Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move the following motion, regarding the resolution regarding the hours of meeting and routine of business considered earlier in the day:

"(1) That the following bills have precedence in seriatim over all government business until determined:

(a) Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [No.2] and Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 [No. 2]"

(b) Landholders' Right to Refuse (Gas and Coal) Bill 2015;

(c) Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016."

(2) Paragraph (4) add the following bills:

"Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [No.2] and Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 [No. 2];

Landholders' Right to Refuse (Gas and Coal) Bill 2015"

(3) Add the following new paragraph "(4) (c) for the purposes of this order, the consideration the Landholders' Right to Refuse (Gas and Coal) Bill 2015 be listed and considered as a Government Business Order of the Day."

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice, I move that so much of the standing orders be suspended, as would prevent me from moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate—namely, a motion to amend the resolution in the terms I have circulated in the chamber in my name.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lazarus, I am going to pull you up there. Successive presidents have ruled, and the procedure committee has endorsed the president's rulings—the most recent being Senator Hogg in November 2010—that repeated suspension motions such as we have had this morning are out of order. In fact, more than one has been ruled as being out of order. If you take it to its logical conclusion, it would mean that the Senate could be disrupted 75 times through the same procedure. So I am going to rule, based upon precedent, that it is not appropriate to raise that suspension of standing orders. I am happy to entertain points of order in an orderly fashion. I will not take interjections.

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

Mr President, I raise a point of order on that. I would ask that you consider two points. I am familiar with that ruling, and with Senator Hogg's ruling. My first point is that this is in relation to a different bill and, with respect, I do not believe it would be appropriate, nor consistent with precedent, for you to apply that proposition in relation to a different bill. As a matter of practicality, I would also make the point that this is the last amendment, as far as I am aware, being moved to this motion—obviously, other senators may have a different view. I will also seek leave to make a statement. I am going to give the government notice of that, given that I was gagged in responding previously—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is this a point of order?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my right. I am entertaining points of order in relation to my ruling.

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

I am flagging, in an attempt to be helpful to the chair and to the chamber, that I understand Senator Lazarus has a motion on a different point. I do not believe there is any other motion to amend the motion that has been moved and circulated.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Wong. Senator Brandis, on the point of order?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order. The government supports your ruling. In substance, this issue was resolved—that is, the question of whether debate on the building and construction industry legislation should be brought forward when the matter was moved by Senator Muir—and the matter was deliberated upon then. So, with respect, Mr President, the motion in substance is the same. It is somewhat differently expressed, but the test—Mr President, through you—is whether it is in substance the same. It is in substance the same. It would have the same effect. In that regard, might I respectfully also draw to your attention standing order 86, which prevents the same question, or questions which are in substance the same question, from being put sequentially.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Brandis. Senator Cormann, on the same point?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. To add to the point of order made by my good friend Senator Brandis. The Senate this afternoon determines the hours of meeting and routine of business this week and have determined to do so without amendment or debate. There have been successive suspensions of standing orders moved to seek to negate what the Senate has already determined. That is why I join with the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Brandis, in strongly supporting the ruling that you have made which is consistent, as you say, with past rulings of past presidents, including President Hogg.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the same point, in terms of the process it would seem to me that the responsibility of the Senate is to allow senators to bring their voices to this chamber. We now have had the original motion moved and passed in this place about the hours of business. We have had two senators bring forward their concerns about important pieces of legislation that they have tested on the floor of the Senate. There are only three such motions in front of the Senate. We have them all in front of us. They have been circulated. In turn I have listened to Senator Brandis and the other senators in here about their concerns. In terms of allowing free flow and goodwill in this place, where often goodwill is lacking when we have had only one other senator who has brought forward a motion, and the way that we have been proceeding with it has not taken a considerable amount of time—

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

I actually listen always with interest to Senator Macdonald, who does not allow any other voice but his own to be heard in this place. In terms of the process, I would seek your indulgence in this process that we have a senator who has brought his position to us. We have a clear process to follow. I would argue that it would be fair play, if that is a term—I do not think there is a standing order that uses that term but perhaps there should be—to allow Senator Lazarus to test his proposition before the Senate in the very short time that he would be taking to do so.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I am happy to rule. In relation to the points that have been put forward, I will allow Senator Lazarus to continue with his motion. But I will give notice to all senators that I will not allow a further suspension of standing orders in relation to the routine of business. That has been determined by the Senate—

Senator Wong interjecting—

I am still speaking, Senator Wong. That has been determined by the Senate now on four occasions. I agree with Senator Brandis about the substance of this motion; it is identical apart from the different bill name that has been inserted. The motion is achieving the same thing. If I were to allow this to continue, it could go all day and would disrupt the work of the Senate. The Senate has decided its business. I will allow this one last time with Senator Lazarus. Senator Wong?

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

I did flag previously—this is a point of order in relation to that ruling—that I would be seeking leave to make a short statement.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a separate matter. You are entitled to do that afterwards. Senator Lazarus, you can move your motion and speak to it.

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. I move:

"(1) That the following bills have precedence in seriatim over all government business until determined:

(a) Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [No.2] and Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 [No. 2]"

(b) Landholders' Right to Refuse (Gas and Coal) Bill 2015;

(c) Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016."

(2) Paragraph (4) add the following bills:

"Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [No.2] and Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 [No. 2];

Landholders' Right to Refuse (Gas and Coal) Bill 2015"

(3) Add the following new paragraph "(4) (c) for the purposes of this order, the consideration the Landholders' Right to Refuse (Gas and Coal) Bill 2015 be listed and considered as a Government Business Order of the Day."

Coal seam gas mining is one of the most evasive and diverse forms of mining in the world. CSG mining is currently exploding across Queensland, affecting the health and welfare of Queenslanders across my home state. CSG mining is depleting the important aquifers, contaminating remaining water, damaging the health of people and animals, and destroying communities. The people of Queensland have virtually no rights to say no to mining on their land. Queenslanders who try to stop CSG mining companies from coming onto their land are bullied and subjected to harassment and other nasty tactics. Farmers and Queenslanders affected by CSG mining are expressing a range of serious matters, including health issues, death of livestock and depletion and contamination of groundwater. Bores and wells are running dry and are becoming toxic because of CSG mining. Animals are losing their hair and they are dying. Children are suffering from nosebleeds and unexplained ailments. Many people have developed chronic illnesses.

Senator McGrath interjecting—

These are the people who voted you in. Oh, no, you didn’t get voted in—did you?—you got parachuted.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You didn't get voted in either. Clive Palmer put you in.

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You got 500 votes and you are in there.

Senator McGrath interjecting—

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, on my right! Two matters: firstly, interjections are disorderly and I need to hear the speaker; and, secondly, Senator Lazarus, it would help if you addressed your remarks to the chair and not inflame the interjections.

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Mr President. They bring out the best of me! CSG mining—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about Townsville?

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't you talk about Townsville, Senator Macdonald.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lazarus, through the chair.

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

CSG mining has been banned in other countries because of its harmful, long-term economic, health, social and environmental impacts. It is extremely dangerous and needs to be stopped in Australia. I urge everyone in this room to go for a drive into our agricultural heartland to see the damage, the destruction and the devastation caused by CSG mining.

The Senate inquiry into unconventional gas mining heard from families with sick children and from farmers, who used to be in favour of CSG mining who have been treated with absolute disrespect and now argue against it. It is destroying rural Queensland communities and the fact that property owners cannot refuse access to their land is an absolute outrage.

I call for immediate action on this issue and I call on the Greens to show some heart and soul, and to support the people of Queensland and the rest of Australia from being decimated by unconventional gas mining by supporting the inclusion of the Landholders' Right to Refuse (Gas and Coal) Bill 2015 in this week's sitting.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Brandis, that the question now be put, be agreed to.

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

Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for five minutes.

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

I thank the Senate. This has been a day in which we have seen the coalition vote against bringing on debate on the ABCC bill. I suppose it was not quite as important as everybody said. We have seen the Greens say no to bringing on an anti coal gas bill. I guess that is not as important as everybody said. And we have seen the Greens vote against bringing on a marriage equality bill. All of those things are apparently less important to the coalition and the Greens than their dirty deal on Senate voting. That is the most important thing.

I want to focus on the marriage equality bill for a moment, because I remember the Greens saying on marriage equality: 'Every Green, every vote, every time'—except today. 'Every Green, every vote, every time'—except today. What an extraordinary performance by Senator Richard Di Natale, who stands in this chamber and calls on me to respond on marriage equality, and then he gags me. He gags me with Senator Brandis because he does not want to hear Labor's answer on marriage equality. I get gagged by the Greens! I expect to be gagged by some on the other side, but for Senator Di Natale and Senator Hanson-Young and Senator Simms and Senator Rhiannon and all of the Greens to vote with Cory Bernardi to make sure that we could not debate marriage equality—that was a sight to behold, wasn't it? That was a sight to behold.

I want to remind people what Senator Di Natale is actually suggesting. He is saying, 'It's all okay, we can do it in private senators' bills.' Everybody in this place knows: it will not get passed. It will not get voted on. Private senators' legislation—one hour—does not get voted on. We all know that; whereas Senator Leyonhjelm's amendment would have ensured a vote. It would have ensured a vote because we would stay until it is voted on. So it is not one hour that they are trying to give on Thursday to get themselves out of the problem that they voted with Senator Cory Bernardi to prevent debate on marriage equality—that is what they have done. This would have actually ensured a vote. 'Every Green, every vote, every time'—but not today. 'No; today we are voting with Senator Bernardi and those on the other side who do not believe that marriage equality should be made a reality.' That is what the Australian Greens have done.

Australian Greens senators interjecting—

You might want to interject, but everybody knows what you have done here today.

What I am interested in is: how come Mr Bandt, in the other place, thought it was so important to bring on the bill? He, to his credit, in the other place supported the Labor Party in seeking to bring on the marriage equality legislation in the House of Representatives, but all of a sudden his Senate colleagues do not believe it is so important. 'Every Green, every vote, every time'—but not today. 'No, not today; today we are voting with the coalition to gag debate.' What has occurred today? Not only has the coalition said no to a debate on this supposedly incredibly important bill, the ABCC bill; not only have the Greens said no to their own bill in relation to coal seam gas; and not only have the Greens said no to Senator Hanson-Young's bill on marriage equality; the Greens have also not had the courage of their convictions to have the debate. They have gagged the debate. Every time something has been moved, they have not had the courage to stand up and articulate their position. They have cut in behind the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Brandis, and gagged debate.

The only exception to that was Senator Di Natale. What hypocrisy! What cowardice! He gets to his feet, demands that I respond, has a go at the Labor Party and then gags us, with Senator Brandis. He gags on us on marriage equality. I have not always agreed—in fact I have disagreed many times—with various of the leaders of the Greens, but I have to say I have never seen a leadership without a backbone like this, never seen a leadership that is not prepared to debate the issue, never seen a leadership prepared to get behind Senator George Brandis to gag debate in this chamber and to treat this chamber not as a chamber of the Australian parliament, where debate occurs, but as a dictatorship. That is how Senator Di Natale is treating this chamber, and you are all going along with him. (Time expired)