Senator WATERS (Queensland) (15:57): In Queensland it seems that we are back to the Joh Bjelke-Petersen days. Here we 'Joh' again. I have said before in this place—and, no doubt, I will have cause to say it again—that the Queensland government has been on a brutal agenda of attacking the environment, public servants and civil liberties in Queensland. We have seen thousands of public servants sacked. We have seen more than 20 environmental laws overturned and an agenda of infringements—if I can be so polite about it—about civil liberties for Queenslanders. There is clearly an urgent need to look into this brutal agenda, which is why the Greens are, and always have been, supporting this inquiry. On those environmental changes that the Newman government has rolled out, sadly there has been an absolute denigration of the environmental laws. There has been a tax on the native vegetation laws in winding back protections for riparian vegetation and regrowth vegetation. There have been repeals of coastal protection laws which will damage the Great Barrier Reef in completely overturning our state planning policy for coastal areas. The Wild Rivers legislation has been repealed and overturned, particularly for Cape rivers. There has been a program to allow grazing in national parks, which are supposed to be for the conservation of nature, and logging in areas that had been earmarked to become national parks. Just this month, as I mentioned last week, the Queensland government passed a bill through the state parliament at three minutes to midnight removing public objection rights to the biggest mines in Queensland. That is the biggest step backwards that we have seen in community rights to protect the environment and to uphold the law in living memory. It is pretty clear that the Queensland government are trying to silence Queenslanders in favour of letting the big mining companies run absolutely riot. They consistently put the big mining companies ahead of the people of Queensland. That is precisely why it makes no sense at all that this state government be given more responsibility for the environment and to in fact be given, as this government intends, the responsibility for environmental approvals that the current federal environment minister has. The Abbott government has been set on turning us back by 30 years in giving away its environmental powers completely to the Queensland and other state governments. Senator Brandis interjecting— Senator WATERS: It is the foreign affairs power, Senator Brandis. Please, you of all people should know your Constitution. I am pleased that we have had discussions with the Palmer United Party along those lines. Senator O'Sullivan interjecting— Senator Milne: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. My colleague is entitled to make her contribution and be respected. I would ask Senator O'Sullivan to stop his disorderly behaviour. The PRESIDENT: I ask senators on my right, in particular, to stop interjecting. Senator WATERS: As I was saying, the appalling track record of the Newman government in Queensland on the environment is precisely why they should not be given more powers over the environment, and they specifically should not be given the federal environmental approval powers under the EPBC Act that this government is proposing to give them. I am pleased that we have had discussions with the Palmer United Party along those lines. We have clearly put the position that, if the Newman government are so awful as to warrant an inquiry into their terrible track record, clearly they should not be given more powers over the environment. I am pleased that the Palmer United Party have agreed with that logical conclusion. I am also pleased that we have been able to secure amendments to the terms of reference for this inquiry to clearly bring in both the appalling track record of the Newman government and the track record of Commonwealth oversight of coal seam gas approvals in Queensland, which have been a very vexed issue no matter which government has been in power. I am pleased that we will now be able to look at those issues. I am also pleased that the terms of reference are broad enough to consider Mr Clive Palmer's environmental track record through his company in relation to the Yabulu nickel refinery on the shores of the Great Barrier Reef and the Galilee Basin coalmine. Senator Brandis: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I know you have already been addressed on the subject of standing order 86. As I understand your ruling, if standing orders are suspended then standing order 86 is also suspended and provides, therefore, no limitation on the capacity of the Senate to discuss the substantive motion. If I understood you correctly, that was your ruling before. The PRESIDENT: My ruling before was that we were dealing with a suspension motion and, as such, being a procedural motion, standing order 86 was not applicable because we were dealing purely with the suspension. When the suspension matter is resolved, if there are any other points of order in relation to other standing orders, I will be happy to entertain them then. But it is not applicable at the moment. Your point of order at the moment, Senator Brandis— Senator Brandis: I have not made my point of order yet. The PRESIDENT: Okay, but your point of order should directly relate to the substance we are discussing now. Senator Brandis: As a matter of fact, my point of order relates to the validity of this debate. The reason before I took the point of order I wanted to clarify the rationale for your ruling is that if standing orders were to be suspended, if this motion were to be put and carried, then there would be no capacity on the substantive motion to invoke the standing order under section 86. If that be the case then in circumstances such as these section 86 could never be invoked, so it becomes circular. For that reason, I am taking a different point of order now not in relation to the substantive motion but in relation to the procedural motion. Because, just as the substantive motion is substantially to the effect of the motion that was defeated last Tuesday prior to that motion coming on to be voted on, there was a procedural motion to suspend standing orders. My submission to you, Mr President, is that the motion which is now before the chair is identical to the motion that was decided on last week. Therefore, it is in fact at this stage of the debate that standing order 86 can be invoked. If standing order 86 cannot be invoked at this stage in the debate then it cannot be invoked at all because if this motion is put and carried then section 86 will be suspended. Obviously, that cannot be the intention of the standing orders because, were that so, section 86 could never be made effective or operative because by the device of moving a procedural motion a senator could always render it inapplicable. That is why I submit to you, sir, that it is on the procedural motion, in fact, that you ought to entertain a point of order that this debate itself is a violation of section 86, because the same question on substantially the same motion was put and determined last week. The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Brandis. Senator Milne, I am going to take advice, but I am happy for you to add directly to the point of order I understand Senator Brandis is lodging. Senator Milne: I do want to comment on Senator Brandis's desperate move to prevent this vote being taken. I think it is pretty evident now why he never made it onto the short list of the Queensland bar association. The PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order. Senator Milne: I want to say in relation to this matter— The PRESIDENT: Senator Milne, you are now deviating from a point of order by casting personal remarks against Senator Brandis. I will allow you to continue if your point of order is directly relevant to the point of order that has been raised by Senator Brandis. Senator Milne: Mr President, the point at issue here is that there has been a move for a suspension of standing orders. That is a procedural matter that ought to be determined. Then the question might be raised as to whether it is the same question. And it is not the same in substance, because there is a substantially different amendment which has been added, and we will have that debate once the suspension of standing orders has been dealt with. You cannot stop a suspension of standing orders on the basis of something that may be determined at a later time. Senator Ian Macdonald: On the same point of order, Mr President, the motion that we dealt with a week ago, before we dealt with the substantive motion, was that so much of the standing orders would be set aside as would prevent Senator Lazarus from moving a motion relating to a particular three-page motion that he then proceeded to deal with. Senator Brandis's point, which I reinforce, is that this motion we are dealing with today—dealing with setting aside standing orders so that Senator Lazarus could in fact move this three-page motion, which would be incorporated into the Hansard record—is exactly the same motion and, for the reasons Senator Brandis gave, is exactly the reason by-law 86 provides. Senator Fifield: Mr President, on the same point of order: the points raised by Senator Milne have a certain Alice in Wonderland quality to them. There is a circularity to the argument, which means that standing order 86 could never in fact be invoked; there would never in fact be the circumstances where it could be cited. We are not actually talking about something in the abstract here, because Senator Lazarus has in fact already circulated to the chamber the wording of the motion he seeks to move. So, we are not just talking about the suspension of standing orders in the abstract in order to allow Senator Lazarus to move a motion that we are unaware of the wording of. Senator Lazarus has circulated the motion in the chamber. He has made reference to it in his suspension motion. I would have thought that for the chamber to determine whether standing orders should or should not be suspended one of the very relevant considerations would in fact be the wording of the motion Senator Lazarus has circulated—which clearly, according to standing order 86, falls foul, because it is the same in substance as that moved last Tuesday. So, the only opportunity for yourself, Mr President, to form a ruling in relation to Senator Lazarus's substantive motion is now. The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Sullivan, I do not intend to take any further points of order in relation to this particular aspect. I have a clear direction as to where I am heading with this. I appreciate Senator Brandis's point of order and understand where he is coming from. And Senator Fifield in particular, in relation to your point of view, the actual substantive motion, if we get there—because there is yet to be probably two questions before the chair before we get to the substantive motion—I do not accept that argument. Standing order 86, Senator Brandis, can come into effect on any ordinary day of business. We have now just stepped out of the ordinary in relation to the same question or the same matter, because we have set aside what standing orders we need to. This is the motion—to set aside what standing orders we need to. We are debating that. It is a procedural motion. So, this procedural motion cannot be subjected to standing order 86. Otherwise we would have all sorts of problems with standing order 86 and suspension motions in their own right may not be able to be moved. So, I am ruling that there is no point of order, although I do understand and respect the point of order that has been raised. Senator Waters, we will come back to you. You have 35 seconds left in which you can continue your remarks. Senator WATERS: As I was attempting to communicate—albeit it was a little difficult, with the noise in the chamber—clause 2 of the proposed terms of reference is clearly a new insertion, and that is precisely the clause that we will be able to use to look at the Commonwealth's oversight of coal seam gas in Queensland, which clearly has been inadequate and needs in my view to be much stronger. This will be a Senate inquiry, and it is clearly within the legislative competence of the federal parliament. It has been drafted to ensure that, and it is an inquiry that the Greens will support. (Time expired)