Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President, I seek leave to speak on the matter that Senator Lambie raised.

Leave granted.

Thank you, Mr President. I think all colleagues acknowledge and recognise the precedents and practice in this place that, if a senator has missed a vote through misadventure, they come to the table at the earliest opportunity and give an explanation as to the reason that they were unable to attend the vote, and then the Senate chamber will take that into consideration in determining whether a matter should be recommitted.

There are a few points that I should make for the benefit of colleagues. The first is that that disallowance motion was on the Notice Paper for 15 days, so that was well known to colleagues. Also, there was a time management motion in place to ensure that that particular motion was dealt with before the Senate rose for the break. I heard and colleagues heard Senator Lambie indicate that there was a miscommunication in the office. I should draw the attention of colleagues to a quote from BuzzFeed the day after the vote, which quoted Senator Lambie as saying that she had abstained from the vote because she still had concerns about the unintended consequences and did not feel like she had enough information.

It is possible that news organisations can, on occasion, perhaps, not give an accurate reflection of what a colleague says. I am not suggesting that that is the case at this time, but if it is the case—that that is not an accurate reflection of the conversation that Senator Lambie had with BuzzFeed—it would be incumbent on Senator Lambie to state to this chamber that that is the case. I would also expect, if that were the case, that Senator Lambie would have contacted the media organisation to ask them to amend what they had, accordingly. None of us were a party to that conversation, so we do not know where the matter lies, in that regard.

The second point I would make, in relation to that particular vote, is that the convention is that a senator come to the chamber at the earliest opportunity to give an account as to why they had a misadventure. The vote in question took place at 4.15 pm. The Senate was sitting that day until 10.45 pm. Taking out the two-hour dinner break the Senate was in session for 4½ hours after that particular vote took place. I am not aware of a situation where a senator has sought to have a vote recommitted, in the case of an alleged misadventure, other than very shortly after the vote took place and certainly no later than the day itself that the vote took place.

I would say to you, Mr President, and to colleagues that if what took place was an abstention, abstentions are not something that can be used as a placeholder until a colleague determines the position that they would like to take and then give effect to it by way of a recommittal. None of us were party to the conversation between the senator and BuzzFeed so we do not know where the situation lies. It is always the disposition of this place to take what colleagues say at face value. I thought it nevertheless important to bring to colleagues the intention of something that was on the public record.

Even if we put that particular matter aside, it is not appropriate for a recommittal to take place other than in a circumstance where a colleague indicates misadventure at the earliest opportunity after the substantive vote has been taken and, at least, on the day itself that the vote occurred. There were 4½ hours of the chamber sitting. I do acknowledge that the 'no divisions after four o'clock' rule was in place; however, that still does not stop a colleague from coming into this place to indicate that they have had an issue and to explain this to the chamber at that time.

My submission to colleagues is that the fact this was not drawn to the intention of the chamber immediately after the vote, and not even on the day itself, in a situation where this was on the Notice Paper for 15 days and where there was a time-management motion in place means that, on this occasion, the petition of the colleague should not be acceded to.