Skip navigation

Pages tagged "Vote: against"

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

AGAINST – Committees — Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee; Reference

Sue Lines

Given that closure was agreed, the question now is that the motion proposing a reference to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, moved by Senators Colbeck and Cadell, be agreed to.

Read more

AGAINST – Business — Rearrangement

Katy Gallagher

I seek leave to amend government business notice of motion No. 1 by omitting the Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024 from paragraph (2)(a).

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That—

(1) On Tuesday, 25 June 2024:

(a) the questions on all remaining stages of the following bills be put at 6 pm:

Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2023-2024Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2023-2024

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2024-2025;

(b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142;

(c) following the consideration of the bills, a message from the House of Representatives concerning the Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023 be reported, and:

(i) a minister may move immediately—That the Senate does not further insist on its amendments to which the House of Representatives has insisted on disagreeing, and

(ii) the question on that motion then be put immediately without amendment or debate;

(d) at the conclusion of the consideration of the message the routine of business be the consideration of the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024 (second reading speeches only);

(e) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm for the purposes of the matters listed in paragraphs (a) and (c) only; and

(f) the Senate adjourn without debate at the conclusion of the second reading debate or on the motion of a minister, whichever is earlier.

(2) On Wednesday, 26 June 2024:

(a) the questions on all remaining stages of the following bill be put at midday:

Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024;

(b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and

(c) divisions may take place between 12.15 pm and 1.30 pm until consideration of the bills has concluded.

This motion sets up very important time management for the next couple of days. The appropriation bills are included, and those budget bills need to pass today, which is why the motion has been drafted to allow those bills to be dealt with later this afternoon, along with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill. The motion also allows for debate on the vaping reforms, through the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024. We understand that there is a lot of interest in this bill and that a lot of senators are wanting to contribute to this bill. This is the best way to allow for more time for second readers to occur tonight. It would set it up so that the second reading debate would continue until there are no further speakers wanting to contribute. The committee stage of the bill would be dealt with tomorrow.

The amendment allows the Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024 to be dealt with separately. We will list that separately. It does need to pass this week, and I understand from my discussions across the chamber that there are senators who would like to contribute to that debate. If it were part of this motion, it may be that we would reach time on the contributions being made on vaping and that there wouldn't be time for contributions on the Governor-General bill. That's why we have moved the amended motion. I hope that the Senate is able to support this to allow fulsome debate on important legislation.

Simon Birmingham

I'll be brief as per my commitment to the Manager of Government Business. I thank her for not moving the customary guillotines on these things. It's tempting to rail against another Labor-Greens guillotine bill, but simply let the statistics show the add-on of guillotines of bills that Labor and the Greens hypocritically continue to pile on in this place. I particularly want to highlight to the Senate—particularly to the Greens and the crossbench as they negotiate with the government in relation to these matters—the continued erosion of opportunities for senators to make free contributions in this place in the way in which these guillotine motions are being structured.

On this side, we would much rather see significant, additional time provided for matters, as occurred more frequently in the past, where the Senate would sit later hours, longer hours and extra days to progress bills through. It's not to say that guillotines didn't occur, but certainly there were far more opportunities. This guillotine, whilst providing extra time for second reading speakers tonight, does so at the expense of the open ended adjournment debate on a Tuesday night, which is all too routinely being knocked out. This guillotine also removes statements by senators from consideration tomorrow.

The point I make to the government, to the Greens and to others on the crossbench who sign up to these guillotine motions is that it is eroding the capacity of individual senators, particularly senators on the crossbench and especially senators on the backbenches of both sides, to make free and open contributions on matters that may not otherwise be structured. President, I implore and urge the government and others to consider that, in terms of time management, this could have been done last night. That would not have removed the open ended adjournment and would not have impacted upon senators who are here on Tuesday. They would have planned their opportunity this week to raise important matters for their constituency and related to their committee work in a range of other ways.

Sorry, Senator Ayres. You may not care, but there are actually senators, diligent ones, on your side who I know like to use the adjournment contribution, as there are on our side and on the crossbench. We urge respect for that, rather than the continued erosion of those opportunities.

Sue Lines

The question is that the motion, as moved and amended by Minister Gallagher, be agreed to.

Read more

AGAINST – Matters of Urgency — Native Title

Helen Polley

I inform the Senate that Senator Roberts has submitted a proposal under standing order 75, shown at item 16 of today's Order of Business:

The Native Title system in Australia is critically flawed and perpetuates discrimination. A new claim has been lodged by the Woppaburra people for exclusive use over an additional 2,249 acres of Great Keppel Island, despite a prior Federal Court ruling extinguishing Native Title over significant portions of the island, with the effect of potentially closing Great Keppel Island to non-Aboriginal Australians. This situation exemplifies why there is urgent need for a thorough overhaul of Native Title laws to prevent misuse and ensure equal treatment for all Australians regardless of race

Is the proposal supported?

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

Malcolm Roberts

I move:

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

The Native Title system in Australia is critically flawed and perpetuates discrimination. A new claim has been lodged by the Woppaburra people for exclusive use over an additional 2,249 acres of Great Keppel Island, despite a prior Federal Court ruling extinguishing Native Title over significant portions of the island, with the effect of potentially closing Great Keppel Island to non-Aboriginal Australians. This situation exemplifies why there is urgent need for a thorough overhaul of Native Title laws to prevent misuse and ensure equal treatment for all Australians regardless of race

I rise to speak about the racial divisions that continue to be perpetrated by the Liberal-Labor uniparty and their toxic native title system. One Nation 's candidate for the Queensland seat of Keppel, James Ashby, is doing a wonderful job holding the Miles Labor government accountable for its failure to meet $30 million worth of commitments to Great Keppel Island. Further, James Ashby deserves credit for exposing the latest native title claim on the island on the weekend. This claim, if successful, would mean that 84 per cent of Great Keppel Island would be excluded from non-indigenous Australians. One of the jewels of Central Queensland and an Australian tourism icon could effectively be closed off for all time from the Australian people, from local businesses and from international visitors.

This isn't the first time an Indigenous group has tried to close off Great Keppel Island from the rest of us by using a divisive native title claim. In 2021 the Federal Court denied a native title claim over the Great Keppel Island leases held by Tower Holdings because of pre-existing infrastructure of commercial value. One Nation calls on this latest claim to be thrown out, too, and for the Miles Labor government to honour its $30 million promise to clean up and restore Great Keppel Island. Yet we must go much further than that. We're calling for a comprehensive review of the entire native title system and a sunset clause on native title claims, because it's getting out of hand and it's excluding from any consultation on these processes the most important stakeholders of all: the Australian people.

More than 50 per cent of Australia is now under native title claim, yet fewer than three per cent of Australians have had any say in it. The rest of us are excluded from the process. While state governments, councils and the Federal Court get a say, they almost never represent community views, because they don't ask us for our views. We're not asked, because they don't want to hear our views. This is what happened in the lead-up to the Voice referendum. There was a lot of consultation, costing a lot of taxpayer money, but only with Indigenous groups. There was none for the rest of Australia. It's one of the main reasons it was such a spectacular $450 million failure, a flop. Consultation was undertaken in an echo chamber where dissent was absent, where dissent was chastised, where dissent was suppressed. Native title claims are resolved in this sort of bubble as well—a bubble from which most Australians are always excluded, deliberately. Even those people who are specifically intended to benefit from native title are excluded from those benefits.

I often visit remote communities in Cape York and the Northern Territory, and the No. 1 complaint from Aboriginal Australians right across Cape York and the communities I visited in the Northern Territory is the inability of Aboriginals to get land title while unaccountable land councils act as robber barons building fiefdoms. This was expressed to me again by Aboriginal elders who'd heard I was visiting Maryborough and Gympie last week and came to see me and attended a forum I hosted. There's another agenda going on in the background. The Native Title Act's preamble is littered with references to the United Nations policy and declarations. Why is this so? It fits with the UN agenda of attacking private land ownership and locking the land away from use. Unfortunately for local Aboriginals, they're denied the opportunity of actually owning their piece of Australia by buying it to live on, to invest, to build, to develop, to farm or to use as collateral for a business loan to set up a business.

Native title holds Aboriginals back from doing what all other Australians can do with land. It works to maintain the gap, not close it. When British colonists arrived there was no form of landownership on the mainland. There was no recognition of individual landownership, security or passing the land onto heirs. Land title existed only in limited form, in some Torres Strait Islands. The Mabo decision was based on this distinction. It was the Labor native title legislation that extended this to the mainland of Australia—incorrectly. Native title perpetuates racial discrimination in Australia by creating rights based on race. This is wrong and must be reversed. The whole concept is consistent with Labor's policy of waste and arrogance and disdain for Aboriginals and all Australians as part of a global agenda.

Labor is one part of the uniparty. The Liberals and Nationals have done nothing to review this act to fix things for all Australians. Democratic government is supposed to work for the people and serve the people. Instead, in recent decades the uniparty governments have worked to control the people. They push a global agenda to control people and steal property and transfer wealth to the party's corporate globalist masters. We need a comprehensive review of native title urgently so that we can get back to helping Aboriginals get some land.

Nita Green

I'm very pleased to rise and talk about a beautiful part of Queensland, Great Keppel Island. It's a wonderful place and worthy of the visitation and tourism that it receives. I have had the pleasure of visiting Great Keppel Island. I know it's a very proud jewel in the crown for people in Central Queensland. Obviously, this motion that's being debated today and put forward by the One Nation party is all about a state campaign happening near Great Keppel Island in Yeppoon and more broadly in Queensland. It is a culture war designed to get the name of the candidate from the One Nation party in the headlines. It doesn't involve any consideration of community views and it's peddling mistruths about what is actually happening on Great Keppel Island. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to set the record straight and for the record of the Miles government and the federal government to be recorded.

To be very clear: there have not been any plans, and there will not be plans, to change the name of Great Keppel Island, despite what Mr Ashby says in the community. Despite what Mr Ashby says in the community, there are no plans for the Queensland government to support the current native title claim that has been reported over the weekend for exclusive use of parts of Great Keppel Island. What there is, though, is a plan from the Miles government and particularly led by Brittany Lauga, the state member in Yeppoon, to work with the local community to deliver a $30 million master plan to revitalise tourism on Great Keppel Island, working with traditional owners and tourism operators. That is the work that is underway. Despite the culture wars and misinformation from One Nation and the LNP in Queensland, that is the work that is ongoing. It is being led by a fantastic local member in Brittany Lauga. She is a fantastic local member.

We're going to hear today arguments about the fact that this proposed native title claim will prevent economic development, prevent tourism and stop people from travelling to Great Keppel Island. There will be claims that apparently tourism jobs will be put at risk. I'm not going to stand here and let people from One Nation make those claims, whether they are a state candidate or a member of the Senate or members of the LNP, who will get up here today and rave about the fact that tourism jobs are at risk on Great Keppel Island while they currently have a plan to defer climate action and not do anything to help. What tourism operators actually need all along the coast of the Great Barrier Reef is an energy plan on climate change delivering renewables. It is absolutely hypocritical for those opposite to come in here and argue that they are standing up for jobs on the Great Barrier Reef, like Great Keppel Island, without having a credible plan for how they're going to take action on climate change.

Just down the road from Great Keppel Island is Gladstone. I'm sure you have visited from time to time, Acting Deputy President Polley. This is where one of the supposed nuclear reactors from Peter Dutton and the Liberals and Nationals will go. They want to put nuclear power just down the road from Great Keppel Island.

Matthew Canavan

You're a joke!

Nita Green

I can tell you that those tourism operators on Great Keppel Island are incredibly concerned not only because of the proposed nuclear reactors going just down the road from Great Keppel Island but because they know that this plan, led by Senator Canavan and other Nationals members of the Liberal National Party, does nothing to protect the reef against climate change, does nothing to prevent climate change and doesn't do anything to protect the Great Barrier Reef.

Senator Canavan continues to shout at me. He can do that, and he can shout at members of the community about what he believes, but what our government is doing is listening to people about what they want. We listen to tourism operators around the Great Barrier Reef, and they're not interested in debates about culture wars and scare campaigns from over there. What they're interested in is real-time real action on climate change, and that's what our government is delivering. It is really disappointing to see another culture war fought from those opposite, but we'll see this from time to time. Whether it is completely disbelieving that climate change is real and needs action or making up claims about the Queensland government supporting a native title claim, we're going to hear it all today.

Long debate text truncated.

Read more

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

Sue Lines

Pursuant to the order agreed to earlier today, I am required to put the question that the Senate not insist on its amendment to which the House has disagreed.

Read more

AGAINST – Bills — Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023; Second Reading

Sue Lines

The question is that amendments on sheets 2442, 2486, 2510 and 2592, as circulated by Senator Thorpe, be agreed to.

Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments—

SHEET 2442

(1) Schedule 4, page 55 (after line 18), after Part 2, insert:

Part 2B — Consideration of UNDRIP

Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011

10C Subsection 3(1) (after paragraph (g) of the definition of human rights )

Insert:

; (h) the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations as General Assembly Resolution 61/295 on 13 September 2007.

10D Subsection 3(1) (note to the definition of human rights )

Omit "Note", substitute "Note 1".

10E Subsection 3(1) (at the end of the definition of human rights , after the note)

Add:

Note 2: The text of United Nations General Assembly resolutions could in 2024 be accessed through the United Nations' website (https://www.un.org).

_____

SHEET 2486

(1) Schedule 4, page 55 (after line 18), after Part 2, insert:

Part 2C — Removal of requirement for Attorney-General's consent to commence proceedings for certain offences

Criminal Code Act 1995

10F Sections 270.3B, 273B.6 and 274.3 of the Criminal Code

Repeal the sections.

10G Application of amendments

The repeal of sections 270.3B, 273B.6 and 274.3 of the Criminal Code by this Part applies to proceedings for an offence commenced on or after the commencement of this Part, whether the offence to which the proceedings relate is alleged to have been committed before, on or after that commencement.

_____

SHEET 2510

(1) Schedule 4, page 55 (after line 18), after Part 2, insert:

Part 2D — Consideration of Refugees Convention and Protocol

Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011

10G Subsection 3(1) (before paragraph (a) of the definition of human rights )

Insert:

(aaa) the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951 ([1954] ATS 5);

(aa) the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees done at New York on 31 January 1967 ([1973] ATS 37);

_____

SHEET 2592

(1) Schedule 4, page 55 (after line 18), after Part 2, insert:

Part 2E — Consideration of Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011

10H Subsection 3(1) (before paragraph (a) of the definition of human rights )

Insert:

(aaaa) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations as General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) on 10 December 1948;

10J Subsection 3(1) (note to the definition of human rights )

Omit "Note", substitute "Note 1".

10K Subsection 3(1) (at the end of the definition of human rights , after the note)

Add:

Note 2: The text of United Nations General Assembly resolutions could in 2024 be accessed through the United Nations' website (https://www.un.org).

Read more

AGAINST – Bills — Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023; Third Reading

Sue Lines

The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.

Read more

AGAINST – Bills — Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023; Second Reading

Sue Lines

The question now is that the bill be read a second time.

Read more