Pages tagged "Vote: in favour"
The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.Read more
The question now is that the bill be read a second time.Read more
I seek leave to make a short statement of no more than five minutes.
Leave not granted.
Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I move:
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from making a statement of no more than five minutes.
I have to say, seriously, I only wanted five minutes to comment on what we have just seen this government do. Senator David Pocock, I'm going to have to include you in this. I look across this chamber. On what basis were these people elected? That of a lie, in relation to what they said about transparency: that they would all bring a new era of transparency to this place. Senator David Pocock, you told Canberrans you believed in transparency. The Australian Greens say a lot, all the time. I don't believe any of it. As for this government, guess what Mr Albanese said prior to the election: he promised the Australian people that, if they elected him and the Australian Labor Party to office, he and his ministers would deliver transparency, integrity and accountability in every single thing they'd do.
Well, from the first day you were elected and you walked into this place, we have seen those principles absolutely trashed. You are not only trashing those principles; quite frankly, you are trashing democracy, because democracy demands that this Senate fulfil its duty to the Australian people. And what is that duty? This is a house of review. We are here to interrogate the legislation that a government brings forward, whether it is a Labor government or a coalition government. And what have you done today? You've walked in—'Happy new year from the Albanese Labor government! Not only am I breaking a promise to the Australian people in relation to the legislated stage 3 tax cuts, even though my word is my bond, but this is what I'm saying to the businesses across Australia: regardless of your size, small, medium or large, there'll be another slap in the face. We slapped you in the face in 2022 when we rushed through the multi-employer bargaining laws. We smacked you in the face in 2023 when we rushed through the labour hire changes.'
But a few weeks later, the second day we are in this parliament, this is the standard of transparency that Mr Anthony Albanese, as Prime Minister of this country, now lives by. Well, guess what? The Australian people are on to you. They're on to you in the first instance because of your broken promises, but now every business in Australia knows that if they want to get rid of these laws there is now only one option, and that is to vote in a Peter Dutton led coalition government. Why? Because we will stand up for the employers of this country. We will stand up for the small businesses of this country. And do you know why we will? Because small businesses provide the jobs to Australians. Governments don't create jobs. They put in place economic frameworks. And guess what? The economic framework that the Labor Party—in conjunction with Senator Pocock, in conjunction with the Australian Greens, in conjunction with Senator Thorpe—are putting in place is an economic framework that is going to kill businesses in this country.
That is not us saying that. That is the businesses of Australia who are begging you to please listen to them. All they want to do every morning is get up, open their businesses and give Australians well-paid, sustainable jobs. And you, with all this red tape, with all this complexity, with all this confusion, are going to deny so many businesses in Australia that opportunity.
But the sad thing is, colleagues—and this is a reality—the Labor Party don't care, and we all know why they don't care: because they have the numbers to deliver on the union agenda. You only have to have a look at the little bits and pieces that they are sneaking through, such as union officials being given extra right of entry. And the right to disconnect—well, what a joke that is when it comes to transparency. You didn't talk about it before the election. You didn't talk about it during the consultation. And guess what, colleagues? If I pulled out the legislation now, you'd see that it's not even in there. We wouldn't have a clue what it is. We haven't been given an opportunity to have a look at it. And I hope all the businesses in the ACT are looking at Senator David Pocock, because he has sold you out. The Greens have sold you out. And the Australian Labor Party have yet again sold you out.
Well, it's only the first week, and Senator Cash is already losing the plot. And why is she losing the plot?
Acting Deputy President—
Do you have a point of order?
That's a personal reflection. We expect nothing more from the mug and grub that Murray Watt is, but that is a personal reflection.
I withdraw, and I ask Senator Hughes to do the same.
Senator Hughes, please withdraw.
Well, already, in the first week, we can see from that performance by Senator Cash that the coalition, and Senator Cash in particular, are back in their happy place. They're back in their happy place complaining loudly about changing the laws to protect workers and to increase wages. They complain every time Labor does anything about changing the laws to protect workers and increase wages. Why is it that the coalition are always angry? Whether it be Mr Dutton, Senator Cash, Senator Hughes—every member of the coalition—they're always angry, always shouting at people.
There are things that they choose to be angry about. They're angry this week about the Albanese government delivering better tax cuts for middle Australia and low-income earners. They're always angry about wages going up. They're always angry about protecting workers.
Let's not forget that Senator Cash, in particular, has a track record of being angry and making all sorts of hyperbolic statements about IR changes. It was Senator Cash who told us, when we changed the laws in the first place, that we were going to go back to the Dark Ages. Senator Cash, did they have these in the dark ages? I don't remember them having technology in the Dark Ages. Maybe that's because we're not in the Dark Ages, despite our having changed those laws.
Senator Cash told us that we were going to have empty supermarket shelves when we changed the laws for IR. Did that happen? No. Go down to your local Woolworths. Actually, you can't do that, because you're boycotting Woolworths! Go down to your local Coles or IGA and you'll find that the supermarket shelves are quite full. So, in contrast to what we've always heard from Senator Cash—saying that we'd go to the Dark Ages, that we'd have empty supermarket shelves—what have we actually seen as a result of the laws the Albanese government has changed when it comes to workers? We've seen higher wages, lower unemployment, lower industrial action and inflation coming down. Every single thing that Senator Cash has predicted, when it comes to IR changes, has been wrong. That is because Senator Cash and the coalition are driven by ideology rather than facts or delivering higher wages, lower unemployment, more secure work, lower industrial action and inflation that is falling. That is the Labor government's record and that is what we will do as a result of this legislation. On that basis, I move that the question be put.
( ): The question is that the question now be put.Read more
That in order to provide for the consideration of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023—
(i) the hours of meeting be 9 am till adjournment,
(ii) the routine of business after the tabling and consideration of committee reports and government responses be consideration of the bill (second reading speeches only) for not more than 3 hours, after which the Senate adjourn without debate; and,
(b) on Thursday, 8 February 2024:
(i) after formal motions, the question on the second reading of the bill be put, after which the routine of business till 1.30 pm be consideration of the bill only,
(ii) the questions on all remaining stages of the bill be put at 3.30 pm,
(iii) paragraphs (i) and (ii) operate as limitations of debate under standing order 142,
(iv) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm until consideration of the bill is concluded; and
(v) after consideration of the bill has concluded, the Senate return to its routine of business.
The procedural motion just agreed to requires that the substantive motion be put without amendment or debate, so I will now put that question. The question is that the motion be agreed to.Read more