if we believe you—and the Greens. I can go to each one from 4 July. What we are looking for is when I say 'yes, yes' or 'no, no'. In seriatim, this is how we voted: no, yes; no, no. That is one, but the government did not support it either. Then yes, no; yes, no; yes, no; yes, no; no, yes; no, yes; yes, no; no, yes; yes, no; yes, no; yes, no; no, yes; no, yes; no, yes; yes, no; no, yes; no, yes; no, yes; no, yes; yes, no; yes, no; no, yes; no, yes; yes, no; yes, no; no, yes; no, yes; yes, no; yes, no; yes, no; yes, no; yes, no; yes, no; no, yes; no, yes; no, yes; no, yes; no, yes; no, yes; no yes; no, yes; no, yes; no, yes; no, yes; yes, no; yes, no; no, yes; no, yes; no, yes; no, yes; no, yes; yes, no; yes, no; yes, no; yes, no; no, yes; no, yes; yes, no; yes, no; yes, no; yes, no; no, yes; yes, no; no, yes; yes, no; no, yes; no, yes; yes, no; no, yes; yes, no; no, yes—I will not bore you, but you get the idea. We do not generally agree—in fact, never, except for one where the two genuine Independents had a different position. These are the people now coming in here, after reading what it says in Odgers, and saying they are part of our crew. I should have invited them to the Christmas party! I did not know they were part of the team.

This is absolutely amazing. It shows how absolutely fraudulent the Greens have become, in everything they do. You watch, later on: they will support the guillotine. They are the party that now do not give leave. This is the worst part, and it will stick with you. They are the party that did not support an inquiry into the rape of Annette Harding. That is the one that really irks me. She is an Aboriginal girl and you decided that you were not going to support an inquiry into this. Why you did that, I do not know. It was that day, at that moment, that I just lost you. I just could not work out where you were going.

Senator Bob Brown: Mr Acting Deputy President, Senator Joyce should be addressing the chair.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Ludlam ): Senator Joyce, I ask you to direct your comments through the chair.

Senator JOYCE: That was the time where the last semblance of nobility for the independent position was lost. We had been seeking that inquiry in this place for so long, and so many people have been battling for so long to get that lady her day for some form of justice. When that was denied by the Greens we knew that the whole thing had really started to stink to high heaven in how this organisation is working.

The Greens are a part of the key positions of the government—it is a Greens-Labor Party-Independent alliance. We all remember the vision of them all standing with their corsages in their lapels as they signed the registry to state that they would be supporting the government and that is how the government would form a government. Now they are completely corrupting the process of the Senate, the chamber that gave them succour and the capacity to have a voice in our nation. They are now completely corrupting that process. They are corrupting it as far as Odgers is concerned. They are corrupting it as far as their actions in what is delivered, the ventilation of a vibrant and analytical form of democracy, is concerned. They are corrupting it as far as their absolutely absurd lack of recognition of the facts as to how the actual votes went is concerned.

What have they sought an inquiry into? They are called the Australian Greens. In the deep recesses of my mind I have this association between the word 'green' and the environment. I thought that that would be the premier issue. When I think about the environment I think green. I think: 'Well, they're always frolicking around in the mushrooms in the forests with the frogs'—the party for frogs—but, no. It is legal and con. It is social engineering that they are really interested in. When you scratch the surface this is the party about social engineering. This is the party that always puts up the flag and collects people around with: 'I love my roses. You love your roses. If you love your garden you love the Greens,' and then we find that what they are really interested in is the social engineering exercise. In their form of Maslow hierarchy of needs, at the very top, before eating or sleeping or anything else that pertains to it, other more banal pursuits of the basic form of human instinct, their main issue is social engineering—to change the whole structure and to work their way into people's lives by the manipulative sense of making you feel good, of righteousness, of: 'We're saving the trees. We're saving the creeks. We are looking after the frogs. We're saving the fish.' But, when push comes to shove, when they have to nominate a committee, they nominate the committee to reorganise the social fabric. That is what they are truly interested in.

So where does this faux nobility go from here? Their eyes are focused. They draw an association between themselves and the Democrats. There are many people, I am certain, who voted for the Democrats who are wondering now where their vote has ended up. Think of people like former Senator Andrew Murray, a person respected on all sides of the chamber. He had his bleats, but the one thing he was not was anybody's patsy. He was his own person. Those people had a capacity to have genuine independence, to voice their views and to stand behind them. The Democrats were an independent party. The Greens are not an independent party. If you want a classic example of that, even within this chamber, I would have to say I have heard Dougie Cameron, as much as I disagree with him, at times say things—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Joyce, I ask you to refer to Senator Cameron correctly.

Senator JOYCE: I apologise to Senator Cameron with real deference. I have heard Senator Cameron at times say things that are different from the people in his own party. He has voiced them in the chamber and he has voiced them at the doors. He has not backed them up with a vote, but at least he has had the ticker to say them. So there is a sense within the Labor Party, and you can see it at times, that they will actually do what most rational human beings do: if they have a different point of view, they will actually say it. I have most certainly seen it on our own side. We treasure the liberty of the individual. We treasure the liberty of individual expression if it is required and—not often, but if it is really required—even in how you vote. It is part of why we sit on this side of the chamber. I would have to say that that is in the National Party probably more than anywhere else; it is just part of the culture of the show.

But I know one party here that does not. They always vote as a block. In the time I have been here, they have never split. We have never heard them say anything but the script. That is the Greens. They are a completely centralised, controlled unit. Maybe that is their cunning. Maybe that is how they got ahead. But it is not the expression of the liberty of the individual. I would ask all the people who get attracted to them in tertiary education: why? Why would you join a group which tells you how to think? Why would you join a group in which, manifestly, every word you utter has to go through a centrally controlled unit before you say it? If there is ever one party that should be a thousand miles away from the legal and cons committee it is the one with that attitude, that philosophy. That philosophy should be a thousand miles away. We believe in deference, in the removal and the separation of powers and in those who by their actions, displayed here and in other places, are truly independent.

I know somebody who is truly independent, who by their actions—and sometimes I have disagreed with him—has voted in accordance with his beliefs, and that is Senator Humphries. By his actions he is quite evidently a person who has the dignity of office to stand aside and say, 'I will be an independent arbiter in my deliberations as chair of this committee,' because that is who he is. He has displayed it; therefore, we can trust him with it. But the Greens have not shown anybody in their party who has had the capacity to do that. Therefore, one of the premier committees in this nation has now become a political football as part of this deal. It is quite evident, manifestly evident, in their actions that the Greens were most definitely not part of the opposition. You Greens might say you are not part of the government, but you are. But we can definitely prove by your actions—absolutely, categorically, without a shadow of a doubt—that 99.9 per cent of your votes are not with us, so you cannot possibly be part of the opposition. Therefore, if you follow Odgers, you cannot possibly have the chair, and if you understood Odgers or if you quoted it you would show some competency in it. But you do not even have it. You do not even know it. It has not got nothing to do with the process. This is a dirty little political deal that is completely removed from the reality.

Now Senator Brown is reading the paper. He is probably reading the form guide. What is the day that comes after the Melbourne Cup? It is the Oaks. He is probably looking up the Oaks. This is how bizarre it has become. We have the Leader of the Greens, who is now organising himself to take over the legal and cons committee, reclining in the chamber, ladies and gentlemen who are driving down the highways of Australia, reading the paper—made out of trees, I presume; but I do not know. I thought he would have an electronic form of it. But, no; he is going to read the stuff that they make out of trees—probably out of pulp and woodchips, to be honest. Where is the justification for this? You have not mounted an argument to show your independence. You have not mounted an argument that shows any understanding of Odgers and the position you are seeking. You have not been transparent in the deals that you have made with the Labor Party about why you should have this position. There has been no indication how the Greens candidate is comparable with or has more experience than the current chairman, who has served as Attorney-General and Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory and who by his own actions has shown that he has the courage and the conviction, though others might not agree with him, to cross the floor when he believes that is the right thing to do. You have displayed none of these things. You have taken the legal and constitutional committee and made it your pet project.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT : Senator Joyce, please address your remarks through the chair.

Senator JOYCE: I am sorry, Mr Acting Deputy President. It is your pet project because the real motivation here is social re-engineering—and we are seeing more and more of it as you fall into this trap of hubris. You are in the spotlight because of the things you are doing to our country, whether it is introducing the carbon tax or closing down fishing, closing down mining or closing down the Murray-Darling Basin. If we pursue this nihilistic approach it will ultimately lead to the destruction of our nation. We will see destruction and bankruptcy and our nation in poverty if we pursue your course.

The goal that sits behind this is social re-engineering—the destruction of the person; basically taking the person to where they are the equivalent of animals: there are horses and bunnies and frogs and people, and they are all the same. Ultimately a person's rights will be similar to vegetation rights—trees and bushes and people will all be the same. We can see this re-engineering in the carbon tax—we take $56.9 billion a year and send it overseas. We do not just re-engineer Australia; we try to re-engineer the world. Everything is part of this nihilistic approach that takes away from the dignity of the individual, takes away from what we are. This totally serves your purpose.

This approach also indicates quite clearly that the term 'Greens' is a fraud. It inspires a faux nobility with an ulterior motive, which is the restructure of the social fabric of Australia, and other areas if possible, for your own purpose. It is social re-engineering with a suit and tie on—that is all it is. That is what the Greens do. It is done with totally selfish control and takes away any semblance of the right of the individual within the party structure. I cannot nominate one person in that party structure who I have ever heard make a statement on something that has not gone through their centrally controlled unit.

Senator Bernardi: Lee Rhiannon, on communism?

Senator JOYCE: That is ultimately where we are going. What is the agreement? Why on earth did we have the nomination for a position that is supposed to be made by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate? You can understand why this mistake could be made with any other committee, but this is the legal and cons committee; this is the one that is supposed to have an understanding of the Constitution. Maybe that is a bit old-fashioned—why would they worry about that? Can you explain to me your interpretation of that? Maybe you would like to get your new chair to stand and display to this chamber her competencies in understanding Odgers—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Joyce, I ask you to address your remarks through the chair.

Senator JOYCE: Chair, I would be very interested to see the new candidate stand before this chamber and, as her first act, show us her competency in understanding Odgers and how she believes the process followed thus far accords with the process defined by Odgers—which is the process we are supposed to be following here. If she could explain that to us that would be an interesting foray, an interesting opening, into her new role. But she will not be able to do that, because I have a funny feeling she has not got a clue.

Senator Conroy: You're the bloke who was sacked as the shadow finance minister—sit down!

Senator JOYCE: Now they have sent in the 'minister for out there', Senator Conroy. This is all part of shutting down this place. In this new environment, let us see if the new chair of legal and cons supports the guillotine. Let us see how independent she is. Let us see how she allows ventilation of debate. Let us see what she does. It is going to be an interesting start.

This action is completely and utterly disgusting. It is not disgusting because we lose Senator Humphries—although he is an extremely competent chair and does not deserve to lose the position; it is disgusting because, right at the start, you have ignored the principle of how the Senate is supposed to work. The premier committee of this place is supposed to have oversight of the process. Either you are totally and utterly naive or you are pernicious, and I think it is the latter.

Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (10:36): I support the motion and I support the amendment that recognises that the coalition thinks the Greens should have the chair of the Environment and Communications References Committee. If they want to add the environment committee to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Com­mittee—and indeed to the committee which Senator Siewert already so capably chairs, the Community Affairs References Com­mittee—then that would be perfectly fine. We recognise the obvious competence available to chair these committees. But what came to mind as I was listening to the last speaker, Senator Joyce, was the phrase that 'when ignorance is bliss it is folly to be wise', because what we heard in the Senate was an ignorant diatribe from Senator Joyce. What should be putting fear into the hearts of people following this debate this morning is that the person who engaged in that ignorant diatribe aspires to be the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. That is what is so appalling. That is terrifying, and I think people listening would be horrified by that. Yesterday, in the contribution that he made on the carbon price, he articulated that there is a god-given right to pollute, that the atmosphere is free to be polluted. He said that putting a price on carbon in trying to restrain pollution—the polluter pays—was somehow contrary to his god-given right to pollute. So I think people listening would recognise that what we have heard is frightening. It is frightening from this point of view, that this motion is about democratic representation. I recognise that the coalition do not like the fact that they are an opposition party and they do not like the fact that opposition parties should be represented on Senate committees on a pro rata basis. Senator Joyce referred to Odgers on several occasions, and people ought to be afraid when they recognise that he completely misrepresented Odgers. Odgers makes it very clear that crossbenchers have a say in terms of committee chairs and committee operations in this Senate. Odgers makes that very clear, which Senator Joyce did not do.

After the last election, the Greens increased our representation in the Senate to nine senators. There is a recognition, in terms of pro rata, that we have the capacity to chair at least two committees, and that is the basis on which we have argued for the chair of another committee, and the legal and constitutional committee is the case in point. Given the standing orders of the Senate, you do not expect to have the kind of reflection that Senator Joyce engaged in with relation to Senator Wright. I would remind the Senate of Senator Wright's career to date. She has not only acted as a solicitor, both in this country and overseas, but has lectured at Flinders University in public and environ­mental health. She has been a member of a residential tenancies tribunal. She has been a solicitor on the Legal Practitioners Conduct Board of South Australia. She has been on the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. She has been a mediator at Relationships Australia and the Deputy President of the South Australian Guardianship Board. So, contrary to the assertions from Senator Joyce, Senator Wright is very able and well qualified and has life experience that will make her an excellent chair of this committee. I look forward to that being reflected in the make-up of the Senate committee chairs.

I do remind the Senate that what is so extraordinarily hypocritical here is that it is the coalition who opposes at every turn the implementation of democratic principles in Australia. Only yesterday the first of the Greens bills that restore to the ACT and the Northern Territory their democratic rights passed both houses of parliament—and that was opposed by the coalition. They took away the rights of the Northern Territory and the ACT parliaments, they overrode the laws of those parliaments and they continued to do so right up until the last minute yesterday, and in the votes they opposed it. So there we have the coalition, who want to take away the democratic rights of the ACT and the Northern Territory, and here we have the Greens who have restored, with the government, those rights to the ACT and the Northern Territory which the coalition would have continued to see taken away. So, when we talk about where the commitment is to democratic representation, I note (a) there is a pro rata distribution in Senate chairs and (b) there is a commitment of the Greens to democratic representation, as is evidenced by the passage yesterday of that legislation restoring the rights to the ACT and the Northern Territory.

But my experience in the Senate goes back further than that. I was elected in 2004 and took my place in the Senate in 2005, when the coalition government had control of both houses. It was then that we saw their complete belief in a god-given right to rule at any cost while ruling out any democratic representation. The coalition abolished the Senate committee system as it stood prior to that election. Not only did it do that but it took all 10 chairs for itself. There are other people sitting in here today who came into the Senate at that time who will recall that. Senator Polley, my colleague from Tasmania and a Labor senator, came into the Senate at the same time and Senator Polley will recall that is precisely the case—that the coalition abolished the tradition of the Senate committees, abolished the right of the opposition parties to have any chairs in the Senate committees.

Honourable senators interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Ludlam ): Order, senators! Senator Milne has the right to be heard in silence.

Senator MILNE: So this is the hypocrisy of some of the people who have spoken today: they were sitting there and grinning from ear to ear as they took away the democratic representation of any opposition member to chair any committee at that time. Senator Macdonald was sitting there then and was very happy to take away such representation from everybody else. What is more, when the opposition members of the Senate, from the crossbenches or the Labor opposition at the time, put forward proposals for Senate inquiries into a range of very significant matters, they were voted down as a matter of course. Only those inquiries which the coalition were prepared to have were actually allowed to be even investigated at that particular time. One of the great strengths of the committee system in having opposition members and crossbench members chairing Senate committees is that, in a balance-of-power parliament when no-one has all the power, you get investigations into things which the government of the day does not necessarily want to have inquiries into. Not only do you get inquiries into things the government of the day may not want investigated but on the inquiries of the references committees the government does not have the numbers to dominate the outcomes. As a result, you get very significant Senate inquiry outcomes that are taken seriously by the community. During the years when the Howard government had control of both houses, the Senate committee reports were regarded as having very little significance because they were seen as a rubber stamp of the Howard government and the chairs made sure in those reports that they were government reports and that was all there was to them. Here we have people like Senator Joyce standing up and talking about democratic representation while refusing to acknowledge that when the Howard government had power it used that power ruthlessly to destroy democratic representation in the Senate.

This motion is saying that we recognise, as Odgers points out, the right of reasonable pro rata representation across the parliament for Senate committees. The committee system was changed when Labor got back into government so that we had opposition representation, but we have had abuse of that from the coalition. There was an agreement that there would only ever be three select committees at any one time and that they would be for specific periods, yet having agreed to that the coalition abused it. That is just part of what the community must now be worried about. The community should be worried about what would happen if the coalition ever got control of both houses again, because their track record to date is that they want to control everything. What is more, they have no respect for science, no respect for economists, no respect for international lawyers and no respect for anyone who does not agree with them, as we have heard from the leader of the coalition.

The leader of the coalition has cast absolute contempt. He has treated the scientific, economic and legal communities in Australia with contempt. To be truthful, we are now hearing drivel from people who are refusing to acknowledge that the born-to-rule mentality of the coalition showed itself during the Howard government years with the abuse of the Senate. What is even more interesting is that one of the major reasons the Howard government lost government in 2007 was the community's unhappiness with the Howard government having destroyed the democratic representation in the Senate in the manner to which it had usually been given expression. The community wanted to make sure that there were checks and balances and that the Senate was restored as the balance to a majority in the House of Representatives. That balance of democratic representation, with the ability of the government to chair legislative committees and the opposition and the crossbenchers to chair the references committees, means that you get a balance of interest. Because we have a balance-of-power parliament repre­sented here in the Senate, we get the issues that are on the minds of Australians up for investigation by Senate committees. Those Senate committees are taken seriously when they represent a fair cross-section of the Australian community. That is the basis of this motion.

What we are hearing from the coalition is their view that they have a right to all of the chairs and that they should not be shared according to a pro rata distribution or to democratic representation. The coalition simply thinks it should keep all of those chairs. It is anti-democratic. It is anti the rules of the Senate. It is anti the commitment to the Australian people of fair repre­sentation in the Senate and it is restoring what the Howard government tried to take away and did take away for a considerable period. Over those years, I moved several times for inquiries into various aspects of the impacts of climate change on agriculture and other aspects in the Australian community and the upshot of it all—

Senator Nash: Why don't you want the environment committee?

Senator MILNE: I hear Senator Nash saying that she would support us having the chair of the environment committee as well, so I hope that she will support that amendment when it comes forward.

Opposition senators interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! On my left. Senator Nash, is there a point of order?

Senator Nash: Mr Acting Deputy President, there is a point of order. I think the senator should withdraw that. I did not say the environment committee as well; I said the environment committee instead of the legal and constitutional committee.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There is no point of order.

Senator MILNE: Thank you for the clarification, because it is now clear that Senator Nash does support the Greens having the chair of two committees. I thank her for that acknowledgement because clearly that is part of the debate here this morning. I look forward to seeing—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator Joyce: Mr Acting Deputy President, a point of order: I think that is a complete misrepresentation of a statement that was made and a deliberate misrepresentation of another senator. The Greens have just stated that we believe they should have two committees—that has never been stated. They are definitely misleading the chamber if that is what they continue to say.

Senator Bob Brown: Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: the Greens have heard the opposition speakers in silence—

Senator Bernardi: We didn't tell lies, though. That's what you're doing.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Bernardi!

Senator Bob Brown: But, as we are hearing now from Senator Bernardi, they are breaching the standing orders, as were Senator Nash and Senator Joyce, by interjecting. They are now trying to defend those interjections. They have no point. The interjections themselves were unruly, and if they had not broken the rules there would be nothing for Senator Milne to be cogently commenting on.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: On Senator Joyce's point of order, Senator Nash has not actually had the call from the chair during this debate. I have no way of knowing what she said. I call Senator Milne.

Senator MILNE: As I was indicating, the Greens do want to pursue our responsibilities here in the Senate very vigorously and we are already doing that. Senator Siewert has been and continues to be an exemplary Chair of the Senate Com­munity Affairs References Committee. When I speak to people around the country, of all political persuasions, they say to me that they regard Senator Siewert extremely highly as being a very professional chair. I have absolutely no doubt that Senator Wright, if it is the will of the Senate, will be an equally good, professional chair in that role with the experience she brings to the Senate.

It is time for people to reflect on how we want our democracy to operate in Australia—whether we want it to give effect to the will of the people as shown at elections. The will of the people at an election returned nine Greens senators to the Senate. That means that on a pro rata basis the Greens should have the chair of two committees. We are now moving to ensure that that actually becomes part of the Senate process in spite of the fact that if the coalition had their way they would once again abolish the Senate committee system, once again take away chairs from any opposition party. Make no mistake about it, Mr Acting Deputy President, the contributions we have heard today have just reinforced the extent to which they would ruthlessly destroy a democratic tradition of the Senate since its inception—that is, until the Howard government destroyed it during that particular period.

As I pointed out earlier, Senator Joyce misrepresented Odgers, as Odgers specifically talks about the role of the crossbench in relation to Senate committees. One of the things that seems to confuse and distract Senator Joyce and some of his colleagues, as was evidenced by his speech, is a view—and it must come from his experience in the coalition—that people can only have a similar view about things if they are dragooned into it by the leader's office. I can see that that was a tradition with the Howard government and I can see it is a tradition with the current leader of the coalition. What this points out is something that the Greens alone have in the political process in Australia, which is a consistent philosophical view. It is a consistent philosophical view that is based on the global Greens charter.

One of our great strengths in the 21st century is that, unlike other political parties in parliaments around the world, including here in Australia where they base their views on their opinion polling, on what their focus groups have to say, on what newspapers such as the Murdoch press have to say and so on, the Greens have a philosophical view based on the four pillars of ecological integrity, participatory democracy—and participatory democracy is what we are pursuing here in this parliament—social justice, and peace and nonviolence. Those four very strong philosophical views underpin the Greens, and we bring that perspective to every issue that comes before us. That is why when a matter comes before the parliament you know, as Senator Faulkner and others have said about us in the past, that the Greens have a consistent philosophical view that it is based on a set of principles—unlike the other parties, who actually do not have a philosophical view anymore, which is why they are all over the place on a variety of issues. That is why we are strongly in favour of participatory democracy and the pro rata expression of what came from the 2010 election. I look forward to the Greens taking the second share in the Senate committee process.

Senator HUMPHRIES (Australian Capital Territory) (10:57): At a personal level I am philosophical about—

Senator Conroy: Declare your interest.

Senator HUMPHRIES: My interest has been pretty well declared for me in this debate, thank you, Senator Conroy; more than amply declared for me. I am philosophical about having to give up the chairmanship of this committee. The Greens' intention to take this chairmanship has been evident for quite some time, has been signalled for some time, so I am not surprised that I am in the position today of being deprived of that chairmanship.

But there are two reasons that I feel this is a very sad day for the Australian Senate. One is that this represents a very significant shift in the way in which the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs does things. It is a very well respected committee, one that has had an air of being able to produce reports that are a step or two away, on many occasions at least, from the political dimension of debates on the floor of the Senate. It has been able to produce reports that have garnered respect in the broader community because they have been seen as dispassionate and independent assessments of the evidence before the committee. I have to ask myself whether that kind of reputation can be preserved in a situation where effectively the government and its close ally the Greens control both the references and legislation perspectives of that committee. For those listening to this debate who might be unaware of what the chairmanship of a committee indicates, that committee will have only those two perspectives. Not only does a party get to provide the chair of the committee but, effectively, it gets control of the committee. If two parties, such as the Greens and the Labor Party, work together on the committee then the chairmanship of that committee delivers control of the committee's deliberations—the majority reports of the committee—to the party or parties with that majority control. So, both the references version and the legislation version of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee will now effectively be controlled by the Labor-Greens axis in this place. The party that represents the largest grouping in this Senate—the coalition, the parties that represent half of all the votes cast by Australians at the last federal election on a two-party-preferred basis—will be unable to put a perspective in the majority reports of either of those two committees.

It is important and significant to note that this committee and the Community Affairs Committee of the Senate constitute the committees with the strongest purview over social policy in this country. They represent the vantage point from which the Senate views a whole range of critically important legal and social issues and are a very important part of the work of the Senate overall. Consider some of the issues the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee has considered in the last few years. It has had a strong overview of issues of national security and intelligence through supervising issues like the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the intelligence services in Australia. It has looked at issues like child support. It has looked at the Commonwealth Commissioner for Children and Young People Bill. It has looked at migration matters, most recently examining the government's deal with Malaysia for the swapping of asylum seekers between those two countries.

So the committee has looked at critically important issues from a whole range of perspectives. But those issues will now be considered by a committee with two manifestations, both dominated by this Labor-Greens axis. I use the phrase 'Labor-Greens axis' because it is very clearly the case in this Senate that those two parties work so closely together that they cannot be described as anything other than a coalition or an alliance. In the course of this year there has been only one occasion among the hundreds of divisions that have been held on the floor of this Senate when the Labor Party and the Australian Greens did not vote together—just one. If they are not a coalition, not an alliance, not the same party effectively operating as two different factions, then why are they cleaving so closely together on so many votes over so many issues? In fact, Labor and the Greens have always had very close cooperation, generally supporting each other to the tune of more than 95 per cent of all votes conducted on the floor of this chamber. So the suggestion that the Greens are a separate party with a separate perspective that is going to be quite separate from the government is completely untrue.

A vote today that the chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee should be a member of the Australian Greens will deliver to that side of the chamber all the work of this important committee. The voice of the other significant part of the Australian community that does not take that perspective will be lost except in dissenting or minority reports of the committee, which do not carry anything like the same weight as the majority reports of the committee. That would be most unfortunate, and I think it would be a sad degrading of the integrity and capacity of a very important Senate committee.

The other reason I am opposed to this motion is that pretty dirty tactics have been used to get to this point. A little while ago, the minister rose and announced that he had to move this motion on the floor of the Senate today because the committee had been unable to reach agreement on this subject. I am certain that the Labor members of the committee did not tell the minister that. They know that there has been no discussion at all on the floor of this chamber about the chairmanship of the references committee—not one word of discussion about it. It has never been raised.

Coalition members obviously did not make that bizarre representation. I can only assume that the Australian Greens have told the minister that they have sought valiantly to get the chairmanship of this committee on the floor of the chamber and that they have been rebuffed. Where else would that bizarre claim have come from? Was it Senator Bob Brown who told the minister that? Was it Senator Wright? Who told the minister that this was the case? It is not true, is it?

That is just one of the indications of the dirty tactics the Australian Greens have used in respect of this matter. We see these dirty tactics all the time. We have seen them in the application of the Greens policies during election campaigns. We saw them with the passage of the legislation for disallowance of the territory legislation through this place just the other day and through the House of Representatives yesterday. The man who moved legislation in the parliament to overturn Northern Territory legislation because he did not agree with it has now triumphantly declared that he got legislation through the parliament to give the territories more rights—rights that he was happy to take away a couple of years ago. This is the party that has a policy of removing funding from non-government schools in Australia but whose leader was happy, during the last federal election campaign—when he came to campaign in the Australian Capital Territory, where we have the highest level of take-up of non-government education anywhere in the country—to say: 'Oh, no; that policy won't be applied. We're actually not going to do that anymore. We've decided to put that policy to one side.' When asked by a journalist in the National Press Club debate a couple of days later, 'Why have the Greens decided to abandon this policy?' he said: 'We haven't done that. Our policy on this subject still stands. We're not backing away from that policy.'

Senator Conroy: What has this got to do with the topic?

Senator HUMPHRIES: It is to do with hypocrisy, Minister.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Senator HUMPHRIES: We were not in bed with the Australian Democrats. We did not sign a deal with the Australian Democrats. The Democrats voted against us more often than they voted for us in this parliament. So, rewarding those sorts of dirty tactics is just unconscionable and I do not believe the Senate should do it.

Imagine if we came back in the next parliament—were we fortunate enough to be on the other side of the chamber—and we said, 'Well, the National Party is a separate party and they are entitled to their own allocation of chairmanships, quite separate from the government's.' What would you people say about that? You would be up in arms. You would be out of your trees with rage. But that is exactly what you are doing here today, and you know it. You know that this is a very bad precedent to be setting. This is not a good way for the Senate to proceed. It degrades the value of a very important process in this Senate. I think the chairmanship of the two manifestations of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee should reflect the voting intention of Australians at the last election and the composition of this Senate. With this motion being passed it will not do either of those things.

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (11:08): I will not keep the Senate for very long. I want to indicate why I am totally opposed to the Greens chairing yet another committee. My colleagues on this side have pointed out the unfairness and the breach of agreement. I just want to point out that the Greens political party is a party with hypocritical approaches to everything.

We cannot have as chairs of our committees members of a party of such hypocrisy. I do not make this accusation personally to the Greens nominee. She has only very recently come into the Senate. I have little knowledge of her and have had little to do with her. By contrast I know Senator Humphries is a very distinguished and qualified person—someone who has been an Attorney-General and a Chief Minister of a territory—whose chairmanship of this committee in the recent past has demonstrated why he should retain the chairmanship of this committee.

The Greens political party are a party of hypocrisy. You will remember how their leader, Senator Bob Brown, used to rail against the big parties taking donations from big business. Then we learn that Senator Brown personally received a $1.6 million donation for his campaigning funds, which I am told is the biggest single donation ever in the Australian political scene. After all of the Greens', and particularly Senator Brown's, pious speeches against accepting donations from business, here we have Senator Brown accepting $1.6 million, the largest ever individual donation, for a group that we read in the papers has a particular interest in some of the decisions made in Tasmania in relation to environmental and forestry areas.

Then, we have a party that has railed against the monarchy and privilege. Let me tell you a little experience I had when Her Majesty was in the parliament the other day. I could not get to the front row because there were people there who were particularly keen to touch or see the Queen. I just went along to see the gracious lady, so I stood in the background. Then I looked over into the corner and I saw Senator Brown and all his cohorts over there. I thought they would not be interested in getting near the Queen so I would be able to slip in front of them and get a better view. Could I! I could not get anywhere near them. I got there and Senator Brown and all his team were there pushing their way through to the centre. I then worked out why they were sitting there. It was because the Indigenous singer was right in front of them. So, as the attention turned from the Queen to the Indigenous singer—and what a great performance that was—Senator Brown happened to be right in front of them and, would you believe, in a line between the Queen and the television cameras. I then tried to move there but, no, Senator Brown had been tipped off that the Queen was going to walk through this way. Could you get anywhere near there? No, there was a little cordon of staffers around Senator Brown, so that when the Queen came over Senator Brown could say, as he did, 'Hello Your Majesty. Yes Your Majesty. Bow Your Majesty. Welcome from Tasmania Your Majesty.' I am pleased that Senator Brown is showing respect and courtesy to our head of state. I do not criticise him for that. What I criticise him for is the abject hypocrisy of this party.

We hear Senator Brown railing against those multinational mining companies: they are ripping the guts out of Australia and taking all the profits overseas. Yet we had a flood tax you might recall that was imposed on individuals. It was not imposed on these big multinational companies but on individuals. I said to Senator Brown time and time again, 'Why are you passing this tax on individuals and letting go free those horrid multinational mining companies that you are always railing about.' But it did not matter to Senator Brown. He is so hypocritical in his views of legislation. If the Labor Party say they want it, the deal says they get it. And here today we have the pay-off to the Greens. I am still waiting for Senator Brown to explain to me, with these multinational mining companies that are ripping the guts out of Australia and taking all the profits overseas, why did he vote to exclude these multinational mining companies from paying the flood levy, the same as we all paid?

I highlight that Coles and Woolworths, which again Senator Brown is always railing against, got away scot-free. They did not pay a cent towards the flood tax, but the local butcher and the local baker who compete with Coles and Woolworths in every community around Australia had to pay the flood tax. That is what Senator Brown voted for. What a hypocritical approach.

They rail against the use of VIP aircraft, but who is No. 1 on the manifest list when something happens? Senator Brown and his colleagues. Again, I do not blame them for that. I rarely use them but I understand that some people cannot get to and from. That is fine, and a lot of people do use the VIP aircraft. But the hypocrisy of criticising everybody else, leaking to the media how the Labor Party and some Liberals have used these aircraft—yet there we are, when it suits them, away they go. I am glad they use it. If it is convenient to them to get to and from parliament, that is fine, but do not be so hypocritical about it.

This is why I distrust any member of the Greens political party chairing a particular group. I do not want to take much more of the Senate's time. I think it might be worth while, though, if the nominee of the Greens, who is in line for a fairly hefty pay increase, after having been here only a couple of months, with the chairmanship of this committee were to indicate some of her credentials. I know my colleagues have a lot they want to say on this so I am not going to take much more of the Senate's time. I simply emphasise the reason that I will not be supporting the Greens for any other chairmanship is that they are a party that has demonstrated that they cannot be trusted with the conduct of part of this chamber.

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (11:17): Senator Macdonald might have noticed that he just beat me to the call when I wanted to speak earlier, so it is not so much at his invitation that I am standing to speak but that I think it is important that I put my credentials and views on the record, given that people have been quite free in talking about me.

First of all, I would like to say that it would indeed be a great privilege if the Senate were to see fit to support my nomination to chair this important committee—one of the most busy committees of the Senate, I understand—the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, which looks into a broad range of significant legal issues affecting Australians.

I would like to acknowledge that I have been on the committee for some four months, since I was first sworn into the Senate. I have had the opportunity to observe Senator Humphries's chairing of the committee and I would certainly acknowledge that he has been a fair and diligent chair, and I have been impressed with his chairmanship. Of course we understand that this is not personal at all. I would also like to indicate that I would intend to continue in that vein, and I might come to that later.

I did find it a bit disappointing that Senator Humphries chose to, perhaps, move away from that stance when he was suggesting that, by virtue of my being a member of the Greens, I would somehow, therefore, not be able to chair the committee in a non-partisan and open-minded way. In fact I think that observation belies the experience and track record of my colleague Senator Siewert's chairing of the Community Affairs References Committee. There have certainly been majority reports of that committee by the opposition and the Greens and not always majority reports involving the government, so I think the evidence speaks for itself, but I will come back to that.

As I said, this is not personal. It seems to me that in a sense this is a principle. If you look at the statistics and at the idea of representation of the Australian vote in the Senate, it is an appropriate situation to come to that there are two committees being chaired by the Greens in this parliament. Of the 16 paired legislation and references committees we know that eight are chaired by the government, seven by the coalition and, up to now, one by the Greens. We have 76 senators in the chamber and, as of 1 July, we have nine Greens, which is 12 per cent of the make-up of the chamber. It is fair that committees be chaired in the same proportions, which do reflect the true representation and make-up of the Senate. For those who have not had their calculators out, 12 per cent of 16 is indeed two. As we know, there is also a precedent for this situation. When there were nine Australian Democrats senators they also held two chairs; presumably that was because at that time it was also considered fair and appropriate that the chairing of the committees represent the proportion of the Australian public's vote for senators.

Senate committees are a great aspect of the Senate's work. I have been in the Senate only four months but I have had an opportunity to observe the work that the Senate does, and I think that the work of the committees is often undervalued and not fully acknowledged by the Australian public. I have been very impressed by the degree of goodwill, collegiality and collaboration that occurs on Senate committees and the depth to which important issues affecting Australians are considered and dealt with on the committees, with a good attitude by all participants. I think the committees are a great opportunity to inquire into a range of important issues affecting Australians and, because of that, I think it is appropriate that there be a democratic representation on those committees in respect of the chairs.

I want to come to my qualifications. I think it is important and I think I do need to be accountable in terms of putting those on the record. I believe I am well suited to this role. I was admitted as a legal practitioner in 1984 and, over the 26 years since then, I have carried out a very broad range of roles. In two states of Australia and also in the UK I have worked as a solicitor and legal practitioner. As well as that, my work has spanned private practice, community work, legal decision making, mediation and teaching. As a result of this broad spectrum of legal work, I believe I have a uniquely broad understanding and insight into the various components which contribute to our strong legal culture in Australia and our adherence to the important and crucial concept of the rule of law. I worked in the civil litigation system as a private practitioner, when I worked in the country. So I also have the experience of being a generalist working with country people in Ballarat. At that time I worked in family law, and I did minor criminal work, but I particularly worked with workers' compensation and personal injury litigation—so I got an interesting and quite deep insight into the difficulties and challenges of civil litigation.

I then went to work in a community legal centre with the Tenants Union legal service. Through that role I gained an understanding of the importance of community legal centres and that movement, and the way they offer an opportunity of access to justice for many Australians, including those who are disadvantaged and would not have any ability to prosecute their legal rights in the absence of those important centres and that sector.

I then went to work in London, in the Borough of Hackney, where I worked with the trauma of child welfare law for a London council department. I experienced there the challenges of a London council with very high needs but few resources.

I have worked in the role of an investigating and conciliation solicitor with the Legal Practitioners Conduct Board in South Australia, and that gave me an insight into the regulation of the legal profession, the handling of concerns about misconduct on the part of legal practitioners and dealing with complaints from the public.

Finally, I think it is important to note that I have been a legal decision maker on three different tribunals, including 10 years on the Residential Tenancy Tribunal and 13 years as a Deputy President of the Guardianship Board in South Australia, which gave me an opportunity to conduct hearings of an extremely sensitive and difficult nature involving people with mental illnesses and disabilities and form views about the appropriateness of appointing decision makers for people who are no longer able to make their own decisions by virtue of mental incapacity. It was important work; it involved considering people's legal rights in a range of ways, and it involved hearing evidence from people who were vulnerable and often had difficulty communicating. Through my work on tribunals I developed skills in conducting hearings, listening carefully to witnesses and weighing up evidence in order to make considered decisions that were then subject to appeal and had to be justified.

Obviously, these are all matters which go to the effectiveness of chairing a Senate committee. As I said, for the last four months I have had the opportunity of observing the Senate committee system, and I have been very impressed with the goodwill and collaboration that I have seen. Committees are one of the most valuable and constructive aspects of the Senate's work and I am committed to participating and playing my part in that. If I am elected to the Chair of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee I would look forward to working with senators across the political spectrum. I have a commitment to dealing with matters openly, fairly and on their merits. I believe that my experience and track record stands me in good stead with this, and I look forward to investigating the important legal issues and helping the chamber fulfil our worthy role as a house of review.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia) (11:26): The Senate has very important constitutional responsibilities. The Senate has a very important job to do as part of the checks and balances on government power. The Senate has a job to do to scrutinise the activities and the performance of government, to hold the government to account—that is what the Australian people expect us to do. Naturally, opposition senators are more enthusiastic about ensuring that the activities of government are properly scrutinised than government senators are. And that is of course the way the system has been designed; that is how it is meant to operate.

Senate references committees are a key tool for the Senate in its pursuit of its responsibilities of scrutinising the activities and performance of government. So when we as a Senate make a decision about who should chair a Senate references committee, it is not just about a job for an individual senator; it is about the chair of that committee helping the Senate fulfil its core constitutional responsibilities in scrutinising the activities of government and holding the government to account.

The Greens are a party of government. The Greens have lost all their enthusiasm for scrutinising the activities of government, for holding the government to account, for ensuring that we have open and transparent government. The Greens used to be enthusiastic about scrutinising the activities of government, about holding the government to account. The Greens used to be an enthusiastic opposition party in the Senate. Between 1996 and 2007 the Greens were very enthusiastic about scrutinising the activities of government and holding the government to account. Even between 2007 and 2010 the Greens were still somewhat committed to scrutinising the activities of government. But ever since they signed that little piece of paper, ever since Prime Minister Gillard and Senator Bob Brown met in front of that little table, signed that little piece of paper, signed the alliance agreement—since they joined together to form the government of Australia—they have lost all enthusiasm for holding the government to account.

Look no further than the Greens' conduct in this chamber. There used to be a day when the Greens were completely opposed to the use of the gag. There used to be a time when the Greens thought it was evil to guillotine debate—it was anti-democratic. Now, whenever the Greens are unhappy about where a particular debate is going, whenever the Greens are unhappy that the government is too much on the back foot, is under too much pressure because the Senate is scrutinising the activities and performance of government, because the Senate is holding the government to account, the Greens are at the front of the queue when it comes to gagging debate, when it comes to guillotining debate, when it comes to preventing the Senate from fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities of holding the government to account. The Greens used to be in favour of openness and transparency in government. In fact, we were led to believe that the inclusion of the Greens as part of this Labor-Green government—with its Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Conroy, who is here in the chamber—was going to be a new era of openness and transparency. What a disappointment that has been. The Greens are now working very hard to help with the cover-up. There has been cover-up after cover-up by a secretive government.

If the Greens were truly committed to openness and transparency in government, why didn't they join the coalition in forcing the government to release all of the information about the mining tax revenue estimates? Why didn't the Greens join the coalition in forcing the government to release all of the information about their carbon tax modelling? Why do the Greens vote again and again with the Labor Party in preventing the Senate getting information out of the government about the activities of government? It is because the Greens political party are an integral part of this government. They have lost all enthusiasm for the job of holding the government to account. Yes, the Greens were successful at the last election. Their representation in this chamber increased and there is a case for the Greens getting additional chairs, but they should not be chairs of the references committees. These committees are part of the Senate activities in holding the government to account; they are there to be filled by enthusiastic opposition senators focused on scrutinising the activities of government. The Greens should get the government chairs on those committees.

People across the community need to understand that there are effectively two committees for each area of policy responsibility. There are legislation committees, chaired by government senators, and there are references committees, chaired by opposition senators. The Greens are a party of government and the increased representation of the Greens in this chamber should be reflected by an increase in their representation in government chairs of legislation committees. But this is not what the Greens are all about.

Senator Ludlam, who has just been relieved as Acting Deputy President by Senator Cameron, has talked in the past about his commitment to increased openness and transparency from government. That was before the 2010 election. Since the 2010 election Senator Ludlam, along with every single one of the other Greens senators, has been part of the cover-up. He has been part of this constant push by the Labor Party to keep information away from the public. References committees are a very important tool for the Senate to pursue the government and get access to information the government is not readily prepared to release or put in the public domain. Remember, this is part of the deal that the Labor Party signed with the Greens to form a government. There was a clause in there: we were going to have an Information Commissioner. Do you remember that? The Information Commissioner was going to settle disputes between the Senate and the executive government about the release of information when the government refused to put particular information into the public domain. The Greens said there was going to be huge achievement, huge progress and a huge increase in openness and transparency, because the Greens had convinced the Labor Party that the Information Commissioner was going to settle disputes between executive government and the Senate about the release of information that the executive government wanted to keep secret. What has happened to that? We are now 15 months down the track—about halfway through this term of government—and the Information Commissioner is still not in a position where he can fulfil that role. They are just empty words in that particular agreement. It is another example demonstrating the Greens' total lack of enthusiasm for scrutinising the activities of government.

The Labor Party clearly likes the fact that the Greens would take away a chair position from the opposition. It is very convenient for a government that is secretive and non-transparent, that is a bad government that has a lot to cover-up and does not want the pesky scrutiny of an effective references committee with an effective opposition chair who is enthusiastic and committed to scrutinising the activities of a bad government. They would much rather have one of their buddies chair a references committee. If one of their buddies from the Greens chairs a references committee it is going to be much easier to deal with; it is going to be a lot less hard work. They are going to be much less on the backfoot having to provide information that they would rather not have out in the public domain. There are all these stuff-ups out there by the government; there is a lot of information the government wants to keep secret. If you look at the performance of the Greens over the last 15 months, my suspicion is that the Greens will continue to be complicit in helping the Labor Party cover up whatever they can get away with. That is not in the Senate's best interests and not in our national interest.

The Constitution has designed the checks and balances in our system, the checks and balances on government power. The way the Senate is supposed to operate with government parties and opposition parties is clearly for opposition parties to do the best they can holding government to account and scrutinising their performance, and for the government to govern. The Greens are trying to have it both ways. They are trying to be the government and they are trying, badly, to be the opposition as well. And they cannot. That is a schizophrenic approach to the operation of this chamber that is not going to work.

The Labor Party is so keen to have a Green senator chair an opposition committee that the government is moving the appoint­ment. Why are the Greens not putting this proposition to the Senate? That particular question is a very good question that was raised by an earlier speaker. Why is it that a Labor minister—the Manager of Govern­ment Business in the Senate, no less—is moving this appointment of a government senator representing the Greens to be the chair of what is supposed to be an opposition dominated committee. Why is that? No doubt it is because, in this area, the govern­ment is very, very keen to have less scrutiny, to have less pesky questions asked and to have a less enthusiastic pursuer of bad government policy. They want somebody who is going to be part of the government team to take some of the heat off the government, and that is not in our public interest.

The question has been asked: if the Greens want another committee chair, why aren't they focusing on their core business? They want to make people believe that their core business is about caring for the environment. But we all know that is a ruse, we all know that is to make themselves respectable with the mainstream across the Australian community. And it probably has worked to a degree, sadly. People have not really seen the true face of the Greens. But this move today actually shows what really makes the Greens tick. It is not the environment, it is not doing the right thing on so-called green issues, what makes the Greens tick is a social agenda that does not have mainstream support across the Australian community. Therefore they are forever looking for opportunities to weasel their way in, to sneak their way in. In fact, I would be very interested to know what their intended agenda is going to be once they control the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. I just wonder what Senator Ursula Stephens thinks about a Greens senator driving and controlling the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee agenda. Where are the good people in the Labor Party who I know are privately concerned, the same as coalition senators are, about many of the loopy ideas that the Greens want to pursue? Where were they when the Labor Party made the decision to give them this key strategic role where they are going to be able to bring one loopy idea after another before this chamber? Where are they? Silent.

I have to say that people across Australia are increasingly concerned about who is driving this agenda. They know that this is a government with the green tail wagging the red dog. They know that the Greens are running the show and they are concerned about it. None of the issues that we are debating at the moment are issues initiated by the government, whether it is the carbon tax, whether it is gay marriage, whatever it is. It is either the Greens or some Independent that is forcing the government's hand. This Labor dog is just doing as they are told by their Greens and Independent tail. I can tell you that people across Australia are increasingly concerned about it. This move today is just another move that will reduce the level of scrutiny, the level of pressure on executive government that would come from this chamber, which will lead to inferior public policy outcomes. That is not in the national interest.

Like others, I do not really know Senator Wright all that well. I have had a look at her biography on the parliamentary website and I have listened carefully to what she has had to say this morning and she clearly has extensive legal experience. However, she does not have much experience in this chamber. In fact, she does not have much experience as a member of parliament more generally. She has been here for four months and I am sure that throughout her career she will make a fine contribution for her party. Like all of us, it takes a while to get into the job and to learn all the ropes and to learn how to properly perform these sorts of leadership responsibilities as part of the Senate. But what I do know is that Senator Gary Humphries has been a senator for nine years, has been a member of the ACT Legislative Assembly for 14 years, has been a Chief Minister and has been the Attorney-General of the ACT for six years. He is a distinguished parliamentarian and of course, above everything, he is part of the opposition and he is an enthusiastic opposition senator who is enthusiastic about scrutinising the activities of government, which is the job of the chair of the committee. This is not about a job for Senator Humphries. Senator Humphries has clearly got the credentials, the track record and the experience to be a very effective chair of the legal and constitutional committee, as he has been in recent times. But more important than anything is that, given the responsibilities of the Senate, given the responsibilities of Senate references committees as part of our overall role to hold the government to account and scrutinise the activities of government, he will be more motivated to do a good job.

This is not a reflection on Senator Wright as an individual senator, this is a reflection on the position she holds as part of the government. Senator Wright will clearly be less enthusiastic about probing and actively pursuing the activities of this government. I see Senator Wright shaking her head and I admire her idealism. But the truth of the matter is that she will find out very quickly that she will not be in charge of her own destiny in relation to this. She is part of a Labor-Green alliance in government. Senator Bob Brown and Senator Christine Milne will tell her very quickly if she gets out of line. If she is seen to be giving the government too much grief, you watch how quickly Senator Brown and Senator Milne on behalf of Prime Minister Gillard are going to come down on her like a tonne of bricks. There is absolutely no way that a Greens senator who is part of this government is going to be as enthusiastic in scrutinising the activities and performance of this bad government as a senator representing the coalition in this place. And for the coalition there clearly is no senator better equipped to lead the work of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee than Senator Humphries.

That is why the coalition strongly opposes the motion that was moved on behalf of the Labor-Green government by the manager of the Labor-Green government's business in the Senate, Senator Ludwig. That is why, even though we do not agree with giving the Greens, who are part of the government, an opposition position, which will lessen the level of scrutiny of the government, in a spirit of generosity and cooperation we have suggested an amendment which would see the Greens be able to take responsibility for their core area of interest, which we are led to believe is to focus on environmental issues around Australia. Clearly they could not care less about the environment. Not only did they first demand the position of Chair of the Community Affairs References Committee, which has responsibility for a wide range of social policy issues, unrelated to the environment; their second priority is the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, which has got nothing to do with the environment whatsoever. This is showing their true colours. As Senator Joyce said earlier, their true priority is to focus, through this particular mechanism, on social engineering and social agendas that are widely opposed across the Australian community.

This is a dark day when it comes to the Senate's role in scrutinising the activities of government. This is a day when the Senate's capacity to hold a bad government to account will be lessened if this motion gets up. (Time expired)

Senator NASH (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (11:46): Colleagues, for the last little while I have been coming into this place day after day and thinking that it cannot really get any more pear shaped under the Labor-Greens-Independents government. But today we have it. It has got even more pear shaped. You are quite right, I say to Senator Cormann, to call it a dark day. Here we have another one.

When I came into this place one of the things that struck me was the sense of process. One of the very daunting things when you first come into this place is understanding the processes of the Senate, because so many of them are by convention: you cannot read them in the standing orders; you cannot read them in Odgers. It takes some time to understand the process. While you get an understanding of the process, you also gain a real respect for the process. I think that is one of the most important things about the Senate. Not having spent time in the other place, I cannot really comment on whether they have that same respect for the process. Perhaps those colleagues who have been there, such as Senator Ronaldson, might be able to comment on that at some stage. I very much feel the weight of the respect for the chamber.

So when we have a situation today, with the nomination for the chair of a committee coming through the government of the day in the Senate chamber rather than through the normal processes, where the committees themselves determine their chairs—as should be the case—it is really quite extraordinary. The respect that should be held for the Senate and the entire processes around that have simply disappeared. To go back to what our leader, Senator Abetz, said earlier—he was very eloquent indeed in his remarks—the role of the committee chairs is, in many respects, to hold the government to account.

The very simple fact that we have here today is that this is about numbers. The Greens are saying that they are entitled to an extra chair of a committee because their numbers have increased in this chamber. That would be fine and that would be worthy and that would be appropriate if they were not part of the Labor government. This is the problem with the whole premise of what they are putting forward, because the Greens are no longer independent of the Labor Party. Therefore, they are not at liberty to count their numbers separately from the Labor Party. That is precisely why they are not entitled to a second chair.

Having spent some time as whip and having worked very closely with the then Liberal whip—an excellent Liberal whip, Senator Parry, who has now moved on to Deputy President, having been replaced by the equally able Senator Kroger—I know that so much of the chamber is run on numbers. Because we are in this place and we are respectful of this place, we do the numbers properly in terms of entitlement: what we are entitled to cross-party, what we are entitled to in opposition and what we are entitled to in government. There is a respect for that process and there is an understanding that, even if sometimes we do not like it, what the numbers say leads to the true entitlement. That is why it is so appalling today to see the Greens try to commandeer another chair, because they are simply not entitled to it. The numbers do not stack up that way, because they have given the Australian people a Labor government.

If the Greens had not agreed to be part of the Labor-Greens-Independent government after the last election, we would not have a Labor minority government now. So, colleagues, by the very simple fact that the Greens agreed to be part of that government—that incredibly bad Labor-Greens-Independent government—they have forgone their right to use their numbers to try and commandeer another chair. That is not hysterical. That is not coming from this side of the chamber railing against the fact that the Greens should not have that position. It is a logical, numerical deduction. Those on the crossbenches cannot, on the one hand, choose to say that they are part of the minority government, and then, on the other hand, choose to say, for the purposes of gaining another chair, 'We, for this particular moment, choose to sit outside of the government arrangement that we have entered into.' It simply does not make sense. The Greens are doing this only because they can and because the government is letting them. As my very good colleague Senator Cormann and other colleagues have asked before me, why is it that the government has moved for the Chair of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References to go to a Greens senator? Why didn't the Greens come and do it? Why didn't the Greens themselves walk into this chamber and put what they believe, through their somewhat erroneous counting of the numbers and putting their numbers the way that they have, to the chamber? Why didn't the Greens come into this chamber and say, 'We believe we are entitled to an extra chairmanship'? Why didn't the Greens do it? Why did the Greens have to hide behind the Labor government and let the Labor government move it?

It is incongruous. It does not make sense. If the Greens are arguing that their numbers, separate from the Labor Party, entitle them to another chair's position, that means it is an issue entirely separate from the Labor government. So why on earth would the Labor government be moving it on their behalf? I cannot even imagine why they would do that, except for the fact that they are in cohort, working together, which again negates the claim for the extra chairmanship.

Colleagues, as the Greens had increased their numbers by a few in the Senate—a sad day for Australia that was, but we'll get to that at another election—wouldn't you have thought that they would have come in and said, 'We think on our numbers we should have another chair,' put it to the chamber and expected the Labor government to then agree with them? That seems to me to be what the normal process should have been. That seems the proper process to follow. But no. We have the Labor government moving the nomination on behalf of the Greens for something that should have been a decision of the committee. It is quite extraordinary. As I said at the outset, it is yet another pear shaped day in the Senate chamber.

You only have to look at this situation to see that the Greens are trying to have it both ways. On the one hand they want to say they are part of the government. They want to say they are doing all these things and having all these outcomes by being part of the government. Yet on the other hand they want to say: 'Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no—we're independent of the Labor Party. We're not with them. We are our own Greens party.' It is absolute rubbish and it really does show what we have known all along and what is only just starting to come out now that there is starting to be some scrutiny of the Greens now we have this Labor-Greens-Indepen­dents alliance: there is one rule for the Greens and another rule for anybody else. One thing is okay for them, but there is a different expectation for anybody else. As one of my colleagues said earlier, if we on this side miss a division it is the end of the world and the Greens rail on and on about how terrible it is, but if Senator Brown misses a division that is perfectly okay; there is a perfectly sensible reason for that. That is only one example.

Thank goodness there is finally starting to be some scrutiny of what the Australian Greens actually do and what they actually say, because they have gotten away for far too long with not having any scrutiny of their activities, of their policy and of what they are doing here in the Senate chamber. Isn't it extraordinary? We have seen the Greens in the past railing against the proper processes of the Senate not happening, but what did we see just a couple of weeks ago, when the carbon tax bills were first brought to the Senate? We saw the government guillotine the debate. Debate ensued, as the phrase has it, on all sides, all around the chamber, and then we had Senator Siewert stand up and give us a dissertation on how dreadful it was that the coalition had in the past guillotined debate in this chamber, how awful it was. Then she supported the guillotine. The entire Greens party supported the guillotine. Why was that, I wonder, given that obviously they have the deeply held belief that the guillotine should never be used? We have heard them speak about it in the chamber before. I know: it was because the Greens are part of the Labor government. Isn't that funny? So Senator Siewert stood there railing about the guillotine and how terrible it was that we were using it and then she voted against the government. To me it would make perfect common sense for the Greens to then vote against the Labor government. But, oh, no—they could not do that, because they are in government. They are in government with the Labor Party.

That is precisely why they are not entitled to this chairmanship position. They are simply not entitled to it, because they are part of the government. You have to count numbers on the other side of the chamber together because they are the government. We do it on this side of the chamber. We are two separate parties in coalition, and our numbers are counted collectively. That makes perfect sense. Within the coalition the Nats have a certain number of senators. We deal with that as the numbers of the whole Senate on this Nationals and coalition side, and we are entitled to certain positions. Exactly the same thing should happen on the government side of the chamber because the Greens and the Labor Party are in government. They are the government numbers. They are total numbers. They are not separate from the Labor Party. There are 39 of them on that side of the chamber. There are nine Greens and 30 Labor. They should be counted together—they are government—and then the chairs should be divvied up. The Greens cannot be treated as separate.

If, as we expect, we are going to be in the position where the Greens are granted a second chair of committee—and for those of you listening out there who are thinking: 'What's all this hoopla about committees?' it is really important that this process is followed properly because those committees do an enormous amount of work and it has to be balanced—if we accept that the government is going to put this through, the real question for the people out there is: why is it that the Greens have chosen legal and constitutional affairs? I note that Senator Collins over there is in fierce defence of the Greens.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Why did you knock them off? This is such hypocrisy.

Senator NASH: I will take the interjection because it shows it even more, colleagues. When we have Labor ministers on the other side of the chamber in defence of the Greens, doesn't it carry more weight to the argument that they are in partnership, that they are in coalition? That is precisely why this extra chairmanship should not be granted.

That being the case, let us just have a look at what the Greens have chosen for their second committee: the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Com­mittee. Maybe I am missing something here, but when I think of the Greens I think about them talking about the environment. Colleagues, maybe you might think something different, but when I look at the Greens I think 'the environment'. It sort of goes, like 'horse' goes with 'saddle'. But they want the legal and constitutional affairs committee. Why would the party who call themselves the Australian Greens, who spend their time talking about the environment, not want the environment committee, particularly when the environ­ment committee also covers communica­tions—and I know that Senator Ludlam has a very keen and genuine interest in communications? Why would they not want the chair of the environment and communications committee? That simply does not make sense, and that says to the Australian people that the Greens are duplicitous, because if they truly were the party of the environment they would want to chair the environment committee. I do not think you have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

I think there would be a number of people who are listening at the moment, thinking: 'Why on earth don't the Greens want the environment committee? Why do they want the legal and constitutional affairs com­mittee?' This is a question to be asked of the Australian Greens. This is really serious. If the Greens' core business is the environment, why do they not want the environment committee? That, colleagues, is the question for the Australian Greens. You can only surmise, you can only deduce, that the reason they want the legal and constitutional affairs committee is for the purposes of their social agenda. We can only deduce from that that the Greens' social agenda takes priority over the environment.

I would say that there are a lot of people who have supported the Greens over past years—not that there are that many of them when you look at the whole perspective of Australia—who would think, rightly or wrongly, that they are the party of the environment, not that they are the party of the social agenda that they want to prosecute. And yet here today we have the Greens wanting the legal and constitutional affairs committee chairmanship, not the environ­ment committee chairmanship. Colleagues, I cannot for the life of me work that out. I tell you: I am starting to miss the Democrats, because at least they had the courage of their convictions. At least they were prepared to stand up for what they believed in, and at least they made a contribution to this chamber that was not part of a Labor-Greens-Independent government.

What an extraordinary day we have today, when the Leader of the Australian Greens—trying, of course, to upset the Nationals, as he likes to try to do—refers to a National as a 'poddy calf'. If that is the best that Senator Brown can do, I think he is going to have to come up with something a little better. I am a little more thick-skinned than that. I tend not to think of myself as a poddy calf. I thought Senator Brown might have been able to do a little better. What sort of pear shaped day is this? It is extraordinary that we see this situation.

The Greens also like to rail on about transparency and about the processes of the chamber, and yet, today, what do we see? We see that very process being undermined, that very process being manipulated to give an outcome to the government side of the chamber that should not be delivered. It simply should not be.

They know this on the other side of the chamber. They know the numbers do not stack up. They know that they are the government. They know the Greens are part of the coalition. They know. But this will show the Australian people the true face of the Greens. We are seeing today the real Greens. They are, as John Anderson, ex-Deputy Prime Minister, so eloquently put it many years ago, the watermelons: green on the outside and pink in the middle. When you chop a watermelon in half, Senator Ronaldson, you know as well as I do that there is a lot more red than there is green. And that is what has become so clear today, because the Greens have placed their social agenda as more important than their environmental concerns.

My colleagues and I on this side of the chamber have always suspected it. We have suspected that for a long time. But today it has been proven. Today we have the proof that the Greens' social agenda is more important than their environmental agenda. The reason I say that, and the reason that that cannot be argued against, is that they have chosen to take the chairmanship of the legal and constitutional affairs committee and not the chairmanship of the environment com­mittee. This might seem a small issue, but this is a huge, watershed day. This is the day that the Greens showed that they are not an environmental party. This is about their social agenda. This is about social engineering. This is about their social agenda, and we have seen the true Greens today.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (12:06): Reluctant as I am to use the time of the chamber on this motion—indeed, I think we should reflect on how much time has been spent on it—I would just like to note that we have been debating this minor procedural issue since 9.30 this morning. This motion seeks to reinstate chairing arrangements previously in place for Senate committees.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Cameron ): Parliamentary Secretary, do you intend closing the debate?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: No.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Then I will give the call to Senator Ronaldson.

Senator RONALDSON (Victoria) (12:07): I want to reflect on what I thought was a quite undignified spectacle today, about which I hope, on reflection, there will be some regret. I will preface my comments by saying this. Senator Wright and I go back, in the loosest sense, to her days in Ballarat and we do share that aspect. But it was an undignified spectacle today when a new member of this place had to stand up and justify their appointment. What we saw today was one candidate being forced by her leadership to justify her appointment, when the person who should be in the role and who was then sitting behind me, Senator Humphries, had no such requirement to justify his record and his role because his record stood for itself. I hope that Senator Bob Brown reflects on this undignified spectacle today. I hope Senator Brown reflects on what he has forced one of his own to do—to stand up in this chamber and read out her CV to justify this very grubby deal. Senator Brown—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—if that is the way you are going to conduct yourself in this chamber and if that is the pressure that you are going to put your own members under, then I think you need to very much reflect on what has occurred today.

There have been a number of discussions, quite rightly, about the utter hypocrisy of the Australian Greens, but I do not want to repeat those comments. What I do want to talk about today is not those who sit at the other end of the chamber but those who sit opposite us. I say to the Australian Labor Party: are you aware of the extraordinary damage that you are doing to yourselves with this unholy alliance? I know a number of people on the other side of the chamber—not down the other end but on the other side of the chamber—who do not support the Greens' four pillars and do not support the Greens' desire for death duties, and we can run through all their loopy economic policies.

Senator Brandis: Compulsory vegetarianism!

Senator RONALDSON: Yes, we can run through all of them, and I know there are many on the other side who do not share those ideas. We have got an unholy alliance that will end up eating the party that drove its implementation. The Australian Labor Party will be eaten by this group of nine here and one in the other place. The Australian Labor Party will be eaten by this alliance. It is absolutely fascinating to reflect on the signing ceremony—

Senator Brandis: For civil unions.

Senator RONALDSON: Yes. If this signing ceremony had been done after the decision by the Independents as to who would form the government then you might say this was a marriage of convenience, but indeed it was not. This signing ceremony was done before the decision of the Independents was known, so this is no false marriage; this is no accident. This was a deliberate decision by the Australian Labor Party to hop into bed with the Australian Greens. There is a very old saying, as you would be acutely aware, Mr Acting Deputy President Cameron, that if you sleep with dogs you wake up with fleas. The fleas on the body of the Australian Labor Party will not be small ones; they will be very substantial lumps. We are already seeing the impact of the fleas on the body of what was a great political party, not one that I agree with philosophically but one that has served a very useful purpose in the political process and one that took some decisions, particularly in the early nineties under Hawke and Keating, which I actually thought were good for this country—and I will give credit where credit is due—to open up this economy. So I have given them their due, but the once great Australian Labor Party with this unholy alliance finds itself with a primary vote of 29 per cent. If there is not one senator opposite—not down the back but opposite—who does not think for one minute that part of that is due to this unholy alliance then they are utterly delusional.

We know what the other part is. The other part is the great lie in Australian politics: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'. That is part of the 29 per cent, but the other part of the 29 per cent is the Australian Labor Party ceding political ground to the Australian Greens for utter convenience in a desperate attempt to maintain government. We have seen, in a desperate attempt to show that the decision to change from one Prime Minister to another was appropriate, the Prime Minister of this country leave your political party, Mr Acting Deputy President Cameron, hanging out to dry, not for the short term and not for the medium term but for the long term. It is absolutely decision time now for the Australian Labor Party as to how you are going to conduct yourselves in relation to this relationship. We should not see another example like today's of an unseemly sight when a new senator is required to read their CV into Hansard to justify their position. That is unseemly and that is an exercise in complete and utter futility. As I said earlier, I hope that today's spectacle is not repeated in this place.

I will finish on this note, as I know my colleague Senator Brandis wants to speak as well. If this is not reflected upon today by those of you opposite, if you are not prepared to accept that this relationship and this unholy alliance have the ability to destroy the Australian Labor Party and if you are not prepared to stand up and say, 'We are not prepared to tolerate that,' then you will die by your own swords.

Senator Brandis: You will die the death of a thousand cuts.

Senator RONALDSON: Yes, the death of a thousand cuts. Mr Acting Deputy President Cameron, I know that you are probably philosophically more aligned with the Greens. I also know that the majority of your colleagues in the right of the Australian Labor Party are not aligned with the Greens. The spectacle of the right wing of the Australian Labor Party rolling over to the Australian Greens, knowing what they stand for and knowing what the right of your political party stands for, was undignified for a party that had its roots not far away from where I live. Part of it was where I live. The Australian union movement and Creswick go back a long way, as the Acting Deputy President will know.

This is now a challenge for this political party. Is it going to let itself be destroyed by this alliance or is someone going to wake up at some stage and say, 'We are no longer prepared to see our great party destroyed by this unholy alliance—by this marriage.' This marriage is not driven by convenience; it is, regrettably for the Australian Labor Party, now driven by philosophical alignment. The challenge is there. I hope, for political process and for good government in this country, that the Australian Labor Party realises the damage it has done itself. I hope the Australian Labor Party does not let us have a repeat of what has occurred today.

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:16): I rise to close the debate on behalf of the opposition. I know that these decisions about committee allocations do not necessarily or even largely depend upon the merits of individual senators. I mean no disrespect to Senator Wright in what I am about to say, but if one considers the outcome of what is proposed to displace Senator Gary Humphries as the chair of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee with Senator Penny Wright, it is a travesty. It is preposterous. I have nothing against Senator Wright—I do not particularly know Senator Wright—but she has been a member of the Senate for four months. She has no experience as a senator to speak of in any respect. The fact that she was reduced to reading her CV onto the record earlier on was a humiliation for her.

I mean no personal disrespect to Senator Wright, but we are being asked to elect her as the chair of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, one of the most prestigious committees in this chamber, at the expense of Senator Gary Humphries, the only person in this Senate who has been a head of government in this country. He is a former Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory. He is the only person in this chamber who has ever been an attorney-general; Senator Humphries was for several years the Attorney-General of the Australian Capital Territory. With all due respect to Senator Wright—and this is not meant as a personal slight—to suggest that she is a more appropriate person to chair the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee with no experience as a senator and no experience in government, than former attorney-general and former chief minister Senator Gary Humphries, whose discharge of that role has commanded respect on both sides of this chamber, is ludicrous. There are very few people in this Senate, on either side or on the crossbench, who enjoy the respect that Senator Gary Humphries enjoys.

As I said at the start, these decisions do not turn largely upon the identities of individual senators. We need to see this for what it is: an attempt by the Greens, supported by a slavish government, to take over the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. It is nothing short of a naked power play, and Senator Wright is being used as a pawn in that naked power play.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Cameron ): Senator Brandis, I am reluctant to interject here, but I think you are getting close to breaching standing order 193(3). You are reflecting continually on a senator in a manner that is not proper, and I ask you to bear that in mind.

Senator BRANDIS: I bear in mind your guidance, Mr Acting Deputy President. I am sure Senator Wright is a decent person, and I cannot fail to imagine that privately she would feel quite uncomfortable with the position in which she has been placed. This is a power play. Let nobody have any illusions about that. I follow on from some remarks that my friend Senator Michael Ronaldson made about what has driven this power play—that is, not merely the rise of the Greens but the invasion of the Australian government by the Greens.

In this peculiar time in Australian history we have an Australian Labor Party government whose agenda is dictated by the Greens. One of the many reasons we in the opposition regard this as an outrageous misuse of power is the Greens are not a crossbench party in any real sense of the word. They are to all intents and purposes an element, an essential ingredient, of this government, so much so that the government is in power today because of a written agreement executed by the Prime Minister and Senator Brown. No crossbench party has had more power over a government in our history than the Australian Greens have over this Labor government today. That is why we in the opposition say that committee chairmanships reserved for the crossbench parties ought not to be given to the Greens, because the Greens are not, except in a purely theoretical sense, a crossbench party; they are an integral part of the Gillard government.

I am, as some senators may be aware, something of a student of Australian political history and I have had many, many long and enjoyable discussions with my friend Senator John Faulkner about the history of the Australian Labor Party. I acknowledge that although the Australian Labor Party are my party's principal political antagonists the Australian Labor Party nevertheless—as Australia's oldest political party, having been formed during the shearers strike in Queensland in 1891, famously under the Tree of Knowledge in Barcaldine—have a long and honourable place in Australian political history. There are many of the great events of Australian history for which the Australian Labor Party was responsible. In particular, no-one will forget that it was a government of the Australian Labor Party, led by John Curtin, that took Australia through the most critical stages of the Pacific war.

Throughout the decades, we in the Liberal Party and the Labor Party have had bitter disputes on a range of different issues which have decided the course of the history of our nation. Most of the time, I say, the Liberal Party has been right, but some of the time I concede, because I am a generous person, the Labor Party has been right. But in the course of all of those decades the shape and course of Australian history have been charted by the debate between the coalition parties and the Australian Labor Party. Together, through the dialectical process of parliamentary debate and political argument, we have shaped the direction of this country, so that where Australia is today is in some sense the product of both our political traditions: the Liberal tradition and the Labor tradition.

The Australian Greens share no part of that tradition. There is no element of Australia today, the most successful and prosperous nation in the world, that is thanks to anything the Australian Greens have done—nothing—and yet at this particular strange, peculiar point in our nation's story all of a sudden the Greens, opportunistically seizing the circumstance of a hung parliament, have seized control of a Labor government and seized control of its agenda.

Let me give you two examples: the carbon tax and asylum seeker policy. Last year, of the 150 members elected to the House of Representatives at the 2010 election, 148 were elected on a promise not to introduce a carbon tax. Every member of the coalition, every member of the Australian Labor Party and most of the Independents were elected on an undertaking not to introduce a carbon tax. Yet today we are on the threshold of passing legislation in this chamber to introduce a carbon tax, because of the Greens and because of the undue influence the Greens have, the capacity of the Greens to exercise political duress over the Australian Labor Party.

The other great issue of the day is asylum seeker policy. At the 2010 election both the coalition and the Australian Labor Party went to the people promising to build their asylum seeker policy around the policy of offshore processing. Today we do not have offshore processing, once again because of the Greens. The two great issues of the day—a carbon tax and asylum seeker policy—have produced outcomes at variance from that which both sides of politics promised the Australian people only last year, because of the political duress that the Greens have been able to exercise over this government.

I join with my friend Senator Ronaldson in saying to you, Mr Acting Deputy President Cameron—and you and I are quite friendly, we chide each other in the corridors; I can't help liking you, I am embarrassed to admit, though I might be one of the few—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Brandis, I am at a great disadvantage here. You know it.

Senator BRANDIS: I do not say this in a chiding way; I say quite seriously to you, as someone who has given your life to the Australian Labor Party: be careful what you wish for, because these allies of yours at whose behest you formed government are your most lethal political enemies. They are more lethal political enemies for the Australian Labor Party than the coalition are, because we may be the alternative government but the Greens are the alternative party of the Left and they will eat you up, and I know that many, many of your colleagues are deeply concerned about it. Why do you think it is that today, among voters for the left, more than a third would prefer to vote for the Australian Greens than for the Australian Labor Party? That is what the latest opinion polls show: a Labor Party primary vote of 29 per cent and a Greens primary vote of 15 per cent. They have lost a third of their electoral base to these people—a third. If those figures are disaggregated by generation, a voter of left-wing sympathies who is under the age of 30 is just as likely to vote for the Greens as for the Australian Labor Party. And a voter under the age of 25 whose sympathies are with the left is actually more likely to vote for the Greens than to vote for the Australian Labor Party.

I know that the smart people in the Australian Labor Party are deeply, deeply worried about this trend—and so they should be. The Greens are not like the One Nation party in the 1990s, which was a fly-by-night phenomenon—largely a personality cult, driven by the circumstances of the time. The Greens are here to stay. With each passing year, like a flyblown sheep, the Labor Party will be hollowed out by the rise of the Greens. And they brought this upon themselves by being prepared to pay the 30 pieces of silver to Senator Bob Brown in order to get in to government after the 2010 election. The Australian Labor Party should be particularly ashamed and afraid of the new authoritarian tone that the Greens have brought to Australian politics, which Labor has embraced as the price of government.

Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, a few years ago was asked, 'What went wrong with the environmental movement?' He said:

… following the falling of the Berlin wall, and the end of the peace movement, and the end of radical socialist politics in the labor and women's movement, an awful lot of those people drifted into environmentalism. It's been highjacked by political and social activists who are using environmental rhetoric to cloak agendas that have more to do with anti-corporate and class warfare than they do with ecology or saving the environment.

That is the Greens. The mask of environ­mental concern has been stripped away. Nothing could demonstrate that more clearly, in a symbolic fashion, than this motion we are debating today to install a Greens senator with no credentials as the chairman of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee of this Senate in place of a senator of experience who is respected by both sides.

The Greens will use that bully pulpit to prosecute a radical agenda, inconsistent with the values of not only the coalition side of the chamber but of most on the Labor side as well. The Australian Labor Party, for its many faults, has always been a party committed to democratic values. But the Greens are not committed to democratic values. They are a party of zealots. They are a party of cold-eyed fanatics. They are a party that embodies the authoritarian cast of mind. Nowhere can that be seen more clearly than in the fact that, with insouciance and glee, they are prepared to foist on the Australian people a vast new tax that both sides of politics promised at the election last year that they would not introduce.

The Australian Labor Party has embraced its most lethal political enemy. It has disregarded the advice that an appeaser is a person who keeps feeding the crocodile in the hope that he will be the last to be eaten. As I said before, by appeasing the Greens—by embracing them, by allowing the govern­ment's agenda to be dictated by the first truly authoritarian party we have seen represented in the Australian parliament—the Australian Labor Party have signed their own death warrant. They have ceded the ground of the so-called progressive left to their most lethal enemy, who are determined to displace them. Every time the Australian Labor Party goes along with a power play like this and rolls over for the Greens—meekly, timidly, reluctantly but inevitably—they execute, once again, that political death warrant.

So I will close the debate for the opposition by saying that the Senate is being presumed upon this afternoon by a travesty of a resolution, in furtherance of a power play of which, superficially, Senator Gary Humphries is the victim and the proper process of the Senate is the victim. But the true victim of the Greens is the Australian Labor Party and the political tradition it represents. In years to come, when historians write the history of these times and chart the decline of the Australian Labor Party—as, in decades to come, they will—they will locate this parliament and, in particular, the Labor-Greens alliance as the point at which that remorseless decline began.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Bob Brown's) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:41]

(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Cameron)

Question negatived.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Abetz's) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:49]

(The President—Senator Hogg)

Question negatived

Original question put:

That the motion (Senator Ludwig's) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:53]

(The President—Senator Hogg)

Question agreed to.

Senator McEWEN: I move:

That the Joint Select Committee on Cyber Safety be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 23 November 2011, from 4 pm to 6 pm.

Question agreed to.

Senator KROGER: I move:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee on communication networks' and emergency warning systems' capacities in emergencies and natural disasters be extended to 23 November 2011.

Question agreed to.

Senator McEWEN: I move:

That the Joint Standing Committee on Migration be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 23 November 2011, from 10.30 am to 12.30 pm.

Question agreed to.

Senator McEWEN: I move:

That the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 29 November 2011, from 4 pm.

Question agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT: I move:

That the Community Affairs References Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 3 November 2011, from 5 pm.

Question agreed to.

Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (15:35): I move:

That there be laid on the table by 21 November 2011 by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation all documents relating to the implementation of the Australian and New Zealand Government Sustainable Procurement Framework from January 2007 until present.

Question agreed to.

Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:29): I present the 13th report of 2011 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I also present Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 13 of 2011.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator POLLEY (Tasmania—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (17:29): On behalf of the Chair of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Senator Moore, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiry into the provisions of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011.

Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Australia—Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (17:31): I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

DETERRING PEOPLE SMUGGLING BILL 2011

General Introduction

People smuggling trades on falsehoods and on the exploitation of people who seek protection or asylum in this country.

Successive Australian governments have condemned people smuggling ventures whether organised by individuals or by transnational criminal networks.

People smugglers have no humanitarian motives. Their only motives are profit, and planning and launching ventures without regard for the safety of the children, women and men whose lives they put at risk.

No one in this Parliament will forget the tragic scenes of the vessel known as SIEV 221 crashing against the rocky cliffs of Christmas Island on 15 December 2010, resulting in the deaths of at least eight children and 22 adults and many others never recovered from the sea. Nor do we ever forget the sinking of SIEV X some 10 years ago which claimed the lives of 353 asylum seekers, including 146 children, 142 women and 65 men. These and many other tragedies resulting from people smuggling ventures should have never occurred.

The effective prosecution of people involved in organising and facilitating these inherently dangerous voyages sends a clear message that the Australian Parliament does not tolerate people smuggling.

While we work with our regional partners, the UNHCR and other organisations to bring refugees to Australia through appropriate channels, we must ensure people smuggling operations that bring people to Australia continue to be effectively criminalised.

The purpose of this bill is to give clarity to the laws that have criminalised people smuggling and aggravated people smuggling offences for more than a decade. This bill does not affect the rights of people seeking protection or asylum in Australia.

People smuggling offences contribute to Australia's implementation of its obligations to criminalise people smuggling under the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air supplementing the United Nations Convention on Transnational Organised Crime.

Clarification of the phrase ' no lawful right to come to Australia '

The purpose of this bill is to make it clear that the phrase 'no lawful right to come to Australia' refers to requirements under Australia's domestic law that people must have a visa that is in effect to lawfully come to Australia, or fall within one of the limited exceptions to that rule outlined by the Migration Act. For example a New Zealand citizen with a valid passport is exempt from requiring a visa to come here.

This is the way the provisions have been consistently interpreted since their introduction in 1999. Amendments to the Migration Act in 1999 made it an offence to organise or facilitate a group of five or more persons coming to Australia if those persons did not have a lawful right to come to Australia.

No impact on the rights of asylum seekers

The amendments expressly clarify the operation of people smuggling offences in the Migration Act.

The offences deal with the serious crimes of people smuggling and aggravated people smuggling, and do not affect the treatment of individuals seeking protection or asylum in Australia. As such, the amendments are consistent with Australia's obligations under international law and do not affect the rights of individuals seeking protection or asylum, or Australia's obligations in respect of those persons. This is confirmed by advice provided to the Government by the Attorney-General's Department.

Retrospective application

This bill does not alter any of the elements of the existing people smuggling offences in the Migration Act.

The amendments would apply retrospectively from December 1999 when the words 'lawful right to come to Australia' were first inserted into the people smuggling offences in the Migration Act. Retrospective application is necessary to avoid uncertainty about the validity of previous convictions and to maintain current prosecutions.

The effect of the retrospective application is to clarify an existing understanding of the laws, and to ensure convictions for people smuggling offences already made as well as prosecutions underway, are not invalidated.

There are exceptional circumstances that justify retrospectivity for this bill. Those circumstances are that it would not be appropriate to risk a significant number of prosecutions being overturned as a result of a previously unidentified argument in relation to the words 'no lawful right to come to Australia'.

Conclusion

This measure is critical to ensure Australia's laws criminalising people smuggling are clear and effective and reflect the Parliament's intention when the laws were put in place.

HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPORT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 2011

The Higher Education Support Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011 amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to implement 2011-12 Budget measures and update maximum payment amounts to provide for indexation and other variations.

The Bill also clarifies the Government’s policy in relation to Australian citizens studying at an overseas campus of an Australian provider and their eligibility for Commonwealth support and income contingent loans.

The 2011-12 Budget included:

additional funding of $1.2 billion over four years to fund growth in university enrolments;

an extra $550 million for improved indexation for universities, to put them on a more sustainable funding base;

$500 million for the Regional Priorities Round of the Education Investment Fund; and

additional funding of $109.9 million over four years for regional loading to help overcome the higher costs of regional campuses.

The Budget also included a reduction in HECS-HELP upfront discounts, providing savings of $479 million to assist in paying for the Government’s increased investment in higher education.

From 1 January 2012, the Government will lower the HECS-HELP discount for upfront student contribution payments of $500 or more from 20 per cent to 10 per cent.

Currently students can make a full up-front payment of their student contribution amount by paying 80 per cent of this amount for all of their units in a course of study with the same census date. The Commonwealth pays the remaining 20 per cent of the student contribution amount.

Students can also pay only part of their student contribution up-front and receive a 20 per cent discount for any payments totalling $500 or more for units in a course of study with the same census date.

The reduction in the upfront discount will affect students who can afford to pay upfront and choose to do so. It will not affect students who fund all of their university studies through HECS-HELP deferred loans and it will not affect university revenues.

The HELP voluntary repayment bonus, applied to payments of $500 or more, will also be reduced from 10 per cent to 5 per cent.

Students can make a voluntary repayment towards their HELP debt to the Tax Office at any time. Voluntary repayments of $500 or more currently attract a 10 per cent bonus on the payment amount. Effectively the Government pays this 10 per cent by removing it from the Student’s debt.

The decreased bonus for voluntary repayments will apply to all HELP debts.

This savings measure will help the Government to maintain its commitment to fund a demand driven supply of undergraduate places and to ensure low income people get the opportunity of higher education.

The Act will be amended to provide for an increase in funding for over enrolment of Commonwealth supported places that has occurred in 2011.

Funding for over enrolment of Commonwealth supported places was raised from 5 to 10 percent above funding for allocated places for 2010 and 2011 as a transitional measure prior to the introduction of the demand driven funding system for higher education funding from 2012.

From 2012, the Government will fund all undergraduate Commonwealth supported places provided by public universities.

The Bill increases the maximum amounts for other grants under section 41-45, and Commonwealth scholarships under section 46-40 of the Act to provide for indexation and other variations effecting the 2012-14 years, and to include the 2015 funding year.

There is currently ambiguity in the Act about its application to Australian citizens studying at the overseas campuses of Australian universities.

This has resulted in a small number of Commonwealth supported places being offered by Australian universities to Australian citizens studying at overseas campuses. These students have also been able to access the HECS-HELP scheme.

As students are only required to pay back their HECS-HELP debt if they file an Australian tax return, there is a higher risk that HECS-HELP debts incurred offshore will not be repaid, or not repaid for a longer period of time.

The Bill amends the Act to clarify that Australian citizens are not entitled to Commonwealth support or access to an income contingent loan when they are undertaking their course of study primarily overseas.

Current students will not be affected. Universities that currently have students in Commonwealth supported places at overseas campuses will be able to maintain the status of these students for the duration of their current courses.

The Bill reflects the Government’s continued commitment to growing Australia’s higher education sector and to expanding opportunities for Australians to obtain a high quality higher education.

NATIONAL HEALTH REFORM AMENDMENT (INDEPENDENT HOSPITAL PRICING AUTHORITY) BILL 2011

I am pleased to introduce this legislation which will bring into affect a key part of the Government’s National Health Reforms. The establishment of the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority will help to deliver a more sustainable, efficient and transparent health system for Australians.

The introduction of this Bill and, once enacted, the establishment of the Pricing Authority build on this Government’s strong track record in delivering health reform and will complement the work of the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care and the National Health Performance Authority.

This Bill is a direct result of the Government’s Council of Australian Governments agreement with all states and territories. The final terms of this agreement were signed on 2 August.

There are a number of critical elements of these reforms – including 1,300 more sub acute beds across Australia, new targets and reward funding for emergency departments and elective surgery, transparent performance reporting through the MyHospitals website and the establishment of Local Hospital Networks and Medicare Locals to improve local governance.

In total the agreement will mean an additional $19.8 billion for hospitals over this decade from the Commonwealth Government. $1 billion of this has already flowed to states for new sub acute beds and faster access for patients to services.

The Commonwealth will be a true partner in the hospital system with a commitment to funding 50 per cent of the growth funding for hospital services. This will be fully implemented from 1 July 2017, with a 45 per cent commitment from 1 July 2014. This extra growth funding will apply to the increase in the cost of services – as well as the increasing demand for new services with the ageing of the Australian population.

This commitment to growth is vitally important as the states would not have the capacity to fund the increasing cost of services on their own – particularly since the Commonwealth’s share of hospital funding has been dropping over the past decade. This agreement will once and for ever put that to an end.

This also creates a better incentive for the Commonwealth to invest in primary and preventative health services to keep people healthy and out of hospital.

However we were not going to agree to extra funding without critical reform. Currently, the Commonwealth provides funding for public hospitals through a block grant, negotiated through Health Care Agreements. It is up to the individual states to determine how this funding is distributed across public hospitals and health services.

The previous health agreement negotiated in 2008 provides $64 billion – which is a lot of money for the Commonwealth not to know what services are being funded, or the level to which they are funded. It is without significant levers to drive change and improvement across those public hospitals.

So in this new health system there will be no more billion dollar block grants: no more blank cheques with no accountability for where that money is spent.

This is why the reform agreement will deliver activity based funding across the country from 1 July 2012. Local Hospital Networks will be paid for the services that they actually provide.

This is a major microeconomic reform that will help to increase the efficiency of services because the introduction of price signals will mean there is an incentive for hospitals to maximise the services they deliver at or below the efficient price. This will ensure that more services can be delivered locally.

It will also be important for growing areas of Australia where often under the old system public hospital funding does not catch up with the demands that they have.

And it is important to taxpayers that their funding is transparently reported – with funding according to services provided paid directly to Local Hospital Networks through a new National Health Funding Pool. This means Australians will know what is being bought through our massive investment in hospitals –what services are delivered, by which Local Hospital Network they are delivered, and at what cost. The reform will also help to identify underperforming hospitals so that those causes can be remedied – and the lessons of highly performing hospitals can be shared.

The introduction of Activity Based Funding was a key recommendation of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission. They also concluded that the introduction of activity based funding would result in efficiencies of between $500 million and $1.3 billion – the equivalent of which would be hundreds of extra hospital beds.

It is also of interest to the private health sector – where activity based funding has been in operation for some time. Once in national operation across public hospitals there will be unprecedented amounts of information available. In the future this will help to consider smarter deployment of resources. This is a system that has been successfully deployed in Victoria and South Australia previously.

However a key difference from the system currently in place in Victoria and SA is that the price for services will be determined independently from Government and health department bureaucrats.

That means that the decision will be based on an assessment of the costs, facts and projections – rather than the political or budgetary interests of the government at the time. This is done by creating a new Authority – at arm’s length from all levels of Government – to independently determine the efficient price.

The Authority will have strong independent powers: it will be for public hospitals what the independent Reserve Bank is for monetary policy. This is unprecedented for the public hospital system.

The result will be a thorough and rigorous determination without fear or favour to Governments. The Government is confident that the Authority will provide the health system with the stability and robustness that the Reserve Bank has provided for monetary policy for decades.