Sue Lines

I remind senators that yesterday at 6.30 pm a vote was deferred relating to an amendment moved by Senator Askew to a motion to refer a matter to the Economics References Committee. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate to hold the vote now. The question on closure will be put first. If that is agreed to, I'll put the question on the amendment. The question is that the question be now put.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Just a moment, everyone. Senator Scarr has asked for a cancellation of this division.

Question agreed to.

The question is that the amendment, as moved by Senator Askew and standing in the name of Cash, be agreed to.

Sue Lines

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

Sue Lines

Senators, you'll recall that, earlier this morning, Senators Faruqi and Cash stood at the same time. I indicated I would give precedence to Senator Cash, and now I intend to give precedence to Senator Faruqi. I understand Senator McKenzie has sent a motion around. I have taken advice from the clerks, and, because it's gone side to side, it is appropriate to give the call to Senator Faruqi. Senator Cash?

Michaelia Cash

In relation to the ruling, can I ask you to take it away formally and come back to the chamber. Senator Bridget McKenzie is a party leader. A party leader would normally have precedence over someone who is not a party leader and just a senator. I would like you to take that on notice and report back to the Senate.

Sue Lines

Senator Cash, I did indicate I had already sought advice from the Clerk, but I am happy to go back to the Clerk. I had sought advice from the Clerk. That is what I was advised. So I am giving the call to Senator Faruqi.

Mehreen Faruqi

President, will I seek the call later.

Sue Lines

Thank you, Senator Faruqi. Senator McKenzie.

Bridget McKenzie

I thank you, Senator Faruqi, for that consideration. I seek leave to move a motion.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, as leader of the National Party, 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 reinstatement of the cross-portfolio hearing into the Murray-Darling Basin Plan matters.

Here we stand again. The Labor Party is using their numbers, in partnership with the Greens political party, to diminish the Australian Senate, to diminish Senate estimates, one of the key components of our ability as a parliament and as a people to hold whoever's in government to account.

I heard the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, in her contribution to Senator Cash, say: 'Well, it's alright. Steady on. We've got December estimates, everyone. You'll get your chance.' Well, the reality is that that once again shows that the Labor Party don't understand regional Australia, have no idea about water policy and, indeed, fundamentally want to avoid scrutiny of how they've handled the water portfolio in their time in government.

The reason that we have cross-portfolio days is that opposition senators and crossbench senators go to the environment department, the health department, the Treasury department and the finance department and ask their questions, and they're told: 'We don't deal with that. You'll have to go over here or you'll have to go over there.' The reason we had cross-portfolio is that those senators that are interested in the sustainability of the Murray-Darling Basin, its river systems, its communities and the industries that underpin the economics of the Murray-Darling Basin were able to ensure relevant scrutiny.

Over 2½ million people live in the Murray-Darling Basin. Since the Murray-Darling Basin Plan has been in place, we've seen industry decimated and negative environmental impacts. In my own home state of Victoria, rushing flow through particularly the Barmah Choke has seen bank degradation and trees dying en masse because we're more interested in the number of gigalitres that go down the Murray than we are in assessing environmental impact. What we now know, a decade after the plan, is that if we put less water down, more slowly, we would get better environmental impacts. But the Labor Party and the Greens don't care about the environmental, social or economic impacts of their water policy, because it's a bit like their approach to the live sheep trade in Western Australia: it's all about winning votes for Sarah Hanson-Young in Adelaide, for NSW and Victorian senators in Melbourne and Sydney and for Tanya Plibersek and others to hold inner-city seats in Sydney. That is the reality of the Labor and the Greens' approach to the Murray-Darling Basin.

That one day of cross-portfolio allowed us to not only get questions on why you're pursuing buy-backs from unwilling sellers—I like how you call them 'willing sellers' when they are broke because of the Labor party's policies. Why are you pursuing buy-backs when farmers have told you they don't want them, when in my own state of Victoria your own Labor ministers are saying we don't support federal Labor's approach?

What we've seen in the last 10 years is you've gone to where the secure water entitlements are—they are in the highly managed state of Victoria—and you've purchased our water. You've created a swiss-cheese effect right throughout dairy and country, in particular in central-north Victoria, and we have now seen manufacturing jobs in the dairy industry at risk because the litreage in our dairy farms of northern Victoria are dropping. Why? It's not because we don't know how to farm, not because farmers aren't able to innovate and not because we're in severe drought or floods; it's because of the federal Labor Party's water policy.

If you've got your own Labor Party ministers in Victoria saying, 'You are going down the wrong track,' our responsibility as crossbenchers and as opposition senators is to hold the government to account for their policy decisions, to hold the Murray-Darling Basin Authority—this unelected agency, whose own decisions fly in the face of good social, economic and environment policy—to account. Shame on the Labor Party for cancelling— (Time expired)

Katy Gallagher

I move:

That the question be now put.

Sue Lines

The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Gallagher for closure be agreed to.

Jonathon Duniam

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the 2025-26 supplementary budget estimates hearings, as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in the name of Senator Cash, 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 a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the 2025-26 supplementary budget estimates hearings.

The reason I do that is, today, Labor and the Greens did what we have been predicting for some time that they would—another dodgy deal. Today that deal dropped to an absolutely new low, and that low was, of course, the removal of scrutiny, which is incredibly important, in two areas. The motion we want to move today is one that relates to the cross-portfolio estimates hearings of, firstly, the Indigenous matters and, secondly, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

It is astounding that a Labor government that holds itself up as the champion of Indigenous Australians—in partnership with the Greens, who claim the same thing—would go and scrap a full day of hearings in the Senate estimates process relating to Indigenous matters when we consider that many of the key indicators around closing the gap are going backwards when it comes to Indigenous wellbeing in this country. This government, who promised us new levels of transparency, who promised us that they would ensure that Australians knew more about what was happening here under this government and who promised that they would provide accountability to the Australian people about things that mattered, have gone and slammed the door on accountability and have shut down scrutiny of what they should be offering to this parliament. But the worst part is that, for those who signed up to this terrible arrangement, it's the Greens who have backed this in. I do not know how it's the Australian Greens, who for so long have stood in here and told us that governments of either persuasion don't do enough for Indigenous Australians and that we need to do more. Former Greens, like Senator Cox, would probably have championed a different position inside the Greens but instead are now part of the Labor Party and signed up to this terrible arrangement. It is not good for democracy, it is not good for accountability, and it's certainly not good for Indigenous Australians.

Let's go through some of the key indicators we need to consider when this government has gone through a decision-making process as part of their sneaky deal earlier on in the chamber today to quash estimates for a whole day to consider cross-portfolio Indigenous matters. Youth detention under this government is up 11 per cent. But let's not have a day of Senate estimates; let's shut it down. Youth suicide, of course, is up by 9.4 per cent.

Government senators interjecting—

But, hey, you know what? There's no scrutiny. There's no accountability. If we talk about adult incarceration, it's up under this government by 3.5 per cent. Let's not have a day of hearing to examine what is actually going on and see where the policies of this government are failing Indigenous Australians. We've got colleagues who actually want to ask questions. Did anyone want to give a reason for that? No. They slipped it through the Senate, with the Greens, and just rammed it through. It's appalling. Preschool attendance in Indigenous Australians is down by 2.6 per cent. Again, let's not have a day of hearings to actually examine what's going wrong, why this government's policies are failing and why things need to change.

Government senators interjecting—

Slade Brockman

Order! Senator Ciccone!

Jonathon Duniam

Then, finally, 1.2 per cent fewer children are commencing school developmentally on track. Again, this is something critically important to consider for this parliament. Senate estimates is an important tool for us to be able to examine what governments are doing. You've got numbers like this—four indicators going backward on the KPIs for Closing the Gap—and this government, in partnership with their coalition bedfellows, the Greens, say: 'We are not going to allow you to examine these matters. We will not have a day of scrutiny on these important matters.' I think that's shameful. So I'm glad that today we've been able to shed some light on this appalling arrangement we have between Labor and the Greens, where they would shut down scrutiny of matters on Indigenous affairs in this country. You've got shameful numbers like this. You spend half-a-billion dollars on a referendum but refuse to allow senators who have an interest, like Senator Liddle and Senator Nampijinpa Price, to ask questions of this government and its ministers to ensure that we get some accountability. Anyone who says they stand up for Indigenous Australians and then supports what happened here should hang their heads in shame. How can you look at these numbers and say that what you've done today is good? It's not good for accountability. It's not good for democracy. It's not good for Indigenous Australians. But this is the brave new world under a Labor-Green government.

Penny Wong

I'd make three points very briefly, and then I will move that the motion be put. The first—which I'm sure you anticipated, Senator Duniam—is that those questions will still be able to be asked and answered in estimates. The second is that the coalition didn't oppose this change earlier in the day but now is feigning outrage. The third point is this, to the leadership of the coalition in this chamber: for many years I was the Senate leader in opposition. I remember it very clearly. And I consistently supported the government of the day in their parliamentary sitting pattern because that was the convention.

Opposition Senators

Opposition senators interjecting—

Penny Wong

Sorry—may I? May I finish?

Slade Brockman

Senator McGrath! Senator Wong, do you want to resume your seat?

Penny Wong

Sure.

Slade Brockman

Those on my left, I cannot hear Senator Wong.

Penny Wong

I appreciate that, Deputy President. It is unfortunate that the coalition want to work with Senator Pocock to change the parliamentary sitting, but that's a matter for them. On that note, I move:

That the question be now put.

Sue Lines

The question is that the closure motion, as moved by Senator Wong, be agreed to.

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Antic, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, by no later than 9.30 am on Monday, 29 September 2025, all documentation created during the period from February 2021 to date evidencing the Therapeutic Goods Administration's (TGA) adherence to, and implementation of, the TGA's 'COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Monitoring Plan' (the plan) including but not limited to:

(a) documents evidencing the TGA's implementation of the plan's stated aims and key objectives being:

(i) timely collection and management of reports of COVID-19 vaccine adverse events following immunisation,

(ii) timely detection and investigation of COVID-19 vaccine safety signals,

(iii) timely action to address any COVID-19 vaccine safety concerns,

(iv) timely communications to inform the public of emerging COVID-19 vaccine safety information and to support public confidence in vaccines, and

(v) close collaboration and coordination of effort with other vaccine safety stakeholder groups;

(b) documents evidencing the TGA's implementation of the plan's five key strategies including the TGA's implementation of each of the strategies, objectives and outputs referenced in the key strategies of the plan as follows:

(i) enhanced reporting of adverse events following immunisation,

(ii) enhanced safety signal detection and investigation,

(iii) actions in response to safety concerns,

(iv) communications, and

(v) collaborations; and

(c) any revisions of the plan.

Katy Gallagher

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Katy Gallagher

The government does not support this motion from Senator Antic. It's another trawling expedition from an anti-vaccination senator. In this case, it seeks documents stretching back to February 2021. It's an unacceptable diversion of departmental resources. The period stretches back to the Morrison government and the National COVID-19 Vaccine Program started by that government, which has continued under the Albanese government. Vaccination is the single most important step each of us can take to minimise the risk of severe disease and death associated with COVID-19 infection. Long-term data and real-world experience continue to confirm both the safety and the efficacy of vaccines for the prevention of severe disease, hospitalisations and death from COVID-19. The TGA closely monitors the safety of COVID-19 vaccines and has well-established and robust systems in place to capture reports of suspected adverse events.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 128, standing in the name of Senator Antic and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

Sue Lines

I remind senators that yesterday, after 6.30 pm, a division was called on Senator Bragg's motion proposing a disallowance. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate for the deferred vote to be held now. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Fatima Payman

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, by no later than 5 pm on Wednesday, 27 August 2025, the final written report of the Age Assurance Technology Trial.

Anthony Chisholm

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Anthony Chisholm

The government will be opposing this motion. The government is currently reviewing the findings of the age assurance trial. The Minister for Communications has been clear that she will publish the full age assurance trial report for full transparency.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 110, standing in the name of Senator Payman, be agreed to.

Sarah Hanson-Young

At the request of Senator Shoebridge, I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 31 October 2025:

The implementation of regulations aimed at protecting children and young people online, with particular reference to the Internet Search Engine Services Online Safety Code and the under 16 social media ban, including:

(a) privacy and data protection implications of age verification;

(b) the expansion of corporate data collection and user profiling capabilities enabled by code compliance requirements;

(c) the technical implementation and efficacy of age verification and content filtering mechanisms;

(d) alternative technical approaches to online safety for all users, including young people;

(e) appropriate oversight mechanisms for online safety codes;

(f) global experience and best practice; and

(g) any other related matters.

Malcolm Roberts

by leave—I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 31 October 2025:

The implementation of regulations aimed at protecting children and young people online, with particular reference to the Internet Search Engine Services Online Safety Code and the under 16 social media ban, including:

(a) privacy and data protection implications of age verification;

(b) the expansion of corporate data collection and user profiling capabilities enabled by code compliance requirements;

(c) the technical implementation and efficacy of age verification and content filtering mechanisms;

(d) alternative technical approaches to online safety for all users, including young people;

(e) appropriate oversight mechanisms for online safety codes;

(f) global experience and best practice;

(g) the rights and responsibilities of parents to decide what is best for their children; and

(h) any other matters.

Pauline Hanson

You didn't hear my voice?

Sue Lines

I didn't hear your voice, Senator Hanson.

Senator Hanson, if you want to seek my attention, you do need to stand, not just call out from another place.

Pauline Hanson

I would like to have that motion put forward again, please.

The

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

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Paul Scarr

Can we start again, with your indulgence, President?

Sue Lines

The opposition has asked for the matter to be recommitted. I intend to do that.

Paul Scarr

So we have the benefit of four minutes.

Sue Lines

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Roberts to business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 be agreed to.

Jacqui Lambie

I have some questions, obviously. My first question is: can you tell me whether or not Defence Housing still does any sponsorship? Is it still spending its money on sponsorship?

Jenny McAllister

Senator Lambie, this is a relatively narrow bill, and it doesn't go to the budget of DHA. It simply goes to a set of amendments to the Defence Housing Australia Act 1987. I don't have, consequently, information with me about the Defence Housing Australia budget, particularly at that level of granularity, and I might need to direct you to the other opportunities in the Senate to ask questions of that kind.

Jacqui Lambie

We have just over 61,000 personnel. Apparently, that's the new August number for this year. I think it is 61,229, to be precise. By the early 2030s—I don't know what you mean by 'early'; I'd say 2031 or 2032—you want to grow that to 69,000. How many houses, or married quarters or housing, is DHA going to be required to build in the next five years just to get you to the 2030s, if you are able to get 69,000, or another 7,000, defence personnel into the miliary?

Jenny McAllister

Senator Lambie, thanks for your question. Of course, as I indicated in my second reading contribution, the provision of housing for personnel remains critically important, and it's the core function of Defence Housing Australia. We have spoken in other forums about some of the initiatives that are underway to better understand the housing requirements of ADF personnel and to provision for them. Again, though, I would indicate that the bill before us is actually quite a short bill and that it's also quite narrowly constructed. It has a very limited purpose, which is simply to expand the capacity of DHA to provide housing, beyond ADF personnel, to a limited number of other categories. So I don't have detailed information of that kind, and I think questions about DHA's planning and Defence's budget are best dealt with in budget estimates or in some of the other forums available to senators.

Jacqui Lambie

First of all, this is integral because I want to know whether or not you've got enough married quarters and all the rest out there to get where you need to be by 2030 in bringing extras in. So you should have numbers in front of you. That's the first thing. We're going to go over quite a substantial thing because I need to make sure that our own have got housing if they're in uniform. That's what I want to know, and right now, because I've got no numbers and you can't give me any, there is no guarantee. That is my biggest problem. While we're here looking at numbers, can you tell how many members are in choice accommodation, how many are in living-in accommodation, how many are accessing rental assistance and how many are in service residences? I need those up-to-date numbers so you and I can go on with the conversation this morning.

Jenny McAllister

Thanks, Senator Lambie. I will provide the information that I have for you, Senator, but I think one of the things to draw the Senate's attention to is that this bill doesn't ask the Senate to make a decision about provisioning for Australian personnel or for philanthropic organisations, nor does it make a decision about provisioning for foreign service personnel. It simply creates a legislative capacity for DHA to do work of this kind. There are subsequent decisions that will need to be taken about the volume of housing that might be necessary in different places and at different times under the provisions of this bill, if it's passed, but that's not the decision that's in front of the Senate right now. The only decision before us is the decision contained in the legislation, which is, really: as a position of principle, is it okay for DHA to do work of this kind? Obviously, the government is bringing forward this bill because we believe that it is appropriate and, indeed, that it is important. I can tell you though—and I will do my best, where I can, Senator, to get the information you're asking for—that we anticipate an expansion in the order of 30,000 homes by 2040. That's the advice I have before me, Senator.

David Shoebridge

Minister, you say there's an expansion of 30,000 homes—I'm assuming through Defence Housing—are there estimates of how many of those homes or what proportion of those homes will be for foreign troops and foreign contractors as opposed to Australians?

Jenny McAllister

Senator, I can't add a great deal to the answer I've already provided. The bill before us is relatively narrow in scope. It asks us to allow, in principle, DHA to do work of this kind. Other decisions about how much, where and who are part of the ordinary budget processes of Defence. As you and I know, there are many opportunities to canvass those budget decisions during the budget estimates hearings and in other forums.

David Shoebridge

I was asking you about the information you brought to the chamber. You say that there is a prediction that there'll be these 30,000 homes built. You're now seeking the committee's agreement to allow an unknown chunk of those homes to be handed to US personnel and to foreign defence contractors. Is it your answer that you can't tell the committee how many of those homes will be now earmarked for foreign defence personnel and foreign defence contractors and that you don't have that information?

Jenny McAllister

As I've indicated, I'm trying to be careful about the information that I provide the committee, because it is important that it be accurate. The bill expands, in general, the capacity of Defence Housing Australia to provide housing for a range of personnel, including foreign personnel. I do have information about the housing demand for the estimated number of US and UK personnel coming to WA for SRF-West, if that would be of assistance. Of the 1,100 expected US and UK personnel, it is estimated that approximately half will be accompanied by their families and approximately half will arrive unaccompanied or are single. That translates into a housing demand of approximately 550 family residences and a combination of 550 one-bedroom apartments and/or on-base single living-in accommodation.

ASA and Defence will work closely together to respond to that. It will of course seek to do so in a manner that is cognisant of any impacts on local communities. That's partly why we're looking to make the changes to the legislation today. Defence Housing Australia have a well-developed business model that sees them work with private providers in the market to bring on new projects. In part, that is the model anticipated to be used to meet some of this demand. It has flow-on benefits for communities—because we have quite a number of examples where arrangements of that kind also enable bringing forward housing development that is then, through the same projects, offered into the private market.

David Shoebridge

Thanks for that additional information, Minister. I have two questions that flow from that. Is it intended those housing units be in addition to the 30,000 that you've indicated, or are they part of the 30,000 that you've indicated? That's my first question. My second question is: you indicated that the department expects the need to build 550 family homes for US and UK troops in Western Australia; is that what Senator Whiteaker was referring to in her contribution when she said Defence Housing Australia has already signed contracts for 550 new homes near Fleet Base West in the southern suburbs of Perth over the next five years?

My first question is: is that in addition to the 30,000 or part thereof? My second question is: are the 550 homes for US and UK defence personnel you're referring to the same 550 homes that Senator Whiteaker was referring to when she spoke about the signed contracts?

Jenny McAllister

Senator, in relation to whether or not the 30,000 homes includes those homes intended to be used by visiting personnel, the answer is yes. In relation to the contracts that have been entered into by DHA with developers, yes, those contracts have been entered into broadly with the intention of meeting the needs of the growth in workforce, some of whom will be workforce personnel associated with the UK and US.

David Shoebridge

Minister, what legal basis did Defence Housing Australia have to enter into contracts to build houses for US and UK troops when it signed those contracts for 550 new homes near Fleet Base West? Did they just decide that they weren't limited by the law—that they could just sign contracts to build homes for foreign defence personnel without troubling themselves with having the legal authority to do that?

Jenny McAllister

Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. Defence Housing Australia is tasked with providing housing necessary to meet Defence's operational requirements. These contracts were entered into as part of their ordinary portfolio management. Defence Housing Australia has a portfolio of homes. It includes leasing and constructing, and this is the ordinary way in which Defence Housing Australia conducts its business.

David Shoebridge

Minister, my hope would be that the ordinary way in which Defence Housing Australia conduct their business is by only entering into contracts to build homes where it is lawful to do so. I ask you again: did Defence Housing Australia sign contracts to build homes for US and UK defence personnel as part of the signed contracts for 550 homes Senator Whiteaker refers to? If so, on what possible legal basis did they do so?

Jenny McAllister

I'll refer you to my answer, Senator Shoebridge; that is the same question as the one you just asked.

David Shoebridge

Minister, I will give you a third opportunity to identify whether there was any lawful legal basis for Defence Housing Australia to sign contracts to build homes for foreign defence personnel, as Senator Whiteaker and you have now confirmed is the reality. Was there any legal basis for doing so? And, if not, will your government ensure that agencies act in accordance with the law?

Jenny McAllister

For the third time I'll answer this question. Defence Housing Australia maintains a portfolio of properties. They do so under their ordinary obligations to bring forward a portfolio of properties and manage that so it can meet Defence's operational needs. Defence Housing Australia has not entered into an agreement with a foreign military, but they are working on developing the housing requirements that will be necessary to meet the overall workforce demands in Western Australia as a consequence of the SRF—West arrangements.

David Pocock

Minister, there's a proposed DHA development in the north of Lawson, here in the ACT, and the development proposes 443 dwellings on approximately 47 or so hectares of land. A number of community groups and a large number of constituents have contacted my office with concerns that the development will have significant environmental impact. The proposal would have a significant impact on natural temperate grasslands, which form one of the most threatened ecosystems in Australia. Less than 0.5 per cent of the ecosystem remains in good condition across the country; 99.5 per cent of it has either been destroyed or is in poor condition. You can't offset that. You can't offset a critically endangered temperate grassland. We know that Defence Housing Australia have form on this. If you look at their range of projects, they're constantly coming up against the EPBC Act and often just disregarding it. This is a very serious thing that I would expect a Labor government to care a bit more about. Given the potential impact that clearing will have on golden sun moths and striped legless lizards, I'm interested in whether these changes will make it more likely that the Lawson grasslands project will go ahead.

Jenny McAllister

Thanks for your question, Senator Pocock. The broad answer is that we expect Defence Housing Australia to comply with all the environmental requirements in all the jurisdictions in which it operates. I'm not in a position to provide particular information about a particular development in the ACT. I'm aware it's one that you have a strong interest in. There will be other occasions in the Senate program where you can ask questions of officials, including at estimates, about the way they're approaching particular developments. The broad implications of the legislation before us are simply to allow Defence Housing Australia to provide housing support to a broader range of categories of persons than is presently the case under the existing legislation.

David Shoebridge

Minister, what budget line item did Defence Housing rely upon to sign contracts to build hundreds of new homes for US defence personnel in Perth? Was there a budget allocation for this? If so, what was it?

Jenny McAllister

I think it would assist Senator Shoebridge and perhaps the Senate more generally to talk a little bit about the business model for DHA. DHA doesn't receive funding through budget appropriations; it's self-funded, and that occurs through rents, fees, charges or other revenue earned through the application of its housing portfolio and service provision, and also the sale of any surplus developed land and properties. It is a government business enterprise and it exists to provide support to the Department of Defence, and the particulars of that support are operationalised through a service agreement with the Department of Defence.

David Shoebridge

Are there any payments being made by the Department of Defence under that service agreement to Defence Housing for these 550 housing units in relation to which this contract has been signed and which we now understand are for US and UK troops?

Long debate text truncated.

Sue Lines

PRESIDENT (): The question is that the remainder of the amendment, as moved by Senator Wong, be agreed to.