Senate debates
Thursday, 3 December 2015
Business
Rearrangement
9:31 am
Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I seek leave to move a motion relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business for today.
Leave not granted.
Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Brandis, I move:
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 the hours of meeting and routine of business for today.
The motion that I am seeking leave to move today is one that is fairly unexceptional for the last sitting day of the year. As I have often said in this place, the management of business in the Senate chamber, a place where there is no one grouping who has a majority, is a collective responsibility of all senators. That collective responsibility in this place is exercised on different occasions by different combinations. Sometimes it might be the government together with the opposition agreeing on a proposition for the management of business. Sometimes it might be the government and the Australian Greens agreeing on a proposition for the management of business in this place, and sometimes it might be the government and combinations of crossbenchers agreeing with the proposition to manage business in this place.
The motion that I am seeking leave to move is a fairly modest motion in terms of its legislative objectives. There are three bills listed, which is probably the shortest list of bills for this stage of the sitting year that I have seen in this place. I contrast the approach that the government takes in relation to these particular motions, as we get towards the end of the year, with that of the previous government. For those colleagues in this place who might not have been here when the Senate was in its previous incarnation, when the current government was in opposition, it was not uncommon for the Australian Labor Party to move motions in the final week of sittings that would contain something of the order of 55 bills. In some cases, this would allow precisely no time—not a single minute—for debate. A bill was listed and if it was not dealt with by a particular time it would be put to a vote, in all stages, without any debate—no second reading debate, no committee stage, and amendments put without debate.
What the government is putting forward here is very reasonable and very appropriate. I am not listing 55 bills here. I am not seeking to guillotine or gag. The government is not seeking to do any of those things. We are just looking to have an orderly process for a limited number of bills so that we can deal with them in the ordinary course of events. This motion is not seeking to take away anyone's opportunity to speak on a bill. This motion is not seeking to impose a time frame by which a particular bill must be dealt with. I think it is very important for colleagues to appreciate the very different approach that this government is taking compared to that of our predecessors.
There are three bills here. They are important pieces of legislation to deal with by the end of the year. Over the last couple of weeks we as a government have endeavoured to focus on those bills that are really critical before the end of the year. That has been a desire that a number of colleagues in the chamber have expressed—that we really focus on that which needs to be dealt with by the time that we rise.
It is for these reasons that I am seeking to move this motion. I am disappointed that leave was not granted to move the motion, but hopefully, after the vote on this suspension of standing orders motion, we will have the opportunity to move the motion so that we can get on with the business of this place, as the community expects us to do.
9:36 am
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Let's understand why we are going to be dealing with the motion that the minister has moved. We are dealing with this motion because the Australian Greens have done a dirty deal with the government and they want to bring the deal on for a vote. In the dead of night last night, what we know is that the Australian Greens sat down with the Treasurer and cut a deal to sell out the crossbench and the Labor Party, cut a deal to sell out Australian taxpayers and cut a deal to lessen the transparency that this Senate was insisting on, all so that they could show that they were players. They are the tax transparency traders. That is what the Australian Greens are: the tax transparency traders.
The motion moved by the minister is different to the one which was circulated to the chamber and which would have got agreement. There were all of the fine words from the minister about consultation and so forth. We would have agreed to the motion as previously circulated, but at 10 past nine what we get is a motion which includes this bill, the tax legislation, because Senator Di Natale and his colleagues have suddenly decided that they do not care about transparency in relation to firms earning over $100 million.
I am reminded of Senator McKim's contribution on the citizenship bill. As part of the 'Nick the leader' campaign that we were all watching with great interest, he stood up and had a go at us for doing deals in the dead of night, and so forth. On the citizenship bill public inquiry, a bill was out for everyone to see. We still have not seen the amendments you have cut a deal on and we are about to have to vote on them, because you have done a deal with the government. We still have not seen the amendments. How much transparency is that? How is the dead-of-night dealing going, Senator McKim? I do not know if Senator McKim knows that he is going to be voting for a motion which brings the citizenship bill on. That is what the Greens are going to do: they are going to bring the citizenship bill on, as part of their deal with the government to limit tax transparency.
What we are being asked to vote for is a motion which brings on a dirty deal that the Greens have done overnight and that this chamber has still not seen. We have seen some nice little press releases from the Australian Greens. Senator Whish-Wilson, who was previously with us on this issue, now decides it is time to attack the Labor Party on this issue.
Senator Siewert interjecting—
I know Senator Siewert wants to yell at us. You have sold out Australian taxpayers and you will vote with the coalition to sell out Australian taxpayers.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
This is the Australian Greens' Meg Lees moment. The Meg Lees of Australian politics. That is what Senator Di Natale wants.
Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Wong has repeatedly referred to other senators not through you, chair, and I ask you that she make those comments through you.
Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
On the point of order, Senator Canavan, remarks have to be directed to the chair, not through the chair. Senator Wong, you have the call.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I will direct this remark to you: how humiliating that the Australian Greens are being defended by Senator Canavan. Senator Canavan's views on almost every issue are diametrically opposed to the Greens and he heckles them at every turn when they ask questions in question time and when they speak. Senator Canavan now, because they have done a deal with the government, is springing to the defence of the Australian Greens. How humiliating: the National Party having to defend the Australian Greens because they have done a deal.
Senator Siewert interjecting—
Senator Siewert says, 'This is only an hour's motion.' This is not just an hour's motion; this is the delivery of the deal. This is a motion which ensures we first debate the tax legislation that you have done a deal on. So this hour's motion is intrinsically tied up with a deal that was done in the dead of night by Senator Richard Di Natale and which was pushed through his party room this morning. They were out there backgrounding on it, but no amount of backgrounding will change this fact: the Australian Greens will vote for less tax transparency in this country—end of story. The Australian Greens will change position and ensure that the tax transparency that this Senate was insisting on will be diminished. Who will lose out and who will win out of that? Taxpayers lose out and companies earning over $100 million will win. The Australian Greens are on the side of companies earning between $100 million and $200 million. What are the values of the Australian Greens, one wonders? I expect this from the coalition. I expect better from the Australian Greens.
9:42 am
Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I have Senator Wong's earlier words ringing in my ears: the easiest thing to do in this business is to shout from the sidelines.
Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The easiest thing to do is to shout from the sidelines, not demonstrate any responsibility and be on the fringes of politics. That is where the Labor Party are right now. We have a choice. The choice is simple: we either get nothing or we get significant strides forward when it comes to combatting multinational tax avoidance. It is a simple equation. It is a straightforward equation. This legislation would not have passed the parliament today. As a consequence of that, the multinationals with a turnover of over a billion dollars would not be publishing the amount of tax that they pay. What we would see is private companies with a turnover of over $200 million not having to publish the amount of tax that they pay and, as a consequence of legislation now coming before the parliament, we are going to see, for the first time in this country, significant steps forward when it comes to multinational tax transparency. The insider nonsense that goes on in this place—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The consequence of this motion is that we, as a parliament, get to vote for tax transparency around multinationals when, at the moment, there is nothing. If you are a multinational—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order on my left! Everyone on my left.
Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Isn't it interesting that we have the Labor Party, who keep talking about the Greens being purer than pure and holding out for perfection, and here they are on the fringes and irrelevant. The choice is a very clear one. We can leave this parliament today with companies who have a turnover of over $1 billion not having to declare their affairs. That would be the consequence of not passing this legislation before the parliament today.
Senator Cameron interjecting—
Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—
Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Cameron and Senator Whish-Wilson.
Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The options, as far as the Australian Greens see them, are quite straightforward. We get nothing if we do not deal with this legislation today, a bit fat zero. If you are News Limited, if you are a big pharmaceutical company, or if you are Glencore, you do not have to declare your accounts. You do not have to demonstrate the amount of tax you pay. We can walk away from this parliament protecting News Limited, protecting the pharmaceutical industry, protecting Glencore, and not allowing them to publish their accounts, or we can pass this legislation. That means, for the first time in this country, those companies with a turnover of more than $1 billion now have to publish their full accounts. Those private Australian companies with a turnover of more than $200 million now have to declare the amount of tax that they pay. What do the Labor Party want? Nothing. (Time expired)
9:47 am
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
What a lot of hot air from the Labor Party. The Labor Party say that they want to take action against multinational tax avoidance. It is all talk and no action. Here we have a piece of legislation in front of the parliament, in front of the Senate, which is going to help Australia get its fair share of tax from multinational companies, and the Labor Party say that it is with multinational tax avoiders. That is what the Labor Party are doing. When you hear the yelling, the squealing, the yapping and the barking, it must be very uncomfortable sitting on the sidelines of the public policy debate in Australia. The truth is that Labor, today, continue to stand in the way of stronger action to tackle multinational tax avoidance. The government are committed to taking effective action against multinational tax avoidance, and we are very pleased that the Greens are working with us to help make that happen.
Let me just remind the chamber what this is all about. The government have been working very hard and continue to take strong action to combat multinational tax avoidance. Last year we took action to tighten Australia's thin capitalisation rules to limit the scope for multinationals to claim excessive debt reductions. This bill in front of the Senate today implements the government's 2015-16 budget measures to combat multinational tax avoidance. These measures will force multinational companies with significant activities in Australia to pay their fair share of tax and will level the playing field for all taxpayers.
The new multinational anti-avoidance law will ensure the Commissioner of Taxation can force multinationals that have significant activities in Australia to pay tax on profits from economic activities undertaken here. Multinationals will no longer be able to justify, using contrived schemes, avoiding paying tax. This rule will strengthen our anti-avoidance rules for multinationals by capturing arrangements that are designed to obtain both Australian foreign tax benefits to stop companies claiming they are only seeking to avoid foreign tax and lowering the purpose from sole or dominant purpose to one of the principal purposes and making it easier to apply.
Where a scheme is captured, the Commissioner of Taxation will be able to look through the contrived scheme and apply the tax rules if the multinational made the profit in Australia. This means that they will now pay tax on profits from the Australian activities. Penalties for large companies that enter into tax avoidance or profit-shifting schemes will be doubled from 1 July 2015 and country-by-country reporting will require large multinationals to report additional information to the ATO. This is a significant improvement in transparency and will help the ATO undertake targeted assessments of transfer pricing risk.
This is the legislation that Labor stands against and that the Greens are, today, helping to facilitate through the Senate. Labor can run whatever spin they want to. Labor is standing in the way of that legislation successfully passing the parliament, whereas the Greens are working with the government to make sure that this legislation passes. You can jump up and down and run whatever sort of smoke-and-mirrors campaign you like. We have been able to work with the Greens, positively and constructively, to achieve a beneficial public policy outcome for Australia, which is in our national interest.
We were open to achieving a majority in the Senate with the Labor Party, but the Labor Party was completely not prepared to engage. The Labor Party was standing on the sidelines. In fact, as the Manager of the Government Business confirmed with me this morning, we did not even hear back from the Labor Party in relation to arrangements for the legislative program in the Senate today. That is right, isn't it?
Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Correct.
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
So Senator Fifield confirms. The Labor Party did not even have the courtesy to get back to us. So we are getting on with it. We are very grateful that the Greens have chosen to engage positively and constructively with the government. This will significantly help to combat multinational tax avoidance here in Australia, which of course will lower the tax burden on other Australians who otherwise would be forced to pick up the tab.
9:52 am
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
What we are seeing here this morning is one of the more spineless performances by a man who models himself on Andrew Murray. You are modelling yourself on Andrew Murray. He will be urging you to vote for a GST of 15 per cent on food next—that is where he will be. That is exactly where he is going to be next, because he is just so desperate. He has got a bit of pressure. It will not be long, Senator McKim—you will have that seat all to yourself, don't you worry! But you know what they say in the classics: you cannot stab someone in the back until you are right behind them—and we know you are right behind him! And you deserve it. After watching what has happened this morning, we will be voting for you, don't you worry! What you have agreed to today is to keep protecting tax avoiders in this country, because you will remember, Senator Whish-Wilson—
The PRESIDENT interjecting—
Through you, Mr President—
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Whish-Wilson will remember my last contribution on this particular topic where we talked about wanting to expose the fact that companies were not paying tax. We wanted the details to be out there. We have both been seeking to achieve this, and you have now turned your back on it. You have now turned your back on making sure that Australians know how little tax is being paid by these corporations and these entities. You are now allowing the Australian public to be kept in the dark because the big end of town put the weights on those people over there. I never thought you would cave to the big end of town.
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My apologies, Mr President. I never thought that the Greens would cave to the big end of town's cries. But that is exactly what they have done. The Australian public deserve to know the truth, and the Greens are now standing behind the government in protecting the big end of town—
An opposition senator: 7-Eleven.
As one of my Senate colleagues just said, 7-Eleven—hiding, because of you Greens. All that has gone on at 7-Eleven is now being hidden because of you. They are protected by what you have just done. They are protected because of you. Tax avoiders in this country can lift a glass today and go, 'Yoo-hoo!' to the Greens, and, 'Thank goodness Senator Di Natale's in charge of them! Thank goodness!' because you Greens are contributing to making sure Australians do not know the truth.
I thought, from listening to their contributions when the Greens spoke last time, that they actually believed in what they were saying and that they actually believed that they wanted the big end of town to have to explain how they organise their tax affairs: how they put them through the Cayman Islands, how they put them through Bermuda—how they put them through all those tax havens. I actually believed you when you stood up and gave those speeches. I believed you wanted the Australian public to have this information. And you have now exempted 80 per cent of the companies. Eighty per cent of the companies that should be revealing their tax affairs are now not. So the scam will go on.
The party of the big end of town have got some new best mates. Your supporters will realise that you have sold out. When we had the numbers to make the government agree to this bill, you folded. You are spineless! And when your supporters realise how spineless you are, and the path you are taking them down, they will know what to do about it. They will desert you in droves when they find out you are protecting the big end of town in tax.
I expect that. The Greens are now the friends of the tax avoiders. We know the government are. We know the government are the friends of the tax avoiders, but you Greens now join them in this hall of shame, because we had the numbers—combined, the opposition, the Greens, the minor parties and the independents had the numbers to get the truth made available to the Australian public. You know what a joke the tax system is in how it works—just like how Google and all those companies turned up in front of the British inquiry and said, 'We only pay the amount of tax you ask us to pay. How can you be attacking us?' They were mocking the stupidity of those members of parliament. Well, you are now doing the same to yourself and your own supporters.
9:57 am
Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
It was pointed out to me this morning by Senator Dastyari that the government was close to caving in on this. Absolute BS! What that is code for is: 'We were going to do a deal with the government, but you beat us first.' That is what that is code for.
Let me tell you: I sat in your chair, Mr President, when this party let the kidnap amendment go to a vote without putting up speakers and without even so much as a 'No' on the division. It was the Greens that put this amendment back into the mix and rescued this national debate. The Labor Party did absolutely nothing—absolutely nothing. They rolled over and had their tummies tickled.
We have led on this through the Senate inquiry. Senator Milne got this Senate inquiry up. We put this amendment back into the national conversation, and I am glad that we are still having it today. It is the Greens that have led on this, and we want an outcome for those—
Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Whish-Wilson is misleading the Senate. He sat there and begged me—
Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
He begged me to let him move it, because he needed—
Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Resume your seat, Senator Dastyari! There is no point of order.
Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Let me tell you of the people that came into our offices and every single senator's office and said, 'We need politicians in this country to do something about multinational tax avoidance': the Oaktree foundation; Micah Challenge; the Tax Justice Network. We are doing something about that here today, but the Labor Party are shouting from the sidelines because they want to score political points. They do not want to deliver an outcome for those who have worked so hard in this country to get tax justice in Australia.
Let me tell you—these stakeholders will be coming out today saying: 'Thank you for doing a deal. This is what we want. Thank you for standing up for us today.' We are here representing the Australian people. We are leading on this debate. All the Labor Party are doing is scoring cheap political points. We are happy to debate this through to the early hours of the morning because we are on the side of angels. To quote your leader, 'The Greens are on the side of angels.' I can certainly tell you, Mr President, we want to see outcomes.
Let me say this just shows today how irrelevant the Labor Party have become. They have been dealt out of getting an outcome on tax justice in this country. We have looked at this, we have talked to stakeholders and we have made a decision. We could have all scored political points against the government on this. We could have loaded this up and given it back to the government as a Christmas present. But do you know what? There would be no Christmas present in this country for those who want tax justice. This would have been a political point for the Labor Party and for the Greens if we had wanted to go down the dog whistle politics road. What we have done today is delivered for stakeholders in this country. We have delivered. I am proud to say that we have general purpose accounting, Senator Xenophon's amendment. We have agreement—
Senator Conroy interjecting—
Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Are you making a point of order, Senator Conroy?
Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
There was no point of order. Continue, Senator Whish-Wilson.
Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Let me tell you—we have delivered on Senator Xenophon's amendment, which is absolutely critical to removing special deals for companies to make them do general purpose accounts.
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The BCA have endorsed you today!
Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
We can now get multinationals that have been dodging billions of dollars of tax to tell us where their country-of-origin reporting is. We have begun tax transparency, and it is going to be a long journey. But don't forget—you lost the kidnap bill! We brought it back. You lost it, Labor Party!
Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The Greens brought this back, and now we have begun to bring the debate on transparency back to the Senate, and we have delivered a result. I am proud to stand here today and say that we have delivered a result on tax justice in this country. It will become clear when all the 'BS' clears from this chamber that we have actually got a good result here today. Is it the end of this debate? No, it is not. We have a long way to go, but I am proud to take the first steps in getting a result, and we will take the leadership on the next steps if that is what it takes. (Time expired)
Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders, moved by Senator Fifield, be agreed to.
10:09 am
Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I move:
That the motion to relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business for today may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.
Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The question is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to.
I now call the minister to move the motion to vary the routine of business.
10:13 am
Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I move the motion as circulated:
That, on Thursday, 3 December 2015:
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to adjournment;
(b) consideration of bills under standing order 57(1) (d) (i) relating to private senators' bills shall not be proceeded with and that government business shall have precedence over all other business for 2 hours and 20 minutes and that the following government business orders of the day shall be considered:
No. 6 Tax Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2015
No. 1 Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015
No. 2 Labor 2013-14 Budget Savings (Measures No. 2) Bill 2015;
(c) from not later than 12.45 pm, the government business order of the day relating to the Export Control Amendment (Quotas) Bill 2015 shall be considered;
(d) government business shall be called on after consideration of the bill listed in paragraph (c) and considered till not later than 2 pm;
(e) if by 2 pm the following bills have not been finally considered:
Tax Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2015
Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015
Export Control Amendment (Quotas) Bill 2015
Labor 2013-14 Budget Savings (Measures No. 2) Bill 2015, then
(i) consideration of general business and consideration of committee reports, government responses and Auditor General's reports under standing order 62(1) and (2) shall not be proceeded with,
(ii) the routine of business from not later than 4.30 pm shall be government business only,
(iii) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm, and
(iv) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed after it has finally considered the bills listed above, or a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister, whichever is the earlier.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I seek leave to move an amendment to the motion.
Leave not granted.
Pursuant to contingent notice of motion, I move:
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving an amendment to the motion before the chair.
Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Wong, it is in order and you can speak. I will just clarify to the chamber that if a division occurs at the end of this debate you will need an absolute majority to win the vote on the motion.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I am seeking to suspend standing orders so as to move two amendments to this motion—to omit from paragraph (b) 'No. 6 Tax Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2015' and to omit from paragraph (e) 'Tax Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2015'—so that the Senate can get on with debating those bills, which have been agreed and discussed previously, but not to enable the bringing on of the dirty deal that the Australian Greens have done, because we do not believe it is in the Senate's or the taxpayer's interest to facilitate debate on what is a dirty deal done in the middle of the night, in the dead of night, by Senator Di Natale with the coalition.
And I do want to go to the substance of some of the issues, because it is pretty extraordinary listening to some of the contributions from the Australian Greens in this chamber. Senator Whish-Wilson says the Greens are on the side of the angels, but they are more on the side of tax dodgers and multinational companies. The Greens are against tax transparency. In order to play themselves into the political game they have done a deal which lessens what this Senate would have insisted on in terms of tax transparency. Who would have thought?
I did sit there watching Senator Di Natale as he said: 'You know, a "better than nothing" approach is what we are taking. This is better than nothing. The Labor Party want to take an all or nothing approach.' And I thought to myself, 'This is the same man who voted with Cory Bernardi and Eric Abetz some six years ago against the carbon price.' We remember that day.
Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Could you ask the speaker to refer to senators by their correct titles?
John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I certainly will. Senator Wong, you said, 'Cory Bernardi and Eric Abetz'. Please address them by their correct titles. Continue, Senator Wong.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Sorry, Mr Acting Deputy President. Senator Bernardi. Then, less than two years later, they voted for an almost identical scheme with almost identical—in fact, slightly more generous—assistance to the big polluters. That was a great deal! And now they want to tell us, 'I know we once stood with all the climate sceptics against a carbon price, but today we have to compromise and take a "better than nothing" approach.' This is the new Australian Greens. Mr President—Acting Deputy President—
John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Thanks for the promotion, Senator!
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The Greens are establishing a track record in this place as the party of dirty deals done dirt cheap. They pretend to their voters that they are going to come here and fight for ordinary Australians, but do you know what? They do not fight; they fold. They pretend they are holier than thou, but they end up abandoning their principles and not standing for what they believe in. How is it progressive to stitch up a deal with a conservative side of politics, to sell out the Australian taxpayer just in order to be able to say, 'We're in the game'? How is that a progressive position?
This Senate had the numbers to insist on a greater level of tax transparency. That is what this Senate had. But what we have is the Australians Greens, who would rather play themselves into the game than actually stand up for what is right for Australian taxpayers, putting the interests of multinationals ahead of the interests of the Australian people. The Greens sell out the Australian people, and they do not even secure worthwhile benefits in return. They just say to Mr Abbott and Mr Turnbull, 'Pick up the phone—here we are!' This is a dirty Greens deal done dirt cheap. That is what this Greens party is under Senator Richard Di Natale. I think what we have seen is what we also see with the Greens voting with the government to try and gag debate on this amendment—that is what they did. They are the ones who always say: 'We want debate, we want debate,' but they voted for a motion where I have to suspend standing orders to move an amendment, and they will vote with them again because they do not want a debate on this issue. What we have is a Greens party who are lousy negotiators, unprincipled deal makers and, most of all, political opportunists. We know that, because all you had to do was listen to Senator Di Natale as he said, 'Oh, well, this is better than nothing.' So we ought to suspend standing orders to amend this motion, because this Senate deserves better than the dirty deal that the political opportunists at the end of the chamber have done.
10:19 am
Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I have to say that, as disgusted and appalled as I am with this amendment, I think there is a serious point that needs to be made here. We knew that Senator Di Natale was cheap, but I had no idea that Senator Di Natale was this cheap—to sell out tax transparency, to sell out what has been a two-year community campaign that has involved—
Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order, could someone just remind Senator Dastyari that we are not on camera today. He does not have to put on all the antics.
John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
There is no point of order, Senator Heffernan. Continue, Senator Dastyari.
Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The fact that Senator Heffernan has to run a protection racket for Senator Di Natale tells us about where this Senate is actually now heading. This is a dirty deal that has been done by the Greens that has sold out a two-year campaign for tax transparency—a campaign that has brought together community groups, organisations, unions, activists and people across the nation demanding a better deal, demanding more transparency, demanding more information. It was something that, up until now, the Greens were participating in. But, under Richard Di Natale, they will sell out every time. They will sell out their cause.
John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order, Senator Dastyari. Please refer to people by their correct title in this chamber.
Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Under Senator Di Natale they will sell out every time, and they have sold out again here today. The prospect is that the Greens are going to come to this chamber and, as they have told us this morning, are going to vote for a watered-down version—a weak, watered-down version—of what the Senate had already passed. Not only that, but they were bragging that they are going to vote against the amendments that were circulated by Senator Muir and Senator Lambie about grandfathering and the grandfathering exemptions—1,500 companies that, once again, will ride again.
We had finally been able to build enough community pressure to actually be able to tackle what had been a very, very difficult issue. This is a sell-out. This is going weak and it is all about Senator Di Natale trying to make himself relevant or important in this debate. The way he has done it is by selling out the cause of tax transparency. If the Australian Greens think that we are going to lie down and let them walk all over us, that we are going to allow them to have these multinational companies have their way then, frankly, they have another thing coming.
Let's be clear here. The government had moved the Tax Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2015, which did not go far enough—that was the view of the majority of this chamber. Amendments were made to make the government improve its own legislation. What we have here is a last minute, dead of the night, dirty deal done dirt cheap by a desperate leader of the Greens political party to sell out the cause of all the people, all the evidence, all the testimony, all the community groups, all the organisations that have worked together for two years to make sure that we have greater transparency, that we actually have accountability for what is happening with the Australian tax system. All of that gets undermined when a cheap deal gets done by a desperate leader of a desperate political party who, frankly, either does not understand what he has done or does not care, and I am just not sure which one of those is worse.
John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Thank you, Senator Dastyari. The question is the motion—
Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
No, I am still going.
John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Sorry, continue. My apologies.
Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I am going to be going all day. Fundamentally, what they have done by removing the threshold from $100 million to $200 million is a complete carve-out of almost 80 per cent of the companies that would have had to report if they had been strong enough and brave enough to have actually stayed firm.
I tell you who are the types of people who will fall out of the list. We know that Mr Withers, the head of 7-Eleven, is out. He has been covered. Thank you, Senator Di Natale!
Senator Di Natale interjecting—
No, he is out because of you. What we have is at least 500 private companies sold out because of a desperate leader of a desperate political party, desperate for relevance, selling out in the cause of tax transparency. (Time expired)
10:25 am
Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
In May when Senator Richard Di Natale took over the leadership of the Greens, he said he wanted to lead the Greens to mainstream values. He made the point that he was tired of the Greens being a party of protest and he wanted to take a more moderate direction. We all understand what 'moderate direction' means in this context. It means the capitulation of the Greens and their traditional values in favour of fawning capitulation to the Tories of this country.
What we have here is that the Greens are now the party of millionaires. We know what is happening across the central suburbs of this country. We know that they are becoming increasingly the party of the ultrarich. This is the party that takes the view that they are going to have the best social conscience that money can buy. Here we have an example of it, yet again, of the Greens now becoming the quislings of the tax avoidance industry. This is a party that wants to pretend that it is on the left of politics but constantly strives to be at the centre of the right of politics in this country. They are now so desperate to prove their relevance that they are prepared to capitulate to these incredibly important matters in regard to people paying enough tax.
What is at stake here? It is the Greens' capitulation to the idea that people might have to tell the people of this country how much tax they are paying. The principle of that is that as soon as they do that they will be exposed because they are not paying enough tax. When these issues were raised when the Senate passed a series of amendments to toughen up this government's position, we heard in the other place the Greens' representative describe this arrangement as a 'government of blue bloods', but they are now in lock step with them. This is a government about which Mr Adam Bandt said, 'Only a blue blood government with a born-to-rule mentality would call democracy a shabby process.' Of course, what we are seeing is the capitulation of Senator Di Natale in his desperate bid to be moderate, to be at the centre of politics, to claim that he is the mainstream player.
What we have seen here is that this is a political party that is desperate to prove how relevant they are to the Business Council of Australia and the international finance sector, and desperate to demonstrate that they are the friends of the big end of town. Who are the beneficiaries of these arrangements? They are mainly donors to the Liberal Party and people with contracts with government. These are the people you are defending in your desperate quest to be relevant and moderate, your desperate attempt to prove how important you are.
This is a matter that goes to the heart of your capitulation and you are now in league with the knuckle-draggers of the Liberal Party. The knuckle-draggers of the Liberal Party are your best friends, because you are so anxious to show this country how relevant you are, how moderate you are, how right wing you are. This is a betrayal of the people who look to you as being to the left of the Labor Party. What a joke! In the centre of Melbourne they will know the truth of this. They will know that you are in fact the party of millionaires, that you are of course desperate to demonstrate your worth to the international capital system, because that is exactly what you are about now—defending the status quo. You are not about proving social change; you are about protecting the tax avoiders—the people that do not pay their proper share, the people who you claim you are so opposed to when, in reality, you are now lickspittles in your desperate attempt to show how moderate and relevant you are.
We all know the truth about the Greens: started off as the party of protest and now of course we see the party of the quislings of the international finance and the tax avoidance industries. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Acting Deputy President, I was going to make a point of order. I do not think this chamber should tolerate—
Joe BullockBill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I won't sit down. If you want to come outside, I'll come outside—you boofhead!
John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! Senator Heffernan.
Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The bloody slush funds of the union. The point I want to make—and I am on my feet—is: I do not think it is appropriate for a senator to call people 'lickspittle'.
John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Heffernan, resume your seat.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: he ought have been sat down immediately. He ought withdraw. On four or five occasions, there were accusations which were completely unparliamentary. He ought to have been sat down earlier. I have been on my feet for some time. You ought ask him to withdraw and you ought ensure that he not be given the permission to continue to engage in unparliamentary language.
George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: I think that Senator Heffernan's contribution has been robust but I do not think he has used any unparliamentarily language, if I may say so.
John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! Senator Heffernan, you have the right to make a point of order but your language was unparliamentary and I ask you to withdraw—
John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! Senator Heffernan, resume your seat till I finish. You have a right to make a point of order. I have ruled your presentation was unparliamentary and I ask you to withdraw those comments.
Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Could I just beg your indulgence to tell me what was unparliamentary?
John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I am asking you to withdraw the unparliamentary—
Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I am not withdrawing. I think it is unfair for those people over there to be called 'lickspittle'—that is my point.
Honourable senators interjecting—
John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! Senator Heffernan, you used the term 'boofhead'. It is unparliamentary and I ask you to withdraw it.
Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Who did I refer to as a boofhead? Was it Conroy?
Senator Bullock interjecting—
John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! Senator Heffernan.
John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Thank you, Senator Heffernan. The debate will continue.
Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: it is so hypocritical for people in this chamber to come in and talk about family violence while we have to sit here and hear the sort of abuse that we have just heard from our colleague. Also, he invited people to go outside so he could take care of them—that is so unparliamentary.
John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Polley, I have made the point and he has withdrawn it.
10:33 am
Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Who would have ever thought that Senator Heffernan would be in here defending the Greens? Who would have ever thought? This is the new approach from this so-called new government: a coalition with the Greens to rip off families in this country. What must the families of this country be thinking, if they are listening to this debate, when the so-called Left progressives of the Greens party are out there siding with their friends in big business and saying that they are on the side of the angels?
Most people here know: I am not religious. I do not know much about angels but I think there is such a thing as a dark angel—I even think Lucifer was an angel. Well, you are on the side of Lucifer on this one. You are definitely on the side of the forces of evil when you are siding with the National Party and the Liberal Party to make sure that big business do not pay their fair share of tax in this country.
To have Senator Heffernan stand up and defend you—Senator Heffernan, who despises every value that the Greens claim they stand for—side by side as an ally, is an absolute joke. What will the families of Australia be thinking when the Greens are saying that they are on the side of the angels and they have consulted widely? I bet they have consulted widely. Consulted with the banks—did you consult with the banks? Did you consult with the finance sector? Did you consult with the billionaires who will be doing okay out of this? Did you talk to the families that this mob want to stick a GST on? So you give up on big business paying their fair share of tax and you have been siding with this mob and a GST. To say you are on the side of the angels—what is wrong with you? Where do your values disappear to when you are desperate for relevance? It is just an absolute joke.
You said that this was a Christmas present. You have provided the biggest Christmas present to the multibillionaires and the big end of town that they have ever had. Senator Whish-Wilson's contribution was so strident, so defensive and so unbelievable: that someone who claims to be a progressive can stand up and try and defend handing over more money, more power, more privilege to the big end of town—that is what you have just done. You have just sided with the coalition to make sure that the top one per cent continues to get more and more and that inequality will continue to reign in this country. Your position was to support inequality because, unless the big end of town pays its fair share of tax, inequality continues
Unless the big end of town pays its fair share of tax and unless the multinationals pay their fair share of tax then there will be continued pressure from the extremists on the other side to push a GST. I suppose you might want to be on the side of the angels and vote for a GST. I suppose you might want to be on the side of the angels and screw working families even more than they may get screwed under this lot now. What is next? Is it the GST from the Greens? Is it industrial relations capitulation from the Greens? You have capitulated on what should be inviolable principle from a progressive party—that is, to make sure that the big end of town, the multinationals, pay their fair share. I do not think 'lickspittle' goes far enough in describing what you have just done. I do not know how to describe it, but lickspittle, to me, just seems too small a smear against the Greens, who have just given up. They are absolute capitulation merchants of the highest order. (Time expired)
10:38 am
Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
We moved the suspension of standing orders to allow Senator Wong to move her amendment to the process put in place this morning by Senator Fifield about the hours of business for today. In terms of the process, we have had considerable discussions this week. We had a couple of meetings earlier in the week about hours. We waited until Wednesday night to hear from the government around a proposal for today. We had nothing for yesterday. We had a proposal last night from Senator Fifield, quite rightly, putting forward a proposition for the hours of business today. We had a short discussion on the phone last night about which bills would come before the Senate today. We actually had a number of bills listed that were to be included in the proposal. One bill that was not listed in the proposal given to us last night was the Tax Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill.
That bill was not listed on the proposal that we had last evening, but this morning, as we were going through the process of looking at what we would do and were preparing ourselves to respond to Senator Fifield's proposal, what popped up but this extraordinarily important bill. It was to be added to the debate today, which we knew was going to be difficult on the last day of session. What popped up—adding to the bills that we talked about yesterday—but the Tax Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2015 as the first order of business.
In relation to the other things that we talked about that we needed to have on the agenda today, I expect that Senator Fifield circulated the same proposal to all of us last night—the government, the opposition, the Greens and the Independents. We were going to look at the agenda for the last sitting day. It is always a difficult time, as you know, Mr Acting Deputy President. You have to look at the time allowed to consider legislation so that the agenda allows for effective debate. I expect that all senators in this place had that information last evening.
We have heard plenty of discussion so far about who was talking to whom and what deals were being made. But bringing on another bill at this time is, I think, an abuse of the process that Senator Fifield spoke so passionately about earlier this morning. He spoke of the responsibilities of running this place effectively and of having fair debate. He said it was a shared responsibility. He said we would all have a role and an opportunity to provide information and argument so there would be a proper process in this place about how the agenda would operate.
I believe that Senator Wong's proposal to remove the Tax Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2015 from the agenda returns us to what we expected the process would be today. Removing this bill from the agenda, which is the content of the amendment she has put before us, means that we can consider the bills that we expected to be on the agenda and there is effective time to discuss the legislation. These are important bills, and the citizenship bill is core. We know that many senators feel very strongly about that bill. The Greens actually said in the debate that they needed more time to consider the citizenship bill; they wanted to have more debate. We have been accused—and I am appalled by the suggestion—of being involved in some kind of dirty discussion to have that removed. That is untrue. We wanted effective discussion. We wanted a chance for this chamber, before we rose, to have effective, engaging discussion around this important piece of legislation. That is what we expected to happen today—that the No. 1 order of business was going to be the citizenship bill. We expected that. As we ended debate last night a number of senators said: 'We want to get back to this tomorrow.'
But, no, that dropped off, and we actually had this tax laws amendment bill pop up. We have heard people say how that could have happened. I am not going there, Mr Acting Deputy President. I would not expect that there would be deals like that made, but other senators feel as though that is true. What has happened is that the proposal that was given to us in good faith last night has changed and I think that is incorrect. (Time expired)
10:43 am
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
It is with great pleasure that I get a chance to respond to Senator Whish-Wilson's earlier commentary about being on the side of the angels. If being on the side of the angels is delivering a tax bill that actually delivers a revenue outcome of an asterisk because they do not believe in it and they are not really trying to do it—they want to give themselves a political fig leaf so they can pretend to the Australian public they are dealing with the scourge of tax shifting to international tax zero jurisdictions—you have given them that fig leaf.
This is a government that belongs to the big end of town. The analysis that was done shows that the people that you have now exempted from having to reveal their tax affairs are the major Liberal Party donors. On the one hand, you are barracking and claiming you have had a victory because you have helped the government deliver its fig leaf of an asterisk of tax revenue that is a zero. You are too embarrassed to put a 'zero' in the bill. You have helped the government pretend that they are serious about making the big end of town and the big multinationals pay tax in this country. That is what you have done, and you want to pretend you have had a magnificent victory on the side of the angels. You are on the same side as the 7-Eleven guy and Gina Rinehart—go through that list of Liberal Party donors, and you are on their side. You have protected them. You have protected this government from being exposed for being the fraud it is when it talks about dealing with multinational tax shifting.
This bill is forecast to raise zero dollars on the government's own estimates, and you have all said: 'We think that's a good outcome. We're happy with the balance.' On the forecast the multinational corporations will pay zero tax, and we have exempted all these Liberal Party donors from having to tell the truth about what their tax affairs are and how little they actually pay, and you have exempted them all. You are trying to pretend, because you have got $100 million raised to $200 million, that you had a victory, that you won a compromise. When those opposite stand up to give their points of order in defence they will not do it with a straight face. Let me promise you that they are laughing at you, not with you. When you stand there and say, 'We've done the right thing'; this is the side of the angels,' keep repeating that yourselves in the mirror in your bathrooms each morning, because you are the only people you are convincing. There is no-one out there in the broader community, there is no-one in your party membership and there is no-one in the community that votes for the Greens, when they come to understand that you have sold out. You have joined tax avoiders, the tax minimisers, the big end of town and the government who is their mouthpiece. The Business Council of Australia are likely to put a press release out saying, 'Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson; thank you, Senator Di Natale,' because you have delivered the exact amount of tax transparency that the Business Council of Australia wants. You now have their gratitude. They will invite you to their Christmas party for this, and I hope you enjoy it, because this is a monumental sell-out by the Greens.
The Greens gave us a lecture. They stood up and attacked us, because of a mix-up in a vote. This is not a mix-up in a vote; this is quite literally a sell-out to ensure that the now leader of the Greens can parade himself around and pretend he is in the centre of politics—
Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
He's the new Meg Lees!
Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I think he is the new Andrew Murray. I have been here long enough to have been exposed to both of them. The person who thought he was smarter than everybody else when it came to tax was Mr Andrew Murray, who delivered the GST—good news for the Greens, because it destroyed the Democrats. When the Democrats sold out on their core principles they collapsed, to the Greens' benefit largely, but you will now go down the same path. Your supporters will know you cannot be relied on to deliver on your principles, because as long as you have a leader that wants to be in the centre of politics, wants to be a moderate, he will sell your principles out. And you— (Time expired)
John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.
10:56 am
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I seek leave to move a motion adjourning the two items of business—adjourning the Tax Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2015 to a later hour.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion adjourning these items to a later hour of the day.
Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The Senate has already determined that the motion which I was seeking to move and have indeed moved would be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate. There is currently a question before the chair. Senator Wong sought leave to suspend standing orders to move an amendment to the motion that I had moved. The Senate determined that that should not happen. Senator Wong is now seeking to bring an entirely different question before the chamber. She is not seeking to amend my motion, so the motion which I have moved needs to be determined before there can be another question put before the chamber.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I am not sure; I may have misspoken or the manager may have misunderstood. I moved that the question on this motion be adjourned to a later hour.
Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I move we go home for Christmas!
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Hear, hear!
John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My advice is that, even if leave was granted, I could not entertain such a motion. I will put the question. The question is—
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Sorry; I ask for an explanation on your ruling.
John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The motion put before the chair needs to be without amendment or debate; therefore, your motion is not in order.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
To clarify: I am seeking leave to move that the question on this motion be adjourned to a later hour.
John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Yes, and leave has been denied.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
And I am seeking, therefore, to move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving that the question on this motion be adjourned to a later hour pursuant to contingent notice of motion.
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate is now defying your ruling. You have already ruled that there is a question before the chair. There is a motion to be settled without amendment or debate, and we now should proceed with the vote on that motion.
John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Thank you, Senator Cormann.
Senator Conroy interjecting—
Order! Order, Senator Conroy! I am not going to take your point of order at the moment, Senator Cameron; I want to clarify things. The Senate has determined that the motion moved by Senator Fifield be determined without amendment or debate. As suspension of the standing orders has already been entertained, extended and debated, to allow further motions to suspend standing orders would undermine the will of the Senate.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order!
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I have a question of clarification, Mr Acting Deputy President. I am moving that the question on the motion be adjourned to a later hour. With respect, I do not understand why the Senate cannot determine that issue. I am not sure it is opposite.
Senator Fifield interjecting—
John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! Order, Senator Fifield. The motion is not in order. This is in accordance with the proceedings of the Senate, and that is the situation and the advice I have had.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Acting Deputy President, what I would submit is that it is for the Senate to determine its will, not the chair, and the Senate—
John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The Senate has now debated the issue on the standing orders, Senator Wong, and the motion will be now put.
Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The question is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to.