Senator BARTLETT (Leader of the Australian Democrats) (10:13 AM) —by leave—It is probably worth noting that, on denying formality to people's motions in the effort to save time, we have managed to chew up a good half an hour debating it in any case. This is an issue that has been raised a few times, and I will say two things. Firstly, on behalf of the Democrats, I do have a lot of sympathy, as I have expressed lots of times before, for the problems that an excessive number of formal motions can and occasionally do present. It is different difficulties for different people, and Senator Harradine has the difficulty of trying to keep across 20 different motions that are all being put one after the other, even assuming he has time to get around to reading them all and to consider them. One thing I have tried to do to alleviate that to some extent is to at least give two days notice of motions, as I did with the two that I moved today, to give a little bit more time. Maybe another small solution is to require at least a week's notice or something for people so that they have a bit more time to absorb them. That is the first difficulty. Of course, after they have absorbed them, there are the other difficulties that people have raised.

I have some sympathy, although not absolute sympathy, with the views expressed by the ALP about foreign affairs motions. As you said when you were not in the chair, Mr Acting Deputy President Ferguson, sometimes they are moved to try to force people and parties to vote in a certain way. That is not necessarily a bad thing. Trying to nail down parties and parliamentarians as to what they will actually support is appropriate, but I accept that doing it via a yes or no vote is not the best way if it is a complex issue. I have raised a number of times in this place that these days the Senate has more and more business before it. Indeed, just yesterday I had another motion to extend sitting days voted down. The Senate certainly has more government legislation before it and more issues that I think it is appropriate for us to deal with beyond government legislation.

As fewer alternatives become available to express a range of views in the community, the Senate increasingly is becoming the place people look to for an expression of those views. Whether the Senate allocates extra time for general business or non-government business of various types—another idea the Democrats have put forward—or we sit on Fridays, the suggestion put forward by Senator Ray, with no divisions and no quorums, the options need to be looked at. Generally, there is a need for the Senate to sit more often than it does, given the complexity and volume of business that we have to deal with. I know I do not get much support when I raise that issue, but I will keep raising it nonetheless. The difficulty, having pointed to all those problems that formal motions cause, is the alternatives. For example, if I had moved a matter of urgency, that debate would have chewed up an hour and would have had the same effect.

The government—and all of us—particularly at this time of year, have the pressure of considering a large amount of legislation. Most of us would have seen the government's first draft of a number of bills they want considered by the Senate before the end of this year. After today, there are only eight sitting days left. I cannot remember the number of bills on the list, but there are three pages of them, so there are a fair few. In that scenario, at this time of the year, there is immense pressure to almost self-censor speeches to enable us to get through the business. That means that important issues do not get the consideration they deserve. The issue that generated this debate relating to constitutional reform or Senate reform, initiated by the Prime Minister, is time specific—it is not really something we can leave to next year—and, therefore, if we are to express a view, now is the time to do it.

Without going further into the mechanics of how formal business might work a bit better or what alternatives might address some of the issues, I simply say the Democrats are sympathetic and supportive of attempts to find a better way. We are certainly willing to consider some of those options. Obviously, the focus has been on the motion I moved expressing a view about the Senate not having the power to block supply any more. There were a number of other significant motions considered this morning, not least of which was another motion of mine that was passed expressing a view about constitutional reform and which supported the view to amend section 44 of the Constitution. That is an issue that has been raised a number of times. From memory, I think all parties in this place—I cannot speak for all the Independents—have expressed support for that before, which might be why that motion got through. It is worth noting that parts of that motion—and, indeed, the one that did not get through—expressed support for broad community debate to explore ways to improve the operation of Australia's parliamentary political system. It encouraged the Prime Minister to consider any constitutional and parliamentary changes that have widespread community support beyond the ones he has put up. I do want to counter some of the negativities specifically concerning one aspect of the formal motions put up this morning. Another motion agreed to specifically endorse the idea of a wide-ranging community debate and to encourage the Prime Minister to look at some of those options if they have broad community support. I think that is an important, useful and reasonably time-efficient way for the Senate to express a clear view to the Prime Minister as part of the consultation process, referred to by Senator Harradine, that is under way.

The specific motion that Senator Harradine focused on is obviously an important issue. It is not an issue that people have not given thought to before. The power to block supply has obviously been debated a lot, not just in this chamber but out in the community. It was simply a motion expressing a view rather than doing anything stronger than that. Nonetheless, it is an important issue and one that is appropriate to have people expressing their views on, putting their position forward and being clear about what that position is. I would prefer a debate on it as well. I would also prefer an outcome where people are clear about what that position is on that important issue. We have one without the other, but I do not think that should be completely negated just because of the other difficulties people have expressed about formal business. Just because we do not get to debate something does not mean the issue that has been voted on is not of note, and that one certainly was, as were some of the other motions that were passed. The fact they are declared formal often means they do not get the attention they deserve.