John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion to vary the hours of meeting and routine of business for tomorrow.

Leave granted.

I thank the Senate for its courtesy in enabling me to do this. Before moving the motion I inform the Senate—and this might come as a surprise to senators and might even be quite a worry to them—that, in Senator Ludwig’s absence, I have agreed to step into his shoes and act as Manager of Government Business in the Senate for a few short hours. I hope that this does not cause pandemonium. I am not sure whether the motion has been circulated; however, I move:

That, on Wednesday, 10 March 2010:

(a)

the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to noon and 4 pm to 8 pm;

(b)

consideration of government documents shall not be proceeded with;

(c)

the routine of business from 4 pm shall be:

(i)

petitions,

(ii)

notices of motion,

(iii)

postponement and rearrangement of business,

(iv)

discovery of formal business,

(v)

any proposal pursuant to standing order 75,

(vi)

tabling and consideration of committee reports, and

(vii)

government business; and

(d)

the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 7.20 pm.

I briefly indicate to the Senate that this motion enables the Senate to deal with the visit to Australia and address of both houses of parliament tomorrow by the President of Indonesia. The intention of the motion is to ensure that there is minimal disruption to the Senate’s routine of business. It does mean that consideration of government documents shall not be proceeded with. It does mean that the routine of business at 4 pm will be the usual routine of petitions, notices of motion, postponement and rearrangement of business, discovery of formal business, any MPI or urgency motion, tabling and consideration of committee reports, and government business. It also means, as I believe was the case with the visit of former President Bush in 1992, former President George W Bush in 2003—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We agree with you, John.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I said, ‘I think we agree with you.’

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I suggest that might be an indication that you don’t want to hear a long speech from me on this matter.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’re very perceptive.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I had feelings, which I don’t, I assure the Senate that they would have been hurt by that interjection by Senator Macdonald. I commend the motion to the Senate.

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

I move:

Insert “questions without Notice” before “petitions” in paragraph (c)

I move this amendment feeling assured that there will be coalition support, because the one pivotal thing in an age of government by executive, with every effort made by prime ministers and executives these days to sideline parliament, is that the government be put under scrutiny by parliament as best it can. Of course, question time is the pivotal hour for that scrutiny. We Greens have repeatedly been champions of question time being held so that the government can be put under scrutiny, and we have been repeatedly bemused by the fact that the government and opposition do not support that. It is time that the opposition reviewed that position.

Question time tomorrow ought to follow the luncheon break after the presentation to the House of Representatives by Indonesian President Yudhoyono. Question time should be on this list, but it is missing. We should have question time at four o’clock and then follow on with the other matters, including petitions, which I know no senator will want to see set aside. But I think there is no senator who would agree that questions are more important than petitions in the lively scrutiny of the government’s performance, so this amendment by the Greens is a serious one to ensure that question time takes place tomorrow.

I take the opportunity to explain to any members of the media who are listening that tomorrow’s sitting is not a joint house sitting and that following the visit of President Bush in 2003—when I spoke to President Bush on the floor of the House of Representatives and my colleague the then Greens senator Kerry Nettle did the same—it was found, as former Clerk of the Senate Harry Evans repeatedly put, that there were no provisions for a joint house sitting in this parliament, and we were left in the invidious position of a Speaker of the house trying to direct senators what to do in a joint house sitting while having no authority to make any such direction.

We will be invited to join the House of Representatives, but we are effectively going as visitors to the House, which will be meeting to hear President Yudhoyono tomorrow. It is not a joint house sitting; it is a sitting of the House of Representatives to which senators are invited—a very important point that some scribes in the press gallery have not, I think, been able to understand. That said, question time is the pivotal opportunity for we senators to question the government, and I think the coalition ought to seriously consider supporting this amendment by the Greens.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition will be supporting the government in this motion to vary the hours of sitting tomorrow. We will not be supporting Senator Brown’s amendment. If any party in this chamber values question time, it is the opposition. We are the ones who are forgoing the opportunity to have a full question time. That time is valuable for us, and the Greens get a limited chance to question the government during that time. Senator Brown makes the remark that it is not a significant matter. It is a significant matter. We understand that the program for tomorrow is disrupted by a significant visit by a head of state, and we are prepared to put aside four hours to go over to the House of Representatives for that.

Despite Senator Brown’s semantics as to whether we are invited or what the technical nature of that invitation is, we are nevertheless giving the courtesy to this chamber of allowing it to suspend for four hours to listen to a head of state of a neighbouring country which is of great significance to this country. So we will be supporting the motion. We understand the opportunity will be lost to have a question time, but it would be impractical to insert question time at a later hour of the day and then push other matters out of the program. So it is quite feasible, on this special occasion, to give up one question time for the year.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not aware of any precedent whereby the Senate has resumed sitting at 4 pm and there has been a question time. There is no such precedent. I appreciate the points that Senator Brown—

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

The Senate is in control of its own affairs.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate that. Of course the Senate is in control of its own business, but in these sorts of circumstances it often relies on precedents that have been established over a number of years. When the Senate or the House of Representatives has resumed sitting after an address by either a head of government or a head of state earlier in the day, from time to time there has been a question time, but that has certainly not been the case when the chamber has resumed sitting later in the afternoon, which is the situation on this occasion. So I think it is fair to say that this motion is consistent with past practice. I understand the points that Senator Brown makes. I do hope I did not suggest that it was a joint sitting, Senator Brown. I hope I did not commit that faux pas in my comments. It is true that President Yudhoyono will address the parliament tomorrow. I think this motion represents a sensible approach that is consistent with past practice, given the timing, and in these circumstances I commend it to the Senate.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Bob Brown’s) be agreed to.