Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—This is an apology that I was hoping never to have to make to this chamber. Mr President, I was absent for the last vote and I ask that the vote on Senator’s Joyce amendment to the motion of Senator Heffernan to refer a matter to the Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee be recommitted. Through an inadvertence, I was on the other side of the building and, regrettably, I missed the bells so was not in the chamber at the time of that vote. I believe I also owe Senator Joyce an apology. I understand he launched a bit of a spray at the government in my absence for perhaps one of the government members missing the vote. It was me and I apologise.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I utterly deny that assertion but nonetheless offer my apologies to the chamber for missing the vote. I seek leave to have it recommitted.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to apologise for having a go at the Labor government when I could have been having a go at the Greens.

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

Order! Senator Joyce, you cannot just stand up. If you wish to make a statement, you need to seek leave to do so.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to make a short statement.

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

Leave is granted, with no time limit.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is quite obvious I have to apologise to the Labor Party because it was not the Labor Party that missed the division; it was the Greens who missed the division. We can understand why—there has been a lot of turmoil in the Greens lately while things have been going on. In amongst that turmoil they are now missing divisions. However, the fact remains that what is more important is this—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Joyce, you are entitled to be heard in silence. Senator Joyce does not need help this morning, and neither do I.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is more important, as this vote goes to being recommitted, is that people understand that we are trying to say to the Australian people that we are not hiding behind anything and that we are quite happy for there to be an investigation into whether there is an ambiguity in the act. The Australian Government Solicitor says there is not and the ministerial statement says there is not, so this is something that should and can be dealt with. I do not see why there is political sensitivity in giving the Australian people their right to make sure that the act is unambiguous in delivering a triple bottom line. I think, in recommitting this, it is extremely important that this be shown because if it fails then those people at the demonstrations in Mildura, Shepparton and Goondiwindi will once more come back and say, ‘There was a vote on an issue that dealt with ambiguity in the act and you voted against it; you tried to hide behind the act.’ We in the coalition have nothing to hide behind; we have nothing to be ashamed of. We are quite willing—

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

Order! Senator Joyce, you are now debating the issue. Senator Ludlam has sought leave to have the matter recommitted. Is leave granted?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—From time to time, honourable senators miss divisions for a range of reasons. We in the coalition have always accepted that and fully acknowledge that misadventure does happen to people right around this chamber. But what we do not accept is the hyperbole to which we were submitted by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the past when two of our coalition colleagues missed a division. We were subjected to a rant that if we could not control our own senators it showed what a rabble we were, how out of control the opposition were—all the hyperbole under the sun. I warned Senator Brown at the time that something like that may well happen to the Australian Greens. Who was the first Australian Green to miss a vote? It was Senator Bob Brown himself. Today, we now have another Green who has missed a vote. If it is so difficult to manage a group of five, one wonders how difficult it will be when it becomes a group of nine on 1 July.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sarah’s challenging Bob now?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very good, Senator Fifield. The point I make on behalf of the coalition and on behalf of the opposition is this: this happens from time to time. I have been one of those fortunate ones not to have missed a division—more by good fortune than by good management—and I claim no special credit for that, but I fully accept that one day I might. I trust that if anybody in the coalition or the Labor Party comes across a misadventure such as Senator Bob Brown has in the past and Senator Ludlam has today we would not be subjected to the silly hyperbole and exaggerated—

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

Sanctimonious.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and sanctimonious—a very good description—statements that we were submitted to by the Leader of the Australian Greens when, in the past, two coalition members missed a division. I simply say with respect to all senators: this is something that we all hope never happens to us. From time to time it will happen to individuals, and I think it makes very good sense that we deal with these matters with good grace and acceptance as it could just as likely happen to us just as, today, it has unfortunately happened to Senator Ludlam. I remind the Leader of the Australian Greens that on the last two occasions, if I recall correctly, that votes have had to be recommitted in the Senate, it has been as a result of the Australian Greens suffering a misadventure. I simply suggest to them that they keep that in mind, and the next time one of the government or one of the coalition—or indeed my good friends Senator Xenophon or Senator Fielding—should miss a division, we will accept it in good grace, without all the hostility and grandstanding that we were subjected to in the past.

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

Order! I am still waiting to see whether leave has been granted for the recommittal.

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

by leave—If that is the definition of good grace, the dictionary has just had a meltdown. Fancy Senator Abetz talking about good grace.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

All I can say about that over the baying of the opposition is ‘good gracious’. Let me invite the opposition, if Senator Abetz is so perfect and correct, to have a look at their own attendance to important matters in the House this morning and I think he might go a little more quietly. If he wants to point to the Greens’ record here, I suggest he consult his colleagues in the House about their record of attendance this morning in the other place.

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

Order! Is leave granted for the recommittal?

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

by leave—On behalf of the government, we accept that Senator Ludlam has now made a statement and formally asked for a recommittal. These things have occurred in the past and, of course, the position we have taken as a party, both in opposition and in government, is that if an explanation is made it is one that is in terms of a misadventure and we would therefore accept it to ensure that the voting within the House is reflective of the proportions of the members in the House. On that basis, clearly that has now been undertaken by Senator Ludlam and we agree. In terms of the humiliating apology by Senator Joyce in relation to his unfortunate attack on the wrong party, we gracefully accept his apology.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We cannot hear a thing. Could Senator Ludwig repeat the whole lot, because I did not hear a thing. If it is important enough to say it—

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

I will have the acoustics in the chamber examined, but it may well be something wrong with that microphone. We will see about that in the fullness of time.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

As my colleague has just pointed out, it will be on Hansard for you to read tonight.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Senator Abetz made a very eloquent case in relation to the sanctimony and hypocrisy of the Greens on a similar occasion, but I just thought it was important to show for the Hansard record what Senator Brown previously said on such an occasion, when it was the opposition—the coalition—who were in that position. What Senator Brown said on that occasion was:

However, this does show the opposition is in some disarray. It was absolutely known that this critical vote would be on this afternoon. It is a commentary on the opposition and the internal cohesion of the opposition that a senator could miss such a vital vote.

If on that occasion it was a commentary on the internal cohesion of the opposition, it is no less a commentary today on the internal cohesion of Senator Brown’s party. Senator Brown is well known for his sanctimony, but Senator Ludlam is, I think, cut from a different cloth. So I think we are quite understanding of Senator Ludlam, and we hope that this has been a lesson for Senator Brown in particular.

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

The question is that leave be granted for the recommittal.

Leave granted.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement.

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

Leave is granted for two minutes.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot support the amendment moved by Senator Joyce, for a number of reasons. Firstly, I believe that it would be more appropriate that any amendment to look at the Water Act be dealt with by the legal and constitutional affairs committee. The focus of the inquiry and the terms drafted by Senator Heffernan are quite clear: it is to look at the social and economic impacts and issues of environmental flows in respect of the impact that the guide to the plan would have. Recently the Australian Government Solicitor’s office, Chief General Counsel Robert Orr QC and Helen Neville, senior general counsel, have provided a legal opinion as to their view of the act. If Senator Joyce wishes to explore this then I think the appropriate vehicle is a separate committee, the legal and constitutional affairs committee. I think it would muddy the waters, so to speak, in relation to this particular inquiry.

Question put:

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

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

The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Heffernan be agreed to.

Question agreed to.