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 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 the opposition—that is us; apparently it is you now as well, if you believe you—and the Greens. I can go to each one for 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, 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 we said 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 worse 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 Green-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? 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.