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

I move:

That the Senate—

  (a)   notes that:

     (i)   north Queensland's significant economic growth has been recorded in the recent quarterly development status report released by Townsville Enterprise Pty Ltd,

     (ii)   the report, which covered the 3 month period to 30 June 2011, showed that, despite setbacks caused by Cyclone Yasi, approximately $53 billion worth of development projects are currently underway or awaiting approval, and

     (iii)   current projects include the $385 million redevelopment of Lavarack Barracks in Townsville in preparation for the arrival of the 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment; and

  (b)   congratulates Townsville Enterprise Pty Ltd on its pivotal role in encouraging and facilitating continued investment in north Queensland.

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

I seek leave to make an amendment to the motion.

Leave granted.

I move:

Omit paragraph (b), substitute:

(b) congratulates Townsville Enterprise on its role in reducing housing supply pressures in Townsville through the redevelopment of the Lavarack Barracks and notes that the redevelopment was partially funded by the Labor government in the 2011-2012 Federal Budget.

Question put:

The Senate divided. [12.02]

(The President—Senator the Hon. JJ Hogg)

Senator Chris Evans did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Coonan.

Question agreed to.

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

The question now is that Senator Macdonald's motion, as amended, be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move a further amendment:

That new paragraph (b) be deleted.

I move this amendment because the amendment just passed is, with respect, nonsensical. The motion referred to $53 billion worth of development projects currently underway and awaiting approval. The amendment just passed refers to 'Townsville Enterprise Ltd reducing housing supply pressures on Townsville through—

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

I am sorry, what is the amendment again?

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

It is to delete paragraph (b).

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

I understand that that contravenes standing order 92, and would have to be ruled out of order.

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

Which says?

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

It says:

An amendment to a question may not be moved if it is the same in substance as an amendment already determined to the same question, or would have the effect only of reversing an amendment already made.

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

Mr President, on a point of order on your ruling: it does not reverse the substance. The motion as it now stands congratulates Townsville Enterprise on its role reducing the housing supply pressures in Townsville through various means. The substantive part of the amendment is that it congratulates Towns­ville Enterprise Ltd. I want to remove that substantive part by deleting paragraph (b) in its entirety.

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

Mr President, on the point of order. I understand what Senator Ian Macdonald is seeking to do. Unfortunately, the challenge Senator Macdonald has is that it would in fact contravene section 92 which says:

An amendment to a question may not be moved if it is the same in substance—

this does not apply—

as an amendment already determined to the same question, or would have the effect only of reversing an amendment already made.

The amendment has been made and carried. The will of the Senate has been expressed. The amendment that you are now seeking would reverse that. On that basis—

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

By removing it that is what you are doing. We could argue that. I am simply pointing to the rule. I am happy to give leave to any other amendment you may wish to make or if you want to add to the amendment; but in the sense that the amendment you are proposing would have that effect then the point of order is not made. Mr President, the ruling that you have provided is the correct one.

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

Mr President, further to the point of order, what Senator Ludwig said is simply factually not correct. The amendment added some different qual­ifiers to the original motion, which was not amended. What we are now doing is delet­ing, to put it this way, any congratu­lations to Townsville Enterprise Ltd. The reason I do that, as I will say in my two-minute noting—if I am allowed to—is that it just does not make sense.

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

I now have a copy of the amendment before me, which was 'to delete paragraph (b) and replacing it with the following'. It was not an addendum to the existing paragraph (b), it was deleting the paragraph and replacing it. The amendment that you are now proposing is to delete the amendment that was just carried by the Senate.

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

That is the point I made.

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

I did not have the wording before me before, Senator Macdonald. I now have it before me and it makes it clear that what you are proposing is in contravention of standing order 92 because the amendment that was moved by Senator Bob Brown clearly deleted the existing paragraph. If I understand what you are now putting to the chamber, it is to delete that paragraph. That is the reversal. It is on that basis that the ruling has been made.

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

Mr President, on the point of order, can I accept your ruling and agree with you. With the typical courtesy of the Greens, this was only just made available to me and so, like you, I had not had a chance to read it. But what would you expect from Senator Brown?

Question, as amended, agreed to.

I seek leave to note that for a period of less than two minutes.

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

Leave is granted for two minutes.

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

I am prepared to grant leave here, but it has been the opposition that has taken to task the process of statements being made in conse­quence of a determination of an amendment because we get into a debating proposal there. Mr President, I draw your attention to the fact that Senator Macdonald is now going contrary to that spirit.

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

I have not heard what Senator Macdonald is going to state. He sought leave. Leave has been granted. But I have previously drawn attention to—and I do not know if the Deputy President has—the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Procedure which made it clear that:

In particular, the number of statements being made by leave in relation to complex motions leads to a de facto debate on these motions, contrary to standing order 66.

So I presume we are not going down that path. I can only presume; I can only listen to Senator Macdonald.

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

Thank you, Mr President. I have a point I want to make known to those people in Townsville and Townsville Enterprise Ltd, of whom I am a great supporter. Clearly Senator Brown—and the Labor Party who voted for him—have absolutely no idea of what Townsville Enter­prise does, what it has done in this report and what it generally does in a very positive way for the City of Townsville.

The amendment as it has been now carried talks about reducing housing supply pressur­es in Townsville through the redevelopment of the Lavarack Barracks. They may be reducing housing supply pressures but not through the redevelopment of Lavarack Barracks. Lavarack Barracks was extended, I might say, on an initiative of the Howard government in bringing the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment to Townsville and providing accommodation for them, and a lot of the activity relates to general positive development works not just in housing but right across the vein in Townsville, some $53 billion worth of development.

The amendment moved is simply nonsensical. It was done, obviously, by Senator Brown with his mates in the Labor Party to try and get some credit for the Labor Party putting some money in the 2011-12 budget. As I mentioned, these were initia­tives of the Howard government. I would not expect the Greens ever to acknowledge any­thing positive the Howard government did, like bringing the 3rd Battalion to Townsville and providing the initial stages of funding to facilitate that and the housing and other development which we needed in Townsville.

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

by leave—I want to congratulate the Howard government on the reallocation of the Defence Force facility that Senator Mac­donald has been referring to to the beautiful city of Townsville, which I had the pleasure of revisiting just a few months ago. I also want to congratulate the Gillard government on the expenditure described in the amend­ment which has gone to carrying on that good work and that development in Towns­ville. There are some contentious develop­ments in Townsville, but I would agree with the reference to positive develop­ments that Senator Macdonald made. It does indicate that not all the developments there are with­out contention. I think it is a good motion, and we are proud to have supported it.