Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on this amendment. I note the minister's answer. I did jump up, but obviously he wanted to respond. He may wish to respond to this. I want to focus on the double dissolution timing that this amendment seeks to avoid. Senator Di Natale earlier in the night said, 'Why are you so scared of an election?' I am not scared of an election. I have been in a few national campaigns: won some, lost some; that is life.

Senator Simms interjecting—

Would you like to make a contribution, Senator Simms, or can I speak?

An honourable senator interjecting—

I am trying to talk about the amendment, and you are—

An honourable senator interjecting—

That is actually not true, if you look at my contributions this evening.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! I remind the chamber that interjections are disorderly.

I know they are getting tired and emotional, but I want to go back to this issue of a double dissolution election.

Honourable senators interjecting—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I remind the chamber that interjections are disorderly, and senators are entitled to be heard in silence.

I want to focus on why it is that we are concerned about a double dissolution. Unlike the Australian Greens, we do not think giving a coalition government the keys to a double dissolution is a progressive thing to do. It is nothing to do with courage; it is about whether or not it is a progressive thing to do. I want to focus on the two triggers that they already have.

We know that this government already has two double dissolution triggers, and both of them are deeply conservative pieces of legislation. They are the registered organisations legislation, which is antiworker legislation, and the abolition of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, a body set up by the Gillard government. The Australian Greens joined with Labor, quite rightly, and sufficient of the crossbench to ensure that the government's ideologically driven plan to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation could not be implemented. Let us understand what this legislation that is before the Senate would enable. It would enable this government to go to a double dissolution election with the new Senate voting rules, which is what they want. It will give them the keys to that and, in doing so, it would risk the abolition of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the passage of the registered organisations legislation at a joint sitting.

So the Australian Greens have a choice here this morning. They have a choice as to whether or not—leaving aside all of the arguments about the content of this legislation, leaving aside all of the policy arguments about whether or not the intent of this legislation is appropriate, leaving aside all of the technical arguments as to whether in fact it essentially delivers a system where 75 per cent of the vote begets 100 per cent of the outcome, leaving aside all of those matters, there is a very focused single point here: do the Australian Greens want to protect the Clean Energy Finance Corporation or not? That is the point.

What our amendment does is ensure this government cannot take that to a joint sitting post a double dissolution should they win. So it is about protecting that entity, and ensuring also that any other legislation that this government is able to attain a trigger on is also not presented to a joint sitting, where of course, given the numbers between the houses, it would be passed. So if the Australian Greens are serious about the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, if they are serious about opposing the antiworker legislation—one of which there is already a trigger for—or the ABCC legislation, which the government I am sure will also try to get a trigger on, and in fact some have argued they already have, then they should support this amendment.

Now, the government responded by opposing this amendment. Of course they would, because they see the chance—they get the keys to a double dissolution and they get the opportunity, should they win, at a joint sitting to pass the right-wing legislation that they want to and which the Senate has so far prevented them from doing.

The government says, 'Well, we don't like this. But what we like is the Greens amendment No. 7882.' I think it is 7882. Now, 7882 is a very interesting amendment from Senator Rhiannon. She may well say, 'I've done a really good job; I've got a new start date.'

Firstly—and when we get to this I will put this to the minister—we think this is a very questionable amendment, legally. It ensures that the act is internally inconsistent as between commencement date and application date. I think that is problematic, legally, and I would like to understand how that works. I will put the minister on notice: I will ask him to provide the legal advice as to the efficacy of that and the validity of that. But leaving that to one side, even if Senator Rhiannon's questionable amendment is appropriate what she is doing is ensuring an effective start date of 1 July. That just happens to be the day before the first DD could be held! It is no protection at all! It is no protection at all for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation or the trade unions and their members who are the target of this government and the target of the legislation which could go to a joint sitting.

So when the Australian Greens talk about how much they have defended clean energy in this country, they now have a test. Will they support Labor on this amendment, which ensures that for the purposes of this election this legislation—the keys to the Turnbull double dissolution—could not be utilised for the purposes of abolishing the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. And if they fail to do so they ought to get up and say why. They ought to get up and say why it is that they do not believe the CEFC and the registered organisations bills ought to be prevented.

Again, I want to emphasise Labor's amendment on this: the Greens would still pass this bill and still get the policy that they are arguing for. A number of times I have put in this chamber why we think it is the wrong policy, but they could still have that. What it would do is to ensure that a returned Turnbull government—should that happen—did not have the tools to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation or pass the antiworker, anti-union legislation that it already has in its armoury.

Now, there has been a lot of discussion about this. I know the Greens have been part of discussions with representatives of working people—trade unionists and others—about this issue. In fact, many trade unionists—and you can see this in their public statements, both on social media and also in the mainstream media—are appalled that the Greens did not think this through. They are appalled that they did not think through a start date so as to ensure that, whatever one's views about voting changes, the Greens did not give Mr Turnbull the capacity to abolish the CEFC, to pass the registered organisations bill and to pass the Australian Building and Construction Commission bill.

Why did they not think of that? If you are going down this path, walking in lockstep with the coalition—with a conservative government—do you reckon that you might not have thought what they might want to do with this? Do you reckon you might not have thought about it? They have made their position very clear on these issues: this government wants to destroy the trade union movement. That is not new—it is not a new thing, is it? Conservative governments have always wanted to do that: Howard wanted to do that and tried to do it for years, and this government is doing so. Part of why they have not been able to has been that this Senate has prevented some of the institutional attacks that are contained in the legislation that I have described.

I join with many people in the Labor movement—many people in the trade union movement—who are appalled but also astonished that the Greens could be so naive as to walk into a situation where they hand to a Liberal-National Party government the keys to a double dissolution and not put any protections in in case they are returned to ensure they cannot do these things to working people and their representatives or abolish the CEFC. It is at best naive in the extreme, at worst a betrayal of working people, trade unions and those principles of sustainability that the Greens tell us they hold so dear.

I have been in this debate on clean energy and climate for a very long time. Senator Cormann is complaining about how long we have been here. He was happy—

Senator Cormann interjecting—

'Commenting' on it. I am happy to rephrase if he feels upset by 'complaining'. I think the CPRS was in excess of 60 hours. He was quite happy to debate a carbon price for that long. I will say that, on the CEFC, this Senate—the Greens, the Labor Party and sufficient of the crossbench working together—has prevented the conservative government undertaking what is an ideological agenda on that front. It is the same with the registered organisations bill. We also know the ABCC bill is coming again. In fact, I have seen some legal argument—that looks peculiarly like Senator Brandis, but anyway—suggesting in the papers that they already have a trigger on the ABCC.

I think progressive people around this country are entitled to an explanation from the Australian Greens for why they agreed to a start date that gave this opportunity to this government. I think people are entitled to that explanation. I say to the Greens again: you have the opportunity to ensure that this morning you protect the CEFC, you ensure the ABCC cannot be passed and you ensure the registered organisations bill not be passed. Without prejudice to your deal with the government on voting reform, you get the policy but you have the opportunity to support this amendment to ensure that those entities are protected.