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

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of legislation, as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to the contingent notice standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that a motion relating to the consideration of legislation may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.

What the Greens are seeking to do here is to ensure that seminal legislation to underwrite 32 gigawatts of renewable energy investment pass this chamber today. We have secured amendments in the other place to make sure that this 32-gigawatt clean energy target is written into law. The reason we did that is that nobody knows what the parliament's going to look like in a few short months but we do know that Mr Dutton will certainly not back in clean energy for this country. In fact, he'd rather prop up coal and gas, using a nuclear fantasy as a fig leaf. So it is absolutely crucial that anyone who supports clean energy, in particular solar and wind, sees this legislation pass today.

We know that the opposition will try every trick in the book to talk out this bill. They'll probably seek their own suspension. They will throw every procedural trick in the book that they've got at this, and that is exactly why we need to make sure that, today, this chamber deals with this piece of legislation. We will not stand by and watch the country go down a nuclear fantasy path, which simply props up coal and gas in the meantime, when we have a chance today to legislate the Capacity Investment Scheme—the government underwriting of the clean energy industry. This is a very important decision that the chamber will be making, and I know the crossbench know that, if they support clean energy, then they need to support this suspension.

The other reason that we're moving this suspension today is to make sure that the gender pay gap legislation also has a chance to pass this parliament. The other thing we know that Mr Dutton doesn't like—it's not just renewable energy—is women getting a fair go. He doesn't support that, either. We know the Liberal Party will be opposing the legislation to require mega companies to close their gender pay gaps, so we are moving this suspension motion today to make sure that this chamber can actually improve women's rights at work—so they can be paid fairly—and ensure that the climate crisis can be tackled with decent investment in clean energy.

Mr Dutton does not want big businesses to close the gender pay gaps that they've identified. In years gone by, the Liberal Party didn't support the gender pay gap legislation at all. The problem with that law has been that, whilst companies have had to identify whether they have a gender pay gap, they haven't had to do anything to close it. Well, today's legislation is the first step to say to those super big companies, the ones over 500 workers, that they not only have to identify their gender pay gap but also have to actually do something to close that pay gap. That's really important.

If this parliament does not ensure that that legislation passes today, you can bet your bottom dollar that Mr Dutton's Liberal Party in minority government would not be progressing that. In fact they'll probably try to further undermine women's rights at work. So today is the chance for everyone in this chamber, the women in particular, to back in women's rights at work and to back in the right for us to receive fair pay. That is precisely why it is crucial that we ensure that these two pieces of legislation pass the parliament today. I'm urging our friends on the crossbench—because we know we certainly won't get any support from the coalition over there—to vote for the climate, for women and for integrity. Let's get this done today.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who's in charge today? It looks like the Greens are in charge. It is again another great, big preview into what life after the next election is going to be like if there is a minority Labor-Green government elected. We've had the Greens march in and tell Labor what deal they want today, what deal they want to strike, and it's great for Australians to know, ahead of this election, that this is the kind of stuff they can expect on steroids after the election.

The bills that the Greens are insisting pass through are the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 and the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill 2024, and the Greens are suggesting that these bills somehow will benefit a cohort of people that the Liberals are opposed to. I'll tell you what the first bill they want to rush through this place won't do—the one about more renewables. It won't bring down power prices by one cent. Here we are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, and one of the biggest pressures households face is power prices. And we can't forget that Prime Minister Albanese and his frontbench went out there and said 97 times before Australians cast their vote at the previous election that power bills would go down by $275. Instead of that actually being the case, Australian households are on average paying more than $1,000 more in power bills per year. The government's response to this crisis that Australian households and businesses are facing is to jam into this place—in partnership with, facilitated by and brought on by the Greens—a bill to bring more renewables into the grid and fast-track all of that, which will again drive up power prices.

This is an amazing insight into how a Labor-Green government will work after this election. They give no care when it comes to the cost-of-living crisis households are facing. Here we are on the death knell, the last sitting day, I expect, before the election, and this is demonstrating this government's priorities in partnership with their friends, their coalition partners, the Greens. It's about electricity infrastructure legislation, very benignly named, but you can be guaranteed that this will not only not do a thing to ease the burdens that households and businesses face but also make things far worse.

It will be interesting to see whether the government support this approach being led by the Greens. I've lived through Labor-Green governments in Tasmania, and we've seen it here at a federal level. They are disastrous. Things that are bad get worse under Labor-Green governments. Industries shut down. Investors flee the country because they know that there will be no certainty. Sovereign risk becomes an issue. Jobs evaporate, particularly in our regions, where you have miners, fishers, foresters and farmers being strangled by green tape. This legislation that this cohort, the Australian Greens in partnership with the Labor Party, are going to rush through this place will make all of that worse.

This is a prime example of what a Bandt-Albanese government would look like after this election if people are conned into voting for them. If the government roll over and allow this to happen, it is proof positive that the government will be like this after the election. They will happily wave through whatever agenda it is the Greens want to bring on. In Tasmania we have a saying: 'It's the Green tail wagging the Labor dog.' Having lived through a Labor-Green government and having seen what destruction is wreaked upon a jurisdiction—in our case Tasmania, where we saw our economy continually shrink, with great swathes of productive and well-managed land locked up at the behest of the Greens—I ask: what's on the table here? If the goal is to stay on the Treasury benches and for Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, to hang onto the keys to the Lodge, what price will he pay to do that? We are getting hints and previews, and can I tell you that anything that the Australian Greens vote for is generally very, very bad. They are not pro jobs. They are not pro the economy. They are certainly not pro regional Australia. They're a party that claim to be the friends of the worker and say they will have a future made in Australia. None of that is possible if you do deals with this crowd down the end here who want to choke our economy. They represent downtown Melbourne and Sydney—big population centres—not people in our regions. I say to the government: don't roll over. Don't be led by the Australian Greens here. It'll be bad for Australians, and you know it. Prove them wrong, and don't support this ridiculous motion.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These bills that are the subject of the Greens motion are obviously government bills that, of course, we support. They're important bills to do with electricity infrastructure in Australia and also gender equality—two issues that our government has stood very strongly on. As I say, they are government bills. The Greens have put forward a motion to bring them on for debate. Given they are government bills, we would support the idea of this parliament progressing the bills, and for that reason we'll be supporting the motion. On that basis, I move:

That the question be now put.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the chair is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the chair is that the motion moved by Senator Waters in relation to the suspension of standing orders be agreed to.

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

I move:

That a motion relating to the consideration of legislation may be moved immediately, have precedence over all other business and be determined without amendment or debate.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a procedural question that the motion be put. The question before the chair is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the chair is that the procedural motion moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.

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

I move the motion as circulated:

That—

(a) the questions on all remaining stages of the following bills be put at 1 pm:

(i) Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, and

(ii) Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill 2024;

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

(c) divisions may take place between 1.30 pm and 2 pm until consideration of the bills has concluded.

Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that the question be put separately on paragraph (a)(i) and paragraph (a)(ii).

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion moved by Senator Waters has been split. The question is that paragraph (a)(i), which relates to the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, be agreed to.

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

I'm hoping you can clarify, because I thought the operative provisions were the subject of the previous vote. People are entitled to vote separately on placita (i) and (ii), but the operative provisions need to be the subject of a vote. Take advice from the clerk about how that should be constructed, but it would not be appropriate to have people vote on (a), placitum (ii), plus all the operative provisions together.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To clarify for the chamber: the vote we're dealing with is on paragraph (a), placitum (ii). We voted on the motion as it applies to the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. We are now voting on it as it applies to the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill 2024. So is there clarity in the chamber? It's crystal clear?

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

The question is that paragraph (a), placitum (ii) of the motion as moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.