Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (09:34): We have got a request for Senator Cormann to be absent from this sitting of the Senate, for parliamentary— Senator Ian Macdonald: Mr Deputy President, on a point of order— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Senator Macdonald. Do you have a point of order, Senator Brown? Senator BOB BROWN: No, I am speaking to that motion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You are speaking to the motion? Senator BOB BROWN: I am; that is correct. Senator Ian Macdonald: Mr Deputy President, on a point of order: leave was granted for it to be a formal motion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We are not in formal business but leave was granted for the motion to be moved. Senator Brown is now debating the motion. Is that correct, Senator Brown? Senator BOB BROWN: Yes, that is right. Senator Ian Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr Deputy President: it is the exact point I made in relation to the previous motion, and I was told that it was a formal motion, that leave had been given to deal with it as a formal motion. I was told I could not speak on it. Now we are having the exact same motion with a different ruling. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You are correct, Senator Macdonald, and it is my error for calling that incorrectly to you in the first instance. However, it has been the tradition of the Senate that when these motions are moved they are treated as formal motions even though we are not in formal business. Leave was sought for a motion to be moved, and that is how they have normally been dealt with. If Senator Brown now wishes to debate the motion, as will be your entitlement, he can do so. I have called Senator Brown. He has the call. Senator BOB BROWN: Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I am pleased to be making a precedent here. Senator Ian Macdonald: You've made a lot of precedents, Bob—1.6 million of them. Senator BOB BROWN: Yes, I have. What we have is seven senators from the major parties missing from a Senate sitting which is to deal with important matters— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator BOB BROWN: yes, six, as somebody has dropped off the list—without due explanation except it is on parliamentary business, personal business or ministerial business. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator Abetz: He's pre-prepared it and he's adjusting his speech to what's actually occurred. Senator BOB BROWN: Senator Abetz objects, but he has got an opportunity to speak here. I think it is more than a courtesy. It is a matter of public interest as to why six or seven senators from the major parties should be missing from this last day of sitting of the Senate. They should be here unless there is some cogent reason— Senator Fifield: On a point of order, Mr Deputy President, I think that Senator Brown is very close to misleading the Senate. This is not the last day of the sitting of the Senate. The last scheduled sitting day of the Senate is Wednesday next week. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. Senator BOB BROWN: There is no point of order. I can see that Senator Abetz has gone Dickensian and I suppose that suits him. I am making a very logical and reasonable point here on behalf of the voters of Australia and the importance of the parliament and, not least, the importance of the sittings of the Senate. There is large-scale absenteeism of frontbenchers of both sides showing up here. This sitting is not sudden; we have all known about it for quite some time. The voters of Australia deserve to have a better explanation. Of course, if there is a family illness or a major occasion which requires a senator to be absent, or a ministerial requirement which is beyond that of the requirement for a senator to be present in the chamber, or if there is a parliamentary duty which is more important than the sitting of the Senate, then let us hear what it is. Of course Senator Abetz would call this a stunt, but I am serious about it and I think the Senate is owed a better explanation than a one-word adjective to say why a senator is away. It is a legion of absenteeism on the last day of the sitting of the Senate and the big parties should do better than that.