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

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes the conspicuous silence from The Australian Greens in relation to the Government's legislative response to the CFMEU's scandal of corruption, lawlessness and thuggery;

(b) notes that the Leader of The Australian Greens, along with Greens MPs and senators, have not ruled out receiving any donations from the CFMEU while it is under administration;

(c) agrees that no amount of money is worth supporting corruption, bullying, sexism and thuggery; and

(d) calls on the Leader of The Australian Greens to clarify the full extent of the party's relationship with the CFMEU and confirm that the party will not accept any donations from the CFMEU while it is under administration.

I don't intend to speak to the motion other than to make two points. One, it's time for the Greens to come clean in the subsequent debate on this legislation about why they stand so vehemently in defence of the corrupt and thuggish CFMEU. Two, it's time for the Greens to give a clear, straight answer ruling out ever taking money from the CFMEU whilst it's in administration. Address those points, Greens, or it is clear that you are squibbing this for your own benefit. In the subsequent debate come clean about why you are the only party in this place standing in defence of the corrupt and thuggish CFMEU and rule out taking a dollar or a person of campaign assistance from the CFMEU whilst they're under administration. Come clean. What is it that you are seeking to do in cuddling up to the CFMEU, Australian Greens?

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We wanted to move an amendment to this motion that would have called on the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to attend the chamber for ten minutes upon conclusion of this motion to explain whether Labor will return any of the millions in donations it has received from the CFMEU. We wanted to move that as an amendment, but there's a deal between the coalition and Labor to provide political cover for Labor, for whatever reason—I don't know. I don't know why you're trying to do that. We wanted to move that amendment and have the minister, the Six Million Dollar Man, come down and explain what Labor are going to do with the millions and millions and millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars that they have received in the last decade from the CFMEU.

I will say this—I've said it before and I will say it again: the Greens have not received any political donations from the CFMEU since 2013, and I don't see that changing. It says so much about the so-called modern Labor Party and the coalition that we're debating a bill which is about very real and deep concerns about misogyny and violence, very real and deep concerns about union democracy, and very real and deep concerns about the overreach of a federal government to be able to reach into any organisation they choose—it starts with unions, it goes on to the next—and how we structure safeguards around that.

These very deep, real matters of principle have been engaging the Greens, both the party room and the movement across the country. These matters are very real principles of concern so as to ensure construction workers can go to work and come home alive, to ensure that the rights of individuals to have a democratically controlled union are not just overridden first by Minister Watt and then by Senator Cash when she's minister. These are matters of deep and real principles that we've been trying to negotiate with the government on, but, when on the other side of the negotiating table, it's 'Computer says "no"'. That's Minister Watt's negotiation style, 'Computer says "no"'. That's his negotiating style. That's his idea of negotiating, that and then threatening us with Labor memes. That's what we're dealing with.

We have matters of genuine principle that we want to see addressed through amendments and in-principle discussions. We've got these concerns we would like to articulate in detail in a second reading debate, but instead we're spending the time having this, what, second debate on the Birmingham double backflip belly-flop motion that we're dealing with. Instead we're doing that.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then sit down.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then we get those facile interjections from the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, he did just call me 'facile', but I might not be quite as touchy as him. Senator, I would invite you to not debate it, then.

Opposition senators: Point of order!

You could just sit down. If you're worried about debating it—this is a voluntary engagement. You can actually not talk and we could vote.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, is there a point of order? Senator Shoebridge, you have the call.

Honourable senators interjecting—

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I think this chamber works best with just one president.

We wanted to have that addition to this motion, to have Minister Watt come and explain his position, explain what he'd do with the millions and millions and millions, but I'm sure we won't get that in Labor's contribution. We won't get that. We will instead get some Senator Watt meme no doubt. We want to get on with discussing the second reading debate. Instead, we have to meet these spurious arguments being put forward by the coalition and Labor in unison.

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

You can't even talk for more than 10 minutes!

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In unison. The fact that Labor and the coalition are doing this today in unison, singing off the one song sheet—they're not making it about the substantive issues, but singing off the one song sheet like they do time after time after time in this chamber.

They've been voting together on this, scheming together on this, working up the motions together on this. Labor and the coalition have been scheming together as they've been quietly negotiating over the weekend and quietly negotiating last week to try to work out what they can do together as the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of Australian politics.

Honourable senators interjecting—

And we're seeing it again today. We're seeing it right now. There's so little between you that you have to come up with these confected fights to suggest there's something.

We are trying to deal with the principles of this, and I know that troubles you so much. What I find extraordinary about this motion—I was setting out the issues of principle that have been moving our party room and moving our movement.

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

Senator Shoebridge, resume your seat. Senator McKenzie and other senators, Senator Shoebridge does have the call. He should be heard in silence. Senator Shoebridge, you have the call.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Acting Deputy President Chandler. I have been trying to articulate—and I would like to go into more detail in the second reading—the matters of principle we have. The matters of principle we have include: democratic control of non-government civil society organisations: concerns about the overreach of giving extraordinary powers to just one minister; concerns about removing all natural justice through a scheme that the minister can amend; the inability to work out a way of ensuring, if there is a change of government, that Minister Cash can't have unilateral control over this; dealing with the concerns of misogyny; and dealing with the concerns of violence—matters of real principle.

With this motion, we get a little insight into the brain that is the coalition and a little insight into the brain that is the Labor Party. They both genuinely think that, for the Greens, this is somehow about some donations. You genuinely think that. I suppose what I would say to that is: it goes to show what you are. You are showing what you are. These are the kinds of quiet little internal thoughts you should keep quiet, because we now know what it is for the coalition and we now know what it is for the Labor Party: you make the mistake of thinking that we engage in politics in this place in the way that you engage in politics, because for you it is about the money. For the coalition is about the money going to the Labor, and for Labor it is about the money going to them or to some other political party. Well, it has never been about the money for us; it is about matters of principle. You can't comprehend that fact.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Shoebridge, resume your seat. Senator McKenzie, you are in a stream of consciousness mode at the moment, so I would ask that you pause and let Senator Shoebridge finish his contribution. Senator Shoebridge.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Acting Deputy President. We have a national issue with layers and layers of deep and concerning principles, some in contradiction to each other, some that have been keeping many of us awake at night—about how you navigate a pathway through with these very real—

An honourable senator interjecting

some of which we have been trying to negotiate with a Labor minister, who just says 'computer says no' if he actually gets back to us. Then we get a little insight into what you lot think this is about, because you think it is about money. You think it is about donations because that's the way your politics works. That is the way the coalition's politics works. It must be about the money. You cannot get that out of your own brains because that is the only way you engage in politics. It is about self-interest and money for the coalition, and you can't comprehend when another political movement may actually have different principles and considerations. As you bring this motion, we're getting a little insight into your political brain. This motion says so much about the coalition—that you think that's what motivates politics in this place. It is always about some grubby side deal for the money and it tells us so much about you.

We then have Labor join and support it, because, for them, it is the same thing. This is not about matters of deep principle, it is not about matters of how we go and stand up for a democratic union movement, and it is not about how we deal with the misogyny, the allegations of criminality and the very real deep concerns about how the union operates. It is not about that, because they have joined the coalition in making it all about money. They have joined you in making it all about money. It is such an insight into the modern Labor Party, that with all these issues floating around, you can't conceive there is another political movement in the country that is not doing it only for the money and is not interested in it only for the money. For the party that has received more than $6 million in donations from the CFMEU, that has made zero commitments to give a cent back in the last decade, zero commitments at all, to join this motion makes us realise that is what is important to them. That is what is motivating them. It's actually the money that is motivating Labor, as so much of their politics is motivated by money—self interest and money.

We're trying to have a genuine debate about the principles, and you lot collectively drag it into the gutter and make it about the way your politics works. When you're both in the gutter, the rest of the country is looking at you in the gutter. Is it any wonder that your combined vote keeps shrinking and shrinking because you do this stuff? You turn issues of principle and concern into your collective grubby self-interest and how you can make these kinds of narrow, grubby, political fights, when we want to actually engage with the principles.

So do we oppose this motion? Yes, we oppose this motion. Do we want to get on and deal with issues of principle and deal with it on principle? Yes, we want to deal with it on principle. There is an absolutely fatuous argument from Labor about us spending 12 or 13 minutes actually defending our position in an attack motion that you've joined together to do to us in what will be the better part of an hour's time of the Senate. Their fatuous argument is that defending ourselves from the self-interested joint attack from Labor and the coalition is somehow the problem. You couldn't make this stuff up, could you? You couldn't make up that kind of confected outrage.

What I'd say to the both of you is: have a good, hard look in the mirror. When you have a look in the mirror, what will be reflected back at you is this motion. It says so much more about you and how you do politics—the standard grubby deals between you and your backroom deals to try and do a job on any political party that dares put principle before dollars. That's what this is about. Murray, give it back. If you have the guts of your convictions, just give it back.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might just make the procedural point that I understand it's not possible for Senator Shoebridge to amend the original motion. Very briefly, in response to Senator Shoebridge, we have heard an extraordinary proposition from him. Not only do the Greens want to be able to take donations from the CFMEU in the future—that, clearly has to be why they're voting against motion—they are now demanding that Labor returns $6 million in donations to John Setka. You actually want not just donations in the future but for him to have even more money to play with to back your campaigns and make donations to you. That is an extraordinary suggestion from the Greens.

Senator Shoebridge has advanced several of what he calls matters of principle that he is seeking the government to agree to. The news for Senator Shoebridge is that we have agreed to all of those matters of principle. As late as Thursday or Friday last week, we pointed out to the Greens how we could accommodate the so-called matters of principle for the Greens. The truth of the matter is that there's only one matter of principle involved here for the Greens party, and that is the principle that they should be allowed to take donations from the CFMEU for time immemorial. Have a look at the motion moved by Senator Birmingham that the government will be supporting. It notes things and agrees to things, and it's also denoting stuff. The only part of the motion that actually calls on anyone to do anything is at paragraph (d):

… calls on the Leader of The Australian Greens to clarify the full extent of the party's relationship with the CFMEU and confirm that the party will not accept any donations from the CFMEU while it is under administration.

By voting against this motion, as it seems the Greens plan to do, they are confirming that they are not prepared to give up donations from the CFMEU. That tells us a whole lot about the Greens.

We know that, for the Greens, it's all about politics, games and grandstanding. Today, we've learned it's all about getting money from John Setka and his associates at the CFMEU. That's why the government will be voting in support of this motion, and I move:

That the motion be put.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the question now be put.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the chamber now is that the substantive motion moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to. I think the ayes have it.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Actually, that was a no from us.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We didn't hear it.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sorry you couldn't hear because of the noise in the chamber.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would you like me to call the vote again?

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, please. Thank you.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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