Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion to censure Senator Hanson for misleading the Senate by stating that she will not financially benefit from the government's proposed income tax cuts.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Hanson-Young moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion to censure Senator Hanson for misleading the Senate by stating that she will not financially benefit from the government's proposed income tax cuts.

We saw Senator Hanson yesterday come into this place and try and tell this place and the Australian people that she would not be getting a dollar from the tax cut bill that is passing through this place and the other place today. Senator Hanson misled the Australian parliament and she misled the Australian people, because we know that what this tax cut bill does is give her and every other person in this place a massive tax cut—upwards of $11,000 worth of tax cuts. Senator Hanson, who prides herself on being 'the voice of the battler' and 'the people's Pauline', misled the Australian people and she misled this Senate. She said that she would not financially benefit when, of course, she will, and she will benefit more than most other Australians. The majority of Australians get very little out of this tax cut, but Senator Pauline Hanson, the leader of One Nation, gets a whopping $11,815 worth of tax cuts. Yet she came into this place and denied it. She denied that she gets any personal benefit from this.

It's important for everybody to understand that politicians get a huge tax cut out of this bill—all of us do—but for Senator Hanson to pretend that she doesn't is what is fundamentally problematic. At a time when politicians are on the nose, when we know that the Australian people expect better from our politicians, the last thing we should be doing in this place is letting Senator Pauline Hanson off the hook.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald on a point of order.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I refer you to standing order 193, which says, amongst other things:

… all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on those Houses, members or officers—

and that includes the Senate—

shall be considered highly disorderly.

I know at times we allow wide latitude in these things, but this seems to be a motion that is directly contrary to standing order 193. I'd ask that perhaps you counsel Senator Hanson-Young about that.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said earlier in the day, Senator Macdonald, I would ask all senators to reflect on their imputations about our colleagues in this chamber and other places, as the standing orders require. I don't believe the motion is out of order, because the motion is observational and seeks leave to move a censure motion. So I believe the motion is in order, but I will ask all senators to keep in mind the language they use and what they allege or impugn about colleagues.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr President: I would also make the point that this is a suspension seeking to move a censure motion, but the inherent nature of the motion that is being sought to be debated—the substantive motion—is obviously a motion which is critical of a senator.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is. The motion is in order, but I ask all senators to be careful with their language.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. The extraordinary thing that has happened here is that Senator Pauline Hanson, the leader of One Nation, came into this place and said, black and white, that she does not get a tax cut from the passage of this bill. That is fundamentally wrong. She then went on to say that anybody suggesting that she gets a tax cut would themselves be misleading the Senate. That is wrong because, of course, like every other politician in this place, the tax cut applies to her. I don't support the tax cut. I voted against it. Senator Pauline Hanson and One Nation did not. They have supported it. She has given herself a financial benefit and denied doing so to the Australian people.

Senator Pauline Hanson had numerous hours yesterday after it was pointed out to her that her statement was fundamentally wrong and that she had misled the chamber. She had ample opportunity to come into this place and correct the record. She did not take that opportunity. In fact, the leader of One Nation stood a number of times in this place since making that statement and did not once correct the record. She has misled this chamber and she has misled the Australian people. She should be held to account.

You can't carry on in this place pretending that you're here for the Australian people and you believe that honesty from politicians is important and then come in here and do otherwise. Senator Pauline Hanson says one thing in Queensland—apparently, she's 'the people's Pauline'—then she comes down here and does the total opposite. Not only does she vote to support a massive tax cut for the big end of town, for politicians; she's going to pocket it herself and she's pretending that she's not. She is a fraud. This is a fraudulent leader of a political party. She should be held to account, and we should expect better of leaders of political parties in this place. She had every opportunity to come in and correct the record. Here she comes! She's just walked into the chamber. Will she accept that she made mistakes?

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Hanson-Young, please resume your seat. Senator Macdonald.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, surely calling another senator directly 'a fraud' is unparliamentary. If it's not, I would call Senator Hanson-Young a fraud, but I think it's unparliamentary, so I'd withdraw that.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the point of order, Senator Macdonald. Senator Hanson-Young, I would ask you to withdraw that phrase you used where you directly named a fellow senator in those terms.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Continue, Senator Hanson-Young.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson has an opportunity to correct the record and admit that she misled this place in order to be tricky and pretend to the Australian people that she gets no benefit from this. She is not a leader for the people: she is a leader for herself. She puts the 'one' in One Nation, and we all know it.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm going to call Senator Cormann. You were raising a point of order, Senator Cameron?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yesterday, Mr President, you ruled against me getting the call because I stood, you claimed, prior to the clock running down. The Leader of the Government in the Senate has just done exactly the same thing, and you should draw his attention to that position as well.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, if you review what I said yesterday, I did not not give you the call because you stood earlier. I rejected your claim that you stood first because you stood earlier. Senator Cormann, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate, has precedence over all senators. Senator Wong is granted precedence over all senators other than the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I reflect that in the calls I give. I'm not going to move to a situation where I give the call to the most agile or quickest person jumping up before the end of a speech. That would be unfair on senators who are not as young and agile. Senator Cormann.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've got to put the question.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to the contingent notice, I move the standing—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've got a question before the chair.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You won't even allow this to be debated.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, please resume your seat. I have a question before the chair, and I'm required to put that question. The question is the procedural motion, as moved by Senator Cormann, be agreed to.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders moved by Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion requiring Senator Hanson to make a personal explanation with regard to why she was misleading the Senate.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Rice from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion that would require Senator Hanson to make a personal explanation with regard to her misleading of the Senate.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rice, I'm going to ask you to resume your seat. I'm going to rule on this.

Senator Wong interjecting—

Senator Wong, I'm going to rule and then people can take objection if they wish. I had given some thought to this matter in conjunction with advice from officials. The Senate has now twice rejected proposals that it depart from its routine of business by suspending standing orders. That being the case, I shall not entertain any further proposal that the Senate depart from its routine under the standing orders and other orders of the Senate. This is entirely consistent with the precedent of operations of this chamber. Senator Wong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First, Mr President, I would respectfully suggest that you ought have heard us before you ruled. You entertained no submission—

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How would you know what to talk on!

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I'm listening to Senator Wong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You entertained no submission from the chamber as to whether or not the ruling was apposite. Second, I do inquire as to why it is that the magical number is two. That is not my recollection of precedent but, if that's the advice from the Clerk, we respect the Clerk and we respect your rulings given in accordance with that advice. The third point I'd make is this: it is fairly unprecedented for the government to gag a suspension debate. The motion that is moved by the Australian Greens simply requires Senator Hanson to explain why she misled the Senate.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She didn't!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The assertion from the Leader of the Government is she didn't. Then let her explain so, instead of gagging debate to prevent Senator Hanson explaining how she could have misled the Senate. Now, Senator Hanson may have a clear view about why that is the case, that what she said yesterday is somehow correct, but I think, manifestly, it was not, but that is not the issue. The motion that Senator Rice has sought to move is a different motion to the previous one, which was a motion of censure. Given the government gagged that, I'd respectfully suggest it is reasonable for an alternate and lesser motion to be considered by the Senate. If the majority of the Senate does not agree, sobeit. That motion that is flagged is simply that Senator Hanson be required to explain.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann, on the point of order?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order: clearly the longstanding practice, including when those of us now on this side of the chamber were on the other side of the chamber when the previous government moved a guillotine on 188 occasions and 53 times in one week—and we sought to move repetitive suspension motions. When we sought to move repetitive suspension motions in opposition, I remember President Hogg ruling precisely the way you have ruled today. I would encourage you to reconfirm the precedent that has been set by previous presidents based on the advice of the clerks at the time, the same as you have received advice from the Clerk today.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm going to rule on this point of order, Senator Collins. I've heard from Senator Wong and Senator Cormann—

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

I called Senator Wong as the leader of the opposition. I am showing a great deal of leniency here.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a point of clarification.

Senator Di Natale interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, I didn't see you down there, Senator Di Natale.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to say a couple of words.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was a motion by the Greens. I'll let you ask a question but I'm not going to take lengthy submissions. I have provided a ruling and I'm granting latitude to those making submissions on it. Senator Di Natale—on the point of order, please, not on the substance.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll be very brief. We have had what is, in my time here, unprecedented: a gag on a suspension debate. You wouldn't have needed to rule had we been able to debate the suspension but the suspension was gagged.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is this on the point of order? That appears to be on the substance, Senator Di Natale, not on the point of my ruling.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have put forward a motion that is unrelated to the previous motion. It's not a censure motion; it's simply requesting Senator Hanson provide an explanation as to why she misled the Senate. We're talking about $140 billion—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Di Natale!

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and we have Senator Hanson misleading the Senate—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Di Natale, please resume your seat. You are now turning to the substance. Senator Collins, this is the last submission I'm going to take.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're putting the President in an impossible position to gag debate!

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, I was talking to—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That observation referred to me; that's all.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I said you were put in an impossible position to—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't agree. Senator Collins.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. I do have a point of clarification. I listened carefully to your earlier statement, and you invited submissions with respect to it. I understand that you've had one from the government and one from the opposition and now one from the Australian Greens. But the point is that we were not on notice that this was what you would be doing now. We had no opportunity to look at how you were describing the position that you were taking and the order that you were making. So the point of clarification I'm asking is: does that mean you will not now entertain any motions about changing the order of business from the government?

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take Senator Wong's point—the request for me to take submissions before I rule. I was trying to provide the ruling so that people could actually deal with the detail as I provided it. As to the query with respect to the number being two, I have specifically considered and asked for advice around this. The events of today were rather predictable, and I have specifically taken advice that this is entirely consistent with past practice in terms of rejecting further motions to suspend standing orders, given it is not my ruling that the Senate proceeds in this way. It is in fact a decision of the Senate chamber—a majority of this chamber—that the debate is to be dealt with in this fashion. It does not come from the chair, as was alluded to last night.

With respect to your query, Senator Collins, I will seek further advice on that, given that ministers and the government do have a different status and an opportunity to rearrange the business. I will seek advice on that before I provide a ruling. So my ruling on that, unless someone wishes to take issue with it, stands and we move to proceed with the order of business as outlined today.