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

We are now debating the issue, as it seems people have wanted to do. I remind people that there was a meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Procedure which gave the Senate this advice:

The committee has considered the operation of standing order 66 on numerous occasions—

so it is certainly not the first time this has occurred—

Standing order 66(3) provides that a formal motion shall be put and determined without amendment or debate. Current difficulties—

including this one—

are largely attributable to senators seeking leave to depart from these rules and the Senate granting leave, almost as a matter of course. In particular, the number of statements being made by leave in relation to complex motions leads to a de facto debate on those motions, contrary to standing order 66.

So we are not only doing what we are doing now, but we are also being chastised by the Procedure Committee into entering into de facto debates, of which I think this is one:

This is because senators, instead of making statements, assert views in the nature of debate by mounting arguments and responding to positions expressed by others.

While the committee recommends no changes to standing order 66, noting its value as a daily opportunity for motions from all sources and of all types to be put to the vote, it urges senators to pay more heed to the existing restrictions. For example, if a senator wishes to amend—

as we tried to do today—

a notice of motion, then generally, as a courtesy to the Senate, that notice should be postponed till the next day of sitting to enable the senator to use the procedures under standing order 77 to amend the notice in writing and for the notice to appear in its amended form in the next day's Notice Paper.

That is so that the Senate and everyone in the chamber and everyone who is not in the chamber can be given an opportunity to look at what that amendment is and participating, and at least being informed about what is happening in the chamber:

Secondly, the committee encourages parties to use internal means to limit the number of senators seeking leave to make statements on motions to one from each group,

Now, because of the way things have unfolded, we have entered into a motion to suspend. We should actually be arguing why the suspension is needed, not the substantive debate on the motion itself. Anyone listening to the debate would think we were debating the substantive motion. We should be arguing as to why this suspension should proceed. I note you can include parts of your argument within that because there is wide scope and latitude. So I am not particularly taking anyone to task in relation to that. I am sure I will also fall under the rule sometimes in these debates.

  What I want to highlight specifically is that we should not now, if we are unsuccessful in an amendment or unsuccessful in seeking leave to take a statement, go through the process of then moving to a suspension to have the de facto argument. Otherwise we will take up significant time of the chamber. The government does have its business to get on with. It does want to continue with the program. We have taken note of remaining issues to be dealt with, other parts of the program. It is important to get to legislation, so I remind senators that this is an opportunity to put motions without debate, rather than going through this convoluted procedure of seeking a suspension so that we can be heard in relation to a debate.

I do not take anyone to task. I just wish to remind all senators that this is the purpose of this time—to put matters without debate so that their particular issues can be made known, rather than soaking up the time of the Senate with the complex motions we are now engaged in. The government will not be supporting the motion to suspend on the basis that the government wants to get on with the business of the Senate and not be bogged down in dealing with these motions. For those reasons, as I have said, we will not be supporting the motion.