Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to make a brief personal explanation. I am the senator to whom Senator Faulkner is referring.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on a point of order: I would be very happy to grant Senator Boyce leave, but this statement can only be made by leave.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is leave granted?

Leave granted.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise again for that, Mr President. Mr President, let me say to the Senate that I am sincerely sorry for the inconvenience I have caused by missing that division. I have in other circumstances joked that I have a pavlovian response to the division bells. I was attending a Water Services Association of Australia function which was being addressed by Senator Wong at the time. When I was told that I had missed this division, I said to colleagues there that the bells did not ring. They told me that the bells did ring up there. I genuinely would like to tell the Senate that I did not hear those bells. I am very sorry, and I guarantee that I will not miss another division.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement on this matter.

Leave granted.

First of all, let me thank Senator Boyce for her explanation and note that that is the proper course of action—that the senator who missed the division identify themselves and then explain to the Senate what occurred. I will also say that this is, as I think senators who have served here for some time know, certainly not unprecedented. It does happen from time to time. One always hopes it is not oneself when it occurs. So far—touch wood—in 19 years I have not had to make such an explanation but I bet I will be next, having said that.

Opposition Senator:

An opposition senator interjecting—

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes; but, knowing you, you will be before me. Mr President, given the hour and given the business before the Senate—and I would like to speak to my chamber management colleagues and probably consult our leader—I believe the appropriate course of action here would be for leave to be granted but for the recommittal to occur tomorrow morning. I think this is also the normal way that we deal with these matters. I would respectfully suggest, through you, Mr President, that Senator Minchin contemplate this as no doubt some consideration of this will continue via statements by leave.

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

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

Mr President, after discussion with a number of senators here, I believe the appropriate course of action is for the vote to be recommitted tonight. During the time I have been here, my experience in a situation like this has been that the recommittal has occurred at the earliest opportunity after the error has been found. I understand that Senator Brown was going to seek leave to make a short statement as well. Should that leave be sought, I can foreshadow that the coalition will grant that. I certainly would seek a recommittal of this. We had envisaged the luxury car tax bills going on until 7.20 pm anyway. It was something that had been the subject of discussion between the Manager of Government Business and me. I think that senators would have been aware that there was a possibility of a division occurring at this time. On that basis, I would be seeking leave shortly to have the question on the second reading of the luxury car tax bills put again tonight.

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

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

Mr President, firstly I would seek your confirmation of my belief that it would require another motion from the Senate to bring us back to the luxury car tax bills.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. Firstly, leave would need to be sought such that a recommittal motion could be put. Then, if leave were granted this evening, the recommittal motion would be put and would be the subject of debate before the chair.

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

That is my understanding. Thank you, Mr President. Because that is subject to debate, further comment can await that. It is the tradition of this Senate—and it is an extremely important one—that where somebody has inadvertently or without any deliberation missed a vote which is crucial to the outcome that such a recommittal occur. It is a very valuable and precious tradition that we are talking about here, because it does mean that the ultimate will of the Senate, whether or not we like it, is expressed and that advantage is not taken of a senator missing a vote because, as on this occasion, the senator did not hear the bells and there was no intention on the senator’s behalf to miss the call. The senator has given that explanation and I agree with Senator Faulkner that that should be and is accepted. However, I also think that the matter does deserve some debate. We are in a new period of balance of power in the Senate and all of us must reflect on that. I will keep further remarks until the proper time in the next half-hour.

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

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

Mr President, the situation we got to earlier this evening is that we went to a vote on the second reading in respect of the bill. As I understand it, the opposition lost that vote in the sense that it got carried. As I understand it, it failed in that sense because a senator was absent. In this place, as all of us know, the usual situation is that a particular senator will call in and make a personal explanation as to the reason for their inability to be in the chamber for a particular vote. I, like Senator Faulkner, touch wood that it would never be me—nor would I want to be in the position of the particular senator in this circumstance.

However, the situation we have now progressed to is where there has been a motion to adjourn the second reading debate. It seems to me that the second part of the difficulty we are confronted with is that it is now past 6.50 pm, the usual time for consideration of government documents to commence. We are now approaching the hour of seven o’clock. The difficulty which confronts us all is that the principle in this place has always been that, if there has been a vote, it should reflect the will of the Senate. Everyone agrees with that; no-one disagrees with that statement. To ensure that that does in fact occur, my view is that we should recommit the matter tomorrow so that we can ensure that everyone is here—that they have not left the building, that they have not, like Senator Boyce, gone to another function—and so that everyone can understand what has happened. The other fundamental issue is that all senators are made aware of what has actually happened this evening so that that serves as a timely reminder for people to meet their commitments in the chamber when the bells ring.

My view is that, given the hour of the evening, it would be more sensible to ensure that the debate on the consideration of government documents be proceeded with. We could then adjourn at 7.20 pm, which is the usual time, and allow this matter to be recommitted tomorrow so that the true will of the Senate can be reflected. What I would not want to see, obviously, is the vote being recommitted, passing again and then us ending up with another problem on our hands with another senator trying to come into the chamber and explain why they were not here.

It is really important that we reflect upon what has happened and upon the opposition’s position of not being able to gather all their senators together to vote. That is unfortunate and it does occasionally happen, but it is probably a little bit sharp that it has happened in respect of this particular bill. In any event, what you would not want to happen is for this circumstance to occur again this evening, given the time, and for us then to end up in a similar position going through this motion again.

If we allow the matter to rest, we ensure that it is dealt with at the proper time tomorrow. We know that all senators will be and should be present then. Everyone will be advised of the need to turn up for that vote. They will understand the obligations that they have to meet in this place. I am sure on that basis we could proceed with the vote to reflect the true will of the Senate, as the government and opposition similarly agree. I submit that that is now the position we are in, as unfortunate as it may be. But it is a more sensible position because, without doing a numbers count all the way round, we could quite frankly end up in the same position, which would be a double embarrassment to the Senate and particularly to the opposition.

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

That is not what we agreed.

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

I will take that interjection. What we had agreed in respect of what would happen this evening, as I understood it, was that if we needed time to deal with the second—

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on a point of order: although I cannot, maybe you can direct the Manager of Government Business on standing order 196, which deals with tedious repetition. I know what is happening here—we are getting continual recycling of the same issue in order to filibuster.

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

Mr President, on the point of order: there is clearly no point of order. Senator Ludwig was granted leave to give a short statement and he is doing just that. To waste the time of the chamber with spurious points of order like that really does not reflect well on you, Senator Joyce.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: I think this is an extremely important point and I commend it again, through you, to the opposition. Can you confirm that government business concluded at 6.50 pm?

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The advice that I have is that government business concluded at 6.50 pm but that that does not preclude the consideration of the seeking of leave to make a statement by Senator Boyce or other people, should they choose to seek leave.

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

I will take that issue up. The position outlined was that—and it is complex, but I will go through it—if we got to the end of the second reading debate before 6.50 pm, we could conclude that debate then. If it went after 6.50 pm, we could conclude it after that time. The point of the division was the conclusion of the second reading debate. If the division occurred and there was time remaining after 6.50 pm, we would go on to the higher education bill.

We often arrange across the chamber to use government document time for government business. What happened is that we went to a vote. After the vote, we discovered that there was a supervening event and that what was expected to happen did not happen. At that point the agreement was not breached. We agreed to do exactly what we did. What has now happened is that there was a supervening event—that is, the coalition, through Senator Boyce, did not manage to ensure that their will, and in fact the will of the Senate, be reflected. Given that event, the second supervening event should be that we recommit the vote as per the normal procedures, unfortunate though that might be.

What I suggest is that it is more sensible to deal with this on the morrow, given the hour and because of the circumstances that have occurred this evening. There is no breach of our agreement—a supervening event has occurred. What I now suggest as the more sensible and practical approach to take is that we allow the Senate to express its will tomorrow in respect of this vote. That is the more sensible thing to do to ensure that we truly reflect the Senate’s will, given the hour that we now find ourselves in.

It is a simple position that should be adopted, it is the normal course of events that would have been adopted and it ensures that we do not end up in the same position again—that is, having another vote that is not reflective of the Senate because of other events that transpire. For instance, I do not know whether the Independents, the Greens, other coalition senators or our own senators are in the building and are aware of what is going on this evening.

I grant that the circumstances are unusual. If the opposition had had all of its senators turn up, the matter would have been proceeded with and we would have been able to go on to higher ed until 7.20 pm and then have the adjournment debate. But there was, as I have said, a supervening event. That supervening event warranted leave to be granted for the person to provide a personal explanation. We have now all heard that personal explanation, we understand the position and it is now sensible to take the next course of action, which is to wait for the matter to be dealt with tomorrow.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—As Senator Faulkner and others well know, it is a long established principle that votes of this kind are recommitted when one or other senator for whatever reason is absent. That has occurred in my experience, in the 15 years I have been here, on both sides of this chamber. It is to the credit of this Senate that that convention has properly been observed. The other part of that convention is that the recommittal should occur as soon as possible after the initial vote that was prejudiced by the absence of one or other member. The fact is that the adjournment tonight is at 7.20 pm. We can have a technical debate about whether the government agreed that the consideration of government documents would be forgone. We understood that was the case, that government business would continue until 7.20. In any event, all senators know that the adjournment is not until 7.20 and that they should be available for votes until 7.20.

This Senate is not going to be easy for any of us to manage for the next two or three years, as it is so finely balanced. Senator Faulkner has properly recognised that for the management of this Senate it is critical that both sides recognise the principle of recommittal in these circumstances. But I would appeal to the Labor Party to grant leave for this recommittal to occur this evening in the interests of ensuring as best we can the efficient, effective and conciliatory management of this Senate over the next two to three years. There is no good reason for the recommittal not to occur now. The division bells can be rung now and this vote will be concluded by 7.20, which is the time for the adjournment. I would, with all the goodwill that I can bring to bear, appeal to the Labor Party not to deny leave for this recommittal to occur now.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

These are quite extraordinary times. We have a situation where the opposition are seeking to uphold the longstanding principle that the will of the Senate should be maintained in votes, a principle that the opposition have now discovered with some force—and I must say we had some difficulties with them understanding this in the past when they were in government. It is essentially a principle that is conceded on both sides of the chamber. It is extremely important that the Senate’s will is reflected in the votes of this place. If a senator is not able to attend a division or by misadventure fails to attend a vote then there is a convention that the senator—as Senator Boyce has done—gives an explanation for the failure to attend the vote. I understand this may be the first occasion for Senator Boyce on which that has occurred. I do not recall circumstances where I have been obliged to do that because I think I have met the fundamental requirement, the obligation, of senators to come into this chamber and cast a vote.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’re as pure as the driven snow!

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You say that I am as pure as the driven snow. I think on this matter I have got reason to make a claim that my voting record is appropriate and that I have fulfilled my obligations to vote in divisions. I certainly have not placed the chamber in a position where the will of the Senate has been frustrated or where a vote has been taken which does not reflect the will of the Senate. That is a simple proposition. Senator Boyce has sought to clarify the reason for her failure to vote. But the really big issue here is the circumstances that surround this issue. We are not talking about just any particular matter. We are talking about a measure that is—

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Leave was granted for a short statement, and I would ask you to direct the senator to the fact that it should be a short statement and ask that he conclude his remarks.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot direct the senator to conclude his remarks, but I can draw the attention of the senator to the fact that leave was sought to make a short statement.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I am making a short statement. I am drawing the attention of the Senate to the manner and the circumstances that surround the appalling behaviour of the opposition in this matter. What we have here is a budget measure which has the effect of raising some $550 million—over half a billion dollars—worth of revenue and we have a proposal by the opposition to knock over that measure. We have had the second reading vote, and by their misadventure the vote failed to deliver the result that they were anticipating. They have then sought to get the vote recommitted. They have tried to do it at this time of night. They have tried in the middle of the night to move a proposal. We all understand the normal procedure of the Senate, and senators who may well have left this building will not be aware of the circumstances that surround the recommittal.

The opposition are now seeking to recommit to a vote this measure to take $550 million from the government’s surplus. Five hundred and fifty million dollars is what this vote is all about. We should not ever move away from that basic proposition. We have a situation where the opposition is now seeking to cut tax on luxury cars for wealthy people rather than provide interest rate cuts for working families. That is what this debate is really all about. It is not some procedural, simplistic matter of a senator failing to fulfil their obligations. It is a fundamental measure about the opposition seeking at this hour—well after the proper conclusion of government business—to move a recommittal of the vote, with the effect of removing $550 million from the surplus. This is an opposition that is seeking to blow a hole in the budget of $550 million.

We have a simple proposition: that this matter ought to be recommitted in due time, when senators have an opportunity to cast their vote properly. That time is tomorrow, and that is to give people notice that this matter is being recommitted to a vote. The votes of the Senate would normally have been concluded by 6.50, on any reasonable reading of the standing orders. Senators may well have left the building. Senators are entitled to leave the building under the normal operation of the standing orders. But what you are trying to do, at 7.15 this evening, is to recommit to a vote a measure to take $550 million out of the budget and to do so as a result of your poor organisation.

Senator Abetz, as we know, is taking control of the tactics committee. We all understand that Senator Minchin has failed in his responsibilities in terms of his leadership of the opposition. We have seen the circumstances of question time today, where you cannot even ask questions of the right minister. You are so badly organised. You are so incompetent. You are such a bunch of dilettantes that you cannot even organise your raid on the budget properly. You have to do it in the middle of the night. This is your game. Your game is to essentially—

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

Mr President, I raise a point of order. Leave was given for a short statement. By any judgement, Senator Carr has now abused the leave that was granted by the Senate. It is not a short statement that he has made. It has been going on for more than five minutes. I would ask you to draw the senator’s attention to that.

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

Mr President, on the point of order, Senator Carr is making a short statement. He has been interrupted on a number of occasions. If those opposite had stopped interjecting and taking spurious points of order, he may have actually concluded.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

But those interjections, like those that are going on now, are slowing down the business of the Senate. If the opposition would allow Senator Carr to finish, I am sure he will draw to a conclusion within two or three minutes.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order, I have been seeking to make a short statement to the Senate concerning the incompetence of the opposition, who cannot even organise a raid on the budget properly. That is what I have been seeking to do and I have been rudely interrupted by a wilful opposition that does not wish to face up to the truth. I think I should be able to conclude my statement in a proper manner without these wanton interruptions.

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

Mr President—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ellison on a point of order?

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

No, he sat down and I am seeking leave to have the question on the second reading of the luxury car tax bills put again.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I have not yet ruled on the point of order raised by you. Let me say that there are some difficulties in the issue that you raise. The difficulty is that in terms of the words ‘short statement’ I have no definition, no clarity, other than the precedents before me in this chamber where people have sought leave to make short statements, and those short statements have varied in length. Having said that, I am cognisant of the fact that this matter is before the Procedure Committee by way of representation tomorrow. I understand that I cannot sit a senator down and stop them from addressing the chair in this matter. It is clearly something that needs to be resolved if people are to seek leave to make short statements before the chair. It is very difficult to impose on the chair what actually constitutes a short statement. In those circumstances, Senator Ellison, whilst I hear your point of order, I am sure that this matter will be taken up before the Procedure Committee tomorrow and I cannot rule in favour of your point of order other than to call Senator Carr, who had the call and was on his feet.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been seeking to make a short statement concerning these events, which are quite extraordinary. I do not think I was speaking for any more than five minutes. By any reasonable definition I would have thought that five minutes would constitute a short statement. I have been interrupted on numerous occasions. There have been numerous points of order. As a consequence there have been considerable amounts of time spent on spurious matters raised by the opposition, who are quite frankly in a situation where they are once again demonstrating—

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

A shambles!

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are a shambles. What you have got is a rabble. I am very disappointed that you have failed in your obligations to even get your senators into the chamber to vote on a raid on the budget of this size. I am very disappointed that the opposition felt that they were not able to muster the numbers that they needed to actually do this and that they sought to bring forward at this hour a proposition which would in fact see many senators being seriously disadvantaged in the reconsideration of a matter of this significance. This is no ordinary matter. It is my contention—