Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Senator McKenzie. In a deal with One Nation, the minister has finally released the draft dairy code of conduct for consultation. The minister's Nationals colleagues have been left fuming, with one complaining of the minister: 'She can deliver for Hanson but she can't deliver for us.' Another colleague has said:

We've been busting our arses on dairy, holding the line because we were told it couldn't be done, and then Hanson rolls out and claims the whole bloody lot.

Why did it take One Nation to get the minister to bring forward the release of the dairy code of conduct?

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Before I call the minister, I did hear some interjections about language. The precedent that has been adopted, generally, is that if something has been used in Hansard repeatedly it is not going to be ruled out of order. I would encourage all senators, however, that just because it has been used it doesn't necessarily mean it's appropriate or meets the dignity of the chamber to keep using it. Senator Bernardi on a point of order?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not sure that some of the language used in that question has been used repeatedly in Hansard.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously, Senator Bernardi, I do not have the facility to check that as we speak. I have, however, been asked about words of that calibre previously, and they have been in the Hansard for decades. My view is that where something has not been ruled out of order previously, unless it is egregious, it's not for the chair to change a standing precedent. However, as I urge all senators, just because something has been done it doesn't necessarily mean it is great for the dignity of the chamber to do it again. Senator Bernardi?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I won't labour the point, but some of the language used in that question has been ruled out of order by temporary chairs in the past and, secondly—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Can I hear Senator Bernardi, please? Senator Bernardi.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Secondly, it may have been your ruling previously that just quoting bad language, because someone else has said it—I think it was in respect of Senator Cash—was not an appropriate excuse or rationale for using it.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was very aware of my predecessor's ruling on that matter, which was in 2017, which is why I referred to, shall we say, more egregious language. I would describe that language as interpreted by most people as being substantially more offensive than what people are objecting to in that question. I ask senators to use their discretion. Senator O'Neill, you stood before.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did. In my defence I would have to say that I'm hardly known for using this sort of terminology in general parlance. However, the question remains a very accurate representation of the outrage within the National Party, and I think it should stand.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is not a time for editorialising. I gave you an opportunity to defend yourself. Can I ask all senators to keep that in mind. If, Senator Bernardi, you are correct and it hasn't been in Hansard repeatedly, I will come back to the chamber, but my guess is that that is not the first time it has been used. Senator McKenzie, the Minister for Agriculture.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Senator O'Neill, for your question. The National Party is standing with our nation's dairy farmers ad nauseam, as we've debated through question time this week. We're very proud to be the only party that took to the election what the dairy farmers in this country wanted. They came together and voted as one for a mandatory dairy code on the back of the ACCC inquiry that we called and that we actually followed up on. The ACCC recommended delivering a dairy code.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Neill on a point of order?

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think Senator McKenzie is mistakenly answering the question she was asked yesterday. This is an entirely different question that asks her to reveal to the parliament, to reveal to this chamber, why Senator Hanson and One Nation were able to get the minister to bring forward the release of the dairy code when her own colleagues could not achieve that outcome.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With respect, your question had a substantial preamble, and I believe the minister is being directly relevant to the question that was asked. I can't instruct her on how to answer a question. Senator McKenzie.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Neill, we took to the election to put in a mandatory code for the dairy industry should we win the election. We did. The Labor Party put forward a floor price. Joel had a whole suite of initiatives that he was going to do. They didn't want that. They wanted the mandatory dairy code of conduct and a whole raft of measures that we committed to: legal and financial advice within the ACCC, support for energy efficiency grants et cetera. And I've run through them publicly several times. That code was not to be delivered until 1 July next year.

On winning the election we, as a government, as a party, took every step to actually bring forward the release of the dairy code. I actually wrote to my department in August seeking, on the back of the lobbying from my own party members, to bring forward the code. So the department and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel were doing everything they could to turn the nine principles that were agreed by industry into a legal document, and the exposure draft that's out for consultation now with the industry was produced.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Neill, a supplementary question?

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Nationals member for Lyne, Dr Gillespie, warned that the minister's draft code dudded farmers and called for farmers to be allowed to trade milk, refusing to rule out a leadership tilt over the issue. Why did it take a threat to her leadership for the minister to consider this measure for farmers?

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My colleague David Gillespie represents a certain cohort of dairy farmers in the Central Coast of New South Wales and has an innovative trading platform concept for dairy farmers to trade their milk. That particular concept wasn't raised in the consultations we'd had with farmers prior to the election, and that is why, if you have a chance, I recommend you go to the Have Your Say place on the department's website around the dairy code, because we're consulting not only on the code but on this innovative approach to trading platforms for milk products, as Mr Gillespie absolutely raised.

So we're going out, as we should, consulting with our eight dairy regions across the country to see what they think of these issues, and then that will be fed into the code once we complete consultations. I think it's on 22 November.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Neill, a final supplementary question?

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just note that Dr Gillespie's seat is actually further north from the Central Coast, on the Mid North Coast, where the fires are raging. One of the minister's Nationals colleagues said it was a 'waste of time' contacting the minister because she 'never gets back to you'. Another said she 'couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery'. Is the minister confident she retains the support of the Nationals party room?

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I'm glad my request lasted one question. I think that word has been used. I will check that again for you, Senator Bernardi.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! Can we settle down on my left please. I'll come to you next, Senator Patrick. Senator Rennick was on his feet first.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I asked if I could use that word in my maiden speech, and you said I couldn't. You're going to have to make her retract that!

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I won't go into my—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Can I answer the question first?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order, I just wonder if it is possible to give an extension of time on a point of order.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not going into my private conversations with colleagues other than to say, given you've raised it, Senator Rennick, that I think I recommended against its use. The context of first speeches is also that they avoid contentious elements given the courtesy extended by all senators in the chamber, and I did go through that with an explanation. I am going to check that word. I'm certain it's been used before. If not, I'll come back and ask the senator to withdraw. I ask senators to show some discretion in the use of their language and maybe allude to the terms that some in the public might find offensive or inappropriate for the decorum of the parliamentary chamber. Senator Patrick?

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll just point out that that word was used by Senator Hanson-Young either yesterday or the day before in the chamber and she was asked to withdraw and she did.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wasn't in the chamber at the time. I will check. Senator O'Neill?

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I make, again, the distinction between the use of the word as an expression of my own and the use of reported speech of a member of the minister's own party. There's quite a difference.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Neill, please resume your seat. There is a ruling by Senator Parry on the use of very contentious language with respect to quoting, I believe, a court case transcript of a highly contentious issue at the time. Senator Parry ruled that, when it came to that particular language, quotation of something does not make something parliamentary. I will check whether that word is parliamentary—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was worse.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was worse, and that is why I used the term 'egregious language', Senator O'Neill. I will check the use of this term. But this problem won't arise if senators don't use it and maybe use other words to allude to it rather than use words that set the chamber off. Some self-restraint is not a bad idea in the chamber. Senator Pratt, on the point of order?

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a point of clarification on the point of order, as I must have missed something in the debate. I haven't heard what word it is that you are referring to, Mr President. Are you able to put it on the record for us?

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not going to put it on the record. People can go back and look at the video, if they wish. Senator Whish-Wilson?

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of clarification, Mr President, having been through this myself in previous years, isn't the context of the word important in terms of your deliberation rather than the use of the word?

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Parry's ruling, to paraphrase it, was that quotation of unparliamentary language does not make it parliamentary. That was about a particularly offensive term, if I recall correctly. Context does matter. I don't think this word has been ruled unparliamentary before. I will check that. If it has, I'll come back to the chamber. As I've said, my view is that, if a word has been used and other presidents have allowed it, so will I. If the chamber wants to express its view that it's unparliamentary, I'll enforce it. But I'm not going to make a unilateral ruling on a word that has been used. Can I repeat my plea: this problem doesn't arise if senators don't use the language. An allusion can be made to language without necessarily quoting it and then we won't have this distraction. I'll come to Senator McKenzie on the answer to the final supplementary question.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're interested in actually delivering a dairy code for the dairy industry to strengthen their power against the egregious behaviour of processors. That's what our party's interested in doing. In terms of any events that I may or may not have the capacity to hold, I do give this commitment to the chamber: it will be an open bar and an open invitation for all.