Senate debates
Thursday, 19 October 2006
Adjournment
Committee Procedure
7:44 pm
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source
I replaced Senator Forshaw on the list for the ALP. I want to raise the issue of the conduct of Senator Eggleston and other committee members. There are a number of conventions involved in running and chairing a committee. Courtesy is always a good convention. In politics it sometimes gets pushed aside in the pursuit of political opportunities but, by and large, most of the committees that I have been on have worked, in the organisational and administrative sense, very cooperatively. Even when there have been genuine disagreements about who should be called and who should not be called, there has always been a sense of decency and chairs of all political persuasions have behaved appropriately.
What transpired today requires some commentary. When a committee meets when the parliament is sitting there are some basic rules. If there are seriously controversial issues you cannot just force them through while the Senate is sitting because some members of the committee cannot be there. Some members may be unable, because of other parliamentary duties, to participate in the discussions. What transpired was that government senators, led by Senator Eggleston, decided that Telstra would no longer be called to appear before Senate estimates even though they are still substantially owned by the government. We could have a lengthy debate, for hours, about that and we probably may never agree, but what is inexcusable is that, as the Senate bells began to ring for a division, the chair insisted that he was going to put a vote as members had to leave to attend a division. This is not an acceptable way to chair a meeting.
Worse, when senators said, ‘We would like to debate the proposition you have just put forward; we would like to debate that Telstra should still be required to attend,’ the chair decided and stated words to the effect: ‘No, there is going to be no debate; I am putting the motion.’ This is as senators were being required to leave the committee hearing to attend the Senate division.
Normal rules of debate are that you need at least two speakers for and against before you can gag a debate. But the chair was not even moving a procedural gag motion; he was just instructing that there would be no speakers and no debate—he was just going to put it to the vote. This is not an acceptable way for committees of the parliament to do business. Yes, committee discussions can be robust—I accept that. As I said, I am not even sure all government senators were entirely comfortable with this course of action though, out of party solidarity, they may have been drawn into supporting the chair’s ruling. But it is not acceptable, when the Senate is meeting, to insist on a vote on a contentious issue like this when the division bells are ringing.
Fortunately, this matter has gone further and advice has been sought from the Clerk. The Clerk has made it clear to the chair that this is a void vote. You cannot do this when the division bells are ringing. It is unacceptable procedure.
No comments