Senator O'BRIEN (3:16 PM) —I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Senator Alston), no later than immediately after question time on 28 May 1998, answers to questions on notice Nos 1118 and 1129 relating to waterfront reform.

Senator Hill —Madam President, I raise a point of order. According to standing orders—and I might be in error—I am not sure that that is an allowable motion. I know that he can move to take note of the minister's answer that was given, but can he move another motion without having leave for it to be moved?

The PRESIDENT —I do not think he moved to take note of the answer. He moved a motion, and he is entitled to do that. There have been precedents for it.

Senator Hill —Under the standing orders, does the motion not have to be to take note of the minister's explanation, which gives him the opportunity to make his comments on that? Surely he is not allowed to move a motion about anything he likes.

The PRESIDENT —I will read the relevant paragraph (c), which states:

in the event that the minister does not provide an explanation, the senator may, without notice, move a motion with regard to the minister's failure to provide either an answer or an explanation.

The senator did that.

Senator Hill —With respect, Madam President, I suggest that was not what he moved at all. He did not move a motion in relation to the failure to give an explanation. He moved an entirely different motion, which was that certain documents be tabled within a certain time. I would suggest that is not covered by this provision of the standing orders. On the basis of that interpretation, if it were correct, he could basically move a motion about anything he liked. That is clearly not the intention of this particular provision.

The PRESIDENT —There is plenty of precedent for a motion of that kind having been asked in relation to the minister's failure to give an explanation.

Senator Alston —Madam President, I raise a point of order. I did provide an explanation. It may be one that Senator O'Brien regards as less than ideal, but that is not the point. If I had not provided any explanation, he may have been in a position—

Senator Schacht —That is not an explanation.

Senator Alston —My explanation was that I understand the matter is still under active consideration, and I will report back to the Senate after I have had discussions with the minister. I have not received any instructions from him, so I am not able to advise Senator O'Brien on the run about the current state of play, but I did indicate that I would take the matter further.

The PRESIDENT —Senator Alston, when you got to your feet I understood you to say that you had no information on the matter.

Senator Alston —You must judge the answer from the substance of it. I do not recall using that precise form of words but I certainly indicated that I did not have any personal knowledge of the matter. That was what I was conveying, not that I had no explanation in terms of the motion.

Senator Conroy —So you have no explanation.

Senator Alston —I had no knowledge that the matter was going to be raised until Senator Evans said to me, `You might like to hang around the chamber because Senator O'Brien is about to get to his feet and give you a mention.' Apart from that, I had no knowledge at all of the substance of the matter. I therefore made that plain when I rose, that I was effectively taken by surprise. I went on to say that I did not have instructions from Mr Reith, that I understood the matter to be under active consideration and I would come back to the Senate if there was anything further that Mr Reith was able to add.

All of that amounts to an explanation, albeit it one that Senator O'Brien might regard as less than satisfactory, but that is not the point. The standing order does not talk in terms of providing a less than satisfactory explanation. It says `no explanation at all'. You have to construe what I said in terms of whether it constitutes any form of explanation. If there is no answer, if I got up and said that I have nothing to say, there is no explanation. If I explain where the matter is at the present time, I have provided an explanation.

Senator Cook —No, you haven't.

Senator Alston —There can be no doubting that.

Senator Faulkner —Madam President, on the same point of order: can I draw your attention—

Senator Hill —We've all got it now.

Senator Faulkner —That is good. If you have it, you would be withdrawing your point of order.

The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Faulkner, you should be addressing me.

Senator Faulkner —Indeed, Madam President. If I could draw your attention to the same standing order, standing order 74(5), it states:

If a minister does not answer a question on notice asked by a senator within 30 days of the asking of that question, and does not, within that period, provide to the senator who asked the question an explanation satisfactory to that senator of why an answer has not yet been provided—

and then three courses of action in (a), (b) and (c) are listed.

Senator Hill —We can all read.

Senator Faulkner —Indeed. Quite clearly, Madam President, we have a situation where in this particular case Senator Alston, as the minister representing the minister in this chamber, has neither answered the question nor provided a satisfactory explanation nor provided an explanation satisfactory to that senator. Obviously it is competent for Senator O'Brien in those circumstances to move a motion in the form that he has moved.

I would also suggest to you, Madam President, that this has been a course of action that has been undertaken on very many occasions—perhaps not in the life of the current parliament, but certainly on quite a number of occasions I can recall during the life of previous Labor administrations. It might even have been a device or a parliamentary procedure used by Senator Alston on occasions. Certainly a number of his colleagues did precisely the same thing. I suggest to you, Madam President, it is quite in order.

The PRESIDENT —On my understanding of the standing order and the precedents which I have had a brief opportunity to look at relating to the occasions on which similar procedure has been used—first by Senator Macklin on 23 November 1988; and even on one occasion I think a censure motion was moved at a similar stage in proceedings when a senator did not get an answer to a question—I would rule the motion in order.

Senator Alston —Madam President, can I ask for—

Senator Faulkner —Move dissent if you don't like it, but get on with it.

Senator Alston —I am asking for an explanation. Madam President, on the point of order, are you ruling that I have not provided an explanation? Bear in mind that Senator Faulkner interprets this and has submitted to you that I have not provided a satisfactory explanation. There is the world of difference. You are being asked to rule on part (c) of that standing order which, on the plain face of it—

The PRESIDENT —My understanding of it and what has happened in the past is that the answer you gave is not an answer to the question and has been ruled so in the past. I am happy to defer this and look at it in more detail, but my ruling is that it is in order.

Senator Alston —Could I ask that you do? Could I just put one other matter, which is effectively a point of priority?

Opposition senator —There is no such thing.

Senator Alston —I know that you do not understand the meaning of the word, but I might be able to help you. Madam President, I simply would elaborate a separate point which I think is important in the context of whether you make a decision now or later.

As I have been advised just recently by a member of my office, Senator O'Brien's office have, indeed, been in contact with my office on a number of occasions asking for, effectively, a progress report and, as I am advised, have also indicated that they would not attempt to bring the matter on or move any motions without giving warning on the matter. No warning has been given to me, and that may well be because I was not in the building until about 1—

Opposition senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator, it is quite clear to me from everything that I have—

Senator Alston —Madam President, could I just complete that submission?

The PRESIDENT —Yes.

Senator Alston —Therefore, given that Senator O'Brien himself has indicated, through his office to my office, that he would not bring the matter on without warning, it would seem to me only fair that you should take further time to consider whether the precedents—

Senator O'Brien —I've been chasing your office for weeks.

Senator Alston —effectively establish the proposition that saying that the matter is under review constitutes no explanation. That is what you are effectively ruling if you decide that what I have given is no explanation at all.

The PRESIDENT —That has been exactly the approach in the past and certainly was done by Senator Ellison on 19 May 1995. I am satisfied that what has been done is consistent with the standing orders and what has happened previously.

Senator Alston —Can I simply put it another way: that, short of not providing the document, it presumably could then be argued that you have not provided any explanation. An explanation is normally a reason for a course of conduct; it is not simply giving a blanket refusal or saying `I have nothing to say'. In this situation, I have explained why the document has not yet been produced—and that is because it is still being considered by the minister's office.

If you say that is not an explanation, I would ask that you give careful consideration to your ruling because I would be very surprised—and I hear what the clerk says, that they are all on all-fours—and I think it would be very helpful to the chamber to examine what those cases were to see what actually constitutes a failure to provide any explanation at all.

The PRESIDENT —I think you are canvassing the ruling, Senator.

Senator Alston —I was asking for it to be deferred.

Senator Abetz —On the point of order, Madam President, could I invite you to take Senator Alston's suggestion of considering this in some detail? The reading of the standing orders by Senator Faulkner to you was, with respect, quite ingenuous, because he did not continue then to read on subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c). They are very pertinent, particularly subparagraph (b) which states:

(b) the senator may, at the conclusion of the explanation—

not answer to the question, but—

move without notice—

That the Senate take note of the explanation; or

(c) in the event that the minister does not provide an explanation . . .

Quite clearly, with respect, Madam President, the minister did get up and provide an explanation. Whether you like the explanation or not is, with respect, irrelevant to the ruling you are required to make. The issue before the chair is simply whether or not an explanation has been provided.

Madam President, you and other senators may well make a determination that the explanation is strong, weak or indifferent. But, if an explanation has been provided, the only course open to the honourable senator, in my submission, is under standing order 74(5)(b) and not (c). If Senator Alston had said, `I have no explanation whatsoever' or if he had sat there mute then, in my respectful submission, Madam President, Senator O'Brien would have been entitled to move pursuant to standing order 74(5)(c) in the manner that he has tried to. I must say that I have great difficulty with the ruling, but I do not seek to canvass it. I think, however, for the future—

Senator Faulkner —Well, sit down then!

Senator Abetz —Would you mind not being so rude, Senator Faulkner? You are just disgraceful in this place.

Senator Faulkner —You pompous ass.

Senator Abetz —Madam President, with respect, what I am asking you to do is to consider this matter in some detail and then come back to the Senate at a later time with a considered determination in the matter. In my respectful submission, there is a substantive difference between an explanation and an answer to a question, and I think that is what the standing order seeks to differentiate. Unless that differentiation is made, it would seem that vast parts of standing order 74(5) are quite irrelevant for the purposes of this particular type of proceeding in this chamber.

The PRESIDENT —I confirm my previous ruling and I base it in particular on the situation that occurred with Senator Ellison on 19 May 1995: that the senator is entitled to move the motion that he moved at the end.

Senator O'BRIEN —In speaking to the motion, the minister in fact would recall that I raised the matter of these outstanding answers to questions on notice nos. 1118 and 1129 with him on 12 May. The minister advised the Senate:

As I understand it every endeavour will be made to comply with that request as soon as possible.

It is now 26 May. Mr Reith and his department have had before them question no. 1118 for 57 days and question no. 1129 for 49 days. Question no. 1118, among other things, goes to the issue of expenditure of public funds by the government on consultancies as part of its waterfront strategy. It goes to the question of any new consultancies that the government has commissioned, in addition to the ones already on the public record. It goes to the question of final expenditure figures on these consultancies.

These consultancies have received an enormous amount of media coverage since their existence was revealed in the estimates process last year. They have been very much a live issue for this government. It is not as if the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business or the Department of Transport and Regional Development would be required to search archives out at Fyshwick or Mitchell to find the information I require. I am confident it is at their fingertips.

Let me remind the Senate of just how long this list is and who those consultants were. There was the ACIL 1 consultancy with Dr David Trebeck, a former policy director of the Liberal Party and NFF officer, as the lead consultant and Mr Paul Houlihan, a consultant to Mr Reith on industrial relations and former NFF officer, employed as a subcontractor.

Senator Ian Macdonald —I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 187, Madam President.

The PRESIDENT —The senator needs to be relevant to his motion.

Senator Ian Macdonald —He is reading the speech.

The PRESIDENT —Certainly, the senator should not be reading a speech.

Senator O'BRIEN —That is fine, Madam President. I am not reading any speeches, just as no coalition senators read speeches. There is a second ACIL report known as the ACIL 2 report and again Dr Trebeck was in charge. But this time the pollster Mark Textor picked up some work, along with Jonathan Gaul, the Liberal strategist. Then we had the Webster consultancy. Dr Webster was an employee of the former Tasmanian Liberal Premier, Robin Gray, and an employee of Andrew Peacock. His offsider was Dr John Davies, who was almost identical in terms of his political heritage, political activities and former employment situation. Then there was Minter Ellison, BGC Media, Corrs Chambers Westgarth and the National Institute of Labour Studies.

In November at the estimates hearing, Dr Greg Feeney from the Maritime Transport Division of the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business gave the committee details of those consultancies. He said that Dr Davies was paid $96,376.88. He also said that Dr Webster was paid a sum of money under the same sort of consultancy arrangement of $95,254.42.

Senator Hill —I raise a point of order. It relates to the motion that is being debated. Having accepted your ruling, Madam President, that there was not an explanation and the senator is therefore entitled to move a motion, he is nevertheless constrained in the motion he can move. It has to be with regard to the minister's failure to provide either an answer or an explanation.

I do not want to give you hints or anything, but he could move a censure or some other form of punishment against the minister, or he could presumably move a motion that the question be answered within a specified period of time. But he has not done that. He has moved an unrelated motion and that is that certain documents be tabled, as I understand, within a particular time.

I would suggest to you that the standing order as it has been drawn is not so wide as to allow him to move a motion that is not directly related to the question he has asked. It is a different subject matter.

Senator Faulkner —On the same point of order, Madam President. Senator Hill in his rather flimsy point of order talks about certain documents being laid on the table. What he failed to apprise you of—which I am sure you are aware of anyway—is that these documents that he describes as `certain documents' are in fact answers to questions on notice nos. 1118 and 1129.

As I understand it, Madam President, you might be able to inform the Senate as to the question before the chair, but I understand that Senator O'Brien—and I stand to be corrected if I am wrong and I will certainly withdraw this comment if I am wrong—has moved that there be laid on the table by a particular time answers to the questions that are subject to this matter pursuant to standing order 74(5).

If I am wrong in that, perhaps we can move on. That is my understanding and you could perhaps apprise the Senate and Senator Hill of that being the case. It is not certain documents; it is, in fact, answers to questions.

The PRESIDENT —It is certainly open to anyone else who participates in the debate to challenge whether the documents in question relate to the questions that are asked or not. But there is no difficulty in asking that documents that do relate to the questions be laid on the table under this provision. That has happened previously, as I indicated, on 19 May 1995 when the Senate did pass a resolution that documents be laid on the table in these circumstances.

Senator Faulkner interjecting—

The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator O'Brien is speaking to his motion and when he has finished, others may speak to it and challenge what he is putting, if they wish. It might help if Senator O'Brien re-read the original motion he is putting.

Senator O'BRIEN —I am quite happy to. I gave it to Senator Faulkner so that he would be fully apprised of the facts when he spoke to that point of order. The motion was:

That there be laid on the table by no later than immediately after question time on Thursday 28 May 1998 the answers to questions on notice Nos 1118 and 1129.

Senator Faulkner —Which is what I said, you dopes.

The PRESIDENT —Order! It is not helpful to have this shouting across the chamber.

Senator O'BRIEN —As I was saying, another of the consultancies related to Minter Ellison. They had a contract which commenced on 21 August and concluded on 3 October, and received for that the principal sum of $151,375. As at 12 November we were told that by Dr Feeney. But he did say at that time that he had not received all of the invoices; there were a few to come. We were told that the Corrs Westgarth contract was worth $89,956.28 and the Webb contract had a return value of $23,871. What did BGC Media get?—$8,857.3. The contract with the National Institute of Labour Studies returned them $15,375 exactly.

The process involved in letting those contracts was far from normal, as senators would recall. It was highly unusual to let one contract not through the proper tender process but simply at the direction of a minister. But as Dr Feeney told us, the Department of Transport was directed by the then Minister for Transport, Mr Sharp, to engage Dr Webster because that was what he was told to do. Then, apparently, Dr Webster was given authority to hire anyone he liked, and Mr Sharp, of course, was going to pay for this.

I want to quote from Dr Feeney's evidence at the estimates hearings because this is an important point. When I asked about the contracts that were let at the request of Dr Webster and whether they were let specifically at his request, the answer was: `Yes'. When I asked whether this was at the direction of the minister's office, the answer was: `Yes'. He also added that the approvals were subject to the minister's office approving them. So Dr Feeney said that Dr Webster told the department who he wanted, and the department signed them up.

Senators would be aware that originally Dr Webster had been employed as a subcontractor to David Trebeck under the ACIL consultancy. Apparently they did not get on so he refused to work with this former Liberal Party policy director. He was able to get one of his friends, a Mr Peter Wilson, who worked in Mr Reith's office, to organise a contract of his own. That led to a payment to Dr Webster of $95,000. Dr Webster then organised a contract for one of his old colleagues, Dr Davies, and he received $96,000. It is nice to have friends in high places.

So there was no tender process for all this money to be paid out. He just picked who he wanted. The department was required, at the direction of the minister's office, to sign them up and to put them on the payroll. So it is doubly important in this case that there be proper scrutiny of exactly how this consul tancy money was spent. Given that this money has been spent, we also ought to be able to look at the process and see that proper process was not followed in the appointment of these consultants.

The Senate and the community do have a legitimate right to be satisfied that a million dollars worth of taxpayers' money was spent on what the contracts required them to be spent on. We also have the right to be satisfied that we, as taxpayers, got our money's worth out of these deals. That is what question No. 1118 goes to.

In relation to all of these consultancies, and any others we do not yet know about, we want to know the details of each contract. We want to know whether there was an actual written report. If there was a report, we want to know how comprehensive it was. We want to know what the subject matter was so that we can be satisfied that the terms of that contract have been met. We also want to know what happened with each of the reports that arose from the consultancies. Lastly, we want to know what the final cost was.

We have already been provided with information about contract costs in these matters, but there now appears to be some confusion over the costs given to the Senate to date. The minister, I am sure, would be aware that the proposed cost of the first ACIL report—the ACIL 1 report as it is being called—was to be $60,000. We have been told that that blew out to $80,000. Now we find, in response to another question on notice—the answer to which appears in the House of Representatives Hansard of 14 May—that the cost of the ACIL 1 contract is now out to $118,761. It is about double the original estimate, and $40,000 more than the so-called final cost that we were given.

In relation to the Minter Ellison consultancy, we were told last November that its cost was about $151,000. That there were a few invoices for some minor costs still outstanding was the codicil added to that response. The estimates committee was then provided with an answer on notice advising that the final Minter Ellison cost was $158,283. Then we received another final costing for that contract and it had gone up to $162,567. It is clear that it is in the public interest that the minister provide the Senate with the amounts of money spent on all these contracts. It is also clear that in the public interest the cost of any other consultancies and the nature of those consultancies—

Senator Ian Macdonald —Madam President, I take a point of order. Senator O'Brien is quite clearly breaching standing order 187. Not in the wildest of dreams could anyone suggest that he is referring to copious notes; he is clearly turning over page after page. Senator O'Brien obviously is not capable of making a speech without reading it but can we perhaps save time and just get him to table the speech—it is all written—and we can go on to some more important business.

The PRESIDENT —Senator O'Brien, I draw your attention to the standing orders about reading speeches.

Senator O'BRIEN —Madam President, you have drawn them to my attention before and the rather pale, insignificant comment that the senator makes I think is undeserving of comment, because I am clearly referring to matters of substantial detail that do require reference to copious notes. I go on, Madam President, accepting what you say. This matter also goes to the details of the government's consultative processes with the waterfront industry with regard to its waterfront strategy. Again, those are matters of legitimate public interest.

I want now to go to the question of Minister Reith and his actions in refusing to answer question No. 1129. The cost to the taxpayer for the employment of Dr Webster and Dr Davies was something approaching $200,000. Dr Webster's consultancy ran from 30 July to 3 October but we are told he commenced work before that date. He was paid $1,000 a day and in addition he was paid expenses.

The contract with Dr Davies commenced on the same day as that of Dr Webster; that is, on 30 July. He apparently received the same daily rate and apparently the terms of reference for both consultants were the same, but Dr Webster was the leader and Dr Davies was the assistant. We also know that, in addition to the $1,000 a day consultancy fee, there were other costs including travel costs and incidentals. We are also able to know that Dr Davies paid his bills and was reimbursed while Dr Webster submitted invoices. We know that the payment of incidentals was subject to a review by the department. In fact, we do know that Dr Feeney personally vetted these claims.

So the information sought by question 1129 was clearly in the knowledge of the Department of Transport and Regional Development and is now, I assume, still with Dr Feeney, but in the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business. I believe that the Senate is entitled to be satisfied that the money paid out to the two consultants was properly spent. The money was paid by the department of transport because it was directed to do so by the minister. After Mr Sharp was directed by Mr Reith to engage Dr Webster he was told by ministerial staffer Mr Wilson to sign the contract.

Question 1129 asks the minister to provide all invoices that relate to these contracts, because that is the only way the Senate can be properly satisfied that this money has been properly spent. The question also seeks information about the relationship with the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business. As the Senate was told on the last occasion I raised this matter, I do not chase answers to questions on notice in every case when the time elapses that is allowed under standing orders for the question to be answered. I do so when the matter is important.

I believe I have demonstrated that this matter is important. There is a significant amount of information which is clearly available to the department and can be provided. As I indicated earlier, these questions have been outstanding for 57 and 49 days respectively. There is no good reason why the answer should be withheld from the Senate. In terms of providing the information, it is clearly information which the department must have in order to have been able to pay these moneys and there can be no good reason advanced as to why the questions should not have been answered. Hence, I propose in my motion that the minister be directed to table his answers tomorrow, because there is no good reason why he should not be able to do so.

Senator Lightfoot —Madam President, I take a point of order. Under section 168(2) of the standing orders, I respectfully ask that you direct Senator O'Brien to table the documents from which he was reading.

The PRESIDENT —It has previously been held that speech notes used do not constitute a document under this section.

Senator Lightfoot —Further to that point of order, Madam President: that is not a speech note in my view, although I do take notice of that direction. What Senator O'Brien quoted from clearly were documents. For the duration of his speech he was quoting from a document; they were not, literally, speech notes.

Senator Cooney —On that point of order, Madam President, standing order 168 relates to documents quoted by a senator. It does not talk about a document quoted from. That refers to the situation where there is a document that you want to use to prove your case as a matter of evidence and that is the sort of document that that clause refers to. I think what is being complained of is that Senator O'Brien is reading from a document.

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Senator Cooney —Even if he had read from a document, standing order 168 would not apply because that standing order applies to a situation where Senator O'Brien may have quoted from a letter or a document that he says supports his case, and that should be tabled so that people can see that the document is accurate. But that is not the situation here. What he has been accused of, in the light of what was said earlier, is that he was reading his speech. He is not allowed to read his speech, but that is not what standing order 168 refers to. It refers to a different situation than what is being complained of here.

The PRESIDENT —Certainly there were two points of order taken earlier in the speech alleging that he was reading speech notes, and I drew to the senator's attention that he ought not to be reading a speech using notes. But there have certainly been rulings previously that this section does not relate to speech notes but does relate to documents being quoted from.

Senator Abetz —Madam President, I wish to raise a further point of order, if I may.

Senator Conroy —The same point of order?

Senator Abetz —No, on a different matter, and it relates to the matter that was raised earlier in relation to standing order 74, where I had invited you to consider the matter in further detail and report back to the chamber. There was no direct answer given. Madam President, I direct your attention to the Hansard of 11 May 1995, where you refer to the precedent of Senator Ellison and Senator McMullan. The reality there is that no ruling was made on that occasion by the chair because nobody raised a point of order.

Just because a procedure is adopted in the absence of a point of order does not make it an appropriate procedure, just as much as, for example, if Senator Conroy interjects an unparliamentary word and it finds its way into the Hansard. If nobody raises a point of order against it and it is in the Hansard, that does not clothe it with the authority of being parliamentary. The fact is, nobody raised a point of order to stop the Senate from behaving in a manner contrary to the standing orders.

The precedent that was being relied upon, in my respectful submission, is not a ruling by the Senate in any shape or form. If we turn to page 473 of Odgers, there is talk about the established practice if an explanation is not forthcoming. The same paragraph tells us:

The practice of ministers leaving the chamber immediately at the end of question time has meant that on several occasions the relevant minister has not been present to give an explanation

In this case, we clearly did have a minister in the chamber giving an explanation. All I am submitting to you, Madam President, is not to change your ruling in relation to this. But I would seek to convince you that, at least on a prima facie basis, the matter that Senator Alston has raised—and I have raised as well—is a matter of substance worthy of your further detailed consideration. That is my only plea to you.

The PRESIDENT —There are a number of other precedents. The one I quoted that occurred on 19 May 1995 is just one of the more recent ones.

Senator Abetz —On the point of order, Madam President: I asked you whether or not you would consider the matter in more detail and return to the chamber. I am not asking for a ruling now. If you will not, that is fine. But I think, with respect, I am entitled to the courtesy of a response from you as to whether or not you accept my respectful submission to you that there is a matter of some substance and whether or not you are prepared to consider it in more detail. Madam President, you refer to the Senator Ellison situation as a precedent. With respect, in the absence of a ruling, it cannot be asserted to be a precedent. I would have thought that would be a fairly fundamental point.

The PRESIDENT —I had referred previously to the fact that there had been others since 1988. If the Senate wishes, I am happy for this matter to be adjourned for 15 minutes and come back.

Senator Abetz —I do not think I have made my position clear.

The PRESIDENT —I think you have, Senator.

Senator Abetz —I am not asking that this matter be adjourned. I am not asking you to delay this particular proceeding. I am just suggesting, with respect, that it may be appropriate to give detailed consideration to these provisions to ascertain exactly what they mean. At the end of the precedents referred to in the eighth edition of Odgers there is the very telling sentence about the practice of ministers leaving the chamber immediately at the end of question time and not being present to give an explanation. I would have thought, with respect, that this is a matter of substance and that it would be appropriate to give some clarification for the benefit of all senators in the future. I do not seek that clarification today. A week, a fortnight or a month would suffice.

The PRESIDENT —I will look at the matter again; re-read Odgers and confer with you, Senator Abetz.

Question resolved in the affirmative.