|
senate vote 2011-11-22#4
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:20:43
|
Title
Description
<p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>On a point of order, Mr Deputy President. I raised some questions in the debate which related to Senator Ludwig. He is trying to answer them. I move:</p><p><i>That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Ludwig) responding to questions raised during the debate by Senator Macdonald.</i></p><p>Question put.</p><p>The Senate divided [21:46]</p><p>(The Deputy President-Senator Parry)</p><p>Question negatived.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>The question now is that the bill be read a second time.</p><p>The Senate divided. [21:50]</p><p>(The Deputy President-Senator Parry)</p><p>Question agreed to.</p><p>Bill read a second time.</p><p>The question now is that amendments (1) to (6) on sheet BT208 circulated by the government be agreed to.</p><p> <i>Government's circulated amendments</i> <i></i></p><p><i>(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:</i></p><p><i>[commencement of Schedule 1]</i></p><p><i>(2) Schedule 1, item 17, page 7 (line 2), omit "If there is any inconsistency in", substitute "In".</i></p><p><i>[primary considerations]</i></p><p><i>(3) Schedule 1, item 19, page 7 (lines 18 and 19), omit paragraph 60CC (3)(k), substitute:</i></p><p><i> (k) if a family violence order applies, or has applied, to the child or a member of the child's family-any relevant inferences that can be drawn from the order, taking into account the following:</i></p><p><i> (i) the nature of the order;</i></p><p><i> (ii) the circumstances in which the order was made;</i></p><p><i> (iii) any evidence admitted in proceedings for the order;</i></p><p><i> (iv) any findings made by the court in, or in proceedings for, the order;</i></p><p><i> (v) any other relevant matter;</i></p><p><i>(4) Schedule 1, item 22, page 9 (line 21), omit "if there is any inconsistency".</i></p><p><i>(5) Schedule 1, item 45, page 15 (line 9), omit "Subject to item 47, the", substitute "The".</i></p><p><i>(6) Schedule 1, item 45, page 15 (line 11), omit "whether instituted before,", substitute "instituted".</i></p><p>Question agreed to.</p><p>The question now is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 7150 circulated by the Australian Greens be agreed to.</p><p> <i>Greens</i> <i>'</i> <i> circulated amendments-</i></p><p><i>(1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 5 (after line 4), at the end of subsection 4AB(2), add:</i></p><p><i> ; or (k) an act or omission by a person engaging in the behaviour mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (j) that causes a child to be exposed to the effects of the behaviour mentioned in those paragraphs.</i></p><p><i>(2) Schedule 2, page 21 (before line 1), before item 15, insert:</i></p><p><i>14A Subsection 61C(1) (note 2)</i></p><p><i>Repeal the note.</i></p><p><i>14B Section 61DA</i></p><p><i>Repeal the section.</i></p><p><i>14C Section 61DB (heading)</i></p><p><i>Repeal the heading, substitute:</i></p><p><i>61DB Allocation of parental responsibility after interim parenting order made</i></p><p><i>(3) Schedule 2, page 21 (after line 17), after item 17, insert:</i></p><p><i>17A Subsection 65D(1)</i></p><p><i>Omit "sections 61DA (presumption of equal shared parental responsibility when making parenting orders) and", substitute "section".</i></p><p><i>17B Subsection 65D(2)</i></p><p><i>Omit "61DA (presumption of equal shared parental responsibility when making parenting orders) and".</i></p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>Mr Deputy President, I have a point of order. I ask how under the standing orders we can possibly vote on this when I have not heard the Greens move the amendment and explain what the amendment is. I may well want to vote for it but I have had no opportunity to hear the debate. I simply ask how could we possibly have-</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Order! Senator Macdonald, resume your seat.</p><p><i>Honourable senators interjecting-</i></p><p>Order! Senator Conroy and those on my left. Senator Macdonald, you have the call and you are raising a point of order.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>I was raising the point of order that we are being asked to vote on some amendments moved by the Greens. I have not heard the Greens move the amendments. I do not know what the arguments are. I fancy that I may want to vote for them but I have not heard them debated. How can I possibly vote for an amendment that I have not heard debated.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>There is no point of order. A resolution of the Senate was passed yesterday to orchestrate the facility of the bills to be put as they are currently being put. The question now is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 7150 circulated by the Australian Greens be agreed to.</p><p>Question negatived.</p><p>The question now is that items (2), (3), (6), (8), (18), (20), (26) and (27), (40) and (43) of schedule 1 stand as printed.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p><p>The question now is that amendment (11) on sheet 7149 circulated by the opposition be agreed to.</p><p> <i>Opposition</i> <i>'s</i> <i> circulated amendment-</i></p><p><i>(11) Schedule 1, item 45, page 15 (lines 9 and 10), omit "items 1 to 8, 11, 13, 17 to 21, 30 to 34, 37, 38 and 40 to 43", substitute "items 1, 4, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 21, 30 to 34, 37, 38, 41 and 42".</i></p><p>The question is agreed to.</p><p><i>Honourable senators interjecting-</i></p> <p class="speaker">Joe Ludwig</p><p>A division is required.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>I will go back to the previous question. A division is required. Ring the bells for one minute.</p><p><i>An opposition senator: This is a farce.</i></p> <p class="speaker">George Brandis</p><p>I have a point of order, Mr Deputy President. You have called this vote for the ayes. You asked whether a division was required. There was no voice for the noes calling for a division.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p><p>Yes, there was.</p> <p class="speaker">George Brandis</p><p>No, there was not. You then moved on. If the government, who have obviously not been following the process tonight, have made a mistake and they wish the matter to be recommitted there is a manner of doing that. But the manner of doing that is not to shout down the Presiding Officer, as government senators have been attempting to do. If they want to recommit the division they should get up and explain themselves.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Thank you, Senator Brandis. There was a lot of noise in the chamber. Government senators as well as opposition senators have been making a lot of noise during all of the divisions and the reading out of what the divisions are. I am happy to give the government the benefit of the doubt and allow them to call the division because of the noes that they have called. A division has been called for; the bells are going to be rung for one minute. Clerk, have the bells been rung for one minute? No? Ring the bells for one minute.</p><p>The question is that amendment (11) on sheet 7149 moved by the opposition be agreed to.</p><p>The Senate divided. [21:59]</p><p>(The Deputy President-Senator Parry)</p><p>Question negatived.</p><p><i> <i>In division-</i> </i></p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order on a very serious matter of etiquette in this chamber. There are two Labor senators sitting where I normally sit. They happen to be looking through my papers.</p><p><i>Government senators interjecting-</i></p><p>Mr Deputy President, this is a very, very serious matter. When we move sides in this chamber you expect that you can leave your papers on your desk and not have them looked at by members of the other party. I would ask that the matter of Senator Collins looking through my papers actually be-</p><p><i>Honourable senators interjecting-</i></p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>Put it on the record!</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Order! Senator Macdonald has the call, in an unusual circumstance, being out of his seat. Senator Macdonald.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>I only paused then because Senator Collins was shouting at one of my colleagues. But I do raise this as a very serious matter of privilege that someone who is sitting in my seat because we have changed sides is actually looking through my papers that I left on my desk about the speeches I am going to make on the next four bills that are scheduled to be dealt with by this chamber tonight. I am very serious about senators from other parties looking through the papers of senators from the other party when they sit in their seats because of changing sides in divisions. I think I should ask that this matter actually be referred to the Privileges Committee.</p> <p class="speaker">Kate Lundy</p><p>Mr Deputy President, on the point of order there is absolutely no basis to the complaint that Senator Macdonald has made. I am sitting next to Senator Collins, and it is utterly false.</p><p><i>Opposition senators interjecting-</i></p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Senators on my right, order! Senator Macdonald, in relation to your point of order, I say two things. I remind all senators that the courtesy and the conduct of this Senate over numerous years is that you do observe that protocol of not reading material on desks when divisions are in progress. That is the first matter. The second matter, Senator Macdonald, is I will discuss with the President your cause and if further action needs to be taken the President can make that decision and come back to the Senate.</p> - Ian Macdonald
- On a point of order, Mr Deputy President. I raised some questions in the debate which related to Senator Ludwig. He is trying to answer them. I move:
- _That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Ludwig) responding to questions raised during the debate by Senator Macdonald._
- Question put.
- The Senate divided [21:46]
- (The Deputy President-Senator Parry)
- Question negatived.
- Stephen Parry
- The question now is that the bill be read a second time.
- The Senate divided. [21:50]
- (The Deputy President-Senator Parry)
- Question agreed to.
- Bill read a second time.
- The question now is that amendments (1) to (6) on sheet BT208 circulated by the government be agreed to.
- _Government's circulated amendments_
- _(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:_
- _[commencement of Schedule 1]_
- _(2) Schedule 1, item 17, page 7 (line 2), omit "If there is any inconsistency in", substitute "In"._
- _[primary considerations]_
- _(3) Schedule 1, item 19, page 7 (lines 18 and 19), omit paragraph 60CC (3)(k), substitute:_
- _ (k) if a family violence order applies, or has applied, to the child or a member of the child's family-any relevant inferences that can be drawn from the order, taking into account the following:_
- _ (i) the nature of the order;_
- _ (ii) the circumstances in which the order was made;_
- _ (iii) any evidence admitted in proceedings for the order;_
- _ (iv) any findings made by the court in, or in proceedings for, the order;_
- _ (v) any other relevant matter;_
- _(4) Schedule 1, item 22, page 9 (line 21), omit "if there is any inconsistency"._
- _(5) Schedule 1, item 45, page 15 (line 9), omit "Subject to item 47, the", substitute "The"._
- _(6) Schedule 1, item 45, page 15 (line 11), omit "whether instituted before,", substitute "instituted"._
- Question agreed to.
- The question now is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 7150 circulated by the Australian Greens be agreed to.
- _Greens_ _'_ _ circulated amendments-_
- _(1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 5 (after line 4), at the end of subsection 4AB(2), add:_
- _ ; or (k) an act or omission by a person engaging in the behaviour mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (j) that causes a child to be exposed to the effects of the behaviour mentioned in those paragraphs._
- _(2) Schedule 2, page 21 (before line 1), before item 15, insert:_
- _14A Subsection 61C(1) (note 2)_
- _Repeal the note._
- _14B Section 61DA_
- _Repeal the section._
- _14C Section 61DB (heading)_
- _Repeal the heading, substitute:_
- _61DB Allocation of parental responsibility after interim parenting order made_
- _(3) Schedule 2, page 21 (after line 17), after item 17, insert:_
- _17A Subsection 65D(1)_
- _Omit "sections 61DA (presumption of equal shared parental responsibility when making parenting orders) and", substitute "section"._
- _17B Subsection 65D(2)_
- _Omit "61DA (presumption of equal shared parental responsibility when making parenting orders) and"._
- Ian Macdonald
- Mr Deputy President, I have a point of order. I ask how under the standing orders we can possibly vote on this when I have not heard the Greens move the amendment and explain what the amendment is. I may well want to vote for it but I have had no opportunity to hear the debate. I simply ask how could we possibly have-
- Stephen Parry
- Order! Senator Macdonald, resume your seat.
- _Honourable senators interjecting-_
- Order! Senator Conroy and those on my left. Senator Macdonald, you have the call and you are raising a point of order.
- Ian Macdonald
- I was raising the point of order that we are being asked to vote on some amendments moved by the Greens. I have not heard the Greens move the amendments. I do not know what the arguments are. I fancy that I may want to vote for them but I have not heard them debated. How can I possibly vote for an amendment that I have not heard debated.
- Stephen Parry
- There is no point of order. A resolution of the Senate was passed yesterday to orchestrate the facility of the bills to be put as they are currently being put. The question now is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 7150 circulated by the Australian Greens be agreed to.
- Question negatived.
- The question now is that items (2), (3), (6), (8), (18), (20), (26) and (27), (40) and (43) of schedule 1 stand as printed.
- Question agreed to.
- The question now is that amendment (11) on sheet 7149 circulated by the opposition be agreed to.
- _Opposition_ _'s_ _ circulated amendment-_
- _(11) Schedule 1, item 45, page 15 (lines 9 and 10), omit "items 1 to 8, 11, 13, 17 to 21, 30 to 34, 37, 38 and 40 to 43", substitute "items 1, 4, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 21, 30 to 34, 37, 38, 41 and 42"._
- The question is agreed to.
- _Honourable senators interjecting-_
- Joe Ludwig
- A division is required.
- Stephen Parry
- I will go back to the previous question. A division is required. Ring the bells for one minute.
- _An opposition senator: This is a farce._
- George Brandis
- I have a point of order, Mr Deputy President. You have called this vote for the ayes. You asked whether a division was required. There was no voice for the noes calling for a division.
- Stephen Conroy
- Yes, there was.
- George Brandis
- No, there was not. You then moved on. If the government, who have obviously not been following the process tonight, have made a mistake and they wish the matter to be recommitted there is a manner of doing that. But the manner of doing that is not to shout down the Presiding Officer, as government senators have been attempting to do. If they want to recommit the division they should get up and explain themselves.
- Stephen Parry
- Thank you, Senator Brandis. There was a lot of noise in the chamber. Government senators as well as opposition senators have been making a lot of noise during all of the divisions and the reading out of what the divisions are. I am happy to give the government the benefit of the doubt and allow them to call the division because of the noes that they have called. A division has been called for; the bells are going to be rung for one minute. Clerk, have the bells been rung for one minute? No? Ring the bells for one minute.
- The question is that amendment (11) on sheet 7149 moved by the opposition be agreed to.
- The Senate divided. [21:59]
- (The Deputy President-Senator Parry)
- Question negatived.
- _ _In division-_ _
- Ian Macdonald
- Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order on a very serious matter of etiquette in this chamber. There are two Labor senators sitting where I normally sit. They happen to be looking through my papers.
- _Government senators interjecting-_
- Mr Deputy President, this is a very, very serious matter. When we move sides in this chamber you expect that you can leave your papers on your desk and not have them looked at by members of the other party. I would ask that the matter of Senator Collins looking through my papers actually be-
- _Honourable senators interjecting-_
- Jacinta Collins
- Put it on the record!
- Stephen Parry
- Order! Senator Macdonald has the call, in an unusual circumstance, being out of his seat. Senator Macdonald.
- Ian Macdonald
- I only paused then because Senator Collins was shouting at one of my colleagues. But I do raise this as a very serious matter of privilege that someone who is sitting in my seat because we have changed sides is actually looking through my papers that I left on my desk about the speeches I am going to make on the next four bills that are scheduled to be dealt with by this chamber tonight. I am very serious about senators from other parties looking through the papers of senators from the other party when they sit in their seats because of changing sides in divisions. I think I should ask that this matter actually be referred to the Privileges Committee.
- Kate Lundy
- Mr Deputy President, on the point of order there is absolutely no basis to the complaint that Senator Macdonald has made. I am sitting next to Senator Collins, and it is utterly false.
- _Opposition senators interjecting-_
- Stephen Parry
- Senators on my right, order! Senator Macdonald, in relation to your point of order, I say two things. I remind all senators that the courtesy and the conduct of this Senate over numerous years is that you do observe that protocol of not reading material on desks when divisions are in progress. That is the first matter. The second matter, Senator Macdonald, is I will discuss with the President your cause and if further action needs to be taken the President can make that decision and come back to the Senate.
|
|
senate vote 2011-11-22#4
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-01-24 12:27:13
|
Title
Description
<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>- <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p>
- <p>On a point of order, Mr Deputy President. I raised some questions in the debate which related to Senator Ludwig. He is trying to answer them. I move:</p>
- <p><i>That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Ludwig) responding to questions raised during the debate by Senator Macdonald.</i></p>
- <p>Question put.</p>
- <p>The Senate divided [21:46]</p>
- <p>(The Deputy President-Senator Parry)</p>
- <p>Question negatived.</p>
- <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p>
- <p>The question now is that the bill be read a second time.</p>
- <p>The Senate divided. [21:50]</p>
- <p>(The Deputy President-Senator Parry)</p>
- <p>Question agreed to.</p>
- <p>Bill read a second time.</p>
- <p>The question now is that amendments (1) to (6) on sheet BT208 circulated by the government be agreed to.</p>
- <p> <i>Government's circulated amendments</i> <i></i></p>
- <p><i>(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:</i></p>
- <p><i>[commencement of Schedule 1]</i></p>
- <p><i>(2) Schedule 1, item 17, page 7 (line 2), omit "If there is any inconsistency in", substitute "In".</i></p>
- <p><i>[primary considerations]</i></p>
- <p><i>(3) Schedule 1, item 19, page 7 (lines 18 and 19), omit paragraph 60CC (3)(k), substitute:</i></p>
- <p><i> (k) if a family violence order applies, or has applied, to the child or a member of the child's family-any relevant inferences that can be drawn from the order, taking into account the following:</i></p>
- <p><i> (i) the nature of the order;</i></p>
- <p><i> (ii) the circumstances in which the order was made;</i></p>
- <p><i> (iii) any evidence admitted in proceedings for the order;</i></p>
- <p><i> (iv) any findings made by the court in, or in proceedings for, the order;</i></p>
- <p><i> (v) any other relevant matter;</i></p>
- <p><i>(4) Schedule 1, item 22, page 9 (line 21), omit "if there is any inconsistency".</i></p>
- <p><i>(5) Schedule 1, item 45, page 15 (line 9), omit "Subject to item 47, the", substitute "The".</i></p>
- <p><i>(6) Schedule 1, item 45, page 15 (line 11), omit "whether instituted before,", substitute "instituted".</i></p>
- <p>Question agreed to.</p>
- <p>The question now is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 7150 circulated by the Australian Greens be agreed to.</p>
- <p> <i>Greens</i> <i>'</i> <i> circulated amendments-</i></p>
- <p><i>(1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 5 (after line 4), at the end of subsection 4AB(2), add:</i></p>
- <p><i> ; or (k) an act or omission by a person engaging in the behaviour mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (j) that causes a child to be exposed to the effects of the behaviour mentioned in those paragraphs.</i></p>
- <p><i>(2) Schedule 2, page 21 (before line 1), before item 15, insert:</i></p>
- <p><i>14A Subsection 61C(1) (note 2)</i></p>
- <p><i>Repeal the note.</i></p>
- <p><i>14B Section 61DA</i></p>
- <p><i>Repeal the section.</i></p>
- <p><i>14C Section 61DB (heading)</i></p>
- <p><i>Repeal the heading, substitute:</i></p>
- <p><i>61DB Allocation of parental responsibility after interim parenting order made</i></p>
- <p><i>(3) Schedule 2, page 21 (after line 17), after item 17, insert:</i></p>
- <p><i>17A Subsection 65D(1)</i></p>
- <p><i>Omit "sections 61DA (presumption of equal shared parental responsibility when making parenting orders) and", substitute "section".</i></p>
- <p><i>17B Subsection 65D(2)</i></p>
- <p><i>Omit "61DA (presumption of equal shared parental responsibility when making parenting orders) and".</i></p>
- <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p>
- <p>Mr Deputy President, I have a point of order. I ask how under the standing orders we can possibly vote on this when I have not heard the Greens move the amendment and explain what the amendment is. I may well want to vote for it but I have had no opportunity to hear the debate. I simply ask how could we possibly have-</p>
- <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p>
- <p>Order! Senator Macdonald, resume your seat.</p>
- <p><i>Honourable senators interjecting-</i></p>
- <p>Order! Senator Conroy and those on my left. Senator Macdonald, you have the call and you are raising a point of order.</p>
- <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p>
- <p>I was raising the point of order that we are being asked to vote on some amendments moved by the Greens. I have not heard the Greens move the amendments. I do not know what the arguments are. I fancy that I may want to vote for them but I have not heard them debated. How can I possibly vote for an amendment that I have not heard debated.</p>
- <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p>
- <p>There is no point of order. A resolution of the Senate was passed yesterday to orchestrate the facility of the bills to be put as they are currently being put. The question now is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 7150 circulated by the Australian Greens be agreed to.</p>
- <p>Question negatived.</p>
- <p>The question now is that items (2), (3), (6), (8), (18), (20), (26) and (27), (40) and (43) of schedule 1 stand as printed.</p>
- <p>Question agreed to.</p>
- <p>The question now is that amendment (11) on sheet 7149 circulated by the opposition be agreed to.</p>
- <p> <i>Opposition</i> <i>'s</i> <i> circulated amendment-</i></p>
- <p><i>(11) Schedule 1, item 45, page 15 (lines 9 and 10), omit "items 1 to 8, 11, 13, 17 to 21, 30 to 34, 37, 38 and 40 to 43", substitute "items 1, 4, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 21, 30 to 34, 37, 38, 41 and 42".</i></p>
- <p>The question is agreed to.</p>
- <p><i>Honourable senators interjecting-</i></p>
- <p class="speaker">Joe Ludwig</p>
- <p>A division is required.</p>
- <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p>
- <p>I will go back to the previous question. A division is required. Ring the bells for one minute.</p>
- <p><i>An opposition senator: This is a farce.</i></p>
- <p class="speaker">George Brandis</p>
- <p>I have a point of order, Mr Deputy President. You have called this vote for the ayes. You asked whether a division was required. There was no voice for the noes calling for a division.</p>
- <p class="speaker">Stephen Conroy</p>
- <p>Yes, there was.</p>
- <p class="speaker">George Brandis</p>
- <p>No, there was not. You then moved on. If the government, who have obviously not been following the process tonight, have made a mistake and they wish the matter to be recommitted there is a manner of doing that. But the manner of doing that is not to shout down the Presiding Officer, as government senators have been attempting to do. If they want to recommit the division they should get up and explain themselves.</p>
- <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p>
- <p>Thank you, Senator Brandis. There was a lot of noise in the chamber. Government senators as well as opposition senators have been making a lot of noise during all of the divisions and the reading out of what the divisions are. I am happy to give the government the benefit of the doubt and allow them to call the division because of the noes that they have called. A division has been called for; the bells are going to be rung for one minute. Clerk, have the bells been rung for one minute? No? Ring the bells for one minute.</p>
- <p>The question is that amendment (11) on sheet 7149 moved by the opposition be agreed to.</p>
- <p>The Senate divided. [21:59]</p>
- <p>(The Deputy President-Senator Parry)</p>
- <p>Question negatived.</p>
- <p><i> <i>In division-</i> </i></p>
- <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p>
- <p>Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order on a very serious matter of etiquette in this chamber. There are two Labor senators sitting where I normally sit. They happen to be looking through my papers.</p>
- <p><i>Government senators interjecting-</i></p>
- <p>Mr Deputy President, this is a very, very serious matter. When we move sides in this chamber you expect that you can leave your papers on your desk and not have them looked at by members of the other party. I would ask that the matter of Senator Collins looking through my papers actually be-</p>
- <p><i>Honourable senators interjecting-</i></p>
- <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p>
- <p>Put it on the record!</p>
- <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p>
- <p>Order! Senator Macdonald has the call, in an unusual circumstance, being out of his seat. Senator Macdonald.</p>
- <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p>
- <p>I only paused then because Senator Collins was shouting at one of my colleagues. But I do raise this as a very serious matter of privilege that someone who is sitting in my seat because we have changed sides is actually looking through my papers that I left on my desk about the speeches I am going to make on the next four bills that are scheduled to be dealt with by this chamber tonight. I am very serious about senators from other parties looking through the papers of senators from the other party when they sit in their seats because of changing sides in divisions. I think I should ask that this matter actually be referred to the Privileges Committee.</p>
- <p class="speaker">Kate Lundy</p>
- <p>Mr Deputy President, on the point of order there is absolutely no basis to the complaint that Senator Macdonald has made. I am sitting next to Senator Collins, and it is utterly false.</p>
- <p><i>Opposition senators interjecting-</i></p>
- <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p>
- <p>Senators on my right, order! Senator Macdonald, in relation to your point of order, I say two things. I remind all senators that the courtesy and the conduct of this Senate over numerous years is that you do observe that protocol of not reading material on desks when divisions are in progress. That is the first matter. The second matter, Senator Macdonald, is I will discuss with the President your cause and if further action needs to be taken the President can make that decision and come back to the Senate.</p>
-
|