Larissa Waters

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of legislation, as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to the 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 provide that a motion relating to the consideration of legislation may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.

What the Greens are seeking to do here is to ensure that seminal legislation to underwrite 32 gigawatts of renewable energy investment pass this chamber today. We have secured amendments in the other place to make sure that this 32-gigawatt clean energy target is written into law. The reason we did that is that nobody knows what the parliament's going to look like in a few short months but we do know that Mr Dutton will certainly not back in clean energy for this country. In fact, he'd rather prop up coal and gas, using a nuclear fantasy as a fig leaf. So it is absolutely crucial that anyone who supports clean energy, in particular solar and wind, sees this legislation pass today.

We know that the opposition will try every trick in the book to talk out this bill. They'll probably seek their own suspension. They will throw every procedural trick in the book that they've got at this, and that is exactly why we need to make sure that, today, this chamber deals with this piece of legislation. We will not stand by and watch the country go down a nuclear fantasy path, which simply props up coal and gas in the meantime, when we have a chance today to legislate the Capacity Investment Scheme—the government underwriting of the clean energy industry. This is a very important decision that the chamber will be making, and I know the crossbench know that, if they support clean energy, then they need to support this suspension.

The other reason that we're moving this suspension today is to make sure that the gender pay gap legislation also has a chance to pass this parliament. The other thing we know that Mr Dutton doesn't like—it's not just renewable energy—is women getting a fair go. He doesn't support that, either. We know the Liberal Party will be opposing the legislation to require mega companies to close their gender pay gaps, so we are moving this suspension motion today to make sure that this chamber can actually improve women's rights at work—so they can be paid fairly—and ensure that the climate crisis can be tackled with decent investment in clean energy.

Mr Dutton does not want big businesses to close the gender pay gaps that they've identified. In years gone by, the Liberal Party didn't support the gender pay gap legislation at all. The problem with that law has been that, whilst companies have had to identify whether they have a gender pay gap, they haven't had to do anything to close it. Well, today's legislation is the first step to say to those super big companies, the ones over 500 workers, that they not only have to identify their gender pay gap but also have to actually do something to close that pay gap. That's really important.

If this parliament does not ensure that that legislation passes today, you can bet your bottom dollar that Mr Dutton's Liberal Party in minority government would not be progressing that. In fact they'll probably try to further undermine women's rights at work. So today is the chance for everyone in this chamber, the women in particular, to back in women's rights at work and to back in the right for us to receive fair pay. That is precisely why it is crucial that we ensure that these two pieces of legislation pass the parliament today. I'm urging our friends on the crossbench—because we know we certainly won't get any support from the coalition over there—to vote for the climate, for women and for integrity. Let's get this done today.

Jonathon Duniam

Who's in charge today? It looks like the Greens are in charge. It is again another great, big preview into what life after the next election is going to be like if there is a minority Labor-Green government elected. We've had the Greens march in and tell Labor what deal they want today, what deal they want to strike, and it's great for Australians to know, ahead of this election, that this is the kind of stuff they can expect on steroids after the election.

The bills that the Greens are insisting pass through are the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 and the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill 2024, and the Greens are suggesting that these bills somehow will benefit a cohort of people that the Liberals are opposed to. I'll tell you what the first bill they want to rush through this place won't do—the one about more renewables. It won't bring down power prices by one cent. Here we are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, and one of the biggest pressures households face is power prices. And we can't forget that Prime Minister Albanese and his frontbench went out there and said 97 times before Australians cast their vote at the previous election that power bills would go down by $275. Instead of that actually being the case, Australian households are on average paying more than $1,000 more in power bills per year. The government's response to this crisis that Australian households and businesses are facing is to jam into this place—in partnership with, facilitated by and brought on by the Greens—a bill to bring more renewables into the grid and fast-track all of that, which will again drive up power prices.

This is an amazing insight into how a Labor-Green government will work after this election. They give no care when it comes to the cost-of-living crisis households are facing. Here we are on the death knell, the last sitting day, I expect, before the election, and this is demonstrating this government's priorities in partnership with their friends, their coalition partners, the Greens. It's about electricity infrastructure legislation, very benignly named, but you can be guaranteed that this will not only not do a thing to ease the burdens that households and businesses face but also make things far worse.

It will be interesting to see whether the government support this approach being led by the Greens. I've lived through Labor-Green governments in Tasmania, and we've seen it here at a federal level. They are disastrous. Things that are bad get worse under Labor-Green governments. Industries shut down. Investors flee the country because they know that there will be no certainty. Sovereign risk becomes an issue. Jobs evaporate, particularly in our regions, where you have miners, fishers, foresters and farmers being strangled by green tape. This legislation that this cohort, the Australian Greens in partnership with the Labor Party, are going to rush through this place will make all of that worse.

This is a prime example of what a Bandt-Albanese government would look like after this election if people are conned into voting for them. If the government roll over and allow this to happen, it is proof positive that the government will be like this after the election. They will happily wave through whatever agenda it is the Greens want to bring on. In Tasmania we have a saying: 'It's the Green tail wagging the Labor dog.' Having lived through a Labor-Green government and having seen what destruction is wreaked upon a jurisdiction—in our case Tasmania, where we saw our economy continually shrink, with great swathes of productive and well-managed land locked up at the behest of the Greens—I ask: what's on the table here? If the goal is to stay on the Treasury benches and for Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, to hang onto the keys to the Lodge, what price will he pay to do that? We are getting hints and previews, and can I tell you that anything that the Australian Greens vote for is generally very, very bad. They are not pro jobs. They are not pro the economy. They are certainly not pro regional Australia. They're a party that claim to be the friends of the worker and say they will have a future made in Australia. None of that is possible if you do deals with this crowd down the end here who want to choke our economy. They represent downtown Melbourne and Sydney—big population centres—not people in our regions. I say to the government: don't roll over. Don't be led by the Australian Greens here. It'll be bad for Australians, and you know it. Prove them wrong, and don't support this ridiculous motion.

Murray Watt

These bills that are the subject of the Greens motion are obviously government bills that, of course, we support. They're important bills to do with electricity infrastructure in Australia and also gender equality—two issues that our government has stood very strongly on. As I say, they are government bills. The Greens have put forward a motion to bring them on for debate. Given they are government bills, we would support the idea of this parliament progressing the bills, and for that reason we'll be supporting the motion. On that basis, I move:

That the question be now put.

James McGrath

The question before the chair is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to.

Sue Lines

The question is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.

Malcolm Roberts

by leave—I indicate that I have changed my vote on SC136 from support to oppose.

Long debate text truncated.

Long debate text truncated.

David Fawcett

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

David Fawcett

I'll now deal with Pauline Hanson's One Nation amendment on sheet 3319. The question is that the Pauline Hanson's One Nation amendment on sheet 3319 be agreed to.

Pauline Hanson One Nation's circulated amendments—

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) calls on the Government to:

(i) hold a referendum to alter the Constitution so that;

(A) senators and members of the House of Representatives serve four years terms, and

(B) elections for the House of Representatives and the whole Senate must be held on the same day, and

(C) the number of senators from each State is fixed at no more than twelve, and

(D) the number of senators from the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory is fixed at no more than two, and

(E) senators and members of the House of Representatives must resign from the Parliament if their party affiliation, or status as an independent, at the time of their election changes during the course of their term, and

(ii) modernise and digitise the electoral roll so that an elector is automatically marked as having voted in an election as soon as they are provided with a ballot paper as currently occurs in Queensland".

Gerard Rennick

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the second reading stage of the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 without limitation of time.

Well, the fix is in, isn't it? We've got the two major parties in the dead of night trying to pass a bill that is going to entrench their stale, putrid monopoly. That's what you expect from stale, putrid major parties who have no policy ideas of their own and where all they can do is manipulate the law and manipulate the rules to constantly protect themselves. The public are awake to this. If you look at the combined primary vote of the two major parties, it is going one way and that is down—because this chamber is nothing but a Punch and Judy show by members of parties who are party bred and party fed. One of my former staffers used to call it 'Union bred, union fed', but what we really have here is major party bred, major party fed. They're the same careerists who started off in the Young LNP and Young Labor, they've never had any real life experience and they don't know how to relate to the common man on the street. The only way that they can continue to protect their little racket is to manipulate the rules of the game. I'm a victim of that because my own party manipulated the rules of the game, and I took them to court. Do you know what the judge said? 'We're not going to rule. Political parties aren't justiciable.' There you have it, people. The Supreme Court of Queensland ruled that the very political parties who make the law are above the law. What sort of a democratic system is that?

We've had three years to debate this bill, but no—these guys cannot face scrutiny. If you put any sunlight on these guys, it's like throwing water on a witch: they'll just fade away like in the Wizard of Oz'I'm melting!' Not only do they not have any policy solutions to deal with the cost of living or anything like that; they just want to keep their protection racket going. I am calling you guys out. I think it's a very low act to be guillotining this bill, and it's a very low act to be pushing it through in what looks to be the last sitting week of this term. There have been no solutions in this term. The first half of the term was dominated by Labor and the Voice, where they wanted to split the country on race. The second half has been all about Israel and Palestine, because that's a nice deflection from the fact that none of you guys have any solutions to deal with the cost of living, the immigration problem, the cost of housing or the energy crisis, or to help people who are struggling from government neglect through vaccine injuries, robodebt—you name it.

This place has a stench. It is a dead, putrid carcass flapping in the breeze, and the people of Australia are awake to it. We'll see more and more people turn away from the major parties. The only way the major parties can protect themselves is by having dodgy rules. The one that really grinds my gears—and I'll be moving an amendment on this in a minute—is that parties that get less than four per cent of the vote don't get any electoral funding whatsoever. So, if you vote for a minor party, in the eyes of the major party you're not as worth as much. They will only reward you if you vote for one of them. That's straight-out bribery. There ought to be laws against that. Everyone who votes should be worth $3.50 a vote, but, of course, the major parties don't want the minor parties and wouldn't like the minor parties getting some money, because God forbid the minor parties actually have some solutions and aren't beholden to the big end of town.

Pay attention to all these amendments. What are we always asking for at this end of the chamber? Greater accountability, greater scrutiny and greater protection of the people. But do we get that? No. What we have is these two major parties protecting the big end of town, big government, the big bureaucracies, big media, big corporations and their mates in the big super funds. It's all about the establishment. On that side you've got the command-and-control communists and on this side you've got the born-to-rule fascists. It doesn't matter what you do, the two major parties are only interested in controlling you, not serving you.

Katy Gallagher

I move:

That the question be now put.

David Fawcett

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

Sue Lines

I shall now deal with the second reading amendment circulated by the Australian Greens. As this amendment was not circulated within the required timeframe, it can only be considered by leave.

Nick McKim

by leave—I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) the Disability Support Pension (DSP) partner income test traps disabled people in abusive relationships by forcing people into a dynamic of financial dependency,

(ii) the DSP partner income test also prevents members of the community from forming relationships and getting married, and genuine marriage and partner equality must include the abolition of the partner income test,

(iii) the low rate of the DSP forces many disabled people in vicious cycles of poverty, fear and pain,

(iv) the tightening of eligibility of the DSP forces many people living with disability to rely on the lower rate under JobSeeker, entrenching poverty and disadvantage,

(v) poverty is a political choice; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) abolish the punitive partner income test for the DSP, and

(ii) raise the rate of income support payments as a matter of urgency".

Sue Lines

The question is that the Australian Greens amendment on sheet 3301 be agreed to.

Louise Pratt

Pursuant to order, we will go back to questions on amendments in committee. The question before the chamber now is that the Australian Greens amendment on sheet 3285 and requests for amendments on sheets 3021 and 3023 be agreed to.

Australian Greens circulated amendment—

SHEET 3285

(1) Schedule 1, page 21 (after line 6), after item 66, insert:

66A After Part 6 of Chapter 11

Insert:

Part 6A — Review

438A Review of meaning of warlike service

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted into whether it is appropriate for the meaning of the expression warlike service in section 6 to include peacekeeping service, including in areas of high risk and local or regional instability.

(2) The review must make provision for public consultation.

(3) The review must start as soon as practicable after the commencement of this section.

(4) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months of the commencement of the review.

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

Australian Greens circulated requests for amendments—

SHEET 3021

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5), omit the table item, substitute:

(2) Page 268 (after line 14), after Schedule 6, insert:

Schedule 6A — Nuclear test participants

Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests and British Commonwealth Occupation Force (Treatment) Act 2006

1 Subparagraph 5(3A)(b)(iv)

Omit "; and".

2 At the end of paragraph 5(3A)(b)

Add:

; or (v) an officer or employee of a government body, or an authority, of South Australia acting in the course of the officer or employee's duties; and

3021-EM

______

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (2)

Amendment (2) is framed as a request because it adds an additional class of persons who are eligible to be provided with Commonwealth-funded treatment under the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests and British Commonwealth Occupation Force (Treatment) Act 2006.

As the effect of the amendment is to increase the number of individuals who would be eligible to be provided with Commonwealth-funded treatment, the amendment is likely to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 49 of the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests and British Commonwealth Occupation Force (Treatment) Act 2006.

Amendment (1)

Amendment (1) is consequential to amendment (2).

______

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (2)

If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 49 of the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests and British Commonwealth Occupation Force (Treatment) Act 2006 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.

Amendment (1)

This amendment is consequential on the request. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request.

_____

SHEET 3023

(1) Schedule 1, item 58, page 15 (lines 17 and 18), omit the item, substitute:

58 Paragraphs 6(1)(a) and (b)

Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:

(a) warlike service means service with the Defence Force that is of a kind determined in writing by the Defence Minister to be warlike service for the purposes of this Act, or service that is National Service Act service; and

(b) non-warlike service means service with the Defence Force that is of a kind determined in writing by the Defence Minister to be non-warlike service for the purposes of this Act; and

(2) Schedule 1, item 60, page 20 (after line 7), after section 6C, insert:

6D Meaning of National Service Act service

(1) A person has rendered National Service Act service if the person rendered service because of a notice under section 26 of the National Service Act 1951 in the period beginning on 24 November 1964 and ending on 5 December 1972.

(2) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) applies regardless of whether the service was undertaken outside Australia.

3023-EM

_____

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (1)

Amendment (1) is framed as a request because it adds an additional class of persons who are eligible to be provided with income support under Part III of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986.

As the effect of the amendment is to increase the number of individuals who would be eligible to be provided with income support, the amendment is likely to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 199 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986.

Amendment (2)

Amendment (2) is consequential to amendment (1).

______

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (1)

If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 199 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.

Amendment (2)

This amendment is consequential on the request. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request.

Katy Gallagher

I move the motion as circulated:

That today:

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

(b) the following bills be called on immediately and have precedence over all other business:

(i) Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024,

(ii) Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2025,

(iii) Social Security Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes) Bill 2025,

(iv) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2024-2025

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2024-2025

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025,

(v) Health Legislation Amendment (Modernising My Health Record—Sharing by Default) Bill 2024, and

(vi) Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024;

(c) the questions on all remaining stages of the bills in paragraph (b) be put after a total of one hour of consideration;

(d) the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 then be called on and the time allotted for its consideration be as follows:

(i) second reading—one hour, and

(ii) all remaining stages—90 mins;

(e) paragraphs (c) and (d) operate as limitations of debate under standing order 142;

(f) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm until consideration of the bills has concluded; and

(g) the Senate adjourn without debate after consideration of the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 has concluded.

Sue Lines

Senators, the procedural motion just agreed to requires that the substantive motion be put without amendment or debate, so I'll now put the question. The question is that the motion be agreed to.