Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by midday on Wednesday, 20 November 2024, the report provided by Mr Graeme Samuel AC to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority concerning an independent inquiry about the influence of the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union on the Cbus Super Fund.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 675 moved by Senator Askew at the request of Senator Bragg be agreed to.

David Pocock

I, and on behalf of Senator Lambie, move:

That the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 and the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Communications) Bill 2024 be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for inquiry and report by 3 March 2025.

Jonathon Duniam

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Jonathon Duniam

These bills are implementing the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in its report into the conduct of the 2022 federal election. They've been through the inquiry process, and information on the merits of these measures is publicly available for all senators.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion number 674 standing in the names of Senators Lambie and David Pocock be agreed to.

Gerard Rennick

I move:

(1) That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) that on 9 October 2024 the Senate ordered the Minister representing the Treasurer to table the government response to the final report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on bank closures in regional Australia (order no. 653), and

(ii) in a letter of response, dated 29 October 2024, the Assistant Treasurer stated that 'there are no documents in scope of the order';

(b) affirms that the Senate has the power, arising from section 49 of the Constitution, to order documents both in existence and created for the purpose, a view endorsed by the Privileges Committee in its 153rd report;

(c) draws the attention of the Assistant Treasurer to the many orders requiring the production of government responses to Senate committee reports, including most recently an order requiring the production of the government response to the interim report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on the shutdown of the 3G mobile network, which was complied with on 19 August 2024; and

(d) insists that the Minister representing the Treasurer comply with the order by midday on 25 November 2024.

(2) That if the above order is not complied with by the required time, a senator may utilise the mechanism provided under standing order 164(3) on any subsequent day regardless of whether the 30 day period referred to in that standing order has passed.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 667 standing in the name of Senator Rennick be agreed to.

Anne Urquhart

On behalf of Senator Green, I move:

That the provisions of the Migration Amendment Bill 2024 be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 November 2024.

Malcolm Roberts

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Malcolm Roberts

We support the referral. Since the High Court held that forced ankle bracelets and curfews on ex-detainees are unconstitutional and punitive in the case of YBFZ, the government has indicated it wants to legislate to empower the minister to enforce these measures for the purpose of achieving safety in the community. This bill will fail for the same reason the High Court held in YBFZ. What is needed is legislation to widen the power of the judiciary to order these measures instead of leaving it to the minister who is part of the executive, thereby ensuring the separation of powers.

Nick McKim

by leave—I move:

Omit "26 November 2024", substitute "4 February 2025".

Just so folks are clear, the amendment omits the words 26 November 2024 and substitutes instead 4 February 2025.

Sue Lines

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator McKim to business of the Senate No. 3 be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Lidia Thorpe

President, you stopped me from going overseas next week, did you? You didn't even have the courtesy to tell me.

Sue Lines

Come to order, Senator Thorpe!

Lidia Thorpe

You stopped me from going overseas. Shame on you.

Sue Lines

Senator Thorpe, come to order!

David Pocock

I seek leave to have my committee of the whole amendments on sheet 2962 and 2963 considered.

Leave granted.

Matt O'Sullivan

The question is that the amendments circulated by Senator Pocock on sheets 2962 and 2963 be agreed to.

Senator Pocock's circulated amendments—

SHEET 2962

(1) Page 119 (after line 14), at the end of Part 6, add:

Division 5 — Review

147 Review of operation of Act

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of this Act.

(2) The review must start as soon as practicable after the end of 5 years after this Act commences.

(3) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months of the commencement of the review.

(4) The Minister must table a copy of the report in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

SHEET 2963

(1) Clause 140A, page 115 (after line 31), at the end of the clause, add:

(7) Subject to subsection (8), if the advisory committee gives the Minister advice under subsection (2) the advisory committee must cause a copy of that advice to be:

(a) published on the Department's website as soon as practicable after giving the advice to the Minister; and

(b) tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after giving the advice to the Minister.

(8) The Minister may direct the advisory committee that subsection (7) does not apply if the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the interests of national security and to deal with an emergency.

(9) The Minister must:

(a) table a copy of each written instrument made under subsection (3) in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after making the instrument; and

(b) table a copy of each written direction made under subsection (4) in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after making the direction.

Malcolm Roberts

Could I have my name recorded as supporting 2518 and supporting 2519, please?

Tim Ayres

Senator Roberts, I'm informed that those two amendments were not in the vote that we did just then.

Jacqui Lambie

by leave—I move my committee of the whole amendments on sheet 2978:

(1) Clause 5, page 9 (after line 6), after the definition of licence, insert:

low level radioactive material means radioactive material (within the meaning of the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012) that is not high level radioactive material (within the meaning of that Act).

(2) Clause 8A, page 14 (after line 15), at the end of the clause, add:

(3) This section has no effect to the extent of any inconsistency with section 8C.

(3) Page 14 (after line 27), at the end of Subdivision A, add:

8C Prohibition on receiving and storing radioactive waste

(1) Nothing in this Act is taken to authorise the receipt or storage of radioactive waste from an AUKUS submarine, unless:

(a) for an AUKUS submarine not operated by Australia for naval or military purposes—arrangements have been made for any low level radioactive material to be removed from Australia by the operator of that AUKUS submarine to a suitable radioactive waste management facility outside of Australia within 12 months; or

(b) for an AUKUS submarine operated by Australia for naval or military purposes—the site of a suitable long-term radioactive waste management facility has been identified and gazetted.

(2) The Regulator must not issue a licence in respect of the receipt or storage of radioactive waste from an AUKUS submarine unless paragraph (1)(a) or (b) applies.

(4) Clause 21, page 24 (lines 13 and 14), omit subparagraph (2)(b)(ii), substitute:

(ii) releases radioactive material into the environment, or could have resulted in a release of radioactive material into the environment; or

(5) Clause 21, page 25 (after line 13), at the end of the clause add:

Definitions of serious illness and serious injury

(7) In this section:

serious illness has the meaning given by an instrument made under subsection (8).

serious injury has the meaning given by an instrument made under subsection (8).

(8) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine the meanings of serious illness and serious injury for the purposes of subsection (7).

(6) Clause 109, page 97 (after line 25), after subclause (3A), insert:

Qualification for nomination

(3B) The Minister must not nominate a person for appointment as Director-General or Deputy Director-General unless the Senate agrees to the nomination by resolution of the Senate, agreed to by an absolute majority of Senators.

(7) Clause 123A, page 106 (line 29), omit paragraph (1)(b), substitute:

(b) the release radioactive material into the environment.

(8) Clause 123A, page 107 (lines 1 to 3), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) If the Director-General becomes aware that a nuclear safety incident has occurred:

(a) the Director-General must notify the Minister about the incident as soon as possible; and

(b) the Minister must notify the Prime Minister about the incident as soon as possible after the Minister has been notified about the incident; and

(c) the Prime Minister must notify the Premiers and Chief Ministers of the relevant State and Territories about the incident as soon as possible after the Prime Minister has been notified about the incident.

(2A) If the Minister and Prime Minister are notified of an incident under subsection (2), the Minister and Prime Minister must issue a joint public statement about the incident within 24 hours of both being notified.

Matt O'Sullivan

The question is that the amendments circulated by Senator Lambie on sheet 2978 be agreed to.

Senator Lambie's circulated amendments—

(1) Clause 5, page 9 (after line 6), after the definition of licence, insert:

low level radioactive material means radioactive material (within the meaning of the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012) that is not high level radioactive material (within the meaning of that Act).

(2) Clause 8A, page 14 (after line 15), at the end of the clause, add:

(3) This section has no effect to the extent of any inconsistency with section 8C.

(3) Page 14 (after line 27), at the end of Subdivision A, add:

8C Prohibition on receiving and storing radioactive waste

(1) Nothing in this Act is taken to authorise the receipt or storage of radioactive waste from an AUKUS submarine, unless:

(a) for an AUKUS submarine not operated by Australia for naval or military purposes—arrangements have been made for any low level radioactive material to be removed from Australia by the operator of that AUKUS submarine to a suitable radioactive waste management facility outside of Australia within 12 months; or

(b) for an AUKUS submarine operated by Australia for naval or military purposes—the site of a suitable long-term radioactive waste management facility has been identified and gazetted.

(2) The Regulator must not issue a licence in respect of the receipt or storage of radioactive waste from an AUKUS submarine unless paragraph (1)(a) or (b) applies.

(4) Clause 21, page 24 (lines 13 and 14), omit subparagraph (2)(b)(ii), substitute:

(ii) releases radioactive material into the environment, or could have resulted in a release of radioactive material into the environment; or

(5) Clause 21, page 25 (after line 13), at the end of the clause add:

Definitions of serious illness and serious injury

(7) In this section:

serious illness has the meaning given by an instrument made under subsection (8).

serious injury has the meaning given by an instrument made under subsection (8).

(8) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine the meanings of serious illness and serious injury for the purposes of subsection (7).

(6) Clause 109, page 97 (after line 25), after subclause (3A), insert:

Qualification for nomination

(3B) The Minister must not nominate a person for appointment as Director-General or Deputy Director-General unless the Senate agrees to the nomination by resolution of the Senate, agreed to by an absolute majority of Senators.

(7) Clause 123A, page 106 (line 29), omit paragraph (1)(b), substitute:

(b) the release radioactive material into the environment.

(8) Clause 123A, page 107 (lines 1 to 3), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) If the Director-General becomes aware that a nuclear safety incident has occurred:

(a) the Director-General must notify the Minister about the incident as soon as possible; and

(b) the Minister must notify the Prime Minister about the incident as soon as possible after the Minister has been notified about the incident; and

(c) the Prime Minister must notify the Premiers and Chief Ministers of the relevant State and Territories about the incident as soon as possible after the Prime Minister has been notified about the incident.

(2A) If the Minister and Prime Minister are notified of an incident under subsection (2), the Minister and Prime Minister must issue a joint public statement about the incident within 24 hours of both being notified.

Long debate text truncated.

Jacqui Lambie

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2979 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Page 90 (after line 11), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 8 — Penalties imposed by the Parliament

Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987

1 Subsection 7(5)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(5) A House may impose on a person a fine:

(a) not exceeding 50 penalty units, in the case of a natural person; or

(b) not exceeding 250 penalty units, in the case of a corporation;

for an offence against that House determined by that House to have been committed by that person.

(5A) The Consolidated Revenue Fund must not be appropriated for the purposes of paying a fine imposed under subsection (5).

Michaelia Cash

These amendments seek to change the existing penalties in the Parliamentary Privileges Act. Essentially, these amendments would replace the existing penalty units and penalties, roughly triple the existing $5,000 penalty for individuals and quadruple the existing $20,000 penalty for bodies corporate. Amendment (2) also says that any such penalty cannot be paid out of consolidated revenue.

The potential second-order effects of that change are not clear to us. It is not immediately apparent which other acts would interact with this particular amendment, and the circumstances in which those interactions may or may not occur—for instance, how would this particular amendment interact with a fine paid by a person who receives an allowance or a subsidy from the government?

In terms of changes to the Parliamentary Privileges Act, these are things that I'd say all parties in the Australian Senate obviously take very, very seriously. The reason is that it is an act which entrenches parliamentary sovereignty and regulates the relationship between the branches of government. It is the reason, as we all know, that we're all able to stand in this place and say whatever we need to say in support of our constituents, the reason that the witnesses before our committees are able to speak freely, without fear of being called before the police or the courts, and it is also fundamental to our democracy. So, when changes to the Parliamentary Privileges Act are being put forward, we do need to very seriously consider them. We need to very seriously consider the implications of them but also what the interactions with other pieces of legislation will be. And we can't make any apologies for being cautious in this regard.

On this particular issue, the decision to have a specific listed penalty instead of penalty units wasn't actually a drafting error; it was deliberate. The penalties were set in 1987. Just five years later, in 1992, we changed the Crimes Act to introduce the penalty unit regime, including a mechanism to convert fixed penalties into penalty units. But, at that time, we specifically excluded penalties that were not handed down by the courts—for those who are interested, that is subsection 4AB(2) of the Crimes Act. That was debated at the time. It was considered by the parliament. It is quite clear that it was a deliberate decision to treat penalties handed down by the parliament differently.

It might also be unsurprising that we would treat penalties under the Parliamentary Privileges Act differently because they are the result of what is a fundamentally different process. A person receiving such a penalty has not been convicted by a court. They don't have all the usual protections that apply in judicial proceedings, such as the presumption of innocence, rights around procedural fairness and the ability to appeal or ask for a review of a decision. Penalties handed down under the Parliamentary Privileges Act, which senators would be aware does include penalties of imprisonment, are decided by the houses of the parliament themselves, according to procedures they determine, and are fundamentally unreviewable by any other body.

So, when it comes to a proposal—in this case, it is amendments to a piece of legislation that is now in committee stage before the Australian Senate—to lift the penalties that can be imposed by this place, we do need to proceed with caution. As I said, in this regard, we have not had the time yet to actually properly analyse what could be the flow-on effects from these amendments. On that basis, the opposition won't be supporting them.

Murray Watt

The government will also not be supporting the amendments. The government is not currently proposing any changes to the penalties that may be imposed by the houses under section 7 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. Neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives has imposed a financial penalty in living memory, so, from the government's point of view, we don't believe that the case for the amendments has been made out in practice. If there were a future circumstance where the financial penalties under the Parliamentary Privileges Act were considered inappropriate, the houses may enforce the observance of their privileges and immunities and punish people found guilty of contempt, including a commitment to prison.

Question negatived.

David Pocock

by leave—Please note my support for that amendment.

Lidia Thorpe

by leave—Mine too, please.

David Shoebridge

by leave—On behalf of the Greens, I ask the same.

Tammy Tyrrell

by leave—I would like my support noted as well.

David Pocock

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2961 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Page 90 (after line 10), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 8 — National Anti-Corru p tion Commission Hearings

1 Subsection 73(2)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(2) The Commissioner may decide to hold a hearing, or part of a hearing, in public if the Commissioner is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so.

2 Subsection 73(3)

Omit "may", substitute "must".

This bill amends the NACC Act, and I have a couple of questions about the NACC. During the committee process into what is now the NACC Act, the committee heard overwhelming evidence from experts that the discretion of the NACC commissioner to hold public hearings should not be curtailed. In fact, the committee heard evidence from commissioners from state integrity commissions that it should be the case that there should be a presumption towards having public hearings. This was put forward to ensure that we have public trust in the NACC and ongoing recognition of the work that it's doing, that it is seen as an institution that not only is important but is undertaking continuous work and that there is some sort of visibility of what is happening.

We see that the Labor Party sided with the coalition to set up the legislation in a way that we have no real oversight of what is happening in the NACC. There's a presumption towards having private hearings. Yes, they report from time to time, but we've seen recently, since the NACC was established, some real concerns being raised, particularly in relation to the robodebt matter. I acknowledge that the inspector-general, which I thank Senator Shoebridge and members of the crossbench for pushing so hard for, is considering this matter. Public confidence has clearly been shaken, and public confidence in the NACC is incredibly important. This amendment would ensure that we do have public hearings—that the NACC is able to hold them and hold them not just when they think there are exceptional circumstances. Minister, has the government reconsidered the unnecessary limit on the ability of the NACC to conduct public hearings to only where there are exceptional circumstances?

Murray Watt

The short answer, Senator Pocock, is no. I will outline at this moment the government's position on this amendment: we won't be supporting the amendment. The reality is that the National Anti-Corruption Commission does have the discretion to hold public hearings under the existing law. The commissioner can hold the hearing or part of a hearing in public if satisfied that it is in the public interest and exceptional circumstances justify doing so. The commissioner may consider a number of factors outlined before deciding to hold a public hearing, including the seriousness or systemic nature of the corrupt conduct and any unfair prejudice to a person's reputation, privacy, safety or wellbeing that would likely be caused if the hearings were held in public. Also, they can consider the benefits of exposing corrupt conduct to the public and making the public aware of corrupt conduct. From the government's point of view, this provides an appropriate balance between the benefits of public hearings and the potential for prejudice to subsequent criminal prosecutions, reputations, safety, privacy, wellbeing or confidentiality.

David Pocock

Thank you, Minister; I appreciate your response. Does the government accept that failure to reconsider the unnecessary condition of exceptional circumstances—it was pointed out during the very extensive hearings that this as an incredibly high bar and witnesses said that, if you go with this, there will basically never be public hearings—is out of line with what experts presented to the committee and, most importantly, out of line with community expectations when it comes to the National Anti-Corruption Commission?

Murray Watt

I'm very much aware that there are members of the public and experts—a range of people—who have supported broader public hearings than what are being provided for, but I'm confident that the government has made the right decision in allowing public hearings to occur if the National Anti-Corruption Commission believe that's necessary and, importantly, if they're satisfied that, firstly, it is in the public interest to do so and, secondly, exceptional circumstances justify doing so. As I said, we believe that provides an appropriate balance between the benefits of public hearings that can arise in some circumstances and be made available in some circumstances and the potential to prejudice subsequent criminal prosecution, reputations, safety, privacy, wellbeing or confidentiality.

David Pocock

Minister, does the government accept that the change proposed in this amendment would improve public confidence in the NACC?

Murray Watt

I'm not sure that I would accept that. I know that there are people who express that view. There are people who express different views. We think that we've struck the right balance.

David Pocock

Minister, do you really think that the majority of Australians are happy with the NACC holding all of their hearings in private and that having more transparency is not a good thing?

Murray Watt

Again, the commissioner does have the discretion to hold a public hearing. Senator Pocock, with respect, I think the way that you're presenting the argument suggests that there's no power to hold a public hearing. That's not the case. The commissioner is independent of government. We have confidence in them to make the right decisions based on the evidence before them as to whether a public hearing is warranted, taking into account the public interest and the exceptional circumstances that would justify doing so.

David Pocock

I accept that you are incredibly skilled at this. When you say that the commissioner has the ability to have a public hearing, yes, that is correct, but the parliament, as you've outlined, sets out the circumstances in which that may happen. Currently, we have a NACC where you have to meet an incredibly high bar. Numerous witnesses warned the committee that this will essentially mean that there are almost no circumstances that meet all of the criteria. Whilst it may be possible, the practical outcome is that it's very rare and very unlikely to happen. It seems to me that we actually need to be building up trust in our institutions, and I'm hearing from so many people I represent, who say, 'We want more transparency not less.'

What's the argument for this? I accept you say that you've struck the right balance, but why aren't we allowing the commissioner—if we trust them so much, and I think there should be a high level of trust in the commissioner—to have a neutral presumption and that it's totally up to the commissioner? If the commissioner thinks that this is in the public interest, then they can hold a public hearing. That to me aligns with the rhetoric I hear about trust in the NACC and the independence of the NACC. If we really believed that, we would say: 'We trust you. We believe we have put very good people in there who are well qualified to do that job, and it's up to you. If you think it's in the public interest to hold a public hearing, you do it.' But that's not what we've done. We've said: 'We trust you. We should be saying to Australians, "The NACC is doing important work," which we believe it is, but also, even if you think it's in the public interest, you have to also meet all these other criteria, including exceptional circumstances.'

I'm just interested why, on the one hand that you think they're independent, that we trust them and that it's up to them, but on the other hand that we're almost hamstringing them a bit? They're hamstrung to actually make a decision because they have to meet these criteria. Those things don't seem to square to me.

Long debate text truncated.

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Liddle, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, by no later than 5 pm on Wednesday, 16 October 2024:

(a) the number of government consultations undertaken by the Department of Social Services (DSS) that required participants to sign non-disclosure agreements since the start of the parliamentary term;

(b) the subject matter of the consultations that required participants to sign non-disclosure agreements since the start of the parliamentary term;

(c) the number of non-disclosure agreements signed by community sector organisations and other stakeholders as a condition of participating in government consultation undertaken by DSS since the start of the parliamentary term;

(d) the number of community sector organisations that refused to sign non-disclosure agreements as a condition of participating in government consultation undertaken by DSS since the start of the parliamentary term; and

(e) the number of breaches of government non-disclosure agreements that have been legally pursued since the start of the parliamentary term and actions taken by DSS.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 655, standing in the name of Senator Liddle and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

Katy Gallagher

I seek leave to amend government business notice of motion No. 1.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That on Thursday, 10 October 2024:

(a) the questions on all remaining stages of the following bills be put at 1 pm:

(i) Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024,

(ii) Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Expansion) Bill 2024, and

(iii) Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024;

(iv) (b) Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2024 Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023;

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

(c) divisions may take place between 1.30 pm and 2 pm for the purposes of the bills only.

Sarah Hanson-Young

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Sarah Hanson-Young

The Greens are disappointed that the government is moving to guillotine these bills through the parliament. We are concerned that the Senate has not had enough time—a reasonable amount of time—to consider in detail the Future Made in Australia piece of legislation. We are only halfway through the second reading speeches. There will be amendments, and the government wants to ram this through. The Senate has a duty to properly consider bills before ramming them through, so we will be asking for the question to be put separately on each of these bills, because we are worried that the government wants to ram things through simply because they are not prepared to negotiate properly.

Sue Lines

Senator Hanson-Young, I just remind you you can only ask for the matter to be split up if you intend to vote differently on each one. If that's your intention, that's all fine. Is that your intention?

Sarah Hanson-Young

I'm just flagging—there might be other people who have problems with this as well.

Sue Lines

Well, they can rise and speak.

Sarah Hanson-Young

What I'm saying is that we have concerns with Future Made in Australia and the naval bill, two things that the government wants to ram through this place without giving it reasonable consideration.

Sue Lines

You've had a minute to explain your opposition. You wanted them all put separately. I have come back to you and said that's only possible—so I'm still not understanding what it is the Greens are seeking. Senator McKim?

Nick McKim

If I could assist, the Greens will be asking that the question be put separately on the Future Made in Australia cognate bills and the bills that have just been included by amendment by Senator Gallagher on the naval matters, but the Greens wish to vote against both of those.

Sue Lines

That means that we will do (i) and (ii) together and (iii) and (iv) together.

Jonathon Duniam

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Jonathon Duniam

We request that (iii) be put separately so that Future Made in Australia is put on its own as opposed to with (iv).

Sue Lines

We're putting (i) and (ii) together, (iii) on its own and then (iv). The question is that the motion in respect of paragraphs (i) and (ii) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question is that the motion in relation to paragraph (iii) be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Senator Thorpe, you are out of order! Senator Thorpe, take your seat.

Senator Thorpe, I've asked you to take your seat. If you're going to be disruptive, leave the chamber.