|
senate vote 2016-12-01#4
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2016-12-03 07:24:57
|
Title
Motions — Judiciary- Motions - Judiciary - Proper process not being followed
Description
<p class="speaker">Rod Culleton</p><p>I, and also on behalf of Senator Lambie, move:</p><p class="italic">That the Senate notes the many issues in this country in relation to proper process not being followed in judicial and other matters.</p>- The majority voted against a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2016-12-01.57.2) introduced by Pauline Hanson's One Nation Senator [Rod Culleton](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/rod_culleton) also on behalf of Senator [Jacqui Lambie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/jacqui_lambie).
- In bringing this motion and by voting in favour of it, Senator Culleton was [rebelling against his party](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/crossing-the-floor.html). In other words, he was voting against the rest of his party.
- ### Motion text
- > *That the Senate notes the many issues in this country in relation to proper process not being followed in judicial and other matters.*
<p class="speaker">James McGrath</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">James McGrath</p><p>The government does not support the motion. Australia is very fortunate in having a judiciary that is professional, well trained and fiercely independent from government. Australia's courts, both state and federal, administer the law of the land without fear or favour. This is reflected in the level of confidence Australians have in their courts. In the most recent Essential poll on trust in institutions, the High Court was the third most trusted institution, behind federal and state police.</p> <p class="speaker">Rod Culleton</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">Rod Culleton</p><p>I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:</p><p class="italic">That—</p><p class="italic">(a) the Senate notes that:</p><p class="italic">  (i) on 25 November 2016, solicitors on behalf of the Commonwealth Attorney-General filed a Statement of Agreed Facts in the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns in the matter of Re Rodney Culleton,</p><p class="italic">  (ii) paragraph 1 of the Statement of Agreed Facts includes the following statement: the Magistrate in convicting Senator Culleton as an absent offender was precluded by section 25 of the <i>Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999</i> (NSW) from making an order for a sentence of imprisonment, and</p><p class="italic">  (iii) the facts set out above and agreed by solicitors acting on behalf of the Commonwealth Attorney-General were not before the Senate on Monday 7 November 2016 when it considered the motion moved by Senator Brandis to refer the matter to the High Court under section 378 of the <i>Commonwealth Electoral Act 1908</i>;</p><p class="italic">(b) the Senate calls on the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to attend the chamber and clarify this matter; and</p><p class="italic">(c) at the conclusion of the explanation any senator may move to take note of the explanation.</p><p class="italic"><i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>I will take that as a statement, Senator Culleton, even although you said you were going to move on the next day of sitting. But that was part of your statement so we will take it as a statement. The question is that notice of motion No. 150, moved by Senator Culleton, be agreed to. Is a division required? Ring the bells for one minute.</p><p> <i>A division having been called and the bells </i> <i>having </i> <i>be</i> <i>e</i> <i>n rung—</i></p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>Mr President, can we clarify things. We understood this was the motion, 150, under which the Senate notes the many issues in this country in relation to proper process not being followed in judicial and other matters, whereas Senator Culleton actually read out a statement that relates to 163. That comment confused things, so can we clarify what we are voting on.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>This is definitely notice of motion No. 150. It was called on that way and I did clarify at the end of Senator Culleton's statement that I took his comments as a statement and not a reference to 163. If Senator Culleton wishes to inform the chamber that he may have confused us, I am happy to hear from Senator Culleton—otherwise we are voting on No. 150. I hear no dissent from Senator Culleton, so the question before the chair is that we agree to No. 150 standing in the names of Senators Culleton and Lambie.</p> <p class="speaker">Rod Culleton</p><p>There is no confusion on my behalf, Mr President.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>The question is that notice of motion No. 150 be agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Rod Culleton</p><p>Hang on, maybe there is confusion. I can read—</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>I do not wish you to read anything; I want you to clarify the position. Are we voting on 150 that you have just moved?</p> <p class="speaker">Rod Culleton</p><p>It is 150.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>I have just put the question. Does anyone wish to move before I appoint the tellers? If no-one wishes to move, I appoint Senator Urquhart teller for the ayes and Senator Bushby teller for the noes.</p><p>Question negatived.</p>
|