Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (11:24): I rise to oppose this motion because it will disrupt a very important function of the Senate. On Wednesdays, we have an opportunity to give senators' statements, as they are now known. There is an hour and a quarter in which we are able to make explanations of circumstances that have taken place or to represent things on behalf of our constituents. Today in that senators' statements debate—and it is for a slightly selfish reason—I wanted to thank a member of the Labor Party, which I will be unable to do if this motion to vary business is passed. The reason for my thanking a member of the Labor Party relates to my belief that I was subject to a grave injustice last week, when some things that I questioned during a Senate committee inquiry were grossly misrepresented and, I would say, in a defamatory manner—and which were not supported by any of the Hansards available—suggesting that somehow I condone domestic violence. It was a grotesque slur. Of course, it was allowed to ride by those in the Greens party, who knew it was not true. It was also fuelled by people like Tim Watts MP. Now, I did not even know there was an MP called Tim Watts. But, apparently, he is on Twitter, using vile and disgusting language, making all sorts of allegations and accusations. I looked him up and I saw some bloke who has more product in his hair than Vidal Sassoon. He was making all of these sorts of allegations without even having been there. It was disgusting. It was grotesque. This is a bloke who is seeking to make some sort of name for himself via Twitter, by appealing to the twitterati, or whatever they call themselves. Senator Cameron: Mr President, I rise on a point of order: it is similar to the point of order that I raised during Senator Macdonald's recent contribution. In putting this point of order, I indicate that Senator Bernardi was in the chair when he made Senator Lambie sit down when she spoke on these issues, and I think it is— The PRESIDENT: I do not need that in your point of order—but thank you, Senator Cameron. You have raised a point of order. Senator Bernardi, you started this contribution by indicating that your contribution on a matter later today would be affected if this motion were passed, and that was in order and was relevant, but you have now delved into the substantive nature of another debate. So, Senator Bernardi, I draw you back to the matter before the chair. Senator BERNARDI: I am just highlighting how grave injustices can be done when we truncate or alter important items of business that are on the agenda. The point that I made before was that altering the order of business today would deny me the opportunity to extend a gracious thankyou to Senator Claire Moore of the Labor Party—indeed, the mover of this motion. Senator Moore, you are in some ways denying yourself rightful— The PRESIDENT: Through the chair. Senator BERNARDI: Senator Moore is denying herself rightful praise that she well deserves for standing up to the progressive juggernaut that sought to decapitate a Conservative senator—because Senator Moore, to her great credit, said to The Sydney Morning Herald that what was represented in the News Corp papers and what had been perpetuated by people like Senator Waters and this unknown MP, Tim Watts, was a load of baloney, it was not what Bernardi had said or represented and there was no way he was condoning that. If this motion to vary business is passed, I will be denied my right and, I think, my moral obligation to say on the public record a gracious and sincere thankyou to Senator Claire Moore for her defence of me, someone who is not politically aligned with her on virtually anything, I would say, and Senator Moore may concur with that. It says to me that there are decent people in this place who are prepared to honour righteousness, truth and justice, rather than just seek to claim a political scalp. I think that is manifestly unfair, and I think that Senator Moore probably did not recognise or understand just how fulsome my recognition of her graciousness was going to be. I know that Senator Moore is not a person whose ego needs to be fuelled somehow, and so she probably would not have stopped moving this motion today simply to receive praise and acclaim, because she is not fuelled by that. But I do think it is important for the Australian people to have the opportunity to hear that there are chances and times when senators do the right thing in the face of hostilities from some of their natural supporters. I would have loved to have elaborated a lot more today, Mr President—which I will be denied doing if this motion is successful—about this Mr Watts MP. He is a chap who—as I said, I do not know who he is; I had to google him to find out! I do not know how long he has even been in the parliament. I have seen some photos of him and I have seen some of the vile slurs that he has put out on Twitter. He is obviously incapable of writing any substantive article or of dealing with substantive issues. He has referred to a Hansard that he has never seen. He has not seen— Senator Bullock: Mr President— Senator BERNARDI: Is he one of yours, is he? Senator Bullock: I do not pretend to be a substitute for Senator Cameron, but I would like to echo his point of order. The PRESIDENT: Thank you. It is noted Senator Bernardi has been skilfully linking the matter of another debate to this debate, and whilst he continues to do that he is in order. However, I will remind the senator of the matter before the chair. Senator BERNARDI: Thank you, and I appreciate any reminders that you would like to throw my way, Mr President. But I will conclude in 14 minutes and 23 seconds, Mr President. What we have is an opportunity for natural justice, through senators' statements, that will be denied, absolutely denied, if we are to remove them today. I would point out also, Mr President, that we have only two more sitting weeks after this and that we have been denied another day of debate tomorrow because of Senate estimates. We have only two more sitting weeks. There are some 76 senators in this chamber, all of whom may seek to offer accolades to Senator Moore—they may do; I am not sure about that. Perhaps some of her own team might not do that, but certainly on this occasion I would be. So there is no opportunity in senators' statements time for all 76 of us to make that contribution, unless it were less than a minute each. And let me tell you, Mr President: my acknowledgement and recognition of the contribution that Senator Moore has made to public life in the last week would go for much more than a minute or two. It is more poignantly brought home to me because the day that this grievous offence was supposedly taking place, the day that Mr Tim Watts MP was attacking me and beating me up on Twitter for some alleged statements, was my birthday. Can you imagine what a terrible, terrible birthday gift that was, to wake up to these sorts of slurs and think, 'Gosh, I spent my birthday dealing with a very important subject and now I'm being attacked and harangued by the fools on Twitter and some of their supporters'? That is why the greatest gift I got for my birthday this year—apart from the one my wife gave me, of course—was the gift of honesty from Senator Moore. A more generous senator I do not think we could ask for, and so that is why it is unfair for Senator Moore to deny herself that moment in the spotlight, where someone can say thank you—thank you, thank you, thank you. And yet, by some quirk of fate, my surprise plan of thanks has been quashed by the person who was going to be on the receiving end of it. I would say to you, Mr President, that Senator Moore was blissfully unaware of what was coming in senators' statements today—blissfully unaware. She probably would not have been in the chamber because it would have made her blush, so gushing was my praise. But I would invite Senator Moore, in the 11 minutes and 37 seconds in which I conclude, to perhaps reconsider her motion and maybe withdraw it just so that justice can be done. I made the point before that we still have a couple more sitting weeks, but there is only finite time in which to deal with senators' statements. But, as was so rightly pointed out by Senator Cormann, the Minister for Finance—a person who, I think, has been doing an outstanding job on behalf of the government—there is plenty of opportunity for this to be debated and discussed, this disallowance motion of this FoFA deregulation, in the following week. The disallowance has to be dealt with by 27 November—I think that was the date that he said. If there is an opportunity for us to deal with the FoFA disallowance motion in the following week, that would also allow for further consultation for those who are perhaps uninformed about the consequences of what they are doing—the full implications of it—then I think we should heed that wise advice. A secondary benefit of that, of course—a secondary benefit, but no less important to me—is that it would allow me to acknowledge publicly the support of a senator who saw a grave injustice being done, and that is Senator Claire Moore. I mean, she is a true champion of truth and honesty I hope. I would say to Senator Moore: she is not very successful at points of order on relevance in question time, but she is extraordinarily successful at cutting through the progressive baloney that attacks a conservative senator simply because he is who he is. I think that Senator Moore needs to be paid tribute to— Senator Polley: I'd want to frame this speech! Senator BERNARDI: I hear the interjections, Mr President—which are disorderly I would remind you—but I hear the interjection 'I want to frame this'. I may frame my original remarks that I hope to deliver to the Senate today in praise of Senator Moore to thank her for her incredible support last week. It acted like a rod of iron that supported the crushing weight of all the progressives piling on and seeking to destroy a person simply going about their business. I am hearing some requests from some of my colleagues for a greater explanation of what transpired, and I would like to provide that detail. In particular, I quote from the Hansard, which has only recently been released. Doing that means I have to prioritise between further praise of Senator Moore and discussing how the process of the Senate is truly being undermined by this. Who are we to make a determination today that injustices can go uncorrected in the very small amount of time we have to do that; that personal explanations and representations on behalf of constituents can be made in only a very finite time? Between now and the end of the year we have three hours and 45 minutes for senators to make statements on Wednesdays, from 12.45 until question time at 2 pm. A full third of that will be cut. It will be removed. That disenfranchises perhaps a dozen, maybe more—maybe two dozen—senators from doing their work of representing their constituents, from standing up for truth and justice and the Australian way. Senator Polley: You can't even keep a straight face yourself! Senator BERNARDI: I am being heckled by the other side—this is a very emotional issue for me. All senators need to have the opportunity that I will be so cruelly denied if this motion is supported. I say this not just because it affects me personally, not just because I had something that I thought was very important—and I have mentioned that before: the praise of Senator Claire Moore for her stoic defence of truth and justice and enlightenment. This is not just about me. I know other senators who also had senators' statements to make today. They had statements about their constituents. I do not think any of them were going to be praising Senator Moore quite as solidly as I was going to be, but I know that some other senators did have various things to talk about, such as the tactics of the Labor Party. Those things are important to public life, as are FoFA reforms. There is a time and a place to have these debates but, as the minister said, the time and probably the place to really have this discussion and this debate is when people can plan for it and prepare for it, not when there is some sort of malicious hijacking of due process, not when there is some surprise attack or stealth manoeuvre; not when you have a gang of Independent senators who just pop up with Senator Dastyari pulling their strings. That is what I saw on the TV today. Senator Dastyari's time of pulling strings was done when he was moved on from Sussex Street—he was demoted to the Senate, in Labor Party terms. Senator Seselja: He was backing Craig Thomson. Senator BERNARDI: I thank Senator Seselja. I do make the point that Senator Dastyari, who has been pursuing this FoFA disallowance motion for such a long time, was a very solid supporter of the former member Craig Thomson and it is reasonable for us to call into question the judgement exhibited both by the support of Craig Thomson, the former member who I understand has been convicted of a number of offences that he denied ever committing, and the judgement attached to this sort of hijacked stealth manoeuvre. This is not just some union cabal where you can turn up with your thugs and smash people's legs and things like that to get your way. That is not how it works here—it works on the courtesies; it works on the ethic of reciprocity; it works on convention. They are all the things that conservatives like myself value. I know it is not just about politics. Courtesy, reciprocity and convention were the very things that saw Senator Claire Moore last week come out in support of someone who is perhaps her political opposite when she saw an injustice being done. That is what distinguishes a truly solid senator from the others. It says to me that Senator Moore is perhaps the person with the greatest character on the other side. I know Senator Moore is probably blushing now; I only wish the people of Australia could see how she is forced to stand there and listen to nice words being said about her. It is not the Labor way to say nice things about your colleagues, but Senator Moore has broken with that. She said, if not nice things, honest things and she put to bed and dispelled some falsehoods and some myths that were being peddled by some of her colleagues—who I did not even know were colleagues, such has been their impact on this place. I am talking about Tim Watts MP. Senator Cormann: Who is he? Senator BERNARDI: That is a very good question, Senator Cormann. No-one knows who he is. If you see someone with a lot of product in their hair, walking around with long hair and gazing into mirrors adoringly, it is probably Tim Watts MP. The PRESIDENT: Senator Bernardi, you cannot adversely reflect on members of the other house. I remind you of that fact and also draw your attention to the matter before the chair. Senator BERNARDI: Mr President, I return to the point that there is a time and a place for everything. I believe there is a time for us to be having a discussion about the disallowance motion. In fact we have had a couple of discussions before— Senator Cormann: Twice. Senator BERNARDI: We have had the discussion twice, and both times the Senate has rejected it. I wonder whether today's motion is just some sort of scheme. I wonder whether perhaps one of my colleagues leaked my little plan about what I wanted to do in senators' statements today—which was to praise Senator Claire Moore for her honesty—to Senator Moore in goodwill and said, 'Senator Moore, you are going to be getting praised by Bernardi today; you should be in the chamber for it. I won't say there are going to be chocolates—not in the chamber. But they may be delivered later on,' and because of the character of that lady and her desire to remain out of the spotlight she said, 'I will join Senator Dastyari in this stunt,' just to deflect attention from herself. But I would say that is inappropriate. That is why I am going to oppose this motion. I think it is unfair for us to deny the rightful accolades and acclaim that should flow the way of a particular senator. On this occasion, I wanted to say something, and I have been unable to say it. I regret that I will be unable to say it in the appropriate place. I am going to have to deny Senator Moore the praise that she deserves for denying the lefties, progressives, twitterati, poison pens, or whatever they want to call themselves, some sort of perversion of the truth. That is my reason for opposing this. I stand with Senator Cormann. Let us deal with this next week. I stand with those who admire process and who respect the courtesies that are extended in this chamber. I will be voting against this because it would deny me the opportunity to praise Senator Moore. (Time expired)