Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

(1)

That the Senate meet on Wednesday, 13 February, at 9.30 am.

(2)

That, recognising the historic importance of a National Apology to the Stolen Generations, the first item of business after prayers shall be consideration of government business notice of motion no. 1 proposing a National Apology to the Stolen Generations.

(3)

That only the leaders of each party represented in the Senate may speak to the motion, and that each leader may speak for no more than 20 minutes.

(4)

That, immediately after all of the leaders have spoken, the question for the resolution shall be put.

(5)

That consideration of matters of public interest not occur at 12.45 pm, and that consideration of government business continue till 2 pm.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition does not oppose this motion. However, I point out that there was an amendment to paragraph (2), inserting the reason why this should be given such priority. Obviously, it is a matter of history and that is why the words ‘That, recognising the historic importance of a National Apology to the Stolen Generations, the first item of business’ are included. I want to make that clear to the Senate.

The other aspect is that this is unprecedented in nature due to the fact that we will be having a debate with a limited number of speakers. The motion will then be moved and, later on, the debate will continue under the guise of ‘taking note’. That is unprecedented and, for the record—quite separate from the subject matter, which is an important issue—it should be recognised that this is an unprecedented procedure being used on a historic occasion. People who look back on this measure and the way it was dealt with procedurally should not take this as a precedent for the future. This is a course taken only due to the unique issue that we are dealing with. Normal procedure in the Senate is to have a debate. Once everyone who wishes to participate in that debate has spoken, the motion is put and then voted upon. That is the normal procedure. In this case, it will be different. We appreciate why and we have agreed to that, but, just for the record, we believe that the points I have made should be spelt out for posterity.

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

On behalf of the Greens, I want to concur with the Leader of the Opposition but go further and say that we do not support the arrangement which effectively means that those senators who speak after the vote is taken will have their contribution to this historic debate downgraded. There is no way that that will not occur. Every senator is elected equal to this place and every senator has an equal right to contribute to this debate. At the end, the debate should go to a vote, not least because of but most because of the historic nature of the move to extend an apology to the stolen generations.

I am very concerned that there is a lack of respect for this chamber in this move by the government. We all have a right as senators to contribute to something as important as this. We know that the procedure tomorrow is being tightly controlled by the government, and we wish the government well. I will be contributing to the congratulations to the government on making this move, but the process in here is not right. It should not be depriving every senator of their contribution to this historic debate. It was simply a matter of the government scheduling the final vote to be taken on Thursday or giving everybody a five-minute contribution. We could have finished it tomorrow afternoon, but the government, in the process it has set out, is taking away from the due respect that every senator has a right to speak in this place. While we support the motion to bring on the matter for debate tomorrow, we do not support that component. I put on the record that we do not support the component which says that those senators who contribute after the vote will effectively be doing so as also-rans.

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

I just want to make a couple of comments in response. I thank the chamber for the cooperation shown in terms of support for this motion. I understand that the procedure is unusual, but, as Senator Ellison quite rightly pointed out, this is a historic occasion. We have attempted to get the cooperation of the Senate in order to do this in a proper way and to show proper respect for those people who are waiting for the apology. I appreciate that Senator Minchin and other party leaders have shown cooperation on that. I understand, with 28 votes in this chamber, that I am not capable of delivering that on behalf of the government—that it requires the cooperation of others. I put on record my appreciation of that and the indication of support for the motion.

Senator Bob Brown, it is not a question of not respecting the chamber. When we discussed this at a meeting of the leaders and whips, we all understood that it is actually a question of respecting those Indigenous people to whom we apologise.

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

We can respect those.

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

Senator Brown, you were represented at the meeting and we just came to the conclusion that the best way was to have some finality to the issue on the day when the apology was made in the House of Representatives and that we did so in the Senate at the same time. That was the consensus that we reached. As I said, I appreciate the cooperation on that matter. What we have done in moving a second motion, effectively noting the apology, is try to facilitate the ability of all senators to contribute to the debate about the apology and to express their views on it. I know it is an unusual method, but it met the two requirements that we sought to achieve: firstly, to finalise the apology—have the expression of the view of the parliament on the day when the House of Representatives and the Senate debate the issue; and, secondly, to ensure that every senator has the ability to contribute to the debate.

There are a lot of government senators who want to speak, but the reality is that if we allow a full debate on the Wednesday, given the normal scheduling of events, it would not conclude on the Wednesday but would roll over to Thursday. If everyone who wanted to speak did speak, potentially it might have to then be deferred until we return in three or four weeks time. Clearly that is not an appropriate way to proceed.

I think we have come to a reasonable compromise. I understand the concerns expressed. I do not think in any way the contributions of senators later on tomorrow will be downgraded. They will be in the Hansard; they will be an expression of their views. I know Labor senators will take the opportunity to speak and I certainly will not devalue any of the contributions that are made. So I think it is a question on this occasion of balancing the respect for the institution of the Senate and its procedures with the respect for those to whom we seek to apologise on behalf of the nation tomorrow. I think we have got the balance right, and I appreciate the support of the chamber.

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

I wanted to put briefly the Democrats’ perspective on this issue. I think, frankly, Senator Evans has got it about right. It is not an ideal process but it is an unusual arrangement, as I think has been said in another context. This apology is not about all of us getting a say; this apology is for Indigenous Australians. Obviously it is important what is said in this chamber and what is decided by this chamber and in the other place, but what is also extremely important is the experiences of so many Indigenous Australians, particularly members of the stolen generations themselves and what they experience tomorrow in particular. The role the Senate plays in debating this motion, and I assume in passing it, is just one part of that wider experience and the wider impact it will have on them.

I think it is right to suggest that this should not become a precedent as a matter of course. These are an unusual set of circumstances but there will be, of course, opportunities for all of us to put our views before this chamber, not just about this motion but the wider issues regarding the stolen generations, as I and many in the Democrats have for many years and as others will continue to do. When we are talking about a historic, unique and formal type of process and motion such as this, I think it is understandable to need to take into account not just our needs as a chamber but what works best, particularly for the many Indigenous people who are looking to tomorrow with great anticipation. That role should not be forgotten.

I would also note that my understanding is that, whilst less than ideal, it is still somewhat better than what is being proposed in the House of Representatives, where I think it is just the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister and nobody else, neither Independents nor the National Party, who will get a guernsey at all there. What we have is a slight improvement on that and at least a recognition of the full diversity of voices who are getting an opportunity to be heard through the party representative structure. I think it is satisfactory given the context and is a unique set of circumstances. But, as all senators would appreciate, it certainly will not be the last time that the Democrats or anybody else, I imagine, hopefully, will be debating these issues, because there is a lot of other unfinished business regarding the stolen generations and the Bringing them home report and we need to be continuing to debate that in this chamber. The formal resolution tomorrow is a unique circumstance and, given the context and the other activities that are happening around here and in this house, as opposed to in this chamber, I think it is a reasonable compromise.

Question agreed to.