Senate debates
Wednesday, 27 June 2018
Business
Consideration of Legislation
4:31 pm
David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I, and also on behalf of Senators Burston, Hinch, Hanson, Di Natale, McAllister, Urquhart, Sterle and McCarthy, move:
That on each sitting day from 14 August 2018 until the Senate adjourns on 16 August 2018:
(a) the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015 shall have precedence over all government business;
(b) until proceedings on the bill are concluded, the hours of meeting and routine of business shall be varied as follows:
(i) proposals under standing order 75 not be proceeded with,
(ii) on Tuesday, 14 August 2018:
(A) the hours of meeting shall be noon to adjournment,
(B) the routine of business from not later than 7 pm shall be consideration of the bill only, and
(C) the Senate shall adjourn, without debate, at 10 pm;
(iii) on Wednesday, 15 August 2018:
(A) the hours of meeting shall be 9 am to adjournment,
(B) the routine of business from not later than 7 pm shall be consideration of the bill only,
(C) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 9 pm, and
(D) the Senate shall adjourn at 10 pm;
(iv) on Thursday, 16 August 2018:
(A) the hours of meeting shall be 9 am to adjournment,
(B) the routine of business from not later than 4 pm shall be consideration of the bill only,
(C) divisions may take place after 4 pm, and
(D) the Senate shall adjourn, without debate, after proceedings on the bill are concluded.
Fraser Anning (Queensland, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Fraser Anning (Queensland, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Legalising assisted killing is not something that the Senate should support. If the Andrews bill is repealed, the ACT socialist government has made it clear they'll move quickly to legalise euthanasia in the ACT. If euthanasia is legalised, elderly people, particularly those whose care is a burden to others or who have accumulated wealth, may be pressured into ending their lives by greedy relatives.
In 2016, the ABS recorded that 2,866 people had committed suicide. Creating a culture that promotes—
Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! Senator Anning, I've got Senator Urquhart on a point of order.
Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
A point of order, Mr President. This motion is a procedural motion. It's not actually debating the issue; it is actually a procedural motion.
Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Urquhart, Senator Anning was granted leave to speak for one minute. That was not conditional on it being relevant to a motion. I will remind all senators, and Senator Anning was not in the chamber when I asked this earlier, that the one-minute statements are granted as a courtesy of the Senate and should relate to the matter directly beforehand, rather than necessarily or always the substance of the issue at hand.
Fraser Anning (Queensland, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
In 2016, the ABS recorded that 2,866 people had committed suicide. Creating a culture that promotes death as a solution can only make this problem worse. Legalised euthanasia is a direct attack on the sanctity of life. I urge the Senate to reject any move that would promote state-sponsored killing of the most vulnerable in society. (Time expired)
Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Leyonhjelm be agreed to.
4:36 pm
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, can I just put to you—and I've raised this before—that obviously one-minute divisions are necessary at times and people are in the chamber, but the last vote—which I would have supported had I been able to get here in the one minute—was on a reasonably controversial matter, and I would say to you that it was not an appropriate matter to be dealt with in a one-minute division, and I place that on the record. We facilitate those one-minute divisions—
Senator Abetz interjecting—
Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Wong, please continue. Don't respond to the interjection.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The vote was on a matter of some controversy, a matter about which people feel sincerely, and, as I said, I would have supported the motion. I do think that, on certain occasions, the subject matter of the motion really renders them inappropriate for one-minute divisions.
James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
We'd be happy for the motion to be put again for four minutes, if that would assist you, Senator Wong.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I'm happy to put my position on the record, but I am making a broader point in that there are occasions when the motion before the chair really, in terms of its substance, ought not be dealt with in a one-minute division, which does not allow people who are not here to get here in time.
Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Wong, my response to what you raised—and I did receive your message during that particular count—is that both whips were—
Government senators interjecting—
It's a fair point to raise. Both whips were advised and the chamber was advised on numerous occasions that this was to be a one-minute bell because we had had numerous divisions in the lead-up. This motion was actually about the ordering of business at the Senate next time, and I've made the point in the chamber twice today that, when statements are being made on matters on the Notice Paper, they should relate to the motion, not necessarily the substance. This motion was about managing the business of the Senate when we resume in August.
If any senator in the future would like to flag with me an issue that they think is of enough import that they would insist on a four-minute bell, I am very happy to take that in advance. I was not advised in any way in this case that there would be a request for a longer bell, even on the two occasions when I made the point to the chamber that there would be a one-minute bell. But I take the point. I do rely on advice from senators.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
In response, I appreciate that, Mr President. I obviously was not able to be here for all of the divisions leading up to this. I've made the point. It was not simply an ordering of business. It was a substantive motion that brings on a bill which will have a conscience vote for a number of parties and enables debate for three or four days. It was not a minor reordering of the Senate business.
Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I'm not saying it's minor. I put to you, Senator Wong, that it's a substantial reordering of the Senate but it is not a motion dealing with the substance of the bill; it is actually saying that the Senate will, when it resumes, deal with that. Senator Abetz?
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
On a point of order, if I may, Mr President: I understand that there are arrangements in this place for the pairing of senators, and I understand that Senator Penny Wong was officially paired in that division. And it is quite obvious that, in those circumstances, she would have been paired and in the Hansard for the purposes that she wanted, so I don't know what the fuss is about.
Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Abetz, what I'll say about pairing is: that is a matter for the whips; it's not a matter for the order of the Senate. But what I will say is that, if senators, in the future, see something on the Notice Paper they would like a guaranteed opportunity to get here for, I'm very happy to take that, and I will advise the chamber accordingly. Senator Collins?
Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I thank you for your approach to this issue. Indeed, Senator Wong was in part responding to the fact that, indeed, I did have a discussion with our whip about our pairing, and we did not have sufficient time to deal with it.
Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
As I said, I'm in the hands of the chamber. If matters get brought to my attention, I'll respond accordingly to facilitate courtesy to all senators. So senators can think about that at the next Notice Paper tomorrow.