Katy Gallagher

I move:

That on Thursday, 12 March 2026:

(a) during government business, the time for the consideration of the following bills be:

(i) Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026—45 minutes, and

(ii) Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026—1 hour and 15 minutes;

(b) once the total time allotted for consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (a) has expired, the questions be put on all remaining stages of the bills and the Parliamentary Frameworks Legislation Amendment (Reviews) Bill 2026;

(c) if consideration of the bills has not concluded by 1.30 pm:

(i) the routine of business after motions to take note of answers be consideration of the bills, and

(ii) the Senate return to its routine of business after consideration of the bills has concluded;

(d) paragraph (b) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and

(e) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm for the purposes of the bills.

David Pocock

I ask that paragraph (a)(ii) be put separately.

Sue Lines

The question is that the motion as moved by Minister Gallagher, government business, paragraph (a)(ii), be agreed to.

Sean Bell

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 7 September 2026:

Australia's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, with particular reference to:

(a) the legal and procedural steps required for Australia to withdraw from the Paris Agreement;

(b) the implications of withdrawal for Australia's ability to scrap net zero emissions targets;

(c) the positive impacts of scrapping net zero policies on electricity prices, energy reliability and the cost of living for everyday Australians;

(d) the positive impact of removing net zero policies on Australian industry, including manufacturing, mining, farming and fuel refining; and

(e) any other related matters.

Sue Lines

The question is that business of the Senate No. 2, standing in the name of Senator Bell, be agreed to.

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senators McKenzie, McDonald, Cadell and Canavan, I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 April 2026:

The security and resilience of Australia's fuel supplies to support transport, logistics, agricultural, fishing, mining, industrial and business uses, including fuel reserves, refining capacity and supply chains, with particular reference to:

(a) the availability and supply of liquid fuels, including petrol, diesel, aviation fuels, marine fuels and Australia's compliance with International Energy Agency obligations;

(b) the resilience of liquid fuel resources to protracted disruptions in the Middle East and to the free movement of vessels through the Strait of Hormuz;

(c) vulnerabilities in the supply and distribution of liquid fuels and strategies to address these vulnerabilities;

(d) potential economic, social and regional impacts of prolonged disruption of global fuel supply chains;

(e) the development and implementation of a national low carbon liquid fuel policy and facilitation of industry investment;

(f) the provision and distribution of infrastructure required to support the Government's ambitious targets for the uptake of electric vehicles to diversify the Australian light car fleet; and

(g) any related matters.

Sue Lines

The question is that business of the Senate No. 1, standing in the name of Senator McKenzie and others, be agreed to.

Sue Lines

The question now is that the amendment moved by Minister Gallagher be agreed to.

Katy Gallagher

I move the amendment that has been foreshadowed and circulated to the chamber:

Omit paragraphs (a)(ii) and (b), substitute:

(b) notes the Albanese Labor Government's domestic gas reservation scheme, which will require exporters to reserve between 15 and 25% of gas production for the domestic market.

Sue Lines

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

Pauline Hanson

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Domestic Reserve) Bill 2026 during the time for private senators' bills today.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion 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 relating to the consideration of a bill during the time for private senators' bills today.

This is very important. It's a matter of urgency that this motion be moved today in the parliament. We actually have a crisis at the moment about fuel. We need to have gas brought into the country. Well, we've got plenty of gas, but we're denied the use of the gas.

My motion is very important. I moved this because One Nation can only twice a year move private senators' bills, and the debate on this has been shut down. The importance of this is seen in the fuel crisis at the moment, and it's more important to discuss the 15 per cent domestic gas reserve. Gas is abundant in this country, and we could actually turn it into petrol. That's how important it is. That's why it's urgent to deal with this.

There's a crisis that's happening at the moment, and we don't know how long the war in Iran is going to go on. We need to urgently look at this bill, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Domestic Reserve) Bill 2026, and discuss it today. It doesn't surprise me that Labor aren't interested in discussing this. They are probably going to come out with their own gas bill in the future—who knows? Are you going to pass what I'm trying to do here in this Senate? I'm trying to look after the Australian people by using our gas here. So it is very urgent that One Nation get the time to debate what is urgent to us.

The Australian people are destitute out there. Our farmers, businesses and truckies—everyone—are desperate at the moment, and yet today you want to shut down debate to discuss it. Why? I think the way this chamber treats One Nation is deplorable when it comes to private senators' bills, motions and everything that happens here. You do not consider this at all. That you're not prepared to actually discuss this bill today tells me you don't give a damn about the people out there.

Where is your concern about the fuel security that we have in this nation. You should listen to what is in our private senators' bills because half the time you don't have the answers to run this country. You are poor economic managers. You have never been in the real world, so you don't understand how grassroots Australians are doing it tough out there. It just shows your incompetence that you're not prepared to listen to what needs to be done in the country.

Of course, the Greens are onside with the Labor Party on this because you don't want to use the resources that we have. You don't want to see that Qatar exports more gas we do, or about the same amount, and makes $26 billion a year for the gas it exports; we make next to nothing. You've really done nothing about that. On top of it, you export our gas overseas. Australians don't have the gas that we need. We're selling it cheaper overseas and then we're buying it back. We're importing our own gas! That's how stupid the whole lot is. It's absolute madness. You're not economic managers; you're not business minded and you have no idea how to run the country. It's all about you, and you don't worry about the Australian people out there. That's why we need to discuss this, the urgency of debating this bill, on the floor of parliament today. We will keep pushing for it.

As I said to the people out there, One Nation can only introduce private senators' bills twice a year. This is not the first time you've tried to shut me down, on introducing bills into the parliament. You're totally against it and you head down the path of this climate change BS that's going on. You say it's going to save us and save the planet, but it's destroying economies and people out there. The cost of living is rising constantly. You've got no answers to it whatsoever.

I really think that you understand the gas reservation and that you're going to bring in your own bill on gas. But it won't go anywhere near what One Nation will do for this country: a 15 per cent domestic gas supply on the east coast and the gas that we need, not only onshore but at the North West Shelf. You have failed this nation miserably, and you are failing now in delivering the fuel that this nation needs. You want to shut down debate on it. Don't tell me it's a stunt; it's Labor that pulls the most stunts in this parliament.

Murray Watt

The government will be opposing this motion from Senator Hanson. As Senator Hanson, One Nation and the opposition well know, it is not the convention and custom of this place that bills be debated in the same week that they are introduced. There hasn't been an opportunity for us to properly consider this bill. We haven't had an opportunity to take it to our party room. That is why the convention in this place is that bills don't get passed and debated in the same week that they are introduced. We'd be happy to work with Senator Hanson and One Nation on a motion regarding this topic, but we will be following the usual convention and not supporting the passage of this bill today. On that basis, I move:

That the question be now put.

Raff Ciccone

Senator McKenzie, a point of order?

Bridget McKenzie

On precedence, previous rulings have made it clear that the leader of the opposition would take precedence over a minister in the case of an equal jump. I'd like you to actually rule on your call earlier.

Raff Ciccone

Minister?

Murray Watt

I recognise that you were dealing with matters at the end of my remarks. I actually moved, before Senator McKenzie's point of order, that the question be put.

Raff Ciccone

Senators, as I understood from the clerk—I sought advice just before—the minister that is leading for the government takes precedence over the leader of the opposition. Having said that, I'm happy to refer the matter to the President for review. On that matter, I do have a question before the chair that the question now be put.

Sue Lines

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

Michaelia Cash

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the resignation of the Bondi royal commission special adviser, Dennis Richardson, as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion 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 giving precedence to a motion relating to the resignation of the Bondi royal commission's special adviser, Dennis Richardson.

Again, this is one of the most important matters to ever come before not just this chamber but also Australia. That is why the motion to suspend standing orders is so important. In December of last year, Australians were utterly horrified when news reports started coming through of a mass terrorist event at Bondi Beach. Fifteen innocent people were slaughtered. As a result of that, Australians demanded that this government establish a royal commission. They were dragged, kicking and screaming, to do just that, and they eventually did.

But one of the things that the Prime Minister said at the time was that Mr Dennis Richardson's review—the Richardson review—would be folded into the royal commission. Why? Because the Prime Minister himself told Australians that Mr Richardson, given who he is and what his qualifications are, was the person best qualified in our country to examine the intelligence and security surrounding the Bondi massacre. Then, this morning, Australians woke to the news that this person, the Prime Minister's hand-picked adviser, appointed by the Prime Minister because of his expertise in relation to, putting it in plain English, working out what the hell went wrong that ended up with 15 people being slaughtered at Bondi Beach, has actually quit the royal commission. Again, national security matters and the protection of Australians matters. That is why the coalition has taken this step this morning to put forward a motion to suspend what would otherwise be the normal business of the Senate to actually address this matter.

One of the issues the government now faces, though, is this: Mr Richardson did not leave quietly. He has left with words for those Australians who did not hear him this morning, and these words should stop not just Australians but also every single senator in this chamber cold. They should reflect very, very carefully on whether or not they support this suspension. This is what Mr Richardson told the Australian people this morning:

… I was surplus to requirements.

How in God's name is the man who formerly headed our intelligence services, who has one of the most impeccable resumes this country has ever seen when it comes to protecting Australia and Australians—he is the Prime Minister of Australia's hand picked adviser to the royal commission.

The Prime Minister himself, when he announced the folding of the Richardson inquiry into the royal commission, specifically said Mr Richardson is the best qualified person in the country to examine the intelligence and security failures surrounding the Bondi massacre, yet this morning Mr Richardson hasn't just handed in his resignation; he has gone public and said he is surplus to requirements. That is something that this Senate should be incredibly concerned about. They are words that should send not just a chill down the spine of every Australian but more so a chill down the spine of all Jewish Australians, because those on the opposite side of this chamber failed to protect you.

Fifteen innocent people were slaughtered on Bondi Beach. The government was dragged kicking and screaming to set up the royal commission. It eventually did that, and without even providing a first report the man who was chosen by the Prime Minister to look into the potential intelligence failings which resulted in 15 people being slaughtered in a mass terrorist attack last December has this morning said he is surplus to requirements. This is not a bureaucratic inconvenience. This is an absolute indictment on the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and, quite frankly, the entire government. They need to stand before the Australian people today and address this: what did Mr Richardson mean when he said he was surplus to requirements, and why are you failing the Australian people when it comes to getting to the bottom of the Bondi massacre?

David Shoebridge

I rise on behalf of my party to indicate we won't be supporting this political hatchet job the coalition is trying to make of a royal commission that's barely had the ink dry on the appointment.

If you want to read an extraordinary proposition from the coalition and show just how politicised they see Dennis Richardson, if you want to talk politics, putting Dennis Richardson in the heart of a royal commission into security agencies because he is, to quote this motion from the coalition, 'the one person capable of properly investigating intelligence failures'—you are kidding me! This bloke, Dennis Richardson, has so many conflicts of interest. He was the director-general of ASIO for the better part of a decade, he was the secretary of Defence and he's been the go-to person for the coalition and Labor since he's resigned to write reports that just whitewash any failures of the security agencies. He wrote a review into the National Intelligence Community in 2020, and the review reads like it's all fine, all terrific—all of his mates are doing a great job, there's nothing to see here, you don't need to change the law and don't need to review it. You want Richardson to write the report because you know he'll whitewash it just like he did in 2020.

Then, if you want to see the latest example of Richardson being the go-to to write a report to protect the substantial systemic failures of the coalition and Labor, have a look at his 2023 report into offshore detention. He goes and does a report into one of the most corrupt arrangements you could imagine: Home Affairs writing corrupt contract after corrupt contract, literally corrupting the Nauru government. We now know that they've been funding bikie gangs, funding illegal crime, engaging in drug dealing out of Nauru—and what did your mate Richardson say? Your mate Richardson said: 'Oh well—it's a tough environment. You have to work with organised crime. You have to corrupt people. Don't you worry about it. There's nothing to see here, no-one to hold to account.' That's why you want Richardson in this royal commission—you want the same whitewashing of the national security agencies and industries that he delivered in 2020 and 2023. We can see what you're doing here. And to call this guy 'the one person capable'—

James Paterson

That's what Albo said!

David Shoebridge

If you want to parrot the Prime Minister, go for your life! You can parrot the Prime Minister, but he's the one person grossly conflicted. He's the one person you can guarantee will write the report to whitewash and absolve your lot and their lot from any responsibility for systemic failures. That is why he finally said something that we can all agree on. Dennis Richardson, today, finally made a comment that the chamber could gather around and agree on: he's surplus to requirements.

Anthony Chisholm

What has been shown this morning is that the opposition have learnt nothing from the last couple of months. We see the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate come in here with a political attack immediately. Having learnt nothing from the former opposition leader Sussan Ley, she goes on the attack without actually thinking through the consequences. The Australian people are sick of these things being politicised in this manner.

We've been notified that Mr Richardson has resigned as adviser to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. The government thanks Mr Richardson for his efforts to date, and the government will continue to support the royal commission to deliver its important work, including the delivery of the interim report by 30 April.

The government established the Commonwealth Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, led by former High Court justice the Hon. Virginia Bell. This will investigate and make recommendations regarding the circumstances leading up to and including the attack in Bondi, as well as the response of government and security agencies. The royal commission will also examine antisemitism in Australia and make recommendations towards combating hatred and strengthening social cohesion. But a royal commission is not the beginning or the end of what Australia must do to eradicate antisemitism and strengthen our social cohesion. This is an ongoing national effort for all of us.

The government has also been taking immediate and practical action to combat antisemitism. Our government will continue to support the work of our Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, and we will also drive the immediate change required in educational institutions, through the work that David Gonski is doing. We will continue to work with the states and territories to implement Australia's Counter-Terrorism and Violent Extremism Strategy, and we have passed legislation combatting hate and extremism and delivering tougher gun laws. Commissioner Bell has said she is confident that the interim report will be delivered in accord with the letters patent, which stipulates that the interim report must be delivered by 30 April, and the government will continue to support the royal commission to deliver its important work—including the delivery of the interim report, which is well advanced.

What we see from the opposition is that they are always quick on the political attack. That's something that this government rejects, and, to be honest, it's something that the Australian people reject. We've seen the result when the opposition goes on these political attacks, as the former opposition leader Sussan Ley did. It didn't work very well for her, and where is she now? I think all senators see the political attacks by the opposition for what they are. By coming in and doing a stunt like this, all they are doing is delaying the passage of important legislation that will help the royal commission do its work. By coming in and doing stunts, they're actually delaying the important business of the Senate—that is, passing legislation that will enable the royal commission to get on and do its work. On that note, I move:

That the question be now put.

Sue Lines

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

Sue Lines

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

Marielle Smith

The question is that the bill proceed without formalities.

Anthony Chisholm

I move:

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

David Shoebridge

I ask that the motion be divided so that the question that the bill proceed without formalities is put separately. I indicate that I wish to make a contribution on the motion that the bill may proceed without formalities.

Marielle Smith

That's fine, Senator Shoebridge. You are able to speak.

David Shoebridge

The motion is that this bill proceed without formalities, and let's be clear what we're dealing with here. We're dealing with the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026. This bill is designed to give the home affairs minister pretty much an open discretion, not subject to parliamentary oversight, to stop people who have a valid visa to enter Australia from coming—to put them in the deep freeze for six months.

It's been said by the government—by Labor, the coalition and One Nation—that they want to come together to rush this legislation through and do it without formalities. What does 'without formalities' mean? This is a bill that was rushed through the other place in barely 24 hours. It was warm from the photocopier when they voted on it downstairs. It's not gone to public consultation. It hasn't even sat the usual five days on the Notice P__aper before it proceeds. Having been rushed through in the other place, with a guillotine vote from the government to ram it through, it has then been introduced here without formalities.

The government will say, 'Oh, no, we had an inquiry on this.' I was in that inquiry. The inquiry last night was initiated with barely three hours notice, no public submissions were received and no stakeholders were invited to contribute to the inquiry. We had almost no notice and an hour and a half to ask Home Affairs questions about the bill. What did we find out about the bill in that rushed, pretend, faux inquiry that we had? We found out that the government clearly intends to use this rushed legislation to shut the door to 7,200 Iranians who currently have valid visas to come to this country—tourism visas, business visas, perhaps some future spouse visas or family reunion visas, maybe grandparents coming out to see their grandkids. They have been vetted and screened by Home Affairs, and they have legitimate reasons to come to this country.

Do you know what? Yesterday, when the government introduced this bill, the Labor Party opened their media for the day by putting out, effectively, photo opportunities and by running the emotional argument that the Minister for Home Affairs had granted five emergency humanitarian visas to some of the brave Iranian women footballers who have been in this country and potentially face persecution if they return—not just persecution from their own regime; if they're sent back to Iran, they could literally be killed by US bombs or Israeli bombs. Thankfully, five brave Iranian women, who have shown such courage, were saved from that fate. They were saved from that fate because of an urgent application and an urgent resolution so that they could have a humanitarian visa to stay in this country. Since then, another member of the team has been saved from that fate.

Of course those brave Iranian women should have been protected, and of course I am so glad—and I think I am joined by millions of Australians—that those Iranian women have had the chance to apply for a humanitarian visa and be given protection by this country. But you know what? To Labor's utter shame, on the very same day they did that they brought legislation into this parliament—cheered on by their mates in the war parties coalition of Labor, the coalition and One Nation—that they want to ram through without formalities in the other place and want to ram through without formalities here to literally shut the door on 7,200 other Iranians who have valid visas to come to this country. Why are they doing it? Why are they shutting the door on those 7,200? Because they don't want any of those Iranians to come here and do exactly what the Iranian women's football team have done and make an application onshore to be granted asylum and to be granted protection.

Having done the photo opportunity with the Iranian women footballers, having run the media in the morning about Labor coming out and protecting this handful of brave Iranian women, they used the smokescreen of that to, that same day, shut the door to 7,200 other Iranians. You couldn't get more obvious, base hypocrisy than we got from Labor in doing that. To be clear, on the exact process that the Iranian women footballers went through onshore—able to make an application for asylum and granted asylum—Labor said, 'Okay, we've done that for six, but no more.' To the other 7,200 Iranians, who otherwise could have come to this country and made a claim onshore, they say, 'Absolutely not,' shutting the door.

As you would expect, the three war parties in this place—Labor, the coalition and One Nation—all support the war, this illegal war, and its bombing and killing, which is creating much of the grief and the fear in Iran, together with a brutal regime of course. Having supported the war to create the crisis, all three of the war parties are now supporting Labor ramming this legislation through. We have a very real fear—as does the refugee sector and those Australians across the country who expect more from the government—that Labor, the coalition and One Nation are going to join together tomorrow to guillotine this legislation and ram it through without debate, like they're no doubt going to shut down this debate as soon as I sit down. They'll shut down this debate so that anyone who doesn't agree with the three war parties, and their toxic mixture of global organised violence led by Donald Trump and global organised bastardry against people seeking asylum, can't make a contribution on this bill. That's what's going to happen as sure as night follows day.

So what I say on behalf of my party, the Greens, and on behalf of the millions of Australians who are looking at the disaster in Iran; the disaster in the Middle East; the conflict spilling over the borders; the hundreds of thousands of people in Lebanon who have been made homeless because of yet another vicious, illegal attack by Israel; the hundreds killed in Beirut and southern Lebanon; the thousands killed in Iran and the thousands more injured; and the more than a hundred schoolgirls who were killed by a US missile strike in the first 24 hours of the illegal, brutal war that Labor, the coalition and One Nation support—the Greens say, in part to give voice to those millions of Australians who want a different country and a different world, that we're not going to let this be guillotined and rammed through without any scrutiny or debate.

We see you. Again, we see you. We see the three of you—Labor, the coalition and One Nation—coming up with your plans to be cruel to people who have come here to seek asylum and coming up with your plans to back in the US forever wars, and in this moment doing them both together. You support the illegal war. You support the bombing and the killing in Iran, and then, when you think: 'Oh, my goodness. That might actually create refugees. That might create people who need protection from the bombing and killing,' which you actually support and endorse, you say: 'Australia is not going to give anyone protection. We'll just revert to cruelty mode A,' which is your standard operating procedure. Labor had a choice at this moment.

An appalling humanitarian catastrophe started in the region with another US illegal war—an Israeli illegal war, the attacks on a Iran, the attacks on Lebanon. We knew that there would be thousands and thousands displaced. In fact, Labor knows that there are likely to be thousands of Iranians applying for asylum if they can come into this country and apply for asylum under their visas. So what Labor could have done was look back into history—

Marielle Smith

Senator Shoebridge, I would just draw your attention to the debate being about the motion before us. So I ask you to draw your remarks back to the motion.

David Shoebridge

So the motion here is that this bill proceed without formalities, which is to cut out the public scrutiny and the parliamentary scrutiny of this. Why does Labor want no scrutiny, and why are they being joined by the coalition and One Nation? Why do the three war parties want no scrutiny? Why do they want to proceed without formalities? Because, when you lift the hood, look in and actually see what this bill is doing, it exposes the three war parties for what they are. It shows that Labor, the coalition and One Nation all have the same pattern. They all take the same approach in moments of crisis like this.

What Labor could have done, instead of trying to ram through this legislation, cut out the public and go to base-A cruelty to try and outflank One Nation in their race baiting and Islamophobia, is look back at what Bob Hawke did at the time of another international crisis. At the time of the Tiananmen Square massacre in China, there were tens of thousands of Chinese students in this country. Back then, Bob Hawke saw a humanitarian crisis and knew that it would be wrong to send people back into China, and he extended the refugee and humanitarian intake. Twenty thousand to 30,000 largely young Chinese students were given a chance to make a life in this country and were saved from being sent back to a regime that was likely to persecute them. He lifted the humanitarian intake for that year. That was an opportunity that Labor could have looked at. They could have looked to the example from 1989 and said, 'Actually, do you know what? There's a shred of decency in our past. We'll look to that decency and we'll make this moment a decent moment.' They could have lifted the humanitarian numbers by 7,200 to give those Iranians the same chance that we gave Chinese students in 1989.

But, instead of looking to Bob Hawke and instead of looking to that example of humanity and decency, Labor decided to look across the Pacific to Donald Trump and look at what he does with migrants—with Iranians who had come to the US seeking asylum. He'd been putting them on planes and sending them back to Iran in November, December and as late as January. That's what your mate Donald Trump has been doing. He's been sending Iranians back into Iran, knowing that they've made claims for protection in the United States. He's been sending them back into the regime. Having sent those Iranians back, you are joining Donald Trump in supporting the bombing and killing of them.

You had a choice. Labor had a choice, right? They could have looked to an example of decency and humanity, or they could have taken Donald Trump's war, killing, brutal, racist approach, and they chose Donald Trump. You chose the racism. In this case, you chose Islamophobia. You chose to try and make One Nation your mate at the expense of 7,200 Iranians who had visas who could have had the chance to come here for a life free from violence and persecution—free from your mate Donald Trump's bombs, free from your mate Benjamin Netanyahu's bombs, free from the killing. You could have given them that chance, and you chose not to.

I said before that we see you and we see how you act, with the coalition, trying to out-bastard One Nation time after time. We see you, and, increasingly, the Australian public sees you. And this country, the core heartbeat of this country, is so much better than you—so much better than any of you in the three war parties. Our country wants peace. Our country wants to see the world as a place we engage with on principles. They want our neighbours to be not our enemies but our friends, our colleagues and our workmates. That's the world that I think the core beating heart of Australia wants, and, every time you do this, you betray those core Australian values.

Anthony Chisholm

I move:

That the question be now put.

Marielle Smith

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