Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the minister representing the Attorney-General. I refer his attention to today’s Journals of the Senate, which indicates to us that the inquiry into the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008 will need to report on 30 September 2008 or after the consideration of any related bills, whichever is the sooner. Will the minister now withdraw his assertion that there is no reporting date in the Senate’s resolution and will he apologise to the Senate for misleading it?

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

What normally happens with respect to these matters of course is that if there were any correction made to the record, I would deal with that at the end of question time. What I can say in relation to the motion that was put in this house, at first instance there was no reporting date. Senator Abetz is correct to say that the committee did have an amendment to that motion and that amendment, as Senator Abetz is correct to say, is that the committee is to report on 30 September 2008 or after the consideration of any related bills mentioned in paragraph 1b, whichever is the sooner. That is the correct position, but the original motion did not have a reporting date. Today it was amended. It was also amended unsuccessfully by Senator Bartlett. To the extent that the motion that was put in this place did not have that date, that is correct. To the point that we are now at, it is and it has been amended to have the date. What I said was, not only are they referring it to a Senate committee but they have refused even to give the committee a reporting date in the original motion. I did not say original motion and I could correct the record to say that. Instead, of course, if we go to the substantive issue though, this really hides the substantive issue that the opposition cannot come to grips with. The substantive issue is the committee has got an issue that will not be able to report—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can he confirm that the amendment was in fact moved by the Opposition Whip in this place, Senator Parry? Can he confirm that there is in fact a definite reporting date of 30 September or before? Will he stop dissembling and simply acknowledge that he got it wrong and apologise to the Senate?

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Before calling Senator Ludwig, I should apologise to Senator Ludwig because the time clock was not set for the last question and you did not get your four minutes. I now call you to answer the supplementary question.

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

I, in fact, answered that question in respect of the first part of the question in that I had answered that the committee report was amended on 30 September 2008 or after the consideration of any related bills mentioned in paragraph 1b, whichever is sooner. If that clarifies the record and makes it clear for Senator Abetz, I am happy to put that on the record. What they are hiding from is the real issue here today. Why will they not support same-sex amendments to superannuation that will be operative from 1 July 2008? Why won’t they support that? Why are they split on it? I am sure that there are others on the opposite side who would agree that it should operate from 1 July 2008. Why are they delaying this important measure that will deny benefits to those superannuants who could receive it? (Time expired)