Sue Lines

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

Question agreed to.

Anne Ruston

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the motion.

Leave note granted.

In the name of the Leader of the Opposition, I move:

That the Senate suspend so much of standing orders as would prevent me from moving such a motion to enable me to amend this motion.

The reason I do that is because this motion has been amended from the 3.30 pm timeframe that put on it because, quite clearly, everybody in this place decided they wanted to go home tonight but then realised that they hadn't left themselves enough time to finish the dirty deal they did with those down the end of the chamber, so they needed more time to get their paperwork in order. We're not going to stand in the way of more scrutiny of this bill, which is the reason we supported the motion put forward by Senator Wong to extend the time. But why can't we extend that time now until 7.30 pm and at least give us some chance for some level of proper scrutiny of this particular bill? We already know, from all of the committees, that absolutely no scrutiny has been able to be done on this bill. So much subordinated legislation has had no scrutiny. At least give us the opportunity of another 2½ hours over and above what the chamber has already agreed to—or do we still all want to get on the plane to go home tonight?

This bill is not being determined by this chamber. Quite frankly, this bill has been determined in the Prime Minister's office. They come in here and completely and utterly disregard this chamber so that we can end up with a deal that's been done in the Prime Minister's office overnight. Who knows what's been promised to the people at the other end of the chamber in other words for this bill to pass. We are not going to stand in the way of scrutiny, but I tell you what: we're also not going to allow the government and the Greens to get away with the fact that they did a dirty deal in the middle of the night and they didn't cross their t's and dot their i's. We find ourselves in here, right now, having to have a motion moved for more time just so you can get your paperwork in order. I think the Australian public deserve better on a bill of such significance. You actually might have got your act into gear. Who knows what else is being mucked up in this bill? We won't know, because we're not allowed to scrutinise it.

So here we are on Thursday afternoon in the last sitting week of the year. We've had a dirty deal done in the middle of the night. They've messed up their paperwork. They've failed to attend to the detail. They haven't done their administration, so they come in here and give us a little more time. Well, don't come in here and pretend you're giving us more time for scrutiny. You're not. You're just fixing up a mistake of your own making. If you're really genuine about applying a level of scrutiny and giving us more time, give us until 7.30 pm. I would ask the Greens, at the other end of the chamber: if you really are genuine about this—I've heard Senator Hanson-Young talk very strongly about the importance of the bill—what's wrong with a little bit more scrutiny?

Maybe we could stay here until 7.30 tonight. No-one's catching a plane home anyway, so why don't we actually do our job that the people of Australia elected us to do: come in here, scrutinise legislation and make sure we get to ask the questions of the government, who have been secretive throughout the entire process of these bills? We've got legislation that is so big, you'd be lucky to high jump over it. Yet we've had no time for scrutiny. This government's track record on scrutiny is obviously something to behold. Never before has there been a government that has lacked scrutiny the same way that this government does. We will not have the Australian public believe that the government has come in here and allowed more time when, quite frankly, it is nothing more than fixing up their own mistake.

I would ask the government: if you really are genuine about this—no-one's going home tonight anyway—why don't we all accept our responsibility as elected members of the Australian parliament and allow some additional scrutiny? When I watched the interrogation of Minister Watt during committee before we came in for question time, Minister Watt was filibustering his own bill to stop us asking questions. If Minister Watt were prepared not only to answer the questions but to not sit there and lecture everybody with a filibuster, maybe we could get some more answers about some of the things that are in this bill, some answers about what's intended and some answers about what the consequences are of this bill instead of him hiding behind the fact that he completely disregards this place.

The deal was done in the Prime Minister's office. This chamber has not decided the outcome of this really important suite of legislation; the Prime Minister in his office has. And I think it is incumbent on this government to allow more scrutiny and to not just hide behind the fact that you made a great big mess and now you're trying to fix it.

David Pocock

I welcome this motion. Clearly, these are big changes that need scrutiny, and we're currently having amendments legislated as we speak and hurtle towards the guillotine. I have questions on offsets, how that system is going to work and why we're replicating a system that has failed in New South Wales and has been called out by the auditor there. I've got questions about the ruling powers and the proposed national interest pathway—'the NACC trap' as it's been described by a member in the other place. I have questions about net gain. I have questions about devolution of powers and questions about standards that we haven't seen yet, so I would welcome more scrutiny of these enormous changes.

I welcome some of the amendments that are currently being circulated, but, again, I would note for the Senate that, as crossbenchers, we haven't had the drafting resources to actually get our own amendments drafted. I had 22 amendments submitted on Friday. We've had six done. Then we had the drafters say: 'I'm sorry. We just don't have time.' They may not be supported, but I feel, as an elected representative of the ACT, that it's my duty to actually listen to experts, listen to Canberrans, get those amendments drafted in good faith, put them to the Senate and be able to make my case in a second reading speech, which I and 20 other senators haven't had the opportunity to do. I may disagree very strongly with some of the views in those second reading debate speeches, but isn't that how this chamber is meant to work? I welcome this additional time, and I would say to Senate colleagues let's actually spend an extra couple of hours looking at this. Let's go through the detail. Let's think about what we're doing. Let's vote on amendments with a clear idea of what they do, what they don't do and what unintended consequences they may actually have.

There are still a lot of unanswered questions, particularly when we haven't seen the Senate committee process actually report. I would note that in the more than 100 submissions to the bill, looking through those and getting someone to actually analyse them, I don't think there was a single submission that said we should pass this legislation as is. Everyone, every stakeholder had a view. Yes, potentially extremely divergent views on what the legislation should look like, but they had a view.

I'm really concerned about the process today and no second reading debate speeches. It's a deal that was done so hastily that they then have to extend Committee of the Whole so they can move their own amendments. That kind of points out that we probably should have had a different approach from the start, and some more scrutiny.

I really welcome this. You can say that it's easy for a senator for the ACT to say, but I care deeply about this and Canberrans care very deeply about environmental laws. They want environmental laws that actually protect nature, that aren't just a thing where we say, 'We've done a great job,' and then, when we're looking back in 10 years time, we're saying: 'What the hell did we do? What did we do? We missed a golden opportunity to reform our broken environmental laws, and we just simply patched it up, put a few little patches on it and said, "She'll be right mate."' We can do better than that. We should do better than that as the Senate. Thank you. I hope that we do actually get a couple of extra hours from this amendment.

Richard Colbeck

The fact that we are even having a debate about additional time at the government's instigation demonstrates how grubby this whole process has been. This is one of the most complex pieces of legislation that will come before this parliament. It affects industry from a whole range of perspectives. The government didn't even allow the committee process to be completed—a process that this chamber decided on. There has been no proper scrutiny of the legislation by this chamber, which is this chamber's job. That process was scrapped by the grubby deal done overnight by Labor and the Greens.

And the fact that the embarrassment will continue out of the Labor Party's process is demonstrated already by the fact that they themselves have to extend time for the debate in the committee stage of this legislation. It is absolutely shameful that senators stand in this place to say that they haven't had the parliamentary resources to have their amendments for this legislation drafted. How shameful is that? And of course we know what sits behind that. The Greens don't have theirs ready either, which is why we're standing here debating additional time, and the government is put in the embarrassing situation of having to extend time for the committee stage of this legislation.

I have questions that I would have liked to ask during the committee stage before lunch with respect to the standards, particularly around the treatment of the forest industry, which I've worked very closely with over a period of time. But the minister's response to questions and submissions made as part of the debate here belled the cat on the whole show. Labor are about the politics and the deal. They're not about looking after the environment. They're not about looking after Australian communities. And they're not about looking after people in our communities that rely on an effective piece of environmental legislation. They're all about the politics. Every time a coalition senator stood up to make a contribution, the minister's response was all about the politics.

It's absolutely shameful that senators in this place would have to get up as part of this extension debate to say that they are being told by officials of the Senate that they can't get their amendments drafted. How is that a proper process? How does the government and how do the Greens see that as a proper and reasonable process to pass one of the most important pieces of legislation that this parliament will pass—that senators cannot get their amendments drafted? That is a failure of this place, and it's a failure of the way the government is running this place. They should be ashamed. They're not. They think it's a joke. It shows how much they respect this chamber and it shows how much they respect the Australian people. They don't. It is all about the politics and it's all about the deal, and they should all be ashamed.

The Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 is a very important piece of legislation. It deserves the proper scrutiny that this parliament gave it through the committee process which was to report at the end of March next year. What we are finding, and what industry and those who are going to have to work with the legislation are finding, is the more we look into it, the more problems we find. This government is going to go through further embarrassment next year when they have to come back with an EPBC Act reform bill, because they're going to have to fix up the mistakes that, to their shame and embarrassment, aren't being dealt with right now. They'll see it as a joke. They'll blame somebody else. But it's their bill; it's their dirty, grubby deal; and they should all be ashamed. They should give this chamber enough time to debate it properly. (Time expired)

Sue Lines

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

Lisa Darmanin

I present the ninth report for 2025 of the Selection of Bills Committee, and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 9 OF 2025

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

SenatorLisaDarmanin(ActingGovernmentWhip,Chair) Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)

SenatorSeanBell(PaulineHanson'sOneNationWhip) Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)Senator Ralph Babet

Senator Leah Blyth SenatorRossCadell

SenatortheHon.AnthonyChisholm Senator Jessica Collins

SenatortheHon.KatyGallagher Senator Jacqui Lambie

SenatorFatimaPayman Senator David Pocock

SenatorTonySheldon(GovernmentWhip) Senator Lidia Thorpe

Secretary: TimBryant 02 6277 3020

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 26 November 2025 at 7.16 pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the provisions of the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 February 2026 (see appendix 1 for statements of reasons for referral);

(b) the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 March 2026 (see appendix 2 for statements of reasons for referral);

(c) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 February 2026 (see appendix 3 for statements of reasons for referral); and

(d) the provisions of the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025 and the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 February 2026 (see appendix 4 for statements of reasons for referral).

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

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

3. The committee considered the Fair Work Amendment (Right to Work from Home) Bill 2025 but was unable to reach agreement.

(Lisa Darmanin)

Chair

26 November 2025

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To scrutinise this legislation and to hear from stakeholders about the importance of this legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Interested parties and stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

December to February

Possible reporting date:

26 February 2026

14I Deferred Bills

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Hear from stakeholders about changes to prescribing Possible submissions or evidence from:

Various stakeholders including nurses and nurse representative bodies, other health professional bodies

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

0-1 hearings during week of 16th Feb.

Possible reporting date:

26 Feb 2026

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill 2025

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To scrutinise this legislation and to hear from stakeholders about the importance of this legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Interested parties and stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

December to February

Possible reporting date:

1 March 2026

15 I Deferred Bills

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill 2025

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Hear from stakeholders about registration and safeguarding, as well any other inclusions in the Bill

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Various stakeholders including disability representative organisations, members of the disability community, service providers

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

2 hearings during 16-27 Feb, month of April

Possible reporting date:

30th March 2026—members of the disability community will require this amount of time to participate fully in the inquiry

Appendix 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: T

To examine the Bill in more detail and hear from relevant stakeholders.

Possible submissions or evidence from: interested stakeholders.

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Week of 16th February 2026

Possible reporting date:

26 February 2026

Appendix 4

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025 Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To scrutinise this legislation and to hear from stakeholders about the importance of this legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Interested parties and stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Education & Employment Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

December to February

Possible reporting date: '

5 March 2026

17 I Deferred Bills

I move:

That the report be adopted.

Jonathon Duniam

I move an amendment to the motion, as circulated:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025, the bill be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 3 February 2026".

Sue Lines

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Duniam to the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.

Sue Lines

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

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 28 October 2025, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 197, requiring the Minister representing the Treasurer (the minister) to produce the independent review commissioned by the Treasury and delivered by Intersection into the governance and operational concerns at Housing Australia in early 2024,

(ii) on 4 November 2025, the Senate agreed to an order concerning compliance with the original order, requiring the minister to attend the Senate on Wednesday, 5 November 2025 at the conclusion of question time to provide an explanation of the failure to comply with the order,

(iii) on 5 November 2025, the minister provided an explanation of the failure to comply with the order,

(iv) on 13 November 2025, the Minister representing the Minister for Housing provided a letter of response to the order, raising public interest immunity claims over the full document, and

(v) the order has still not been complied with;

(b) rejects the public interest immunity claims raised by the Minister representing the Minister for Housing; and

(c) requires the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply with the order by no later than midday on Thursday, 27 November 2025.

Anthony Chisholm

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave not granted.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 299, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, be agreed to.

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 24 July 2025, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 27 relating to advice provided by the Treasury to the Treasurer and the Minister for Housing in relation to the Government's plan to invest $10 billion to construct 100,000 new homes for first home buyers,

(ii) on 28 July 2025, the Minister representing the Treasurer (the minister) provided an interim response to the order stating that officials in the Treasury were progressing the request for documents but that additional time was required to comply with the order,

(iii) on 3 November 2025, the Senate agreed to a further order, noting that 3 months had passed since the minister provided an interim response requesting more time to comply with the original order, noting the failure to release the documents in a timely manner was in contempt of the Senate and its functions, and ordering the minister to attend the Senate on 4 November 2025 to provide an explanation of the failure to comply,

(iv) on 4 November 2025, the minister provided 2 records with redactions of details of non-executive staff, third parties and internal Treasury email addresses; and withheld other documents on public interest grounds,

(v) on 6 November 2025, the Senate agreed to a further order noting that the minister's explanation of the failure to fully comply with the order did not provide a credible response as to why the requested documents had not been released in their entirety and ordering the minister to comply with the order by no later than 5.30 pm on Thursday, 6 November 2025, and

(vi) the order has still not been fully complied with; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply with the order by no later than midday on Thursday, 27 November 2025.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 298, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, be agreed to.

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator McKenzie, I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 297 before asking that it be taken as formal.

Leave granted.

At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move the motion as amended:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) order for the production of documents no. 176 was agreed to by the Senate on 27 October 2025 with a compliance date of 3 November 2025,

(ii) the order required the Minister representing the Treasurer to provide the outstanding government response to the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee entitled Bank closures in regional Australia: Protecting the future of regional banking,

(iii) the government response to the committee report was due by 24 August 2024,

(iv) in response to the order, the Treasurer's letter that was tabled in the Senate on 3 November 2025 states that 'there is no document within scope of this order for the production of documents', and

(v) there is no restriction on the Senate ordering the creation of documents; and

(b) orders the Minister representing the Treasurer to fully comply with order no. 176 by midday on 4 December 2025.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 297 standing in the name of Senator McKenzie, as amended and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

David Pocock

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 23 July 2025, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents (OPD) no. 9, which required the Minister representing the Prime Minister to table all written or digital correspondence, attachments to any written or digital correspondence, briefing notes, text messages, file notes, meeting notices or minutes or other records of interaction since 10 October 2024 between the Prime Minister and his office and, among other entities, Responsible Wagering Australia and any commercial media company, where the meeting related to gambling advertising reform,

(ii) on examination of the Government's response to OPD no. 8 on gambling advertising, it was identified that the Prime Minister participated in a meeting with the Minister for Communications and representatives from Nine Entertainment to speak about gambling advertising reform,

(iii) this meeting was in-scope of OPD no. 9 but was not disclosed and no documentation relating to it, including any briefing materials, meeting notices, files notes or minutes, have been provided to the Senate,

(iv) the Government's answers to questions on notice from supplementary Budget estimates confirm that the Prime Minister did attend the meeting referred to in paragraph (a)(ii), and

(v) the Government's answers to questions on notice also confirm that at least one email from Responsible Wagering Australia to the Prime Minister has not been provided to the Senate;

(b) considers that OPD no. 9 has not been fully complied with; and

(c) requires the Minister representing the Prime Minister to fully comply with the order by no later than 9 am on Monday, 1 December 2025, including by providing:

(i) all briefing notes, files notes, meeting notices, minutes or other documents relating to the meeting of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Communications with Nine Entertainment on the morning of 23 July 2025,

(ii) the full email correspondence, including any covering emails, between the Prime Minister and his office and Responsible Wagering Australia, and

(iii) any other documents in-scope of OPD no. 9 that have not yet been provided.

Peter Whish-Wilson

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave not granted.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 292, standing in the name of Senator David Pocock, be agreed to.

Peter Whish-Wilson

I move general business notice of motion No. 289, relating to an order for the production of documents—with significantly reduced scope from the last time I introduced it, President:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than 10 am on Friday, 19 December 2025, any correspondence, ministerial or departmental briefing notes, dated from 1 June to 31 October 2025, provided to or by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water and/or the Department of Industry, Science and Resources relating to any floating production, storage and offloading vessel currently or previously situated in Australian Commonwealth or state waters, and the Hazardous Waste Act, Article 11 of the Basel Convention and/or Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Approval Condition 10(b).

Anthony Chisholm

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Anthony Chisholm

The government will not be supporting this motion. As already outlined to this chamber, the 48th Parliament has seen an increasingly inappropriate use of OPDs. Historically, the scope of OPDs insisted on specificity or sought a particular document. The broad scope of this order means that a substantial number of documents may be reviewed to consider whether they may be in scope. The government encourages the senator to further narrow the scope of their order.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 289 standing in the name of Senator Whish-Wilson be agreed to.

Wendy Askew

On behalf of Senator Paterson, I wish to inform the chamber that Senator David Pocock will also sponsor general business notice of motion No. 288, and I seek leave to amend the motion.

Leave granted.

At the request of Senator Paterson, and also on behalf of Senator David Pocock, I move the motion as amended:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance and the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator the Hon Katy Gallagher, and the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator the Hon Penny Wong, by no later than 12 pm on Friday, 28 November 2025, all correspondence (including emails, letters, text or instant messages) between:

(a) the Department of the Treasury, the Treasurer or the Treasurer's office;

(b) the Department of Finance, the Minister for Finance or the Minister's office;

(c) the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's office;

and any Minister or Department or Agency concerning cost savings targets as referenced in an article by John Kehoe and Ronald Mizen published in the Australian Financial Review on 25 November 2025.

Anthony Chisholm

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

The government will be opposing this motion. The document referenced in the original motion does not exist. No letter has been sent by the Minister for Finance or the Department of Finance. Senator Gallagher's office made contact with Senator Paterson's office to explain this. Instead of withdrawing this OPD, Senator Paterson has now amended the motion to embark on a fishing expedition. These kinds of approaches are not in line with the intent of an order for the production of documents.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 288, standing in the name of Senators Paterson and Pocock, as amended, be agreed to.

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Liddle, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, by midday on Tuesday, 9 December 2025, all written or digital correspondence, all attachments to any written or digital correspondence, briefing materials, text messages, file notes, meeting notices or minutes or other records of interaction since 1 July 2022, between the Minister for Indigenous Australians or her office, the Central Land Council (CLC) and/or the National Indigenous Australians Agency, related to:

(a) the ascertainment and management of conflicts of interest of CLC councillors, directors and senior staff, including but not limited to connections to and involvement with proponents;

(b) the involvement and conflicts of interest between CLC councillors, directors or senior staff with the Centrecorp Aboriginal Investment Corporation, the Centrecorp Foundation Board, the Central Australian Aboriginal Charitable Trust and the Central Aboriginal Charitable Trust; and

(c) the involvement and conflicts of interest with any other organisation or Commonwealth statutory body.

Anthony Chisholm

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Anthony Chisholm

The government will opposing this motion. I understand Senator Liddle was offered assistance to identify any specific documents that she's looking for in response to this OPD. She was also offered a briefing that could be provided to answer any specific questions. Senator Liddle declined these offers and proceeded with the OPD anyway. I also note that Senator Liddle will have the opportunity next week to ask the questions that she wants of the NIAA and the Central Land Council. If Senator Liddle were serious about this issue, she would have taken up these constructive offers from the government.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 287, standing in the name of Senator Liddle, be agreed to.