Penny Wong

I move:

That a motion relating to the consideration of legislation may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.

And I move:

That the question be now put.

Sue Lines

The question is the question be now put.

Sue Lines

The question now is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

Penny Wong

I move:

That on the following days, following motions to take note of answers, motions proposing the disallowance of instruments be called on and considered for not longer than 30 minutes, after which the question be put:

a. Tuesday, 10 March 2026-Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulations 2025;

b. Monday, 23 March 2026-Treasury Laws Amendment (Help to Buy Exemptions) Regulations 2025;

c. Tuesday, 24 March 2026-Digital ID Amendment (Redress Framework and Other Measures) Rules 2025; and

d. Tuesday, 31 March 2026-Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025.

And I further move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Nick McKim

Can I ask that the question be put separately on part (a)?

Sue Lines

Sure. The question is that part (a) of the motion as moved by the minister be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Nick McKim

The Australian Greens seek leave to withdraw our request for a division and simply ask that our opposition to this part be recorded.

Leave granted.

Sue Lines

The question now is that the remainder of the motion as moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Penny Wong

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of legislation.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to the 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 to allow a motion relating to the consideration of legislation to be moved and determined immediately.

And I move:

That the question be now put.

Sue Lines

The question is that the question be put.

Sue Lines

The question now is that general business notice of motion No. 394 standing in the name of Senator Payman be agreed to.

Fatima Payman

I move general business notice of motion 394:

That—

(a) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 5 pm on Wednesday, 15 April 2026, copies of all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages between the Prime Minister and/or his office, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Minister for Communications and/or her office and the Office of the eSafety Commissioner in relation to the meeting held on 5 November 2025 between the Prime Minister and a primary school student for the purpose of enabling the student to present her research on the social media ban to the Prime Minister; and

(b) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 5 pm on Wednesday, 18 March 2026, an itemised list of all expenses incurred, if any, in the course of, or incidental to, facilitating the meeting referred to in paragraph (a).

Katy Gallagher

I seek leave to move an amendment to the motion.

Leave granted.

I move:

Omit all words after "That", substitute:

(a) orders for the production of documents is one of the Senate's most serious powers, and should be used when other processes have been exhausted rather than for fishing expeditions; and

(b) senators seeking to order the production of documents should consider paragraph (a) and refine their orders accordingly.

The amendment is the same as the amendment I moved to the previous one, as it relates to a request from the government that senators consider when they call for an order of production of documents prior to other avenues being exhausted and that senators should reflect on that and refine their orders accordingly.

Matt O'Sullivan

I'm wondering for your guidance on whether or not this copying—control-v—of motions is actually a breach of standing order 196—tedious repetition?

Sue Lines

As I indicated to someone the other day, it wasn't, and the reason is it needs to be related to the one debate. I think we need a division. The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.

Fatima Payman

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 20 March 2026, copies of all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages, created since 1 July 2025, between the Minister for Defence and/or his office and the Department of Defence in relation to plans to cut back the number of senior officers in the Australian Defence Force.

Katy Gallagher

by leave—I move:

Omit all words after "That", substitute:

(a) orders for the production of documents is one of the Senate's most serious powers, and should be used when other processes have been exhausted rather than for fishing expeditions; and

(b) senators seeking to order the production of documents should consider paragraph (a) and refine their orders accordingly.

Sue Lines

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

Sue Lines

The question is the deferred vote, as moved by Senator Duniam on Tuesday 3 March, be taken now.

Sue Lines

The question is that part (b) of Minister Gallagher's amendment to the motion that the selection of bills committee report be adopted be agreed to.

Sue Lines

Because there are some overlapping amendments and we've just dealt with part (a) of Senator Ruston's amendment, I'm now going to put part (a) of Minister Gallagher's amendment. The question is that part (a) of the amendment as moved by Minister Gallagher be agreed to.

Murray Watt

I move:

That private senators' bills do not proceed today.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Michaelia Cash

A division is not required.

Slade Brockman

Is leave granted to cancel the division?

Leave granted.

Question agreed to.

Jonathon Duniam

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, 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 consideration of the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026.

It is remarkable that we have a government that, firstly, as we've just seen, seeks to remove opposition senators' time to debate bills that they bring forward into this place for debate. It's something that is in the calendar for every week of the sittings schedule. It is an opportunity for non-government senators to actually give air to an issue of concern to the community, a group that we represent; they've gone and taken that away. Yet here we are trying to establish the capacity to debate an important piece of legislation, the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026, and the government have determined, 'No, we're not going to allow that to happen.' Indeed, I'm pretty sure I heard voices down the end of the chamber indicating the government is supported by crossbench senators in this pursuit of blocking scrutiny of this important legislation.

As I say, this is private senators' time, and we should be allowed to debate bills of our choice in it. Allowing this to occur is not an indication that government or crossbench senators want to support the legislation we're debating, but it is just allowing us to have this debate.

Sarah Hanson-Young

We killed this yesterday.

Jonathon Duniam

The bills were introduced into this place on Tuesday, as a matter of fact, not yesterday—whoever made that ridiculous comment down the end of the chamber there.

The point is this was put on the books. It's been there for colleagues to consider, to consume, for a number of days, and this is not a new issue. It's an issue that's been around for weeks. Australians are asking for answers to these questions. Australians are seeking assurances from the government around the protection of our borders and our national security, but the government are not going to play ball. They're not going to be transparent, not going to provide information and not going to allow us to debate this legislation today, which is why we're moving this motion to suspend standing orders to allow us to debate this legislation.

This legislation, of course, is important. For three days now we've had the government doing the Sergeant Schultz on the issue of ISIS brides—not knowing a thing. They haven't able to give us a single answer to a single question we've been asking in the interest of national security and in the interest of protecting our way of life. We've been asking, 'Who issued the passports?' They said, 'We don't know.' We asked them, 'Who carried the passports to Syria to these people?' 'We don't know.' We asked them who these people were, and they didn't know. We asked them, 'When are they coming back?' They don't know. They know nothing! Instead of allowing us to have an hour and 10 minutes of the day to interrogate these issues and actually get to the heart of the problems this country is facing when it comes to who comes in and under what circumstances they come in, the government refuse to allow us to debate this.

As I said, every day in question time we've given the government an opportunity to clear things up, provide some clarity, provide assurances, provide some certainty to the people of Australia, who are wondering who is coming into this country, but this hands-off approach applies not only to providing information and not only to clarifying these issues but to border security. We used to have a government that managed border security and determined who would come in, but now we've outsourced all of that to groups like Save the Children, who are out there on their own providing repatriation services on behalf of the people of Australia and the Australian government with no security, no intelligence services and no vetting of individuals. They've been left to do it because the government won't.

The other interesting part about all of this is you've got the government talking out of both sides of its mouth on this issue. You've got the minister who said, as he said on Insiders a couple of weeks ago, 'We don't want them back,' when talking about this so-called ISIS brides cohort. He said that—'We don't want them back.' Then do something about it, Minister. You are the Minister for Home Affairs. You are able to do something. You can determine who comes in and who does not. The application of temporary exclusions orders is something very much in the domain of the home affairs minister and something he refuses to do. He's done it for one of the 11 adults in the cohort, not for the rest—that baffles me.

But they have an opportunity today to support this legislation to end this loophole, which is allowing third parties to determine who comes back here. Those third parties are providing support services for these individuals to come into Australia. These are people who've turned their back on this country and gone to a declared terrorist hotspot to support a death cult. These are the so-called ISIS brides. They're not friends of Australia. If the government are serious about national security, they'll support the suspension, and they'll support the bill. (Time expired)

Murray Watt

It's usually the process that private senators' bills are not introduced and debated in the same sitting week, which is what the opposition are trying to do here. This was also the case for Senator Payman's bill yesterday. But, unlike Senator Payman, the opposition have other bills on the Notice Paper they could have debated, rather than trying to go against the usual process and introduce and debate this bill in the same sitting week. It's clear that this is just another stunt that the opposition is undertaking for political gain, rather than genuine debate.

As has been stated many times, our government is not providing assistance and is not repatriating individuals in Syrian IDP camps. Any Australian returning to Australia who has allegedly breached Australian law will be investigated and subject to the full force of the law. If any of those people find their own way to return, our agencies are satisfied that they are prepared and will be able to act in the interests of community safety. Our law enforcement and national security agencies are following the same approach they have for over a decade, the same approach the former government endorsed when a number of male foreign fighters came back to Australia.

On that basis, I move:

That the question be put.

Sue Lines

The question is that the motion as moved by Minister Watt to close debate be agreed to.