Fatima Payman

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 22 June 2026:

Modernising and improving the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act), with particular reference to:

(a) updating the Act to account for advances in technology, where necessary;

(b) ensuring that the Act works for all participants in the freedom of information process;

(c) protecting the right of Australians to access information held by the Australian Government;

(d) what elements of the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 ought feature in any future reform to the Act;

(e) what elements of the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 ought not feature in any future reform to the Act; and

(f) any other related matters.

Sue Lines

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

Slade Brockman

The question is that the suspension motion be agreed to.

Mehreen Faruqi

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the International Day to Combat Islamophobia, as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in the name of Senator Waters, 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 to give precedence to a motion relating to the International Day to Combat Islamophobia.

March 15 is the anniversary of the Christchurch mosque massacre, and it marks the International Day to Combat Islamophobia. The urgency of this motion should be self-evident, but I will nonetheless make a case for urgency. Seven years ago, an Australian white supremacist terrorist walked into two mosques in Christchurch and shot and murdered 51 Muslims as they gathered for Friday prayers. They were fathers, mothers, grandparents and children. The man who carried out that massacre was not a stranger to this country. He was Australian raised; he was Australian radicalised. The ideology that fuelled this act of terror did not appear overnight. It was built over decades of Islamophobia, decades of Muslims being portrayed as dangerous, decades of politicians and the media telling us that Muslims are a threat to the so-called Australian way of life, and decades of rhetoric suggesting Muslims are inherently suspicious, unworthy of protection and a disease to be inoculated against.

Instead of confronting the conditions that made such an atrocity possible, governments have looked away or, even worse, leaned right in. Australia has never truly reckoned with the fact that this terrorist was shaped by the Islamophobia that has long been fuelled and tolerated in this country. That reckoning never came. If the Christchurch massacre had truly woken this country up, things would look very different today. Instead, Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate have become more normalised, more emboldened and more dangerous.

Just recently, a white supremacist was arrested in Western Australia for planning a terrorist attack on mosques in Perth, after allegedly stockpiling weapons and ammunition, yet in the media the terrorist was described as 'a young tradie whose life had come undone'. The WA police commissioner was publicly sympathetic to the man who intended to slaughter Muslim men, women and children. Why? It's because he was white. The media downplayed this terrorism, and they showed more care to the perpetrators than they did to the potential victims.

A far-right man recently threw abuse and punches at a Muslim community dinner where kids were also present. This happened in Ballarat. He was just told to move on by the police—nothing more. It is no wonder that Islamophobia is on the rise. Mosques and Islamic schools across this country are receiving violent threats. A Muslim cemetery was desecrated; pigs heads were left on graves. Lakemba Mosque has received threat after threat. This is the reality that Muslims are living under today in this country, and yet, instead of confronting the hate that fuels this violence, our politics and media continue to inflame it, legitimise it and normalise it.

Edward Said wrote Covering Islam 45 years ago, and his arguments about how the Western world deliberately constructs and portrays Islam and Muslims as synonymous with terrorism and religious hysteria are perhaps even truer now than they were 50 years ago. The use of language and rhetoric to distort, diminish, dehumanise and demonise us has only escalated. The Prime Minister will happily turn up at Ramadan festivals and markets and use us as video props for his performative solidarity, but, when it comes to standing unequivocally against Islamophobia, taking action to protect Muslims and acting with urgency, there is absolutely no movement.

Seven years ago, 51 Muslims were massacred in Christchurch by an Australian man with an extreme Islamophobic ideology. Christchurch should have been a turning point that forced this country to confront its own anti-Muslim hate and racism, but this horror was not enough to make you act. I'm not actually sure what it will take to make you lot act, but perhaps on the anniversary, this 15 March, you can reflect on this and then commit to treating Islamophobia with the urgency that it deserves. Perhaps on this International Day to Combat Islamophobia you can find it in your heart to show the Muslims in this country that you care a little bit about us rather than shut down this motion.

Murray Watt

Yet again we see the Greens political party focus on launching political attacks on their political enemies and not on social cohesion. This motion, which has been moved by Senator Faruqi, was first circulated minutes before we began today, demonstrating that the Greens political party had no intention of working with anyone else in this chamber to seek agreement. This government strongly resists and opposes Islamophobia, and I encourage anyone to look at the government's record to see the evidence of that.

Mehreen Faruqi

You do nothing.

Murray Watt

We can see from Senator Faruqi's constant interjections that, as I say, she's more interested in political attacks than in actually working together. The approach the Greens have taken today by distributing this motion minutes before we began to sit, without giving anyone an opportunity to look at it and without seeking to work together, stands in contrast to the approach that the government has repeatedly taken on issues of social cohesion. We have repeatedly worked with other parties, including the Greens political party, to develop motions that the entire chamber can agree to. That is not the approach of the Greens political party, who are always more interested in political attacks than in social cohesion.

What we need to do in this country is find ways to work together to stamp out Islamophobia and to stamp out every other form of racism that unfortunately Australians experience. For those reasons, the government will be opposing this motion. If the Greens political party want, in the future, to seek to work with us rather than dump a motion on us before we begin, we'd be happy to discuss it with them. On that basis, I move:

That the question be now put.

Slade Brockman

The question is that the question be put.

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Duniam, I move:

(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on the Government's Management of ISIS Brides be established to inquire into and report on the national security, counter-terrorism and public safety risks arising from the return, or potential return, to Australia of Australians (including women and children) who have been associated with ISIS in Syria and/or Iraq, with particular reference to:

(a) the role, actions and decision-making processes of relevant Commonwealth ministers in relation to the repatriation, or proposed repatriation, of Australians linked to ISIS, including but not limited to the Prime Minister, the Minister for Home Affairs, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Attorney-General and their offices and any other relevant portfolio minister and their offices; including:

(i) consideration of ministerial briefings, directions and approvals,

(ii) decisions relating to the issuing, refusal or cancellation of passports,

(iii) the making, revocation or consideration of temporary exclusion orders,

(iv) the exercise of citizenship cessation or migration-related powers,

(v) engagement with and representations from non-government organisations, legal representatives, advocacy groups or third parties,

(vi) meetings between ministers or their offices and departmental officials,

(vii) interdepartmental and interagency coordination, and

(viii) any other correspondence, advice or involvement by ministers, their offices or departments relating to the assessment, facilitation or management of repatriation activities;

(b) the current threat assessment relating to Australians linked to ISIS, including:

(i) the number and status of individuals overseas and returned,

(ii) Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation and Australian Federal Police assessments of short-term and long-term risk, and

(iii) the potential for radicalisation, facilitation, recruitment or support activities within Australia;

(c) the adequacy of Australia's legislative framework to mitigate risks posed by returning individuals, including:

(i) counter-terrorism offences under the Commonwealth Criminal Code,

(ii) declared area provisions,

(iii) control orders and preventative detention orders,

(iv) continuing detention orders,

(v) terrorism notification requirements, and

(vi) citizenship cessation and passport cancellation power;

(d) consular and welfare assistance, including coordination with non-government organisations and international organisations;

(e) the operational capability and resourcing of relevant Commonwealth agencies, including Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Federal Police and the Department of Home Affairs, to:

(i) investigate and gather admissible evidence from foreign conflict zones,

(ii) prosecute terrorism-related offences,

(iii) conduct ongoing monitoring, surveillance and disruption activities, and

(iv) manage long-term security risks;

(f) the intergovernmental coordination between Commonwealth, state and territory authorities, including:

(i) information sharing arrangements,

(ii) risk management frameworks, and

(iii) community safety planning and law enforcement preparedness;

(g) the specific risks posed by returning these women and children, including:

(i) exposure to extremist ideology or training,

(ii) safeguarding against future radicalisation pathways, and

(iii) appropriate security-informed child protection responses;

(h) the experience of comparable allied nations in managing the return of ISIS-linked individuals, including best practice models for risk mitigation and prosecution;

(i) the cost implications of monitoring, prosecution, detention and long-term security management of returnees;

(j) whether any legislative amendments or new powers are required to ensure Australia's national security framework is sufficient to address the risks associated with returning ISIS-linked individuals; and

(k) any related matters.

(2) That the committee present its final report by 17 September 2026.

(3) That the committee consist of 7 senators, as follows:

(a) two nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;

(b) three nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;

(c) one nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate; and

(d) one nominated by minority party or independent senators.

(4) That:

(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator;

(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee; and

(c) a participating member shall be taken to be a member of a committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if a majority of members of the committee is not present.

(5) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.

(6) That the committee elect as chair a member nominated by the Opposition and, as deputy chair, a member nominated by the Government.

(7) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.

(8) That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, may appoint another member of the committee to act as chair during the temporary absence of both the chair and deputy chair at a meeting of the committee.

(9) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.

(10) That the committee has power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.

(11) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.

(12) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 414, standing in the name of Senator Duniam, be agreed to.

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Duniam, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than 2 pm on Monday, 23 March 2026:

(a) any ministerial determination, authorisation or instrument made under section 9 of the Australian Passports Act 2005 in relation to any individual within the cohort of 34 Australian citizens (commonly referred to in public reporting as 'ISIS brides and their children') who have been reported as intending to travel imminently to Australia;

(b) any document recording or evidencing the exercise of ministerial discretion to excuse, exempt or otherwise not apply section 37 of the Australian Passports Act 2005 in relation to any individual within that cohort and any person seeking to help them; and

(c) any associated ministerial submissions, briefs, file notes, departmental advice and records of decisions relating to the matters identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) above.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 413, standing in the name of Senator Duniam, be agreed to.

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Duniam, I move general business notices of motion Nos 409, 410, 411 and 412 together:

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 409

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than 2 pm on Monday, 23 March 2026, all briefs and briefing notes, submissions, talking points, options papers and other departmental advice provided to the Minister for Home Affairs since 29 July 2024 specifically concerning options available to him to prevent individuals described in public reporting as 'ISIS brides' from returning to Australia.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 410

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, by no later than 2 pm on Monday, 23 March 2026, all briefs and briefing notes, submissions, talking points, options papers and other departmental advice provided to her during her period as Minister for Foreign Affairs specifically concerning options available to her to prevent individuals described in public reporting as 'ISIS brides' from returning to Australia.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 411

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than 2 pm on Monday, 23 March 2026, all correspondence between the Department of Home Affairs and Dr Jamal Rifi from 29 July 2024 to the date on which the response to this order is provided, including letters, emails, file notes of meetings and telephone conversations, and any other records of communication.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 412

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than 2 pm on Monday, 23 March 2026:

(a) all written correspondence between the Minister for Home Affairs and Dr Jamal Rifi from 29 July 2024 to the day on which the response to this order is provided, including letters, emails, text messages and messages sent via encrypted messaging applications;

(b) all written correspondence between the Minister for Home Affairs' office and Dr Jamal Rifi from 29 July 2024 to the day on which the response to this order is provided;

(c) any telephone records or call logs evidencing communications between the Minister for Home Affairs and Dr Jamal Rifi from 29 July 2024 to the day on which the response to this order is provided; and

(d) any telephone records or call logs evidencing communications between the Minister for Home Affairs' office and Dr Jamal Rifi from 29 July 2024 to the day on which the response to this order is provided.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notices of motion Nos 409, 410, 411 and 412, all standing in the name of Senator Duniam, be agreed to.

Peter Whish-Wilson

At the request of Senator Shoebridge, I move:

That the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulations 2025, made under the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Act 2024, be disallowed [F2025L01226].

These regulations allow the US to bring their nuclear submarines to Australia as part of the toxic and bankrupting AUKUS agreement. This regulation itself scraps dozens of state and territory regulations on protecting the environment to allow nuclear waste to be dumped here in Australia. This is all part of making Australia an arm of the US military. That is the reason Australians were on US nuclear submarines that attacked an Iranian frigate and left the crew to drown, a situation I must note today is being discussed as a potential war crime. This disallowance and AUKUS is the reason Australia has just sent troops to Iran.

I note with some alarm, as I know many Australians do, the mission creep that we have seen in just over a week, since the very first strike against the Iranian leadership and the decapitation of the Iranian leadership by the US and Israel condemned internationally by most countries except Australia and a few US allies as being illegal—not a defensive strike or a pre-emptive strike but a strike that hit a sovereign nation. Whatever you think of the Iranian regime, the question we have to ask ourselves is: how is this going to make Australia and the world a safer place?

I also ask senators to reflect on the last time we followed the US into a forever war. How many times has this happened throughout history? How many times have we committed Australian military personnel—our sons, daughters, brothers, uncles, fathers and mothers—to go and fight in foreign theatres of war and found them in strategically, morally and ethically questionable circumstances, with the difficulty of pulling our military personnel out of these conflicts once they start the quagmire of death, destruction, pain, hurt and misery that they cause?

I remember all too well the 'weapons of mass destruction' con that was being bandied around by the US regime. At least they took that to the UN. It turned out that it was a complete con job. A brutal dictator who was going to use weapons of mass destruction was the excuse used to invade with the coalition of the willing, or what became known as the coalition of the killing. When they toppled that regime and implemented that regime change, it led to a shock wave of chaos and suffering not just across the Middle East but right across Europe, a wave of refugees fleeing persecution all around the world, the rise of ISIS and terrorism, the civil war in Syria—I could go on. All of this was triggered by a unilateral, illegal invasion of Iraq that defied a rules based order.

And what did we learn over a week ago? Our government has backed in the bombing of Iran. It has been very careful with its language, saying, 'We didn't bomb Iran.'

Anthony Chisholm

We're not the ones who need to be careful with language. Did you hear what Senator Faruqi just said?

Peter Whish-Wilson

I'll take that interjection, Senator Chisholm. Within 24 hours, the Prime Minister was backing it in, as was Senator Wong, talking about the Iranian regime's nuclear program. They didn't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Actually, I thought Donald Trump had thoroughly debunked that himself, saying multiple times that he had obliterated the Iranian nuclear program—after hearing in March last year from his own intelligence agencies that it didn't exist and that there was no plan for Iran to develop a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency also debunked that this week—another lie told to the Australian people. They say that the truth is the first casualty in war.

What did we hear after that was thoroughly debunked? Suddenly, we heard that Iran was going to strike us first—the US and Israel and its neighbours. That has also been debunked. It was debunked by the Pentagon two days ago. They said that there is no evidence that that was the case. The question is: why did the US and Israel illegally attack a foreign sovereign nation? What other lies are we going to be told? This is not just a war on Iran; this is a war on the truth. It's no wonder that Australians are sceptical. It's no wonder that they're anxious. They saw what happened when we followed the US into a forever war in past history. They question why we are joined at the hip with the United States government and why we have bases in Australia that we know are helping coordinate the attacks on Iran in the Middle East.

I bring senators back to peace and diplomacy. I must say that I was very frustrated when I saw Senator Wong's interview on I__nsiders the day after the first strike against the Iranian regime. She refused to condemn it, virtually backed it in and then called for a return to diplomacy and a rules based order so that this conflict doesn't escalate. How can you do that? How can you not condemn a clear breach of international law—like, by the way, what we've seen in Gaza—and then call for a return to a rules based order when it suits you? Of course we should be conducting diplomacy. They do say that war is failed diplomacy.

I can't understand why we've again gotten ourselves in a situation where we've got conflict spreading across the Middle East. I also remind senators of President George W Bush's famous speech on an aircraft carrier. He said 'Mission accomplished—an end to major hostilities'. What did we see after that? We saw an insurgency, and we saw an incredible amount of bloodshed. It wasn't just Western soldiers that lost their lives; it was hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and it spread into neighbouring countries.

When are we going to learn? When are we going to have an independent foreign policy where we can openly question the decisions of Donald Trump and Mr Netanyahu?

James Paterson

No-one's stopping you.

Peter Whish-Wilson

We are openly questioning—Senator Paterson, I'll take that interjection. That is exactly why we are raising these issues in the Australian Senate today—on behalf of, by the way, millions of Australians who are deeply concerned and anxious about this latest conflict and the potential for it to escalate not just to other Middle Eastern countries, as we are seeing, but much further abroad, with major powers being drawn into this. This is a very dangerous situation—I know you, Senator Paterson, would know that better than most people in this place—and we have an important role to play here, as Australian senators representing the Australian people, in, for example, raising this disallowance of the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulations 2025.

I can sit down any time? Well, I've still got a little bit left. I'll take that interjection from you too. Thank you, Senator. McKim. The instrument—the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulations 2025—follows on from the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Act 2024. These regulations are extensive and clarify the changes made in the act—for example, providing further details on managing, storing and disposing of radioactive waste from an AUKUS submarine at Osborne and Stirling, including reporting requirements for a licence. These regulations also provide a map of the areas now considered a designated zone for AUKUS nuclear submarines and associated waste, which is referred to in the appendices. These regulations also override state and territory laws including the Protection from Harmful Radiation Act 1990 in New South Wales and the Radiation Protection Act 2004 in the Northern Territory. These regulations set out what international laws the regulator has to have regard to. These do not include the UNDRIP, which would require the free, prior and informed consent of First Nations people.

I know Senator Shoebridge is looking forward to making a contribution on this disallowance, and I thank him for all the hard work that he's done on behalf of the Australian Greens, the millions of people who voted for us and the millions of people who care about a rules based order, care about Australia having an independent foreign policy and care about peace and diplomacy and ending war. You cannot bomb your way to peace.

James Paterson

Well, where to begin on that contribution, this debate and this disallowance motion? I suppose I'll begin by putting on the record that the opposition will not be supporting this disallowance motion. It would be irresponsible and reckless to do so. We'll be opposing it because we support AUKUS—both Pillar I and Pillar II—but also because these regulations are necessary to facilitate the safe and lawful visitation of US nuclear powered submarines to Australian naval bases and facilities, including HMAS Stirling in Western Australia.

When your own colleagues interject on you to say that you can sit down at any time, I think that's probably a fair indicator of how off-track your contribution has become, as Senator Whish-Wilson—

Thank you, Senator McKim. I'm grateful for that facilitation. Really, much of that contribution from Senator Whish-Wilson had nothing at all to do with the regulations. Some frankly bizarre claims were made as part of that contribution, including the assertion that the Australian government's announcement today that it would be contributing defensive military assets to the region following the strikes by Iran on its neighbours, who are not participants in the war in Iran, was in some way and somehow related to AUKUS. Points to Senator Whish-Wilson for trying to find a hook on the current news cycle for this preplanned motion on nuclear safety, but, of course, the reason why the Australian government made the decision to deploy an E-7A Wedgetail and 85 personnel and provide air-to-air missiles is that we had requests from the United Arab Emirates and other gulf states, and last time I checked they were not parties to AUKUS. There's a hint in the name of AUKUS of which parties are participants, and the UAE is not one of them.

We rightly made a contribution to that cause (a) because the UAE and other gulf states are our friends, and they generously provided the Al Minhad base for Australia for decades so we can operate out of there safely when we're in the Middle East; (b) because it's in our national interest that the waterways and airspace around the gulf states are restored to normalcy and peace so that Australians can leave the region by scheduled commercial flights and so that oil and other shipping can flow again through the Strait of Hormuz; and (c) because it's an opportunity for Australia to learn from the realities of modern warfare, which include drone and missile strikes. The Wedgetail in particular will be assisting gulf states to identify, interdict and prevent those drones and missiles from striking civilian targets in the gulf states, including hotels, roads and airports, which have been indiscriminately struck by Iran in recent weeks.

To summarise, the opposition will not be supporting this disallowance motion. We strongly support AUKUS Pillar I, and we strongly support the regulations that are necessary to ensure the safe and lawful access of US nuclear-powered submarines to Australian naval facilities.

Long debate text truncated.

David Shoebridge

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the proposed Australian military deployment to the Middle East as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice, standing in the name of Senator Waters, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of the matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the proposed Australian military deployment to the Middle East.

The motion that the Greens are bringing to this house—no doubt, it will be opposed by the three war parties: Labor, the coalition and One Nation—is:

That the Senate:

(a) notes that the Australian public rejects Labor's push to be part of another US-led forever war in the Middle East, which has already seen thousands of civilians injured and killed and the world spiralling into economic chaos and even greater insecurity; and

(b) calls on the Government to immediately end support for the US and Israeli war with Iran, withdraw all Australian troops from the US military, prohibit the US from using Australian-based military assets, and not send any Australian troops to the region to participate in this illegal war.

I know that there will be resistance to this. The government say that they desperately think that they should get onto the 'Transitional amendments No. 4 Defence veterans bill' or that some other thing is more urgent than this motion, but I can tell you now that the Australian public are watching in horror as Labor drags them into another US forever war. Labor is doing it with the support from the other two war parties in here—the coalition and One Nation. Between you, you've never seen a US war you didn't want to back in. You've never seen a demand from Donald Trump that you haven't wanted to bend over to grant—whenever he asks! If it's 2 am in the morning—whenever he asks!

We have, today, in just one week, seen how this war has escalated—the economic chaos and the killings. This war started in the first 24 hours with a US strike on a school that killed over 100 Iranian schoolgirls and their teachers. It was a devastating strike. We see Donald Trump spinning and lying and trying to pretend that it wasn't him—the disinformation campaign. A war that started with the US killing of schoolgirls has now expanded across the region. Millions of civilians, desperate about whether they will survive the next 24 hours—and the people of Iran, who were already fearful of their regime, are now fearful of the regime and the US and Israeli bombs and missiles that are also killing them.

What does our government do? Labor was the first government on the planet to rush out and support Donald Trump's illegal wars, and then Labor said it wouldn't send troops. What do we get today? After some messaging on the weekend, today we get the Prime Minister coming out and saying that not only will Australian troops be embedded throughout the US military, in nuclear submarines and others, but today we're sending military personnel into the region and an AEW&C RAAF plane. Missiles are being redirected, Australian troops are being put on the ground. Let's be clear what this is about. It's not about defending anyone. It's not about keeping the people of Iran safe. It's not about keeping the people of the United Arab Emirates safe. It's not about safety or defence. Every military asset we send into the region is designed to free up another US military asset to be used to kill people in Iran. That's what's happening here.

The Prime Minister came out today and said that he made these decisions. Let's be clear on where these decisions are made. They're made in Washington and they're operationalised in Canberra. As I understand it, the missiles being redirected from Australia wasn't even Australia's choice; it was United States telling the US weapons manufacturers that they had to redirect it, and the Australian government are pretending it was their decision. Every time we see this: Labor, the coalition and One Nation—the three war parties—asking Donald Trump what they can do next.

This war is spiralling into evermore economic chaos. Energy prices are rising. Economic markets are in chaos. Why did this happen? This happened because the world was silent again when the United States decided that international law and common rules of decency don't apply to them.

What was worse than silence from the Australian government was that they actively backed in this war. They now own the violence, the killing and the disruption that comes from it. Why on Earth are we sending Australian troops into the Middle East at this point? We get told that it's about defence. We get told that it's to protect the United Arab Emirates. Let us be clear this is not in Australia's national interest. Australia does not have an alliance with the United Arab Emirates. We don't have key trade arrangements with the United Arab Emirates. The only reason we're sending troops there is Washington has told us to—to free up US military assets to continue the US and Israel's illegal war against Iran. The doublespeak and hypocrisy that are coming from this government are obscene. I'm proud to be in the Greens, the only party standing up against the war parties in this chamber.

Don Farrell

Can I say on behalf of the government that we completely reject your suggestions that we are a war party, Senator Shoebridge. We're a party of peace. There's no government that wants to see a more peaceful outcome in the Middle East than the Labor government under Anthony Albanese.

Senator Shoebridge, I was very respectful during the whole time you spoke. I didn't interrupt at all. I would request the same civility when I am speaking on this issue on behalf of the government. Can I suggest, Senator Shoebridge, that you go back and have a look at the 1930s and what happens when appeasers succeed and you don't reject regimes like the regime in Iran right now. On a day when five very brave young Iranian women stood up to their government and decided to seek asylum in Australia—

Sarah Hanson-Young

And you're slamming the door on the rest of them.

Don Farrell

Again, I listened to Senator Shoebridge in silence, and I would seek the same respect.

Iran's reprisal attacks continue to escalate. Already, the scale and the depth are not what we have seen before. Twelve countries in the region have now been targeted. The UAE—which recently, Senator Shoebridge, contrary to what you said in your contribution, signed a free trade agreement with Australia—have been forced to shoot down 1,500 rockets and drones. It's a growing wave of dangerous and destabilising attacks from Iran that puts civilian lives at risk, including Australian lives. There's something like 24,000 Australian citizens who live in the United Arab Emirates.

In response to a request from our friends in the UAE, Australia will deploy an E-7A Wedgetail to the gulf to help protect and defend Australians and other civilians. Australians will remember that these E-7A Wedgetails were recently deployed in Europe as part of our assistance to the Ukraine. As it did there, the Wedgetail will provide long-range reconnaissance capabilities, which will secure the airspace above the gulf. These are entirely defensive actions, Senator Shoebridge. A number of ADF personnel will be deployed for an initial four weeks in support of the collective self-defence of the gulf nations. Additionally, in response to a request, the Albanese government intends to provide advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles to the UAE so they can defend themselves and shoot down these rockets and drones that are being aimed at them by the Iranian government.

The Albanese government has been clear that we are not taking offensive action against Iran, and been clear that we are not deploying Australian troops on the ground in Iran. On that basis, I move:

That the question be now put.

Glenn Sterle

The question is that the motion moved by Minister Farrell be agreed to.

Penny Wong

I move:

That—

(a) the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026 be called on today at the following times:

(i) not later than 1 pm, and

(ii) following proposals under standing order 75;

(b) the questions on all remaining stages of the bills be put at 7.30 pm;

(c) the question for the adjournment be proposed following the conclusion of consideration of the bills;

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

(e) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm for the purposes of the bills.

Sue Lines

The procedure motion just agreed to requires that the substantive motion be put without amendment or debate, so I'll put the question. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Sue Lines

The question is that the procedural motion moved by the minister be agreed to.