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

The fact of the matter is that we do not know what the view of the successor to former Senator Lambie would be in this place. We cannot know in this place and at this time what the view of the Jacqui Lambie Network would be, because the Jacqui Lambie Network is not represented in this place at this time. The proposition that is being put forward by those opposite is that any view expressed before former Senator Lambie left this chamber should be adhered to. If you follow that to its logical conclusion, then former Senator Lambie would be entitled to reach out beyond ineligibility into this place, by way of an email each day on each and every motion, on each and every vote and on each and every procedural motion, to express her view. Are those opposite saying that we should accept former Senator Lambie's view as expressed by email each day, or are they saying that, no, you should only accept the views of former Senator Lambie as expressed when she was in this place, which she was not eligible to sit in?

Temporary Chairman Ketter, I'm having a great deal of difficulty in finding the thread of consistency from the view expressed by those on the other side. The pairing arrangements which we have in this place relate to situations where the party of a senator who is no longer in this place is, nevertheless, represented so that there is able to be determined a view of a political grouping in this place. That is not the case in relation to former Senator Lambie. Are we seriously suggesting that former Senator Lambie should be able to send an email in here each day saying, 'If I were there, which I'm not, and if I were eligible, which I wasn't, this would be the view that I would hold.' That is something which is completely untenable.