Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (11:14): For those listening, this debate on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2014 highlights Labor's absolute incompetence, hypocrisy and failure to make any decision on anything. It is typical of Labor. The previous speaker said that Mr Burke—on Q&A, mind you; not in the parliament by way of a formal announcement as the then minister—announced that there would be no more supertrawlers in Australia. Senator Bilyk, is that the same Mr Burke who actually encouraged the supertrawler to which you refer to come into Australia a couple years previously? This is what the same Hon. Mr Tony Burke MP, when he was agriculture minister, said in 2009. I quote his words: There are considerable economies of scale in the fishery and the most efficient way to fish may include large-scale factory-freezer vessels. There we are, the former agriculture minister, Mr Burke, saying to these large-scale freezer vessels, 'Welcome to Australia.' This is the sort of vessel that Senator Bilyk and, I suggest, Senator Whish-Wilson have been talking about. Then the same Mr Tony Burke, not in any formal sense but on a media show—which, I might say, is watched by very few people—said he was going to actually ban the same vessel that he personally had encouraged into Australia. This debate is all about Labor's incompetence, their inability to make any decision but, when they do make decisions, they are completely contradictory. Again, I wish to contradict Senator Bilyk and I have personal knowledge of this, because it involved me as former fisheries minister. Back in, I think, 2004—I do not have the details in front of me, but they are all available on the public record—there was a suggestion of the Veronica coming into Tasmania. At the time, we had not done the science. Senator Bilyk interjecting— Senator IAN MACDONALD: Clearly, whenever the truth comes out and it hurts Senator Bilyk, she will do what she can to drown me out in this debate. But it will not stop the facts, Senator Bilyk. The MV Veronica supertrawler was reportedly coming into Australian waters. Back in those days, we had not done the research, we had not done the science. So I as fisheries minister at the time said—and I might add that this was before the vessel came anywhere near Australia—'We should delay this and get the experts, not Senator Bilyk or Senator Whish-Wilson, but scientists who understand fisheries management, fish stock and how fisheries work. We'll get them to have a look at it to see what should or should not happen.' So, prudently, the government of the day said, 'Hold on a sec—we're not saying no, we're not saying yes—but let's do the science. Let's not rely on the Greens political party and Senator Bilyk, who know nothing about fisheries.' They know a lot about political campaigns, most of them completely dishonest, but they know nothing about the science of fisheries— Senator Bilyk: Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I think it is— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Williams ): What is your point of order, Senator Bilyk? It is not a thought session. Senator Bilyk: Belittling another senator in this place. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There is no point of order, Senator Bilyk. Continue, Senator Macdonald. Senator IAN MACDONALD: Thank you. If I say the Greens and the Labor Party are very good at dishonest political campaigns, I will stand by that until the day I die. Senator Bilyk: Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Macdonald used my name. He did not say, 'The Labor Party'; he said, 'Senator Bilyk.' I would like him to retract that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. Names of senators have been mentioned around here for as long as the six years that I have been in this place. Senator Bilyk: No— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Bilyk, I am speaking. Please resume your seat. There is no point of order. You have the call, Senator Macdonald. Senator IAN MACDONALD: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Dishonest political campaigns are the hallmark of the Greens political party and, lately, regrettably, the Labor Party and all of those in it. They are good at that, but they are not much good at the science of fisheries. This debate today is about how the Greens and the Labor Party deal with environmental matters. They are incompetent in making decisions. I want to come back to the point I have just been making. On the wider issue of the management of the environment by the Greens and the Labor Party, can I simply refer the Senate to one of the most disgraceful acts I have ever seen in relation to the environment in recent times. A couple of days ago a deal was struck between Labor and the Greens to block the job-destroying green tape initiative, the one-stop-shop initiative, which, it was indicated, would get the nod by this parliament. But the Greens and the Labor Party went to the Palmer United Party and said, 'If you roll over on this one-stop-shop proposal for sensible environmental management, we will support the Palmer United Party on its disgraceful, dishonest and unconstitutional inquiry into the Queensland government.' There are no high principles involved here, just a matter of bribery using the environmental legislation to give Mr Palmer his opportunity for a vindictive, irrelevant, untruthful and unnecessary inquiry into another government in our nation. This demonstrates the point I have been making. When you leave it to Labor and the Greens to deal with environmental matters, they are not so interested in environmental matters and will trade those sorts of things and, more importantly, jobs—and I will come back to that—just so they can get Mr Palmer's support to stop this one-stop shop inquiry. The one-stop shop, which was proposed by the Commonwealth government, was initially, I understand, supported by the Palmer United Party. I can well understand why Mr Palmer might have supported it. His Queensland nickel refinery in my home base city of Townsville has been held up in many of its instances for years by duplication of state and federal environmental legislation and by approvals processes and inquiry processes—so it was to be a good idea to have this one-stop shop. But one of Mr Palmer's goals in life is to take whatever political action he can against a government which refuses him what he wants. He thought he could buy any government and get them to do whatever he wanted, but the Queensland government said, 'We are an honest government and we will do this by the rules and we'll do it on the basis of what is right.' Mr Palmer did not like that, and so, since that time, he has conducted this vicious personal, political, dishonest campaign against Campbell Newman. And who is supporting it? The Labor Party and the Greens. We all know that when Senator Milne was not here, the Greens decided, quite properly, to have an inquiry into the previous Labor government—who, I might say, Senator Whish-Wilson, actually introduced the coal seam gas legislation in Queensland that you are so concerned about. But are we looking at the government that introduced the coal seam gas activities in Queensland? No, of course not, because it is a Labor government—it is a left wing government. It is the sort of thing Senator Whish-Wilson froths at the mouth about when he thinks about another Labor government. Most people these days understand the absolute dishonesty of the Greens, but for once I thought the Greens had done the right thing. It happened to be a time when their leader, Senator Milne, was—regrettably for her from her personal point of view—not in the chamber. Without their leader, the Greens made a decision that, 'If we are going to have an inquiry into this Queensland government, we will include the previous Queensland government'—the Labor one; the one that actually introduced the coal seam gas legislation which Senator Whish-Wilson is now 'so' concerned about. But did the Greens political party support it when it came up the second time? Oh, no, they had done a deal—because they do not like this one-stop shop. They want to put everything in their power in the way of Australian industry and, more importantly, Australian jobs. Senator Whish-Wilson: Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The second motion did include an analysis of the previous government. The senator is misleading the chamber. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Williams ): There is no point of order. Continue, Senator Macdonald. Senator IAN MACDONALD: I take Senator Whish-Wilson's point of order. That is not the way I read it. But, if that is correct, I am sure Senator Whish-Wilson will join with the one representative from the coalition on that committee and when they ask for documents and people from the previous Labor government to be included in that inquiry—when they are summonsed before that inquiry—I will expect Senator Whish-Wilson to support the one coalition member on that committee. And if we seek to bring along the Australian reporter by the name of— Senator O'Sullivan: Hedley Thomas. Senator IAN MACDONALD: When we seek to bring Hedley Thomas along to give evidence to this inquiry, I am sure—from Senator Whish-Wilson's comment—that Senator Whish-Wilson will again support me. I bet you everything I own that, when it comes up, the Greens will not do that. Senator O'Sullivan: They'll flip-flop. Senator IAN MACDONALD: Well, not flip-flop; they will just take their normal political party approach of dishonesty. They will go with Labor and they will stop anything that looks into the disgraceful previous Queensland government—the one that had a cabinet minister who is now serving time in jail for bribery. Are we going to look into that and all the other people around that? Senator Whish-Wilson: Yes. Senator IAN MACDONALD: We are? Senator Whish-Wilson: Yes, we are. Senator IAN MACDONALD: Okay; there are now three motions that you are going to be able to support us on, Senator Whish-Wilson: an inquiry into— Senator O'Sullivan: I hope that got onto the Hansard. Senator IAN MACDONALD: I hope it is in the Hansard now. An inquiry into Ms Bligh and all of your corrupt ministers and officials, the Tahitian prince— Senator O'Sullivan interjecting— Senator IAN MACDONALD: I might even get Senator Whish-Wilson to move the motion at this committee and we will have them along. Senator Whish-Wilson, you have almost made my day. But I am absolutely sure that when it comes down to it—when the chips are on the table—you will back down as you always do, because you will not do anything that in any way brings any accountability to any Labor government. But I have been distracted from the point I was making. This one-stop shop is not about having a one-stop shop for the sake of having a one-stop shop; it is about jobs in Australia. It is about our fellow Australians who currently are unemployed. You only have to look at the newspapers today and over the last couple of days to see that those who should know are clearly indicating the impact that this dual environmental system has on jobs on Australia. Regrettably, time will not allow me to go through this in any detail, but I will read from the first page of one daily newspaper, which says: THE nation's largest business groups have accused Clive Palmer and the Greens of risking 70,000 jobs and harming housing affordability with their pact to block environmental approval reforms in return for a Senate inquiry into the Queensland government. I have said before that I do not fear an inquiry into the Queensland government—in fact, I would almost welcome it. I know the Queensland government—I am a Queenslander. I know what a fabulous job it has done in correcting Labor's mismanagement over the previous 20 or so years. But I would not agree to that inquiry, or to an inquiry into the previous Bligh Labor government, with ministers who are now serving time in jail for bribery, if I knew it was going to cost my fellow Australians—70,000 of them—their jobs. That in itself is a disgrace. It is this Labor Party—allegedly the workers' party, allegedly the party for the poor and the disadvantaged, allegedly the party that sticks up for blue-collar workers—that, because of its rotten deal with the Palmer United Party and with the Greens, will cost 70,000 of my fellow Australians their jobs. I just cannot understand where the unions are when this is coming to bear. We read all about union corruption—most of us have known about that for a long time. It is all being put on the record now with the royal commission. But there are, I suggest, many unionists who are genuine in their job and genuine in their desire to look after the rights of workers and to get workers the best right they can ever have—the right to have a job. Here is an opportunity for those honest members of the union movement to say, 'We are more interested in jobs for our members rather than a dirty, dodgy deal between the Greens, the Palmer United Party and the Labor Party over an inquiry into Queensland that will go nowhere.' And it will go nowhere. I suspect the High Court might well have something to say about that. We have so many issues before this parliament at the moment, and here are the Greens, the Labor Party and the Palmer United Party sending a number of senators and all the Senate staff and all the Hansard staff on a wild witch hunt around Queensland, taking evidence from any disaffected person who has a grudge and wants to defame someone under parliamentary privilege. That is what this government has come down to. I return to the subject of the debate. As I have been indicating all along, this is really a debate about the incompetence of the Labor government and its inability to make any decision about anything and its susceptibility to dodgy, dirty deals of the type we have seen lately. As I mentioned earlier, the coalition, when it decides on matters like fish stocks and harvest strategies, relies not on politicians like Senator Bilyk and Senator Whish-Wilson, who frankly know absolutely nothing—we get people who are trained in fisheries science to make the decisions. We are waiting for an expert panel report and we have asked for additional science on fish stocks. We want to build public confidence in the fishery and we will not support Labor's bad legislation. When this legislation came forward last time it was so bad that it needed amendment within hours of introduction. Labor clearly do not understand fisheries or fisheries management. They were so hopeless that their bill banned all recreational charter fishing vessels—that is how good Labor was. That had to be amended almost before the ink had dried. I repeat that on this issue of fisheries we will make decisions based on science, not on the uninformed drivel and twaddle of Senator Whish-Wilson or Senator Bilyk or anyone else in the Labor Party. We have asked for more data to address criticism regarding the age of the data used to establish fish stocks. We want Australian fisheries to be the best—as they have been. We have a reputation for having the best managed fisheries in the world, bar none. That will continue because we have, under Liberal and National Party governments, placed the decisions we make on science from experts who know what they are talking about. We do not make decisions on the basis of temporary political advantage that the Greens and the Labor Party can organise in their dishonest campaigns on this and many other matters. This bill should be sent where it belongs—the rubbish bin.