Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I indicate that I support Senator Brown’s motion. In relation to Senator Abetz’s contribution, I have genuine regard and respect for Senator Abetz, but that was not Senator Abetz’s best contribution. I think it is quite disingenuous for Senator Abetz to somehow imply that the Greens are not concerned about child sex exploitation. I think that was a pretty shameful contribution. It is a pity that Senator Abetz is not in the chamber now. I think he was fundamentally wrong to try to characterise it like that. It was the basest of base politics. I am disappointed in Senator Abetz and the way he has tried to characterise it.

The fact is, what is before us now is whether this particular motion has precedence. Senator Abetz has co-sponsored this legislation—and I congratulate him for co-sponsoring it. I think it is a good piece of legislation—it is simple; it is straightforward. We could have dealt with this expeditiously in the course of an hour or two at the very most if there was the political will to do so. To put this in context, just two days ago the opposition spokesperson on this, Greg Hunt, was saying that we should be supporting this bill in the Senate. I have heard Mr Hunt’s advocacy of this issue—and good on him for the way he has advocated this on behalf of the coalition—highlighting inaction on the part of the government in relation to the issue of whaling. I find it incredible that we have a situation where just 48 hours ago the opposition were saying, ‘Let us get on with this in the Senate,’ and now they are opposing it. It does point to a serious structural problem in the way that the Senate does its business in the context of dealing with private senators’ bills. I know that in my time in the Legislative Council in the South Australian parliament, we had time set aside to deal with private members’ bills, and those bills would be brought to a vote. If it got to the second reading stage, the committee stage would then be held and we could actually deal with it. I think that this place, of all chambers, could have a set of standing orders in place to make a difference so that we can actually deal with these issues expeditiously and in the way that matters of public importance and matters of public interest should be dealt with.

For the record, I can say that I did support the suspension of standing orders for Senator Bernardi’s bill because I think that, as a matter of course, issues of importance ought to be dealt with expeditiously by the Senate. In terms of the contributions so far, again with respect to Senator Abetz—and I do have high regard for him—I expected better from him. We can do more than one thing. We can tackle important legislation on a whole range of issues and we ought to change the standing orders so that that can be facilitated. I urge the government and the opposition to come to the party so that the Senate can do what it is meant to do, and that is not just to scrutinise legislation and be a watchdog for the executive arm of government but also to initiate legislation that is clearly in the public interest and ought to be debated and voted on in this chamber.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Bob Brown’s) be agreed to.