Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise as the Australian Greens Whip to make a contribution to this debate. Let's be really clear about what happened last night first. Senator Rennick came into this chamber and placed on the record that there had been, to use his words, 'confusion over the pairing arrangements' and asked for a vote to be recommitted. Now the government have come in this morning and informed the Senate that they would not be proceeding with any attempt to have that vote recommitted.

This raises significant questions about what Senator Rennick said last night, whether that was in fact accurate, whether there was in fact confusion over the pairing arrangements or whether that was a cover for something else. I want to make something really clear. In the view of the Australian Greens, recommittals are not mulligans. They're not like a second shot you get in golf because you shanked the first one out of play. They are for genuine misadventure where a senator genuinely couldn't make it to the chamber before the bells stopped ringing or when there was genuine confusion over the pairing arrangements. That's what recommittals are for. They're not just some free kick to have a vote recommitted to buy time to put pressure on senators to change their voting position. That's not what recommittals are for.

As we said last night, the Greens have been very happy to consider a recommittal if in fact there was genuine confusion over the pairing arrangements, but that case was not made last night by the government. Simply asserting that there has been confusion over the pairing arrangements is not enough of an argument for the Senate to recommit a vote. For clarity, we would have needed to know, or sought to know, information, including exactly what the confusion was. What was the chain of events that led to this asserted confusion over pairing arrangements? Was Senator Rennick actually paired? If so, how was he paired and how did he communicate his position on that vote and to whom did he communicate his position on that vote? These are questions that not only all senators but the Australian people deserve answers to and not just with regard to the vote that the government last night sought to have recommitted but in fact on all votes that are taken in this Senate.

This episode, along with other recent events, has exposed a genuine weakness in the pairing system in this place, including a lack of transparency and a lack of rigour. This transparency and this rigour are needed not just so that we can all have confidence in the pairing arrangements. This is where we make the laws of the country. Legislation in the current Senate has often passed or failed to pass by a single vote. It goes on to either become law or not to become law as a result. Senator Hanson-Young last night raised the potential for a High Court challenge to laws on the basis they were not made in accordance with the Constitution. These are incredibly serious matters. There is a very strong argument for the pairing arrangements to be considered in detail and at length by a committee—for example, the Procedure Committee.

I thank Senator Wong for placing before the Senate the letters that Senator Urquhart has written, I understand, to Senators Rennick and Antic. The questions that were contained in those letters that Senator Wong has tabled are extremely important questions for those senators to answer. However, it's not just Senators Rennick and Antic that the Australian Greens have concerns about. We also have concerns about the voting positions of all members when they are engaged in the pairing system, as well as how they communicate that position and to whom. We've seen, for example, One Nation vote differently in the past on particular matters that come before the Senate. Our view is that the episodes of last night and this morning have raised significant questions about the robustness and transparency of the pairing system, and our very strong view remains that these matters need to be considered very carefully and at length because they are incredibly serious issues. It is the view of the Greens that the Procedure Committee would be the correct place for that to occur. There may be some further discussion about that this morning. If not, I simply inform the Senate that the Greens will take under consideration a referral to the Privileges Committee on these issues.