Andrew McLachlan

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

Andrew McLachlan

I will now deal with Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by Senator Thorpe. We are on sheet 3259 and amendments (1), (3) and (10) standing in the name of Senator Thorpe. The question is that, in schedule 1, items 10, 18 and 21 stand as printed.

Senator Thorpe opposed schedule 1 in the following terms

(1) Schedule 1, item 10, page 5 (lines 9 and 10), to be opposed.

(3) Schedule 1, item 18, page 7 (lines 13 and 14), to be opposed.

(10) Schedule 1, item 21, page 18 (lines 8 to 10), to be opposed.

Andrew McLachlan

It's my intention to come to the amendment moved on sheet 3284 by Senator Faruqi. After that, in accordance with order, I will then deal with all of the remaining Committee of the Whole amendments, starting with the next amendment, which is also in the name of the Australian Greens. The question from sheet 3284, standing in the name of the Australian Greens, is that schedule 2 stand as printed.

Mehreen Faruqi

I move the Greens amendment on sheet 3284:

(1) Schedule 2, page 19 (line 1) to page 21 (line 11), to be opposed.

This amendment is about removing mandatory minimum sentencing, which is cruel, inappropriate, highly discriminatory and unjust. Mandatory minimum sentencing is going to make no-one safer in this country. Labor should think about what they are doing here.

Nick McKim

Think about your own policy.

Mehreen Faruqi

Yes, exactly. It is a backflip on your own policy after promises that Senator Watt, who is sitting right there, made just two days ago. Think about how this will impact First Nations communities, First Nations children, people of colour. The exact groups that you say you want to expand protections for will be targeted by mandatory minimum sentencing. Shame on you. There is still time. Let's get these highly unjust laws out of this bill—

Andrew McLachlan

Thank you, Senator Faruqi. I'm required now, by a previous order, to put the question. This will be the first question that I'll put, and then—Senator Pocock?

David Pocock

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

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the bill without limitation of time.

It's a pretty extraordinary move when you have a bill that has the broad support of the community, is something that Australians recognise that we need and has the support of the crossbench to pass—and to potentially pass with some strengthening and sensible amendments, which the member for Wentworth, Allegra Spender, moved in the other place—yet we have Labor capitulating to the coalition to add mandatory minimum sentences and totally politicise a bill that could have seen the parliament, the Senate, say, 'This is important in our community, and we're not going to stand for it.' They've now added something for which there is absolutely no evidence that it works—no evidence that mandatory minimum sentencing works.

It's against Labor's policy platform. Earlier I read out four or five quotes from Labor ministers, including Senator Watt, saying exactly that, saying: 'It doesn't work. Why would we vote for something that had mandatory minimum sentencing?' And now you're putting the crossbench in a position where we have good policy that has the support of our constituents, that we've consulted on, that we're set to vote for, and you've done an overnight deal where you've added something that has no justification, no backing from any expert. Then you give us absolutely no time to actually consult—15 minutes to consider this bill in Committee of the Whole, three questions from Senator Cash, one vote on an amendment, and then we're into it.

I feel that this is so disrespectful to the communities we represent. My team has been frantically ringing around—ringing the Canberra Jewish community, the Muslim community, the LGBTI community—saying, 'Hey, we support this bill, but now there's mandatory minimum sentencing; what do you want to do?' No-one supports the mandatory minimum sentencing. It's so shameful.

You can see this coming from the coalition. They want to talk tough on national security. Yet it turns out that when they're in there they're actually not that tough, that all sorts of things have been happening. But the disappointing thing is that Labor is doing this—going against their own principles. I do not understand and I don't know who they're trying to please with this because it certainly isn't rank-and-file Labor members or Labor voters, who believe in something.

I have serious concerns about the process of this and serious concerns about what's been cooked up that took a good bill, which had broad support and which was long overdue, and politicised it and added a whole lot of stuff to it that makes it very, very hard to vote for.

Murray Watt

I move:

That the question be now put.

Andrew McLachlan

The question is that the question be put.

Sarah Hanson-Young

We are seeking to have the two points of the final motion put separately.

Sue Lines

The question is that paragraph (b) of the amended motion be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question is that part (c) of the amended motion be agreed to.

Sue Lines

The question is that the paragraph (c) of Senator Duniam's amendment be agreed to.

Katy Gallagher

At the request of Senator Chisholm, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Liberals and Nationals have teamed up with the Greens and One Nation to block:

(A) faster environmental approvals for businesses,

(B) easier access to the latest environmental data for businesses, and

(C) fast-tracking work with the states for critical minerals, housing and other energy projects,

(ii) under the last Liberal Government, the Liberals cut 40% from the federal Environment department,

(iii) under the last Liberal Government, the average decision for a new project was 116 days behind schedule, and

(iv) under the last Liberal Government, 80% of decisions contained errors or were non-compliant;

(b) calls on the Liberals and Nationals to rule out any future cuts to the Environment department; and

(c) That the government business order of the day relating to the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024 and related bills be discharged from the Notice Paper.

Wendy Askew

I seek leave to move an amendment to the motion as circulated in the chamber under Senator Duniam's name.

Sue Lines

It has been circulated, I understand. I'll just clarify: Senator Askew has indicated that she is moving an amendment to government business No. 1. It's standing in the name of Senator Duniam. It was circulated. I'm just checking in that senators—okay. So that's all good. Thank you, Senator Askew.

Leave granted.

Wendy Askew

I move the amendment:

Omit paragraph (a).

Omit paragraph (b).

At the end of paragraph (c), add ", and the Senate calls on the Labor Party to guarantee that this legislation never be returned to the Parliament".

Sue Lines

Senator Pocock, I note you've got an amendment as well.

David Pocock

Do we deal with that one first, or do I move mine as well?

Sue Lines

Let me just seek the advice of the Clerk, because I'm not sure; sometimes amendments cancel one other out. We'll deal with Senator Askew's first. So the question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Askew, standing in the name of Senator Duniam, to government business notice of motion No. 1 be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Nick McKim

President, I'm sorry for the late notice. I would like to ask that the question be split, so I'm asking for the division to be cancelled in order to do that.

Sue Lines

Okay. Let's cancel that division, and I will call the amendment again. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Askew to government business notice of motion No. 1 be agreed to.

Nick McKim

President, I ask that you put the questions separately in relation to (b), which is the part that says 'calls on the Liberals and Nationals to rule out any future cuts to the environment department'. We wish to vote differently on that compared to the other elements of this amendment.

Sue Lines

If it suits the chamber, I will put (b) first and then the remaining motion. Senator McGrath?

James McGrath

President, to clarify: the motion before the chair is the deletion of paragraph (b) as per the amendment that was moved by Senator Askew in the name of Senator Duniam?

Sue Lines

Yes. The Greens party have indicated that they want the motion split. They've asked for (b), which starts off with 'calls on the Liberals and Nationals' to be voted on separately, and I'll put the vote on that.

Senator McKim, don't shout out. I'll come to you. Yes, Senator McKim?

Nick McKim

My bad—and (c). We would like (b) and (c) put separately to (a).

Sue Lines

Senator McGrath, this might assist you. The motion I would put is that the amendment to paragraph (b) be agreed to, and if that got up that would delete that paragraph.

James McGrath

To confirm, we are voting on the deletion of paragraph (b), and paragraph (c) is not involved and paragraph (a) is not involved.

Sue Lines

That's right. I believe we need to call a division. The question is that paragraph (b) of the amendment moved by Senator Duniam be agreed to.

Sue Lines

I remind senators that on Monday 25 November 2024, after 6.30 pm, a division was called on the motion moved by Senator Hanson relating to a proposed reference to the Community Affairs References Committee. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate for the deferred vote to be held now. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Larissa Waters

I move:

That general business order of the day no. 28, relating to the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2022, be discharged from the Notice Paper.

Simon Birmingham

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Simon Birmingham

I do not support the bill that is the subject of this discharge motion. Like Senators Hume, Kovacic and a number of my colleagues, I would not and will not ever vote for this bill or any measures that restrict women's reproductive rights. However, the coalition opposes this motion because this motion is a threat to the ability of private senators to perform their duties in this place. Private senators' bills have traditionally only ever been discharged by the sponsoring senator, rather than the majority denying a senator the right to even have their bill considered. Crossbench senators in particular should reflect on the precedent this motion sets, which could see other bills discharged just because a majority oppose them. Given that this bill has been on the Notice Paper for almost two years, the decision of the Greens to pursue this at this time is clearly about politics, not the substantive issue. The Greens did not oppose the introduction of the bill, the first reading of the bill or the Senate referral of the bill.

In fact, frankly, until today, they've spent more time opposing transmission lines inquiries than this bill. Senators, whatever your views on the substance, I urge you to respect the principle of allowing each other to at least have bills debated and considered, by voting against this discharge motion.

Malcolm Roberts

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Malcolm Roberts

One Nation opposes this motion. Only Queensland and Victoria publicly release fulsome data on babies born alive after abortion. From this information and from media reports, we know of the following babies born alive, tossed in a cold, stainless-steel kidney dish and left to die alone and shivering: Victoria, 396; Queensland, 328; South Australia, 54; Western Australia, 27; New South Wales, one—they don't know; Northern Territory, one; and the ACT—not reported. Senator Waters may never acknowledge this reality. These numbers are significantly less than the overall number of babies born alive following a failed abortion—babies born alive. Data reporting on abortion varies between states and territories, and there's only limited data publicly released. This is a disgrace.

David Pocock

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

David Pocock

This is not a bill that I intend to support. Regulations surrounding abortion care are matters for the states and territories, not for this parliament. Neither side should seek to play politics with what is an issue of women's health care. In the ACT, there are already laws that ensure care is provided to all babies born alive, no matter the circumstances of their birth. If senators feel that those laws are not being upheld, they should take it up with their state or territory.

The bill is dishonestly framed to make political points; however, I believe it is undemocratic for the Senate to remove this bill without debate. There are many opportunities to oppose the first reading or the referral to committee, and those were not taken, as has been pointed out. This has been sitting here for two years. As much as we may disagree with the senators that have brought this bill into the chamber, under the standing orders they have the right to do so and to have their bills debated.

Tammy Tyrrell

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Tammy Tyrrell

I think the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill is abhorrent. I don't support the bill, but I support the right of anyone who wants to debate the bill, either in support or in opposition, to have the chance to speak. When I saw this motion, my first instinct was to support it, but then I listened to Senator Babet speak in the chamber about debate on this bill being stifled. Senator Babet's words reminded me that our democracy gives us the opportunity to share our thoughts. I'm not supporting the motion to discharge the bill from the Notice Paper. We should all have equal opportunity to speak on what is important to us and to those that we represent.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion no. 677, standing the in name of Senator Waters be agreed to.

Glenn Sterle

The committee is considering the Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024. Yesterday evening, divisions were called on various amendments. The votes on those amendments will now be held, starting with the amendments moved by Senator Faruqi on sheet 2949.

The question is that the Greens amendments on sheet 2949 be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendments—

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit "Part 1".

(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 3 to 6), omit the table items.

(3) Schedule 1, page 4 (line 1) to page 28 (line 10), omit the Schedule, substitute:

Schedule 1 — Ending HELP indexation

Higher Education Support Act 2003

1 Subsection 140-5(1)

Repeal the subsection (not including the method statement), substitute:

(1) A person's former accumulated HELP debt, in relation to the person's *accumulated HELP debt for a financial year, is the amount worked out using the following method statement:

2 Sections 140-10 and 140-20

Repeal the sections.

3 Subclause 1(1) of Schedule 1 (definition of HELP debt indexation factor )

Repeal the definition.

4 Application of amendments

The amendments of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 made by this Schedule apply in relation to a person's *accumulated HELP debt for a financial year that begins on or after 1 July 2025.