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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question agreed to.