Senator ABETZ (4:46 PM) —I thank most senators for the manner in which this debate has been undertaken. The simple fact is that, prior to sessional order 22 being implemented, all that was required by our standing orders was in standing order 73(4):

As a result of question time falling into disrepute and disrepair, the Senate voted for sessional order 22 to apply, requiring that answers be directly relevant to each question.

We had a contribution from Senator Bob Brown which, if I might say so, was somewhat unfortunate in relation to the assertions made as to Greens questions: that they are never too long and never political. In the very short period of time that we have had, just yesterday I found that page 20 of the proof Hansard records Senator Milne asking a question, ending with ‘(Time expired)’. In other words, she ran out of time. Why? Because the question was too long.

Senator McEwen interjecting—

Senator ABETZ —Exactly, and I accept the Labor interjection that it happens to our side of politics as well. But to suggest that somehow it is only the Greens that ask short questions is shown to be false by virtue of the Hansard itself. To try to dress yourself up as being ‘holier than thou’ when the record actually shows the opposite is, I must say, a matter of concern.

Apart from the time issue, Senator Bob Brown also suggested that the Greens never ask politically charged or argumentative questions. I see Senator Conroy’s eyes rolling. Well, here’s a go. This is Senator Brown:

clearly not argumentative or political. He then goes on to ask whether this:

In another question, he refers to this being ‘subsidised in this obscene way by the taxpayers’. I think the term ‘obscene way’ may well also fall foul of a strict interpretation of standing orders. I do not criticise Senator Brown for doing it—we all do it—but to come into this chamber and try to claim that it is only the Greens who do not ask politically charged questions and who do ask short questions seeking information is shown to be absolutely wrong by the Hansard record itself.

On a lighter note, I conclude by reminding the President that, if he believes that he does not have sufficient power, we do have standing order 206, which says:

The President would have our full support if he were to do that in relation to some of the ministers opposite. More seriously, I indicate that we have not raised this matter to reflect on the President—he has our support—but, with great respect, we find ourselves unable to support the statement that was provided to the Senate earlier today, and I would therefore request the President to reconsider the statement.

Question agreed to.