Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

Mr President, the situation we got to earlier this evening is that we went to a vote on the second reading in respect of the bill. As I understand it, the opposition lost that vote in the sense that it got carried. As I understand it, it failed in that sense because a senator was absent. In this place, as all of us know, the usual situation is that a particular senator will call in and make a personal explanation as to the reason for their inability to be in the chamber for a particular vote. I, like Senator Faulkner, touch wood that it would never be me—nor would I want to be in the position of the particular senator in this circumstance.

However, the situation we have now progressed to is where there has been a motion to adjourn the second reading debate. It seems to me that the second part of the difficulty we are confronted with is that it is now past 6.50 pm, the usual time for consideration of government documents to commence. We are now approaching the hour of seven o’clock. The difficulty which confronts us all is that the principle in this place has always been that, if there has been a vote, it should reflect the will of the Senate. Everyone agrees with that; no-one disagrees with that statement. To ensure that that does in fact occur, my view is that we should recommit the matter tomorrow so that we can ensure that everyone is here—that they have not left the building, that they have not, like Senator Boyce, gone to another function—and so that everyone can understand what has happened. The other fundamental issue is that all senators are made aware of what has actually happened this evening so that that serves as a timely reminder for people to meet their commitments in the chamber when the bells ring.

My view is that, given the hour of the evening, it would be more sensible to ensure that the debate on the consideration of government documents be proceeded with. We could then adjourn at 7.20 pm, which is the usual time, and allow this matter to be recommitted tomorrow so that the true will of the Senate can be reflected. What I would not want to see, obviously, is the vote being recommitted, passing again and then us ending up with another problem on our hands with another senator trying to come into the chamber and explain why they were not here.

It is really important that we reflect upon what has happened and upon the opposition’s position of not being able to gather all their senators together to vote. That is unfortunate and it does occasionally happen, but it is probably a little bit sharp that it has happened in respect of this particular bill. In any event, what you would not want to happen is for this circumstance to occur again this evening, given the time, and for us then to end up in a similar position going through this motion again.

If we allow the matter to rest, we ensure that it is dealt with at the proper time tomorrow. We know that all senators will be and should be present then. Everyone will be advised of the need to turn up for that vote. They will understand the obligations that they have to meet in this place. I am sure on that basis we could proceed with the vote to reflect the true will of the Senate, as the government and opposition similarly agree. I submit that that is now the position we are in, as unfortunate as it may be. But it is a more sensible position because, without doing a numbers count all the way round, we could quite frankly end up in the same position, which would be a double embarrassment to the Senate and particularly to the opposition.