Anne Ruston

I seek to have parts of the motion moved by Senator Wong put separately. I ask that paragraphs (1)(a), (8), (9) and (10) be put separately from paragraphs (1)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (11).

Sue Lines

The question is that (1)(a), (8), (9) and (10) of the motion as moved by Senator Wong and requested to be split by Senator Ruston be agreed to.

Penny Wong

I move:

That the Senate—

(1) Notes that:

(a) on Monday 24 November 2025, Senator Hanson engaged in behaviour in the chamber that was intended to vilify and mock people on the basis of their religion;

(b) Senator Hanson's actions were disrespectful to Muslim Australians;

(c) Senator Hanson's actions disrespected the Parliament and were inconsistent with the standards of behaviour that all parliamentarians have an obligation to uphold;

(d) Senator Hanson further disrespected the Senate by refusing to obey the ruling of the chair;

(e) the Senate then took the extraordinary step of suspending Senator Hanson for the remainder of the sitting day;

(f) Senator Hanson refused to comply with the Senate's order and leave the chamber, requiring the sitting of the Senate to be suspended; and

(g) Senator Hanson's actions were contrary to the standing orders, a blatant disregard for the authority of the Senate President and disrespected her Senate colleagues and the people they represent.

(2) Affirms that Australia has been built by people of every race and faith.

(3) Reaffirms that Australia is a nation that welcomes different races, religions and views, united by respect for each other and each other's right to live in peace.

(4) Rejects any attempt to vilify or mock people on the basis of religion.

(5) Reiterates its solidarity with those who have been vilified because of their faith.

(6) Reaffirms that all parliamentarians have a role to play in upholding appropriate standards of behaviour in Parliament.

(7) Calls on those who work in and report on this Chamber to ensure they are not causing harm or platforming harmful actions.

(8) Censures Senator Hanson for her actions, which do not reflect the opinions of the Australian Senate or the Australian people.

(9) Does not regard it as appropriate for Senator Hanson to represent the Senate as a member of any delegation during the life of this Parliament.

(10) Considers Senator Hanson's conduct in defying the ruling of the chair and refusal to leave the chamber following her suspension amounts to further disorder under standing order 203.

(11) Calls upon Senator Hanson to attend the Senate immediately to make an explanation or apology, of no more than 5 minutes, in accordance with standing order 203(3).

I thank the Senate for the support for enabling this debate. Colleagues, after what occurred yesterday, someone I'm close to, this morning, spoke about a conversation with her seven-year-old daughter last night. Her daughter asked, 'Mummy, do all Christians hate Muslims?' That summarised where we found ourselves. We see it again. You see, I grew up in an Australia where my brother and I were the only Asians at school, and I have spoken at length about what that was like. But, Senator, I would also speak to you about my family: my father converted to Catholicism; my beloved grandmother, a devout Buddhist; my mum, a somewhat lapsed Methodist; and cousins who are Muslim. We are a family of many faiths, as is our country.

This is modern Australia. An Australia that is stronger because we are united at home. An Australia that is stronger in the world because we are united at home. Stronger in the world because our multicultural society gives us the ability to reach into every corner of the world and find common ground, a nation built, Senator Babet, by people of every race and every faith—every race and every faith. A nation that welcomes different races, different religions, different views. A nation united by respect for each other and each other's right to live in peace. A nation where kids can grow up seeing themselves in their leaders. A nation where kids don't get mocked or threatened or vilified because of who they are, who aren't afraid for their safety on a bus home from school and who don't come home to find it covered in abuse. I know how that feels, coming home as a kid to racist graffiti on the driveway.

Whatever Senator Hanson may tell herself, it is people like this who suffer because of her immature and shameless stunt—and that is all it was. Senator Hanson has been parading prejudice as protest for decades. In her first speech to this house, she said Australia was in danger of being swamped by Asians, by people like me. Now she's added Muslims to the list. In my very first speech in this place, I said that because of people like her Australia was in danger of being swamped by hatred. And yesterday, purely to get attention, and not for the first time—it's an old play, replayed—Senator Hanson mocked and vilified an entire faith—a faith observed by nearly one million Australians, and the second-largest religion in this country.

Colleagues, senators, freedom of expression is central to who we are as Australians, but so too is respect. I believe, and I think most of this Senate believes, that disrespecting fellow Australians because of their faith is itself un-Australian. For a senator to punch down on a Muslim kid—that's the effect of your words—let's understand that that is un-Australian.

Senator Hanson makes absurd comments about people's clothing being a risk to national security at the same time as she's publishing internal floor plans of Parliament House on the internet. Our national cohesion is a strength. Our national security is risked by threats to social cohesion, because a divided nation is a vulnerable nation. We need to remind ourselves of what Senator Brandis spoke about when this stunt last occurred. As he stood against your stunt then, and he was right to do so, he spoke about the importance of working with the Muslim community in the interest of Australian national security. Senator Hanson's hateful and shallow pageantry tears at our social fabric, and I believe it makes Australia weaker. It also has cruel consequences for many of our most vulnerable, including in our schoolyards, who should be able to look to us in this place to set an example.

I want to end on this point. If this Senate passes the requirement for an apology, to enable Senator Hanson to do so promptly, can I indicate to the Senate I will move that this motion be put after 30 minutes of debate. I want to end on this point—that is, people should be able to look to this place to set an example. This can be a robust place. This can be a place of great contest. It should be. But there should be guardrails, as I have spoken about before. There should be the recognition of the importance of civility, even where there is contest. There should be limits on what we do and what we say, and what we saw yesterday was all of those boundaries crossed willingly.

The institution itself was damaged by your behaviour yesterday, because not only did you do what you did, Senator, but the chamber—the President—asked you to remove that item of clothing, and you refused a direct direction from the chair. And then, even worse, when all of your colleagues in this place—or so many, the vast majority—under the standing orders told you to remove yourself because you were defying a direction of the President, you defied the whole Senate and stayed. I have never seen that. I have never seen someone be so disrespectful to this institution.

So we have given you the opportunity, should this motion pass, to apologise. And I give you fair notice, Senator Hanson: if that fails to occur or if it's not to the Senate's satisfaction, we will take the next step of action that is available to the Senate under the standing orders. I thank the Senate, and I indicate, as I said, I will seek to close this debate after half an hour.

Sue Lines

Senator Ruston?

Anne Ruston

Thank you very much, President. In standing to speak to the motion that's before the chair, I would like to move an amendment to the motion moved by Senator Wong. The amendment that we are seeking to move is done out of complete respect for everybody in this chamber and for everybody in this country, because we believe that we must in in this place understand and tolerate the views of everybody in this chamber. But, in doing so, we must do it in a respectful way.

We know that Australia is a culturally and religiously diverse nation. Those values have contributed to this country, and every citizen has a role to play in the cultural diversity of this nation and the strength that it draws from that diversity. For Australia to be recognised as a place where people can live their lives according to their beliefs and their culture, and to be what can be rightly considered one of the most culturally successful nations on this planet, it so, so, important that, when we come into this place, our actions, behaviours and words all reflect what we would like to see as our proud society.

Fundamental to that absolutely has to be respect for everybody. What we do in here is a reflection of what happens out there. We are elected to this place to be leaders in this country. Our actions are important, and I say that to every single member of this chamber. Our actions are important, and you can't come in here and accuse someone of doing something on one side of the chamber and then do the very same thing yourself.

So today we've sought to move an amendment to this motion, because, as the motion says, this nation has been built on the multicultural values of this country—every race and every faith that lives here. We absolutely are a country that is welcoming of every religion and its views, and respect for each other is fundamental to that. Of course, we reject any disrespect, any vilification and any discrimination in this nation, no matter what the basis. As I said, we must reaffirm that parliamentarians have a role to play in upholding appropriate standards, because what we do here is what we cannot expect others in our community to do if we are not prepared to uphold it in this place.

We also need to understand that a safe workplace is absolutely fundamental. It's not just about us; it's also about our staff and all the staff of the Senate. We need to consider them. When our behaviour, in any way, jeopardises, threatens or insults our staff we also have a responsibility for that, because in this place we set the example for Australia.

In speaking to this, we believe the precedent was set in the past in relation to somebody being suspended for an action in this place. We saw it happen with Senator Thorpe in relation to her aggressive behaviour towards another senator in this place, and that suspension took place and was acted upon immediately. We also saw a situation occur with the suspension in relation to Senator Di Natale when he refused to accept the ruling of the then chair, Senator Parry, and action was taken appropriately at the time. We do not believe we should be coming into this place to repechage your decision of yesterday, President. The process was undertaken, the will of the chamber was expressed and the senator in question was required to take the action as expressed by you. We absolutely support you in your decision and we also support you every time that your actions or your rulings are disregarded.

I say to everybody in this place: we are elected by the Australian public because they expect us to come here and do things that are important for them. I don't believe the actions of the other end of the chamber reflect what the Australian public wants us to be doing in this place. They want us to be concerned about the issues that they are facing every day. They can't afford to pay their bills. They can't pay their power bills. They can't get in to see a doctor. They can't afford to buy a house. They are struggling to raise their families. They are the issues the Australian public want us to be addressing in this place. As a party of government that is exactly what we want to be doing in this place, as the coalition. We want to be prosecuting the issues that matter to everyday Australians.

That doesn't mean to say we don't take very seriously the importance of respect in relation to the conventions in this place. We have respect for those conventions, respect for this chamber, respect for this parliament and respect for every single Australian. I move the amendment, as circulated in my name in the chamber:

Omit all words after 'That the Senate—' and insert:

(a) affirms that Australia has been built by people of every race and faith;

(b) reaffirms that Australia is a nation that welcomes different races, religions and views, united by respect for each other and each other's right to live in peace;

(c) rejects any attempt to vilify or mock people because of religion;

(d) reiterates its solidarity with those who have been vilified because of their faith;

(e) reaffirms that all parliamentarians have a role to play in upholding appropriate standards of behaviour in Parliament; and

(f) calls on those who work in and report on this chamber to ensure they are not causing harm or platforming harmful actions.

I believe the amendment appropriately reaffirms the commitment that every single one of us should have to Australia and the respect that we should have for every member of our community.

Long debate text truncated.

Penny Wong

I seek leave to move a motion to provide for the consideration of a motion relating to the censure of a senator.

Leave granted.

I thank the Senate. I move:

That the motion circulated in the chamber be moved immediately and have precedence over all other matters.

Sue Lines

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

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That the Senate—

a. notes that:

b. requires the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to attend the Senate on Tuesday, 25 November 2025 at the conclusion of question time to provide an explanation of no more than 5 minutes of the failure to comply with the order, and that:

Slade Brockman

The question is that motion No. 251, as moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, by no later than 9 am on Wednesday, 26 November 2025, all written or digital correspondence, documents, briefing notes and meeting notes between Housing Australia and the Minister for Housing in relation to the Chair of Housing Australia since 1 January 2025.

Slade Brockman

The question is that this motion be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung

Lidia Thorpe

No! Wait a moment!

Slade Brockman

Is this a point of order?

Lidia Thorpe

Where's the President? This can't be happening. Get this racist person out of here now!

Slade Brockman

Senator Thorpe.

Lidia Thorpe

Get her out!

Slade Brockman

Senator Thorpe.

Lidia Thorpe

Get her out!

Slade Brockman

Senator Thorpe! Resume your seat.

Lidia Thorpe

Get the President! Who's in charge here?

Slade Brockman

Senator Thorpe!

Lidia Thorpe

Who's in charge?

Slade Brockman

Resume your seat! This matter has been considered before. Dress is a matter for an individual senator's conscience.

Lidia Thorpe

No! This is racist!

Carol Brown

Who is it?

Slade Brockman

The chamber attendants have verified that this is a senator. If Senator Askew is not comfortable in counting that senator then she can notify the matter to me. This matter has been considered before.

Lidia Thorpe

No! I'm going to play up. I'll shut down this Senate until she is removed!

Slade Brockman

Senator Thorpe!

Lidia Thorpe

No!

Pauline Hanson

There's no dress code in this Senate.

Slade Brockman

Senator Faruqi?

Mehreen Faruqi

Dress code might be a choice of senators, but racism should not be the choice of this Senate! This is a racist senator displaying blatant racism and Islamophobia. Someone should pull her up on that!

Slade Brockman

Senator Faruqi—

Mehreen Faruqi

It is you in the chair. You should be pulling her up on that!

Slade Brockman

Senator Faruqi, resume your seat! Senator Payman, on the same issue I take it.

Fatima Payman

What else would I be talking about, Deputy President? If this is about the dress code, she is disrespecting a faith. She is disrespecting the Muslim Australians out there. It is absolutely unconstitutional. This needs to be dealt with immediately, before we proceed. It's disgraceful! It is a shame—

Slade Brockman

Senator Payman, resume your seat. Your position has been made clear. This is a matter for the entire Senate chamber. I have made the previous rulings of this Senate clear. If the Senate wants to change that ruling, that is a matter for the entire chamber, not for me.

Senator Whish-Wilson, if this is on the same matter, I'm not going to entertain it any more.

Peter Whish-Wilson

It's different. Senator Hanson is using a prop in the Senate, and it's a dangerous prop. It is dangerous to this country, so I ask that you rule on her bringing a prop into the Senate. It's not her normal dress code. It is clearly a prop to make a political statement. If I was to wear a Greens t-shirt in here, or a Fremantle Dockers shirt of whatever, I would get shown the door.

Slade Brockman

Senator Whish-Wilson, resume your seat. This matter has been ruled on before.

Lidia Thorpe

No, it has not!

Slade Brockman

Senator Thorpe!

Lidia Thorpe

This is making our workplace unsafe.

Slade Brockman

Senator Thorpe, resume your seat!

Lidia Thorpe

No, not until you get this racist out!

Slade Brockman

Senator Thorpe, resume your seat. Senator Faruqi, resume your seat.

Mehreen Faruqi

No; there is a person in here ridiculing my religion. Senator Hanson, if you had any shame, you'd walk out of here! Deputy President, you need to rule on this.

Slade Brockman

Senator Faruqi, resume your seat!

Lidia Thorpe

Get out!

Slade Brockman

Senator Faruqi, resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge and Senator Waters, resume your seats.

No; Senator Shoebridge, resume your seat. I will complete this division, and then if a senator wishes to dissent from my ruling, they are entitled to.

Mehreen Faruqi

We are dissenting now.

Slade Brockman

You cannot dissent now. We need to complete the division. We will complete the division, and then you may move dissent in the chair.

David Shoebridge

My point of order, if you can hear me, Deputy President—

Slade Brockman

There has been a request to cancel the division.

David Shoebridge

Yes; that's my request.

Slade Brockman

Does anyone object to cancelling the division? We will cancel the division.

No; it's cancelled.

Honourable senators interjecting—

The doors have been locked. The division will need to be finalised. Would senators please resume their seats. Senator Wong?

Larissa Waters

Hello, Deputy President. I've been on my feet for a minute.

Slade Brockman

My understanding and the advice I have is the division needs to be completed. If someone wants to dissent at that point with my ruling, they can. I am going to put the question. The question is that the motion, as moved by Senator Bragg, be agreed to. Ayes will pass to the right of the chair, noes to the left. I'll give senators a few moments to assume their seats, as I assume, Senator Wong, you do not wish to be on this side—nor you, Senator Chisholm.

Lidia Thorpe

Is this to kick the racist out? What's this vote for?

Slade Brockman

We are attempting to finish the division. Then you may dissent on the chair's ruling.

Lidia Thorpe

We have a right to be in a safe workplace, and that racist is making it unsafe.

Slade Brockman

Senator Thorpe, sit down. You do not have the call.

Marielle Smith

The question before us is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Allman-Payne be agreed to.

Question negatived.

David Shoebridge

It's my fault—I wasn't following what the matter was that was before the house. Can you just advise what the previous vote was on?

Marielle Smith

The question that I just put to the chamber was that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Allman-Payne be agreed to. There were no voices for the ayes.

David Shoebridge

It's my fault for not paying attention. I didn't understand that my colleague's second reading amendment was before the chamber. Could I ask that the question be recommitted? It may be that my colleague might seek leave to speak to it.

Marielle Smith

Senator Shoebridge, I will put the question again. The question before us is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Allman-Payne be agreed to.

Penny Allman-Payne

I move:

That the Senate notes that the Aged Care Act 2024 reforms introduced on 1 November 2025 will not address the unacceptable delays in accessing aged care services, insufficient home care packages, long wait times for assessments and will continue uncertainty for those accessing care.

The government promised once-in-a-generation reforms to the aged-care system. Instead, we continue to see unacceptable delays in accessing aged-care services, insufficient home-care packages, long wait times for assessments and continuing uncertainty for those who are accessing care.

Labor refuses to prioritise people needing care. Instead, they're prioritising corporate interests and expanding the privatisation of health care. The other week Minister Rae was bragging about the fact that providers' profits were increasing. People who are struggling to get care for their parents, grandparents or themselves don't want to hear about profits going up. Australians want to hear that people are receiving the care that they need when they need it. People also want to believe the minister when he makes these promises. There are insufficient home-care packages available not because of some market or a worker shortage but because Labor doesn't want to spend the money. They put a cap on the number of home-care packages, and now we have a waitlist that's a year long. There is no reason for this waitlist. It's been created by the decisions of the government, and it could be cleared by decisions of government.

The aged-care minister thinks that boosting care for profit is a good thing. Well, let me tell you what older Australians think instead. Linda told us:

my husband's neurodegenerative disease means he can't get out of bed by himself—he can't sit up, can't stand by himself, can't walk, can't dress himself…having a shower, shave and getting dressed is the one thing that helps him keep his dignity—

but—

the Government is now charging us $25,000 out of pocket for that basic necessity.

Linda shouldn't have to worry about the cost of assistance for her husband, but she does. We know that carers are already struggling. These new reforms have only added to this. Carers tell me that they're experiencing increasing worries about cost, facing uncertainty about the changes and struggling to figure out how to support their loved ones' care.

The introduction of co-payments will only add to the care burden. It will force carers to provide more for their parents, partners and loved ones. The alternative is to pay for these services, and we know that not everyone will be able to do so. We also know that this increased burden of care would disproportionately fall on women. Take Kaz, who knows how hard it is on families when older people can't access care. Kaz said:

As a woman in her 40s I've been caring for my 94 year old father who—

has lived—

with me for the last 6 years with advanced dementia. I can no longer work full time despite training as a health professional. The support just isn't there. I have massive carers fatigue And meanwhile these providers are lining their own pockets whilst the end user misses out.

Kaz sees through Labor and knows that they have chosen to prioritise corporate profits over care.

Last year, the Greens were the only ones that voted against the aged-care reform bill, because we objected to the financialisaton of care. We knew that it wouldn't help people that needed help, and that it would leave many more people worse off. It is obvious that many people in this chamber haven't had to worry about the cost of aged care for their parents. They haven't had to wait a year for their grandparents to be assigned a home-care package. They haven't had to make a decision about the number of hours that they work and being able to provide care for their loved ones, but, across the country, Australians have.

This aged-care act is forcing older people to pay more for their care and to miss out on services that they could previously afford. The minister promised people that, if they were already in the system, they'd be no worse off. But we are already hearing from people whose providers are putting up the cost of their care, and they are having to make decisions about whether they pay the rent or they can afford to have a shower every day. It is of no comfort to older people when the minister goes on radio and talks about the profits of aged-care providers. Care should never be for profit—not in aged care, not in disability care and not in child care.

Yet, time and time again, we see governments from both Labor and the coalition privatising care, which means that the interests of shareholders are placed above the needs of the people who need that care. We are a wealthy country. One in three big corporations paid no tax last year. Imagine if those big corporations were forced to pay their fair share so that our parents, our grandparents and our loved ones were not at the whim of an aged-care system being driven for shareholder profits and instead governments invested in the care that older people need.

During the pandemic, the aged-care facilities that managed to do the best job in looking after older people in a challenging time were government owned and run aged-care facilities. In our inquiries, we have heard that government run facilities have stable staff and put people on a career path. Government employers invest in their training and their professional development. They provide consistency of care. Yet we have a Labor government that has turbocharged coalition-era privatisation of aged care so that the focus of care is now profit. One of the aged-care advocacy groups has a post on social media this week telling people that it can show them how they can make $78,000 a year by getting into the aged-care system. They are blatantly out there telling people how they can make money off the care of older people. Privatisation of care services doesn't make sense. Why do we want shareholders to make profits when that money could be going into providing decent care for older people?

Older people are telling us they have worked their entire lives, paid taxes and contributed to our communities, and they thought that when they got to old age, when they needed governments to step in and look after them, they would be there. Well, waiting for over a year to get home care is not providing those people with the care that they need. It took an inquiry in the last sittings of the Senate to even uncover that there's a massive waitlist for the waitlist—100,000 people waiting for packages and another 120,000 people not waiting for packages but waiting for someone to come and assess them to get a package. We had a story on 7.30 this week highlighting again that people cannot get the care that they need. They can't get the assessments that they need. We had a system where clinicians assessed people to determine what care they needed—occupational therapists, healthcare workers. Now we've got a privatised assessment system where people who don't even understand the needs of the people they're assessing are ticking and flicking.

A person gets through that assessment process, having waited for it for months, and then they find out that they have to be assessed again, either because the assessment wasn't done right or because it's been so long since the assessment that their care needs have increased. I don't know about you, but, for most people over 80 that I know, six months is a really long time to wait for care. If you're in your 90s and you're having trouble showering, keeping your house clean and getting to medical appointments, being asked to wait six months to a year means that you're possibly going to die waiting for care. We know that last year 5,000 older people in this country died waiting to get access to care. We should be ashamed of that. We are a wealthy country. How is it that 5,000 older people died waiting to get the care that they need?

Care should never be for profit—not in aged care, not in child care and not in disability care. Along with my colleague Senator Steele-John in the disability portfolio and my colleague Senator Steph Hodgins-May in the childcare portfolio, I, wearing my hat as spokesperson for older people, want to tell the people of Australia that the Greens will continue to fight to make sure that care in this country—aged care, child care and disability care—will not be for profit.

Jordon Steele-John

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Sue Lines

The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Allman-Payne be agreed to.

David Pocock

I seek leave to move a motion to discharge a bill from the Notice Paper as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion relating to the conduct of business of the Senate, namely a motion to discharge a bill from the Notice Paper.

Firstly, I would like to inform the chamber that Senator Lambie will be co-sponsoring this motion. I start by saying that I have a lot of respect for Minister Keogh, and I thank him for his work for veterans in the last term and the work that he is doing now. It's a big job, there's been a lot to work on when it comes to DVA, and I've appreciated his work and his engagement. But this so-called Defence honours bill doesn't honour our veterans. I'm also very concerned by the government's attempts to stop the Senate inquiry doing its job and reporting on this bill. There have been submissions—

Sue Lines

Senator Pocock, I'm going to stop you right there. You moved a suspension motion, and the debate needs to be around why the suspension is urgent and why you need to put aside standing orders, not around the matters before that.

David Pocock

This is why it's urgent—

Sue Lines

I haven't heard you express to the Senate the urgency, and that's what you need to focus on.

David Pocock

The Senate committee was ready to report weeks ago, and yet the government is delaying that. This is a completely friendless bill. It strips people of their right to a merits review—

Sue Lines

Senator Pocock, I am going to remind you once again. It's not about the bill. You moved a suspension order; you want the Senate to agree with you that so much of standing orders be put aside for you to demonstrate your position. You need to focus on why you need to do that, not on the bill. Why do you believe that this suspension order is so urgent that the standing orders need to be put aside?

David Pocock

This is urgent because we have a friendless bill that the government is stopping a Senate committee reporting on. So I urge the Senate. It's time to actually say, as the Senate, that we won't stand for that. We will not deal with a bill that the department admitted they did no consultation on. That was very clear from the 60-odd submissions and very clear from every single witness who appeared before the Senate committee. It was a friendless bill. People were bemused by this bill and the need for it, and what I've heard in consulting with veterans here in the ACT is that, in the wake of the royal commission—

Sue Lines

Senator Pocock, once again you are going to matters not related to the suspension.

David Pocock

Sure. I've heard from veterans about the urgency needed to send a message to the government that this should not be the priority. Responding and implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide should be the priority. That is why this is so urgent.

This is urgent because, again, it was disturbing that there was no consultation. This is urgent because this has been prioritised ahead of so many other things that could be done for our veterans, people who have served this country and deserve better recognition and to be looked after. This is urgent because had this bill been law a few years ago Ordinary Seaman Teddy Sheehan would not have been recognised for his bravery and valour. This is urgent because the government is seeking to stop the next Teddy Sheehan from being recognised. This is urgent because we can't play these games any longer. We can't have a Senate committee being denied the opportunity to actually report on a bill which clearly has no support in the Senate.

That's why I'm suspending standing orders and moving this motion to actually discharge this bill, to send a message to the government when it comes to consultation on bills that you bring to the parliament and to the Senate and to send a very clear message to veterans and veterans' families out there that we see you, we hear what you're saying and the Senate will act to ensure the government gets the very clear message that there is a whole range of priorities when it comes to veterans and communities across the country but this is not one of them.

Bridget McKenzie

It gives me great pleasure to support Senator Pocock's suspension of standing orders, and the coalition will be supporting the suspension of standing orders that has been moved by Senator Pocock in order for the Senate to be able to discharge this friendless bill. The Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 is an affront to every Australian who has ever worn our uniform. This bill could not be fixed and should not be bought back—

Sue Lines

Senator McKenzie, I am speaking. This is a suspension motion; that is what you need to address your remarks to.

Bridget McKenzie

It is a betrayal of trust on the eve of Remembrance Day for this Senate not to prioritise suspending our standing orders in order to be able to discharge this bill from our Notice Paper so it can go back from whence it came and the government can actually get on with implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Veteran Suicide. This bill is a betrayal of trust. It's a cynical attempt by this government to strip away the rights of veterans and their families to seek justice, recognition and accountability—

Sue Lines

Senator McKenzie, the suspension order is not a proxy opportunity to debate the bill. You need to demonstrate to the chamber why the matter is so urgent that the standing orders need to be set aside. It's not a proxy debate. It's a new debate about why a suspension is necessary.

Bridget McKenzie

This bill does not fix a problem. It actually creates one. I'm trying to save the government, through this proxy sort of debate, from the embarrassment of having this bill on their books and continuing to support this bill becoming law on the eve of Remembrance Day.

Sue Lines

Senator McKenzie, I'm going to ask you to sit—

Bridget McKenzie

That's directly relevant.

Sue Lines

I will determine what's relevant and what's not. There is a suspension order before the Senate. Senators are seeking to suspend standing orders to do something other than what is next. Your arguments, your debate, need to be relevant to why we need to suspend, not the bill. Please continue.

Bridget McKenzie

We need to suspend the Senate in order to discharge this bill because we are five days away from 11 November, Remembrance Day, when veterans from around the country will gather to remember those that have fallen in battle, those who were maimed in battle and the great joy of victory and peace. Having this bill on the Senate Notice Paper at that time would, I believe, bring our chamber into disrepute. We want to stand with veterans on Remembrance Day, and we are only days out from that day. We want to be united with our veterans on 11 November and tell them that, while the Labor Party may want to only remember you for 20 years, we, the Senate, are prepared to hold you in our hearts and remember you forever. To say that it's only two decades before you can actually limit—

Sue Lines

Senator McKenzie, you have drifted once again.

Bridget McKenzie

I've drifted?

Sue Lines

You need to focus on the need for the suspension.

Bridget McKenzie

I think the Senate needs to suspend standing orders to save Minister Conroy from the embarrassment that he is in the other chamber.

Katy Gallagher

Keogh!

Bridget McKenzie

Keogh. The government are so arrogant that they thought extending the reporting day would buy them time to convince us this bill was palatable, but here we stand, united, to say it can't be fixed. When questioned in the other chamber, Minister Keogh rolled his eyes—

Sue Lines

Senator McKenzie.

Bridget McKenzie

and I don't want Minister Keogh—

Sue Lines

Senator McKenzie! You are using this suspension order as a proxy for another debate. You are to focus on why the matter before us, the suspension order, is so important that we have to stand aside the chamber's standing orders. That's the focus.

Bridget McKenzie

Setting aside the standing orders so the Senate can take a decision about this bill is important. If the government won't recognise that this bill is friendless and withdraw it themselves, then we believe suspending standing orders in this chamber is an appropriate course of action for our chamber to take on the eve of Remembrance Day.

For every single day this bill stays as part of this parliament's consideration, veterans and their families, grandchildren and great-grandchildren would see it as a great disrespect. I think the Labor Party should do themselves a favour and vote with the rest of the chamber to suspend standing orders and discharge the bill. It's okay to admit defeat. It's okay to say you got it wrong. It's actually good leadership to be able to say, 'We should have consulted, and this is a dog of a bill.' To do it quickly, rather than to leave it here and show disrespect to our veteran community over coming days, when they will be gathering on Remembrance Day in country towns, regional capital cities and indeed on barracks, would, I think, be the right thing for the government to do. Please support the suspension motion.

Katy Gallagher

I rise to make a couple of points, but, before I do, I'll respond to where Senator McKenzie ended. There isn't a government that's done more for veterans than this government has. There isn't a minister who has done more than Minister Keogh has in shepherding through the recommendations from the royal commission and ensuring that veterans get their entitlements, which is something that this government has done. That's meant that thousands of veterans have actually got the compensation that they were owed and that they weren't getting under the former government. I come back to the point. I had to respond to where you left it, Senator McKenzie.

Sue Lines

I've got Senator McKenzie on a point of order.

Bridget McKenzie

It's on relevance to the suspension motion before the chamber. Could you draw the minister to the motion.

Sue Lines

The minister has drawn herself to the suspension order.

Katy Gallagher

I think it's right that the government is able to respond to the sledges that you just did in your contribution, Senator McKenzie.

I've got a couple of points here. The government understand how the numbers work in the Senate, so we understand that this suspension will get up and that this bill will be discharged. I'll say a few things: (1) this is the first the government has heard of it. This is the first the minister has heard of it. So it's clear that Senator Pocock, Senator McKenzie and Senator Shoebridge did not have the courtesy to raise this with Minister Keogh—

Bridget McKenzie

This isn't the first time—

Sue Lines

We're not in committee. Why are you on your feet?

Bridget McKenzie

The shadow minister has been raising this issue—

Sue Lines

Senator McKenzie! You don't just stand and launch into a debate. You're either standing on a point of order or standing on something else. Senator Shoebridge?

David Shoebridge

I have a point of order as to relevance, given your earlier rulings in relation to both my other colleagues.

Sue Lines

I think that Minister Gallagher is being relevant to the suspension order. I will continue to listen closely. If the minister is not relevant, I will draw her to the suspension order.

Katy Gallagher

It's relevant because we are suspending on a matter to discharge a bill that has not been raised with the minister by any of you. He's just told me. He said, 'This is the first I have heard of it.' This is why it is not urgent. That courtesy should've been extended to Minister Keogh.

Sue Lines

Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge?

David Shoebridge

A courtesy to a minister is not—

Sue Lines

Senator Shoebridge, we are not in a debate!

David Shoebridge

My point of order is to relevance. I again draw you to your earlier rulings to Senator McKenzie and Senator Pocock, and I ask that you address the same rulings to government speakers.

Sue Lines

I am addressing the same ruling, and the minister is being relevant.

Katy Gallagher

This motion wasn't even on the Notice Paper. The motion that you seek to discharge legislation—we just had formal motions. Why wasn't it put on the Notice Paper yesterday? Why are you having to suspend to put this on? You've had all week. You've had two weeks!

An honourable senator interjecting—

No! You put it as a formal motion.

Bridget McKenzie

Because you denied leave! You denied leave. That's why we have to suspend!

Katy Gallagher

What, because you didn't get it in on time?

Sue Lines

Order! Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat—

Senator McKenzie! This is not—this is the Senate chamber. It's not okay to be trying to engage in some debate. You are out of order. Minister, please continue.

Long debate text truncated.

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) order for the production of documents no. 27, agreed to by the Senate on 24 July 2025, requesting that the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Monday, 28 July 2025, table all documents relating to any advice provided by the Treasury to the Treasurer and the Minister for Housing since 1 January 2025 in relation to the Government's plan to invest $10 billion for 100,000 new homes for first home buyers and any advice provided to the Treasurer and the Minister for Housing since 1 January 2025 in relation to the Government's plan to enable first home buyers to purchase a home with a 5% deposit was only partially complied with,

(ii) the tabled documents do not provide any briefings/modelling conducted by the Treasury into the scheme, as sought by the order,

(iii) the minister's explanation to the Senate pertaining to the failure to adequately comply with the order did not provide a credible response as to why the requested documents have not been released in their entirety, and

(iv) the Prime Minister has previously stated that the Treasury's briefing/modelling indicated an increase in house prices of 0.5%; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply with the order by no later than 5.30 pm on Thursday, 6 November 2025.

Katy Gallagher

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Katy Gallagher

The government will not be supporting this motion. The government has already responded to Senator Bragg's order for the production of documents. A number of documents had been identified as being in scope; two of them were released. PII claims were made over the rest of them because almost all of the rest were cabinet submissions or ERC submissions. PII claims were made over others because the policy for the 100,000 homes is negotiated with states and territories, and we would have to negotiate with them over the release of those documents.

This motion also seeks the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply with the order by no later than 5.30 today. I just wanted to let the Senate know that there are no further documents that I am in position to be able to table by 5.30 today. So the government will not be supporting this, because we cannot comply with the terms of the OPD.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 244, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, be agreed to.

Peter Whish-Wilson

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than 10 am on Friday, 14 November 2025, any documents, including all correspondence, ministerial briefing notes, legal advice briefs and departmental assessments and/or reports from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water and/or the Department of Industry, Science and Resources relating to the Northern Endeavour floating production storage and offloading vessel and the Hazardous Waste Act, Article 11 of the Basel Convention and/or Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation approval condition 10(b).

Katy Gallagher

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Katy Gallagher

The government will not be supporting this order for the production of documents, and I would encourage Senator Whish-Wilson to think about narrowing the scope. This motion seeks all documents, briefing notes, correspondence, ministerial briefing notes, advice, briefs and departmental assessments. There's no time period for the scope of the OPD, it's probably across a number of departments and it gives the minister five working days to comply. As I said in my remarks to the Senate yesterday, there is simply no way that the government can comply with an order that is that wide in scope and that has a timeliness of five days in order to report, and, as such, the government will not be supporting the OPD.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 206 standing in the name of Senator Whish-Wilson be agreed to.