Sarah Hanson-Young

At the request of Senator Shoebridge, I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 31 October 2025:

The implementation of regulations aimed at protecting children and young people online, with particular reference to the Internet Search Engine Services Online Safety Code and the under 16 social media ban, including:

(a) privacy and data protection implications of age verification;

(b) the expansion of corporate data collection and user profiling capabilities enabled by code compliance requirements;

(c) the technical implementation and efficacy of age verification and content filtering mechanisms;

(d) alternative technical approaches to online safety for all users, including young people;

(e) appropriate oversight mechanisms for online safety codes;

(f) global experience and best practice; and

(g) any other related matters.

Malcolm Roberts

by leave—I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 31 October 2025:

The implementation of regulations aimed at protecting children and young people online, with particular reference to the Internet Search Engine Services Online Safety Code and the under 16 social media ban, including:

(a) privacy and data protection implications of age verification;

(b) the expansion of corporate data collection and user profiling capabilities enabled by code compliance requirements;

(c) the technical implementation and efficacy of age verification and content filtering mechanisms;

(d) alternative technical approaches to online safety for all users, including young people;

(e) appropriate oversight mechanisms for online safety codes;

(f) global experience and best practice;

(g) the rights and responsibilities of parents to decide what is best for their children; and

(h) any other matters.

Pauline Hanson

You didn't hear my voice?

Sue Lines

I didn't hear your voice, Senator Hanson.

Senator Hanson, if you want to seek my attention, you do need to stand, not just call out from another place.

Pauline Hanson

I would like to have that motion put forward again, please.

The

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

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Paul Scarr

Can we start again, with your indulgence, President?

Sue Lines

The opposition has asked for the matter to be recommitted. I intend to do that.

Paul Scarr

So we have the benefit of four minutes.

Sue Lines

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Roberts to business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 be agreed to.

Jacqui Lambie

I have some questions, obviously. My first question is: can you tell me whether or not Defence Housing still does any sponsorship? Is it still spending its money on sponsorship?

Jenny McAllister

Senator Lambie, this is a relatively narrow bill, and it doesn't go to the budget of DHA. It simply goes to a set of amendments to the Defence Housing Australia Act 1987. I don't have, consequently, information with me about the Defence Housing Australia budget, particularly at that level of granularity, and I might need to direct you to the other opportunities in the Senate to ask questions of that kind.

Jacqui Lambie

We have just over 61,000 personnel. Apparently, that's the new August number for this year. I think it is 61,229, to be precise. By the early 2030s—I don't know what you mean by 'early'; I'd say 2031 or 2032—you want to grow that to 69,000. How many houses, or married quarters or housing, is DHA going to be required to build in the next five years just to get you to the 2030s, if you are able to get 69,000, or another 7,000, defence personnel into the miliary?

Jenny McAllister

Senator Lambie, thanks for your question. Of course, as I indicated in my second reading contribution, the provision of housing for personnel remains critically important, and it's the core function of Defence Housing Australia. We have spoken in other forums about some of the initiatives that are underway to better understand the housing requirements of ADF personnel and to provision for them. Again, though, I would indicate that the bill before us is actually quite a short bill and that it's also quite narrowly constructed. It has a very limited purpose, which is simply to expand the capacity of DHA to provide housing, beyond ADF personnel, to a limited number of other categories. So I don't have detailed information of that kind, and I think questions about DHA's planning and Defence's budget are best dealt with in budget estimates or in some of the other forums available to senators.

Jacqui Lambie

First of all, this is integral because I want to know whether or not you've got enough married quarters and all the rest out there to get where you need to be by 2030 in bringing extras in. So you should have numbers in front of you. That's the first thing. We're going to go over quite a substantial thing because I need to make sure that our own have got housing if they're in uniform. That's what I want to know, and right now, because I've got no numbers and you can't give me any, there is no guarantee. That is my biggest problem. While we're here looking at numbers, can you tell how many members are in choice accommodation, how many are in living-in accommodation, how many are accessing rental assistance and how many are in service residences? I need those up-to-date numbers so you and I can go on with the conversation this morning.

Jenny McAllister

Thanks, Senator Lambie. I will provide the information that I have for you, Senator, but I think one of the things to draw the Senate's attention to is that this bill doesn't ask the Senate to make a decision about provisioning for Australian personnel or for philanthropic organisations, nor does it make a decision about provisioning for foreign service personnel. It simply creates a legislative capacity for DHA to do work of this kind. There are subsequent decisions that will need to be taken about the volume of housing that might be necessary in different places and at different times under the provisions of this bill, if it's passed, but that's not the decision that's in front of the Senate right now. The only decision before us is the decision contained in the legislation, which is, really: as a position of principle, is it okay for DHA to do work of this kind? Obviously, the government is bringing forward this bill because we believe that it is appropriate and, indeed, that it is important. I can tell you though—and I will do my best, where I can, Senator, to get the information you're asking for—that we anticipate an expansion in the order of 30,000 homes by 2040. That's the advice I have before me, Senator.

David Shoebridge

Minister, you say there's an expansion of 30,000 homes—I'm assuming through Defence Housing—are there estimates of how many of those homes or what proportion of those homes will be for foreign troops and foreign contractors as opposed to Australians?

Jenny McAllister

Senator, I can't add a great deal to the answer I've already provided. The bill before us is relatively narrow in scope. It asks us to allow, in principle, DHA to do work of this kind. Other decisions about how much, where and who are part of the ordinary budget processes of Defence. As you and I know, there are many opportunities to canvass those budget decisions during the budget estimates hearings and in other forums.

David Shoebridge

I was asking you about the information you brought to the chamber. You say that there is a prediction that there'll be these 30,000 homes built. You're now seeking the committee's agreement to allow an unknown chunk of those homes to be handed to US personnel and to foreign defence contractors. Is it your answer that you can't tell the committee how many of those homes will be now earmarked for foreign defence personnel and foreign defence contractors and that you don't have that information?

Jenny McAllister

As I've indicated, I'm trying to be careful about the information that I provide the committee, because it is important that it be accurate. The bill expands, in general, the capacity of Defence Housing Australia to provide housing for a range of personnel, including foreign personnel. I do have information about the housing demand for the estimated number of US and UK personnel coming to WA for SRF-West, if that would be of assistance. Of the 1,100 expected US and UK personnel, it is estimated that approximately half will be accompanied by their families and approximately half will arrive unaccompanied or are single. That translates into a housing demand of approximately 550 family residences and a combination of 550 one-bedroom apartments and/or on-base single living-in accommodation.

ASA and Defence will work closely together to respond to that. It will of course seek to do so in a manner that is cognisant of any impacts on local communities. That's partly why we're looking to make the changes to the legislation today. Defence Housing Australia have a well-developed business model that sees them work with private providers in the market to bring on new projects. In part, that is the model anticipated to be used to meet some of this demand. It has flow-on benefits for communities—because we have quite a number of examples where arrangements of that kind also enable bringing forward housing development that is then, through the same projects, offered into the private market.

David Shoebridge

Thanks for that additional information, Minister. I have two questions that flow from that. Is it intended those housing units be in addition to the 30,000 that you've indicated, or are they part of the 30,000 that you've indicated? That's my first question. My second question is: you indicated that the department expects the need to build 550 family homes for US and UK troops in Western Australia; is that what Senator Whiteaker was referring to in her contribution when she said Defence Housing Australia has already signed contracts for 550 new homes near Fleet Base West in the southern suburbs of Perth over the next five years?

My first question is: is that in addition to the 30,000 or part thereof? My second question is: are the 550 homes for US and UK defence personnel you're referring to the same 550 homes that Senator Whiteaker was referring to when she spoke about the signed contracts?

Jenny McAllister

Senator, in relation to whether or not the 30,000 homes includes those homes intended to be used by visiting personnel, the answer is yes. In relation to the contracts that have been entered into by DHA with developers, yes, those contracts have been entered into broadly with the intention of meeting the needs of the growth in workforce, some of whom will be workforce personnel associated with the UK and US.

David Shoebridge

Minister, what legal basis did Defence Housing Australia have to enter into contracts to build houses for US and UK troops when it signed those contracts for 550 new homes near Fleet Base West? Did they just decide that they weren't limited by the law—that they could just sign contracts to build homes for foreign defence personnel without troubling themselves with having the legal authority to do that?

Jenny McAllister

Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. Defence Housing Australia is tasked with providing housing necessary to meet Defence's operational requirements. These contracts were entered into as part of their ordinary portfolio management. Defence Housing Australia has a portfolio of homes. It includes leasing and constructing, and this is the ordinary way in which Defence Housing Australia conducts its business.

David Shoebridge

Minister, my hope would be that the ordinary way in which Defence Housing Australia conduct their business is by only entering into contracts to build homes where it is lawful to do so. I ask you again: did Defence Housing Australia sign contracts to build homes for US and UK defence personnel as part of the signed contracts for 550 homes Senator Whiteaker refers to? If so, on what possible legal basis did they do so?

Jenny McAllister

I'll refer you to my answer, Senator Shoebridge; that is the same question as the one you just asked.

David Shoebridge

Minister, I will give you a third opportunity to identify whether there was any lawful legal basis for Defence Housing Australia to sign contracts to build homes for foreign defence personnel, as Senator Whiteaker and you have now confirmed is the reality. Was there any legal basis for doing so? And, if not, will your government ensure that agencies act in accordance with the law?

Jenny McAllister

For the third time I'll answer this question. Defence Housing Australia maintains a portfolio of properties. They do so under their ordinary obligations to bring forward a portfolio of properties and manage that so it can meet Defence's operational needs. Defence Housing Australia has not entered into an agreement with a foreign military, but they are working on developing the housing requirements that will be necessary to meet the overall workforce demands in Western Australia as a consequence of the SRF—West arrangements.

David Pocock

Minister, there's a proposed DHA development in the north of Lawson, here in the ACT, and the development proposes 443 dwellings on approximately 47 or so hectares of land. A number of community groups and a large number of constituents have contacted my office with concerns that the development will have significant environmental impact. The proposal would have a significant impact on natural temperate grasslands, which form one of the most threatened ecosystems in Australia. Less than 0.5 per cent of the ecosystem remains in good condition across the country; 99.5 per cent of it has either been destroyed or is in poor condition. You can't offset that. You can't offset a critically endangered temperate grassland. We know that Defence Housing Australia have form on this. If you look at their range of projects, they're constantly coming up against the EPBC Act and often just disregarding it. This is a very serious thing that I would expect a Labor government to care a bit more about. Given the potential impact that clearing will have on golden sun moths and striped legless lizards, I'm interested in whether these changes will make it more likely that the Lawson grasslands project will go ahead.

Jenny McAllister

Thanks for your question, Senator Pocock. The broad answer is that we expect Defence Housing Australia to comply with all the environmental requirements in all the jurisdictions in which it operates. I'm not in a position to provide particular information about a particular development in the ACT. I'm aware it's one that you have a strong interest in. There will be other occasions in the Senate program where you can ask questions of officials, including at estimates, about the way they're approaching particular developments. The broad implications of the legislation before us are simply to allow Defence Housing Australia to provide housing support to a broader range of categories of persons than is presently the case under the existing legislation.

David Shoebridge

Minister, what budget line item did Defence Housing rely upon to sign contracts to build hundreds of new homes for US defence personnel in Perth? Was there a budget allocation for this? If so, what was it?

Jenny McAllister

I think it would assist Senator Shoebridge and perhaps the Senate more generally to talk a little bit about the business model for DHA. DHA doesn't receive funding through budget appropriations; it's self-funded, and that occurs through rents, fees, charges or other revenue earned through the application of its housing portfolio and service provision, and also the sale of any surplus developed land and properties. It is a government business enterprise and it exists to provide support to the Department of Defence, and the particulars of that support are operationalised through a service agreement with the Department of Defence.

David Shoebridge

Are there any payments being made by the Department of Defence under that service agreement to Defence Housing for these 550 housing units in relation to which this contract has been signed and which we now understand are for US and UK troops?

Long debate text truncated.

Sue Lines

PRESIDENT (): The question is that the remainder of the amendment, as moved by Senator Wong, be agreed to.

Anthony Chisholm

I move:

That on Wednesday, 26 March 2025:

(a) the hours of meeting be 9 am till adjournment;

(b) at 5 pm, the questions on all remaining stages of the following bills be put immediately:

(i) Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025,

(ii) Supply Bill (No. 1) 2025-26 Supply Bill (No. 2) 2025-26 Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 2025-26

(iii) Transport Security Amendment (Security of Australia's Transport Sector) Bill 2024,

(iv) AusCheck Amendment (Global Entry Program) Bill 2025, and

(v) Parliamentary Business Resources Legislation Amendment (Machinery of Government Change) Bill 2025;

(c) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm;

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

(e) the routine of business from the conclusion of consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (b), or at 6 pm, whichever is the later, be:

(i) valedictory statements, and

(ii) Budget statement and documents—party leaders and independent senators to make responses to the statement and documents for not more than 15 minutes each; and

(f) the Senate adjourn without debate on the motion of a minister.

Penny Wong

I move that the motion be amended in the terms circulated in the chamber, to read as follows:

That on Wednesday, 26 March 2025:

(a) the hours of meeting be 9 am till adjournment;

(aa) the routine of business after the placing of business be:

(i) general business notices of motion nos 807, 811, 812 and 817, proposing the introduction of bills, and

(ii) consideration of the following bills:

A. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025,

B. Supply Bill (No. 1) 2025-26

Supply Bill (No. 2) 2025-26

Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 2025-26,

C. Transport Security Amendment (Security of Australia's Transport Sector) Bill 2024,

D. AusCheck Amendment (Global Entry Program) Bill 2025, and

E. Parliamentary Business Resources Legislation Amendment (Machinery of Government Change) Bill 2025;

(ab) the business before the Senate be interrupted at 6 pm to allow senators to make valedictory statements;

(b) at 10 pm the questions on all remaining stages of the bills listed in paragraph (aa) (ii) be put immediately;

(c) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm;

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

(e) the Senate adjourn without debate on the motion of a minister.

And I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Sue Lines

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

Sarah Hanson-Young

I have an amendment to the motion. I hope that that has been circulated. I'm just clarifying.

Sue Lines

Senator Hanson-Young, the Senate has just decided that the question will be put, so I'm going to put the question and then—

Sarah Hanson-Young

Could I clarify whether my amendment has been circulated.

Sue Lines

I don't believe it has, Senator Hanson-Young. The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Jonathon Duniam

I wish to amend—I don't know if I need leave. No? I move to amend the motion as follows:

After paragraph (aa)(i) insert "consideration of proposals under standing order 75".

David Pocock

Given that we are governing by guillotine and on the fly here, could we maybe get an explanation from Senator Duniam as to what that does?

Sue Lines

Well, we're not in committee stage, and I believe that the amendment has been circulated. You need to seek leave, Senator Duniam.

Jonathon Duniam

I seek leave.

Leave granted.

To explain to the Senate what this is, it is basically enabling the debate of both the urgency and MPI matters that were circulated for debate today.

Sue Lines

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

Question agreed to.

Penny Wong

I move:

That the question be now put.

The

Senator Hanson-Young, as you know, the government jumped and they take precedence. Also, Senator Wong jumped first. The question is that the question be put on the amended motion.

Sue Lines

Senator McKim, I'm in a vote! I'm going to put the question again. Please resume your seat. The question is that the question be put on the amended motion.

Question agreed to.

The question now is that the motion, as amended by Senator Duniam, be agreed to.

Nick McKim

Just for clarity, are you putting the amended motion?

Sue Lines

Yes.

Nick McKim

In that case, could I please ask that the question be put separately in relation to part (aa)(ii)(A), on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025.

Sue Lines

Senator McKim has asked for the motion to be split. We will deal with the split part first. The question is that paragraph (aa)(ii)(A), relating to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025, be agreed to.

Sarah Hanson-Young

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the referral of a bill to a committee, as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of Senator Waters, I move:

That so much of the 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 referral of a bill to a committee.

We are seeking to suspend standing orders today to bring forward a motion to ensure that in this place, here in the Senate, we can get to do our job properly. There's a piece of legislation that's about to be tabled in the House of Representatives that no-one has really seen—no-one has looked at the detail—and it has not been through a proper process, yet the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peter Dutton, want to have it rammed through this place in under two days.

Why do they want to ram this piece of legislation through this chamber by the end of tomorrow? Because they are doing this under the cover of the federal budget, because it is a bill that guts environmental protection. It's a bill that will condemn wildlife in our country to extinction. It is a bill that will give loopholes to corporations to continue to pollute and trash our natural environment, no questions asked. It is a bill that fundamentally undermines any promises that this government has made to protect Australia's environment in this term of the parliament. It shows that this Labor government cannot be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to caring for and looking after our environment.

It shows that every time the Labor Party is under pressure from the big, foreign corporations who want to continue to trash, pollute and destroy, they go weak. They go weak because they don't have the guts to stand up to them and to stand up for the protection of our natural environment. How are they getting this done? They are entering into a stinking, rotten deal with Peter Dutton. The Liberal Party and the Labor Party are cuddling up together to do the bidding of the big, stinking, rotten corporations.

Matt O'Sullivan

Senator Hanson-Young, can I remind you to use proper titles.

Sarah Hanson-Young

Mr Dutton and Mr Albanese, the leaders of the Labor and Liberal parties, are showing they've got more care for the stinking, rotten salmon industry in this country than they do for our wildlife or for our environment.

The reason this bill needs to go to a Senate inquiry is that it is written in such a broad way. The Prime Minister will want you to believe that it is only about the rotten salmon washing up on the shores and beaches in Tasmania. He'll want to tell the people on the mainland in Australia, 'It's okay; Tasmanians can deal with the rotten salmon but we will look after you on the mainland.' But this bill has such broad, sweeping powers that it undermines environmental protection across the board. This will allow a carve-out and a loophole not just for the rotten salmon industry but also for the fossil fuel industry, for the logging industry, for the big polluters, for the small polluters and for the environmental wreckers. This bill guts environmental protection in the name of profits for the big corporations, in the name of the stinking, rotten politics that dominates the thinking of the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. On the eve of the election, under the cover of the federal budget, the Labor Party and Mr Dutton are working together in a stinking, rotten deal to cut environmental protection, to ram through legislation in the middle of the night while no-one is watching. The Senate hasn't even had the opportunity to do its job.

We oppose this piece of legislation because it's rotten. It stinks. The Senate should be able to do its job, because the ramifications of this bill for the environment, for other wildlife species, for other parts of nature, for the community and for industry are virtually unknown. This bill was put together in a hasty way so that the Prime Minister had something to sell on his next trip down to Tasmania. This is all about rank, stinking, rotten politics. It is not about policy, it is not about giving the community a voice and it certainly isn't about doing the right thing by the environment. The Prime Minister wants us to chew down on the rotten salmon, and we won't have it.

Jonathon Duniam

What we have here is a government that is trying to do something it should have done a very long time ago. While we don't support the reference of this bill to an inquiry and we don't agree with some of the points made there, one thing we can all agree on is that this government has handled the situation before us terribly with regard to the salmon industry in Tasmania, which is why we have legislation here.

The only reason there is a bill that has been brought in at the eleventh hour to remedy this terrible, sorry saga is that the Minister for the Environment and Water has not done her job. Salmon workers in the electorate of Braddon in Tasmania have been facing this situation for more than a year—nearly 18 months. For two Christmases, these salmon workers have had no certainty about their employment. Those opposite said: 'We're going to follow process. We're going to follow the laws.' That was until the minister told her party, the government, 'We aren't going to do anything about it.' So the Prime Minister has been forced to bring in legislation relating to this issue. The more bizarre thing about this is who has brought it in. I don't think it's under the minister for environment's name. I don't think it stands in her name; I think it stands in someone else's name, which I find passing strange, given it is a bill to amend the EPBC Act. It does rather speak to some very deep divides within this government.

We read reports yesterday with regard to how long the Labor Party's caucus meeting to deal with this issue went on. There are people who are not happy within the government, which makes me wonder whether they are going to stick to their guns with this promise they're making, these laws that they've brought before the parliament. The Prime Minister promised these laws on 15 February—over a month ago—and on that day we wrote to the Prime Minister and said: 'We'd like to see these laws. This is urgent. We've been calling on you to fix this now for the better part of 18 months.' We didn't get a reply, so we chased up with phone calls, we sought briefings and we said we would make ourselves available at any time, anywhere, to understand the legislation they intended to bring in. We got our briefing and the copy of the bill yesterday afternoon, the day before parliament sat and the bill was introduced into the other place. I dare say it was the same for the crossbench as well. That is not good government; that is not good process.

I understand why the Australian Greens are frustrated, because this has been rushed in here in the hopes that they can fix a political issue. Rather, it highlights how desperate they're becoming, when, in order to get this thing through the Labor caucus, the Prime Minister has to commit to reintroducing legislation he promised would not come back in the form of the environment protection authority. We were told that in the state of Western Australia. The Prime Minister himself flew over there and took the entire cabinet to assure the mining industry that it was going to be okay. He said: 'There'll be no EPA under me. We will not be legislating to establish a new federal EPA. Don't worry about it.' Then, of course, we learned that secret deals were done between the crossbench and the minister for the environment. We had those big pages of black ink where the details of the deals were redacted. We still don't know what was in them, but here is the Prime Minister saying to his party room: 'Look, I know this is a bitter pill to swallow. We have to pass these laws to win the seats of Braddon and Lyons, and, as a sweetener, we're going to give you an EPA.' It is an EPA we oppose. We say it is bad for jobs and for the economy. In fact, we'll probably unpick anything that the legislation which is the subject of this motion will establish.

You have a minister for the environment who has refused to act for 18 months, even at the request of the Prime Minister—so much so that he has been forced to bring in legislation to work around his minister. How is that for good, stable government or good process? It's not in her name. It rather alarms me that this is the situation we're in. We are not even 100 per cent sure that we have a bill that does what it needs to, so we'll see whether amendments need to be made. We have a government going into an election that, if the polls are to be believed, will probably see them end up in a minority government with our good friends down here the Australian Greens. How do you think this little set-up is going to withstand a partnership arrangement? Not very well at all, I would argue. I dare say the people of Braddon and of Lyons whose livelihoods depend on this industry that we're supposed to be protecting here at the eleventh hour would not survive.

So I say to the government that we will be opposing this motion, but this government has handled this entire issue appallingly. It is clearly a political fix—not a proper one that should be afforded to the people of Tasmania.

Penny Wong

Well, it's budget day, so the non-government parties are doing their thing, which is a bit of political grandstanding to try to desperately get themselves into a media cycle.

Nick McKim

This is actually you colluding with them!

Penny Wong

I listened to her in silence. I listened to Senator Hanson-Young in silence. Thank you. We had Senator Cash trying to bring forward a private senator's bill to talk about the CFMEU, because you don't want us to talk about anything other than the cost of living and health or anything other than Medicare and the secret cuts that we know the coalition is planning. Now we have Senator Hanson-Young, who wants to have a debate that she knows she can have tomorrow, but she just wants to have two goes at it. Meanwhile, we know that on the program for the Senate to debate is the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill 2024. I'd say to Senator Waters that you are very keen to pass this but not so keen that you would say to Senator Hanson-Young, 'Maybe we won't do the stunt today, because we've got plenty of time to have this argument after we've dealt with the women's gender equality amendment.' It's a bill that could have been passed in February, a bill which is about women's economic security and a bill which the opposition previously supported but now has backflipped on.

I would encourage the Senate to get to that legislation which this government wants passed. With that, I move:

That the motion be now put.

Matt O'Sullivan

The question is that the motion moved by Minister Wong to put the question be agreed to.

Ross Cadell

Here we have it. Here we have living proof that this is a rushed policy on offshore wind. It isn't a policy that's sustainable. It isn't a policy that does anything. It is a policy that has got it wrong, so we have to go back and fix up what is already wrong with it. We haven't even built one!

Yesterday in question time was like the episode of Seinfeld about the reservation policy. This government knows how to take the reservation, but it doesn't know how to hold it. 'This is what we're doing in policy. We know how to put out the guidelines, but we don't know how to build it.' We heard about housing yesterday: 'We know how to fund it. We don't know how to build it.' We heard about doctors: 'We know how to fund them. We don't know how to get them.'

This is where offshore wind is. They've got this great idea: 'Let's go and build something that's never been built, a floating offshore wind farm on an industrial scale off the coast of New South Wales.' Then we find out the minister doesn't know he's got powers he's meant to have. He did not know the powers he's meant to have in regulation and the way they issue these things. So they come back, and he says, 'We've got to fix it up and we've got to make it retrospective. We've got to go retrospective on what we can do and how we can give these grants, how we can give these leases, so that we don't have to go through consultation for the people that did it a different way and we don't have to go through community consultation. We don't have to go and talk to the people; we just make it retrospective.' It's like the opposite of a superpower: the ability to not know what powers you've got. And this is this minister, rushing headlong into an unsustainable way.

There is a sustainable way to do renewables, and that's why we have renewables in our plan, but it has to be done better. Throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks is a plan for a farce. That's why we'll have blackouts. The superman who is doing this is 'Blackout man', not 'Renewables man'.

Sue Lines

Senators, pursuant to order, the time for consideration of this bill has expired. I will now put the question before the chair and put the questions on the remaining stages of the bill. I first deal with the second reading amendment circulated by the opposition. The question is that the opposition amendment on sheet 3332 to be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendment—

Omit all words after "That:, substitute "the Senate notes that:

(a) the bill is specifically designed to make electricity more expensive for Australian families;

(b) Australian families have already seen their electricity prices increase by $1,000 under the Albanese Government;

(c) Prime Minister Albanese told Australians 97 times before the election that their electricity bills would fall by $275 a year, but has instead delivered price increases; and

(d) a Labor-Greens minority government would introduce super-charged nature positive laws to make electricity even more expensive".

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 795 standing in the name of Senator Hodgins-May be agreed to.

Steph Hodgins-May

I move:

That—

(a) immediately after a message from the House of Representatives is reported in relation to the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025, the questions on all stages of the bill be put;

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

(c) divisions may take place for the purposes of the bill notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and

(d) to avoid doubt, the bill may be considered before the Education and Employment Legislation Committee presents its report on its inquiry into the provisions of the bill, and the inquiry may proceed notwithstanding the passage of the bill.

Katy Gallagher

I seek leave to move an amendment to the motion. It's been circulated. This amendment would simply add the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill 2024 at the end of section (a). So it would be to add, at the end of the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025, the workplace gender equality bill as part of that.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving an amendment to the motion.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Lidia Thorpe

It's the anniversary of Captain Cook being eaten tomorrow That's something to celebrate, all those love bugs down there. Captain Cook got eaten tomorrow, on 14 February.

Sue Lines

Senator Thorpe, come to order.

Lidia Thorpe

Okay.

Sue Lines

The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders as moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.

Sue Lines

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Duniam to the motion on the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.

Penny Wong

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

James McGrath

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

Sue Lines

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