Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Bernardi moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of this Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion no. 240.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Senator Bernardi, you are in order. There is no contingent notice of motion, for those that asked, but Senator Bernardi can move a motion to suspend standing orders. I just remind the Senate that he needs an absolute majority of the Senate to effect anything through this motion.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. I will try not to delay the Senate too much, but I may remind the Senate that the normal courtesies extended, whether it be to an Independent senator, a senator of the opposition or a senator of the government, in allowing debate about motions in the discovery of formal business have historically been sacrosanct in this place. So I would suggest that those who want to deny formality to a motion simply because they find the truth inconvenient need to think again.

The support and back-up that the shameful comments by the head of the ACTU, Ms McManus, have received from those on the other side and from the Greens senators are an indictment upon this place, because the rule of law applies equally to everyone in this country. When we have leaders of organisations like the ACTU who say, 'I only want to uphold the rule of law when it suits me and when it suits my purposes,' you know you have a problem. But the problem is one of an unelected and unrepresentative official, because the ACTU represents a tiny subsection of the community; we know that. But when those statements are supported by the apparent third party in this place, the Greens, with Senator Di Natale saying that he perfectly agrees with them, you know you have a problem with your democracy.

In this notice of motion, which stated the facts and noted the comments by Ms McManus and the support by Senator Di Natale, I also note—and I put this fact on the record—that the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister both distanced themselves from the statements of Ms McManus and said, 'If you don't like a law, you change it; you don't disregard it or ignore it just because it doesn't suit you.' The shameful thing is that, when we are asking for this place to pass that motion, formality is denied by those Chicken Littles on the other side. That is a shameful indictment upon you. I remind you that when you bring in your notices of motion, if you want to go down this path and you say things that somehow upset the cerebral amongst us—those people who actually think through the consequences of things—and your formality is denied, we will see how much you enjoy that. It is an indictment upon you that you do not want to even have a vote or declare support for your own leader. That is what I would say to those on the other side. The rule of law is fundamental to our democracy. It is fundamental to a democratic process. That is what we have in elected democracy, and we are representative of that.

I think it is wrong for any member of this parliament to say in any way, shape or form or endorse the view that, if you do not like a law, you can ignore it. The ACTU has influence over some of the most lawless, rogue unions in this place, including the CFMEU, which has been the subject of repeated debate because of the actions of its members, the thuggish standover activity and the abusive conduct which has all been contrary to the law. And yet the ACTU president says that is okay, because it does not suit her to have those laws in place, so it is all right for people to disregard them. She said that on national television. People can make foolish statements all they like on national TV, but they should be held to account for it, and so too should those in this place who are going to endorse those statements and who think it is okay.

Let me remind you that the Greens are the group that supported the dishonest press release by one of their activists seeking to derail a mining venture in the finance forum. It cost hundreds of millions of dollars of shareholder wealth as a result of that fraudulent activity, and they supported it. It is a shame and an indictment on the political party that they endorsed lawless behaviour. We can excuse the ACTU president as someone who just supports anti-Semitic BDS boycotts, but, hang on, so does a section of the Greens party. They support anti-Semitic campaigns against businesses owned by Israeli citizens. What sort of a democratic position are we in? How can you defend this in any way, shape or form? How is it okay to be a lawmaker in this place, not to be advocating for change of the law but then to say to people, 'You can go out and break whatever laws don't suit your purpose.' Then to deny formality for the factual statements coming through in this place reflects poorly on those others.

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

I hear Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting as per normal— (Time expired)

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is very important to let the Senate know Labor's position on the series of motions, including the previous one from Senator Abetz and Senator Bernardi, and, indeed, the one that will follow after this. These motions are simply stunts. They are motions—

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is sitting behind you!

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I could just finish my comments. The leader of the Labor Party made his position on this matter very clear, as have many other Labor members as well. The Leader of the Opposition made it clear that Labor does not agree with breaking the law. We are elected to this place to uphold the law, and Labor believes that if a law is unjust or unfair then you change the law. Of course, changing the law does not just happen on its own. It requires people to campaign to make the case and to persuade voters to elect people to this place who will fight for workers' rights. It is exactly because of this kind of work by the Labor movement that we have equal pay for men and women, that we have fair hours of work and fair pay and that people have the right to organise and, if necessary, strike to improve their pay and conditions. That is why, while other members seek to use this place today for stunts, Labor is actually dealing with the issues by moving legislation in both houses of parliament to change the law to protect penalty rates of up to 700,000 Australians who are set to have their pay cut as a result of this government's failure to act. That is what the Labor Party will do. We will respond and we will introduce legislation to deal with the terrible decision on penalty rates, but we will not be a part of stunts that attack individuals within this chamber. That is the reason why we have denied formality to these series of motions today.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an amazing statement by the person leading for the Australian Labor Party in this debate. A motion endorsing the rule of law, which is a fundamental underpinning of our society, is a stunt. From now on we can talk about any motion—for example, supporting freedom of speech—as a stunt. If we happen to believe in equality between the sexes, that is just a stunt. Let this now be the measure on which we judge every single one of Labor's motions that come before this place and let us see the humiliation that it affords them. Let us be very clear, the motion I sought to move had no allegations against anybody. The motion was this: that the Senate affirms that our society operates on the rule of law. Is there any senator in this place that disagrees with that proposition? They are all quiet, aren't they? The next proposition calls on all Australians to respect and abide by the rule of law. Is there a senator in the Labor Party and the Greens that actually disagrees with that proposition? Once again, they are deliberately avoiding the issue. Thirdly, we should be condemning expressions of support for breaching the rule of law. Again, silence. They were three general propositions that they cannot oppose, but they will not allow them to be voted on because they know their taskmaster, the secretary of the ACTU, has demanded that they block this motion—a motion that has three fundamental principles in it. Our society has to be based on the rule of law. If it is not, we descend into anarchy. Whether we like it or not, we have to support the laws of our country.

Indeed, I am sure, and I have witnessed, Labor and Greens senators at Australian citizenship ceremonies getting up and quoting the affirmation about Australia, which says 'whose laws I uphold and obey'. And yet, they are not willing to support that proposition in this very place. What hypocrites: they get up at citizenship ceremonies and assert that they support and obey the laws of this country when, deep in their own hearts, they do not believe in it. They believe that they are somehow above the rest of the Australian people, that they can pick and choose when they want to abide by a law, that they have the moral rectitude to break the law whenever they deem it appropriate. But, of course, all the other underlings have to agree to abide by the laws if they think they are good laws. If everybody took that view, what mayhem would we have on the streets? What would happen if somebody said: 'I don't like that green stop sign. I don't agree with that law in these circumstances. I'm going to go through it.'

We have a rule of law that says that if we do not like a decision, be it of the court or of the parliament, we then run for parliament to seek to change the law. That is the orderly manner in which we change laws in this country. Or, indeed, if we do not like the decision of the lower court, we can appeal it to the higher court until, ultimately, we are stuck with a decision of the High Court. And if we do not like that, then we seek to have legislative change. That is how an orderly, civilised society operates. But what we have here from the extreme left, now wagging the dog of the Labor Party and the Greens, is them saying that they in fact will whisper that they believe in the rule of law, but, by their actions in this place today, they have shown that they fundamentally disagree with these propositions. Allow me to read them again for all of the Australian people to hear very clearly: Labor and the Greens oppose that we should 'affirm that our society operates on the rule of law'; they oppose any calling on Australians 'to respect and abide by the rule of law'; and they are unwilling to 'condemn expressions of support for breaking the rule of law'. I know what side I stand on. (Time expired)

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We once had laws that made slaves of men and women. We once had laws that said homosexuality was unnatural and illegal. We once had laws that effectively told women that their place was in the kitchen. We once had laws that allowed governments to rape and pillage our environment. We have had these laws that we, through the generations, have stood up to, and this has allowed us to create the sort of society that we enjoy today and the sorts of rights that people in our country enjoy right now. And we, as a political party with a proud history of achieving social change not just through our actions in the parliament but also by involving ourselves in those social movements, understand more than anybody else that it is not just our right to stand up to unjust laws, but that it is also our duty as citizens of this country. As people who believe in upholding human rights, in protecting our environment, we have a moral duty to stand up to unjust laws wherever they are.

Yes, of course, parliaments play an important role in the passage of legislation, and, yes, that legislation helps to create the framework for a civilised society. But so too does that moral opposition to those unjust laws that mean that right now we have people who this government would seek to make criminals because they stand up on behalf of those innocent people locked up in those offshore jails. The Border Force Act says to doctors and nurses, 'You can't speak out against the injustice that you bear witness to.' We have people in this country right now who are preparing themselves to fight against a whopping great big polluting coal mine that would cook the planet and destroy the Great Barrier Reef. I say to them all around the country: go and do what generations of people have done before for you and take a stand against laws that you believe to be unjust, because we will be there with you. Social movements right across the nation—the civil rights movement, the women's movement, the environment movement—have ensured that people have the right to vote and can participate freely as democratic citizens in this nation of ours.

It is only with the passage of time that those who were once deemed to be lawbreakers are now deemed to be heroes. It is only in retrospect that we appreciate the actions of those brave people who take a stand against the entrenched power of the day. Rosa Parks was not somebody who was held up to be an exemplar of democracy at that time. It was only after she took the brave step of defying the law of the day that we now celebrate her bravery and her actions. Nelson Mandela was another person who broke the law in order to change it. It is only with the actions of those brave few that we could achieve the social changes in our society that all of us now enjoy.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're a lunatic, you really are. You're bizarre.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You don't understand how change is made, do you? How do you think change is achieved?

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a good debate to be having. It is actually teases out the philosophical underpinnings of how we achieve change in our society. It says that there are some people who believe that the law is the privilege of the classes that Senator O'Sullivan seeks to represent—a politics of wealth and privilege—and is the vehicle through which we achieve change. We do not accept that. What we believe here, within the Greens, is that we have an obligation from not just within the parliament but also from outside it to lead those social movements, to ensure that those social movements have the opportunity to be heard, and that we achieve a better society by standing up to unjust laws. Our party is founded on the notion of peaceful protest, and we celebrate it. We embrace it. We understand that if we are to achieve change—that is what is at the heart of any healthy democracy.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand today as a person who has broken the law, and I am proud of it. I support Senator Di Natale in what he has said. I will not invoke Rosa Parks and Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King Junior—even though I went to his funeral. Senator Abetz obviously did not hear me when he said, 'Does anybody disagree with me?' I shouted yes, but it did not suit his rhetoric.

The thing here is that you are entitled to break a bad law, but there is a proviso: you must be prepared to take the consequences and possibly be fined and possibly go to jail. I have been to jail and I have been fined $100,000 and I chose to go to jail again. I broke suppression orders that protected some of the worst sex offenders, child molesters, in this country. I said their names on the steps of parliament house, the house of democracy.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am a law-breaker and I shouted those names—

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you know how nasty you look, Sarah, when you get going?

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you know how nasty you look when you are smiling?

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Stop the clock.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is this out of my time?

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hinch.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I shouted the names of those sex offenders on the steps of parliament house, a democratic place, and 4,000 other people shouted it too. There were 4,000 other law-breakers there too. They chose to prosecute one, and I was the one they got in jail for it. As I said, you can break a bad law, pay the fine, take the consequences and stand up to it. I am not saying I endorse everything the Greens do or that the Labor Party does, but on this issue they are right to have that opinion.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The women MPs here today—Labor, Liberal, National Party, crossbenchers—all of us are here because our forebears literally rattled the chains. It was not because some MPs arrived at work, sat on the leather benches and decided, 'Now women should have the vote.' It was because actions were taken. Women were arrested; they were force-fed; they were abused. And one died. The actions were tough. They did that because they believed passionately that women should have the vote. And we benefit from that today. Society benefits. Those MPs who are trying to shut down this debate do not want to recognise that at times laws are wrong and at times laws do need to be rewritten—and they need to be broken to achieve that. The people who take that action are people we thank today.

So much of what progressive society has built has not been because MPs arrive at work and suddenly think: 'We'll do the right thing and we'll make it a fairer, more equal, more just society, where people don't get killed at work, where we save our precious environment.' It is because of action and, often, civil disobedience where people are getting arrested and putting themselves in the front line. It was not so long ago when some of the MPs here sat in the front foyer with climate activists, families, who had come here to put forward their voices and their concerns for the need for rapid action on climate change. I thought that was a very fine day. And it replicates what happens so often—usually outside our parliaments, sometimes inside our parliaments—where actions are being taken. I acknowledge that at times people might wonder why the law is being broken. But it is being broken to demonstrate a great wrong. The great wrongs in our society have at times been extreme. If the likes of the coalition, the Liberals and the Nationals—

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your fellow travellers didn't like protesters. They used tanks.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the interjections from Senator Ryan. It is good to see Senator Abetz is back here. Senator Abetz, if your forebears had been in power when women were trying to get the vote, they would have done—

Senator Ryan interjecting—

Senator McGrath interjecting—

Yes, I acknowledge the interjections—would have not given us the vote. There is a section over there on the coalition benches who would not have given women the right to vote.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was a Liberal government that did it, you fool!

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Come on! Your forebears were the people who were force-feeding women.

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

You didn't want anyone to vote. They rolled the tanks into Hungary—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rhiannon, resume your seat.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Rhiannon interjecting—

Order. You do not have the call at the moment, Senator Rhiannon. Senator Abetz, on a point of order?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, on a point of order, I ask that those comments be withdrawn, especially when they have come from a senator who claims that she does not like people being offended, insulted or humiliated because of their race.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rhiannon, on the point of order?

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not insult anybody in terms of their race. I was talking about the Liberals and Nationals and made reference to Senator Abetz. I included all the senators on the government benches—of their position with regard to the issue of women voting.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McGrath, on the point of order?

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

On the point of order, there was a reflection on Senator Abetz's forebears. That was a direct link to Senator Abetz and his family, and it should be withdrawn.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are not going to debate across it. I have heard what you have said, Senator Rhiannon. And I must say I actually agree. I thought I heard you refer to Senator Abetz's forebears and make reference to that. I hear what you say—that that was not the context that you were using—but, in order to enable the Senate chamber to move forward, I would ask you to withdraw those comments.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to withdraw. Thank you.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Rhiannon. Senator Rhiannon, you have the call.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a very important issue—which I acknowledge is contentious at times, but again it is very relevant to this debate—and that is the conditions the workers enjoy when they go to work these days. They do have lunch breaks. Although it has been eroded, there is a certain period of time they go to work for. They have a certain level of pay and superannuation. There is occupational health and safety. Again, these were not given to them by employers. These rights were not given to them by the likes of Liberal and National Party MPs coming to work. They were given to us because the MPs came to their senses after such very radical actions by unions—often going on strike, often occupying the workplace. I go back to the stonemasons of the 1850s, who led the struggle for a shorter working week, for an eight-hour day. These are conditions that have been so important for building a quality of life in Australia. Again, it was not politicians doing that but civil disobedience—strikes are a form of civil disobedience.

But what have we been exposed to in this debate? We have been exposed to such a sanctimonious approach by the Liberals and Nationals. And what have we got from Labor? We have Labor calling this a stunt. I understand that the Greens will also be denied leave, denying us the ability to vote and to consider the Greens motion on this very important issue. It is not a stunt—that is not the message that Labor needs to get. Yes, I realise that they are in a difficult position because their leader, Bill Shorten, was out there so quickly condemning civil disobedience actions which have been a part of how the Labor movement has been built as well. But this misses the opportunity for Labor to allow the debate and to get up there and correct the record.

Civil disobedience is a very fine part of our history. It is something that we should be proud of and it will most definitely continue. With the urgency of the inequality that our society is facing and the threat of climate change there will be more such actions, and I welcome them.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Stunts. Senator Gallagher would know all about stunts, because we saw one over here with the Greens yesterday involving some knitting!

They would also with their allies, between the Labor Party and the Greens, be together with the union boss elites—together with the Greens in their anti-Semitic approach to Israel; their anti-Semitic approach to Israeli businesses. And then we see the pair of them—the Labor Party and the Greens—supporting GetUp!, to destroy jobs, to kill jobs and to kill progress in this country.

We see union bosses—the new elites—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts, we have allowed the debate to range around the issues that also incorporate the motion that we are seeking suspension of the standing orders for. But you now actually seem to be moving even beyond that motion. I would ask you to come back to the motion before the chair.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I am coming back to, Mr Acting Deputy President, is the statement that change actually comes from truth. It comes from truth—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludlam on a point of order?

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Mr Acting Deputy President.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are just trying to take your time up!

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, the clock will stop.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it will not stop.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then sit down!

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I recognise that time is short. I ask Senator Roberts to withdraw his statement that the Greens have an anti-Semitic approach to Israel. That is blatantly untrue and I ask that it be withdrawn. That is offensive to all of us here in the Australian Greens.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts has heard your request. I will not ask him to withdraw that—

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why not?

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because I am complying with the standing orders, and such matters are debating points which can be discussed in this chamber. It is not for the chair to decide the accuracy of those claims or not. That can be debated at some point. Senator Roberts, you have heard the request. You can withdraw if you like, otherwise you have the call.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I choose not to withdraw. The fundamental point here is that the new elites in this country of ours are the union bosses, and we must uphold the rule of law. That is fundamental to any democratic liberal society. The union bosses must be held to account. They cannot encourage their members or other members of our civilised society to break the law.

As Senator Hinch said, we can all oppose laws but we have to be aware of the consequences, and we can all oppose laws in terms of working for changing the laws. But the rule of law is not replaced by the rule of smear. We must abide by the rule of law.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to bring the chamber back to what this debate is about. It is about denying leave for the suspension of so much of standing orders for the motion of Senator Bernardi.

Now, there is going to be a precedent set here if we do not go back to allowing these motions to go forward. You on the other side should express your opinions when the motion comes to a vote; do not deny leave. If you are going to start this, we will be denying leave all the time for the next two years and bring this place into chaos. Respect the rights of people to bring forward notices of motion. If you do not like those notices of motion, simply vote against them. This whole debate is about the denying of leave. I urge the people on the crossbenches to support Senator Bernardi's motion here and to let us proceed again.

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

I thank Senator Williams for his comments there. What is disappointing, and what the Labor Party's approach has been to this, is actually about a Sally McManus protection racket that is going on here. They do not want the Senate to have a look into the comments of the head of the ACTU, in terms of her outrageous comments about the rule of law; or that the chief union official in this country has for once told the truth and exposed the ugly Labor carcass that is the modern Labor movement in how they believe they can achieve change. And that is by not obeying the rule of law.

What we have seen here today, ladies and gentlemen, is a Sally McManus protection racket. I condemn the Labor Party for its disappointing approach.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Time for this discussion has now expired. Believe it or not, the question actually before the chair is the motion that Senator Bernardi moved to suspend standing orders.

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

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Bernardi to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

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

Order! There being 31 ayes and 28 noes, the matter is resolved in the affirmative. However, because you need an absolute majority of senators to effect the motion, the effect of the motion is that it will not carry.