George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a brief personal explanation as I claim to have been misrepresented.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for five minutes.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Collins, for the indulgence. I claim to have been misrepresented by Senator Bob Brown. Yesterday in the debate on the 150th report of the Privileges Committee on whether there was any improper influence in relation to political donations made by Mr Graeme Wood—and in questions without notice asked by Senator Bob Brown and Senator Milne—Senator Brown, in reference to me, said, and I am reading from page 65 of yesterday's proof Hansard:

… Senator Brandis … after two months was forced to recuse himself from this committee …

That is capable, Mr Deputy President, of creating a misleading impression. I am, as you are aware, a member of the Privileges Committee—indeed, a former chairman of the Privileges Committee—and it is a fact that I did recuse myself from that inquiry, a fact that was noted by the chair in presenting the report and is noted in the report itself. It is quite misleading to say either that I was forced to or that I was forced to after two months.

Senator Brown made some observations in a debate in the Senate on Tuesday, 7 February 2012 in which he said words to the effect that, because I had given a parliamentary speech in the chamber in July of last year which dealt with matters that were before the Privileges Committee after Senator Kroger's reference in November of last year, I ought not to participate in the inquiry. That speech by Senator Brown was brought to my attention by Senator Johnston, the chairman of the committee, the following day, Wednesday, 8 February. I thought about the matter overnight and I decided that the point made by Senator Brown was a fair point and that, because I had raised in a parliamentary speech matters which could potentially arise during the course of the inquiry, I ought to take the course of recusing myself. So I wrote to Senator Johnston on 10 February 2012 doing so. In the course of that letter, which I seek leave to table, I said:

Although I stand by what I said in the course of the debate, it is incorrect to say that I have pre-judged the issues which the inquiry is likely to address. Nevertheless, having considered the matter carefully, I have decided to recuse myself.

As you are aware, the law recognizes two categories of case in which a judicial officer or other relevant decision-maker should stand aside from a hearing: where there is actual bias (for instance, where there is a direct conflict of interests) and apprehended bias (where, although there is no actual bias, a reasonable objective observer might conclude that there could be).

Although the Privileges Committee is not, of course, a court or a quasi-judicial tribunal, it is nevertheless of central importance that it both act with neutrality and be seen to so act. For that reason, I consider the legal principles to which I have referred provide useful guidance and should generally be followed in a case such as this.

In view of my contribution to the debate concerning Senator Brown's relationship with Mr Wood and his interests, I have concluded that there is a sufficient basis for the principle of apprehended bias to apply to this case.

It will be obvious from what I have said that the decision to recuse myself was a decision taken entirely of my own volition. The suggestion that I was forced to do so is incorrect.

Senator Brown anticipated in his speech to the Senate on 7 February that the following day he would deliver to the Privileges Committee a letter setting out the grounds why ought to recuse myself. I in fact did not read that letter and have not read it to this day. The principles are well known to me and I applied them to myself.

It is also incorrect to imply, as Senator Bob Brown's remarks do, that there was a reluctance on my part over some two months to recuse myself. It may be the case that two months earlier Senator Brown had made a statement that I ought to recuse myself, but if he did I was unaware of it. Senator Brown may think the world hangs upon his every word, but I do not. I first became aware of Senator Brown's complaint when Senator Johnston drew it to my attention on 8 February following Senator Brown's parliamentary speech on 7 February and, having reflected on the matter overnight, I decided on 9 February—in other words, effectively immediately—under no pressure but of my own volition to apply the appropriate legal principle and to recuse myself, which I think in the circumstances was the proper thing to do.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis, you sought leave to table a document. Is leave granted?

Leave granted.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to have five minutes to respond.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is leave granted?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not at this stage, Mr Deputy President. Does Senator Bob Brown claim to have been misrepresented and require a personal explanation, or does he just want to have a five-minute go in the Senate? If he is just wanting a five-minute go in the Senate, then I would have thought that we should be entitled to know what it is about.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, you have heard the comments of Senator Abetz. Are you still seeking leave to make a statement?

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I am. Let me make it clear to you, Mr Deputy President, that the Senate cannot descend into the situation that Senator Abetz requests, that senators give notice of the content of what they are going to say before they say it. I am simply asking in the wake of Senator Brandis's submission to the Senate that I have an equal opportunity to respond. He has named me—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Brown, you are right. You have sought leave to make a five-minute statement and there should be no condition imposed upon that. It is now up to the Senate whether leave is granted or not. Is leave granted?

Leave not granted.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy President. That is an extraordinary negation of the right of senators to speak when named in this place. I ask you to look at whether that is in order and whether that is a precedent that is going to be followed by this place.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bob Brown, there is no point of order.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I do submit that there is no point of order, but in making that submission, may I say that in the remarks I just made I did not suggest that Senator Brown yesterday deliberately misled the Senate. There is nothing in my statement, which merely charts the chronology or sequence of these events.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Leave was sought and leave has been denied.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

According to contingent orders, Mr Deputy President, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from making a five-minute statement.

I do that because, following on that mechanism being used twice last night, senators ought to know that if they are denied fair response in this place then there are mechanisms to ensure that there will be the opportunity for me or any other senator to make a submission in the wake of another senator. It is important that this motion for the opportunity to debate this matter be upheld by the Senate.

Senator Brandis SC sits on the Committee of Privileges. The matter of Senator Kroger, which was devised by Senator Abetz and brought before this Senate on 23 and 24 November last year, has now been thrown out by the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges. It was found to be baseless, lacking in any substance and containing misinformation which effectively would, if taken up, have misled the Senate. That was Senator Kroger's submission dealt with by the committee of privileges.

But the submission from our legal representatives, Mr Merkel, Ms Gordon and Mr Browne, to the committee of privileges in February at the time Senator Brandis is talking about was that he should be recused from the committee of privileges because, on any matter of judgment which took notice of High Court rulings in the past, Senator Brandis had no place on the committee.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is why I recused myself.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He says that is why he recused himself, but here stands the question of this SC. He had had 2½ months consideration of this matter and he did not recuse himself.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not true.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He had no intention of recusing himself from this committee—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a lie!

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Brandis! You will need to withdraw that comment, Senator Brandis.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw the word 'lie', but it is not the truth to say that I had no intention of recusing myself. As I said in my statement to the Senate—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Brandis! There will be opportunity to debate this in this suspension motion, if you wish.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis breaks the rules, but you have pulled him up quite properly, Deputy President. This fatuous claim by Senator Brandis that it took me to draw his attention to his own tirade against Senator Milne and me—quite false—in the Senate last July, and that we had to draw his attention to his own behaviour in this place before he got off that committee because he had no legal right to be there, is a pointer to what disregard this senator, this SC, holds for the law of this country. He should know the High Court rulings. But for 2½ months he ignored them and, flouting legal practice in this country, kept himself on that committee, having judged Senator Milne and I—falsely, as we now know from the Committee of Privileges—to be guilty of behaviour that never occurred. What a remarkable failure of this legally trained member of the coalition to do the right thing by the law.

There is no doubt he knew that the submission from Mr Ron Merkel QC tore to shreds his right to be on that committee, and he got off it for that reason. He says here he did not know about Senator Brown's complaint or Senator Milne's complaint. He ought to have known because he was the one who misbehaved in the Senate in July last year when he made accusations, falsely, against Senator Milne and I. And let me tell you this, Mr Deputy President: had we not got that legal advice he would have stayed there and we would now be facing an open hearing before the Committee of Privileges. Yet Senator Abetz has the hide to say on radio in Tasmania this morning that this is a 'legal folly'—in other words, he was not serious about this matter, he says, that put two senators before the Committee of Privileges. What a disgrace to the legal profession he is, that he should say such a thing or that he should abuse the Committee of Privileges in this way. What a performance from these two legally trained members of the Senate. They should be ashamed of themselves. (Time expired)

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been advised for as long as I have been in this place never to treat anything that Senator Brown says as being said in good faith, but this is a very shocking example of how true that advice has been. I recused myself from an inquiry concerning serious allegations against him and Senator Christine Milne freely and of my own volition when it was drawn to my attention by Senator David Johnston that Senator Brown had made a complaint in this chamber about my participation. I thought, having reflected on the matter and having reflected on my knowledge of the legal principles, that the complaint was fairly made. That is a fact. And if you can controvert that, Senator Brown—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a farrago!

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

you are welcome to, but you are calling me a liar and I am not a liar. My first awareness—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, on a point of order: I will not allow that to stay on the record. I did not call him a liar. He called me a liar and had to withdraw.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have no point of order, Senator Brown. Senator Brandis, you have the call and I ask you to direct your comments to the chair.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me state it directly for the record, which Senator Brown has asserted falsely to be otherwise. I recused myself from that hearing by a letter written on 10 February after a decision I made on 9 February, having been told the previous day, 8 February, that the day before that, 7 February, Senator Brown had made a complaint in this chamber. That was the first I became aware of Senator Brown's assertion that I ought not to serve on the committee.

The statement that Senator Brown has made that I knew 2½ months before is utterly, utterly, false. The statement that Senator Brown made that I knew about Mr Merkel's letter is utterly, utterly, false. I did not read Mr Merkel's letter, and I have not read it to this day, because I did not need the letter to be able to make the decision I made because I am well acquainted with the legal principles and I applied them in my own case.

The statement that I ought to have excused or recused myself at an earlier time is also utterly false. The committee had not proceeded upon the consideration of the reference and I was unaware of any matters in relation to what Senator Brown had been saying until they were drawn to my attention by Senator David Johnston for the first time on 8 February 2012. As I have said in my personal explanation I recused myself, after reflecting on the matter overnight, effectively at once. Senator Brown's assertion that the situation was otherwise, based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever but that can only be construed as an assertion that I have not been telling the truth to this Senate, is a deep outrage and he ought to withdraw it and be ashamed of himself.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a very interesting speech from Senator Brandis in relation to what evidence there is or there is not. I draw to the attention of the Senate a number of documents. On 22 December 2011 a letter went to the Chair of the Committee of Privileges asking that Senator Brandis recuse himself. Included with it—and I note again the date, 22 December 2011—is the Hansard of the remarks that Senator Brandis made so inappropriately on 6 July 2011.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I had been following this on the TV monitors before I came to the chamber. My understanding is that this is a motion by Senator Brown to set aside standing orders. If that is correct then Senator Milne should not be canvassing the substantive issues but should be telling the Senate why it is essential that standing orders—the standing orders, I might say, that the Greens and the Labor Party have guillotined through this chamber—should be set aside to allow the statement to be made.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, there is a technical point of order, but debate has been allowed in previous times on suspension motions to have a wide-ranging latitude, which other speakers have exercised. Senator Milne, you have the call.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. It goes to a statement by Senator Brandis, a senior counsel. This is not just somebody who does not know the law; this is someone who was appointed a senior counsel in exceptional circumstances in Queensland after he became a senator. This person stood in the Senate and said:

But what makes this a particularly serious case, what makes this case approach the borders of corruption is that we now know that in public speeches both beyond parliament and within the Senate chamber Senator Brown and Senator Milne have sought to advance the commercial interests of that donor …

That is completely untrue and without evidence or substance, as was shown to be the case. Therefore, when this matter was referred to the Privileges Committee, a person who has a senior counsel attached to his name ought to have recused himself at the point of reference because he should have realised that he had already compromised himself, but he did not do so.

As to the next point, the letter went there. It should have happened straight away when the reference was made. The letter was received by the chair of the committee, Senator Johnston. It was sent on 22 December 2011.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Circulated the following February, you fool.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, on a point of order: I ask that Senator Brandis withdraw that comment he shouted. It is unparliamentary.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would be helpful, Senator Brandis, if you withdrew the comment.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The comment I made was: the letter was circulated the following February, you fool. I withdraw the words 'you fool'. The letter was circulated the following February after I had recused myself. It never came into my possession or my notice.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I have a further point of order. It is not in the standing orders to allow an argument like that on a withdrawal of an unparliamentary comment and you should apply the rules.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Brown. The matter has now been resolved.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, the letter was sent on 22 December. The chair of a committee has an obligation to circulate matters of this kind, especially since, as it has been said, matters before the Privileges Committee need to be resolved as a matter of urgency to protect the reputations of people involved. However, apparently, based on what Senator Brandis said, the chair of the committee failed in his duty to the rest of the committee to circulate that letter. However, having said that, the legal advice went to the chair of the committee—and this is important, Senator Macdonald; you listen to the sequence of events—on 8 February.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, on a point of order: I ask for you to have Senator Macdonald desist. He is right next to Senator Milne and he should desist from shouting across the chamber. He might be losing the case, but he should desist from that bad behaviour.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, I remind all senators, including yourself, not to interject and shout across the chamber.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, perhaps you have ruled but, just on the point of order, Senator Milne was quite able to respond to my interjection. She did not need the assistance of a leader like that.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! There is nothing further to the point of order.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to put it on the record, on 8 February legal advice went to the chair of the committee, which he should have circulated to all members of the committee. Senator Brandis, by his own admission, said he was approached by Senator Johnston on 8 February, drawing his attention to the fact that legal advice had been received requesting a recusal.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

May I finish, Mr Deputy President?

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Brandis, it is disorderly to interject. Senator Milne, you have the call.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. As I said, on 8 February that legal advice went to the chair, Senator David Johnston, who then been raised it with Senator Brandis. Senator Brandis is careful to say that he did not read the legal advice. I do not know what Senator Johnston told Senator Brandis about the advice, but it should have been circulated to all members of the committee because that is the chair's responsibility and it was subsequent to that—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, on a point of order: that is a clear inference against the chair of the Privileges Committee and it should be withdrawn by Senator Milne.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, on the point of order: it is nothing of the sort. It is a clear statement of process as seen by Senator Milne and it is part of this debate. Senator Macdonald is quite out of order to try to have you rule that way.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, on the point of order: in fact what I said in my statement to the Senate, as the Hansard will reveal, was that Senator Johnston drew to my attention Senator Brown's speech, not the legal advice. Senator Johnston at no time showed me the legal advice and at no time have I seen it because, by the time it was recirculated, I had asked the secretariat not to circulate any of the papers concerning the reference to me.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! That is not furthering the point of order, Senator Brandis. Just before I call you, Senator Milne, I think you were sailing close to the wind. I remind all senators not refer to other senators in any disparaging manner contrary to the standing orders.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, on 8 February a letter was received by the chair of the Privileges Committee, which gave the legal advice supporting the call made in December asking for Senator Brandis to recuse himself. Subsequent to that, Senator Brandis, on 9 February, did recuse himself. That legal advice had been received by the chair and I note we are still hearing from Senator Macdonald about substantive matters which were proved to be false and he is continuing to prosecute falsities in this Senate.

The facts of the matter are: a request for recusal on 22 December 2011; legal advice on 8 February 2012; Senator Brandis recused himself on 9 February 2012. It is pretty obvious and the real question here is: why weren't matters dealt with in a timely manner and why weren't they circulated to all members of the committee as requested?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let us remember what the actual issue is here. Senator Brandis gave a very restrained, very tight personal explanation. The usual forms of this place are that people give personal explanations to try to de-escalate issues, to give a quick explanation as to where they have been misrepresented. I think nobody could argue that Senator Brandis did it in a very gracious way, even acknowledging that Senator Brown's technical point was, in fact, correct. When Senator Brown wanted to speak, I wanted to know whether Senator Brown had been misrepresented by anything that Senator Brandis had said and that was not forthcoming. Senator Brown just wanted to waste five minutes time of the Senate to argue against what Senator Brandis had said. That is not the normal way we conduct business in the Senate on these matters.

Let us be perfectly clear on this: Senator Brandis was very tight. I think he gave a very good example of what a personal explanation ought to be. But what we have had since is both Senator Brown and Senator Milne using the forms of this Senate to then misrepresent the situation. Indeed, Senator Brandis on points of order indicated that he recused himself from the committee's deliberations before he was aware of the legal opinion.

Senator Brown's very personal, nasty attack on Senator Kroger suggesting that she does not have a mind of her own is the sort of attack that female senators can do without from male senators—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, what I said was that Senator Abetz—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, that is a debating point, Senator Brown. What is your point of order?

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I resent Senator Abetz, of all people—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order either.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have not—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Brandis!

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will you let me put the point of order? I am not going to do it while your colleague is shouting at me.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The chamber is now in order. Your point of order?

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point of order is that I ask you to have Senator Abetz withdraw the assertion that I made some sexist comment. I never have and never will. I ask him to withdraw it.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not believe Senator Abetz has made any comment that needs withdrawing. Senator Abetz, you have the call.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I have stated the facts. Facts are something that Senator Bob Brown has a great deal of difficulty dealing with, as does Senator Milne. As a very quick example: yesterday we were told how the Greens were subjected to a delay in relation to the Privileges Committee hearing: 'We were the ones who were being subjected to defamation, and yet the committee decided to go on holidays and not respond to any of the correspondence until the summer holidays were over.' Let's read the Committee of Privileges report paragraph 1.14: 'By letter dated 23 December 2011, Mr Browne, legal counsel for the Australian Greens, indicated that Senator Brown and Senator Milne would be seeking an extension of time to the reference.' They sought the extension of time, and yet we had senators Brown and Milne deliberately seeking to mislead this Senate in relation to the time delay. Similarly, we had Senator Brown just then asserting that what I had said on radio about the Greens being engaged in a legal frolic of their own was somehow me saying that this reference to the Privileges Committee was just a legal frolic of mine—a complete misrepresentation of the facts, a complete misrepresentation of what has actually occurred.

Back to where all this started: Senator Brandis gave a very proper personal explanation. It was not debating the issues; it was setting out the facts. No evidence has been suggested that anything in that statement is untrue. There is nothing that is suggesting that Senator Brandis has misled the Senate. Therefore, from the coalition point of view, there is no need to suspend standing orders to waste the Senate's time to allow Senator Brown to go yet again on another one of his very nasty personal attacks. We are getting sick of this Leader of the Australian Greens attacking the President of the Senate, attacking the Clerk of the Senate, attacking Senator Kroger, attacking everybody but themselves. They have no-one to blame but themselves for the dilemma that they find themselves in.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was not here for the commencement of this debate, but it clearly has not been one that has been terribly edifying. As I understand, this was brought on because following Senator Brandis's statement Senator Brown sought leave to respond in what has been a highly contested matter and that leave was denied although the Labor government supported the granting of leave—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course you support everything the Greens do!

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, it was for the same reason we supported you being able to speak when you asked last night and, unfortunately due to procedural reasons, were not able to proceed. We have a general proposition that, where people act appropriately, we try to treat them with respect and allow them to make their point within the bounds of managing the chamber more broadly. So we were prepared to give leave. I know this is highly contested space. It seems to me it would have been appropriate for Senator Brown to be given the opportunity to reply to Senator Brandis and then have that be the end of the matter. Clearly that has not occurred. That is unfortunate, but I do think the issues have been aired. I think this will continue to be contested space, but I think the interests of the Senate are best served if we deal with it, and I move that the motion be put.

Question agreed to.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Brown to suspend standing orders be agreed do.