Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

President, I seek leave to move a motion, as circulated in the chamber, relating to the consideration of a private senator's bill.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as to prevent Senator Birmingham moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the consideration of the Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023.

It is the case that as soon as this debate concludes we will move on to the Australian Greens' private senators' time, as scheduled in the normal routine of business. That private senators' time has been respected, notwithstanding the variation of hours motion that was pushed through by the government yesterday. Remarkably though there was another version of the variation of hours motion pushed through by the government yesterday. The initially circulated version also would have reserved private senators' time for opposition business tomorrow morning, during which time the Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023 was to be considered. Before it came to be voted on, a second version of the government's hours variation motion came through. Lo and behold, in the second version the opposition's private senators' time got knocked out. So the Greens' private senators' time was preserved for today but the opposition's private senators' time was eliminated for tomorrow.

This is not the way in which this Senate chamber should be treated. An important principle of this Senate chamber is that across the chamber there is respect for non-government business having an opportunity to be considered and debated. That respect should be extended to all non-government parties, not just to those whom the government chooses to do deals with. It is one thing for the government to have done its deal on the safeguard legislation with the Greens. Of course, we're waiting to see the full extent of the amendments. The substantial amendments weren't available as we debated the bill through until after 4 am. We still did not get to see the amendments that actually deliver that deal.

They also dealt away the usual proceedings and courtesies of private senators' time in this place. Remarkably, despite reasonable approaches from Senator Ruston and the opposition, they have not agreed to reinstate that. It wouldn't have changed the deadline, the hard marker, that actually sees the conclusion of the safeguard legislation. That's already established. The motion before the Senate would not change that deadline. It would simply reinstate the opportunity for Senator Duniam's bill, the Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023, to be called on in the normal, ordinary routine of business, at 9 am tomorrow morning, to be considered for the normal, ordinary routine one hour and 10 minutes tomorrow morning as private senators' time ordinarily would be. There is nothing but routine in what the opposition is proposing here. It should not take a suspension of standing orders motion for us to ask for the routine, for us to ask for normal courtesies to be extended.

Senator Duniam's bill is a straightforward one. It deserves to be debated. It deserves even more to be debated in the context of the safeguard mechanism that this chamber is considering. Because Senator Duniam's bill will bring greater transparency to electricity price reporting. It will bring greater scrutiny to the way in which energy markets and electricity prices are considered. It's a very important proposal, given the other matters that are before this Senate.

So I would urge the Greens, who are about to have their one hour and 10 minutes of private senators' time this morning, to reflect and provide the same—

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're taking their time.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're not taking their time. They are still going to get one hour and 10 minutes, Senator Gallagher. That is the one hour and ten minutes guaranteed in the way in which it is established. It's not a hard marker that changes this. The Greens will still get their one hour and ten minutes. We were considerate and actually thought of that before moving this suspension motion. I urge the Greens to show similar courtesy to other non-government parties. The Labor party may not be willing to show those courtesies, but to show similar courtesies to other non-government parties, so we can receive the same opportunity for private senators' time as you are receiving.

I would certainly urge those across the crossbench to think about the fact that they ought to provide for this, because at some stage it could happen to them. So indeed, to Senators Lambie and Tyrrell, to Senator David Pocock, to the One Nation senators Hanson and Roberts, I urge all of them to support this motion, because it does nothing but ensure the normal proceedings proceed.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government won't be supporting this suspension. I will work through some reasons why. As we have seen this morning, and we saw it last night, this is the big fight for those opposite. They will do whatever they can to delay getting to safeguards and dealing with that bill. Let's just be very up-front and open about that. We know what you're doing. It's been clear—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, we'll all sit all night. That's why we set up the hours motion the way we did. That's why we sat until 4.15 this morning. This is a tactic to delay getting to safeguards, firstly. You worked out you can eat in half an hour of time, and then we will go to private senators' business and then we'll get to safeguards and then you'll delay through committee stage. I have no doubt that that is how the day—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Yes, there will be questions and there will be delay. Let's be clear on that. My second point is, we put a motion on the table yesterday. We didn't debate it for three hours; we gave plenty of time. No-one from the opposition came and engaged on that motion with us. That's a decision you obviously took.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You changed the motion.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, you had no approach to the government about any part of that motion. Now you don't like what's passed, when you didn't engage at all. On the third point—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Henderson, on a point of order?

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The standing orders provide that the comments of all senators must be made through the chair. In raising a point of order I would ask you to ask Senator Gallagher not to reflect on me. Thank you.

The:

I didn't hear any reflection there, Senator Henderson. Senator Henderson, I'm dealing with your point of order, so please resume your seat. The minister is making general comments. All senators need to listen—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

respectfully and quietly, thank you, Senator McKenzie. I will note that when your leader was on his feet there was silence on this side of the chamber. The minute the minister got up the noise began. I already had to call the left of the chamber to order several times. I think the minister is directing her comments to the chair. I will listen carefully, and I thank you for your point of order. Minister, please continue.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, President. I deal with a fair level of interjections from those opposite, so thank you for your protection on that. I had noticed that they had been quite disorderly in my original remarks, but thank you very much for drawing that to their attention.

My third point is that if there is good progress today in the committee stage, by the time we get to the end of that today—

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who judges that?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is, if we've dealt with some amendments, we are very open to having private senators' time tomorrow.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Most disorderly. I know we've all been here and we're going to be scratchy today, but I've only got a couple of minutes. If we make good progress—that is, if we are dealing with the amendments and we're not just having a long filibuster from all of those opposite—then we are very open to facilitating private senators' time tomorrow morning. But we are not in a position to make that decision now, because, if we see what we've been advised we will see, you will just take that time tomorrow to delay dealing with safeguards again. So I think it's very reasonable, now that the Senate has expressed a view on the hours motion—which we did when we passed it yesterday—that, if we are able to provide that hour tomorrow and still allow people to put their amendments and have a debate over those amendments, we give you our commitment that we will facilitate that, as a sign of good faith. But we're not at that position yet, because we don't know how today is going to roll.

If last night was any kind of measure of how we're going to do that, it's not looking that crash-hot, to be honest. So I would say to those opposite: work with us, even though we accept that you oppose the bill and think the sky is going to fall in and all of what we heard last night. Work with us to facilitate the committee stage, and then there will be no concern at all about private senators' time being facilitated by the government tomorrow. The Senate has taken a view on the motion yesterday that we want to prioritise this bill. We want it put through. We had to put some management around it because we knew that this was not going to be smoothly facilitated through the parliament. No matter how many hours we put on it, we would have been seeing delaying tactics from those opposite. We saw that in the strength of the second reading remarks last night.

As I said: engaging with us on the hours motion didn't happen; delaying getting to safeguards today is not a good sign of where we're going to end up; and, if we get to where we need to get to at a reasonable time tonight, then there is no issue. We will absolutely, totally and very happily facilitate private senators' time for the opposition tomorrow. But we also need to make sure that we deal with this bill, that everyone has the opportunity to put their amendments and to have their say, and that we are able to deal with that by 1 pm tomorrow. I think changing the motion in advance of that will put at risk an orderly passage of that bill.

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

On the matter of the suspension, the Greens will not be supporting the suspension. However—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

If you want support, you should be quiet and listen.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You said you will not support us.

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

Well, if you want to work with people, you should show some respect.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Senator Cash, I just called order, and you continued to interject. Please continue, Senator Hanson-Young.

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

Thank you. The Greens will not be able to support the suspension, but I do accept that in this place we do need to be able to provide space for non-government senators to have a debate on issues that are important to them. I would urge the Leader of the Opposition and his frontbench team to consider the offer from the government to help facilitate in an orderly manner the safeguard bill's committee stage over the next 12 hours, and then hopefully we can get to a position where, tomorrow, private senators' time can be reinstated.

I think it's absolutely essential to ensure that the Senate does have time for private senators' space and debate. It's a fundamental part of this chamber. But what I've seen over the last 24 hours is delay after delay after delay—tactics to put off the safeguard legislation. This is just like what we saw for the last decade when the coalition was in government—delay after delay after delay on taking action on the climate crisis. We can't continue to put that at risk. That is why we put in place a routine of business in this chamber, and we should stick to that. If there is opportunity to amend it for tomorrow morning, I'm very open to it, and I'm happy to keep talking with the opposition about that. It's why I won't support the suspension now but I am happy to consider the motion later in the day.

But I would also point this out to anyone who is listening: if you want to know what the opposition's view is on the world, go back and listen to some of the speeches that were in here at 3 am this morning, because there's not an awful lot of thought or intellect coming from some people on the benches on this side. All they are doing is saying, 'The sky is falling in.' The tinfoil hat brigade is out, and the mouthpiece for the coal and gas industry was in full swing. The lunacy of some of the claims that were being made in the early hours of this morning in some regards would be laughable, but we're talking about the survival of the planet. We're talking about the climate and environment crisis that we are in. We have members from the other side who, rather than taking action, for years—for decades—have held back climate action in this country and are still dragging their knuckles along the ground, hoping that someone is listening.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion moved by Senator Birmingham. It's a very simple motion. Genuinely, for those of you who believe in democracy and in the orderly running of the chamber, and for those of you who are not members of the government, this is all about you, as Senator Birmingham said. This is not about the opposition. Yes, the motion is in relation to our private senators' time tomorrow, but this is not about the opposition; this is about the proper functioning of this chamber. This is about ensuring that those who are not in government—I was going to say that includes the Australian Greens, but that would be to reject what I just said myself: 'Good God! It is currently the green tail wagging the red dog.' I withdraw that comment. This is actually about the proper functioning of the chamber.

There's been a lot of talk today about the fact that we are trying to delay the passage of the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023. Let us be very clear. Senator Birmingham's motion has nothing to do with the passage of that bill. We sat until 4.13 am this morning. It is now 9.17 am. We were happy to sit all the way through last night and all the way into this morning to ensure that we all had an adequate opportunity to give a speech in the second reading debate on this. We are more than happy—in fact, I expect there's a good chance that we will be here tomorrow at this time as we proceed through the committee stage. Again, this bill will pass. A deal has been done. But this is an incredibly important bill that deserves to be questioned. But, at the same time, that does not mean that you throw out democracy. That does not mean that you just throw away the Senate Order of Business and say: 'We'll dispose of that. We won't allow those who are not in government an opportunity to actually raise an issue.' It's only a short opportunity—it's only one hour and ten minutes—to raise and properly debate a very important bill that has been put forward by Senator Duniam.

I challenge anyone in this place to say that private senators' time is not an important part of a Senate sitting week. For those of us who care about democracy—and I hope that is each and every one of us in this place, but I have to say that, if Senator Birmingham's motion is not supported, those who are voting no may want to question whether or not they do believe that this place should operate in a democratic manner—we do need to see adequate time set aside for private senators' business. Yesterday that appeared to be okay, and then suddenly it all changed. The dirty deal was done, the Greens got what they wanted. It's okay if it's the Greens private senators' time. I challenge the Greens: can you give us your private senators' time today? There you go. Then we will argue if you want to lose your private senators' time tomorrow. Gosh! I bet that wouldn't happen. Why? Because the deal has been done.

One of the things the Australian parliament and the Australian Senate do is make and change laws. The government obviously gets its chance to introduce bills. We debate those bills, sometimes not in a timely fashion, unfortunately, or with adequate time, but the opposition and others who are not in government get limited opportunity to bring forward matters that are of importance to them. That is what private senators' time is all about. That is why it is not good enough for the government of the day, in conjunction with the green tail wagging the red dog, to ride roughshod over the processes of the Senate. This is all about good process. This is all about ensuring that those who are not in government—excluding the Australian Greens because, technically, they are in government, given the fact they will jump shortly and they will have an opportunity of one hour and 10 minutes this morning to debate a matter that is of importance to them. I may not agree the matter is of importance, but it's private senators' time, and they have a right to debate their business, just as I would have thought any other person not in government had a right that is about to be denied to them, to ensure the proper functioning of this place.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the suspension motion and the right of every single senator to have their say, for dissenting voices to be expressed in this chamber. I remind senators on all sides of this chamber that that is supposed to be what the Senate is actually about. It is where the diversity of the views that exist within our democracy have a space and a place to be expressed.

What we have heard this morning, in speaking to this suspension motion, is that some voices, some senators, some views are more equal than others under the new regime of the Labor Party and the Greens in government. We accept the deal has been done. The legislation will be passed. We also accept that that means we have to stay up till 4 am to make contributions. Senators from the National Party and the Liberal Party did that last night and were happy to do so because it is important that the views we bring to the debate on this legislation be said, heard and reflected upon so that when the implications of this decision are felt in the communities that we've been sent to represent—are felt in a very real and tangible way in job losses and in skyrocketing energy prices, particularly in rural and regional Australia—it's important that we have done the right thing by our communities and have put it on the record.

To come here and have a deal to mean that democracy doesn't matter any more in the Senate, that the Greens can have their special place in the sun but other non-government senators and parties can't, is an absolute flouting of what this chamber was set up to do, which is to provide for our democracy. Behaviour like that is commonplace in the other place. It's a very blunt instrument: I've got the numbers; you don't. We get to do whatever we like. But this has always been the chamber of negotiation. It has always been the chamber of diversity of views and respecting the fact that, no matter how far apart we are on the substantive question, we all have the right and, indeed, the duty to express that in this place. The increasing pattern of behaviour from the government, supported by their coalition partner the Greens, is to shut down dissent and to silence diversity so there really is only one view able to be expressed out of the Australian Senate. We have processes in place to facilitate both the passage of bills and the expression of the diverse views of the Australian people. Minister, your government, enabled by the Greens, has sought to shut those diverse views down when you don't have to. This chamber is now hostage. We've been gagged, we've been dragged and now we're being held to ransom for our views and are being silenced along the way.

I am not going to back away, nor is my team going to back away, from bringing very real questions that Minister Farrell couldn't answer about the impact of this deal on rural and regional Australians, on our industries and on the 84 per cent of companies that are actually going to be impacted by the safeguard mechanism. We've got a lot of questions to ask. That is our job. We are all on the journey to net zero, but you're kidding yourself if you think the impact of that decision is going to be felt the same across our country and the same across our communities. Our job on this side of the chamber is to understand the implication of the decision. Holding us hostage—gagging and dragging us, ransoming our right as senators and how this chamber has functioned in my entire 12 years here, no matter who's been in government—is a very concerning precedent and pattern of behaviour from the Labor Party.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And the Greens.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I find it hypocritical by half, if you actually reflect on their contributions to suspension motions over the last nine years. I don't think our side of politics behaved in this way. We respected the chamber, we respected people's diversity of views and we allowed you the time to do it.

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

Private senators time is not a weapon. It is not to be used to bludgeon people into compliance to vote in a certain way. It is not a weapon. Democracy requires a voice. We are elected to be the voice of our constituents. How can we be shut down? This is the end of democracy if we do not support Senator Birmingham's motion. Everyone on the crossbench needs to realise we could be next. This is a very dangerous precedent, and that's why I will be supporting Senator Birmingham's motion. But I disagree with Senator McKenzie, because I don't think behaviour is always respectful in this place. I don't think it's necessarily genuine. There are far too many stunts. Nonetheless, complying with the Labor Party in using this as a weapon is something we will not condone. We will be voting with Senator Birmingham.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously I too stand in support of the suspension moved by Senator Birmingham. The absolute arrogance of those opposite—to think they can come in here and say to us, if we behave ourselves today, we might be able to get some treats tomorrow and have our private senators time—is not the way a respectful democracy operates. It is absolutely shameful that you would be so condescending and so arrogant as to treat this chamber as your toy, your plaything with which you can do as you please.

To Senator Gallagher's contribution that if we behave ourselves and we get through the amendments they're going to put forward, then somehow we're going to get a little treat tomorrow and we're going to be allowed to actually take our rightful place in this chamber tomorrow morning for an hour and 10 minutes and discuss a very important piece of legislation put forward by Senator Duniam—as is his right as a non-government senator, to have something that's important to him and important to other people in this chamber debated—I say this is extraordinary stuff.

If this is the pattern of behaviour we're going to see going forward from the government around their arrogance, that they will just gag whatever they like, and the ridiculousness of the conversation and the contribution of Senator Gallagher, that somehow we were cutting into time—you guys have put the gag in. You already have the approval of this chamber. You've got the gag in place. It will be completed tomorrow at one o'clock no matter what we debate between now and then. So it seems absolutely ridiculous.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And you haven't even circulated your amendments.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Senator Duniam just raised, you are saying, 'If we consider your amendments'—it would be good if you let us have a look at your amendments, because it's pretty hard to consider them when we don't even know what they are. I would suggest the reason you're not providing us with those amendments now is that you know they're going to expose the full extent of your dirty deal with the Greens to get this bill through this place. We already know from the conversations we've seen in the papers, the comments by Mr Bandt in the other place, about the fact he's going to shut down 116 coal and gas projects that are in the pipeline, and yet Mr Bowen tells us: 'Oh no, nothing's going to happen here. It's all going to be fine. This is not going to disrupt everything. This is just a nice little tweak that'll mean that we've, all of a sudden, got our emissions targets met in five minutes.' I can tell you that is not the case.

The hypocrisy of the Greens to come in here and dictate to us that somehow it's okay for them to have their private senators time this morning, but it's not okay for us to have ours tomorrow—reflect on this. I would actually suggest you reflect on this, because the deal you've done with the devil actually makes you part of the devil's clan in this instance. You've now signed yourself up to saying that it's okay for you to actually take advantage of something, but you will deny the rest of the non-government senators in this place that same privilege. That is absolutely outrageous.

We've once again seen, because you have the numbers—and we acknowledge that the numbers exist between the Labor Party and the Greens in their coalition government over there—that you're happy to come in here and trash the processes and protocols of this chamber. With respect to the Greens, I did ask them if they would support us in having an equitable reinstatement of private senators' time. I thought I did it in a respectful way, and I'm disappointed that Senator Hanson-Young would come in here and suggest in some way that I wasn't respectful. I think I've always been respectful in my dealings with you, Senator Hanson-Young.

You are in charge of the time in this chamber. You can manage it respectfully, you can manage it by respecting the protocols and the conventions of this place, or you can come in here and you can trash it at your will. But just remember, you will not always be in government and the damage that you do to this place and this institution will be on your head for decades to come. This is a very sad indictment on this government and their preparedness to do whatever it takes to get their way. It is shameful.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the suspension motion moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.