|
senate vote 2024-08-19#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-11-24 15:24:20
|
Title
Motions — Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union, Australian Greens- Motions - Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union, Australian Greens - Put the question
Description
<p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>I seek leave to move a motion relating to the Australian Greens and the CFMEU, as has been circulated in the chamber.</p><p>Leave not granted.</p><p>Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:</p><p class="italic">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion to allow a motion relating to the Australian Greens and the CFMEU to be moved and determined immediately.</p><p>The motion circulated in this chamber seeks to highlight what has been a very conspicuous silence from the Australian Greens in relation to the CFMEU and seeks to draw out the position of the Australian Greens in relation to the CFMEU and particularly in relation to taking donations from the CFMEU.</p><p>The main story of the whole CFMEU saga of lawlessness, thuggery and corruption has, of course, been the absolute failings within the CFMEU, the damage it's caused to the building and construction industry, and, of course, the shameful neglect of the Labor Party over the years in relation to their engagement with their partner, in the CFMEU. But underneath that main story there has been a subplot, and that subplot is the tale of the magical missing Australian Greens. Maybe the magical missing Australian Greens are on some of their magic mushrooms or the like. But the reality is: the Greens have been suspiciously, conspicuously, totally absent from the debate about the CFMEU, and I move this motion to really present the question of why: Why have the Greens checked themselves out of this debate? What is their real position? Why the silence from the Greens? Why won't they stand up to union thuggery? Why won't they stand up to union corruption? Why won't the Greens stand up to union lawlessness? What is it that the Greens are hiding in their silence?</p><p>The Greens have long lined up with Labor to oppose tackling corruption and problems in the construction industry. The Greens were there opposing the establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. The Greens were there opposing the establishment of the Registered Organisations Commission. The Greens were there opposing and, tragically, defeating the ensuring integrity legislation brought to this parliament. So the Greens have been there at every step of the way, blocking every single effort to try to hold corruption, lawlessness and thuggery in the union movement to account. The Greens have been there every step of the way in that regard. Of course, if they hadn't been and if they had engaged constructively on these issues over the years, then the CFMEU, its members, Australia's building and construction industry and Australia's productivity would not be facing the same sorts of problems today as we are, because of the opposition of Labor and the Greens acting in concert to stymie any and all action.</p><p>But all of that opposition over the years that we'd been accustomed to—seeing the Greens and Labor sidle up on these matters—has gone from bad to worse through the course of this last year in particular. We saw in relation to the demerger legislation that passed through this parliament, with the government and the opposition working to pass that demerger legislation, that the Greens remained an obstacle to that every single step of the way—never mind those workers who had argued strongly for their rights to be able to get out of the CFMEU and to be able to get away from it. No, the Greens wanted to force them to stay in place, suspiciously blocking and delaying the demerger legislation. Now, in relation to the administration legislation, there is an effort—insufficient though we think it may be, it is at least an effort—to try to clean up the problems in the CFMEU.</p><p>From an opposition perspective, we've engaged with the government. We've negotiated amendments. Those negotiations are continuing. We want to see this legislation passed. We want to see legislation passed that is strong, gives guarantees that this administration will work, gives guarantees it will clean up the CFMEU and ensures that, when it comes to the duration of administration, the transparency of administration or political donations, these are dealt with before the legislation passes, such that we can all have confidence.</p><p>The Greens aren't part of those negotiations. Do you know how many Greens senators have spoken on the legislation to date? Absolutely none—not one of them has spoken on the legislation to date. I cannot think of another example where the Greens have been so conspicuously and so suspiciously silent. The Greens' silence leaves us all asking: Why? Do we need to follow the money trail? Where do they stand on political donations? <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>I'll indicate briefly two points. The first is that the government denied leave because we don't believe the Senate's time should continually be taken up by suspensions. We want to get on with debating legislation. I do think it's interesting that the opposition want to talk about this but not actually talk about how we might regulate the CFMEU. I hope for your sake that the delay over the weekend, which has been caused by Senator Cash's stubbornness, has not led to money being transferred that we then find out about.</p> <p class="speaker">Jane Hume</p><p>To you.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>You should withdraw that. That is an outrageous thing to say. I have been on the record for years on this issue.</p> <p class="speaker">Jane Hume</p><p>We're talking about donations. What about donations?</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>We have been clear on that too. The second point I would make is that the government is minded to support the motion, and I would propose to Senator Birmingham that we allow one more speaker from the government on the substance. We would allow a speaker from the Greens, and then we would put the motion to have the vote because we don't want legislative time taken up by further debate on this suspension.</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to—</p> <p class="speaker">David Shoebridge</p><p>What is this?</p> <p class="speaker">Claire Chandler</p><p>I'm in the hands of the chamber.</p> <p class="speaker">Murray Watt</p><p>They had the call. The call has to be rotated. You know that, Senator McKenzie.</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>I'm the leader of the party.</p> <p class="speaker">Claire Chandler</p><p>Order! Senator Wong.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>I've put a proposition to the chamber. It didn't include a further speaker from the opposition, for the reasons I've outlined. I'm suggesting a speaker on the substance from the government and the Greens, and then that the motion be put.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>I understand what the Leader of the Government in the Senate is proposing in relation to the suspension motion. I seek to understand what is being proposed if the suspension motion is carried, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate seems to indicate that the government's predisposition is to allow it to pass. What is the government's position in relation to the substantive motion? Obviously, it would then be moved by the opposition. There would be—</p><p>I think, to enable the motion to pass—and have the benefit of the motion passing—that would be welcome.</p> <p class="speaker">David Shoebridge</p><p>This motion is an extraordinary misrepresentation of the position adopted by the party. Rather bizarrely, the motion is being moved to prevent the second reading contribution that I'm keen to give on the bill. Rather than me being able to give a second reading contribution on the bill, we're dealing with a suspension motion. The suspension motion will then become a substantive motion. The substantive motion will then take an hour and prevent a substantive contribution to the second reading debate. Is that seriously the coalition's point? Do you want to spend the next hour preventing the second reading contribution that I want to give on the bill by saying, 'We're not giving a second reading contribution on the bill'? Who in your tactics team came up with that grand plan? No wonder there's a sea of media representatives out there—</p> <p class="speaker">Claire Chandler</p><p>Order! Through the chair, Senator Shoebridge.</p> <p class="speaker">David Shoebridge</p><p>They are watching Senator Birmingham's cunning plan to prevent me speaking on a bill and saying that you want to prevent us speaking on a bill. Look at the sea of cameras waiting to see the cunning Birmingham plan, saying how you're preventing me from speaking on a bill. You want me to speak on a bill, but you don't want me to speak on the bill. And you want to have another debate after this, to prevent me from speaking on the bill. Who is the genius in the coalition party room who came up with this? All credit to you. It's probably the same genius who's giving Senator Watt the idea to respond to a substantive issue with memes. The government's response to a substantive issue, and issues of principle, is a bunch of Labor Party memes.</p><p>Let's be clear what we're not talking about here. The Greens have said, from day one, in every instance where issues of principle come before this parliament, that we will always oppose violence in the workplace and always support action to address sexism and misogyny—every single time. There are no doubt issues—and we would like to get to this discussion in the second reading debate—incredibly important and very concerning issues about union behaviour. They're absolutely, deeply concerning. But we're not talking about them now; we're talking about the Simon Birmingham double-triple pike with half belly flop into the water that you want to spend the next hour doing. This is zero points for difficulty from the judging panel for your half-triple pike attempt to prevent the matter coming on for debate—zero points for difficulty and, in fact, zero points for style or substance.</p> <p class="speaker">Claire Chandler</p><p>Order, Senator Shoebridge. Senator McKenzie, on a point of order.</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p> I'm the senator that actually wanted to speak about the substantive issues in this motion, which is about the Greens' inability to land their own position, and to have Senator Shoebridge have the opportunity to state—</p> <p class="speaker">Claire Chandler</p><p>Order! Senator McKenzie, could you please get to the point of order? Was there a point of order?</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>Irrelevance.</p> <p class="speaker">Claire Chandler</p><p>Senator Shoebridge, you do have to be relevant to the suspension motion, not the substantive motion, so I would guide you to direct your comments thus.</p><p>Order, Senator McKenzie! Senator Shoebridge.</p> <p class="speaker">David Shoebridge</p><p>Indeed. On suspension, the question before the house is: what should be more important, this suspension motion or the actual list of business before the house? And what's No. 1 on the list of business before the house? The very bill that the suspension motion is saying we're not speaking to. It couldn't be more important. So I thank you for your direction, Acting Deputy President, and, through that, your endorsement of the position we're taking about the Birmingham double-pike belly flop that is being proposed here.</p><p>We have said—and I would like to be in a position to say them in more detail—the very real concerns we have about the principles behind this bill. The extraordinary amount of power that has been—</p> <p class="speaker">Claire Chandler</p><p>Order, Senator McKenzie. Senator Shoebridge?</p> <p class="speaker">David Shoebridge</p><p>The extraordinary power that's being proposed to be given to a minister of either this government or the next government over a union—and if they can do it over a union, they can do it over an NGO; if they can do it over an NGO, they can do it over any other part of civil society. Do we have issues of principle with that? Absolutely we have issues of principle and concern about that. Absolutely we do. Have we reached out to the government and offered our concerns, offered substantive amendments to have it—</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>What about the thuggery, the sexism, the bullying, the corruption? Silence from the Greens—</p> <p class="speaker">Nick McKim</p><p>Weren't you listening?</p> <p class="speaker">Claire Chandler</p><p>Order, Senator McKenzie. Senator Shoebridge.</p> <p class="speaker">David Shoebridge</p><p>Have we done that? Absolutely. If you want to talk about donations, the Greens have not accepted a cent from the CFMEU since 2013, while millions and millions and millions of dollars have gone to Senator Watt's party. And it is only—</p> <p class="speaker">Claire Chandler</p><p>Order, Senator Shoebridge. I have Senator Birmingham on his feet. Senator McKenzie, I would like to hear what Senator Birmingham has to say. Senator Birmingham.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>On a point of order, I'd just like to invite Senator Shoebridge to finish that statement with the words, 'And nor will we.'</p> <p class="speaker">Claire Chandler</p><p>Order, Senator Birmingham. That's not a point of order, and I think you are aware of that. Senator Shoebridge.</p> <p class="speaker">David Shoebridge</p><p>So he has finished his belly flop now with a dog paddle in the pool. That's what that was—a belly flop followed by a dog paddle in the pool. It's embarrassing to watch. We have not taken a cent from the CFMEU since 2013. Senator Watt's party has taken millions and millions and millions of dollars. We have the most ethical donations—</p> <p class="speaker">Claire Chandler</p><p>Order, Senator Shoebridge. Your time has expired. Senator Watt, you have the call—</p><p>Senator Shoebridge, you will sit down when I say that your time has expired. Senator Watt, you have the call.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2024-08-19.22.30):
- > *That the motion be put.*
- In other words, they voted to end debate and instead vote on the [question under discussion](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/senate/2024-08-19/4) straight away.
-
-
|