Deborah O'Neill

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

Sue Lines

The question is that the motion on paragraph (iv), relating to the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2024 and the Australian Naval Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024, be agreed to.

Bridget McKenzie

I move an amendment to part (b) of the motion:

Omit "14 November 2024", substitute "31 January 2025".

The Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024—53 pages of legislation—which was handed to the parliament at midday yesterday, makes the biggest change in three decades to the slot-management system, the access, into Sydney airport, our busiest airport in this country.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the crossbenchers, who last year worked with me to set up an inquiry into the Qatar Airways decision, which unmasked the government's lack of action around competition in the aviation sector and around these very longstanding, protected relationships, which, the Prime Minister and Alan Joyce notwithstanding, go back a long time and have had a significant impact on the reliability and price of aviation for everyday Australians.

I believe the significance of this change requires a longer inquiry. I appreciate that the government wants to get this through before going to an election and I don't want to stand in the way of changing a regulatory environment that is costing Australians each and every day, but I do believe that it is this chamber's responsibility to give the committee and stakeholders a chance to have an authentic and genuine engagement with the material, with the bill, and to provide, once again, the Senate and the government with sensible recommendations, as we did with the Senate bilateral air services agreements inquiry last year.

I'm not seeking an endless inquiry. This is a Labor government-controlled legislation inquiry. I know that right now senators and committees are very pressed for time. This will require more than two hearings to do it justice and to get it written and reported on in time for our next sitting date. If there are more submissions than we expect or there are more complexities than we've already uncovered in the brief time we've had the legislation before us, it won't allow us the opportunity to extend the inquiry. That is why I've set the reporting date at 31 January: it's so that the report can be delivered in time for the legislation to appear before the Senate and be debated and moved prior to heading to an election.

I know that the crossbench and the Greens supported the setting up of that bilateral air services agreements committee. It handed down an incredibly sensible array of recommendations. The Harris review has been around for a while. My initial reading of this bill is that it doesn't implement the Harris review recommendations, as the government is running around and saying. It actually only implements a couple of them. So there is some sensible work that can be done by senators, in conjunction with stakeholders, to ensure that the problems with getting access into Sydney, from right around the country, can actually be addressed. So I implore the crossbench and I implore the Greens to reconsider their position on extending the date. It's great to see the chamber has realised this is an issue Australians care about and that we're prepared to now have an inquiry, but let's make it an inquiry that doesn't hold the bill up unnecessarily prior to an election and that actually allows us to do our job and provide sensible recommendations, as this Senate and this particular committee have done in the past. I commend my amendment.

David Pocock

I'd like to thank Senator McKenzie for all her work in shining a light on the shambles that is the slot system at Sydney Airport. This was a focus of her airlines inquiry. Clearly, it's not working. It's disappointing that it's taken the government this long, given the impact that it has—particularly here in the ACT, where we're getting absolutely price gouged to fly 45 minutes to Sydney, which, I'm told, comes down largely to the slot hoarding system. Clearly, there's a need for reform. I thank the government for bringing this forward.

My view is that this can be dealt with in the time that has been proposed, given the urgency of it. This is only one very small part of a broader package of reform that needs to happen, and I'm comfortable that the Senate can deal with those stakeholders and work to have something in place, should the Senate like the legislation that's being proposed this year. I'll be supporting the shorter reporting date, but I do thank Senator McKenzie for all her work.

Sue Lines

The question is the amendment moved by Senator McKenzie to Senator Gallagher's amendment of the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.

Sue Lines

I remind senators that, after 6.30 pm yesterday, a division was called on the amendments moved by Senator Birmingham to the motion moved by Senator Wong concerning Hamas's attacks on Israel and the ongoing conflict. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate that the deferred vote be held now.

Penny Wong

by leave—I will make a short statement. The government will be requesting that the question on the amendments moved by the opposition be divided. I've had a discussion with Senator Birmingham and I think he's of the same mind—I'm sorry I haven't had a chance, Senator, to speak to you about that. We seek to vote separately to oppose amendments contained in paragraphs (i), (l) and (m) of the sheet of amendments, which is on pages 6 and 7 of the Notice Paper, circulated by the opposition yesterday. For the clarity of the chamber, paragraph (i) relates to the opposition seeking to delete reference to the number of Palestinian civilians killed and the catastrophic humanitarian situation. We wish to oppose that amendment. From paragraph (l) the opposition seeks to remove the reference to a ceasefire in Gaza. The government wishes to oppose that amendment. From paragraph (m) the opposition seeks to delete the proposition of support for a two-state solution, and the government wishes to oppose that amendment. However, in the interests of seeking maximal bipartisanship on this, the government is supporting the remaining amendments. For the benefit of senators, I table a letter I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition that outlines the government's position.

Sue Lines

Thank you, Minister Wong. I advise the chamber that the Government Whip did advise the chamber last night that the government would be seeking to vote differently on the different amendments.

Simon Birmingham

by leave—President, when it comes to the question, I foreshadow that I will ask that certain parts of the substantive motion, after we've dealt with the amendments, be voted on separately. But we'll deal with that when we get there.

Sue Lines

The first question is that the amendments as moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to, and the government has requested that they be dealt with separately. So the question is that the opposition amendments to paragraphs (i), (l) and (m) be agreed to.

Andrew Bragg

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

Long debate text truncated.

Claire Chandler

The committee is considering the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024 and the opposition's amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 2854, moved by Senator Ruston.

Andrew McLachlan

The question before the committee is that amendments moved by Senator Ruston, (1) to (5) on sheet 2854, be agreed to.

Sue Lines

The effect of that amendment is that the bill won't be read a second time. The question is that the motion for the second reading as amended be agreed to.

Sue Lines

I remind senators that yesterday evening after 6.30 pm a division was called on the following motion moved by Senator Hanson:

That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 25 November 2024:

The effectiveness, transparency and cost of the Australian Government's carbon credit and offset schemes, including the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Act 2023 and the Climate Active carbon-neutral labelling program, with particular reference to:

(a) concerns raised by major companies like Fortescue, Telstra and BHP about the quality of offsets and lack of transparency;

(b) the effect of Labor's carbon credit scheme, including the Safeguard Mechanism and the Climate Active program, on Australian businesses, particularly how these programs increase costs without delivering clear environmental benefits;

(c) the use of international carbon credits by Australian companies, with specific attention to whether these credits are trustworthy;

(d) how the Safeguard Mechanism and the Climate Active program have negatively impacted jobs, driven up electricity prices, and contributed to the current household recession;

(e) the role of the Safeguard Mechanism and the Climate Active program in driving up resource and electricity costs, contributing to rising inflation;

(f) the role of the Safeguard Mechanism in increasing demand for Australian carbon credit units and its consequences for businesses, particularly rising prices and reliance on offsets;

(g) the potential for misleading claims (greenwashing) within the Safeguard Mechanism and the Climate Active program; and

(h) any related matters.

I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate for the deferred vote to be held now. I will put the question. The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Hanson be agreed to.

Pauline Hanson

I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Steph Hodgins-May

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Steph Hodgins-May

The Greens will not allow One Nation to use parliamentary privilege to deny the existence of the trans and gender-diverse community. We will not give Pauline Hanson a platform for hate. Trans rights are human rights and they are non-negotiable. We must work towards a safer world for the trans and gender-diverse community. The gender-diverse community deserve to feel safe, respected and valued, living their lives treated as equals and free from discrimination.

The immediate and widespread backlash against the Prime Minister's decision to exclude questions on gender, sexuality and intersex characteristics from the 2026 census proved that the wider community will always reject bigotry and hate. It's a relief that the government has half-reversed that decision, but there is still so much work to be done. The Greens will always stand in solidarity with the trans community against hatred and bigotry.

Sue Lines

Senator Hodgins-May, I remind you, when addressing senators in this chamber, to use their correct titles.

Jonathon Duniam

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Jonathon Duniam

While the Senate has the opportunity to reject a bill at the first reading stage, in practice the first reading is almost always passed without opposition and is regarded as a purely formal stage. The coalition supports these normal procedures, as we have with many Greens, Labor and other crossbench bills that we have had opposition to.

The normal process enables bills to be fairly considered and debated by the Senate before a substantive decision is taken, and it should only be deviated from in the most extreme of circumstances—

Mehreen Faruqi

Yes; hate speech is extreme!

Sue Lines

Order! Please continue, Senator Duniam.

Jonathon Duniam

lest we deny the right of senators to even have matters debated. As in all cases, a vote on the first reading should not be taken as a position on the substantive legislation, especially where a bill has not had the opportunity to be subject of a normal internal process.

Katy Gallagher

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Katy Gallagher

I wasn't going to make a statement but, following on from Senator Duniam's contribution—he is correct in many of his remarks—we have also chosen not to support the first reading on matters that are extremely serious and do cause significant division and harm in the community. The Senate has chosen when that is appropriate, and it is very rare to not support the first reading. Certainly the government believes that this bill falls into that category, and we will be opposing the first reading of this bill.

The division, the hurt, the pain that that causes for gender-diverse members of the community is real, and the sooner the Senate realises that and takes responsibility for causing that harm the better. We should not be allowing something like this to come into this chamber. We have to stand up and support all members of our community.

Pauline Hanson

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave not granted.

Sue Lines

The question is that the first reading on Senator Hanson's introduction of the bill be agreed to.