Matt O'Sullivan

I'm about to put the final question but, before I do, I want to check if any other senator is wanting to deal with anything. Senator Pocock, you just got there in time.

David Pocock

I again seek leave again to make a one-minute statement.

Leave not granted.

Matt O'Sullivan

The question now is that the remaining stages of these bills be agreed to.

Matt O'Sullivan

Senator Thorpe, could you let us know if, in amongst the amendments that you moved, you moved the amendment on sheet 2628?

Lidia Thorpe

No.

Matt O'Sullivan

I'll put that question now—I beg your pardon. The question now before the chair is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and that the bills be now passed. Senator McKim.

Nick McKim

As a point of order, I'm seeking clarification on Senator Thorpe's amendment on sheet 2628. If that wasn't put, can I ask for an explanation as to why that is not being put by you. I believe Senator Thorpe wishes that question to be put.

Matt O'Sullivan

Indeed. Senator Thorpe, you have the right to have that question put.

Lidia Thorpe

I'm scared to get in trouble, because I always get in trouble—

Matt O'Sullivan

You have the call, Senator Thorpe.

Lidia Thorpe

I seek leave to have the question put on my amendment on sheet 2628, please.

Matt O'Sullivan

It was circulated early enough, so you didn't need to seek leave. The question is that clause 135 stand as printed.

Senator Thorpe opposed clause 135 in the following terms—

(1) Clause 135, page 111 (lines 1 to 4), to be opposed.

Lidia Thorpe

(In division) So we're going to have nuclear waste from the UK and the US dumped in this country—

Claire Chandler

Order! Senators, it is quite disorderly to be shouting across the chamber during a division.

Lidia Thorpe

Shame! It won't be near the Prime Minister's house.

Claire Chandler

Order, Senator Thorpe!

Malcolm Roberts

():  Could I have my vote recorded as opposing 2583, please?

Claire Chandler

You may. Thank you for that. Thank you for being so helpful to the chamber in that regard. The next question is in relation to amendment (4) on sheet 2583 moved by the Australian Greens.

The Greens opposed clause 136 in the following terms—

(4) Clause 136, page 113 (lines 6 to 10), to be opposed.

The question is that clause 136 stand as printed.

Claire Chandler

I will now deal with the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill and a related bill. I have got a lot of senators on their feet for a guillotine.

David Shoebridge

I seek leave to make a one-minute contribution on this AUKUS related naval nuclear power bill.

Leave not granted.

Claire Chandler

The question is that these bills be read a second time.

Deborah O'Neill

Senator Thorpe, I understand you foreshadowed in the second reading debate that you were moving an amendment. Now is the moment at which you might do that if you still wish to proceed that way.

Lidia Thorpe

I move the motion standing in my name on sheet 2966:

Omit all words after "That", substitute:

"(a) the Senate notes the significant human rights concerns raised by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (PJCHR) in relation to this bill, which remain unresolved, including recommendations that foundational human rights assessments be conducted of the:

(i) Crimes Act 1914,

(ii) Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and

(iii) Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, with particular focus on the right to privacy;

(b) the Senate calls on the PJCHR to exercise its function under section 7 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 to examine laws for compatibility with human rights and examine the above Acts that the bill seeks to amend and report to both Houses of the Parliament on their compatibility with human rights; and

(c) further consideration of the bill be made an order of the day for the first sitting day after the PJCHR has presented a report of its examination of the above Acts to the Senate".

Deborah O'Neill

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

Deborah O'Neill

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.

Sue Lines

The question is that the motion on paragraph (iv), relating to the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2024 and the Australian Naval Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024, be agreed to.

Bridget McKenzie

I move an amendment to part (b) of the motion:

Omit "14 November 2024", substitute "31 January 2025".

The Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024—53 pages of legislation—which was handed to the parliament at midday yesterday, makes the biggest change in three decades to the slot-management system, the access, into Sydney airport, our busiest airport in this country.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the crossbenchers, who last year worked with me to set up an inquiry into the Qatar Airways decision, which unmasked the government's lack of action around competition in the aviation sector and around these very longstanding, protected relationships, which, the Prime Minister and Alan Joyce notwithstanding, go back a long time and have had a significant impact on the reliability and price of aviation for everyday Australians.

I believe the significance of this change requires a longer inquiry. I appreciate that the government wants to get this through before going to an election and I don't want to stand in the way of changing a regulatory environment that is costing Australians each and every day, but I do believe that it is this chamber's responsibility to give the committee and stakeholders a chance to have an authentic and genuine engagement with the material, with the bill, and to provide, once again, the Senate and the government with sensible recommendations, as we did with the Senate bilateral air services agreements inquiry last year.

I'm not seeking an endless inquiry. This is a Labor government-controlled legislation inquiry. I know that right now senators and committees are very pressed for time. This will require more than two hearings to do it justice and to get it written and reported on in time for our next sitting date. If there are more submissions than we expect or there are more complexities than we've already uncovered in the brief time we've had the legislation before us, it won't allow us the opportunity to extend the inquiry. That is why I've set the reporting date at 31 January: it's so that the report can be delivered in time for the legislation to appear before the Senate and be debated and moved prior to heading to an election.

I know that the crossbench and the Greens supported the setting up of that bilateral air services agreements committee. It handed down an incredibly sensible array of recommendations. The Harris review has been around for a while. My initial reading of this bill is that it doesn't implement the Harris review recommendations, as the government is running around and saying. It actually only implements a couple of them. So there is some sensible work that can be done by senators, in conjunction with stakeholders, to ensure that the problems with getting access into Sydney, from right around the country, can actually be addressed. So I implore the crossbench and I implore the Greens to reconsider their position on extending the date. It's great to see the chamber has realised this is an issue Australians care about and that we're prepared to now have an inquiry, but let's make it an inquiry that doesn't hold the bill up unnecessarily prior to an election and that actually allows us to do our job and provide sensible recommendations, as this Senate and this particular committee have done in the past. I commend my amendment.

David Pocock

I'd like to thank Senator McKenzie for all her work in shining a light on the shambles that is the slot system at Sydney Airport. This was a focus of her airlines inquiry. Clearly, it's not working. It's disappointing that it's taken the government this long, given the impact that it has—particularly here in the ACT, where we're getting absolutely price gouged to fly 45 minutes to Sydney, which, I'm told, comes down largely to the slot hoarding system. Clearly, there's a need for reform. I thank the government for bringing this forward.

My view is that this can be dealt with in the time that has been proposed, given the urgency of it. This is only one very small part of a broader package of reform that needs to happen, and I'm comfortable that the Senate can deal with those stakeholders and work to have something in place, should the Senate like the legislation that's being proposed this year. I'll be supporting the shorter reporting date, but I do thank Senator McKenzie for all her work.

Sue Lines

The question is the amendment moved by Senator McKenzie to Senator Gallagher's amendment of the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.

Sue Lines

I remind senators that, after 6.30 pm yesterday, a division was called on the amendments moved by Senator Birmingham to the motion moved by Senator Wong concerning Hamas's attacks on Israel and the ongoing conflict. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate that the deferred vote be held now.

Penny Wong

by leave—I will make a short statement. The government will be requesting that the question on the amendments moved by the opposition be divided. I've had a discussion with Senator Birmingham and I think he's of the same mind—I'm sorry I haven't had a chance, Senator, to speak to you about that. We seek to vote separately to oppose amendments contained in paragraphs (i), (l) and (m) of the sheet of amendments, which is on pages 6 and 7 of the Notice Paper, circulated by the opposition yesterday. For the clarity of the chamber, paragraph (i) relates to the opposition seeking to delete reference to the number of Palestinian civilians killed and the catastrophic humanitarian situation. We wish to oppose that amendment. From paragraph (l) the opposition seeks to remove the reference to a ceasefire in Gaza. The government wishes to oppose that amendment. From paragraph (m) the opposition seeks to delete the proposition of support for a two-state solution, and the government wishes to oppose that amendment. However, in the interests of seeking maximal bipartisanship on this, the government is supporting the remaining amendments. For the benefit of senators, I table a letter I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition that outlines the government's position.

Sue Lines

Thank you, Minister Wong. I advise the chamber that the Government Whip did advise the chamber last night that the government would be seeking to vote differently on the different amendments.

Simon Birmingham

by leave—President, when it comes to the question, I foreshadow that I will ask that certain parts of the substantive motion, after we've dealt with the amendments, be voted on separately. But we'll deal with that when we get there.

Sue Lines

The first question is that the amendments as moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to, and the government has requested that they be dealt with separately. So the question is that the opposition amendments to paragraphs (i), (l) and (m) be agreed to.

Andrew Bragg

The question now is that the amendment moved by Senator Walsh be agreed to.