Michaelia Cash

I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the establishment of a select committee on the impact of the conflict in Iran as circulated.

Leave not granted.

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

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the establishment of a select committee on the impact of the conflict in Iran.

I don't know how much more urgent it needs to get before this government understands that standing orders need to be suspended and we need to set up a select committee into the impact of their mismanagement, quite frankly, of what has happened since the war in Iran started.

If today's answers in question time don't tell Australians that this is desperately needed, I do not know what does. Because what did we have? In the first instance, you have the Prime Minister, on Monday, standing up and saying to the Australian people: 'Enjoy your Easter. Have a happy Easter break; do not cancel your holidays.' The next thing you know, the Prime Minister is today telling Australians, 'I'm going to stand up and provide a national address.' Guess what that's in relation to? 'We want you now to stop driving and save fuel.' Then, we have the Prime Minister saying: 'Drive. Keep driving. There's nothing to see here.' Then, you have the Minister for Climate Change and Energy himself saying, 'There's no issue with supply in Australia,' but the problem with that is almost 900 bowsers have now run dry across Australia.

Then, of course, we had the very confusing message today from one government minister, who stood up and basically told Australians he doesn't have confidence in the fuel supply, despite what the Prime Minister has said and despite what the energy minister has said because, 'They're actually thinking about bringing down less staff to Canberra in the budget,' and, more than that, 'We're actually thinking of catching a bus.' Catching a bus to Canberra, seriously? The number of mixed messages that this government has given to the Australian people in a time of crisis is appalling.

We are now almost five weeks into this crisis, and the government keeps telling Australians everything is okay. There's more fuel circulating in the economy now than there was before the crisis, and yet, sadly, every single day that this goes on, the Australian people wake up, and what do they see? They see more bowsers running dry across Australia. One of the things that this Senate committee needs to look at is what in God's name has gone wrong on the ground with this government. If there is more fuel in Australia today than there was before the crisis, then there is a distribution problem, and that distribution problem is the fault of the government. It's the fault of the Prime Minister and the energy minister.

The fact is that they cannot pick up the phone to the energy companies or the fuel companies and say to them, 'You need to get that tanker to that servo that has run dry.' It is actually as simple as that because they know that, at any given point in time in Australia, where that fuel is. Yet, sadly, we get mixed messages—drive, don't drive; happy Easter, not a happy Easter; no fuel in Australia, more than enough fuel in Australia. You would not know what is actually happening under this government. What I think is worse is the total contempt that they have for any form of scrutiny when it comes to answering questions that are asked of them. All the Australian people want during a time like this is transparency.

When you have got farmers saying, 'We are not going to be able to plant our crops, because we can't get diesel,' what that ultimately means is that it will impact fuel security. You have Meals on Wheels saying, 'We can't get to our people to feed them.' You've got the taxi industry saying: 'Our taxis for disabled people run on diesel. We can't get access to the diesel to pick up our clients.' You've got NDIS carers saying, 'We can't afford the fuel to put in our tanks to get to our clients.' You've got the waste management industry across Australia saying to the government, 'Do you know that, if we don't get access to diesel, within two days, there will be a catastrophic event in this country, particularly in relation to the aged-care industry and the healthcare industry?' Guess what happens if you don't pick up the rubbish? Disease spreads.

I don't know what else could possibly constitute urgency to suspend the standing orders so the Senate can properly debate and then vote on putting in place a select inquiry to monitor the government's response to this crisis—which quite frankly, to date, has been appalling. (Time expired)

Katy Gallagher

I look forward to further discussions on this over the break. I move:

That the question be put.

Slade Brockman

The question is that the question be put.

Katy Gallagher

I table an addendum and correction to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025.

Sue Lines

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Jonathon Duniam

by leave—At the request of Senator Canavan, I move amendments on sheets 3768 and 3769 as circulated:

SHEET 3768

(1) Page 2 (after line 12), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review of digital assets framework

Requirement to conduct review

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider the effectiveness of the digital assets framework, including as supported by any Act amended by this Act and any instruments made under those amended Acts.

Timing of review

(3) The persons conducting the review must

(a) commence the review as soon as practicable after the end of 2 years starting on the day this section commences; and

(b) complete the review before the end of 4 months after the day the review commences.

Consultation

(4) The review must make provision for consultation with industry stakeholders that the persons conducting the review consider relevant.

Minister to be given report of review

(5) The persons conducting the review must give the Minister a written report of the review as soon as practicable after the review is completed.

Minister to table copy of report of review

(6) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

_____

SHEET 3769

(1) Schedule 1, page 36 (after line 30), after Part 2, insert:

Part 2A — Giving reasons for refusing financial services

Corporations Act 2001

42A After Division 1 of Part 7.8

Insert:

Division 1A — Giving reasons for refusing financial services

980C Giving reasons for refusing financial services

If an Australian ADI refuses to provide a financial service to a financial services licensee, the ADI must give the licensee written reasons for refusing to do so.

Sue Lines

The question is that amendments on sheet 3768 and 3769 be agreed to.

Sue Lines

I will deal with the committee of the whole amendment to the two bills starting with the amendment circulated by the opposition. The question is that the amendments on sheets 3704, 3705 and 3706 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendments—

(1) Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review of alcohol excise and customs tariff system

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the alcohol excise and customs tariff system.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider options to reform alcohol taxes, including options to reduce industry burdens.

(3) The persons conducting the review must give the Minister a written report of the review on or before 2 November 2026.

(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 30), after section 19AABC, insert:

19AABCA Temporary freeze in indexation for tap spirits

Temporary freeze in indexation

(1) Despite any other provision of this Act, subsection 19(1) applies, in relation to a tap spirit and each CPI indexed alcoholic beverage rate, as if the indexation factor were 1 for each of the following indexation days:

(a) 1 August 2026;

(b) 1 February 2027.

Note 1: This means the rates as they are on 31 July 2026 will be unchanged for the next year.

Note 2: When indexation resumes in August 2027, the indexation factor for 1 August 2027 will be applied against these unchanged rates (see subsection 19(1)).

(2) In this section:

CPI indexed alcoholic beverage rate means a rate of duty in the following:

(a) the rate column of subheading 2208.20, 2208.20.10, 2208.20.90, 2208.30.00, 2208.40.00, 2208.50.00, 2208.60.00, 2208.70.00, 2208.90.10, 2208.90.20 or 2208.90.90 in Schedule 3;

(b) the rate column of an item in the table in Schedule 4A or a later Schedule that relates to a subheading in Schedule 3 specified in paragraph (a).

indexation day has the same meaning as in section 19.

tap spirit means:

(a) an alcoholic beverage not exceeding 10% by volume of alcohol stored in an individual container:

(i) of at least 8 litres but not exceeding 48 litres; and

(ii) designed to connect to a pressurised gas delivery system or pump delivery system; or

(b) an alcoholic beverage exceeding 10% by volume of alcohol stored in an individual container:

(i) of at least 4 litres but not exceeding 20 litres; and

(ii) designed to connect to a pressurised gas delivery system or pump delivery system.

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 23), after section 6L, insert:

6N Temporary freeze in indexation for tap spirits

(1) Despite any other provision of this Act, subsection 6A(1) applies, in relation to a tap spirit and each CPI indexed alcoholic beverage rate, as if the indexation factor were 1 for each of the following indexation days:

(a) 1 August 2026;

(b) 1 February 2027.

Note 1: This means the rates as they are on 31 July 2026 will be unchanged for the next year.

Note 2: When indexation resumes in August 2027, the indexation factor for 1 August 2027 will be applied against these unchanged rates (see subsection 6A(1)).

(2) In this section:

CPI indexed alcoholic beverage rate means a rate of duty set out in:

(a) item 2 of the Schedule; or

(b) subitem 3.1, 3.2 or 3.10 of the Schedule.

indexation day has the same meaning as in section 6A.

tap spirit means:

(a) an alcoholic beverage not exceeding 10% by volume of alcohol stored in an individual container:

(i) of at least 8 litres but not exceeding 48 litres; and

(ii) designed to connect to a pressurised gas delivery system or pump delivery system; or

(b) an alcoholic beverage exceeding 10% by volume of alcohol stored in an individual container:

(i) of at least 4 litres but not exceeding 20 litres; and

(ii) designed to connect to a pressurised gas delivery system or pump delivery system.

Sue Lines

I will now deal with the amendment circulated by One Nation. That amendment is on sheet 3635. The question is that the amendment on sheet 3635 be agreed to.

One Nation's circulated amendment—

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to support hospitality venues struggling under the growing burden of government regulation and growth in overheads by eliminating alcohol excise duty on any alcoholic product sold for consumption on-premises in a hospitality venue".

Sue Lines

I will now deal with the National Health Amendment (Passive Immunological Products) Bill 2026. The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by One Nation. The question is that amendments on sheet 3661 be agreed to.

One Nation's circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 8), at the end of the Schedule, add:

2 Subsection 9B(7)

After "unless", insert "the vaccine has been tested against an inert saline placebo to international standard ICH E6(R3), titled Guideline for Good Clinical Practice, adopted by the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use on 6 January 2025, and".

3 At the end of subsection 9B(7)

Add:

Note: The text of Guidelines adopted by the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) could in 2026 be accessed through the ICH's website (https://www.ich.org/).

Sue Lines

I will now deal with the amendments to the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025 circulated by Senator Thorpe. The question is that the amendments on sheet 3515 and 3516 be agreed to.

Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments—

SHEET 3515

(1) Clause 29, page 18 (lines 15 to 21), omit subclause (3), substitute:

Composition of the Commonwealth Parole Board as a whole

(3) In recommending the appointment of the members of the Commonwealth Parole Board, the Minister must ensure that both the Chair and the Deputy Chair are enrolled as legal practitioners (however described) of a federal court or the Supreme Court of a State or Territory and have each been so enrolled for at least 5 years.

_____

SHEET 3516

(1) Clause 23, page 12 (lines 29 to 32), omit the clause, substitute:

23 Commonwealth Parole Board must conduct interviews

(1) For the purposes of making a decision about a federal offender, the Commonwealth Parole Board must conduct:

(a) an interview with the offender; and

(b) any other interview required by the guidelines.

(2) Interviews must be conducted in accordance with the guidelines (if any).

(2) Page 13 (after line 30), at the end of Part 3, add:

24A Rules of procedural fairness

(1) The Commonwealth Parole Board must observe the requirements of procedural fairness in making a decision about a federal offender.

(2) This section has effect despite the guidelines and anything else in this Act.

24B Legal representation

A federal offender may be represented by a legal practitioner in relation to any matter before the Commonwealth Parole Board about the offender.

Question negatived.

I will now deal with the amendments to the Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025 circulated by the opposition.

Opposition's circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (after line 13), after section 19AKC, insert:

19AKCA Attorney-General may object to decisions to make parole orders

(1) Before the Commonwealth Parole Board decides to make a parole order for a person, the Commonwealth Parole Board must give the Attorney-General written notice of the Commonwealth Parole Board's intention to do so.

(2) The Attorney-General may, within 14 days of receiving the notice, object in writing to the Commonwealth Parole Board deciding to make the parole order for the person.

(3) The Commonwealth Parole Board cannot decide to make the parole order for the person (despite paragraphs 19AKB(1)(a) and 19AKC(1)(a)):

(a) before the end of that 14-day period; or

(b) if the Commonwealth Parole Board receives an objection from the Attorney-General under subsection (2) within that 14-day period.

(4) In making an objection under subsection (2), the Attorney-General must have regard to the purposes of parole as set out in section 19AKA.

(5) An objection under subsection (2) must set out the Attorney-General's reasons for making the objection.

(2) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 29), after item 15, insert:

15A After subsection 19AP(7)

Insert:

(7A) Before the Commonwealth Parole Board grants a licence under this section, the Commonwealth Parole Board must give the Attorney-General written notice of the Commonwealth Parole Board's intention to do so.

(7B) The Attorney-General may, within 14 days of receiving the notice, object in writing to the Commonwealth Parole Board granting the licence.

(7C) The Commonwealth Parole Board cannot grant the licence (despite anything else in this section):

(a) before the end of that 14-day period; or

(b) if the Commonwealth Parole Board receives an objection from the Attorney-General under subsection (7B) within that 14-day period.

(7D) In making an objection under subsection (7B), the Attorney-General must have regard to:

(a) whether there are any exceptional circumstances that may justify the grant of the licence; and

(b) the matters set out at paragraphs (4A)(a) to (c).

(7E) An objection under subsection (7B) must set out the Attorney-General's reasons for making the objection.

The question is that the amendments on sheet 3655 be agreed to.

Sue Lines

I will now deal with the amendments circulated by the opposition. The question is that the amendment on sheet 3654 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendment—

(1) Clause 40, page 22 (line 24) to page 23 (line 26), omit subclauses 40(1) and (2), substitute:

The Governor-General may, on recommendation of the Minister, terminate the appointment of a member at any time.

Sue Lines

I will now deal with Committee of the Whole amendments to the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025, starting with the amendments circulated by government.

Government's circulated amendments—

(1) Clause 24, page 13 (lines 1 to 30), omit the clause, substitute:

24 Sessional member may participate as Chair or Deputy Chair of the Commonwealth Parole Board in specified circumstances

(1) This section applies if:

(a) the Chair or the Deputy Chair is required by rules made for the purposes of section 29 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 not to be present during the deliberations in a meeting, or to take part in any decision, of the Commonwealth Parole Board with respect to a particular matter; or

(b) the Chair or the Deputy Chair is not readily available to attend a meeting or participate in making a decision of the Commonwealth Parole Board, whether because of a vacancy in the office or for any other reason; or

(c) the Chair considers it appropriate for any other reason to make a request under subsection (2) in relation to a meeting of, or the making of a decision by, the Commonwealth Parole Board.

(2) The Chair may request that a sessional member participate, in the capacity of the Chair or the Deputy Chair, in the meeting, or in making the decision.

(3) For the purposes of a sessional member participating in a meeting, or making a decision, in the capacity of the Chair or the Deputy Chair as permitted by subsection (2):

(a) the sessional member may exercise a power or perform a function of the Chair or Deputy Chair, as the case requires, in accordance with the request of the Chair in relation to the meeting or decision; and

(b) the sessional member is taken to be the Chair or Deputy Chair, as the case requires, for all purposes in relation to the meeting or decision.

(2) Clause 43, page 24 (lines 23 to 27), to be opposed.

I understand the minister has a document to table.

Katy Gallagher

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025.

Sue Lines

Thank you. The first question, being amendment (2) on sheet GJ118, is that clause 43 stand as printed.

Murray Watt

The government does not support the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026. The bill is poorly drafted and ill conceived and will have unintended consequences. It reeks of desperation from a new leader of the opposition who is chasing headlines, not solutions. The reality is that this bill does not seek to address the cohort of people that the opposition have been claiming to want to target. This is a political stunt. It's not a serious proposal from a serious party of government. The Australian people are seeing through the Liberals and Nationals and their lack of serious approaches to challenges the country faces.

The bill, as currently drafted, is absurdly broad in its scope. The number of people that could potentially be committing criminal offences in the circumstances contemplated in the bill would be significant, from commercial pilots, baggage handlers, aid workers and members of the clergy to even our allies in the region. It is wildly inconsistent. For example, there is an inconsistent application of knowledge elements across the offences. For some limbs it is recklessness. For others it is actual knowledge. And, finally, it contains redundant provisions which refer to terrorism offences already covered by other sections of the bill. This entire bill is an absurd contribution from an opposition that has given up on good policy and retreated into the madness of right-wing populism. Ultimately, this bill would actually do very little to address the policy issue those opposite claim it would address—namely, the return of Australian citizens in Syria. The government's position on this issue is clear and longstanding. We are not providing assistance and we are not repatriating individuals from Syria.

National security is not political theatre. We follow the advice of our security agencies and we follow the law. If any one of these individuals finds their own way to return to Australia, our agencies are prepared and will be able to act in the interests of community safety. That is how we keep Australians safe, not through political stunts like this bill. On that basis, I strongly urge the Senate to oppose this bill.

Malcolm Roberts

I thank Senator Duniam for this bill, which One Nation will support. The Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026 amends the Criminal Code Act 1995—the Criminal Code. The bill inserts a new offence into part 5.5 of the Criminal Code to criminalise the organisation or facilitation of the entry into Australia of certain persons who have engaged in terrorism related conduct—unless these actions occur with the prior written permission of both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Home Affairs.

The offence applies where a person organises or facilitates the entry into Australia of another person from a foreign country and where, at the time of organising or facilitating the entry, the other person has engaged in conduct constituting an offence under subsection 119.2(1) of the Criminal Code—namely, entering or remaining in a declared area—or another terrorism offence as defined under the Crimes Act 1914; the first person knows that the other person intends to engage in conduct constituting an offence under subsection 119.2(1) or another terrorism offence before entering Australia; or the other person is or has been a member of a terrorist organisation. They're the three criteria.

The offence does not apply to conduct in which a Commonwealth authority is engaged or to conduct on behalf of a Commonwealth authority, which lets Minister Burke off the hook for facilitating the return of ISIS brides. I'll say that again: it lets Mr Burke off the hook for facilitating the return of ISIS brides.

The bill extends the sunset date for the declared areas regime in sections 119.2 and 119.3 of the Criminal Code from 7 September 2027 to 7 September 2030. These amendments are intended to ensure that decisions concerning the repatriation to Australia of persons who have entered or remain in declared areas, who have committed any other terrorism offences or who are members of terrorist organisations occurs with appropriate Commonwealth authorisation.

The return of the wrongly named 'ISIS brides' inspires this legislation. The term 'ISIS brides' is, of course, a misnomer. So-called Australian ISIS brides are women who travelled to Syria and Iraq, of their choice, to join or marry fighters for the Islamic State group, often referred to as the caliphate. These women were involved in hijrah—immigration to the Islamic State—as wives and mothers to 'breed the cubs of the caliphate' and to support jihad efforts. ISIS propaganda itself targeted Western women, with roles as supporters, militarised mothers and wives—or even, when needed, fighters. They are not brides; they're Islamic terrorists who travelled to a war zone, a proscribed area, to fight against the West and fight against Australia. They encouraged their men to kill and do other unspeakable things. They brainwashed their own children. Yet we're supposed to bring them back here—and what? Condone their behaviour? There can be no condoning of the treachery they've committed.

This bill will not stop the return per se. It will force their return into the open, where the voting public will be able to clearly see that the Labor government was responsible for their return, and the people will hold the Labor government accountable. That's what we want—openness. For clarity, Labor did that, returned them, through an intermediary from the Muslim Brotherhood, a device that Minister Burke thought would insulate the government from the fallout coming from returning these terrorists. It did not.

Western countries allowing in, or back in, terrorists committed to overthrowing our way of life and installing sharia law has a name. It's called suicidal empathy. Let's quote one of Minister Burke's ISIS terrorists, who, while in Syria, said this: 'Attack the US, Australia, the UK. Kill them. Stab them. Poison their food.' That's charming—really charming. It's suicidal empathy indeed.

These women went to a war zone in Syria to fight a war for the caliphate against Australia. Syria is now a caliphate. Their side won. So why do they want to come back to Australia? Are caliphates not as appealing as Australia? Now, that's telling. Or do they aim to help make Australia a caliphate?

As I said yesterday, Shady Alsuleiman is president of the Australian National Imams Council and mentor to Wissam Haddad, the ISIS cell leader who radicalised the Bondi terrorist Naveed Akram. Alsuleiman has released a video in which he promises, 'Islam will enter every home in Australia.' And he does not mean to do your dishes; he means to convert you to Islam—or else. Australians have every right to feel afraid of people this government is bringing in. The government is bringing these people in. To these female terrorists, we say this: you got you went over there for; you made your bed; now lie in it.

Sarah Hanson-Young

Well, the cruelty that is on display from the coalition and One Nation in relation to the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026 and the hypocrisy of the Labor government: the women and children who are left stranded in Syria, many of whom were trafficked and coerced as young women, as children themselves, have been left stranded now because of a total lack of courage and compassion. What a stark difference from the leadership of even somebody like Scott Morrison, who showed compassion to those who needed to come home after being left in the war-torn country. It beggars belief, that I'm standing here today to point out that Scott Morrison had more compassion and courage on the issue of human rights and protecting women and children than our current prime minister does! It just beggars belief.

Anthony Albanese said that these children made their own beds. Let me remind the Prime Minister that some of these children are four or five years old. Even if they were here in Australia they couldn't make their own beds. They are children. What has happened to our humanity? The stories of these women and their children over the past number of years—one of these mothers was 14 years old when she was trafficked to Syria, forced into marriage. The hypocrisy of the conservatives on this side of the chamber: they go on and on about extremism, about how extremists treat women, demean women, coerce women. And now, the very women they purport to care about they are leaving for dead, politicising them and using them as political footballs.

I'm not going to sit in this chamber and be lectured to with this false outrage of care, compassion or morality. You're a bunch of hypocrites—a bunch of misogynist hypocrites—and you don't give two damns about the rights of these children, innocent kids. One of the things that makes this country a great country and a place where we proudly, on the international stage, know it's the best country on Earth is the value of a fair go, of treating people equally, of looking after each other, of looking after our mates—but only when it suits you, it seems, on the conservative side. If there's a political point to be made or if there's somebody to punch down on in order to suck up to somebody else, the conservative side of politics just takes it; they can't help themselves.

The rank hypocrisy reeks in this place. It has all week. It has all fortnight, whether it's talking about wringing your hands about the impacts of what the war in the Middle East has meant for petrol prices while backing the slaughter and the bloody carelessness of your mate Donald Trump who started the damn thing or pretending that you care about Iranian women, when, for years, you have left them locked up, rotting in immigration detention—the very same women and young girls who fled this horrible, misogynistic, terrifying regime.

Now we see you doing exactly the same thing with the very women that you say should have been protected here in Australia by Australian law and by Australian values, children who were trafficked and coerced. Now you're leaving them for dead. My advice to those women and children in Syria: join a soccer team. Form a soccer team because maybe then the Prime Minister will care about you. Maybe then the Leader of the Opposition will think that you're good enough to come home. It is revolting—human rights for some, rule of law for some. But, if you're weak enough, you're vulnerable enough and you're able to be punched down upon without having anyone speak up for you, then you're fair game. If you're a young woman who's had a child in a refugee camp after being trafficked and coerced by a misogynistic regime, you're left for dead.

This is not who we are as Australians. These are innocent children, and you want to make political points and use the lives of these kids and these women for your own political pointscoring in a race to the bottom on racism and immigration in this country. And who's leading the charge on all of this? One Nation and Pauline Hanson, of course—the chief racist of all. Where is the courage to stare this rubbish down and say, 'This is not who we are'? Rather than doing that, we have you trotting along behind, hoping that no-one points out the hypocrisy, the inconsistencies and the inhumanity of it all.

This bill is only about rank politics. It's nothing about protecting Australians, because these women, these children, are Australians. They are Australians. They've got Australian passports. They were used and abused by the men who forced them to go to Syria, and it is now time that we allowed them to come home. These kids do not deserve to be part of your political games, so we'll be voting against this racist, rubbish piece of legislation. Using innocent children for your race-baiting is as low as you can get, and the whole thing should be knocked off.

Long debate text truncated.

Sue Lines

The question is that the remainder of Senator Chandler's second reading amendment, parts (b) through (g), be agreed to.