Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I certainly will do my best to ignore the interjections. Senator Whish-Wilson would like to claim some sort of distinction that the Greens are not funded by the CFMEU, even though they receive money from the CFMEU—even though they receive significant funds from the CFMEU. I do not know what he determines is 'funding'. I do not know what he understands by funding.

I would have thought that a $50,000 donation just here in the ACT, presumably much more—I think Adam Bandt receives a significant amount of funding from the CFMEU, but I stand to be corrected; I do not have those documents in front of me. If I am wrong on that, I will withdraw. Certainly we know one example here, and right around the country the CFMEU funds the Greens—as well as the Labor Party, of course, and people like Daniel Andrews.

On the relevance of that and in responding to Senator Cameron's earlier claims that on our side it is somehow about donations, let us be clear. When we talk about donations, let us talk about the special deal that Labor wants to do, and has done, for the industry super funds that are close to the big unions—like the CFMEU—and those very unions that fund Labor Party and Greens election campaigns. If you are looking for a conflict of interest as to what might be at the heart of this, perhaps look over to the Labor Party and the Greens and their sources of funding on this issue.

It is clear on any measure, as we look at the facts, that what has been claimed at the heart of this by Senator Dastyari and others, on what this FoFA legislation actually does, is false. It is wrong. It is scaremongering. In the words of ABC Fact Check, it is scaremongering and it is dishonest to make those claims. People like Senator Dastyari, Chris Bowen and others in the Labor Party—and on the crossbench—should know better. They must know. They must have looked at this and decided they could somehow scare people into agreeing with them on this issue.

I go back to the issue of the flip-flopping from some on the crossbench and the unfortunate nature in the way they have done that. They made a deal to vote on it twice—twice this was considered—and the likes of Senator Lambie and Senator Muir voted with the government. They looked at this issue and voted with the government. Industry proceeds on that basis—believing that the parliament has made a judgement. Nothing changes other than, apparently, a fight within the Palmer United Party. That seems to be all that has changed since the last time we considered this legislation. That is not a good basis for a change in public policy—because Jacqui Lambie does not like Clive Palmer anymore. That is not a good reason.

The 'coalition of common sense' that Jacqui Lambie now claims to be leading is going to lead us to outcomes where important legislation like this gets chopped and changed. What is to stop it being different in two or three months time, if Senator Lambie and Clive Palmer kiss and make up? What is to stop it changing again? This is the farce it will become if we go down this path. This disallowance motion should not be supported.