Senator BROWN (12:10 PM) —Last night, as the newspaper reports tell us, the Prime Minister phoned his opposite number in East Timor to deliver blackmail. What the Prime Minister effectively did was to coerce a poor and weak neighbour, through blackmail, into accepting an agreement to develop the fossil fuels—

Senator Abetz —Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. This is clearly casting an aspersion on the Prime Minister, accusing him of engaging in blackmail. Not only is it illegal but it is casting an aspersion on the Prime Minister and ought be withdrawn.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Senator Brown, you should not accuse the Prime Minister of blackmail. I ask you to withdraw that.

Senator BROWN —I believe that that is what happened.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESI-DENT —That is my ruling.

Senator BROWN —I am not going to withdraw that. That is exactly what happened last night. It would be a breach of faith, in my own view of the matter, to withdraw that statement.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESI-DENT —For a second time, Senator Brown, I ask you to withdraw the blackmail allegation against the Prime Minister, or rephrase it.

Senator BROWN —Last night the Prime Minister made a call to his opposite number in East Timor to effectively coerce East Timor into making an agreement which was against its own interests.

Senator McGauran —Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESI-DENT —Senator Brown, there is another point of order.

Senator BROWN —Yes, but I am making my point of order.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESI-DENT —It is a point of order being made against you whilst you are on your feet.

Senator BROWN —A point of order cannot intervene on a point of order.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESI-DENT —Yes, it can. That is the whole purpose of points of order.

Senator McGauran —Quite obviously Senator Brown, if I can garnish what he was trying to say, is debating your instruction, which was to withdraw and rephrase if he wishes to. Surely he has enough grasp of the English language to find another word that is within the standing orders. I put it to you, Mr Acting Deputy President Watson, that he is challenging your ruling.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESI-DENT —Your point of order is that he is debating the issue. Senator Brown, you cannot debate my ruling. I have made a ruling; I have given you an option. It is up to you to either withdraw the term or to use some alternative phraseology.

Senator BROWN —Last night the Prime Minister used blackmail on East Timor, and I will not withdraw that. It is a matter of fact. This is such a serious matter; it is such deplorable behaviour by Australia against our poor East Timorese neighbour. We have to call a spade a spade, and that is what I am doing. I do not believe that is outside standing orders. I am prepared to further fill out the reasons for my making that statement, but it would be not proper for me to withdraw a statement which is factual in effect.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESI-DENT —Senator Brown, you are impugning a motive against the Prime Minister—accusing him of blackmail. That is unacceptable, and I ask you to withdraw it or to use some alternative language. I am sorry.

Senator BROWN —The motive of the Prime Minister last night was to coerce East Timor, in terms of resources and money, through a threat to withdraw this legislation if the East Timorese government did not agree to sign the agreement today. That is why Mr Downer has gone to Bali. That is a statement of fact. That is what the Prime Minister did. I will not withdraw.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESI-DENT —Senator Brown, you are challenging the authority of the chair. I have asked you to withdraw. You can withdraw and then use alternative language if you wish, but it is a requirement that you should respect the decision of the chair.

Senator BROWN —Chair, I believe you are wrong in your ruling. I stand by my statement. The Prime Minister and the government of Australia are involved in blackmail of the clearest order against our poor East Timorese neighbour. That is what has happened. I am not going to withdraw that. I am prepared to elaborate on it if you will give me the opportunity to do so, but I will not withdraw a statement of fact.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESI-DENT —If you are going to dissent, it is necessary to put your dissent in writing.

Senator BROWN —No, Chair, I am not dissenting; I am not accepting the ruling. I will leave that matter for you to determine.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESI-DENT —You are refusing to withdraw, and I have asked you to withdraw. If you are going to dissent from my ruling, your next stage is to put it in writing, I have been advised by the Clerk.

Senator BROWN —I will reiterate, with the greatest respect to you, Mr Acting Deputy President: this is a matter of enormous importance. As I said earlier today, I am very angry about—

Senator Abetz —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order: I think you have been very lenient with the honourable senator. You have given him a course of action to withdraw and then, if he wishes to, to use alternative language. He has now defied your ruling on a number of occasions and repeated the word. We have all had to withdraw from time to time when we do not like to; yet 24 hours later we usually go back to our offices and say, `Yep, that was a fair cop and it should have been withdrawn.' The honourable senator has been given the opportunity to withdraw. If he does not, quite frankly, Mr Acting Deputy President, he should not be given the opportunity to flagrantly violate your ruling, disregard it and, as a result, hold not only you but the standing orders and this whole place in contempt.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESI-DENT —I will read standing order 198, `Objection to ruling', for the clarification of the Senate:

Senator BROWN —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I say again, with great respect, that I am not complying with your ruling. I do not withdraw. But I am not issuing a dissent with that. Somebody else can do that if they wish to. My position is clear: I am not withdrawing the comments I made, because they are factual. (Quorum formed)

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESI-DENT —Senator Brown, under the circumstances, I have no alternative other than to name you for persistently disobeying a ruling of the Acting Deputy President. I am therefore required to report that to the Senate. Following that, you will be given an opportunity to make an explanation and then it will be up to the minister to move a motion which I presume will be debated at the next day of sitting. I report to the Senate that Senator Brown has persistently disobeyed a ruling of the Acting Deputy President, and I now call on Senator Brown to make an explanation.

Senator BROWN —I thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. You required me to withdraw the word `blackmail' as applied to the Prime Minister. I had made the statement to the Senate that the Prime Minister had engaged in overnight blackmail by ringing his opposite number in East Timor to apply pressure to have the East Timorese sign an agreement today for the development of the Timor Gap oil and gas fields in return for having this bill go through the Senate today, as reported by today's Age newspaper. The chamber should know that the East Timorese government has been put under unacceptable—

Senator Faulkner —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I would like to be clear that you are taking this action under standing order 203(3).

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESI-DENT —That is correct.

Senator Faulkner —My point of order— and this has been raised previously as a point of order in this place when in the unusual circumstance these sorts of matters have been before us—is this: you called on Senator Brown to make an explanation. I think I heard you correctly.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESI-DENT —Correct.

Senator Faulkner —Under standing order No. 203(3), it is competent for that to occur. But it is also competent when you invoke that standing order after a senator has been reported to call upon the senator concerned, in this case Senator Brown, to make an explanation or an apology.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESI-DENT —He is doing that.

Senator Faulkner —I do not believe that was done. He was called on to make an explanation. I am not suggesting that Senator Brown would necessarily—

Senator Abetz —He's not big enough to apologise.

Senator Faulkner —This is a procedural point that has been raised before in this circumstance.

Senator Abetz —You're right.

Senator Faulkner —I know I am right. Whether Senator Brown avails himself of such an opportunity is entirely a matter for him. My point of order is that that opportunity should be extended to a senator in this circumstance. That is my only point of order. I am not suggesting for one moment that in this instance, or in any other instance, a senator might necessarily avail themselves of that opportunity. But I like to be consistent in the way these matters are dealt with. I think that in the most recent circumstance when a senator was reported we had the then President call on the senator to make an apology. Of course the point was taken quite properly that that senator could have made an explanation or an apology. I believe the Acting Deputy President called on Senator Brown in this instance to make an explanation. I think, if we are going to conform strictly to the standing orders, either is appropriate.

The PRESIDENT —Senator Faulkner, I believe that what you have just said is correct. Therefore, I call upon—

Senator Faulkner —In that instance. Thank you for ruling that way, Mr President. This may not seem to be a major point, but it has been raised before; therefore, I think Senator Brown ought to be called upon to make an explanation or an apology, not called upon to make an explanation.

The PRESIDENT —That is what I intend to do. I call upon Senator Brown to make an explanation or an apology, as it says in the standing orders.

Senator BROWN —I thank Senator Faulkner for drawing our attention to that option. I do not make an apology, but I will make an explanation. I said in the debate earlier that the Prime Minister had been engaged in overnight blackmail of his opposite number in the East Timorese government, and I stand by that. The reasons I made that statement are very clear. We are debating today a piece of legislation that will involve, according to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer, a $50 billion break for Australia from the development of the oil and gas fields which are wholly within East Timorese waters, according to my interpretation and the interpretations of a number of international jurists.

But the boundaries were moved to exclude part of those oilfields during the period of the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, and this treaty effectively excludes the lot and gives to Australia if not fifty-fifty then the majority of the profits that will flow to governments from those oilfields. This is Australia being involved in a grand theft of the resources of our small neighbour East Timor—the most impoverished neighbour in the neighbourhood having its one resource that is going to help it get up off the ground in the future taken by its richest neighbour.

This is Prime Minister Howard, on behalf of the oil corporations, ringing the Prime Minister of East Timor, Dr Alkatiri, and saying to Dr Alkatiri, according to the Age report, `If you do not sign the agreement for the development of the Greater Sunrise field'—which is the biggest field and which is East Timorese—`and give that resource in the major part to Australia, then we won't have this legislation go through the Senate today,' which allows for the development of the other, smaller oilfield, which the East Timorese want to see developed. That is the Prime Minister saying, `Do as we want or we will take away a potentially lucrative contract with the Japanese for development of the Bayu-Undan oilfield.' That is blackmail—that is overnight blackmail. The Senate may ask me to withdraw that comment, but to do so would be to ask me to withdraw a factual comment which accurately describes the Prime Minister's behaviour in this affair and I will not do so.

Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western Australia—Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12.31 p.m.)—Under standing order 204, I move:

Question put.