Slade Brockman

Unless a senator indicates otherwise, I will put the amendment as moved by Senator Antic.

Penny Wong

I wonder if we could ask the President to come back and provide the chamber with a ruling or some advice about what just occurred. I think there was a lot of confusion about the need to seek leave, and I think that it would be useful for the chamber to understand, in the context of this sort of truncated debate, how much notice an amendment to an amendment should receive. I just wonder if you could ask the President to report back to the chamber.

Slade Brockman

I will ask the President to do that, Senator Wong. As no-one else is seeking the call, I will put amendments 1 and 2 on sheet 3477 together. The question is that amendments on sheet 3477 in the name of Senator Antic be agreed to.

Alex Antic

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3477 in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 15), after item 3, insert:

3A At the end of subsection 77A(2)

Add:

; and (d) whose delivery does not occur because of an intentional termination of the pregnancy.

Note: An intentional termination of pregnancy referred to in paragraph (d) includes, for example, a medical termination involving the administration of a drug or the use of a medical instrument, but does not include child-birth, or medical intervention required to deliver a child who has died in the womb of natural causes.

(2) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (after line 16), at the end of section 333X, add:

Interpretation

(7) To avoid doubt, a reference in this section to the death of a child does not include a reference to the death of a child that occurs because of an intentional termination of a pregnancy (whether the death of the child because of the intentional termination occurs before, during or after delivery of the child).

Matthew Canavan

Am I able to move an amendment on the floor to this amendment? I was told 1 pm for circulation, but I haven't got that done. I presume I have to seek leave?

Slade Brockman

Senator Canavan, perhaps for the benefit of the chamber you might indicate how substantive the amendment is.

Matthew Canavan

I seek leave to move an amendment that seeks to exclude the event where a mother's health is at risk.

Slade Brockman

Senator Hanson-Young, are you seeking the call?

Sarah Hanson-Young

I'd like it if you could get the clerks' advice on the restrictions around moving amendments within the two-hour period when a guillotine has been put in place.

Slade Brockman

I will do so. I'm advised that, as long as leave is granted, it is acceptable. Senator Hanson-Young?

Sarah Hanson-Young

Senator Canavan is seeking leave because the amendment period is closed. Could you explain clearly, Senator Canavan, what the amendment is to so that we can work out whether we're going to give you leave?

Matthew Canavan

That's a reasonable request. I would seek leave to move an amendment to add to the words at the end of proposed subsection (d): ', unless the termination is to protect the health of the mother.'

Sarah Hanson-Young

Just to be clear, is that to the bill itself, not to somebody else's amendment? So Senator Canavan cleaning up Senator Antic's mess? Is that what's going on here?

Slade Brockman

That is a debating point. Is leave granted? This is the last time I'm going to ask.

Leave not granted.

Bridget McKenzie

Can I just seek clarification? If the mover of an amendment accepts another senator's amendment, does that then become the amendment?

Slade Brockman

Senator Canavan would still need leave of the Senate. Leave has been denied. So I will put the amendment, unless there are further contributions. The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3477 together be agreed to.

A division have been called and the bells being rung—

I am seeking further advice from the Clerk concerning Senator Canavan's amendment. It may be that division will need to be cancelled. I will seek that advice now.

I am going to cancel this division. There was conflicting advice to the chair. The advice is now that Senator Canavan did not need leave to move his amendment. So I am going to give Senator Canavan the chance to move his amendment. We will then vote on it.

Matthew Canavan

I move an amendment to amendment (1) on sheet 3477:

At the end of paragraph 3A(d) add "unless the termination is to protect the health of the mother"

Slade Brockman

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Canavan to Senator Antic's amendment be agreed to.

Malcolm Roberts

I've explained my amendment, so I don't need to again. I move my amendment on sheet 3479:

(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (after line 16), at the end of section 333X, add:

Exclusions

(7) Despite subsection (1), this section does not apply if the child:

(a) is stillborn because of an intentional termination (other than by child-birth) of a pregnancy; or

(b) dies because of an intentional termination (other than by child-birth) of a pregnancy (whether the death occurs before, during or after delivery).

Note: An intentional termination of pregnancy includes, for example, a medical termination involving the administration of a drug.

Slade Brockman

The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 3479 be agreed to.

Katy Gallagher

by leave—I move:

That—

(a) the questions on all remaining stages of the Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya's) Bill 2025 be put at 1 pm today;

(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 bill has concluded.

Malcolm Roberts

I want to make some brief comments. This is yet another guillotine, another cutting of debate, by the Labor government—so much for transparency—yet again. You're denying a voice to an emotional issue that troubles millions of people. You're stopping debate on stillborns. The government doesn't want the experiences of people with stillborns told in this parliament. Shame! We should have a full debate.

Matthew Canavan

This is a very regrettable move by the government because it's a very sensitive issue. It's an extremely sensitive topic, the birth—or in some extremely tragic cases, the stillbirth—of what could have been a potential human life, a potential human being. I think it would be best, particularly for this chamber, for this house, to take a deliberative approach to an issue of this sensitivity. This bill has only just been introduced to this place, and my understanding of the motion now before this chamber is that the government is intending to move the bill without any form of consideration, deliberation or debate. We are in effect not doing our job as senators to only make laws after a considered deliberation of the issues.

May I also add that, in this case, there was a motion last week that sought to refer this bill to a Senate committee. That was refused. That sometimes happens, but again it seems a little unusual for a bill of this sensitivity—that goes to a lot of different opinions in the broader public—not to have a proper airing of all of those issues. I could only conclude that the reason the government is seeking to silence debate on this issue is because it has been on the receiving end of thousands of people who are upset and concerned about this bill. We've all received that correspondence, and some of us would agree with it—some of us wouldn't; some of us would have a different opinion. But because there has been such an outcry of concern over this bill in the past week, the government has simply decided, in my view, that instead of having to respond to those concerns—and I think there are some legitimate concerns that I'll come to—it is simply going to silence them. Its approach to engaging with the Australian public is to treat them with contempt and say, 'Talk to the hand.' That is the approach being taken here by the government, through this motion, and it should be condemned. It should be absolutely condemned to act in this way.

There are some very, very legitimate issues with how this is being approached, and I would have liked to have made a contribution on the substantive issues of this debate. Some may be surprised at how I would have approached these issues. I don't think it is black and white. I think there is a very, very difficult and sensitive topic to deal with here. Fundamentally, I do believe—as, I believe, the Liberal and National parties do, some people in the government do and most people do—that the law should be changed to ensure that parents that have to go through the tragic event of a stillbirth are not disadvantaged when it comes to their workplace or other entitlements associated with parental rights.

I know many parents who have gone through this situation, and they are no less parents simply because their child has unfortunately suffered an untimely end before birth. That child is a human being. That child has been loved and cherished by their parents, and the loss those parents feel is as great as that of any parent who loses a child. It is a problem with our current laws that such loss is not properly reflected in our workplace laws or in the entitlement rules for the paid parental leave system. So I fully support all of that and would hope that we legislate to get to that position.

There is an issue that's been raised—and, as I say, it's what the government wants to silence—and it's that the bill, as drafted, would appear to extend these additional rights to situations where a pregnancy has been terminated on the decision of the parents. This is a very difficult situation. I recognise that it's a relatively rare situation, in terms of late-term interventions. It does, however, happen, and I think there are legitimate issues here. As I've said, I don't think it is black and white, because the decision that a parent would take to do that in those circumstances comes in a myriad of forms, and it is quite difficult to write laws around this to capture all of those different human experiences. In particular, I am very mindful of situations where, in the late term of pregnancy, the health of the mother can be put at risk. It's an extremely difficult question for any parent or any family to have to face, and I wouldn't want our laws to impose an undue burden on parents in that situation deciding how they balance the health of the mother against the health of a child. It's a terrible ethical dilemma and ultimately one I firmly believe that each parent, each mother and father, is best placed to determine themselves.

I just want to be clear. I've received the correspondence that I referred to, but I don't want to see us amend this bill in anyway that reduces the rights of mothers to make a decision to protect their own health. However, I also don't want a situation where, if in the event there aren't any health risks, we would extend entitlements where there has been a decision to terminate a pregnancy at late term. These examples are very confronting situations.

A few years ago I moved a bill, the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2022, to provide care to babies when they are born alive in these situations, and, when I first introduced that bill, I was under the impression that a baby born alive in these circumstances is an unfortunate, unexpected outcome of a termination procedure. I apologise for bringing this up—the government has brought this on. I didn't intend to speak on this right now, but you've brought it on, and I want to make sure I have my chance to speak. I've just been told that 1 pm is still the guillotine, and, on an issue that goes to conscience, it would be much better for the government to have a conscience and let other senators express their conscience, their views, on this matter. A few hours is simply not good enough to deal with these issues.

As I said, I was under the impression that, in the event of a late-term termination, a baby born alive is an unexpected, unfortunate contingency that sometimes happens. Unfortunately, for some termination procedures, the baby being born alive is, in fact, an outcome of the procedure; the procedure is, in some circumstances, simply to induce pregnancy, and the baby is then born and is, effectively, left to die. It's very, very sad and very tragic. The problem is that other techniques that can deliver a late-term abortion in some states involve the use of chemicals that inflict enormous pain on the fetus and that are, in fact, banned for use in euthanising animals in this country.

I don't know. When I learnt that—obviously, I'm pro-life—I was shocked. I was shocked that we simply leave babies to die and that there's no care provided to them. That's why I introduced my bill. It's something, I think, most of us haven't perhaps confronted, but it's what happens. Just like there's a problem here that we're trying to fix, that, to me, seems like a major problem. Surely, every human being deserves care, but we're not providing that right now. These late-term terminations are extremely confronting, and we should be much more considerate in dealing with these issues. That's why I would very much like to see a proper Senate inquiry into this, where we don't seek to yell and scream at each other but seek to actually confront the details of what occurs and how we should best legislate for those contingencies, which is what good lawmakers should do.

As I said, when I introduced my bill, I wasn't even aware of this. It wasn't until we had a Senate inquiry into that bill—I think it was the first Senate inquiry into abortions for many decades in this place—that we had experts and doctors come forward and actually explain how a late-term termination works. I think all senators in the room, whatever their views, were a bit shocked by the description of the procedure. I apologise again for having to go through this again, but I need to make this point right now because these sorts of facts, these confronting truths, should be given an appropriately sensitive airing through a deliberative process in this chamber.

Instead, the government has come in here and blindsided the Senate this morning. I was ready to speak on the bill, as it has been listed—the government listed it for the agenda this week, which was circulated—but instead the government decided to come in and, through an early morning intervention into our deliberations here, say: 'No, that's it. We're going to make sure this is dealt with today.' As I said at the start—I've been in this position a lot of times in recent years—we really let people down in this place. We do this all the time, guys. I don't know if this is a newsflash to anybody, but everybody out there hates us. They really don't like us. The reason they don't like us is games like this, these silly little games that political parties play to get their way—to use the raw force of their numbers to get a decision to go their way.

That's not our job. We're paid really good money. We get great privileges. Our job is to debate. Our job is to consider. Our job is to listen to the Australian public. But, instead, time and time and time again, at an increasing rate, may I say, this chamber—and it has been all sides of politics, but there's no doubt about the fact that it's getting much, much worse—comes in here and simply silences everybody and puts a cone of silence over us, and none of the public can then penetrate that cone. They can't have their voice heard. They can't get a response. They don't even get an airing of their concerns in their assembly. This is their place, not ours. We're just tenants here. All of our careers will pass, but we are here as servants to the Australian people. We are meant to be, but, instead, by moving motions like this, we are acting like their masters. That is the wrong way around, guys. If you keep acting like this, you will continue to get a level of frustration and anger in the political system in this country. It is why the primary vote of the major parties is at its lowest level ever. That's absolutely why it is—no doubt. It's us that do this rubbish, and we cop the backlash for it.

Okay, you can do it. You've got the numbers. You can do it, but there are going to be consequences for actions like this. There is going to be a backlash from the broader public and not just on this issue. This is just another shocking example of us not doing the jobs we are paid to do, of us simply deciding that it's all too hard and it's all too difficult to handle these tough questions that people in emails and on social media bombard us with and of us saying: 'So let's just knock off early. Let's knock off early, and we can all go home at 1.00 pm'—apparently—'and then no-one will email us again, because a decision was made and there's nothing they can do about it.' They might not email us again, but they will come and vote in a few years, and a lot of us might not be here. I tell you what, if the polls keep going the way they are, there are not going to be many senators from the major parties left. That's the hard, cold reality of this and what we're doing. Keep at it, guys. Keep making a mockery of this house, and maybe you won't be here in the future to keep acting like this.

Katy Gallagher

Just to be clear about why we're moving this motion, it's to allow for the passage of Baby Priya's bill by one o'clock today. If we hadn't had that 15 minutes, we would have got into the bill. We're allowing for three hours—

Sue Lines

Minister Wong?

Penny Wong

Senator Canavan was heard in silence by this side of the chamber. I request that Minister Gallagher be afforded the same courtesy.

Sue Lines

I remind senators—Senator Canavan, you were heard in silence, and Minister Gallagher will be heard in silence as well.

Katy Gallagher

To allow for three hours of debate, allowing all senators to participate in that on this important bill—just to be clear, this bill is actually about amending the Fair Work Act, and it only relates to employer funded paid parental leave if a child is stillborn or dies. Its origins are in the parents of Baby Priya, who lived for six weeks after her birth, and, when she passed away, her mother's parental leave was cancelled by her employer. She had worked there for 11 years, and her father's parental leave continued. Those very brave parents felt that it was unfair that the mother lost her parental leave, and this bill responds to that. It recognises that the loss of a baby is devastating for parents and that, if there's a way to respond, in Baby Priya's name and with the bravery of her parents, to seek legislative reform that would allow a mother, in the exact same experience as what's Baby Priya's mother endured, to grieve and to have an entitlement to grieve through that period of what would have been her parental leave—that's what this bill is about. We believe three hours is plenty of time for senators who would like to participate, just as Senator Canavan and others have, but let's not lose focus on what the bill actually is.

I know there has been a fair bit of attention about what this bill is not. But this bill is about amending the Fair Work Act so that where parental leave exists for parents in the private sector—not related to Commonwealth paid parental leave, which doesn't cancel in those circumstances—parents will be entitled to continue to receive parental leave. That's what the bill's about. And, if passage isn't completed by one o'clock, that still will have been three hours of debate for this chamber. I move:

That the question be now put.

Long debate text truncated.

Corinne Mulholland

I seek leave to ask a question on behalf of Queenslanders regarding the Albanese government's commitment to net zero.

Sue Lines

Senator Kovacic, I've called Senator Mulholland.

Honourable senators interjecting—

I do believe the call is mine to make. I've made it. Senator Kovacic, please resume your seat. Senator Mulholland is seeking leave. Senator Mulholland, leave is denied.

A government senator: You don't need to seek leave. Just ask the question.

Carol Brown

Just ask the question.

Corinne Mulholland

My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines

Order! Order across the chamber.

Corinne Mulholland

How does the Albanese government's real action on climate change—

Sue Lines

Senator Mulholland, you were seeking leave. Leave has been denied.

Carol Brown

Just ask.

Corinne Mulholland

I move—

An honourable senator: No! You don't have the call.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines

Order! Senator Mulholland, please resume your seat. Senator Kovacic, take your seat. I have made my call. It is not up for debate. I have given the call to Senator Mulholland. There's not a debate about this. You can continue standing, but I am not giving you the call.

James McGrath

She has a point of order.

Sue Lines

Senator McGrath! I've asked the senator to resume her seat—

No! Senator McGrath, resume your seat. Senator Kovacic, if you have a point of order at this point—you have been standing and making a claim that you stood before Senator Mulholland, so I'm not engaging on that point of order. I've made my decision. But, if you have a further point of order, I will entertain that point of order.

Maria Kovacic

I'd like to understand on what basis, given what you have just noted in terms of the agreed list for questions, I'm not permitted to ask my question given I'm next on the list?

Sue Lines

Senator Kovacic, I have a list that has 15 names on it. We've done question 15. That was Senator Dean Smith. Any senator, as you know, can jump at any time. Senator Mulholland jumped, and I gave her the call.

Senator Kovacic, that may be your view. It's not my view. I've given Senator Mulholland the call. She is in the process, I think, of moving a suspension, so please resume your seat.

Corinne Mulholland

I move:

That so much of the order of the Senate agreed to on 29 October concerning the arrangements for question time be suspended as would prevent me asking a question of the Government.

Those opposite have been an absolute rabble this week—an absolute rabble. Earlier this week we warned Australians that the 'noalition' was back and it was back again—

Sue Lines

Senator Ruston, on a point of order?

Anne Ruston

I was just wondering whether you could rule on whether the commentary so far from the senator actually goes directly to the urgency of the reason that she's suspended?

Sue Lines

Thank you, Senator Ruston. I was going to call the senator to order, but, as we were only a few seconds in, I was going to give her the benefit of the doubt. But I'm well alive to that question. Senator Mulholland, I remind you that you need to talk about the urgency as to why you are seeking a suspension.

Corinne Mulholland

It is disappointing that the opposition are seeking to prevent me, an elected senator for the great state of Queensland, to get up in this place. They didn't want to hear from my colleague Senator Smith about women's—

Maria Kovacic

On a point of order, I don't believe that Senator Mulholland actually moved her suspension.

Sue Lines

She did, Senator Kovacic.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! And that is exactly why I've asked for silence.

Corinne Mulholland

Earlier this week we warned Australians that the 'noalition' was back. The coalition has been voting with the Greens all week in this place. They were so far off the reservation—the Greens—they were over here before, caucusing with the coalition.

Sue Lines

Senator Mulholland, I will again remind you that you need to be informing the chamber as to why this matter is so urgent that you are seeking to suspend standing orders.

Corinne Mulholland

We saw on Sunday my good colleague Senator Canavan on Insiders, breaking from his usual schedule of back-to-back interviews on Sky News to go to Insiders to spread misinformation to the people of Queensland—

Sue Lines

Senator Ruston, on a point of order?

Anne Ruston

On the matter that's currently before the chair, in terms of the urgency of the suspension, I do not believe that the senator is actually respecting your ruling and that is that she needs to tell us why this matter is so important.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines

Order! We have so many people in here with so many opinions. Senator Mulholland, I remind you once again that you need to inform the chamber as to why this matter is urgent.

Corinne Mulholland

As I said, the urgency is complete misinformation being spread into Queensland and into Australia over the weekend by those opposite. I'm surprised they don't want to hear it. They've never met a net zero question or motion they don't like to hear about, so I'm surprised they don't want to hear about this one. I've spent a lot of time in regional Queensland recently meeting with farmers and meeting with industry, and they want a consistent position from this opposition on net zero. Canefarmers and sugar millers in Mackay have been part of the net zero transition.

Sue Lines

Senator Mulholland, I need to remind you again that you need to inform the chamber as to why your matter is urgent and why you are seeking to suspend standing orders.

Corinne Mulholland

It is urgent that we protect Queensland jobs in industry. They rely on this government to correct the record that was being spread over the weekend—the misinformation about the modelling that is being completely made up over there. I've spent time with canegrowers in Mackay. I've spent time with millers. These are people who are not just worried about net zero; they've been leading the pathway. They're not worried about it. They've been leading the pathway on net zero for decades. They have been turning cane biomass into ethanol for years.

Sue Lines

Senator Mulholland, I am really struggling to see what the urgency of your suspension is. You need to focus on why you are seeking to suspend standing orders.

Bridget McKenzie

You've had so many helps here.

Sue Lines

Senator McKenzie, I might be able to hear a little clearer if you are quiet.

Corinne Mulholland

I understand that those opposite might be uncomfortable with a woman asking a question in this place. They seem to be so upset about that today. I know they want to silence me on this matter. They're trying to silence their own colleagues on this matter. Mr Kennedy, the member for Cook, said: 'I support net zero as a target, frankly. It's an admirable target.' Senator Hume, up the back there—I can see you up the back there—you noted, 'The electorate has told us time and time again—

Sue Lines

Senator Mulholland, I have now lost count of the times that I have directed you to inform the Senate—

Opposition senators interjecting—

When the frontbench on my left has quite finished, you need to inform the Senate as to why your matter is urgent and you are seeking to suspend standing orders. It's not about farmers in your state, Senator Mulholland. It is about the matters—

Senator Mulholland, you are not in a debate with me.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order on my left! The behaviour in this place is absolutely disgraceful and disrespectful. Order! Senator Mulholland, please continue.

Corinne Mulholland

Farmers and industry in my state have a right to know. I have a right to ask this question on behalf of them.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Sue Lines

Perhaps you could get your colleagues to be quiet, Senator McKenzie. They haven't noticed that you are standing on a point of order.

Bridget McKenzie

On a point of order, the senator has repeatedly ignored your request to come to the urgency of her motion that she's trying to debate, and I would ask that you rule because this is getting farcical, three minutes in to her contribution.

Sue Lines

Senator McKenzie, what is also farcical in this place is my many, many, many attempts since 2 pm to get silence in this place. If it's farcical and people are disrespecting my authority, I would ask senators to reflect on their own behaviour. I was prepared to hear Senator Mulholland finish her sentence. I have reminded her that she needs to inform the chamber as to what is so urgent about her matter that it requires the standing orders to be abandoned.

Corinne Mulholland

It is important and urgent that the people of Queensland hear from the minister about what the government's plan for net zero is and to go to the fact that non-executive members in this place are being barred from asking urgent questions—

Sue Lines

Senator Ayres?

Tim Ayres

It's a little bit before four o'clock. The penny might be dropping over there and maybe that's the reason for the behaviour.

Sue Lines

Senator Ayres, you do need to get to the point of order. We're not making statements.

Tim Ayres

I'd ask you to draw them again. I know you've been trying. I know this is distressing for them. But I'd ask you to ask them to settle down a little bit.

Sue Lines

Once again, I will remind the chamber to come to order.

Corinne Mulholland

I believe it is urgent and important that the people of Queensland hear this information from the minister, and I ask that the question be heard by the Senate.

Sue Lines

Senator Ruston, is this on the suspension?

Anne Ruston

Yes.

Murray Watt

We'll always remember your acting leadership.

Anne Ruston

Yes, hopefully.

Murray Watt

It's going very well.

Anne Ruston

I just wanted to correct the record for a number of things that have been said in this chamber during the last two hours. First and foremost is the—

A government member interjecting

We'll start with the urgency motion. This is probably one of the most serious issues that has been confronted by this chamber in the time since I started here. In 13 years, I have never seen a government so contemptuous of the conventions of this place in my time.

Government senators interjecting—

Absolutely contemptuous.

Sue Lines

Order! Order across the chamber! Senator Ruston, I am also going to remind you that you need to be putting a debate which opposes Senator Mulholland's request motion to suspend. I'm prepared to hear you out, but I do want to hear that perspective, and I need to hear it in silence.

Anne Ruston

The reason that I believe that it is very important that we do not suspend the Senate and we allow it to continue to operate the way it was intended to operate today is because the importance of holding the government to account is being undermined by the continuous activities of those that are opposite. I would remind those opposite about the importance of this particular provision, and, as I said, in the 13 years that I have been in this place, I have never seen a government more intent in avoiding transparency, avoiding accountability and, quite frankly, avoiding what needs to happen—

Sue Lines

Order on my right! Minster Gallagher?

Katy Gallagher

I have a point of order on relevance. The Acting Leader of the Opposition in the Senate should be relevant to the question before the chair, which is whether or not the suspension should be moved.

Sue Lines

Senator Ruston, I do remind you to be relevant to the suspension order and why you believe it's not necessary.

Long debate text truncated.

Marielle Smith

I seek leave to ask a question on behalf of South Australians regarding the Albanese Labor government's historic women's health package.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the order of the Senate agreed to on 29 October concerning the arrangements for question time be suspended as would prevent me asking a question of the Government.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines

Order! Senator McGrath, you will withdraw those comments.

James McGrath

I withdraw.

Sue Lines

Thank you. I remind senators that Senator Smith will be heard in silence.

Marielle Smith

Yes, please; thank you. We have held two Senate inquiries over the last term of parliament into women's health: an inquiry into menopause and perimenopause and an inquiry into women's health. Through those inquiries, we heard from hundreds and hundreds of women about how they'd been let down by a system which was failing them. They came into this building and shared their trauma. They came into this building and told how they had been dismissed.

Wendy Askew

A point of order on relevance—the contribution should be on the urgency and why we need to actually do it rather than your point. It's in the standing orders.

Sue Lines

Senator Smith, it is a suspension of standing orders. We are now on the issue of urgency, I believe, so you do need to inform the Senate as to why the matter is urgent.

Marielle Smith

Well, these are the women I'm trying to ask this question on behalf of. These are the women who came in here and said the country needs to change—that we need to fund women's health properly. Our government listened. We responded. There are changes happening this weekend. I want to ask a question about it so I can inform the women in my community.

Honourable senators interjecting—

O pposition senator s interjecting

Tim Ayres

Senator Smith is trying to articulate a position. It is very difficult for her to do that with all of the bellowing that's coming from the fellas over there. I'd ask you to ask them again—I know that you've tried—to hear her in silence.

Sue Lines

I am going to remind the Senate once again, particularly those loud voices on my left, that Senator Smith has the right to be heard in silence. If you don't wish to participate in the debate, you are free to leave the chamber. But you will listen and not interject.

Marielle Smith

There are important changes happening this weekend, which my community deserves to know about. I started my day on the radio in regional South Australia to spread the word of those changes. I have a democratic right as well. The only person who has a democratic—

O pposition senator s interjecting

Sue Lines

Senator Smith, resume your seat. Once again, I—

Senator Bragg, may I remind you that I am the President in this chamber. I sat the senator down because you on my left are absolutely out of order. I repeat—no, Senator Dean Smith, I haven't finished yet—once again: if you cannot listen in silence, leave the chamber. But don't interject. You were interjecting so loudly that I could not hear Senator Marielle Smith. Senator Dean Smith.

Dean Smith

Senator M Smith's position ignores the fact that the government has already had three—

Sue Lines

No—resume your seat.

Senator Dean Smith, resume your seat. Senator Marielle Smith, I am going to remind you that you need to talk about why the matter is urgent.

Marielle Smith

It's urgent because there are 19 non-executive members of this chamber who are now having their right to ask questions curtailed in this place. There are 19 members of this chamber who have come in here today asking questions of the utmost seriousness, asking questions on the Racial Discrimination Act—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines

Senator Smith, please resume your seat. Once again, I'm going to call you to order. Order on both sides of the chamber to order.

Well, Senator McKenzie, quite frankly, I wish you'd take your own advice on that interjection. Minister Watt?

Murray Watt

Thank you, President, for your efforts to try to bring some order to this passage of question time. I would invite the opposition members, in particular the male opposition members, to have a bit of self-reflection about the fact that they're yelling at a woman who's trying to ask a question about women's health. That might be something worthy of reflection.

Sue Lines

Senator Smith, do you have a point of order? I have a number of senators standing up, so if you could resume your seat. I am going to try, once again, for order in this place. I had Senator Paterson and Senator Henderson standing. I don't know which one of you stood first but, perhaps, because you're on the front bench, Senator Paterson, I'll entertain—presumably it's a point of order and not a statement.

James Paterson

On the point of order raised by Senator Watt, even I am old enough to remember you sitting in these chairs screaming at female senators yourself.

Sue Lines

Senator Paterson, that is a debating point.

James Paterson

Have some self-awareness, mate.

Sue Lines

Order! Senator Henderson, if it is not a genuine point of order, I intend to sit you down.

Sarah Henderson

On the point of order, I would ask that you ask Senator Watt to withdraw the unparliamentary reflection on male senators on this side of the house. It is most inappropriate to reflect in this way, and I think that, in good grace and good faith, he should withdraw that terrible comment.

Sue Lines

Senator Watt, I invite you to withdraw.

Murray Watt

I withdraw.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines

Order! There does need to be silence.

Marielle Smith

The senators who supported Senator Pocock on this motion are seeking to deny almost a third of this chamber the opportunity to do their jobs—to do their democratic responsibility on behalf of the people that they represent. We have a democratic right to represent our constituents as well. We have a democratic right to participate in this chamber too. I have a right to ask questions, and there has been a longstanding convention in this place which should have allowed me to. I have an important question to ask. I don't have a question to ask seeking to table Hansard into Hansard

Opposition senators interjecting—

Sue Lines

Senator Smith, please resume your seat. Once again, I have to call the chamber to order, particularly those of you on my left.

Senator Watt, come to order! Senator Marielle Smith, please continue.

Marielle Smith

What is happening here is that this chamber is denying non-executive members of the government, like myself, the opportunity to ask a question which matters to the women of my state. There are big changes happening this Saturday which we fought tooth and nail for. Hundreds of women walked into this place and shared trauma, stigma and stories of being dismissed and silenced in the hope that our government would change the law, change the way women's health is funded and change their treatment. Things are changing for them this weekend, and I want to be able to ask about it.

Sue Lines

Senator Smith, please resume your seat. Senator Duniam, if this is not a genuine point of order, I will sit you down.

Jonathon Duniam

I understand.

Sue Lines

I'm over the statements that are being made in the guise of points of order.

Jonathon Duniam

My point of order is on relevance. The question before the chair is about the suspension of standing orders, and this doesn't go to that.

Sue Lines

It does. The senator is required—

I haven't finished, Senator Smith. The senator asked for leave. Leave was not given. She moved to suspend. I have reminded her, and she has kept telling the Senate what is urgent about this matter. That is what she is doing. Senator Smith, I invite you to continue.

Marielle Smith

You may not think it is urgent, Senator Duniam, for the women of my community to be able to understand the changes which are happening to our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme this weekend and to understand the changes which are happening to Medicare this weekend. As I said, I've used every opportunity available to me to try and get this message out, and I don't think you would doubt that. I want to use my democratic right in this place—

Sue Lines

Senator Smith, please resume your seat. Before I call you, Senator Henderson, I am going to take the interjection, Senator Duniam. It has always been my practice to hold firmly to the view that suspensions should be about detailing why a matter is urgent. You can check on the many times we've had suspensions in this place. When I am in the chair, I always draw senators back to the urgency of the matter, and I have drawn Senator Smith back a number of times.

Sarah Henderson

On a point of order, I wonder if you could ask Senator Marielle Smith to direct her comments through the chair, please.

Sue Lines

I think she is doing that, but I will remind her once again that that is what is required.

Marielle Smith

This is urgent. This is urgent for half the population. Half the population will go through menopause if they live to midlife. There are huge changes happening this weekend. This is an opportunity I should be able to have, as a non-executive member of this government to ask the question so that my community can hear from the minister about the changes happening on 1 November which will make a massive difference to their lives. For those women, this question is urgent. It is urgent that I get an opportunity to ask it, just as it was important for other non-executive members of this government to ask questions today about the Racial Discrimination Act, about family and domestic violence and about First Nations health. It is not only the crossbench who represents a community who has a right to be heard in here. As a non-executive member of the government, I also have a constituency, and you are tearing up convention which allows me to do my job as a senator, which I take seriously.

I respect the right of Senator Pocock to do his job, and I take that seriously. I respect the right of the Greens to do their job on behalf of their constituency, and I respect the right of opposition backbenchers to do theirs, but you are showing the utmost disrespect for my responsibility to my constituents. You should show more respect to non-government members of this place and to the convention which makes this place what it is.

Anne Ruston

I move:

That the question be put.

Question agreed to.

Sue Lines

The question is that the suspension motion as moved by Senator Marielle Smith be agreed to.

Sue Lines

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Ruston to the Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment Bill 2025 be agreed to.

Slade Brockman

The deferred vote is to be taken on the second reading amendment moved by Senator Roberts yesterday.

Dave Sharma

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

Larissa Waters

I seek leave to move a motion relating to that very issue, the Darwin LNG plant, as circulated in the chamber.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to 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 give precedence to a motion relating to the Darwin LNG plant.

In question time on Monday, Minister Ayres undertook to get back to me and the Senate to clarify whether the leaking gas storage tank at Santos's Darwin LNG site would be used when the Barossa gas field starts up shortly. My office has been seeking answers all week from the minister, and, just before question time, I received a letter—which I acknowledge the minister has just tabled, thank you—but it doesn't answer my question. But it is urgent that this question is answered. It is critical that ministers are accountable to this place. That means that, when they say they will come back to the chamber with a clarification, they actually do so and then they provide something that does, in fact, clarify.

So let me put this issue in the simplest terms possible. There is a storage tank, which is currently empty, that we know was leaking heat-trapping methane for 19 years. And there is a new, dirty gas field—the dirtiest of all Australia's gas fields—that's able to start feeding methane into this leaking tank. And the federal government is saying, 'It's got nothing to do with us'—even though they approved the gas field that would use this leaky tank. Minister King hasn't answered—in full knowledge that this storage equipment is faulty—whether she will stop dangerous methane being stored there or pause the gas field approval until the leak is fixed. So I have to conclude that this government is fine to allow methane to leak into our atmosphere and accelerate global heating as well as expose the Darwin community to the associated health risks.

Why would the government allow this preventable destruction on our climate and our community? Because Santos are currently trying to sell this broken storage tank and the Barossa gas field to the United Arab Emirates government, and they don't want to cop a discount on the asking price. Why would Minister King not require the tank to be repaired or replaced? As a major donor, stakeholder and future employer, Santos had the government introduce legislation on their behalf and for their financial interests in the last parliament. So turning a blind eye to a gas leak until it gets the Northern Territory government's approval in two weeks time was apparently an easy choice for the minister.

The federal government may not have jurisdiction over the gas tank, but they do have power over the Barossa gas field and over ensuring that no gas flows from that project until the leak is fixed. They can choose to act in the interests of people and the environment rather than gas company profits, and it's about time they made that choice.

It's a good thing that the Commonwealth has oversight here, because this week, on the radio, the head of the Northern Territory EPA, Dr Vogel, said, 'Due to the low environmental risks and the high costs associated with fixing the leak, Santos has made the decision not to repair the tank.' Even the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority doesn't want to protect the environment or the health of the community. They, too, want Santos to make good coin, it seems.

So, Minister, let's just get it clear, on the Hansard, that the federal government is going to let the Barossa project pump its dirty gas into a leaking tank. The people of Darwin will appreciate the clarification—although I doubt they'll appreciate the exposure to dangerous chemicals or having to pay for the clean-up of natural disasters that companies like Santos are causing with the help of this Albanese government.

Tim Ayres

As I indicated to Senator Waters in response to her question earlier this week, this does largely seem to be a matter for the Northern Territory's EPA regulator. What we know about the situation in Darwin is that this tank is currently not in operation. It was subject to an engineering investigation in 2020 when approval was sought from Northern Territory WorkSafe to extend the life of the Darwin LNG facility. The appropriate regulatory approvals are in place. Importantly, it has an approved safety case. The methane emissions that you've referred to are reported under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme, and there is a monitoring program in place.

The licence to recommence operations of the tank is up for renewal on 18 September, and, as I've been advised, works are being done to refurbish the tank for future use. The DLNG plant is located onshore in the Northern Territory. As such, operation of the tank is a matter for the NT government. We will continue to urge Santos to work with the Northern Territory regulator to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the tank. NOPSEMA, the regulator that Minister King is in charge of, has no jurisdiction to regulate the DLNG facility. And, of course, what's important here—

I understand that the Greens political party comes to this with a set of preconceived views about gas altogether, but it's important, when you're exercising your authority as a minister, to do it with precision and in relation to the powers that you actually have. Otherwise, you end up in the territory that poor old Mr Morrison ended up in during the last government—pretending to be various ministers of state and not telling anybody. It's important to do it precisely and it's important to do it within your powers. That's what the minister has done here. That's consistent with the way that NOPSEMA has conducted its activity here. There are legislative frameworks in place to administer and regulate all of this work. On that basis, I move:

That the question be now put.

Slade Brockman

The question is that the question be put.

Katy Gallagher

I move:

That this bill be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Sue Lines

The question now 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, starting with the amendments circulated by the opposition. The question is that the amendments on sheet 3415 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendment s

(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 33), after item 5, insert:

5A Subsection 11(1)

Omit "by notifiable instrument", substitute "by legislative instrument".

(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (lines 6 to 10), omit the item, substitute:

7 Savings provision

Despite the amendments made by this Part, any instrument made under subsection 11(1) of the Payment Systems (Regulation) Act 1998 that was in force immediately before the commencement of this Part continues in force on and after that commencement.

(3) Schedule 1, item 29, page 11 (line 3), omit "by notifiable instrument", substitute "by legislative instrument".

(4) Page 44 (after line 12), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2 — Amendments of the Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015

Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015

1 Section 10 (table item 26)

Repeal the item.

2 Application of amendments

The repeal of item 26 of the table in section 10 of the Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015 applies in relation to legislative instruments made on or after the commencement of this item.

Question agreed to.

The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 3392 be agreed to.

The Australian Greens ' circulated amendment s

(1) Page 44 (after line 12), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2 — Reducing conflicts of interest on Reserve Bank boards

Reserve Bank Act 1959

1 Subsection 5(1)

Insert:

ASX listed company means a company any of the shares in the capital of which are listed for quotation in the official list of ASX Limited.

licensed CS facility has the same meaning as in the Corporations Act 2001.

participant, in a payment system, has the same meaning as in the Payment Systems (Regulation) Act 1998.

payment system has the same meaning as in the Payment Systems (Regulation) Act 1998.

2 Paragraph 25AB(2)(c)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(c) a director, officer or employee of an ADI or an ASX listed company.

3 After section 25AJ

Insert:

25AJA Undertaking by Board members

(1) Each person who is a member of the Monetary Policy Board must, before first starting to perform the duties of the office, give the Treasurer a written undertaking that the person will not, within the period of 5 years after ceasing to hold the office, become a director, officer or employee of an ADI or an ASX listed company.

(2) The undertaking must be in the form (if any) prescribed by the regulations.

(3) The Treasurer must cause a copy of the undertaking to be published on the Department's website.

4 Subparagraph 25AM(2)(c)(iii)

Repeal the subparagraph, substitute:

(iii) a director, officer or employee of an ADI or an ASX listed company.

5 After subsection 25B(3)

Insert:

(3A) A person must not be appointed under subsection (3) if the person is a director, officer or employee of an ADI, a licensed CS facility or a participant in a payment system that is an administrator of the system.

6 After section 25E

Insert:

25EAA Undertaking by Board members

(1) Each person who is a member of the Payments System Board must, before first starting to perform the duties of the office, give the Treasurer a written undertaking that the person will not, within the period of 5 years after ceasing to hold the office, become a director, officer or employee of an ADI, a licensed CS facility or a participant in a payment system that is an administrator of the system.

(2) The undertaking must be in the form (if any) prescribed by the regulations.

(3) The Treasurer must cause a copy of the undertaking to be published on the Department's website.

7 After paragraph 25L(4)(b)

Insert:

(ba) the member is or becomes a director, officer or employee of an ADI, a licensed CS facility or a participant in a payment system that is an administrator of the system; or

8 Application of amendments

(1) The amendments of sections 25AB, 25AM, 25B and 25L of the Reserve Bank Act 1959 made by this Schedule apply in relation to appointments that are made on or after the commencement of this item.

(2) Section 25AJA of the Reserve Bank Act 1959, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to a member of the Monetary Policy Board who first starts to perform the duties of the office on or after the commencement of this item.

(3) Section 25EAA of the Reserve Bank Act 1959, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to a member of the Payments System Board who first starts to perform the duties of the office on or after the commencement of this item.