Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the request of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration (Senator Colbeck), I move:

That on Monday, 27 March 2006:

(a)

the hours of meeting shall be 2.30 pm to 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm to 10.30 pm; and

(b)

the routine of business shall be:

(i)

question time, and

(ii)

the items specified in standing order 57(1)(a)(iii) to (xi).

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have no objection to that, but I again ask the minister to explain why the motion is necessary.

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This will enable the lunch which is being held for Prime Minister Blair to take place. It will allow the sitting times to better fit in with the lunch.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a brief statement about that matter.

Kay Patterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No! Well, only if it is short. Yesterday you went too long.

Leave granted.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Patterson, amongst others, for that generosity. The visit of Prime Minister Blair is rapidly coming upon us, and I think it is very important to recognise that he is not a head of state. Indeed, he is somewhat of a fading star in global politics. However, it is important to note that we have not yet been notified about an address that is proposed by Prime Minister Blair—

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s on the red.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay. It is there on the list now. Let me put a point of view here that is somewhat different from the prime ministerial point of view, because this is a directive, if you like, from the Prime Minister. We have in this place a Great Hall. It should not just be for the raising of huge amounts of money by political parties. It should be put into the service of the people of Australia generally. It is the proper place for visiting heads of state and also people who are not heads of state, like Prime Minister Blair, to address parliamentarians and, indeed, citizens of this country. That is what the Great Hall’s function is.

The use of the chambers of parliament is for those elected to this parliament under our democratic system. The proposal that we go to the House of Representatives to listen to the address from Prime Minister Blair is second-rate. We ought to be going to the Great Hall of this parliament. The Senate should not be seen as a secondary house. We should not be simply falling into a process whereby the Prime Minister of this country wants to aggrandise himself and make determinations about how and when this parliament should be used. Of course, the members of the government will rubber-stamp this proposal, but I want to make it absolutely clear that visiting politicians, whatever their status might be, should be addressing parliamentarians and members of the public in the Great Hall. That is the proper function of the Great Hall.

Kay Patterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. We gave Senator Brown leave to speak on the motion. The motion was about changing the time of the sitting of the Senate, not about where Mr Blair would speak. I would ask you to draw him to the motion.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order, but Senator Brown did say that he sought leave to make a brief statement. I remind him of what he said.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am just about finished, but I take note of the clone who has just interrupted. The fact is that we should have a debate about this matter because we are talking about the use of the parliament of this nation.

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. There are appropriate ways to address a senator. Senator Brown knows what those appropriate ways are. The discourtesy of Senator Brown is most unwelcome. I invite Senator Brown to address senators with their appropriate names and to withdraw the expression he used.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, I did not actually quite hear what you said, but I do not think it was an endearing term. I would ask you to withdraw that remark. I think it may have been offensive.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the—

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am asking you to withdraw it.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to, because I note that Senator Patterson—

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am also reminding you about your original request to make a brief statement.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Patterson does not want to be seen as being identified so closely with or like the Prime Minister. That is okay; I can understand that. I can see why that would be offensive. The fact is that the Great Hall of this parliament is the proper place for great speeches and great presentations. We should not have either house of this parliament used as a stamping ground for the aggrandisement of the Prime Minister.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a brief statement as well.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I mean no disrespect to Senator Bartlett, but it seems to me that we are having this debate at the wrong point. If senators followed the red they would see that this resolution relates to the sitting times in order to allow senators to attend the lunch. I think what we are having is a concern about the message which comes under item 7 on the red regarding the resolution carried by the House of Representatives regarding the invitation. I would just bring that to your attention, Mr President. It seems to me that we are going around in circles on the wrong issue.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I can just enlighten you, Senator, I understand that the message will be related to the Senate. If someone wishes to comment on that they would have to seek leave, as they are now. So it is six of one and half-a-dozen of the other.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to speak later. I was going to speak later but because the debate had started I thought I would finish it all now and get it out of the way.

Leave granted.

I thank the Senate. Just briefly, even though this motion does relate to the lunch—and I have not decided whether I will go or not, not that anyone will particularly care—I do think that, following on from other comments, it has been the Democrat view, repeatedly stated, that the Great Hall is a better place for addresses by visiting foreign leaders. But I should note that the message that is going to appear from the House of Representatives does conform with recommendations and, indeed, a resolution adopted by the Senate and I think by the House of Representatives after the last occasions where we had visiting dignitaries speaking. So it has at least been an advance in that the government is listening to the recommendations and resolutions put forward regarding these sorts of addresses.

It is still something that obviously changes a bit as we go along because Mr Blair is not a head of state, of course. Indeed, I think we have a head of state in the country at the time who is not coming to address us here. But that is a separate matter. I certainly have always preferred the Great Hall to the House of Representatives, but at least the structure of it this time is by way of invitation rather than some so-called joint sitting of dubious constitutionality. So at least it is a step forward, although I still would suggest that the Great Hall is more appropriate and that we do have some codified set of procedures for these sorts of things.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I think it is important that we remember that we did deal with these issues in response to some difficulties that arose last time about a joint sitting of the parliament. I do not want to go over that ground. It was pretty well covered at the time. But, as the Clerk reminds me, we did have a report from the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges, the Senate Standing Committee on Procedure and House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure which recommended this as a better course of action to get over the difficulties we found with a joint sitting. Whilst this is not the motion on which we ought to be having this debate, I would just indicate that Labor will be supporting it on the basis that that was the procedure recommended. I think there is a great deal of sympathy around the parliament for doing these things as a gathering in the Great Hall because both chambers are treated with equal respect. But, given that we carried the motion we did to overcome the difficulties last time, this seems to me to be at least a reasonable way to proceed.

Question agreed to.