Skip navigation

Pages tagged "Vote: against"

AGAINST – Committees — Economics References Committee; Reference

Sue Lines

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

Read more

AGAINST – Documents — Department of Finance; Order for the Production of Documents

Richard Colbeck

I move:

That, with reference to recommendation 12 of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee's final report on its inquiry into management and assurance of integrity by consulting services—

(1) There be laid on the table by the Minster for Finance biannual statements on expenditure on consultancy contracts which provide for consideration to the value of $2 million or more, by all Australian Public Service departments and agencies.

(2) The statements are due not later than the tenth day after the end of the preceding six-month period commencing 1 January and 1 July.

(3) Each report is to include, in relation to each contract, details of the:

(a) AusTender contract notice identification number;

(b) dollar value;

(c) subject matter;

(d) duration;

(e) contracting government agency;

(f) firm or entity providing the work;

(g) an explanation of what the contract is expected to deliver/purpose of the contract;

(h) any changes or extensions; and

(i) any matters of probity or conflict of interest that have arisen in the conduct of the work.

(4) Each report is to include the total amount of all current consultancy contracts in each agency or department.

(5) The order is of continuing effect until the Finance and Public Administration References Committee has reported to the Senate that recommendation 8 of the final report of the inquiry into management and assurance of integrity by consulting services has been implemented.

Katy Gallagher

by leave—I move amendments to the motion as circulated in the chamber:

(1) Paragraph (2), omit "tenth day", substitute "twenty-first day".

(2) Paragraph (3)(a), omit "dollar value", substitute "contract value".

(3) Omit paragraph (3)(i), substitute:

(i) instances where a notification was received under the Supplier Code of Conduct in the conduct of the work

I thank Senator Colbeck and his office for the engagement.

Question agreed to.

Larissa Waters

by leave—I move the following amendment to the motion:

Omit "$2 million" in paragraph (1), substitute "$500,000".

Sue Lines

The question is that the amendment, as moved by Senator Waters, be agreed to.

Read more

AGAINST – Committees — Environment and Communications References Committee; Reference

Sue Lines

The question is that business of the Senate No. 7, moved by Senator Cadell and amended by Senator Thorpe, be agreed to.

Read more

AGAINST – Matters of Urgency — Nuclear Energy

Glenn Sterle

The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator Duniam. The President has received the following letter, dated 2 July 2024, from Senator Duniam:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Albanese Government to drop its ideological opposition to nuclear energy and agree with other left of centre political parties across the world, such as UK Labour leader Keir Starmer who describes zero emissions nuclear energy as "critical" to lower household energy bills, create jobs and energy security."

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the Clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

Jonathon Duniam

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Albanese Government to drop its ideological opposition to nuclear energy and agree with other left of centre political parties across the world, such as UK Labour leader Keir Starmer who describes zero emissions nuclear energy as "critical" to lower household energy bills, create jobs and energy security.

The motion, just to remind the chamber, is a very important one about a very important issue, and that is, of course, the intransigence, based on nothing other than ideology, around this energy debate we're having in this nation. Our motion calls on the Albanese Labor government to drop its ideological opposition to nuclear energy in this country and to agree with left-of-centre parties in other countries that are adopting this approach to energy generation for two reasons. The first one is the most important one, which we'll spend most of our time talking about today, and that is the cost of energy. The second one is the Holy Grail that has often been talked about, and that is the pursuit of net zero. Chief amongst those centre-left political parties pursuing nuclear as a form of energy generation that will assist in achieving both of those goals is the UK Labour Party, set to romp it in in the polls not too long from now.

To that end, I remind anyone who happens to be unfortunate enough to be caught listening to this debate that 97 times before the last election a promise was made to Australian households that energy prices would drop by $275 per household per year by the year 2025. Since that promise was made, energy prices have gone up, on average across the country, by about $1,000 per household. If you add those two numbers together, we're about $1,275 away from where we should be based on that promise, which rather does put into perspective and paint as very insignificant what the government has done, as opposed to what it promised. So it is a fail on that count, and it's not just a political failure. It is a failure that is hurting Australian households and businesses. The reason we are in this situation is that this government has put all of its eggs in one basket when it comes to energy generation, and that is because it is a pursuit of renewables at the expense of any other form of energy generation.

Before we have the howls—or the calls, rather—that we are anti renewables, the fact is that we believe renewables are an important part of the mix—the mix, because renewables, when it comes to wind and solar, are only an intermittent source of energy. It is not baseload. It is not dispatchable. It is not there to flick on with the flick of a switch. It is, unfortunately, something that only operates when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. So this policy approach being taken by this government, to pursue renewables with dispatchable baseload energy generation coming offline—90 per cent of it by the year 2034—is a recipe for disaster. The proof is in the power prices Australian households are paying now and in the blackouts and gas shortages that energy market operators and other experts are predicting will occur. The proof is there.

We're behind our target when it comes to emissions reduction, despite this ideological pursuit of an emissions reduction target and transitioning to renewables completely. We're not meeting our promises when it comes to power price reductions, yet we won't change the plan. The government will not change course and will not adopt any different policy when it comes to how we deal with these problems. Why are we being so bloody minded about this? I do not understand. Why do we not say yes to something instead of just saying no? If it's not working, why wouldn't you try something new? And I look forward to hearing whoever the first Labor speaker is in this debate as to what justification there could possibly be to continue doing what isn't working. As I said before, it's got nothing to do with political failure, as embarrassing as that might be—and you will be judged on election day against the promises you made. But the fact is, Australian households are hurting.

So, instead of doing anything different, this government is doubling down and ignoring what other leaders, who are going to romp it in across the world, are doing. You only have to listen to what Keir Starmer, the leader of the opposition, the Labour Party, in the UK said. He said, 'My government will lower household energy bills, create jobs and ensure Britain's energy security.' Nuclear is a critical part of the UK's energy mix, and it's a once-in-a-generation opportunity now to seize the jobs of the future. Why this government refuses to heed the call of other labour leaders around the world and adopt a solution that they're currently blindly ruling out is a mystery to me and to all Australians. (Time expired)

Varun Ghosh

Well, what's a mystery to all Australians are the details of the coalition's plan. I spoke on a misconceived urgency motion about this last week and raised questions about the missing details in the coalition's nuclear mud map, and none of those details have been revealed since. What are the type and size of the nuclear reactors to be used? How many reactors will there be at each site? How much radioactive waste will be produced? Where will the waste be stored? How much will it cost? How much time will it take? And will local communities have a real say about whether they have to live next to one of these reactors? Those questions need to be answered urgently, but they have not been.

Rather than bringing these vague and performative urgency motions to the Senate, the Liberal Party should urgently work out the details of its policy and urgently reveal these to the Australian people. Months on, they have no detail in their plan. Last time I spoke about the cost of nuclear energy and the Lazard L eveli z ed_ _C ost of Energy analysis, which says that nuclear energy is between three and six times more expensive than renewable options.

We could also talk about time. In the absence of the details referred to earlier, it is difficult to know when any Australian nuclear power plant would be able to be brought online. There are estimates being provided, but they are necessarily speculative. In circumstances where Australia has no substantial nuclear power production industry, there are legislative impediments to this plan at a state and federal level. Significantly more expertise in nuclear energy production will be needed, and there is already a shortage of people, materials and expertise around the country. Any estimates currently in the public debate may be quite far wrong. Indeed, there is reason to believe, logically, that this is going to take quite a bit longer.

But I want to talk about economic feasibility as well. Again, in the absence of details, it is impossible to be precise. Mr Dutton initially speculated that the plan would use small modular nuclear reactors. There's no detail on what reactors are going to be used, but small modular reactors are not currently in widespread commercial production. Where are the reactors coming from? Although they may have lower up-front capital costs, their economic uncompetitiveness or viability is neither established nor refuted. In the context of either smaller or larger nuclear reactors, how do they work in relation to existing power grids across the country?

Just today, Steve Edwell, who is the chair of the Economic Regulation Authority in Western Australia—that's the independent umpire tasked with keeping utility prices down in WA—observed that he struggled to see how nuclear would ever be cost competitive. He also observed that nuclear reactors were not designed to be turned on and turned off to match demand and thus would not work with existing renewables feeding into the Western Australian grid. So while my colleague opposite says this is designed to augment or supplement renewables, that's just not possible in the WA grid. So, there's a kind of furphy going on here.

To get nuclear into the grid, the coalition basically has two options. It either puts on hold existing renewable projects and hobbles existing renewable power options that are currently feeding into the grid, or it accepts that it's got nuclear power plants that are going to be severely underutilised, as they are in many of the examples that they and some colleagues opposite cited last week. How do they deal with underutilisation of nuclear power plants? The difficulty there is that, because these will be state owned nuclear power plants that the coalition has to pay for, you're effectively saddling Australia and the Australian taxpayer with uneconomic assets—assets that will become stranded in the short to medium term once they're brought online.

Put simply, this government has an alternative that involves commitment to renewable energy and using gas as a firming fuel in the interim. Since coming to office the Albanese government has seen a 25 per cent increase in renewable energy in Australian grids, has greenlit 50 Australian renewables projects which, when completed, will power three million Australian homes, or the equivalent, and continues to invest in battery and storage technology and infrastructure. The other point is: if long duration battery technology comes online, these nuclear power plants will not be economically viable, so either the Australian taxpayer pays through the energy bills or they pay because they've underwritten an uneconomic asset.

David Shoebridge

It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry when the coalition points to the UK as the example of cheap nuclear power. The Hinkley Point reactors would have to be the global test case for the economic insanity that is nuclear power. I think it's worthwhile remembering that, when the UK first decided to build this nuclear power station at Hinkley, the now former—very former!—CEO of the entity said in 2007 that the Hinckley project would be cooking Christmas turkeys in England by 2017 at a cost of nine billion pounds. Talking about turkeys—and the coalition are obviously keen for a bunch of Australian turkeys—what's the current cost of that same reactor? If you have a look at the current cost, it's coming in at more than A$90 billion—not nine billion pounds, but A$90 billion—and the only turkeys that are being cooked by that Hinkley reactor are the fools in government who thought that that nuclear power station would produce anything like reasonable power. It is extraordinary. Iin fact, it beggars belief that the coalition has had a look at Hinkley and looked at the UK nuclear industry and said, 'We want a bit of that!' You couldn't make this stuff up.

Talking about turkeys, whilst the coalition wants us to join the UK nuclear turkey hunt, the Labor government has gone really strangely quiet about their naval nuclear propulsion bill. Do you remember how it was really urgent that we had to get this new naval nuclear propulsion safety bill up? The Labor government suddenly wanted to go hot to trot on naval nuclear reactors. And, whilst the Labor Party jumped out with a bunch of weird memes against the coalition's nuclear strategy—do you remember the three-eyed fish?—maybe Labor was thinking about a three-eyed Port Adelaide kingfish or a three-eyed Fremantle redfish, because that's where Labor wants to put its nuclear reactors. Worse than that, that's where Labor wants to have toxic nuclear waste dumps. They've got legislation in parliament right now to put a toxic nuclear waste dump in Port Adelaide, to put another toxic nuclear waste dump on Garden Island, just off Fremantle. So, when Labor comes in here and says, 'Oh, nuclear is terrible,' they seem to have suddenly forgotten that Labor wants floating nuclear reactors—five or more in Port Adelaide and five or more in Fremantle. Maybe when they're talking about three-eyed fish, they're talking about themselves.

Long debate text truncated.

Read more

AGAINST – Bills — Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024; Second Reading

Andrew McLachlan

I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments on sheet 2677 circulated by the opposition.

Opposition's circulated amendments—

(1) Title, page 1 (line 1), omit "certain".

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (after line 27), after the definition of CFMEU in clause 1, insert:

Division means a Division as defined in the rules of the CFMEU at the commencement of this clause.

(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 1 to 3), omit the definition of new organisation in clause 1, substitute:

new organisation means the organisation that is registered pursuant to section 110 of the old Act as a result of the withdrawal of a Division from the CFMEU.

(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 19), omit "the Manufacturing", substitute "a".

(5) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 22), omit "Manufacturing".

(6) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 26), omit "Manufacturing".

(7) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 35), omit "Manufacturing".

(8) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 36), omit "Manufacturing".

(9) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (line 4), omit "Manufacturing".

(10) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (line 19), omit "Manufacturing".

(11) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (line 26), omit "the Manufacturing", substitute "a".

(12) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (lines 32 and 33), omit subclause 3(3).

(13) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 5), omit "by deadline".

(14) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 7), omit "on or before 30 August 2024".

(15) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (lines 25 and 26), omit subclause 4(3).

(16) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 28), omit "by deadline".

(17) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 30), omit "on or before 30 August 2024".

(18) Schedule 1, item 2, page 7 (line 19), omit "the Manufacturing", substitute "a".

(19) Schedule 1, item 2, page 7 (line 21), omit "the Manufacturing Division is taken to be the", substitute "a Division is taken to be a".

(20) Schedule 1, item 2, page 7 (line 30), omit "the Manufacturing", substitute "a".

(21) Schedule 1, item 2, page 8 (lines 2 to 35), omit subclause 5(7), substitute:

Eligibility rules of new organisation and CFMEU

(7) If a Division proposing to withdraw from the CFMEU is the Manufacturing Division, subsection 95A(4) of the old Act has effect as if that subsection were omitted and the following subsection were substituted:

"(4) The eligibility rules of the new organisation must reflect the following rules of the CFMEU as at 2 December 2023:

(a) 2(C);

(b) 2(F), but must exclude:

(i) persons who are engaged in Queensland, the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory; and

(ii) floor covering layers in Queensland or Western Australia; and

(iii) persons who are engaged in the plate, sheet or ornamental glass industry in New South Wales or Western Australia and persons engaged in or in connection with the following industries or trades in New South Wales or Western Australia: plate and sheet glass in warehouses, shops, factories or stores, glass bevellers, glass benders, glass workers (excepting those on spectacles, lenses or frames and employees in firms where such employees are engaged on work connected with the manufacture or repair of scientific, precision or other instruments such as binoculars, microscopes, military, aircraft and naval instruments), glass lampshade workers, safety glass workers, glaziers, glass polishing, cutting, painting, cementing, leadlight glaziers and cutters and plate-glass factories and luxfer glazing;

(c) 2(P)(D);

(d) 2(P)(G);

(e) 2(R).".

(7) If a Division proposing to withdraw from the CFMEU is not the Manufacturing Division, subsection 95A(4) of the old Act has effect as if the words "immediately before the application was made" were omitted and the words "as at 2 December 2023" were substituted.

(7B) Subsection 95A(5) of the old Act has effect as if that subsection were omitted and the following subsection were substituted:

"(5) The eligibility rules of the CFMEU, as proposed to be altered, must not overlap with the eligibility rules of the new organisation when the withdrawal from amalgamation takes effect.".

(22) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (line 3), omit "Manufacturing".

(23) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (line 16), omit "the Manufacturing", substitute "a".

The question before the Senate is that the amendments on sheet 2677 be agreed to.

Read more

AGAINST – Bills — Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024; in Committee

Andrew McLachlan

We now come to amendment 11. The question now is that section 42DZ in item 27 of schedule 1 standard as printed.

Government opposed__section 42DZ in item 27 of schedule 1 in the following terms

(11) Schedule 1, item 27, page 29 (line 8) to page 30 (line 3), section 42DZ to be opposed.

Question negatived.

The question now is that the opposition amendments on sheets 2586 and 2587 be agreed to.

Opposition amendments—

SHEET 2586

(1) Schedule 1, item 11, page 21 (line 13), omit "or subsection (9)".

(2) Schedule 1, item 11, page 21 (after line 14), after subsection 41QD(6), insert:

Evidential burden of proof

(6A) Despite subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code and section 41QE of this Act a person does not bear an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (9).

_____

SHEET 2587

(1) Schedule 1, item 11, page 26 (after line 17), insert:

Division 3 — Periodic reporting by Minister

41RE Periodic report on smoking and vaping rates

(1) As soon as practicable after the end of each reporting period, the Minister must cause a report to be prepared on smoking and vaping rates in Australia.

(2) As soon as practicable after the completion of a report, the persons who prepared the report must give the report to the Minister.

(3) The Minister must cause each report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

(4) The Minister must be satisfied that each report was prepared in collaboration with such Commonwealth, State and Territory agencies as the Minister considers appropriate.

(5) In this section:

reporting period means:

(a) the period of 6 months beginning on the day this section commences; or

(b) each subsequent 6-month period.

Note: The Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner must prepare reports on enforcement statistics, and analysis of those statistics, relating to the illicit tobacco and e-cigarette trade in Australia, including detections and seizures of illicit tobacco and e-cigarette products, and associated arrests. Reports must be prepared every 12 months and tabled in both Houses of the Parliament. See Chapter 6A of the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act 2023.

Read more


AGAINST – Bills — Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024; Second Reading

Penny Allman-Payne

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Ruston on sheet 2662 be agreed to.

Read more

AGAINST – Bills — Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023; Consideration of House of Representatives Message

Murray Watt

I move:

That the Senate does not further insist on its amendments to which the House of Representatives has insisted on disagreeing.

Andrew McLachlan

Pursuant to the order agreed to earlier today, I am required to put the question immediately. The question is that the Senate does not further insist on its amendments to which the House has insisted on disagreeing.

Read more

AGAINST – Matters of Urgency — Middle East: Occupied Palestinian Territories

Lidia Thorpe

(In division) From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.

Sue Lines

Order! Senator Thorpe, I ask you to come to order!

Lidia Thorpe

You're complicit in genocide, every one of you!

Sue Lines

Order! Senator Thorpe, this has been a respectful debate; it will remain that way.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order!

Senator Shoebridge, you are being disrespectful. I've asked you to come to order and you will come to order.

David Shoebridge

Disrespectful is ignoring the genocide.

Lidia Thorpe

Shame on you all!

Sue Lines

I remind senators there are other opportunities for you to put your position, not now.

Anthony Chisholm

I move the amendment as circulated in the chamber:

At the end of the motion add, "as part of a peace process in support of a two-state solution and a just and enduring peace".

The Australian government is working with the international community to create momentum for a lasting peace in the form of a two-state solution: a Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel. We know that it is the only way to break the cycle of violence. The momentum is what we saw in the recent vote in the United Nations General Assembly where 143 countries including Australia expressed our aspiration for Palestinian membership of the United Nations. Australia and a number of other countries including Germany, the United Kingdom and Canada have shifted our position so that recognition of a Palestinian state is no longer seen as being at the end of negotiations.

Australia is firmly part of the international effort to see recognition of a state of Palestine as a part of a peace process in support of a two-state solution and a just and enduring peace. It is widely recognised that major security and governance reforms are needed. At the foreign minister's direction, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is examining ways Australia can support reform of the Palestinian Authority so that it can deliver on the needs of the Palestinian people. The government's amendment to this motion reflects the work Australia is contributing in the international community. Given the distressing impact of the conflict in the Middle East and here at home, it is the government's hope that senators will send a clear statement of support to international efforts to advance the cause of the two-state solution and a just and enduring peace.

Michaelia Cash

On behalf of the coalition, I move the amendment standing in the name of Senator Birmingham to the government amendment for the reasons outlined by Senator Birmingham:

That the government amendment be amended as follows:

At the end of the government's amendment add: ", once the following preconditions have been met:

i. recognition by Palestinian representatives and the Palestinian Authority of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state;

ii. that there is no role for Hamas in a future Palestinian state;

iii. reform of the Palestinian Authority is achieved, including major security and governance reforms;

iv. agreed processes to resolve final status issues including agreed state borders and rights of return; and

v. appropriate security guarantees between parties to ensure peace and security within recognised borders."

Jordon Steele-John

I would like to speak to the opposition's amendment. The State of Israel continues to deny Palestinians of the right to self-determination and continues to dispossess them of their land. This injustice must be rectified in ways that allow both Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace, security and equality and to exercise self-determination as described by the UN Charter. Self-determination is central here. True self-determination must be supported by the Australian government and by this parliament for Palestinian peoples. Self-determination means you do not prescribe the end point and conclusion of the self-determined process.

We must recognise the reality that the actions of the State of Israel, the actions of its many governments, have systematically worked to render a two-state solution unachievable. We must have an Australian government which does recognise Palestinian statehood and we must have a government that supports the self-determination of Palestinian peoples. We must do so in a framework that enables that self-determination to be genuine and authentic. We must have an Australian government and a parliament that is willing to recognise that the actions of the State of Israel, both in the invasion of Gaza and before the invasion of Gaza, have continued to perpetuate a deep and profound violation of the rights of Palestinian peoples. We must have an Australian government willing to condemn and reject all forms of violence, especially against civilians, whether it's perpetrated by states, organisations or individuals, and it must be able to do that while recognising the rights of Palestinian people to resist Israeli occupation in accordance with international law. We must have an Australian government that is able to oppose all forms of racism, religious or cultural intolerance, and discrimination in Australia and internationally while rejecting the suggestion that any criticism of the State of Israel or its policies inherently constitutes antisemitism, when that in itself is an antisemitic idea.

We must have peace and justice for Palestinian peoples. That is what we here in the Greens, with like-minded members on the crossbench, will continue to work in solidarity with Palestinian peoples to achieve.

Sue Lines

Thank you, Senator Steel-John. I advise the chamber that the time allocated for debate of this amendment has now concluded. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Cash and standing in the name of Senator Birmingham be agreed to.

Read more