Save Search

Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 9 August 2007
Page: 58


Senator NETTLE (12:54 PM) —I thank other senators for their contributions to this debate. It is not my intention to have a Senate inquiry into something that is before the courts. A number of people have raised that issue, and I would be very happy to extend the reporting date to ensure that that did not occur. As Senator Ludwig outlined in his contribution, it is difficult to set time lines because there is an election coming. The Labor Party indicated they did not support Senator Stott Despoja’s motion because the time line was too long and indicated they were not going to support my motion because the time line was too short. It is a difficult thing to do. I acknowledge the comments that people have made about the importance and possibility of having a judicial inquiry. I would be quite supportive of a judicial inquiry occurring in relation to this matter. But I think we have the opportunity—

Opposition senators interjecting—


The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Marshall)—I am sorry, Senator Nettle, but you have provoked a controversy on my left. I call senators to order.


Senator NETTLE —As I was saying, I would be quite happy for a judicial inquiry to occur. I said that in my opening remarks in relation to this matter. But we do not have the ability to make a judicial inquiry occur; only the government has the ability to make a judicial inquiry occur. We do have the ability to make a Senate inquiry occur, and that is why I am moving this motion in the Senate. I think we have heard from almost every speaker that there should be an inquiry into this matter. People have slightly different views about when and how that should occur, but we have heard that this is a matter that needs to be further looked into. That is what I am proposing—that we have an inquiry. It would be great if the government proposed a judicial inquiry, but the Prime Minister has made it quite clear that it is not the government’s intention to do that. So this is our opportunity, and that is why I am proceeding with this motion. It has been good to hear everybody’s views on this issue and to hear general support for an inquiry from the majority of speakers. This is the opportunity, and that is why I am making this proposal to the Senate. I hope to see it supported.


The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Bartlett be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Original question put:

That the motion (Senator Nettle’s) be agreed to.