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

I ask that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, proposing the reference of a matter to a committee, be taken as formal.

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

Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?

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

Mr President, I seek leave to make a very short statement in relation to Senator Patterson’s request.

Leave granted.

I have spoken to Senator Minchin this morning about this. Previously when we have dealt with very complex issues that are the subject of conscience votes by the major parties there has been strong consultation and involvement to deal with process so that we end up arguing about the issue, not the process. Labor has been at pains to ensure that all senators have the opportunity to participate in the debate, that they are happy with the process, that they have their views heard and tested and that the views of those members of the public who are interested in the debate are aired and tested. As Labor leader in the Senate, I was unaware until this morning that two motions were to be brought forward—one from Senator Humphries and one from Senator Patterson—seeking to refer bills not yet introduced into the chamber to a committee that was required to report by 27 October. Both came as a surprise to me. I understand they were discussed by the whips last night. This obviously implies there is some agreement on the government side about how the government is handling these matters.

I think that, out of respect to the chamber, all the senators ought to know what has been determined by the government for the handling of the process. While some senators may have been consulted by the proponents of the various resolutions—and some of them may come from various sides of the chamber—those responsible for the management of the chamber need to be in the process. For instance, in terms of the motions moved today, Labor senators may want to amend one or more of them—I do not know. I do not know whether they were all aware this was coming on today, other than having the opportunity to see it on the Notice Paper.

The point I made to Senator Minchin this morning—and I accept that he accepts that this is not meant as a shot against anybody—is that the reason the Senate has in the past handled these matters with a great deal of dignity and respect for different views, and has allowed really well-formed and polite, civil debates about really difficult issues, is that we have agreed on the process and all senators have felt that they have had the opportunity to contribute and participate. Of great credit to the parliament is the way in which we have dealt with the RU486 debate, the euthanasia debate and the original stem cell debate.

My statement is a plea for us to consult and agree on the process before this occurs. I was unaware until this morning that the government had agreed on a timetable for considering the bill. Whether or not the government has agreed, I do not know, so why are we reporting on 27 October? As an individual senator, I might prefer to make it the middle of November, but I would do that on the basis of knowing when the government was prepared to allow the debate. Without that information I cannot make a sensible decision on Senator Patterson’s motion. I understand why it may not be appropriate to delay this resolution today, because it seems that there is some urgency now. The only reason there would be urgency is if there is an agreement that the bill will come on at some stage.

Anyway, these are all issues I am not privy to, but the important point I want to make is that all the Senate ought to be aware of the processes that are to occur. We all ought to be consulted about that and have the opportunity to express a view about it so that, when we debate the issue, we are debating only the issue and not, as with some recent government legislation, the process about whether the Senate has been allowed enough time and whether we have heard from the appropriate witnesses. So I think it is important that we agree on a better process. This morning Senator Minchin has agreed to hold a leaders’ and whips’ meeting, and I think that is a useful way forward.

I indicate that I am speaking only on behalf of the Labor Party about the process; we all have different views about the issues. But I think we do need to get this right, as we have in the past, and not be confronted with sudden resolutions about references et cetera, particularly about bills I have not seen. I presume this is an assurance that both Senator Patterson’s and Stott Despoja’s bills will be ready, available and open to discussion well before 27 October, but I have no reassurance or information on that. I think these are important issues in that the Senate and all senators ought to be treated with greater respect. I am not accusing anyone of poor intent, but I think this highlights the problem. On a personal level, I would much prefer one bill to come forward, not two. It has been suggested to me that government senators might prefer a bill produced by a government senator. Bully for them; this is an issue for all the Senate, and I would prefer—and this is not the Labor Party’s position; it is a personal view—that we dealt with one bill. As I say, I think we have to get the process right so that we end up discussing the very important issues that are at stake here, not the process.

Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I am somewhat puzzled by some of the detail of what Senator Evans has raised this morning. This has been a matter of consultation between the two whips and, as I understand it, in the committee. There have been meetings within the committee and all members of the committee have been present. Certainly at the whips’ meeting last night and yesterday, when Senator Patterson was giving notice of motion, there was an outline of this process, and I am somewhat puzzled that members of the committee and the opposition whip have not kept their leader informed. It is certainly not from the government’s position that there has not been consultation on this matter.

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I am a bit bemused by the statement just made by the Government Whip, because the only discussions that occurred at the whips’ meeting last night was the fact that there were two proposals from different government senators and an indication, which I gave at the meeting, based on information from our shadow minister, that we would be supporting No. 2, not No. 1, which is the normal process. There was no discussion in respect of the detail of either of the proposals or how the debate would be handled. As Senator Evans has correctly indicated, we have known nothing; we have been told nothing about what the government intends to do in respect of this bill from this point onwards.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I hope we do not make a mountain out of a molehill here. I accept in good faith what Senator Evans has said. I accept that it is very important that on the significant conscience issues the Senate debates from time to time we get as much goodwill and consensus about how they are handled—that is important. There is a point at which matters are dealt with on a government-opposition basis and they then become fully conscience issues. For my part, I want to seek to avoid any dispute about how the matters are handled but, with great respect, it is a little difficult, because they are private members’ bills dealing with conscience matters. The bills have not actually been presented, so we are feeling our way forward on this, but I accept that we do need to get clarity on the process as soon as possible. That is why I have suggested that we have a leaders’ and whips’ meeting today straight after question time to ensure that there is no confusion or misunderstanding about how we should deal with this and that we get some consensus. Perhaps we can proceed on that basis. Accept our apologies if there has been any misunderstanding. Hopefully we can start from a clean sheet from today and deal with this as best we can. It is not going to be easy for any of us.

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—The Democrats are happy to support the motion before us. Our understanding as of last night was that it may be an amended motion as part of a compromise. Whether or not that is the case, we are still happy to support this inquiry. In relation to the matter of a bill, Senator Evans, I will be happy to oblige and get you something by close of business today.

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

by leave—As Senator Minchin has said, this is a difficult situation because it is a private member’s bill. I had actually mentioned in the first meeting of the Community Affairs Committee that the government had a timetable and would like to get it through. It is, as I said, difficult because I am not the whip; I am presenting the private member’s bill. I did indicate that it was the government’s wish to have it through and that we would need to try and integrate the days. I have set the date for the 27th on the basis of all the other things that the committee has to do. It has a huge load. I would like to know with whom I can consult on the other side. It is difficult to consult with the whole of the Senate. I did consult with Senator Stott Despoja and I thought I had indicated the government’s wish to the committee. As Senator Minchin said, if anybody has felt that they have misunderstood or not been informed, I apologise for that and I hope we can find a mechanism for dealing with it. It is a private member’s bill and quite a long and difficult bill.

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

Is there any objection to the motion moved by Senator Patterson being taken as formal? There being no objection, I call Senator Patterson.

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

I move:

(1)

That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs Committee for inquiry and report by 27 October 2006:

Legislative responses to recommendations of the reports of the Legislation Review Committee on the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 (the Lockhart review).

(2)

That in undertaking this inquiry the committee may consider any relevant bill or draft bill based on the Lockhart review introduced or tabled in the Senate or presented to the President by a senator when the Senate is not sitting.

Question agreed to.