Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have an interest in this motion moved by Senator Evans because I was actually on the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry concerned. So I have a duty in that regard, not just as Leader of the Nationals in the Senate. Without being too elusive, I was reminded of my time back at school and ‘sapiens nihil affirmat quod non probat’, which means a wise man states as nothing something he cannot prove. Of course, the Senate committee process is the avenue for trying to prove that, so it should be beyond reason that in that process you will be trying to flesh out the facts.

As a member of that economics committee inquiry I can clearly state that there was absolutely nothing. Although at times I might argue with Senator Abetz—and people on that inquiry, including Senator Cameron, would state that—I would suggest there was nothing nefarious about the actions of Senator Abetz. I can say with my hand on my heart that I was in a place to know if there had been, but there was not. If what I am saying now is not right then I am misleading this Senate and therefore the Senate has the right to kick me out. But as a member of that inquiry who has also been involved in the management within the coalition there is nothing that I know of that would indicate to me that any part of the actions of Senator Abetz was nefarious—foolish, possibly. If we are going to start kicking people after being foolish, there are not going to be many of us left!

I also indicated that I would be inclined to look at such a process, because we must maintain the dignity of the Senate and we must maintain the authenticity of that process—not for us but for the Australian people. However, I did say that I would not be part of someone pushing a political barrow. However, the first part of the motion is this:

In relation to the hearing of the Economics Legislation Committee on 19 June 2009 on the OzCar program:

Straightaway, we have a political barrow that is about to be pushed. It continues:

(a)      whether there was any false or misleading evidence given, particularly by reference to a document that was later admitted to be false;

The only way you are going to be able to prove ‘whether there was any false or misleading evidence given’ is if Godwin Grech turns up. As I stated at the doors every day when the inquiry was on, there is only one person I feel sorry for in this whole thing and that is Godwin Grech. That is still the case, because the man is sick. This whole process relies on him giving evidence; he is the cornerstone if this is what you want to go forward with. Otherwise, going back to ‘sapiens nihil affirmat quod non probat’, there is no way at all that you are going to be able to prove what the truth is. Nobody will be able to prove what the truth is. And, because you will not be able to prove what the truth is, you will turn it into a political barrow to push around. That is a problem.

In this place, much to the disgust of a lot of my colleagues, I think I have proved a number of times that if I believe something is right I will back it up. I strongly considered this, but this is a political barrow. I also concur with one of the remarks made by Senator Bob Brown, that maybe there should be a crossbencher on the Privileges Committee in the future. Obviously, that would require a member of the government to relinquish their position. I see no problem with that. That would make sense. But, on top of crossbenchers, it should also take into account other people in this chamber who show an inclination to do what is right and do not always follow the political line. I think that should also be considered. I think you probably remove yourself from that position when you find that everything you do is always as instructed by a political group.

Returning to the motion, I see (a) as something that cannot be brought about. Part (b) of the motion reads:

(b)      whether there was any improper interference with the hearing, particularly by any collusive prearrangement of the questions to be asked …

Once more, you would have to rely on Godwin Grech coming in to be able to prove that, and I do not think that is going to be possible. Also, if we turn to the prearrangement of questions issue, every question time here is a prearrangement of questions. Let us be honest: the whole of question time is a farce. Most of the questions are dorothy dixers, and all of them are prearranged. So, if we are going to knock out prearranged questions there, let us knock them out in here. In fact, I think it would be relevant if the only questions that were asked were the ones that were not prearranged, which are obviously the ones from the opposition benches.