|
senate vote 2024-08-19#7
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-10-06 11:14:15
|
Title
Motions — Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union- Motions - Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union - Let another motion be moved
Description
<p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>I seek leave to move a motion ordering the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to attend the chamber for 10 minutes upon conclusion of this debate on this motion, to explain whether Labor will either return to the CFMEU any of the millions of dollars it has received from the CFMEU or make a donation of an equivalent amount to a registered charity—perhaps even a charity supporting women fleeing family, domestic and sexual violence.</p><p>Leave not granted.</p><p>Pursuant to the 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 give precedence to a motion relating to an order for the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to attend the chamber for 10 minutes upon conclusion of debate on this motion to explain whether Labor will return any of the millions in donations it has received from the CFMEU.</p><p>We have not received donations from the CFMEU for over 10 years, and I can't see that changing. I'm confident the party would not accept any should they be offered, yet Labor have taken—we now hear, from the minister—$6 million. So it is baffling that they are trying to make this about the Greens.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>On a point of order: I want to seek clarification. I think we've had two suspensions. We would generally not have a third. I would like to be clear about that. I think Senator Gallagher will say something, but I make that point.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew McLachlan</p><p>Minister, I understand that, given one of the suspensions was successful, the argument doesn't hold that it's delaying the business of the chamber. The minister has priority. Then I'll go to the other side.</p><p>Okay. Senator McKenzie.</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>Isn't it fascinating? Here we are. We've spent a whole morning on this. I was following Senator Shoebridge in the contributions to the second reading debate. He kept dropping his contribution off. Rather than hearing him put on the record the Greens' perspective on this particular bill, we have now spent all morning with them equivocating, vacillating and quite significantly refusing to put the Greens' political party's perspective on the CFMEU's thuggery, misogyny and corruption allegations on the record or be willing to step up and do something tough about it.</p><p>What we've actually seen here today is that both parties that have accepted money from the CFMEU in political donations seem to be refusing the coalition's simple solution to this: put it in the bill that political parties of all colours and persuasions, whilst the CFMEU is in administration, should not be accepting donations. It's that simple. And Senator Shoebridge—through you, Chair—if you really wanted to stand on your principles, you would accept that donation amendment from the coalition and support it, because it would then apply the same principles around taking donations and money from the CFMEU whilst in administration to all political parties.</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>Because I don't want to delay the Senate again, I will quickly respond to Senator McKenzie's point. Our advice on putting a clause like that in the bill, and the High Court has considered this in another judgement, is that it would be unconstitutional and it would put at risk the entire administration of the bill. That is why we haven't reached agreement. I think people can read High Court judgements about that if they need further persuasion.</p><p>We are not going to support the suspension. In typical Senate form, we have been here for two hours and 10 minutes and we have not got to the first item of business on the legislation program today. In closing, I would urge those to keep their remarks, when they concern this, to the second reading debate, which we would hopefully have finished and completed if we had been allowed to get there this morning and not have this time wasting. I move the question be put.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew McLachlan</p><p>The question is that the question be put.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p><p>The question in that Senator Waters' motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.</p><p></p><p></p> -
- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2024-08-19.33.1) introduced by Queensland Senator [Larissa Waters](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/larissa_waters) (Greens), which means it failed.
- ### Motion text
- > *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 give precedence to a motion relating to an order for the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to attend the chamber for 10 minutes upon conclusion of debate on this motion to explain whether Labor will return any of the millions in donations it has received from the CFMEU.*
- Standing orders are the usual procedural orders of parliament.
-
-
|