David Shoebridge

From the outset, I want to be clear that the Greens support the Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025. We support its core intent. The Greens have been on record for some two-and-a-bit years calling for the listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation. We've done that because we were listening to the community. We have close ties with the Iranian community in Australia and have worked with them, in particular, in their campaign, Woman, Life, Freedom, following the horrific killing of Jina Mahsa Amini. When you work with the Iranian community and you go to protests, speaking in support of the Woman, Life, Freedom campaign, they'll tell you about the fear inside the community, both in Iran and around the world, of the IRGC. The women in Iran are in fear for their freedom, for their physical safety and, as in the case of Jina Mahsa Amini, for their lives. They made it very clear to us that that was a core demand for them.

I also want to thank the Kurdish community in Australia for their advocacy in the matter too, and that has included their advocacy for the Woman, Life, Freedom campaign. The Kurdish community and other ethnic and religious groups inside Iran—there's diversity inside Iran—know the reality of persecution. They know the brutal reality of the IRGC. And we've put on record our concerns for the Kurdish community in Iran and the threats that they face. Of course, the killing of Jina Mahsa Amini was a part of that—a proud, strong Kurdish-Iranian woman targeted for how she looked and for her identity by a brutal terrorist grouping that terrorises the Iranian people. I do want to give credit as well to my colleague Senator Jordon Steele-John, who had the foreign affairs portfolio and did such a remarkably good job of it in the previous parliament. He stated on 13 September 2023:

Jina 'Mahsa' Amini's death sparked a wave of protests in Iran, and began the Woman Life Freedom movement globally. Over the past year people across the globe have been in solidarity with those targeted by the Iranian regime.

There continues to be unfair trials, egregious executions and continued removal of the rights of women and girls. Australia must maintain pressure on Iranian authorities to free peaceful protestors who are demanding freedom from their country.

Listing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisations would send a strong signal that Australia will not stay silent in the face of human rights abuses and will act to punish perpetrators who are accountable for these heinous crimes.

The Australian Greens continue their solidarity with the Iranian Diaspora community in Australia and their ongoing fight for freedom. Women, Life, Freedom.

But, of course, those calls were met by a wall of obfuscation from the government, who said: 'It's all too hard. Changing the law would be an incredibly complex job. You can't list the IRGC, because it's part of a government entity. You know—impossibility, impossibility, impossibility.' And we said at the time—and we weren't the only ones to say it at the time; I know the coalition said it—'We'll bring the legislation forward and it will pass, provided it's well crafted and does the job. Bring the legislation forward, and you've got a clear parliamentary pathway to it. Don't talk to us about the problems; talk to us about the solution.' And all we got was obfuscation and inaction, the government hiding behind the current laws and saying, 'Well, you can't do it, because the current laws don't allow for the listing of a government related entity.' But, of course, other countries, like the United States and European countries, have listed the IRGC and have the capacity to list government associated government entities as terrorist organisations. Again, we said: 'Well, just look at what the United States has done. Look at what other countries have done. They permit government entities to be identified as terrorist organisations.' In truth, on this planet, some of the largest terror organisations are government entities, delivering obscene violence. It's indiscriminate, or it's often targeted political violence against minorities. Some of the worst offenders on the planet are government entities. I just want to raise this.

Although this has been an issue now for more than two years—the Greens have been calling for it, civil society has been calling for it—this process was still rushed. Once again, the government rushed scrutiny of this bill and sent it to the PJCIS, whose final report, while endorsing the bill, fails to take into account a number of significant concerns raised in that process, including what can often be the unfair—and, I assume, unintended—impacts on humanitarian aid delivery.

It doesn't come just from the effects of this bill. Those concerns have been baked into the listing legislation since its inception. Aid organisations, including the Australian Council for International Development and Save the Children Australia have called for broad humanitarian exemptions consistent with UN council resolutions to provide regulatory certainty for Australian NGOs who are responding to global humanitarian crises. These are critically important concerns, and we call on the government to consider them and consider them further. Indeed, the Greens will be presenting amendments to this bill to provide for the protection of Australian NGOs who are working in areas which are under de facto control of listed organisations to allow them to work to provide critical humanitarian relief—food, medicine, housing, water.

When you talk to NGOs who are active in the international humanitarian space, they say that there is incredible legal risk to them in providing basic humanitarian relief and saving lives in conflict zones such as Afghanistan because of listings. They say that those concerns also arise in parts of Palestine and Gaza because of the listings. They say that those concerns also arise in other conflict zones such as Sudan, where we absolutely know that there is an urgent need for humanitarian aid. To punish the people on the ground, who are under the de facto control of a listed organisation, facing the brutality of that listed organisation—often with that comes famine, comes a lack of access to medicine, comes internal displacement—and to punish them twice and say, 'Not only are you under the de facto control of a terrorist organisation against your will and being held at ransom at that level; because of that, Australian aid organisations can't provide aid to you like the food that you need to feed your kids, the housing you need to protect yourself and the medicine,' is a double punishment.

I want to read onto the record my thanks for my chief of staff, Kym Chapple, who has done a huge amount of work in speaking with the NGOs, coming to grips with the submissions that went to PJCIS and helping my party bring forward amendments which we think would be critical for helping humanitarian organisations. Sometimes the work of our staff doesn't get noticed. I want to tell you this has been noticed.

We also note submissions to the inquiry from the Alliance for Journalists' Freedom, who recommended an inclusion to a specific exemption for journalism being undertaken in the public interest. Again, many of the concerns that apply to humanitarian organisations, who we want on the ground stopping people from starving, giving people access to clean water and helping people who are already being terrorised in these conflict zones—we also need journalists to be there to cover what's happening and to tell the truth about what's happening. Sometimes that requires engagement with these organisations, because that's the only way you can get access and maintain access. Journalists should also have a protection and a clear protection when they're engaged in public interest journalism. Because, unless we see the truth, how can we help? Again I say to the government, on behalf of my party: consider closely the amendments that are being brought in this space, because we have that obligation.

But now I want to address what we could describe as the elephant in the room. We are amending the law now to allow for government entities to be listed as terrorist entities under the law. By this bill's own criteria, the Israel Defense Forces, the IDF, would qualify for listing as a terrorist entity. The test is straightforward really: a foreign state entity that causes serious harm or death to Australian citizens to advance a political cause. Well, in April 2024, Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom was killed in Gaza by an IDF airstrike on a clearly marked World Central Kitchen vehicle. I'll just repeat that. In April 2024, Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom was killed in Gaza by an IDF airstrike on a clearly marked World Central Kitchen vehicle. In October 2025, Australians on the Gaza flotilla were detained by Israeli forces illegally, had their arms dislocated and heads slammed to the ground and were held in torture-like conditions. If those two points don't meet the test of serious harm under this law, then what does?

Let's pass this bill, and let's get on with listing the IRGC. But then let's list the Israeli Defence Force as a state sponsor of terrorism for their actions against Australians. And that doesn't count the obscenity of their actions against millions of Palestinians. No more double standards based on who our purported friends are. That's not justice. That's just politics dressed up as national security. Let's amend the law. Let's allow for state entities to be listed as terrorist organisations, and then let's look clearly at the world and see where the largest state directed terror organisations are. If you cast your eyes fairly across this planet asking, 'Which are the largest terrorist organisations that are state terrorist organisations?' and you don't see the IDF, then you're not looking.

Long debate text truncated.

Slade Brockman

The question is that opposition amendments (2) and (5) on sheet 3450 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendments—

(2) Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (line 25), omit "Director of Human Biosecurity", substitute "Director-General of the CDC".

(5) Schedule 2, item 2, page 28 (line 11), omit subparagraph (1)(a)(ii).

Slade Brockman

The question now is that the remaining Pauline Hanson's One Nation amendments on sheet 3482 and the amendments on sheet 3488 agreed to.

Pauline Hanson's One Nation 's circulated amendments to the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025

SHEET 3482

(1) Clause 5, page 10 (line 31), omit ", or a direction under subsection 45(1)".

(2) Clause 21, page 23 (line 5), omit subclause (5), substitute:

(5) The period may only be extended:

(a) once; and

(b) by no more than 28 days.

(3) Clause 39, page 35 (line 6), omit the paragraph beginning "Division 2 contains", substitute:

Division 2 contains information-gathering powers. The Director-General may request information from other entities, and enter into agreements for other entities to give information. Compliance with a request or agreement is voluntary. An entity may comply with a request or agreement despite any other law, other than designated secrecy laws.

(4) Clause 39, page 35 (lines 7 to 11), omit the paragraph beginning "First, the Director-General".

(5) Clause 39, page 35 (lines 12 to 18), omit the paragraph beginning "Second, the Director-General".

(6) Heading to Subdivision A, page 38 (line 2), omit the heading.

(8) Clause 54, page 47 (lines 5 and 6), omit "or a direction under subsection 45(1)".

(9) Clause 71, page 55 (lines 14 and 15), omit "or a direction under subsection 45(1)".

(10) Clause 76, page 62 (lines 14 to 18), omit subclause (2), substitute:

Exception

(2) However, the Director-Generalmust not delegate the Director-General's functions, duties or powers under section 67 (data sharing declarations).

_____

SHEET 3488

(1) Clause 5, page 8 (line 21), omit "health;", substitute "health.".

(2) Clause 5, page 8 (line 22), omit paragraph (h) of the definition of public health matters.

Anne Ruston

I ask that 3482 and 3488 be put separately.

Slade Brockman

The question is that the remaining Pauline Hanson's One Nation amendments on sheet 3482 be agreed to.

Pauline Hanson's One Nation's circulated amendment to the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025—

(1) Clause 5, page 10 (line 31), omit ", or a direction under subsection 45(1)".

(2) Clause 21, page 23 (line 5), omit subclause (5), substitute:

(5) The period may only be extended:

(a) once; and

(b) by no more than 28 days.

(3) Clause 39, page 35 (line 6), omit the paragraph beginning "Division 2 contains", substitute:

Division 2 contains information-gathering powers. The Director-General may request information from other entities, and enter into agreements for other entities to give information. Compliance with a request or agreement is voluntary. An entity may comply with a request or agreement despite any other law, other than designated secrecy laws.

(4) Clause 39, page 35 (lines 7 to 11), omit the paragraph beginning "First, the Director-General".

(5) Clause 39, page 35 (lines 12 to 18), omit the paragraph beginning "Second, the Director-General".

(6) Heading to Subdivision A, page 38 (line 2), omit the heading.

(8) Clause 54, page 47 (lines 5 and 6), omit "or a direction under subsection 45(1)".

(9) Clause 71, page 55 (lines 14 and 15), omit "or a direction under subsection 45(1)".

(10) Clause 76, page 62 (lines 14 to 18), omit subclause (2), substitute:

Exception

(2) However, the Director-Generalmust not delegate the Director-General's functions, duties or powers under section 67 (data sharing declarations).

Wendy Askew

by leave—I note Senator Lambie's support for that sheet.

Slade Brockman

The question is that opposition amendments on sheets 3448 and 3449 be agreed to.

David Pocock

I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent further consideration of all stages of the bill without limitation of time or for a specified period.

Dorinda Cox

Senator Pocock, can I clarify whether it is without an allocated time allotted or for a specific amount of time?

David Pocock

Without limitation of time. I understand there are a few others who want to give short, five-minute statements.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you for providing that clarity that the motion is without time limitation. Do you wish to speak to the motion?

Yes, please. There are now 622,000 problem gamblers in Australia, and that's up 22 per cent from just 12 months ago. In just 12 months we've gone up 22 per cent. This is a huge issue in Australia. As the late Peta Murphy said in her inquiry, this needs to be treated as a public health issue because it is a public health issue.

One amendment I am seeking to move goes to what we were speaking about this morning, and that is jobs for mates. I note I have moved this to a number of new bodies and institutions the government has set up over the last four years, from the High Speed Rail Authority to others. That is to actually ensure that there is a merits based appointment process and that we don't see a minister able to put someone political in there. This amendment was moved in the House by Dr Sophie Scamps, building on her long work advocating for change here. I really want to thank the member for Mackellar, Dr Sophie Scamps, for her work on this, really highlighting this and bringing us to the point where we have seen action from the Senate on the Briggs review.

In the absence of whole-of-government response, which has very sadly dragged on for two years now, we should be taking these sorts of actions and embedding in legislation clear appointment processes. I hope the chamber will agree with that.

Lidia Thorpe

Our prisons are sites of public health crisis. People in prisons face higher rates of blood-borne viruses, mental illnesses, disability and chronic disease. In fact, many of our people with disabilities and complex needs, especially our children, are being locked up because they are being criminalised rather than receiving proper support. These harms extend beyond prison walls. Families, communities and health systems all bear the cost. That's why I've introduced an amendment to list health care in custodial settings as a public health matter, which would also require the CDC to consult with bodies providing health care to people in custody.

One preventable death in custody is one too many, yet the last two years have seen some of the highest numbers of deaths in custody, and many of these were entirely preventable. Thirty-three years on from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, it is about time we had national leadership on health care for people in custody. If public health means protecting people from disease and harm, then it must include those that states lock away.

Finally, my amendment introduces Indigenous data sovereignty principles. For generations our data has been collected, stored and used without our consent. We have been studied, measured and defined by others, particularly the colonisers. Data has been used to control us, rather than empower us. The CDC will hold vast amounts of health information. First Nations health data must be governed in partnership with First Nations people. My amendment requires the director-general to establish a framework that ensures the CDC's data governance aligns with Indigenous data sovereignty principles to protect Indigenous ownership, control and access to our own health data.

Dorinda Cox

Senator Thorpe, can I bring you back to the suspension notice moved by Senator David Pocock. It was specifically about the suspension of standing orders, so, if you are speaking to the suspension motion, it must be about the urgency of suspending standing orders, not about the bill. It is about the suspension of the standing orders; that is the motion.

Lidia Thorpe

Can I continue?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: If it is about the suspension of the standing orders—

It's about our people dying in this country. We're talking about a bill that can avoid preventable deaths, which I believe is an important part of the suspension motion.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That's fine. You can continue.

The CDC bill is an important step, but it cannot be complete without justice. A CDC that risks ignoring the root causes of poor health, racism, incarceration, dispossession and colonialism will not address First Nations health equity; it will only document it. We have the evidence. The Lancet shows that dismantling racism and restoring justice benefits not only First Peoples but everyone. The Lancet said that racism 'inflicts a collective trauma on us all' in this country and that 'lessening inequities' brings 'healing to society as a whole'.

The health of this nation will never be strong while its First Peoples are sick, silenced and still fighting to be heard. Taking a health justice approach and respecting our sovereignty will protect health by protecting rights, upholding truth and giving power back to the people who have been silenced for too long.

Jenny McAllister

I move:

That the question be now put.

Slade Brockman

The question is that the question be put.

Anthony Chisholm

by leave—I move:

That today—

(a) the questions on the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025 and a related bill be put as follows:

(i) second reading, immediately, and

(ii) all remaining stages, at 11.45 am;

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

(c) divisions may take place between 12.15 pm and 2 pm until consideration of the bills has concluded.

Sue Lines

The question is the motion as moved by Minister Chisholm be agreed to.

Sue Lines

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Duniam be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Senator Ruston has indicated that the opposition wishes to separate parts (a) and (b) of the government's amended motion. The question is that amended part (a) of the motion moved by Minister Gallagher be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Katy Gallagher

So we don't lose time on a division, can we just have it recorded that the government supported subsection (a).

Question agreed to.

Sue Lines

Now we will put the rest of the motion as amended. The question is that part (b) of Minister Gallagher's motion, as amended, be agreed to.

Marielle Smith

I move:

That the following apply as a temporary order until the arrangements for question time adopted by the Senate on 29 October 2025 cease to apply:

(1) All senators be required to attend the Senate whilst questions without notice are asked and answered.

(2) Senators may be excused from the requirements of paragraph (1) if they have been granted leave of absence by the Senate, or with the agreement of all whips and independent senators.

Paul Scarr

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Glenn Sterle

Leave is granted for one minute.

Paul Scarr

This motion is nothing but a juvenile stunt, and I'm surprised that Senator Wong, as someone with the experience she has had in this chamber, would allow this motion to see the light of day. Senators are constitutionally required to attend sittings, but they should not be ordered to attend in the same way as members of the executive or witnesses. Further, the Senate's disciplinary powers over its own members are exercised through various methods, such as suspensions, censure motions or privileges proceedings, not by ordering attendance.

Senator Marielle Smith seems to have also overlooked circumstances where senators may need to be absent from the chamber for urgent personal or medical reasons, which do not require a leave of absence, without getting the permission of all Independent senators and whips. The motion is embarrassing. The attendance of non-executive senators is governed by the Constitution, not by coercive orders of the Senate. The coalition strongly opposes it.

Glenn Sterle

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 232, moved by Senator Marielle Smith, be agreed to.

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Duniam, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs by no later than 2 pm on Monday, 24 November 2025:

(a) all written advice provided between the Minister for Home Affairs and the Department of Home Affairs and its portfolio agencies since Monday, 29 September 2025 regarding the ongoing operation or expansion of migration pathways or special visa arrangements into Australia for persons from Gaza;

(b) all written advice provided between the Minister for Home Affairs and the Department of Home Affairs and its portfolio agencies since Monday, 29 September 2025 relating to the processing, prioritisation or suspension of migration pathways or special visa arrangements into Australia for persons from Gaza; and

(c) all question time briefs prepared for the Minister for Home Affairs since Monday, 29 September 2025 relating to the intake of persons from Gaza into Australia.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 227 be agreed to.

Sean Bell

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 June 2026:

The impact of proposed renewable energy projects on regional communities including the Lambruk Solar Project near Loomberah, New South Wales, with particular reference to:

(a) the use of prime agricultural land for industrial-scale renewable energy development;

(b) the effect on family farming operations, food and fibre production and local property values;

(c) the social, mental health and financial impacts on residents and farming families;

(d) risks to aquifers and soil degradation;

(e) the adequacy of dust and noise mitigation measures;

(f) the impact of increased heavy vehicle traffic on local roads and council infrastructure;

(g) the involvement of energy companies such as Venn Energy Inc. and other overseas investors;

(h) the level of benefit or disadvantage to affected Australian communities;

(i) any national interest implications arising from foreign control of energy assets;

(j) the adequacy of current federal and state planning, zoning and approval processes for renewable energy developments on rural land; and

(k) any other related matters.

Katy Gallagher

by leave—The government will be opposing this motion. The Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner is the appropriate mechanism for complaints and inquiries about new or existing wind farms; large solar farms; energy storage sites, like pumped hydro or large batteries; and major powerline projects. The commissioner is engaging with the proponents of the Lambruk Solar Project.

Slade Brockman

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Bell, business of the Senate motion No. 2, be agreed to.