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

I will take that issue up. The position outlined was that—and it is complex, but I will go through it—if we got to the end of the second reading debate before 6.50 pm, we could conclude that debate then. If it went after 6.50 pm, we could conclude it after that time. The point of the division was the conclusion of the second reading debate. If the division occurred and there was time remaining after 6.50 pm, we would go on to the higher education bill.

We often arrange across the chamber to use government document time for government business. What happened is that we went to a vote. After the vote, we discovered that there was a supervening event and that what was expected to happen did not happen. At that point the agreement was not breached. We agreed to do exactly what we did. What has now happened is that there was a supervening event—that is, the coalition, through Senator Boyce, did not manage to ensure that their will, and in fact the will of the Senate, be reflected. Given that event, the second supervening event should be that we recommit the vote as per the normal procedures, unfortunate though that might be.

What I suggest is that it is more sensible to deal with this on the morrow, given the hour and because of the circumstances that have occurred this evening. There is no breach of our agreement—a supervening event has occurred. What I now suggest as the more sensible and practical approach to take is that we allow the Senate to express its will tomorrow in respect of this vote. That is the more sensible thing to do to ensure that we truly reflect the Senate’s will, given the hour that we now find ourselves in.

It is a simple position that should be adopted, it is the normal course of events that would have been adopted and it ensures that we do not end up in the same position again—that is, having another vote that is not reflective of the Senate because of other events that transpire. For instance, I do not know whether the Independents, the Greens, other coalition senators or our own senators are in the building and are aware of what is going on this evening.

I grant that the circumstances are unusual. If the opposition had had all of its senators turn up, the matter would have been proceeded with and we would have been able to go on to higher ed until 7.20 pm and then have the adjournment debate. But there was, as I have said, a supervening event. That supervening event warranted leave to be granted for the person to provide a personal explanation. We have now all heard that personal explanation, we understand the position and it is now sensible to take the next course of action, which is to wait for the matter to be dealt with tomorrow.