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.

Anne Urquhart

I present the 10th report of 2024 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 10 OF 2024

12 September 2024

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair)

Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)

Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip)

Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip)

Senator Jacqui Lambie (Jacqui Lambie Network Whip)

Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator Ralph Babet

Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm

Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher

Senator Maria Kovacic

Senator Matt O'Sullivan

Senator Fatima Payman

Senator David Pocock

Senator Gerard Rennick

Senator Lidia Thorpe

Senator Tammy Tyrrell

Senator David Van

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 11 September 2024 at 7.14 pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 October 2024 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b) the Family Law Amendment Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 October 2024 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(c) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill 2024, Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Charges) Bill 2024 and Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 October 2024 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral).

1. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:

2. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:

Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

•Criminal Code Amendment (Inciting Illegal Disruptive Activities) Bill 2023

1. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement:

(Anne Urquhart)

Chair

12 September 2024

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To allow the Committee to scrutinise this legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Stakeholders and interested parties .

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

September and October

Possible reporting date:

31 October

Print name:

Wendy Askew

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024

Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:

Consider details

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Experts, stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Mid October

Possible reporting date:

31 October

Print name:

Nick McKim

Appendix 2

Name of bill:

Family Law Amendment Bill 2024

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To allow the Committee to scrutinise this legislation and allow interested parties the opportunity to provide evidence into the proposed legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Stakeholders, legal representatives, interested parties.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

October

Possible reporting date:

14 November 2024

Print name:

Wendy Askew

Appendix 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

Print name:

Senator Anne Urquhart

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill

Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Charges) Bill

Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To provide proper scrutiny over this legislation and to ensure that all impacted parties have their opportunity to voice concerns about these Bills.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Impacted entities, organisations and interested parties.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

September and October

Possible reporting date:

31 October

Print name:

Wendy Askew

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

4x FMIA (Guarantee of Origin)

Bills Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:

Complex policy—want to get experts and stakeholders views on the legislation. Want to explore if there are any integrity issues with it.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Climate Council, ACF, clean energy council, renewable energy companies

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

E&C

Possible hearing date(s):

Mid October

Possible reporting date:

31 October

Print name:

Nick McKim

I move:

That the report be adopted.

Katy Gallagher

I move:

At the end of the motion, add "and, in respect of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Scheduling) Bill 2024, the bill not be referred to a committee".

Jonathon Duniam

I move an amendment to the amendment:

At the end of the motion, add "and, in respect of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Scheduling) Bill 2024, the bill be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 November 2024".

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price

The coalition requires that this bill be sent to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for consideration. We all agree in this chamber that proper consultation is an important part of our democratic process. The proper consultation process is all that we are asking for with regard to this bill. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that the Albanese government does not want to support one of those most fundamental tenants of our democratic system.

While there is a need for land claims to be determined in a timely manner, that must not come at the expense of being thorough and making decisions that are properly considered. We as the coalition are not satisfied as things currently stand—that there has been the appropriate level of consultation to support this bill. As such, we are not willing to support it until we are satisfied that there has been the chance for the relevant stakeholders to appear before the committee, the chance for them to be heard and listened to.

It's important to bear in mind that this piece of land is already subject to exploratory licences for petroleum and minerals. That means that there are people and companies who have potential interests already in the relevant sections of this land. It means there is potential for economic activity to be undertaken on this land. These matters need to be properly considered before this land is added to the act. A real consultation process would exist if this matter were referred to a committee and allowed for that consultation process to occur. Not only does the committee allow for the relevant people to be heard on the matter but it is also an incredibly important opportunity for a wider examination with respect to handing land to land councils in a more general sense.

What is blaringly obvious is that the current process isn't working. Significant amounts of land are being added to the land rights act and coming under the control of the relevant land councils, yet the condition and the quality of life for Indigenous Australians in these communities is not in fact improving. In this case, there are exploratory licences already in place on this land. We know that there is the opportunity for traditional owners to engage with those licence holders for the purpose of creating wealth and economic development on their own land.

It is becoming evident that those large amounts of land that are being added to the act are then being managed by land councils, which are proving to be dysfunctional. They are bodies that I've certainly lost faith in, and many Indigenous Australians that I speak to, Territorians in particular, have lost faith in their ability to protect and advocate for the interests of traditional owners.

As I've been trying to tell these Albanese government for such a long time now, including the traditional owners who were in just this week, something is seriously wrong with the system of adding land to the Land Rights Act when the bodies that oversee it are not fit for purpose and, instead of protecting the interests of traditional owners, are exploiting them. We have situations where pastoralists are being charged by land councils who are offering backburn on the land of traditional owners—pastoralists who are trying to be helpful, to mitigate dangers of fire, to protect the land and do something that would benefit traditional owners. Yet the land council simply says: 'Give us some money. If not, then no; go away.'

It is not good enough. This is using the interests of traditional owners, who are supposed to represent this land, to do nothing more than rent seek. This kind of behaviour by land councils is why we cannot make decisions like the one being proposed by this bill lightly. We must be convinced that proper time and thought have been given to adding land to land councils. Referring this matter to the committee would of course allow this to happen. The Labor government must not try to ram these things through at the expense of proper process and very possibly at the expense of the interests of what actually benefits Indigenous Australians the most.

So, for the sake of democracy and for the sake of encouraging economic development and independence for our most marginalised Australians, the coalition will not rush into supporting this bill. And if the Labor government took a minute to think about it, well, they shouldn't either.

Sue Lines

If there are no other speakers, I'm going to put Senator Duniam 's amendment first. The question is that the amendment, as moved by Senator Duniam, to Senator Gallagher 's amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.

Mehreen Faruqi

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than 9.30 am on Tuesday, 27 August 2024, all documents, advice and correspondence between any of the organisations listed below and the Australian Human Rights Commission relating to past and current staff of the Australian Human Rights Commission over the last 12 months:

(a) Executive Council of Australian Jewry;

(b) Zionist Federation of Australia;

(c) Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council; and

(d) New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies.

Jacqui Lambie

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Jacqui Lambie

Senator Faruqi calls out racism a lot. There's nothing wrong with that. We all should. In 2022 she told the chamber:

We are also gaslighted by those who think engaging in racist attacks constitutes a debate, even though the line between genuine, robust debate and racism and discrimination should actually be clear to everyone.

Reading this motion, I would suggest to Senator Faruqi that her motion completely crosses the line. Now it's Senator Faruqi who is gaslighting the Human Rights Commission and Jewish-Australian organisations. Just two weeks ago Mike Burgess, the head of ASIO, called on Australian leaders to be careful with their language, to do everything they could to lower the temperature and not to stoke division. But here we are again. Here are the Greens going again: stoking division and whipping up hate. Imagine if there was a motion put up in this place asking for all correspondence for Muslim groups and staff correspondence with the Human Rights Commission. The Greens love talking the progressive walk. They are hypocrites. I hope your voters punish you at the next election.

You are religiously being racist!

Sue Lines

Order, Senators Lambie and Faruqi! Senator McKim?

Nick McKim

On a point of order. The last words Senator Lambie uttered after she sat down—

Sue Lines

If you think they're offensive, ask me to ask her to withdraw. I don't want them—

Nick McKim

I think they're offensive, and I ask her to withdraw.

Sue Lines

Senator Lambie, there were interjections in the chamber, if you—

Jacqui Lambie

I withdraw.

Sue Lines

Thank you very much. Senator Duniam?

Jonathon Duniam

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Jonathon Duniam

One of the issues that Jewish groups have raised in the last 12 months is the involvement of AHRC staff in the doxxing of Jewish creatives, which has made so many Jewish Australians feel unsafe in their own country. This motion seeks to use the processes of parliament to double down on that doxxing, and it's not an appropriate use of parliamentary powers at all.

Helen Polley

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 582, standing in the name of Senator Faruqi, be agreed to.

Nick McKim

I understand that you will now be putting the question on the Government Business Notice of Motion No. 1. Could I please ask that the question be put separately on (a)(i) and (a)(iii)? Just to be clear, we are asking that the question be put separately on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill and the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill 2024. I can inform the Senate that that request is based on the fact that the Greens will be voting differently on those two bills as to the rest of the motion.

Andrew McLachlan

I am splitting the question. The first question will be whether the motion effectively applies to the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill. I am indicating Senator McKim will be voting differently. The Greens will be voting against that. Those that wish those to be included in the substantive motion will be voting in the affirmative. The question before the Senate is that the two bills, the National Disability Insurance Scheme bill and the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill, will remain in the motion?

No motion text available