Sue Lines

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

Simon Birmingham

by leave—I move:

That—

(a) the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023 be called on immediately and, until the bill is finally determined, the routine of business be as follows:

i. consideration of the bill only;

ii. the time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill be as follows:

(A) second reading—60 minutes,

(B) the question be put on all remaining stages after a further 90 minutes.

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

(c) following consideration of the bill, the Senate return to its routine of business.

This motion has the effect of bringing on this bill, the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023, immediately. The government have said they're ready to debate the bill, so let's debate the bill. Of course, if the Albanese government had its house in order, this would have been done weeks ago.

Hon. Senators

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines

Senator Birmingham, I'm going to ask you to resume your seat. While Senator Birmingham is making his comments, I expect there to be silence, particularly on my left side but right across the chamber.

Simon Birmingham

Indeed, I'm happy for those behind, who are very passionate about this, to be able to have their say too, because if the government—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines

Senator Birmingham, resume your seat. I have asked for silence—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Order across the chamber! I have asked for silence, and there will be silence.

Simon Birmingham

If the government had their house in order, this would have been done weeks ago. It would have been ready weeks ago, been done weeks ago and been able to pass this parliament. If they'd had the House sitting this week, it could have at least been done days ago in terms of passing through.

The government has stood in here today—Senator Wong is saying, 'Why isn't the opposition supporting this?' Well, when the government finally, belatedly, was dragged kicking and screaming to the point of proposing a preventive detention regime, it was already at the point where it couldn't pass the parliament before the House came back for its normal business on Thursday of this week. But if the government wants to come in here and taunt us and say, 'Bring it on,' we're ready. Bring it on. We are ready to do so.

Most importantly, if the government had competent ministers, this would have been done before detainees were released, because that is the real crime of the way the Albanese government has handled this matter. The real crime of the Albanese government's handling of this matter is that detainees—murderers, rapists, paedophiles—were released before preventive orders were put in place and before measures to protect Australians from harm were put in place. That is the real crime of what has occurred. In failure upon failure from the Albanese government, they have stumbled at every turn in relation to this matter. They stumbled, it seems, in relation to the case they put before the High Court. They talked out of both sides of their mouth before the court, with the Human Rights Commission arguing one thing, having been approved to enter the court by the Attorney-General, whilst the government put an alternative proposition to the High Court. They presented evidence to the court suggesting that the individual subject of the case could not be deported, yet it appears the government may have had contrary advice to that, therefore providing evidence, a statement of fact, that undermined their very own case.

So they mismanaged the case itself, but then they weren't even prepared for any of the consequences of the case. Where were the contingency plans from the Albanese government? There were none because, clearly, Minister Giles and Minister O'Neil are completely incapable of managing their portfolios or of thinking ahead. It is incompetence that does not warrant the holding of ministerial office. These ministers should go. They should go because not only have they let the government down and caused immense political pain for the government; more particularly, they have exposed the Australian people to danger, to harm. This is the exposure that is the real risk and danger for the Australian people as a result of the Albanese government's mismanagement.

Think through the different steps of mismanagement we have seen. Those of us who are in this chamber—

Penny Wong

You're wasting time!

Simon Birmingham

Senator Wong, your government has been wasting time for weeks, wasting the opportunity for months to get this resolved. Senator Wong, we will get this done. The motion we have put forward gives a deadline. We're happy to get it done but we're not going to let you off the hook in terms of the way your government has mismanaged this from the first day.

Sue Lines

Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat.

Penny Wong

Point of order on relevance: is the Senate opposition leader aware that his leader's office explicitly asked for this legislation to be slowed down? I just want to be clear: Mr Dutton's office explicitly asked for this legislation to be slowed down.

Sue Lines

Senator Wong, that is not a point of order. Please continue, Senator Birmingham.

Simon Birmingham

We were here when the decision was handed down, and ministers opposite were asked, 'What's going to happen to other individuals affected by this case, by this decision of the High Court?' Do you know what ministers said on that day? They said: 'Nothing is going to happen yet. We're going to wait to see the statement of reasons from the High Court.' That was what Minister Giles was telling the country, that was what Minister O'Neil was telling the country and that was what the Prime Minister and representing ministers in this chamber were telling the country: 'Be calm. You're safe because we're going to wait for the statement of reasons.' But what transpired? They changed their mind. They didn't wait for the statement of reasons. They panicked, they did whatever it was happening in the background, they felt pressure from the Left—whatever it was that caused the government to then open the floodgates in releasing the murderers, rapists, paedophiles, contract killers and others who had been detained back into the Australian community.

When they made that decision to release them in advance of the High Court's statement of reasons, had they put in place any safety measures in terms of how those individuals would be tracked or traced or how Australians would be protected? No, they hadn't. The opposition had to call for legislation. The government brought forward legislation which, on the day it brought it forward, at breakfast time, was the toughest it could be. But by lunchtime they'd accepted six amendments from the opposition leader, Mr Dutton, as ways to strengthen those measures. The government then released individuals who apparently managed to avoid having those ankle bracelets or other measures put in place. So we had a situation where the government said they wouldn't release people but then did, then made up protections after they'd released them and then failed to institute those protections on different individuals, and said the legislation was as tough as it could be—except, it turned out, when the opposition had suggestions it could be tougher. So, ultimately, we've got a situation where this government has been caught out flat-footed—and the ministers! There is the absolute failure of Minister Giles and Minister O'Neil to be in a position to actually manage this issue properly. If they'd been doing their job, the contingencies would have been in place. If they'd been doing their job, they would have had plans should the High Court case have gone against the government. If they'd been doing their job, those plans would have included a preventive detention regime, which, again, the government didn't move on until after the opposition had proposed it.

Indeed, the opposition's proposal was confirmed as valid when, finally, the statement of reasons was released by the High Court. Imagine if the government had either done the contingency and had the preventive detention regime in place or had the legislation ready to go and, alongside that, held its nerve and waited until the statement of reasons was released. Those two things could have had a profound difference. Why would they have made a profound difference? Because we wouldn't have what's occurring in the Australian community right now, which is to see crimes being committed by the very people released under this government. That is the most serious part of what has occurred here.

The reality that this government has proceeded to release individuals, because it was flat-footed, because it hadn't done the contingency work, and to release them in ways that have now seen Australians suffer harm. They have failed the most serious test of a government, which is to keep Australians safe. They've failed that test at a range of hurdles throughout this, and, as much as those opposite may sigh or moan, their sighing and moaning is nothing compared to the potential pain and anguish that is now being faced by those Australians.

Penny Wong

We just want you to sit down so we can start the debate.

Simon Birmingham

Senator Wong, we'll have the debate. We're proposing the debate: 60 minutes of debate and 90 minutes for good scrutiny of the legislation. So I will do that in a second, Senator Wong, but not without—

Penny Wong

Sit down and start the debate!

Simon Birmingham

See, the problem is you haven't learned any lessons. There's no contrition. There's no admission. There's no acceptance of responsibility. This government won't take responsibility for any of its failures. It's amazing. You'd think with ministers as hapless as Ministers Giles and O'Neill they would take responsibility for the failures. You'd think those ministers would be gone, now or at least over the summer period, and the government could reset itself off of that disaster. But, no, instead, the government is trying to act in a state of denial, pretend that it's being tough when ultimately it has been led every step of the way in its legislation, its amendments and its proposals—the preventive detention regime has been proposed by Mr Dutton and the opposition. The only leadership that has been shown since the High Court case was handed down has come from Mr Dutton, Senator Paterson, Senator Cash, Mr Tehan and others, who have sought to make sure that the government acts in ways that is necessary. And, even right now—

Murray Watt

The numbers in the gallery are falling by the minute!

Simon Birmingham

There you go! They're caring and counting the numbers in the Press Gallery! How about caring about and counting the numbers of dangerous people released into the Australian community? How about caring about and counting the tragic number of incidents that are occurring in the Australian community as a result of that? They are the consequences of your actions. So, yes, bring it on. That is what we have proposed today. You taunted. You called for it. Bring it on. The reality is it should have been done earlier—this week if you had the House sitting. It should have been done weeks ago if you'd actually done your contingency work. It certainly should have been done before the detainees were released into the Australian community, putting Australians in danger.

Sue Lines

Senator McGrath!

Penny Wong

Yet again, if you wanted an example of how the opposition are much more interested in fighting about this than fixing this, it is that tedious and repetitive contribution from the opposition leader in the Senate. Rather than get on with the debate, which he claims—

Sue Lines

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Order, Senator McGrath and Senator Ruston! Minister Wong, please continue.

Penny Wong

Rather than getting on with the debate, yet again the opposition are more interested in playing politics and having a fight than in keeping people safe.

Well, you're focused on fighting. We want to make sure we fix this.

Well, you were so desperate to keep Australians—

Sue Lines

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator McGrath, I called you a few minutes ago, and then I called you twice in a row. I'm asking you to listen in respectful silence. Minister Wong, please continue.

Penny Wong

I would remind the chamber that the opposition, after that question time, has now asked to bring on the preventive detention regime—a bill that they voted against in the House with the Greens, which they have never explained.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Can I make the second point? We also know that the very clear message from the opposition leader's office in relation to the bill that they are now seeking to bring on was that there was a request for the government to slow down the legislation to make sure they had enough time to carefully consider the legislation. They said Wednesday was good. But do you know what's happened? The fact is that Mr Tehan went to the Jericho Cup in Warrnambool, rather than be briefed on the legal advice—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines

Minister Wong.

An honourable senator interjecting

Penny Wong

Then you should be briefed, but instead you went to Warrnambool—

Sue Lines

Minister Wong! Please resume your seat.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Cash, I called you three times in a row. You do not have the call. You are there to listen in respectful silence. Minister Wong.

Long debate text truncated.

Helen Polley

The President has received the following letter from Senator McKim today:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today the Australian Greens propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

Given the end of the truce in Gaza and the intensification of the State of Israel's bombing in Southern Gaza, the Australian Government must call for an immediate permanent ceasefire to end the humanitarian catastrophe occurring in Gaza, for the unconditional release of all hostages and political prisoners and for an urgent end to the siege and invasion of Gaza."

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with informal arrangements made by the whips.

Jordon Steele-John

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

Given the end of the truce in Gaza and the intensification of the State of Israel's bombing in Southern Gaza, the Australian Government must call for an immediate permanent ceasefire to end the humanitarian catastrophe occurring in Gaza, for the unconditional release of all hostages and political prisoners and for an urgent end to the siege and invasion of Gaza.

On Friday, with the expiry of the temporary truce, the State of Israel's military recommenced its offensive in Gaza. As of this morning, 15,523 Palestinians have been killed and 41,316 wounded since 7 October. More than 700 deaths have been recorded in Gaza in the past 24 hours alone. Thousands lie under the rubble, and 85 per cent of the population of Gaza is now confirmed as displaced.

Many of Gaza's 2.3 million people are now crammed into the south, after the State of Israel ordered civilians to leave the north in the early days of the invasion. There were no fewer than 127 incidents involving explosive weapons within the so-called safe zone in the first week after the State of Israel's warning to move south on 14 October.

And now the State of Israel is continuing to push civilians from the north to the south and yet, at the same time, they are dropping leaflets indicating that their next target is Khan Yunis, a city in the south of Gaza. This Senate can be under no illusion: nowhere is safe in Gaza. These are the words of the UNICEF representatives speaking to the world in the past 48 hours: 'This is the worst bombardment of the war right now in the south of Gaza. I have seen massive child casualties. We have a final warning to save children and our collective conscience. I feel like I am running out of ways to describe the horrors hitting children here. I feel like I am almost failing in my ability to convey the endless killing of children here.'

People in Gaza are literally begging for governments like this Labor government to notice their humanity. They are begging for their right to survive. They are begging to have access to and recognition of their basic human rights and the necessities that we all take for granted. They are fighting for their own lives while trying to share what is happening in Gaza all so that people in positions of power, like Australia's Prime Minister and foreign minister, may take from their suffering a little bit of their courage and their humanity and finally call for a permanent ceasefire.

This entrapment of innocent lives within a small space which the State of Israel's military continues to perpetrate only to then bomb those civilians can have only one result: mass civilian casualties. The dehumanising language that many senior ministers in the State of Israel have used can only further the understanding that, to them, this is acceptable. Dropping leaflets and giving evacuation warnings are offensive distractions from the reality that the policies of the State of Israel have no regard to the right of Palestinians to live.

Every member of this Senate knows the basic truth that, in Gaza, there is nowhere safe to go. The only choice left to us is whether to speak that truth or hide from it. The Greens call on the Senate once again to engage with that truth and to speak it, to uphold humanitarian law and to listen to those UN experts who are calling on the global community to recognise the very real risk of genocide and of ethnic cleansing in Palestine at the hands of the Israeli state. We must speak truth in this moment, in the name of humanity, and call for a ceasefire now.

James McGrath

I am going to read out this matter of public urgency that has been lodged by the Greens:

Given the end of the truce in Gaza and the intensification of the State of Israel's bombing in Southern Gaza, the Australian Government must call for an immediate permanent ceasefire to end the humanitarian catastrophe occurring in Gaza, for the unconditional release of all hostages and political prisoners and for an urgent end to the siege and invasion of Gaza

This is where the Greens are at their absolute worst. The ceasefire came about because Israel sat down and tried to do a deal with Hamas for the release of hostages, over 240 hostages who were kidnapped by Hamas on 7 October, a date that will live in infamy for the State of Israel and for all of those who believe in free Liberal democracies, when terrorists pushed through the border and invaded Israel, a free country, and murdered over 1,200 free people living in Israel.

Not only was there murder and assaults; we saw sexualised violence being used against Israelis, where people were sexually assaulted and then murdered, where people were raped and then murdered. But you don't hear the Greens talking about the sexualised violence that was used against Israeli citizens.

The ceasefire ended because Hamas broke the terms of the ceasefire by failing to release the list of names of hostages, and then started bombing, again, innocent Israeli citizens. The only way to end this war is for Hamas, who are a terrorist organisation, to release the hostages. The release of some hostages is just a tiny reminder of the torture that Hamas has inflicted on hundreds of families, on millions of Israelis, on hundreds of millions of people around this world who believe in freedom and liberty and who are suffering because of the actions of a terrorist organisation.

It is so sad that, in Australia, we have supporters of Hamas, like those people who invaded the hotel in Melbourne last week, targeting the families of hostages—families who were in this building last week, families who were out the front of this Australian Parliament House, families who met with members and senators to talk about their stories such as the mum whose son was murdered. These Hamas supporters in Australia think it is perfectly acceptable to invade a hotel and attack people through that invasion.

We use this word 'antisemitism', and I'm going to call it out for what it is. Antisemitism does not get down to the nuts and bolts of what is ascribed to antisemitism. If you are antisemitic you are anti-Jew, and we've got to call that out. The actions of those protesters in Melbourne last week were anti-Jewish. The actions of Hamas are anti-Jewish. But we shouldn't be surprised that the Greens are like this. We should not forget that Senator Faruqi, the Deputy Leader of the Greens in this chamber, put on Instagram a photo of her standing beside someone holding a sign saying, 'Keep the world clean of Jews'. This is the Greens for you—a party who thinks it's acceptable to put signs like that on social media. Shame on the Greens!

Jess Walsh

Resume your seat, Senator McGrath. Senator Waters?

Larissa Waters

Senator Faruqi took down that photograph and apologised for it being posted. I think the record needs to accurately reflect what occurred.

Jess Walsh

I think that has been noted previously in the chamber.

James McGrath

Senator Faruqi put a sign up on her Instagram saying, 'Clean the world of Jews'. Shame on the Greens! Shame on Senator Faruqi!

Jess Walsh

Senator McCarthy.

Resume your seat, Senator McCarthy. Senator Steele-John?

Jordon Steele-John

Senator McGrath just uttered the most disgusting accusation of myself and my colleagues in relation to antisemitism. I can't repeat what he just said. He must withdraw. I have never heard anything like that in my life.

Jess Walsh

Senator Steele-John, I was just getting ready to move the call and—Senator McGrath?

James McGrath

I withdraw.

Jess Walsh

Senator McCarthy.

No, no, no.

Senator McGrath, leave the chamber in silence.

Leave the chamber in silence.

Malarndirri McCarthy

I call on all senators to remember that our words in this place matter and that they impact all of those Australians out there who are feeling very mixed feelings, from both sides of this horrific conflict that's taking place in the Middle East. It does not do this Senate any good to bring in here that kind of discussion and personal attacks on other senators.

Australia deeply regrets that hostilities have resumed in Gaza and the immense human suffering that continues. The recent pause allowed for the release of 105 hostages, the protection of civilians and a much-needed increase in critical humanitarian supplies at such an important time. I thank Senator McKim for bringing this motion on, because we need to be able to continue to recognise what is going on in the Middle East. Australia wants to see this support of humanitarian supplies continue. We continue to call for hostages to be released, for sustained and unimpeded humanitarian access and, of course, for the protection of civilian lives—men, women and children. We are urging all parties to exercise restraint, respect international humanitarian law and protect civilians, and we must ultimately work towards a long-term, enduring peace. The government has called for Israel to honour its commitment to uphold international law and protect innocent lives. We've called on Israel to protect hospitals, medical staff and patients, and we have said Israel must conduct its military operations lawfully. We also call for safe, unimpeded and sustained humanitarian access and safe passage for civilians. Even before these recent hostilities resumed, suffering continued, particularly in Gaza. UNICEF have said:

Gaza has become a graveyard for thousands of children. It's a living hell for everyone else.

As this conflict continues, we must remember a child is a child and they should be protected, no matter who or where they are.

The peace we all want to see requires a two-state solution, with Israelis and Palestinians living securely and prosperously within internationally recognised borders. Australia has been working with countries, and I commend Senator Wong for the work that she's doing in this area. She's working with those countries that have influence in the region to help protect and support civilians, to help prevent the conflict from spreading and to reinforce the need for the just and enduring peace that all of us want.

I'd also like to just reach out to my constituents in the Northern Territory. I've sat down and met with members from the Palestinian community and also from the Jewish community. I know how distressing this is, and we all do. I have no doubt that every single senator and every member of parliament has heard stories from people that they're close to and also from their own constituents, and I thank them for the work that they're doing to try to bring about greater peace and understanding in both of those areas. Thank you. We are certainly making sure that our government is listening to the calls that you are making in the Northern Territory.

We all understand how distressing these events are. There are people who've lost family, people who've lost friends and people who feel so deeply about these issues, and these are traumatic images, with the loss of life. We must all work to ensure that distress does not turn into hate and anger. There is, of course, no place for violence, antisemitism, racism or Islamophobia here in Australia. I would remind senators that we have our own domestic issues here too as far as these issues are concerned. Our language matters. The way we pursue peace in our own country, amongst the many diverse groups that we have, is absolutely critical, and it's the same thing that we want to see in the Middle East.

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 10 am on Tuesday, 5 December 2023, details of the funding that has been provided to, and workers that have been employed in, frontline services and community work to support people experiencing family, domestic and sexual violence following the Government's announcement on 25 October 2022, including:

(a) how much of the $169.4 million that was promised over 4 years from 2022-23, has been distributed to each state and territory, up to 30 November 2023;

(b) details of the decision process to distribute funding and identifying who receives funding in each jurisdiction;

(c) the number of frontline workers who have been employed in each state and territory, up to 30 November 2023, including the postcode in which each worker is employed;

(d) the start date for the employment of each frontline worker who has been employed; and

(e) the pay rate and grade for:

(i) each of the 500 frontline workers who will be employed, and

(ii) each of the frontline workers employed up to 30 November 2023.

Andrew McLachlan

The question before the Senate is the motion moved by Senator Askew, standing in the name of Senator Liddle, regarding an order for the production of documents.

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senators Cash and Paterson, I move:

That, following the passage of the bill, the following matter be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for inquiry and report by 14 March 2024:

The operation, effectiveness and implications of the amendments made by the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023.

Andrew McLachlan

The question before the Senate is that the motion moved by Senator Askew, standing in the names of Senators Cash and Paterson, regarding a reference to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, be agreed to.

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Henderson, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) order for the production of documents no. 371, agreed to by the Senate on 7 November 2023, relating to Australian Research Council (ARC) review reports has not been fully complied with,

(ii) the Minister for Education, in his response to the order, made a claim of public interest immunity on the basis that the ARC financial sustainability report has been used to inform ongoing Cabinet deliberations and to ensure Cabinet remains an appropriate forum for informed consideration of policy advice, and

(iii) it is accepted that deliberations of the Executive Council and of the Cabinet should be able to be conducted in secrecy so as to preserve the freedom of deliberation of those bodies, however, this ground relates only to disclosure of deliberations; and

(b) rejects the public interest immunity claim made by the Minister for Education, noting that:

(i) the disclosure of the ARC financial sustainability report does not constitute a disclosure of deliberations of Cabinet, and

(ii) the Government has not outlined why the ARC financial sustainability report itself, as opposed to the Cabinet's deliberations on the report, cannot be disclosed, including how disclosure of the report itself could harm the public interest; and

(c) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Education to comply with the order by no later than 10 am on 5 December 2023.

Andrew McLachlan

The question before the Senate is that the motion moved by Senator Askew, standing in the name of Senator Henderson, regarding compliance with an order for the production of documents of the Australian Research Council, be agreed to.

Anthony Chisholm

I move:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 and the Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 be 4 December 2023.

Jonathon Duniam

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Andrew McLachlan

Leave is granted for one minute.

Jonathon Duniam

Only a few days ago, interestingly, it appeared there was only one party in this chamber that was supportive of this legislation, and it is interesting to see there's been a change. We were going to bring back the report on this legislation in April, but now we're going to bring it back today. It makes me wonder why. I wonder exactly what has changed in those few days since we had that arrangement where we were going to be deliberating on these important pieces of legislation until April.

It's important to remember that nearly every stakeholder that came to this committee condemned the legislation. At the very least, they said we should be leaving this legislation until we deal with the proper EPBC reforms: get the framework in place first and then deal with everything else afterwards. So what has changed? I have a sneaking suspicion a deal has been done. I will be very interested to see over the coming days exactly what has been done, because it is bad legislation. We remain opposed to it. We should be having the committee report out until April of next year, for proper scrutiny, but instead it appears a deal has been done.

Malcolm Roberts

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

You have one minute with leave.

Malcolm Roberts

The government's motion to rush this inquiry report through today, more than four months earlier than the committee requested and the Senate agreed, is a dodgy, dirty deal. The Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 is a deceptive, arrogant title. It's really about the federal government financially coercing farmers to lock up their land or walk off it to satisfy the dictates of foreign, unelected climate change bureaucrats, like COP28. No wonder the government wants to cut short the inquiry into this bill and rush the bill through this week. All of the climate rent seekers are happy to support this bill because, eventually, it will lead to money in their pockets from the people of Australia. While farmers are paid to lock up their land, a lack of agricultural production will cause untold human misery both in Australia and overseas. One Nation will be opposing this rushed dirty deal. Give the committee the time it originally requested to make its report.

Andrew McLachlan

The question before the Senate is that the motion moved by Senator Chisholm seeking a variation to a reporting date of a committee be agreed to.

David Pocock

by leave—Please could my support of paragraph (b) of that amendment moved by Senator Ruston be noted.

Sue Lines

Yes. Now there are two other foreshadowed amendments. If the movers are not going to move them, I will move on. Senator David Pocock.

David Pocock

I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) commits to diminishing the political influence of the tobacco industry, in the interests of protecting Australians and the nation's tobacco control policies from industry influence, in line with Australia's obligations under the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control; and

(b) calls on all politicians and all political parties to stop accepting political donations from the tobacco industry and revoke any passes that they have sponsored for members of the tobacco industry, and their agents, to access Parliament House".

Sue Lines

The question is that the second reading amendment as moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Minister representing the Treasurer has failed to comply with order for the production of documents no. 377 relating to the Competition Taskforce expert advisory panel, agreed to on 8 November 2023,

(ii) on 16 November 2023 the Treasurer advised that he expects 'to be able to respond to the order as soon as practicable', however, a response to the order has not yet been provided; and

(b) requires that the Minister representing the Treasurer comply with the order by no later than midday on Monday, 4 December 2023.

Anthony Chisholm

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Anthony Chisholm

We have been advised that, as stated by the Treasurer in his previous letter, Treasury officials have undertaken an initial review and identified documents relevant to the request made by Senator Smith. This request continues to be progressed, and work is being undertaken to review relevant documents to ensure that content is suitable for public disclosure. As this matter relates to an appointment process, the department is ensuring that the appropriate and reasonable levels of privacy for any individual named within the identified documents are respected. The department is consulting with affected individuals. The government anticipates being able to respond to the order as soon as practicable once these steps are complete.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 418 standing in the name of Senator Dean Smith and moved by Senator Askew be agreed to.

Sue Lines

I remind senators that, yesterday, a division was deferred relating to a closure motion moved by Senator Watt concerning the proposed reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate to hold that division now. The question is that the question now be put.