Sarah Henderson

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that order for production of documents no. 186 relating to consultation on the Startup Year program was agreed by the Senate on 21 March 2023;

(b) further notes that the order has only partially been complied with, as the Minister representing the Minister for Education has not tabled:

(i) some submissions, on the basis that the authors have not agreed to publication, and

(ii) all data collected in the student survey; and

(c) also notes that the Minister for Education, in his response of 23 March 2023, has made a claim of public interest immunity (PII) with respect to submissions where the author has not agreed to publication, claiming 'it is not in the public interest to depart from the established practice of allowing stakeholders to make submissions in a consultation process that are not shared beyond the Government of the day', and 'to break this convention would undermine future consultation processes and is not in the public interest';

(d) rejects the PII claim, noting that claims that information has been collected on the condition that it may be treated as confidential at the discretion of the author, and therefore cannot be disclosed, is not in itself a ground for a PII claim and that it must be established that:

(i) some specific harm may occur because of the disclosure of the information sought by the order, and

(ii) any such specific harm could not be overcome by disclosing information in more general terms such as not disclosing the identity of the author; and

(e) orders that the Minister representing the Minister for Education fully comply with the order by no later than midday on Thursday, 30 March 2023, with the exception that all data collected as part of the student survey be deidentified.

Anthony Chisholm

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Anthony Chisholm

As the senator is aware, the Department of Education has published 24 submissions where the author consented to publication. At the minister's direction, the department has now directly contacted each of the remaining 14 authors. So far two have consented to their submissions being published, and they will be added to the website later today. If the consent of other authors is obtained, their submissions will be published in the same way. It would undermine future consultation processes to publish submissions without their consent.

I understand that the minister discussed this with Senator Henderson last week and agreed for the bill to be referred to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for review. That review will take place next month and is open for submissions now. Like the motion before it, this motion is unnecessary.

Sue Lines

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

Richard Colbeck

I, and also on behalf of Senators Liddle, Nampijinpa Price, McGrath and Thorpe, move:

That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting Thursday in November 2023:

The role, governance and accountability of key Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representative organisations, including land councils and native title bodies such as prescribed bodies corporate, with particular reference to:

(a) administrative, operational and governance arrangements to ensure accountability, risk mitigation, and transparency for present and future Traditional Owners, to protect their interests and deliver positive economic and social outcomes;

(b) the quality and effectiveness of consultation and engagement with Traditional Owners to ascertain their views, and opportunities for the views of Traditional Owners to be reflected in decisions of the organisations;

(c) how these organisations undertake their responsibilities to:

(i) negotiate on behalf of Traditional Owners,

(ii) manage and maintain an accurate register of members,

(iii) conciliate disputes, and

(iv) appropriately manage dissenting views;

(d) arrangements for commercial and lands trust activities;

(e) the extent to which administrative, operational and governance arrangements align with the principles contained in the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples with specific reference to the principle of free, prior and informed consent and other relevant principles and conventions;

(f) the extent to which these organisations are contributing to justice for First Nations people; and

(g) any other related matters.

Dorinda Cox

I seek leave to make a one-minute statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Dorinda Cox

I want to remind all senators that yesterday there were many conversations about the Voice to Parliament. For many First Nations people in this country under 40, this will be the first time they vote in a referendum, and this motion jeopardises the success of this referendum. It undermines the currency of the conversation that we're about to have. These cooked-up terms of reference are being used to overshadow what is the national conversation happening at the moment, using our public funding and Senate resources and procedures, which is not the function of this place. We will not be supporting this vicious attack on our peak organisations and grassroots organisations, and the Greens will be opposing this motion.

Richard Colbeck

COLBECK () (): I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave not granted.

Sue Lines

The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Colbeck and other senators, be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Lidia Thorpe

This is about dodgy deals that allow fracking in the Beetaloo. That's what it is.

The

Senator Thorpe, I am calling you to order, please.

Lidia Thorpe

Dodgy deals. Even my native title corporate is throwing us under the bus on logging.

Sue Lines

Order!

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order across the chamber. Order!

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senators, I have called order on numerous occasions.

Senator Nampijinpa Price!

Lidia Thorpe

You're saving the mining companies. That's all you're doing.

Sue Lines

Senator Thorpe! The question is that business of the Senate No. 1, standing in the names of Senator Colbeck and others, be agreed to.

Sue Lines

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

Andrew McLachlan

I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator Thorpe. The question is that the amendments on sheets 1863, 1875 and 1876 be agreed to.

Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments—

SHEET 1863

(1) Clause 63, page 39 (lines 5 to 9), after "directly" (wherever occurring), insert "or indirectly".

(2) Clause 63, page 39 (before line 11), before the definition of native forest, insert:

indirectly, in relation to the finance of certain activity, includes directly financing other activity that is in the same supply chain as the first-mentioned activity.

SHEET 1875

(1) Clause 63, page 39 (line 9), at the end of subclause (3), add:

; or (d) finance the development or use of nuclear technology; or

(e) finance the construction or operation of a radioactive waste management facility.

(2) Clause 63, page 39 (after line 11), after the definition of native forest, insert:

nuclear technology does not include nuclear medicine technology produced other than through the use of nuclear reactors.

SHEET 1876

(1) Clause 63, page 39 (line 9), at the end of subclause (3), add:

; or (d) finance the development or use of nuclear technology; or

(e) finance the construction or operation of a radioactive waste management facility.

(2) Clause 63, page 39 (after line 11), after the definition of native forest, insert:

nuclear tec hnology does not include nuclear medicine technology produced other than through the use of nuclear reactors.

Andrew McLachlan

The question now is that the opposition's amendments on sheets 1821, 1824, 1825, 1829 and 1841 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendments—

SHEET 1821

(1) Clause 6, page 10 (lines 26 to 30), omit the clause, substitute:

6 Priority areas of the Australian economy

(1) Each of the following areas of the Australian economy is a priority area of the Australian economy to enhance sovereign manufacturing capability for the purposes of this Act:

(a) resources technology and critical minerals processing;

(b) food, fibre and beverage;

(c) medical products;

(d) recycling and clean energy;

(e) defence;

(f) space.

(2) In addition, the Ministers may, by legislative instrument, declare that each area of the Australian economy specified in the declaration is a priority area of the Australian economy for the purposes of this Act.

SHEET 1824

(1) Clause 71, page 44 (after line 18), at the end of the clause, add:

(4) A direction under subsection (1) does not come into effect until it has been approved by resolution of each House of the Parliament.

SHEET 1825

(1) Heading to clause 82, page 50 (line 10), omit the heading, substitute:

82 Publicati on and tabling of investment reports

(2) Clause 82, page 50 (before line 11), before subclause (1), insert:

Publication of investment reports by the Corporation

(3) Clause 82, page 51 (after line 9), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) The Corporation must, within one month after the end of each quarter, give a copy of the report for that quarter to the Minister.

(4) Clause 82, page 51 (after line 14), at the end of the clause, add:

Tabling of investment reports by the Minister

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of each report given to the Minister under subsection (1A) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament no later than the 3 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

SHEET 1829

(1) Clause 91, page 56 (line 29), omit "review is completed", substitute "report is given to the nominated Minister".

(2) Clause 91, page 57 (lines 2 and 3), omit "5 years", substitute "1 year".

(3) Clause 91, page 57 (line 6), omit "5 years", substitute "1 year".

(4) Clause 91, page 57 (lines 8 to 10), omit subclause (7), substitute:

(7) For the purposes of subsections (5) and (6), a review is completed when the report of the review is tabled in each House of the Parliament under subsection (4).

SHEET 1841

(1) Clause 82, page 50 (line 20), at the end of paragraph (1)(a), add:

and (iv) the name of the constitutional corporation;

(2) Clause 82, page 50 (line 28), at the end of paragraph (1)(b), add:

and (iv) the name of the entity or individual;

(3) Clause 82, page 51 (line 2), at the end of paragraph (1)(c), add:

and (iv) the name of the entity;

(4) Clause 82, page 51 (line 6), at the end of paragraph (1)(d), add:

and (iii) the State or Territory to which the financial accommodation was provided;

The question is that the amendments on sheets 1821, 1824, 1825, 1829 and 1841 be agreed to.

Andrew McLachlan

I now intend to put the question for the remaining amendments circulated by Pauline Hanson's One Nation.

Pauline Hanson's One Nation's circulated amendments—

SHEET 1987 REVISED 2

(1) Subclause 63(3), page 39 (line 5), omit "An investment", substitute "Subject to subsection (3A), an investment".

(2) Clause 63, page 39 (after line 9), after subclause (3), insert:

(3A) However, paragraph (3)(a) and (b) do not prohibit an investment of a Corporation body which directly finances:

(a) the construction of pipeline infrastructure for the transportation of natural gas from the point of extraction to storage facilities in Australia; and

(b) the extraction of natural gas that supports Australian industry and the Australian domestic gas market.

SHEET 1919

(1) Clause 5, page 5 (after line 29), after paragraph (l) of the definition of constitutionally-supported activities, insert:

; (m) activities with respect to copyrights, patents of inventions and designs, and trade marks (within the meaning of paragraph 51(xviii) of the Constitution).

(2) Clause 6, page 10 (lines 26 to 30), omit the clause, substitute:

6 Priority areas of the Australian economy

(1) The commercialisation, lawful propriety protection and development of Australian developed intellectual property by an Australian individual or entity is a priority area of the Australian economy for the purposes of this Act.

(2) In addition, the Ministers may, by legislative instrument, declare that each area of the Australian economy specified in the declaration is a priority area of the Australian economy for the purposes of this Act.

(3) Clause 71, page 44 (after line 18), at the end of the clause, add:

(4) The Ministers must give the Board a direction requiring that a low-risk investment policy is to be applied to an investment of a Corporation body for purposes relating to, or activities supporting, the priority area of the Australian economy mentioned in subsection 6(1).

The question before the chair is that the amendments on sheet 1897 revised 2 and sheet 1919 be agreed to.

Don Farrell

I table two supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government's amendments to be moved to the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023, and, by leave, I move amendments (1) to (8) on sheet UC140 together:

(1) Clause 5, page 4 (after line 16), after the definition of Australia, insert:

Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets means:

(a) if:

(i) Australia's current nationally determined contribution was communicated in accordance with Article 4 of the Paris Agreement in June 2022; and

(ii) that nationally determined contribution has not been adjusted in accordance with paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Paris Agreement;

the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets set out in paragraphs 10(1)(a) and (b) of the Climate Change Act 2022; or

(b) in any other case—the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets included in:

(i) Australia's current nationally determined contribution communicated in accordance with Article 4 of the Paris Agreement; or

(ii) if that nationally determined contribution has been adjusted in accordance with paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Paris Agreement—that nationally determined contribution, as adjusted and in force from time to time.

(2) Clause 17, page 15 (after line 16), after subclause (3), insert:

(3A) In performing its functions, the Board must have regard to:

(a) the desirability of transforming Australia's industry and economy by:

(i) growing or improving Australia's industrial capability; or

(ii) improving Australian industry's ability to pursue value-adding opportunities; or

(iii) supporting a long-term improvement in Australia's economic diversity; and

(b) the desirability of attracting private sector finance or investments into the priority areas of the Australian economy; and

(c) Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and the desirability of supporting decarbonisation; and

(d) the desirability of creating secure jobs and a skilled and adaptable workforce; and

(e) the desirability of enhancing Australia's resilience against supply chain vulnerabilities; and

(f) the desirability of encouraging the commercialisation of Australian innovation and technology.

(3) Clause 17, page 15 (line 24), omit "Subsection (4) does not", substitute "Subsections (3A) and (4) do not".

(4) Clause 75, page 46 (after line 25), after paragraph (1)(c), insert:

(ca) in the case of the Corporation—environmental, labour, social and governance matters to be considered by the Corporation in relation to:

(i) the Corporation's investment functions; and

(ii) the Corporation's investment powers;

(5) Clause 75, page 47 (after line 5), after paragraph (1)(f), insert:

(fa) in the case of a designated subsidiary of the Corporation—environmental, labour, social and governance matters to be considered by the designated subsidiary in relation to:

(i) the Corporation's investment functions being performed through the designated subsidiary; and

(ii) the designated subsidiary's investment powers;

(6) Clause 82, page 51 (line 8), omit "and".

(7) Clause 90, page 56 (line 5), after "delegate to a", insert "senior".

(8) Clause 90, page 56 (line 10), after "function to a", insert "senior".

We thank the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and the many other stakeholders, including members of this place, who have provided their valuable feedback on this bill. In response to this feedback, the government is moving these amendments to the bill.

Firstly, in respect of functions of the board, while investing to diversify and transform Australian industry is the core objective of the NRF, we also recognise that there are several important considerations that the board should have regard to in performing its functions. That is why we are proposing further amendments to clause 17 of the bill to make it clear that the board must have regard to a number of other important matters that have informed our design of the NRF from the outset, transforming Australia's industry and economy, attracting private sector investment and not crowding it out, meeting Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reductions target and decarbonisation, creating secure jobs and a skilled and adaptable workforce, enhancing resilience in Australia's supply chains, and encouraging the commercialisation of Australian innovation and technology.

Our proposed amendments to clause 75 require the corporation to develop policies on how environmental, labour, social and governance matters need to be considered in relation to its investment functions and powers and also its subsidiaries. This represents modern investment best practice, and we thank those stakeholders who raised these issues. By introducing these amendments, the government reaffirms that one of the most important outcomes of the National Reconstruction Fund will be the creation of secure, well-paid jobs in these key industries that build upon our national strengths. The fund will revitalise and strengthen our local supply chains to ensure that we have our own industrial and manufacturing capabilities.

By legislating the core functions of the board to include the creation of secure jobs, we are emphasising one of the biggest benefits that our domestic manufacturing industry provides and will continue to provide: opportunities for Australians to make a meaningful, high-skilled contribution to our nation's future. Nearly 85 per cent of the jobs in manufacturing are full-time.

When we proposed the National Reconstruction fund in March 2021, Labor said we were doing this to rebuild secure work. When he announced the Inflation Reduction Act in August 2022, itself a huge investment in manufacturing capability in the US, President Joe Biden said that it would 'lift up American workers and create good paying union jobs across the country'. 'Union jobs' is universally recognised language for secure, safe, high-skilled, well-paid jobs. That is exactly what this government is doing with our National Reconstruction Fund, creating jobs that communities can build around, especially in regional, remote and outer-suburban Australia. We're investing in businesses so that they can invest in their workers, developing the skills that we need to meet any challenges that the future may have in store. But we're only going to get there by working together—government with business and their people. We all have a common goal: an Australian industry that will lead the world. This can only be achieved if everyone has a voice, which can be heard, and a stake in the success of our collective effort.

Finally, in response to comments by the scrutiny committee, we also propose a minor amendment to clause 90, to make clear that the CEO may only delegate their powers and functions to senior staff. This amendment brings the clause into line with the CEFC Act and will not significantly change the operations or the functions of the NRF. I therefore commend the bill to the Senate.

Michaelia Cash

The opposition will not be supporting the amendments moved by the government. I do know that, unfortunately, this is going to be subject, the committee stage, to a guillotine that is going to kick in at 8 pm. I know that Senator Hume, Senator Scarr, Senator Brockman and, possibly, Senator Rennick—we have a number of issues that we would like to endeavour to get through in the short time, just under three hours, that we have available.

In terms of the board appointments minister, as the bill currently stands, section 19(1) states that the ministers will, by written instrument, appoint board members. There is, however, no process stated for which these appointees will be selected from. Could you take us through what process the minister would enact to ensure that merit based appointments do occur?

Don Farrell

nator FARRELL (—) (): Thank you, Senator Cash, for your question. There will be the normal processes that would apply in the consideration of board membership. Obviously, there will be merit based board appointments. When you're dealing with something like the National Reconstruction Fund, emphasis will be on people with those skills that might best be capable of implementing this much needed and very ambitious project.

Michaelia Cash

When you state that normal processes will apply, could you please outline to the Senate what those normal processes are, and, when you say that the minister will ensure people have the appropriate skill set, how is that going to occur?

Don Farrell

The minister will select from a list of candidates prepared by the department, the skills matrix taking into account the qualifications listed, in the bill, at section 19(2).

Michaelia Cash

Will the skills matrix be made public?

Don Farrell

That skills matrix is already in the bill.

Michaelia Cash

In terms of the board positions themselves, will they be publicly advertised?

Don Farrell

No.

Michaelia Cash

On what basis will they not be publicly advertised?

Don Farrell

The government has decided not to publicly advertise them.

Michaelia Cash

On what basis did the government make the decision—given all of the comments that were made, in particular, prior to the election in relation to transparency and integrity by this Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and other members of the government—that you will not be publicly advertising these positions?

Don Farrell

Senator Cash, you really have got a cheek, talking about transparency, when the former prime minister did not reveal to the Australian people that we're—

Sarah Henderson

Come on. It's a straight question.

Don Farrell

If you don't realise, Senator Henderson, the seriousness of what the former Prime Minister did—and, I might say, some of the comments of your current female shadow bench. The former government didn't even tell the—

Matt O'Sullivan

Senator Farrell, please take a seat. Senator Henderson?

Sarah Henderson

I have a point of order. I would ask Senator Farrell to withdraw that denigrating comment about women on our side of the chamber. Women on our side of the chamber have been subjected to some pretty horrendous treatment in recent days. I would say to Senator Farrell that it's most improper to reflect on women on this side of the chamber in that way. I would ask him to withdraw it.

Don Farrell

My comment was a compliment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I was listening carefully to the backwards and forwards. Senator Farrell, you got pretty close to some concerns that were raised, but it might help the Senate if you just explained. Finish your sentence, because you didn't quite finish it. Then, if necessary, I'll ask you to withdraw, but at this stage I won't.

I was complimenting women on your side of the bench, but if there was anything I said I unreservedly withdraw.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Cash.

Michaelia Cash

We've established that—despite statements by the now government prior to the election and, in particular, even in relation to the political commentary that the minister himself made, in answering this question, to reflect on the previous government—under this government, in relation to the National Reconstruction Fund board, the board positions themselves will not be publicly advertised. Can you, then, advise whether board positions themselves will undergo a selection process, including interviews?

Don Farrell

My understanding is that there will be discussions with the candidates but not formal interviews.

Michaelia Cash

When you say, 'discussions with candidates', have any of these candidates already been identified?

Don Farrell

No.

Michaelia Cash

When you say, 'discussions', who will be having those discussions?

Don Farrell

The department.

Michaelia Cash

CASH (—) (): Will the minister or the minister's office be involved in any of the discussions?

Don Farrell

My understanding is the advice will go from the department to the minister, and then the minister will ultimately make a decision.

Michaelia Cash

nator CASH (—) (): Is the minister bound to accept the recommendations from the department?

Don Farrell

No.

Michaelia Cash

Does that mean that the minister does not, in any way, need to accept the recommendations put forward by the department and, on that basis, the minister could themselves put forward their own selection?

Don Farrell

I've already explained how the process is going to work. There's a matrix. The department will propose some names, which will come to the minister. The minister will make a decision post the receipt of those names.

Michaelia Cash

It's very important to understand because, obviously, there are other processes that will be gone through when these names are announced. The minister is not bound to accept the recommendations put forward by the department. I just want to confirm that means that the minister may themselves appoint anyone they like.

Long debate text truncated.

Sue Lines

I remind senators that yesterday two votes were deferred relating to business of the Senate notices of motion moved by Senator Roberts and Senator O'Sullivan. I understand it now suits the convenience of the Senate to hold those votes now.

If there is no objection, I will deal with the first vote, on the proposed reference to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee moved by Senator Roberts. The question is that the motion be agreed to. I believe the noes have it.

Honourable Senator

An honourable senator interjecting—

Sue Lines

There was only one voice there, Senator—

Senator Roberts, it's disorderly to call out from your chair. Senator Roberts.

Malcolm Roberts

Thank you, President. We called for a division last night, and it was to be deferred till today.

Sue Lines

You still need two voices.

Malcolm Roberts

Do the Liberals know that? Because they're supporting the motion.

Sue Lines

Senator Roberts, please don't call out across the chamber. There weren't two voices, so please resume your seat. I will put the question again. We're dealing with the deferred motion as moved by Senator Roberts, a reference to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee.

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 3 pm on Wednesday, 5 April 2023:

(a) all correspondence and/or submissions received by the Treasury on the measures in Schedule 4 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023;

(b) all correspondence and/or submissions received by the Treasury on the measures in Schedule 5 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023; and

(c) all correspondence and/or submissions received by the Treasury on the measures in the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 that are not already captured by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this order and include reference to any of the following:

(i) franking credits,

(ii) off-market share buy-backs,

(iii) dividend imputation, or

(iv) franked distributions.

Nick McKim

I seek leave to make a brief statement.

Andrew McLachlan

Leave is granted for one minute.

Nick McKim

The Greens won't be supporting this order for the production of documents. To date, the Greens have regularly supported motions by the opposition requesting documents in the Treasury space, as spurious as some of those requests have seemed at the time. But let's be clear about what this is. It's an order calling for the release of documents relating to a bill that is currently before a Senate inquiry that has not yet closed for submissions and is yet to hold any hearings. We're going to wait for the Senate inquiry to at least take a couple of steps down the road before we start supporting OPDs like this.

Andrew McLachlan

The question before the Senate is that motion 204, standing in the name of Senator Smith and moved by Senator Askew, an order for production of documents in respect to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023, be agreed to.

Wendy Askew

I seek leave to move general business notices of motion Nos 202 and 203 together.

Leave granted.

At the request of Senator Cash, I move the motions:

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 202

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 5 pm on 30 March 2023:

(a) legal advice, held by either the Prime Minister and/or his office and/or the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, in relation to the proposed wording for the Voice referendum announced on 23 March 2023;

(b) correspondence between the Prime Minister and/or his office and/or the Solicitor-General in relation to the proposed wording for the Voice referendum announced on 23 March 2023;

(c) all documents relating to the legal advice provided on the proposed wording for a Voice to Parliament released by the Prime Minister at the Garma Festival, as acknowledged of existence by the Prime Minister in his press conference announcing the proposed wording for the Voice Referendum on 23 March 2023.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 203

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than 5 pm on 30 March 2023:

(a) legal advice, held by either the Attorney-General and/or his office and/or the Attorney-General's Department, in relation to the proposed wording for the Voice referendum announced on 23 March 2023;

(b) correspondence between the Attorney-General and/or his office and/or the Solicitor-General in relation to the proposed wording for the Voice referendum announced on 23 March 2023; and

(c) all documents relating to the legal advice provided on the proposed wording for a Voice to Parliament released by the Prime Minister at the Garma Festival, as acknowledged of existence by the Prime Minister in his press conference announcing the proposed wording for the Voice referendum on 23 March 2023.

Anthony Chisholm

by leave—As Senator Cash well knows, the wording of the proposed constitutional alteration is the product of a cabinet process. The referendum working group provided cabinet with advice as part of the process. So did the Solicitor-General. Consistent with the longstanding practice followed by all governments, cabinet should be able to be conducted in secrecy so as to preserve the freedom of deliberation of that body. It would harm the public interest to undermine the confidentiality of the cabinet process by producing the documents sought by Senator Cash or by producing legal advice.

Andrew McLachlan

The question before the Senate is that notice of motion 202 and 203 moved together, standing in the name of Senator Cash and moved by Senator Askew, regarding the order for the production of documents on the Voice referendum be agreed to.