Steve Fielding Victoria, Family First Party
3:02 pm
I seek leave to make a brief personal explanation as I claim to have been misrepresented.
Leave granted.
In today’s Age newspaper, Senator Stott Despoja is quoted in relation to her David Hicks motion from yesterday as saying:
We could have won it. It was lost 32 to 34. If Fielding had voted with us, it would have been a tied vote.
That implies Family First’s vote was the deciding vote, and that is wrong. Even if Family First had voted for the motion, it would still have been defeated. Under section 23 of the Constitution a tied vote in the Senate is resolved in the negative. Senator Stott Despoja knows this very well. She also complains that Family First should have supported her motion because Family First has publicly called for David Hicks to be immediately brought home.
Bob Brown Tasmania, Australian Greens
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I do not note any personal explanation or misrepresentation at all. The senator is talking about a vote in the Senate and another senator’s comment on that, and the proper time and place to do that is not now.
Paul Calvert President
He has been granted leave to make an explanation, and I would remind Senator Fielding that that is exactly what he should be doing.
Steve Fielding Victoria, Family First Party
Yes, it is very short. For the record, Family First has supported a total of nine motions for a fair trial of David Hicks or his return to Australia.
Bob Brown Tasmania, Australian Greens
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The senator is trying to defend the indefensible, a failure of his actions regarding—
Paul Calvert President
There is no point of order. Resume your seat. That is not a point of order, Senator, and you know it is not.
Steve Fielding Victoria, Family First Party
The reason we did not support this one was that Senator Stott Despoja’s motion dismisses the US military commission process as a sham. Family First has concerns about the process—
John Faulkner NSW, Australian Labor Party
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. This now cannot be considered in any way, shape or form a personal explanation. I am always of the view that leave should be given at the appropriate time, even though I do not think after question time is the appropriate time. It should be after taking note. That is the general practice of this chamber. I take the point of order—and I do not like doing so in relation to personal explanations—because this has gone well past a personal explanation and is now debating an issue. Senator Fielding is entitled to debate an issue but not under the guise of a personal explanation.
Paul Calvert President
Senator Fielding, do you have any more to add to your explanation?
Steve Fielding Victoria, Family First Party
One line: Family First has concerns about the process but does not agree it is a sham.
Bob Brown Tasmania, Australian Greens
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The last time I sought to make a personal explanation in here, you directed that I wait until after taking note. We cannot have two standards in here.
John Faulkner NSW, Australian Labor Party
You shouldn’t have given leave. We all gave leave, but you could have stopped that.
Paul Calvert President
Order! Senator Brown is making a point of order. What is the point of order, Senator Brown?
Bob Brown Tasmania, Australian Greens
If, Mr President, your ruling is that the personal explanation can take place now if the Senate gives leave, let us make a standard of that so everybody knows it is an even playing field.
Paul Calvert President
Senator Fielding stood to seek leave and leave was granted. There is no point of order.
Natasha Stott Despoja SA, Australian Democrats
3:06 pm
I seek leave to make a five-second statement.
Leave granted.
My comment was taken slightly out of context. I know that a tied vote is a lost vote. My other comments still stand, however.