Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

It's rather disappointing, isn't it, that we have to have a debate of this nature in this parliament. I was reflecting on the contributions of colleagues. This place is about a better future for the Australian people. We all come here wanting to do good things, but, as has been highlighted by a number of speakers now, that becomes incredibly difficult when the resources you are normally afforded are taken away from you, making it harder to do just that. So here we are; instead of talking about a better education system, a better health system or a more robust transport system, we are talking about resources that should be made available to members of parliament to represent their constituents in this parliament.

To start with, I want to reflect on the contribution of Senator Payman. I can tell this chamber and anyone who might be listening that I suspect Senator Payman and I disagree on many things. You know what? That's great. That is democracy at work. There are things we have regularly voted on opposite sides of the chamber on. I say that's a wonderful thing. In this free, democratic country we can exercise our ability to do just that. Senator Payman points out that an independent senator has, unlike any other independent senator, been offered no additional support. I am flabbergasted at that. That is not based on any methodology. That is not based on any formula. That is not based on any open and transparent mechanism where senators are given a certain amount of support in order to do the work that they do.

I think there is a degree of vindictiveness here because of certain things that have transpired. I know Senator Cash reflected on that earlier on—that it was, perhaps, a bit of payback, given Senator Payman is no longer part of the Australian Labor Party. How is that good for democracy? They may not like it, but it is reality. As I said, Senator Payman has very, very different views to me on a range of issues, and has probably never voted with me—I don't know; I've never done a count. But she should not be denied the support due to her as an independent senator from Western Australia because of political evening of the ledger—comebacks, pointscoring and keeping someone down. While it wouldn't aid me to have my opponents better resourced, it is the right thing to do. To that end, I thank Senator Payman for her contribution.

The fact that we are having this debate around resourcing parliamentarians to do their job is a very, very disappointing turn of events. It is a fact that, in a massive break from convention, the government, in its vindictive way, has decided, 'Hey, opposition, you've just lost the election; we're going to take a further 20 staff away from you.' If that had been evenly applied across all nongovernment parties—including the government as well; they are talking about fiscal restraint and being good budget managers—I'd probably think, 'Okay, fair enough; that's unfortunate.' But it hasn't been applied that way. There was no formulaic approach to this. It was: 'Well, you're the opposition. I don't like what you've got to say, and therefore I'm going to take away a degree of support that you rely on to do your job. Oh, and independent senator X, or independent senator Y, we're going to treat you this way.'

There is one group in this chamber who have, bizarrely, avoided the scalpel that was applied to the rest of us, and that is the Australian Greens. As I understand it, I think they might have lost one staff member out of the contingent they went into the election with. They did lose members of their team, but that doesn't seem to matter. It applied to us, it applied to others, but not to the Greens.

Indeed, as we know, not only did they seemingly escape the scalpel when it came to staff in this place; they were rewarded. There was this obscene expenditure on a room in this building to keep them in comfort while they meet and talk about how they're going to agree to the government's agenda and prop up this government in the Senate. A million dollars of taxpayers' money was put into a room in this building—not into doctors in regional Australia, not into better roads in communities across Western Australia or Tasmania, even—but into a room for senators to sit in. We have seen images. Earlier on, in introducing and moving the second reading of this bill, Senator Cash referred to images that appeared in the newspaper relating to the sumptuous Greens party room with the beautiful big red leather chairs, lovely finishes and amazing special species timber cabinetry—something that, if they got their way, would never be killed in a forest and used in furniture making. Anyway, they're happy to take it as part of their million-dollar refurb.

I think there will be a long-term repayment plan—a buy-now pay-later arrangement between the Australian Greens and the Australian government—for taking this beautiful room that was updated through the parliamentary break since the last election. They came back here, all refreshed after this election result that we all experienced, and saw this beautiful gift from the honourable Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister of Australia. They've lapped it up. But, as I said, it is a buy-now pay-later arrangement where they take the room and, over the course of time, will be able to do things to pay down the debt they owe the Labor Party, like supporting various bills and agreeing to certain arrangements. And we'll see it again today, I expect. This is an issue of transparency, which we were promised four years ago was going to come to a new high—more transparency in this parliament for the Australian people; they deserve it. But when the Centre for Public Integrity tells us that this government is the most secretive in a very long time, if not ever, I am very alarmed at anyone who would get into bed with this mob and support their agenda, including their approach to Senate estimates.

There was a motion on the books yesterday to extend the estimates schedule by an extra week. To the people who are here in the gallery today and perhaps listening online, Senate estimates is an opportunity to go through the government's books and see how they're spending taxpayers' money on their behalf. There is a week set aside for estimates. Senator David Pocock, another Independent senator who no doubt has been dealt with in a vindictive way by having staff taken away from him, proposed an extra week of Senate estimates because we've missed out on a number of opportunities this year, given the election and other matters. But, between the Greens and the Labor Party, they don't want a bar of it. They do not want that extra week of Senate estimates; they do not want that extra week of scrutiny. They would prefer to hide away from prying eyes. They'd like to cover over whatever it is they're doing. We saw it again yesterday with the Housing Australia Future Fund, where they refused to tell us exactly how they spent $277 million of taxpayers' money.

That side of the chamber over there, between the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens, refuses to open the books and refuses to agree to extra sittings of the Senate for the purposes of Senate estimates. Again, it is not hard to see why they're being so cooperative with one another when you've got arrangements where nearly a million dollars of taxpayers' money is being sunk into the refurbishment of a room in this place and they're signing up to the government agenda. It is an alarming development when a crossbench party like the Greens props up the government's agenda in the way that it does. Again, the need for us to be able to do our job and hold a government to account is extremely important. A government is only as good as its opposition. That opposition includes the crossbench parties—the minor parties and the Independents—who need to be able to interrogate what a government brings into this chamber. By taking away extra eyes and minds to interrogate the work of the government, you are silencing dissent and preventing proper scrutiny. That is an alarming development in our democracy and is something that we need to ensure is overturned, hence this bill.

As I said, it is lamentable that we are here having this debate today, instead of private senators' time being used for something like improving educational standards, or reforming the EPBC Act, or something like that. No; instead we are trying to restore fairness to the arrangements that apply to the operations of this parliament when it comes to non-government parties. Earlier, I heard the Leader of the Australian Greens highlight her concerns with this bill. I would invite Senator Waters to perhaps move not just her second reading amendment but some substantive amendments to this bill to enable measures to be put in place to restore that fairness. A formulaic approach that prevents the Prime Minister from becoming vindictive in his approach to how he doles out staffing and other resources in this parliament is something the Greens could constructively do. They could actually play a constructive role here.

While I am on Senator Waters, I think it is important to reflect on a couple of points that were made. There were a couple of comments that alarmed me. We've seen some terrible events occur in this building in recent years, and I don't intend to reflect on or go over those issues. But I think some of the gendered remarks that were made by Senator Waters could have a very damaging effect for members of not only this parliament but staff. There are male victims of some of the horrendous things that have happened here and elsewhere, and we cannot forget them. When we talk about things in the terms that Senator Waters did, it does not do any justice for those who have been victims and are somehow maligned in the attacks on those who perpetrated wrong to people in our community.

Senator Waters needs to think about her language as she pursues these matters, because as someone who can identify with victim-survivors her language in this place is incredibly important. I understand that sometimes when making a point we need to be straight to the point and remove nuance from what we say, but when we reflect in the way I heard Senator Waters reflect earlier it can be an incredibly damaging experience for many in this place and beyond. So I would urge Senator Waters to exercise some caution in her language when she pursues these matters.

Back to the bill at hand. This is about democracy. This is about scrutiny. This is about ensuring that this parliament, which has a government with a massive majority in the other place, is held to account. No-one was given a blank cheque or a free pass at the last election. The mandate the government has to progress its agenda does not mean it should not be progressed without scrutiny or without the need to negotiate with the crossbench—or even the opposition, which has expressed on a number of occasions a high degree of willingness to contribute to the public debate and progress some of the legislation and make some very reasonable amendments.

When you take away those resources that we all depend on, when you've got complex legislation, which can go into the hundreds of pages when you include an explanatory memorandum and all of the other attached documents and appendices, it is incredibly important that we have people with us, on behalf of the people of Australia—the people we represent in this place—assisting in making sure we are getting it right.

I would invite the Greens to reconsider their position on this legislation. I heard Senator Waters outline a range of concerns she has with the legislation as it stands and I saw the second reading amendment but I would invite the Greens to perhaps consider substantive amendments—

Debate interrupted.