Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak briefly on the events that took place in one of the committee hearings earlier today. I know that a number of senators in the chamber were in attendance. I think it is worth noting the conduct of the government members—although I accept that not all government members were as actively involved as others in this—and particularly that of the chair, Senator Eggleston.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You weren’t even there.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy for you to say something, Senator Macdonald, because I do not believe you were comfortable with what transpired. If you would like to add to this I welcome your contribution.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am supposed to be on now; you aren’t even on the list.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I replaced Senator Forshaw on the list for the ALP. I want to raise the issue of the conduct of Senator Eggleston and other committee members. There are a number of conventions involved in running and chairing a committee. Courtesy is always a good convention. In politics it sometimes gets pushed aside in the pursuit of political opportunities but, by and large, most of the committees that I have been on have worked, in the organisational and administrative sense, very cooperatively. Even when there have been genuine disagreements about who should be called and who should not be called, there has always been a sense of decency and chairs of all political persuasions have behaved appropriately.

What transpired today requires some commentary. When a committee meets when the parliament is sitting there are some basic rules. If there are seriously controversial issues you cannot just force them through while the Senate is sitting because some members of the committee cannot be there. Some members may be unable, because of other parliamentary duties, to participate in the discussions. What transpired was that government senators, led by Senator Eggleston, decided that Telstra would no longer be called to appear before Senate estimates even though they are still substantially owned by the government. We could have a lengthy debate, for hours, about that and we probably may never agree, but what is inexcusable is that, as the Senate bells began to ring for a division, the chair insisted that he was going to put a vote as members had to leave to attend a division. This is not an acceptable way to chair a meeting.

Worse, when senators said, ‘We would like to debate the proposition you have just put forward; we would like to debate that Telstra should still be required to attend,’ the chair decided and stated words to the effect: ‘No, there is going to be no debate; I am putting the motion.’ This is as senators were being required to leave the committee hearing to attend the Senate division.

Normal rules of debate are that you need at least two speakers for and against before you can gag a debate. But the chair was not even moving a procedural gag motion; he was just instructing that there would be no speakers and no debate—he was just going to put it to the vote. This is not an acceptable way for committees of the parliament to do business. Yes, committee discussions can be robust—I accept that. As I said, I am not even sure all government senators were entirely comfortable with this course of action though, out of party solidarity, they may have been drawn into supporting the chair’s ruling. But it is not acceptable, when the Senate is meeting, to insist on a vote on a contentious issue like this when the division bells are ringing.

Fortunately, this matter has gone further and advice has been sought from the Clerk. The Clerk has made it clear to the chair that this is a void vote. You cannot do this when the division bells are ringing. It is unacceptable procedure.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don’t think that is what he said.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you will find, Senator Macdonald, that next week or tomorrow, possibly, there will need to be a phone hook-up to recommit this issue. The outcome may be entirely the same.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Stephen, you weren’t even there; you have it all wrong.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have not got it all wrong; I know exactly what has happened. There will need to be another meeting to reconsider this issue, Senator Macdonald, and the outcome may actually be the same because the government, by definition, has the numbers on the committee. But this is still not an excuse for the sort of arrogant behaviour demonstrated by the chair. I am surprised and shocked because the chair of this committee is not an arrogant man. No-one could describe the chair of this committee as an arrogant person. He is a thoroughly decent person. But I believe that he has acted outside the bounds of decency, at a minimum, courtesy and procedure. My understanding, and others may want to make a contribution, is that there is going to have to be another meeting to revisit this issue, and that is the appropriate course of action. It is not appropriate to gag debate without a gag motion. It is not appropriate to instruct people that they cannot speak. It is not appropriate to force a vote when the bells are ringing.

I promised I would not take up too much time, because I know that a number of senators in the chamber were present at the hearing. I am sure that Senator Macdonald will want to defend his colleague, but I am also sure that Senator Macdonald was uncomfortable with the course of events—and rightly so. Since Senator Macdonald has come onto that committee, he has shown a willingness to facilitate outcomes and to ensure that the committee acts appropriately. He has been uncomfortable about the brevity of some committee hearings and the conduct of some committee hearings. I know that to be the case. But, as I said, I will not speak for long, and I pass over to the next speaker.