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

I inform the Senate that I will be absent from the Senate tomorrow as I am attending a special sitting of the Parliament of Tasmania to mark 150 years since the bicameral parliament was established in 1856. I suggest that the Deputy President, Senator Hogg, be empowered to act as President during my absence, pursuant to standing order 13.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

(1)

That, during the absence of the President, the Deputy President shall take the chair of the Senate and may perform the duties and exercise the authority of the President in relation to all proceedings of the Senate and proceedings of committees to which the President is appointed.

(2)

That the President be granted leave of absence on 1 December 2006.

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

This motion draws out the fact that there is a special sitting of the Tasmanian parliament to mark 150 years of self-government in Tasmania. The state assumed its name and it assumed a bicameral form of government in this month in 1856.

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

Thanks for telling us that.

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

I am sure you are interested. What the motion also points out is that, when late in the year the government brings on extra sittings of parliament—because it has failed to sit adequately earlier in the year—to debate pieces of legislation which have been in the pipeline for months, without any proper reference to the other parties, who have no say in it, it creates a dilemma. There are two Greens senators, for example, who want to be at that sitting tomorrow but who effectively cannot go, while the President swans off to it by this process of seeking leave.

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

Why don’t you go? You won’t be missed here.

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

I will tell you. We will not be there because there are critical pieces of legislation, like the greatest attack on environmental legislation I have seen in my 10 years in this place, which are now before the Senate. The President does not care about that. It is not of interest to the President that major pieces of legislation are being put—

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

Senator Brown, you are getting very close to reflecting on the chair. If you continue to do so, I will ask you to remove yourself.

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

You can do that if you wish to.

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

Senator Brown, you are reflecting on the chair.

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

If the President wishes to remove me because I am speaking about his absence tomorrow, in an unfair circumstance, which he should have thought through and which is inappropriate, then he may do so. Let him do it if he wishes to. That would be a political use of the chair by a member of the government. If he wants to do that, let him do it. I am not going to be intimidated by the President or anybody else in this place, let me tell you. The fact is that the President is going to swan off to this meeting—

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order, Mr President. I think this is one of the most outrageous exhibitions we have ever seen from Senator Brown. To intimate that you have intimidated him—

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

What is the point of order?

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point of order is that you have not only reflected on the President; you have misrepresented what the President has said. He has not intimidated you. You are saying he has intimidated you. This is a democratic institution, where we do not intimidate each other. Senator Brown’s comments are outrageous and he should withdraw them. The second part of the point of order is that it is unparliamentary for Senator Brown to imply that the President has intimidated him. He says that you are attempting to intimidate him, Mr President. That is totally untrue. It is a slur. It is an imputation. He should withdraw it right now.

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

On the point of order, can I just say this: I have been invited as the President of the Senate, as has the Speaker of the other place, as have the Speaker and President of every other parliament in Australia, to be present at the special sitting of the Tasmanian parliament. As a Tasmanian senator, I am very pleased to go but, more importantly, I will be there representing the Senate, and I intend to do so. I will not accept from you, Senator Brown, reflections on my motives for going.

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

You may debate that, Mr President—

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

I am not debating it. I am just making it quite clear why I am going.

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

You were just debating it.

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

Be respectful, Bob.

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

I expect respect in return, Senator, and your interjections are disorderly. The President is going to be absent from the Senate for this sitting of parliament. There are two former members of the Tasmanian parliament in the Greens who also want to be at that sitting. But we are effectively prevented because we are taking our duty to this nation and our duty to defend the interests of this nation seriously. The choice has been removed by this government using its numbers. Central to those numbers is the vote of the President—

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I make the point that Senator Brown has not approached me to be paired for tomorrow so that, as a former member of the Tasmanian parliament, he is able to take part in the celebrations. If he wishes to be paired and he makes an application for a pair, we will certainly look at it seriously.

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

As you know, Mr President, that is no point of order. That is part of the debate and I would expect you to rule accordingly—

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

If he did that on all points of order, you wouldn’t be here.

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

Mr President, if you are going to allow government members to continue to flout the standing orders, that is for you. The fact is that there are extraordinarily important pieces of legislation before the Senate, and the Greens will accept our responsibility to be here and defend against the government the national interest on that legislation. It wants to change industrial relations legislation against the interests of working families of this country and change the environmental laws to allow loggers and miners greater rein over a whole range of issues, which we will be debating later this morning and which will extend into tomorrow—that is, of course, unless the government, including the President, uses its numbers to gag and guillotine that debate later in the day. That is something I would not put beyond this government at all. It is something I would not put beyond the President or any other member of the government. I have seen the precedent. I know how it works.

So we have the President deciding that he will go to this anniversary sitting in Tasmania while the Greens stay here to defend the public interest in this parliament. The government has brought on an extra sitting tomorrow because it simply does not want to have another week’s sitting later. We should be sitting the week after next to discuss the legislation being pushed through the parliament at this late stage of the year. We are at the end of a year in which the Senate has sat fewer times than in most other years in recent decades. It is a process of abuse of the Senate by the government because it has a majority. That is one of the things that the public can sort out this time next year. In the meantime, let me assure the voters of Tasmania that it is a difficult decision. Senator Milne and I regret being, in effect, put in the position of having to stay here in the Senate while the ceremony takes place in Tasmania. The President has made a different decision. That is up to him.

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

On the same matter, I indicate on behalf of the Labor opposition that we will be supporting the President’s leave. Quite frankly, Senator Brown, I have not heard such a complete amount of nonsense in many a year. There is no question that the President is entitled to seek leave like any another senator. It seems to me that this is a reasonable reason for him to be going. I do not think anyone can accuse the current President of not attending to his duties. I have disagreements with him on occasions, but it is certainly not the case that he does not make every endeavour to be in the Senate while the Senate sits—unlike some of the ministers, who are increasingly absent, but that is a debate for another motion. I think some of the ministers have not taken their responsibilities to the Senate seriously enough in terms of attendance and performance. But, in terms of Senator Calvert seeking leave, I think it is a perfectly reasonable thing.

I point out that the reason we are sitting on Friday is by agreement, not by use of the numbers. It is by agreement following a leaders and whips meeting to transact—

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

You’ve agreed.

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

Senator Brown, I seem to recall you did not turn up, but that is up to you. I think Senator Siewert represented the Greens at the meeting at which we all agreed—there was no dissent—that we would sit on the Friday to facilitate the remaining legislation. I admit that we did that in the knowledge that the government can do it anyway, but, as the alternative government party in the Senate, we have always attempted to deal reasonably with government legislation and arrange the sitting hours to suit senators and to facilitate proper passage. One of the things we have done as part of that is to try and move away from what we used to do when I was first here, which was to sit until three o’clock or four o’clock in the morning. We all agreed that that was a practice which did not assist good legislation or the health of senators and staff.

The point is that the extra sitting day on Friday was agreed to. It was also agreed that we would do whatever we could to assist senators in terms of pairs et cetera for those who had other engagements. And, to be fair to Senator Minchin, on this occasion he gave us plenty of warning. The government has been guilty in the past of not giving plenty of warning, but Senator Minchin did give notice during the last sitting fortnight that the government wanted to sit on Friday. So on this occasion I cannot support Senator Brown’s arguments. There has been a lot of abuse of the Senate, but this is not one of those occasions. I think it would be unwise to try and make the case when the case does not exist. There are plenty of examples of the government’s abuse of its power and of it showing contempt for the Senate and its processes. But this occasion is not one of them. I do not think your contribution was warranted, Senator Brown, and I do not think it is unreasonable for the President of the Senate to seek leave to be in Tasmania tomorrow. I also indicate that the Labor Party will cooperate in pairing with any senator who wants to attend that ceremony, and we will certainly extend the cooperation if there are Greens senators who want to be paired so as to attend tomorrow.

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

Senator Bob Brown interjecting—

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

Senator, if you want to be here that is good. I will be here. Senator, I listened to the confected outrage and, quite frankly, you should find another tone. You cannot do it every time. You lose credibility if everything is outrageous.

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

Senator Bob Brown interjecting—

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

Senator Brown, your performance yesterday, about Mr Garrett again, got under my skin, but you cannot do it every day. On this occasion, you are just right out of order again. I do not know whether it is jealousy, concern about election results or whatever, but get a grip—argue the merits of the case. There is no merit to your argument today. That is what I am making clear.

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

That’s your opinion.

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

It is my opinion and that is why I am making this point, Senator Brown. You are right out of order. You spoke complete nonsense. It is confected outrage. When the Senate is abused by the government, which it is on many occasions, it is important we raise those issues. But to raise them spuriously only undermines your and my concerns about what the government is doing. So quite clearly, in my view, there is no case today. The President of the Senate ought to be granted leave. Any other senator who wants to attend ought to be given consideration by the Senate in relation to pairing and we will seek to effect that.

I point out that the decision on Friday was agreed by all parties at a leaders and whips meeting, and Senator Minchin showed more respect for our needs than Senator Hill used to and at least gave us some more warning than we used to get. I just do not think there is a case, Senator Brown. Sometimes I do not agree with the President’s rulings at question time. He seems particularly harsh on the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, in my view. He should have ruled Senator Ferris’s point of order as no point of order very early, I would have thought, but, nevertheless, there is no reason to oppose or to criticise the President for seeking leave.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to make it clear that I support the motion. Mr President, I support you going to Tasmania. I believe you represent me and the Senate when you go there to celebrate what is a very worthy occasion. I do not support the criticism of you—in fact, quite the reverse: I want to give you my full support. The other point I would make is that considerations of government business are an entirely different matter and should not be confused with this motion. If we want to debate sitting tomorrow there is a later motion or another opportunity to do that. On that second point, I make the point that I fully support sitting tomorrow to get through the business.

My party and I have cooperated fully in trying to make sure that this week and tomorrow work effectively, despite the fact that we are under considerable pressure. You would appreciate that when we have 40 pages of IR amendments landed on us just two or three days before it is to be debated, it does create pressure. But that is the nature of this place. I do not think in these debates we should confuse the President’s conduct in his official capacity with the nature, timing and manner in which government business is dealt with. Mr President, I wish you well and I hope you will conduct yourself there on my behalf in your normal way.

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

Mr President, I also want to congratulate you on being invited to represent the Senate at this very significant occasion in Tasmania. I take it from Senator Brown’s comments that he does not want you to go and that he does not want the Senate to be represented at this very significant occasion in Tasmanian history. Senator Brown obviously has become overwhelmed with the election result from all his campaigning in Victoria. One might think he was a Victorian senator from the amount of time he spent on the campaign in the recent state election, but we are glad he did because the Green vote went down again, as it did in the last federal election. I encourage Senator Brown to slip back to Victoria and do a bit more campaigning. In fact, why don’t you come to Queensland? We might have done a bit better up there if you had done some campaigning in Queensland, Senator Brown.

Mr President, the motion is to grant you leave and to appoint Senator Hogg in your stead. I must say with some respect that Senator Hogg will fill the post almost as well as you do and certainly as well as anyone else would do in your absence. I want to say in passing that, except for the last bits of his speech, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate gave one of his finer speeches just a moment ago and one that I think all senators support. The way Senator Brown carried on in a personal way towards you, Mr President, when you are doing your duty, looking after this Senate and actually representing this chamber in the very important event in Tasmania, was just appalling.

One wonders what Senator Brown’s purpose for all of this is. We know that he is not very interested in the environment. In fact, he rarely speaks on environment bills and rarely asks a question on the environment. His feigned outrage at not being here to address the environment amendments is exactly that. I have to say of Senator Siewert—I do not like to be too praiseworthy—that there is a Greens senator who is interested in environmental matters. Senator Brown never attends environment estimates hearings, and this has been the pattern of his actions here over many, many years. So this feigned outrage about not being around to speak about the environment bill really demonstrates Senator Brown’s situation here. He is interested in all the loony Left issues, grandstanding at the World Summit, all those loony left-wing things, and not at all interested in the environment. To use that as a pretence for his outrage is appalling.

Mr President, congratulations on the work you do for all of us. I think it is important that you represent us. You will go, I am sure, with the support of the entire chamber, with one exception.

Question agreed to.