Senator FAULKNER (Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:07 AM) —by leave—As is often the case when these sorts of matters are examined by the chamber, there is an element of truth in what every speaker has said and substantial truth in what a number of speakers have said. I commend to the Senate—and I do not often do this—a very short speech that I made on 27 May 1998. It was a speech about how the Senate ought to deal with foreign policy motions in this place and about what the concerns are. I accept that the concerns are broader—they are not only with foreign policy motions—and I am personally not aware of the content of the motion Senator Harradine has drawn attention to. But we do have to understand that the whole process of giving a notice of motion, seeking formality for that motion and having such a motion put to the Senate is a very blunt instrument.

It leaves the Senate with a double hurdle. Firstly, a decision has to be made to grant formality for such a motion and, as has been pointed out by Senator Ian Campbell, there are consequences if formality is not granted. Secondly, the Senate has an opportunity to vote in favour of or against such a motion. That is why it is such a blunt instrument: there is no capacity to amend or debate. The word `debate' has been used a lot here. This is not a mechanism for a debate; it is a mechanism to have a vote. I am sure all senators accept that. They are some of the weaknesses in this system. On the other side of the ledger, there are also strengths, with the capacity for the Senate to express a point of view on matters that are important to our responsibilities in this chamber and of concern in public life in this country.

In the last parliament, the opposition tried valiantly in relation to foreign policy motions, and it did not get broad support in the chamber. It is fair to say that many senators would not have agreed with the substance or the spirit of what the opposition was trying to do. We tried very hard to make the point that we would consistently not give formality to foreign policy motions and not accept that foreign policy motions should be decided in this chamber without debate. But for that to work it would have to be accepted more broadly and not just be a point of view adopted by the opposition. We took the view at that time that each and every foreign policy motion could be declared not formal. Then, if a suspension of standing orders were moved, the importance and significance of foreign policy motions could be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but it is a blunt instrument.

Sometimes these things can work, however. Yesterday, when there was a range of views in this chamber amongst non-government senators about war in Iraq, we were able to negotiate a form of words acceptable to a broad range of senators, not just opposition and Greens senators but also Democrats and other Independent senators. It is possible to achieve, but it requires effort, because so often voting on these things can be misunderstood.

We tried very hard to have a new procedure in this place. I thought our approach was correct. But you have to be consistent, and you cannot treat these things opportunistically. The truth of the matter is that it did not work, because, even though we laid down a practice that we thought would enhance the standard of debate and consideration on these matters, it was misunderstood and, at times, misrepresented. I am not going to place the political party that I belong to in that position, even though I know that dealing with these formal notices of motion by voting yes or no, in favour or against, is such a blunt instrument.

On a motion such as the one Senator Mackay addressed about a Palestinian state, all political parties have longstanding and carefully-considered positions. Obviously, they are not in agreement. There are different views around this chamber. I accept Senator Brown's point that it would be useful to be able to put those views in a proper and fulsome debate; it would be useful to have. The trouble is that a one-line motion places us all in a terribly difficult position. All senators in this chamber are placed in a difficult position if that is the way debate is to progress on these sorts of matters.

There is a crucial issue which all senators need to take into account. Once these motions are passed, the President of the Senate is required to inform governments of other countries to which they are directed about their content. There is not an understanding of the distinction between a decision of executive government and a decision of one chamber of the Australian parliament. That has always been a problem, and it remains a significant problem. We feel that, because of that important distinction, we should have a different way of approaching this matter. I would be perfectly happy if the Manager of Government Business, Senator Harradine, Senator Brown, the Australian Democrats and others wanted us to task the Senate Procedure Committee with having another look at this matter, because the opposition have tried very hard to ensure that we do not find ourselves in the sort of situation that occurred this morning. We do not want to see misunderstanding, and we certainly do not want to see any misrepresentation about these matters.

We worked very hard in the last parliament to try and overcome this, and I admit failure. It just was not possible because of the nature of motions that were being put. If you adopt a position like this—let us say it is a motherhood motion—where does a political party stand if it says, `We do not grant formality to such a motion?' It is not easy, it is a difficult task, and I accept that there needs to be a mechanism for this chamber to express its view on a breadth and range of issues. I think the opposition have tried to take this matter very seriously for a long period. We have understood the difficulties from both the perspective of being in government and now, as we find ourselves, in opposition.

There are serious issues that need to be addressed. This is an area where we can improve the way the Senate works, and I think this morning's motion is an example where a full debate—which Senator Brown wants to have, and I accept that and agree with him— would be much better than a one-line resolution. A capacity to amend a motion, be it from government, opposition or the cross-benches, should be, when you are determining a position, a right of senators and political parties in this chamber. That is not offered through this mechanism, through this process, so it does have these inherent weaknesses on one hand while also having great strength when there is an opportunity for the Senate to express a strong view, particularly when it is broadly held around the chamber.

I accept the complexity of the issue. I put on record the fact that the opposition have tried seriously to address this matter. We are happy to work with all senators— government, minor party and Independent senators—to try and see if we can improve these procedures and processes so that there is better understanding, both in the chamber and, most particularly, outside the chamber, about the way the Senate works in this regard. I make that offer to all senators because it is an inherent weakness and we have never effectively grappled with it, though I do say the opposition have tried to do so.

The PRESIDENT —I look forward to getting messages from party leaders in the future.