John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I do appreciate an opportunity to speak on this motion to suspend standing orders. To commence my contribution, I would like to commend to the Senate a statement that I made on 27 May 1998. At the time, I was the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. That statement did outline a position that the opposition of the day would take on foreign policy matters that were addressed by general business notices of motion, not every general notice of motion but contentious and controversial general business notices of motion on foreign policy matters—in other words, on those questions where there was not agreement around the chamber.

What Senator Cash said is true but only in part because the opposition of the day took the view that such complex matters could not be adequately determined through seeking formality and then passing whatever notice appeared on the Notice Paper. Why? Because it is such a blunt instrument. You only have two choices: to treat the matter as formal or to deny formality and then to either vote for the motion or against it. Amendment is not possible. It is a very blunt instrument.

I have consistently spoken not only in 1998 but I would also commend the contributions I made more substantively on this matter on 27 March 2003 then 11 May 2004. I have been concerned for literally a decade and a half, if not two decades, about the fact that the nuances and subtleties of foreign policy issues can be lost when there is no opportunity to adequately address them through that mechanism. I do not think it is true to say—as Senator Cash says—that it is longstanding policy. The government of the day, the coalition government, did not support these proposals and the mechanism that I recommended back in 1998. It has not been applied consistency and it should be. I wish I could say today that the federal parliamentary Labor Party has always applied this principle is consistently. It has not, but, I can assure you, I have. I am still arguing, as you would be able to confirm, Mr Deputy President Parry, that the chamber needs to address this so we do not have these types of debates. I hope the Procedure Committee will give this renewed consideration and impetus to try and fix a problem that we have had before us for literally decades.

The issue that Senator Hanson-Young raises is a critically important one. Much of what she said is so true about these matters. The issue is: how do you to debate it? What is the proper and fair process? Is it to declare formality and vote through or not vote through a motion? Of course not. We need a better mechanism. It is about time, in fact, it is long overdue for the Senate to establish that better mechanism so we do not have these sorts of debates. I at least can say on this I have been consistent for a long period of time. And I ask senators from all parties to come to grips with this critical issue of Senate procedure.