Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in the name of Senator Waters, No. 7, contingent on the chair declaring that the time allocated for consideration of the bill has expired, which you have just done, Acting Deputy President, I seek to move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the bill—specifically that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the second reading vote on this bill. I also seek to move that the motion be put without amendment or debate.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take some advice on that. Senator McKim, the advice is that you cannot use that provision under standing order 142 as you would have to move to suspend standing orders.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the second reading vote on this bill being held.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the Senate now is that standing orders be suspended.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to briefly contribute on the motion before the chamber. It is an ordinary feature of the program in this place that time is allocated for debate for private senators' bills, and that's appropriate. There are many matters that senators wish to bring before this chamber, and indeed I have on many occasions brought a bill before this chamber and sought to have it debated, and I have appreciated senators entertaining the ideas that I have put here. But Senator McKim is now asserting that, because his matter did not come to a conclusion, time should be extended. There is no real rationale for this. There are plenty of opportunities on the program for the Greens political party to re-list this matter. I understand that, on this occasion, they are seeking to make a political point. That's also a thing that's common in this chamber. But let's be very clear: the consequence of the Greens extending private senators' time is to frustrate the capacity for the government to move to government business. The matter before the chamber in government business is the Future Made in Australia Bill. I can't think of anything more consequential for this chamber to be considering for the future of industry, manufacturing, green industries and the transformation of the Australian economy than the bill that is listed next. But, consistent with all of their actions in this place, it's all about the politics. The Greens political party would prefer to make a political point than to actually allow us to debate something of consequence, something that goes to the heart of what they say is the most important issue confronting Australians, which is climate change and the transformation of our economy. Their preference is always a stunt. They would rather have a meme. They'd rather have a set of signs. They'd rather have a photo-op. They'd rather whiteboard their strategy, their walk-out or their TikTok video. All of those things matter more than debating legislation that will actually make a difference to the decarbonisation of the Australian economy and the future of Australian workers and the industries and regions that they claim to care about but never actually do anything about. Whenever they have the opportunity when other people seek to do something constructive, their position is to obstruct it, to block it and to say no. In that they join the coalition, who also seek to say no when constructive ideas are brought before this parliament.

We have a problem, don't we? The parliament is predicated on the idea that negotiations, conversations and debate will occur in good faith. You can't have a debate in good faith when the negotiating parties are always seeking to block and never in fact to build or do anything constructive of any kind. Again, we see that today. So we do not support the extension of time. There are plenty of opportunities for private senators' matters to be brought before this chamber. They should be brought before the chamber, but that should be done at the time that's allotted. That has clearly expired, and the games that are being played this morning do nothing to assist the work of this chamber and the work that we are actually tasked with doing on behalf of the Australian people.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to get clarification from Senator McKim as to what exactly the motion is he has before the Senate.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion that I have put is that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the second reading vote on the bill being put.

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

The only reason the Greens are seeking to suspend standing orders to bring on the second reading vote of this bill, a bill that was introduced by the Australian Greens, a bill that will deal with the cost-of-living crisis Australians are feeling right now at the supermarket, week in and week out, is that the government have desperately tried all morning to stop this bill from coming to a vote. They are embarrassed that they haven't got a solution before the parliament to deal with the very real issues that Australians are dealing with right now.

The Senate does a lot of good work, and today is an opportunity for the Senate to do some good work for real people feeling the struggle right now rather than having these crazy, active delaying tactics of this government to stop this bill from having a vote, which is what's happened this morning. They have spent all the time trying to drag this out. They've stacked the speakers' list. They've tried to stop this bill coming to a vote because they don't want the Senate to pass a piece of legislation, a law, that would come down like a ton of bricks on the big supermarkets. The government do not have the guts to do it themselves, so the Senate needs to do it for them. That is what this bill is about.

I thank Senator Tyrrell for listing this bill today, a Greens bill. This shows that there is cooperation across the chamber. That's because people in this place, including members of the government, I might say, know that people are struggling at the supermarkets, week in and week out, and we could do something today to help. That's why we need this extension of time—not to delay this bill any further but to simply put it to a vote. That vote will mean that every member of this place, every senator, will be counted. Are you going to be on the side of the big supermarkets or on the side of the people? That is the vote that the Labor government is desperate to avoid today, and that's why they don't want this suspension. I say bring it on!

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the second reading being put on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024.