Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann answered it very clearly and very directly. Senator Cormann said, in that instance, that, yes, that was still government policy—and Senator Cormann has always said that, in fact. He is a straight shooter and he has been very straight about that the whole time. So that is one trigger. The other trigger, as I said, is the registered organisations bill.

As for how you use the trigger, even if the request to the Governor-General does not include said legislation, be it the Clean Energy Finance Corporation bill or other legislation—hypothetically, the registered orgs bill, which is already a trigger, or the ABCC bill, if that were to become a trigger—there is a lot of grey about whether or not, after the election, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation legislation could still be brought to that joint sitting. Just so that is clear: even if the government, prior to an election, does not put in their formal request to the Governor-General with the cause for a double dissolution, there is huge ambiguity and there are those who would argue quite eloquently—and there is High Court precedent to this effect over a similar question; not the exact same question—about what that would mean. So we do not know the answer to that because it has never been tested.

I foreshadow that we could have a situation where, even if the Clean Energy Finance Corporation legislation is not used as the trigger for a double dissolution election, it could potentially still be used in the joint sitting because it meets the criterion under section 57 of the Constitution. None of this is actually been tested. None of this has been tested. That is the question that has to be asked.

We are not afraid of an election. The Labor Party is not afraid of a poll. We are not afraid of a bill. No, we are not afraid of an election. Let's be honest here: the government's ratings have been in a downward spiral for the past couple of months. Things cannot exactly be all rosy when the government cannot even tell you when they are going to deliver their own budget. What does worry me, and it does, is a double dissolution election being held when there is a new voting structure for the Senate. Senator Di Natale, you are right: we do not support that new structure. We think that is a structure that is geared towards the conservative side of politics and to benefit the conservative side of politics. You are right: I do not support the legislation and I do not support these laws. We are not pretending that the aim of this amendment is to do anything other than prevent it from being able to be used for double dissolution action. The ABCC is a likely trigger. We know it is a likely trigger. Again, there is a grey area about whether it is a trigger at this point and about what failure to pass exactly is. Senator Cormann did go on Sky News last Sunday. I may be paraphrasing him here. I am sure he will correct me if I misquote him. My general understanding of what he said in that interview is that it was the government's intention to reintroduce the ABCC bill in an upcoming session of this chamber. If that were rejected, it would be a clear-cut trigger. Again, it may or may not be a trigger already right now. There are many things that have not yet been tested and there is all the grey legality over what can and cannot be used.

The suggestion here is that we make sure there is not a double dissolution election where the two key triggers would be the ABCC and the registered organisations act and create a situation where we are unnecessarily risking the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's future. I believe that they are risks that should not be taken. This amendment directly addresses those concerns.

Senator Di Natale did make some comments and Senator Whish-Wilson, through his interjections, was making comments regarding the idea that says: to make it relevant, this amendment should be rejected for the purpose of the progressive side of politics working together and fighting together as a priority. That is great rhetoric. That is the kind of thing that plays well to a centre-left or a left-wing Twitterer or a Facebook and social media audience. But the reality is that you have Michael Kroger belling the cat on this issue and saying, 'We're working towards a loose preference arrangement.' We know what that preference arrangement is and we know what it involves. It involves the Liberal Party preferencing the Greens in inner-city electorates where they contest the Labor Party, and, where the Labor Party is contesting against the conservative parties, the Greens not issue preferences, and, essentially, ideally for the conservative side of politics, create a leakage out of the progressive pile. That is that. To turn around and say, 'No, we should all be working together and fighting together'—the logic, the actions, do not match what this would cause. I do not know if there is some rope-a-dope strategy from the leader of the Greens political party, that we did not know—some kind of Muhammad Ali and George Foreman Rumble in the Jungle, where they are going to lull the conservative side of politics into a false sense of security by giving them open tickets and working with them in passing all of the legislation, and somehow this is going to result in them being taken out, knocked out in some kind of final blow. I hope there is a strategy and a logic for the progressive side of politics behind this, because no-one else can see it. It is not there for anyone else.

We have had a very long night. A lot has been said. There were some lighter moments and there was a bit of colour and movement, and that is to be expected, but I think it is important that this legislation does get the proper scrutiny that it deserves. There is the process that we have been going through, discussing these amendments and giving explanations. I think Senator Cormann in many instances has done a good job in making sure questions have been answered. We are not happy that not all of the questions have answers. We perhaps did not like some of the answers he has given us.

An honourable senator interjecting—

No—I have an incredible amount of respect for Senator Cormann. I do note that when we were debating the carbon price legislation in 2009—a debate before my time in this place—you, Senator Cormann, led the debate in the chamber, or you were one of the instigators. That debate went for 63 hours. I am not purporting that this go for that long—

An honourable senator: Oh!

No, I believe, beforehand—if for no other reason, it is true that I do have tickets to Madonna on Sunday night in Sydney. I hear she might be late, so I might have even more hours than I thought I had.