Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Mr President, I seek leave to make a very short statement in relation to Senator Patterson’s request.

Leave granted.

I have spoken to Senator Minchin this morning about this. Previously when we have dealt with very complex issues that are the subject of conscience votes by the major parties there has been strong consultation and involvement to deal with process so that we end up arguing about the issue, not the process. Labor has been at pains to ensure that all senators have the opportunity to participate in the debate, that they are happy with the process, that they have their views heard and tested and that the views of those members of the public who are interested in the debate are aired and tested. As Labor leader in the Senate, I was unaware until this morning that two motions were to be brought forward—one from Senator Humphries and one from Senator Patterson—seeking to refer bills not yet introduced into the chamber to a committee that was required to report by 27 October. Both came as a surprise to me. I understand they were discussed by the whips last night. This obviously implies there is some agreement on the government side about how the government is handling these matters.

I think that, out of respect to the chamber, all the senators ought to know what has been determined by the government for the handling of the process. While some senators may have been consulted by the proponents of the various resolutions—and some of them may come from various sides of the chamber—those responsible for the management of the chamber need to be in the process. For instance, in terms of the motions moved today, Labor senators may want to amend one or more of them—I do not know. I do not know whether they were all aware this was coming on today, other than having the opportunity to see it on the Notice Paper.

The point I made to Senator Minchin this morning—and I accept that he accepts that this is not meant as a shot against anybody—is that the reason the Senate has in the past handled these matters with a great deal of dignity and respect for different views, and has allowed really well-formed and polite, civil debates about really difficult issues, is that we have agreed on the process and all senators have felt that they have had the opportunity to contribute and participate. Of great credit to the parliament is the way in which we have dealt with the RU486 debate, the euthanasia debate and the original stem cell debate.

My statement is a plea for us to consult and agree on the process before this occurs. I was unaware until this morning that the government had agreed on a timetable for considering the bill. Whether or not the government has agreed, I do not know, so why are we reporting on 27 October? As an individual senator, I might prefer to make it the middle of November, but I would do that on the basis of knowing when the government was prepared to allow the debate. Without that information I cannot make a sensible decision on Senator Patterson’s motion. I understand why it may not be appropriate to delay this resolution today, because it seems that there is some urgency now. The only reason there would be urgency is if there is an agreement that the bill will come on at some stage.

Anyway, these are all issues I am not privy to, but the important point I want to make is that all the Senate ought to be aware of the processes that are to occur. We all ought to be consulted about that and have the opportunity to express a view about it so that, when we debate the issue, we are debating only the issue and not, as with some recent government legislation, the process about whether the Senate has been allowed enough time and whether we have heard from the appropriate witnesses. So I think it is important that we agree on a better process. This morning Senator Minchin has agreed to hold a leaders’ and whips’ meeting, and I think that is a useful way forward.

I indicate that I am speaking only on behalf of the Labor Party about the process; we all have different views about the issues. But I think we do need to get this right, as we have in the past, and not be confronted with sudden resolutions about references et cetera, particularly about bills I have not seen. I presume this is an assurance that both Senator Patterson’s and Stott Despoja’s bills will be ready, available and open to discussion well before 27 October, but I have no reassurance or information on that. I think these are important issues in that the Senate and all senators ought to be treated with greater respect. I am not accusing anyone of poor intent, but I think this highlights the problem. On a personal level, I would much prefer one bill to come forward, not two. It has been suggested to me that government senators might prefer a bill produced by a government senator. Bully for them; this is an issue for all the Senate, and I would prefer—and this is not the Labor Party’s position; it is a personal view—that we dealt with one bill. As I say, I think we have to get the process right so that we end up discussing the very important issues that are at stake here, not the process.