|
senate vote 2023-11-10#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-02-08 16:38:18
|
Title
Bills — Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023; in Committee- Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 - in Committee - Speed things along
Description
<p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>I struggle to think of a bill that has been mismanaged to the extent that this one has. In 16½ years in the Senate, I struggle to think of another occasion when the government has mismanaged its legislative program and, in particular, mismanaged a bill to the extent that this government has mismanaged this bill and its legislative program this week.</p>-
- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-11-10.69.10):
- > *That the question be put.*
- In other words, they voted against ending the debate in order to speed things along.
<p>It has been a disastrous week for the government. To date, there have been two government bills passed in non-controversial legislation yesterday. Negotiated in advance, all parties agreed, no issue—they passed yesterday. Otherwise, not a single government bill has passed. Four bills from the crossbench have passed. Twice as many bills have passed the Senate thanks to the work of Senators Lambie and Pocock, crossbench senators working cooperatively—and let me underscore the word 'cooperatively'—with the coalition and other senators to get something done. The crossbench has shown it can get something done. The crossbench has shown it can work cooperatively. But the government has not, and that is the mess the government has put itself in.</p><p>The coalition has been very clear. We support this bill. We've been clear on that for a long time. Senator Duniam, in particular, has articulated the good policy reasons why we support this bill, and I want to make that transparent to all. But this place operates on reasonableness and on give and take for the ability to get things done. It is for the government to manage the time in the Senate chamber appropriately. It is for the government, in managing that time, to engage cooperatively with other parties to get its agenda through, and the government has failed manifestly in engaging cooperatively with other parties because, right now, it's not engaging at all.</p><p>I want to be very clear. There has been no approach from the government to have constructive discussions with the opposition about time management for this bill—not today nor yesterday. It is simply a 'take it or leave it' approach from the government: 'We want to guillotine the bill, and, because you agree with the bill, you should agree with our guillotine.' That's not how this place works, and it's not how this place has ever worked. I listened to Senator McAllister earlier say, 'Well, we shouldn't be engaged in horse trading.' Frankly, Senator McAllister, I'm surprised that you could manage to say that with a straight face or that any of your colleagues could.</p> <p class="speaker">Deborah O'Neill</p><p>Order, Senator Birmingham! I ask that you make your remarks through the chair.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>I am surprised any government senator could say that with a straight face. I wouldn't say that because I know horse trading has long been an integral part of how things get done in this place. I know that, when you wanted to get the Greens to vote against Senator McKenzie 's Qatar inquiry, you agreed to vote for their Middle Arm inquiry, which you had voted against multiple times. That's horse trading. That's what you did to try to cooperate with the Greens. I know that, when you wanted to get Senator Pocock—</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Birmingham, order! I draw your attention to the use of the word 'you'.</p><p>I'm using 'you' to refer to the government generally, Chair.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: You might refer to them as 'the government', to make that clear, thank you, Senator Birmingham.</p><p>I know that when the government wanted to get Senator Pocock's vote to defeat the extension of Senator McKenzie's Qatar inquiry, the government agreed to the reinstatement of the ACCC monitoring of domestic airlines in Australia. Guess what that is? That's horse trading.</p><p>I know that, back when I sat in that chair and Senator Wong sat in this chair and I wanted the then opposition's support for passage of legislation that the Labor Party agreed with, Senator Wong would put proposals to me—for example, proposals such as the Senate select committee into wage theft, which Senator Sheldon chaired as an opposition senator. We agreed at the time because we were willing to work cooperatively. You might call it horse trading, but we agreed to work cooperatively to get things done in this place, because that is the type of give-and-take required to get things done in this chamber.</p><p>The coalition is clear: we support this bill. Our requests in terms of working cooperatively with the government are modest—very modest. We've asked for support in relation to a solitary committee inquiry—only a references committee, not establishing a new committee. We are not actually seeking to do anything other than have a references committee inquiry supported by the government, not opposed by the government. The committee process in this place is set up such that non-government parties chair references committees so that they can look into matters that perhaps are sometimes uncomfortable for the government. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be explored or examined. It also doesn't mean that the government shouldn't go into those inquiries fully confident in its convictions and its capacity to be able to defend its position through such inquiries. The government should be willing and able to do that as well in relation to any inquiry into any government policies.</p><p>So I wanted, this time, to make very clear that the coalition continues to stand ready to work cooperatively with the government. There is time for this bill to pass today, and we will engage cooperatively with the government if they show just an iota of give-and-take to the coalition and the opposition. This is not the only bill that could be passed today. The stalled Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, which has been the subject of consideration and debate already in this chamber, could equally be passed today. In fact, with a little bit of cooperation from the government, who knows what could possibly be done? But you've got to talk to us. You've got to cooperate with us. You've got to show a little give-and-take. Otherwise, it's going to be a long three sitting weeks ahead.</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>Thanks, Senator Birmingham, for setting out your test, which actually doesn't sound particularly flexible to me.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>Tell us what you've got then, Jenny!</p><p>Opposition senators interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>Senator Birmingham, you've come into the chamber and risen to your feet and suggested that what's required is engagement and flexibility. I'm not sure that coming to a negotiation with a single option—'take it or leave it'—does in fact represent flexibility. But I do know that the government, of course, is always available to work with senators on arrangements. But it remains the case—and I made the point earlier this morning—that this is a bill for which, on Monday, Senator Duniam laid out the support from the opposition and the reasons why the bill deserves support. The question that you need to answer for the people who are watching this debate is: why would you side with the Greens political party repeatedly to vote against the progression of the bill? You've said that you support the bill. You've said that it is important to underwriting investment certainty for carbon capture and storage projects. It's probably time to really act on those beliefs, isn't it? It's difficult to say that you support regulatory certainty when you come into the chamber again and again and again and prevent the passage of the legislation. You actively vote against it. You know, because your stakeholders do talk to you, that there are a range of carbon capture and storage projects around the country that can't proceed without this legislation.</p><p>Honourable senators interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Deborah O'Neill</p><p>Order, Senators! Constant interjections are highly disorderly.</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>We on this side believe in providing regulatory certainty for industry but also for the community. That's because we do think that, when projects of this kind are brought forward, they should be tested for their environmental impact, and it's important that industry knows what those tests will be but it's also important that those in the community who have an interest in this—for whom some of the Greens senators have sought to advocate in the course of the debate—have certainty too. That's what this framework provides, and it's the basis on which the government is bringing it forward.</p><p>The actions of the people opposite, who have voted again and again this morning against opportunities to progress this legislation, are putting projects at risk and therefore putting Australian jobs at risk. There are a range of projects that may be formally regulated under this legislation—projects in Western Australia, Victoria and the Northern Territory. Some of these projects are backed by some of our closest trading partners, who want to invest in Australian CCS projects. Your actions over the course of this week have been to prevent the passage of legislation that would enable them. So, for all the talk about support for investment and support for jobs, there's not much actually happening in that regard, is there? You are failing that test—a test that you set for yourselves. Senators, it is my view that this bill should progress today, and, Chair, I'm going to give the opposition another opportunity to have this bill progress. I move:</p><p class="italic">That the question be now put.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>Chair, a point of order.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Yes, Senator Birmingham.</p><p>I think this is the third occasion today—</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Birmingham, what is your point of order? What is the standing order to which you refer?</p><p>My point of order is that I believe the Senate has made its will on this matter clear already through multiple divisions—</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you. Can you resume your seat and I'll take advice, thank you, Senator Birmingham. Following advice from the clerk, it is clear that it is within the standing orders that the question can once again be put. I will follow that advice in accordance with standing orders.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew McLachlan</p><p>The question is that the question be put.</p><p></p><p></p> -
-
|