Jonathon Duniam

I move:

That—

(a) the Senate notes:

(i) the failure of the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to comply with order for the production of documents no. 162, relating to Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs), and

(ii) the Minister failed to comply with the order despite the Senate rejecting the Minister's claim of public interest immunity in relation to the documents that he provided to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee on 1 March 2023;

(b) the Senate again rejects the Minister's claim of public interest immunity, provided to the Senate on 9 March 2023;

(c) further consideration of the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 be postponed and made an order of the day for the next day of sitting after the documents and modelling relied on for the forecast usage of ACCUs over the decade to 2030 are laid on the table; and

(d) the Senate further notes that the Government has indicated that it will use regulations to implement elements of its safeguard mechanism reforms, which will come before the Senate for scrutiny through the disallowance process.

Anthony Chisholm

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Anthony Chisholm

As the Senate will already be aware, these documents are both sensitive and cabinet-in-confidence, and, as such, cannot be released.

Jacqui Lambie

I ask that the question of paragraph (c) be put separately.

Sue Lines

The motion is listed as (a), (b), (c) and (d), and you've asked for (c) to be put separately. The question is that general business notice of motion No. 182, standing in the name of Senator Duniam, clauses (a), (b) and (d), be agreed to.

Sarah Henderson

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 29 September 2022, the Government announced the commencement of the Startup Year program consultation process, releasing a consultation paper, and called for submissions by 15 November 2022,

(ii) during the consultation, the Government also conducted a survey in relation to the Startup Year program with current students and recent graduates,

(iii) the Government has not made public all submissions it has received or details of the student survey, and

(iv) following the introduction of the Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023, the bill is scheduled to be introduced into the Senate on 23 March 2023; and

(b) orders that there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Education, by no later than 10 am on Thursday, 23 March 2023, the following information relating to the consultation on the Startup Year program:

(i) a copy of each such submission made to the Government, and

(ii) a copy of the details of the student survey, including all data collected and the analysis of such data.

Anthony Chisholm

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Anthony Chisholm

This is an unnecessary motion. The Department of Education is engaged in a process of clearing submissions from the consultation process and de-identifying student survey data for publication. This is a standard process to address privacy issues. The process is ongoing, and it's expected that it will be completed in the coming days. The minister's office has been responsive to the shadow minister's office on this bill, going so far as to prepare, at their request, a bespoke mark-up of the bill for their consideration and pointing to where public copies of certain submissions are already available. This motion will be opposed, as cleared submissions will be available in the next few days.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 186, standing in the name of Senator Henderson, be agreed to.

Malcolm Roberts

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 5 pm on 27 March 2023, all modelling by the Department of the Treasury in relation to:

(a) the Treasury Laws Amendment (Energy Price Relief Plan) Bill 2022;

(b) the draft Competition and Consumer Amendment (Gas Market) Bill 2022; and

(c) the impact of the war in Ukraine on the price of coal and gas.

James McGrath

The question before the Senate is that the motion, No. 177, standing in the name of Senator Roberts, be agreed to.

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Hughes, I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 5 September 2023:

Allocations of grant funding under the Improving Mobile Coverage Round (IMCR) of the Mobile Black Spot Program (MBSP), with particular reference to:

(a) advice provided by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts to the Minister for Communications in relation to the MBSP generally and specifically the IMCR;

(b) the role of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts in recommending locations for the IMCR;

(c) the role of the Minister for Communications and her office in relation to the locations selected for the IMCR;

(d) communications with communities seeking funding from the MBSP, including communities who sought to be included in the IMCR but were excluded; and

(e) any other related matters.

Andrew McLachlan

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Askew standing in the name of Senator Hughes concerning a reference to the Environment and Communications References Committee regarding grant funding under the Mobile Black Spot Program be agreed to.

Jordon Steele-John

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the 20th anniversary of the illegal US-led invasion of Iraq as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of the matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the 20th anniversary of the Iraq War.

The Greens move this motion today and put this matter before the Senate on this, the 20th anniversary of the illegal US-led invasion of Iraq. There is no more appropriate day to consider this matter than today, given that it is, in fact, a moment in time when there are parties in political decision-making positions who oppose the Iraq War and given that family members across Australia worry for the safety of their children who are still deployed to Iraq, to this very day, under operations Accordion and Okra.

The Greens move this motion as the first order of business for the Senate this morning with sorrow in our hearts. We move it with sorrow for the over 500,000 who have died as a result of the Iraq War and of the destruction of the infrastructure created by that war, sorrow for the 1.2 million people still to this day internally displaced because of the war in Iraq and sorrow because of the five million orphans created by that war—five per cent of the entire orphan population of the globe.

We move this motion today in solidarity with the 92 per cent of Australians who gathered together—hundreds of thousands—in cities across the country, who marched to oppose the Iraq war because they knew that the community was being lied to. They knew they were being presented with false intelligence. They knew that they were being marched to war by men who wished to see other people's children placed in harm's way to suit their political ends. We do this in solidarity with the organisers of those protests. I am honoured to work, to this day, alongside Damian Lawson, a key organiser of the anti-Iraq War protest here in Australia, which formed part of the largest global protest in human history. And we do so this morning with a renewed sense of determination, a commitment from every single Green in the Senate, every single Green in the House of Representatives, every single Green in the state parliaments and every single Green in the local governments of this country to oppose ever again being led into an illegal, immoral and unjust war at the reckless hands of the United States of America.

We do this in the full knowledge that the Australian people, at the time and to this day, knew full well that we should not go to Iraq, that it would be a humanitarian and foreign-policy disaster. They knew it, they protested and the Prime Minister ignored them point-blank because there is no requirement in this country to seek a vote of the parliament before the deployment of ADF personnel. ADF personnel from this nation were asked to go into harm's way in Iraq and in Afghanistan, yet not a single member of the government or opposition was required to vote before that occurred. Shame on this chamber for, to this day, opposing this reform that is supported by 86 per cent of the Australian people. Shame!

Finally, in closing, let me say this: those mothers and fathers that, to this day, are kept up at night for fear of the safety of their children deployed to Iraq still under Operation Accordion and Operation Okra deserve to finally have that fear come to an end. Twenty years later, Australia must end its deployments to Iraq. We must finally bring our troops home and work for an independent and peaceful foreign policy that sees that never again are we called into a war based on a lie led by the United States of America.

Murray Watt

T (—) (): Firstly, I want to state clearly once again for the record that Labor opposed the Iraq War at the time, and our position has not changed. As Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd brought Australia's combat troops home. But, on this anniversary of the commencement of the war, I want to say that our argument was never with our troops; it was always with the Howard government.

Twenty years on from the Iraq War, we all reflect on the many tragedies of that conflict and its ongoing effects. Our thoughts are with the people of Iraq as well as the Iraqi community here in Australia, some of whom fled that conflict. Our thoughts today, as always, are with our veterans. We acknowledge the brave contribution and sacrifices made by the ADF and civilian personnel who conducted or supported operations in Iraq. We remember the four Australian service personnel who died, and we all share our deepest sympathies to the families and friends that still feel their loss. We express our support to those who still live with the physical and mental scars of that conflict and those who returned home and are tragically no longer with us.

Labor did not support the Howard government's decision for Australia to go to Iraq in 2003, nor did we support the Howard government's decision to send a further 450 troops to Iraq, reneging on a 2004 election commitment. At the time he withdrew combat troops from Iraq, then Prime Minister Rudd said:

… this government does not believe that our alliance with the United States mandates automatic compliance with every element of United States foreign policy.

The Greens view that they have a monopoly on resistance to sending Australian troops to the Iraq War is odd, given Labor opposed it vigorously.

Opposition Senators

Opposition senators interjecting—

Murray Watt

They are wrong in thinking they have some moral superiority, although it is something we are very used to, and they are just as wrong in their claims that, through AUKUS, we have lost strategic autonomy. I hear members of the Greens heckling during this speech, and again it reinforces the point that they seem to think they have a monopoly on resistance to sending Australian trips to the Iraq war. Some of them may not remember the political debates that happened at the time as a result of Labor taking a principled stand on this issue. It's not clear whether the Greens actually misunderstand or just pretend to misunderstand in order to exploit this issue for crass political purposes.

But let there be no doubt: Australia makes its own choices. Acquiring AUKUS's military capability was a sovereign decision. Any decision to use this capability will also be ours alone. Let me also be clear that our intent in acquiring this capability is to make our contribution to the strategic balance of the region. We want to have a stable region where no country dominates and no country has dominated. If that is to be the case, we each have a responsibility to play our part in collective deterrence of aggression. If any country can make the calculation that they can successfully dominate another, the region becomes unstable and the risk of conflict increases.

I make this point acknowledging that our region has been home to an unprecedented military build-up in recent years, meaning that we must work hard and fast if we are to maintain equilibrium. Increasing our capability sits alongside our diplomacy, which is about increasing the opportunities and benefits from peace and partnership—positive incentives for peace. As well as positive incentives for peace, we need deterrence to conflict and aggression. By having strong defence capabilities of our own and by working with partners who are investing in their own capabilities, we change the calculus for any potential aggressor.

There are those in this building who like to beat the drums of war, and there are those who like to believe that peace can come from passively hoping for the best. But this government knows that part of maintaining peace is making sure all countries are invested in that peace through effective diplomacy, and part of making peace is making sure any potential aggressor knows they cannot afford the costs of war.

The government will not be supporting this motion to suspend standing orders, as there are plenty of alternative opportunities in the Senate that the Greens could use to debate this and related issues, rather than taking time out of government business that is needed to progress important legislation relating to issues such as the referendum for a Voice to Parliament, equality, national reconstruction, housing, and climate safeguards. So, I remind the Greens that it was the federal Labor Party who opposed the Iraq War at the time. We still consider that that was the right decision. Please: give up trying to lecture the rest of us. We're a bit tired of it.

Simon Birmingham

I begin by acknowledging all Australian servicemen and servicewomen who served in Iraq and who continue to serve in Iraq—those who have paid a price and for their service and particularly the families of those who have paid that price. We thank you for your service, we acknowledge your contribution and we pay tribute to the work you have done. You should know that it is valued, notwithstanding some of the debates that ensue around that conflict and war. I want to also acknowledge the Iraqi people and all those who served alongside—those who have suffered and those who have felt loss. That is significant, and that is a loss that we should recognise, and we should recognise the pain and suffering that that caused in so many cases. But loss is of course not something the Iraqi people were immune to prior to this war and this conflict. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and a leader who showed complete—

Hon. Senators

Honourable senators interjecting—

Simon Birmingham

I cannot believe that the Australian Greens are seeking to argue with that point. Let me state it again: Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and a world leader who showed complete disregard for lives, for human rights, and for international laws and rules. He was a leader who used chemical and biological weapons—poison gas—against neighbouring countries, against his own citizens, against the Kurdish people.

Whatever the attempts to form a black-and-white view of right or wrong, of war or conflict, some facts and realities should stand in relation to what Saddam Hussein, his dictatorship and his regime undertook. He didn't just use those biological and chemical weapons against his own people. He maintained, when the international community sought to scrutinise that, a deliberate ambiguity around whether he continued to hold those weapons. He deliberately sought to lure other nations into believing he continued to have them and would use them, as he had sought to do so in the past. He also led a regime that sponsored suicide bombers. He led a regime that was recognised as a state sponsor of terrorism. He was responsible for the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of people. The world and Iraq are better off for being rid of Saddam Hussein and his dictatorship. That is not to say that there are no lessons that can be learned. There are always lessons to learn. Those lessons go to the intelligence and analysis available and how that is scrutinised in the future. They have been widely debated and canvassed over the two decades since the war commenced.

However, it's important that we do recognise Iraq today as a democracy, not a perfect one but one where the Iraqi people, as is acknowledged by many experts in the field, have more say over their future than they did 20 years ago. Where their rights are far from universally respected, there is better regard than there was 20 years ago. Calls to remove the remaining assistance from the ADF deployment or otherwise from Iraq would be to show disregard for the advances that have been made during that time. The Greens are misplaced in arguing that we should bring the remaining personnel home. We should be showing support to work with the democratically elected government of Iraq, to work with the people of Iraq, to ensure that the sense of greater stability, the improvement in standards and the development in relation to their democracy is supported and underpinned at this critical time as best as we possibly can.

I lastly turn to the arguments advanced by the Greens. They're not contained in the motion they have sought to have debated about the decision-making processes and the powers of executive government. It remains the position of the coalition that the executive government of the day should have authority in relation to troop and personnel deployments. Our system is one where there is immense scrutiny of decisions made by government. But we should enable governments to exercise those powers under the appropriate scrutiny, transparency and accountability of parliamentary democracy.

Long debate text truncated.

Deborah O'Neill

The question is that the bill be read a second time.

Deborah O'Neill

As a result of deferred votes, I'm going to put the question on second reading amendments. The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Rice be agreed to. Is a division required?

Louise Pratt

I just want to draw to Senator Babet's attention that if he calls for them he has to vote with that side as well.

Deborah O'Neill

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Rice be agreed to.

Malcolm Roberts

As a servant to the many and varied people making up the amazing Queensland community and Australian nation, I speak to the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022. It's significant in my speech's opening that I refer to myself as a servant to the Queensland and Australian people. Whoever wrote this bill is not a servant of the people—in fact, the proposer of this bill sees the people as their servants, slaves, serfs. It destroys fundamental human rights, smashes fundamentals of law, removes the tried and true system for authorising new drugs and places the Australian public at the mercy and under the control of unelected bureaucrats. The same bureaucrats proved themselves unfit to exercise their current already disproportionately large power during COVID, all with no accountability.

First, let me explain this bill's provisions: firstly, introducing a framework for the mandatory reporting of adverse events. One Nation supports this measure. Secondly, it introduces a new marketing approval pathway for biologicals for export only. One Nation supports this. Thirdly, it enables the Secretary of the Department of Health and Aged Care to approve the importation or supply of overseas prescription medicines that are substitutes for existing medicines with no checks and balances on that process. One Nation opposes this measure. Fourthly, it eliminates the human rights of people to contest decisions on the provision of documents the secretary requires. One Nation totally opposes the removal of common law rights to due process. Next, it enables the secretary to require any person to provide information or documents relevant to a possible contravention of the act. This bill does not do so fairly, and therefore we do not support this provision. Next, it permits therapeutic goods advertising. In the absence of justification for making this charge, One Nation opposes this provision. Finally, it clarifies the secretary is not obliged to observe natural justice. One Nation will defend the rights of everyday Australians to enjoy basic human rights provided across 1,500 years of common law, and so we oppose this provision.

This is a significant bill with new powers and provisions that did not go to committee inquiry. It sums up the arrogance of this Soviet-level government that such a wide-ranging bill removing basic human rights, smashing legal principles, containing significant penalties and coercion and with a huge impact on the approval of new drugs will be forced through parliament without being subject to committee inquiry, especially after the separate Scrutiny of Bills Committee in its seven-page report thrashed the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022. Here are the main elements of that criticism. Firstly, the reversal of the evidential burden of proof:

Item 2 of Schedule 5 seeks to insert proposed section 45AC into the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (the Act) to create an offence for failing to comply with a notice from the Secretary requiring the production of information or documents.

Proposed subsection 45AC(3) provides the defence of reasonable excuse, yet the defendant must prove their defence. In simple terms, this bill treats anyone coming to the attention of the secretary of the health department as guilty unless proven innocent. The presumption of innocence dates from Roman Emperor Justinian in the sixth century and, for 15 centuries, has remained a fundamental principle of Western law. If the bill allowed the normal checks and balances that criminal and civil courts provide, the defence of reasonable excuse would not be necessary. It would be available automatically. This bill is extinguishing our defendants' existing legal rights, all this smashing of legal rights and principles from a Labor government.

Secondly, strict liability offences:

Item 2 of Schedule 5 proposes to introduce subsections 45AC(2) and 45AD(2) which contain strict liability offences for failure to comply with a notice—

to produce documents. The recipient of a notice does not have to be a large corporation that can afford the compliance cost. It can be any medical professional or administrator. If the recipient fails to produce a notice, as the secretary demands, then a strict liability offence is committed. If the defendant was in hospital the whole time, for instance, it doesn't matter—here's the fine, $27,000, pay up, no appeals! Does that sound fair? No.

Thirdly, procedural fairness. Item 1 of schedule 10 to the bill seeks to insert subsection 61(13) into the act so that the secretary is not required to observe any requirements of natural justice in relation to releasing information under the act. What does the secretary think they are?

Fourthly, the incorporation of external material. These are all criticisms from the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. Instruments made under items 12, 15, 16, 20 and 30 of schedule 12 to the bill allow for the later inclusion of any written matter from any suitable source. The material itself is not included, so anyone subject to government action under the bill will have no idea of the full legal position they're operating in. How can Australians follow the law if we're not able to determine what the law is? We cannot. The last time this was used was to remove the reference in the Banking Code of Practice to the international standard for handling customer disputes, which was only available to paying customers from an American company that maintained the code. That document established banking customers had rights they were unaware of. Linking to the document, instead of explicitly setting out the rights, let the banks run riot from 2003 through to the banking royal commission final report in 2019.

The ALP have learned nothing from history, or they have deliberately ignored history. These four criticisms alone from the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee are all valid. The Soviet-style government should have addressed all before the bill came to the Senate. I urge all senators to vote this bill down and resist the attack on common law rights and restore principles of law that everyday Australians have held since Western settlement of our beautiful country.

Slipped into the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 are provisions that circumvent the approval process for new drugs. The policy direction implicit in schedule 9 should have been set out in a separate bill sent to the committee, widely consulted and properly debated. So extreme is this provision. In schedule 9, after subsection 19A(2)(2B):

The Secretary may, by notice in writing, grant an approval to a person for the importation into Australia, or the supply in Australia, of specified therapeutic goods (the subject goods) if the Secretary is satisfied:

(a) that there are no registered goods that could act as a substitute for the subject goods; and …

…   …   …

(c) that all of the following apply:

(i) the subject goods are not registered or approved for general marketing in any of the foreign countries specified by the Secretary in a determination under subsection (3);

(ii) the subject goods are registered or approved for general marketing in at least one foreign country that is not specified by the Secretary …

What? Those statements appear to cancel each other out. And thirdly:

(iii) the manufacturing and quality control procedures used in the manufacture of the subject goods are acceptable; and

So not even a good manufacturing process is specified. The minimum required for a supermarket packet of vitamins in Australia, just acceptable. What on earth does acceptable mean? This gives bureaucrats unlimited power with no accountability. It goes on:

(d) that the subject goods are of a kind included in Schedule 10 to the Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990—

which, for clarity, includes vaccines, and—

(e) that the approval is necessary in the interests of public health.

That's in the bureaucrat's opinion. So let's take a closer look at this deceit.

The wording of this section is turned around. A drug can be approved if there is no drug already available that can substitute for the new drug. Isn't that any new drug? Because by definition there will be no existing drug to substitute for it. Isn't this just a backdoor to allow the secretary to approve new drugs at their discretion without a specified approval process? This is being sold as a measure to combat drug scarcity, yet it's not how the section was actually written. This section does not contain any of the following. There's no explicit binding limitation that this provision can only be used in the case of a drug scarcity. There's no definition around when the provisions are exercised other than a general statement about the interests of public health, which could be anything that the bureaucrat decides on a whim. There's no sunset clause. With a wave of the secretary's magic sceptre, even under the excuse of shortage, drugs and vaccines are approved permanently. There's no requirement for safety testing. There's no suitable requirement for manufacturing quality and consistency.

If powerful multinational pharmaceutical companies have the ability to get a new-generation drug approved with a shiny new patent to replace a drug that's out of patent and all they have to do is stop making the old drug to create a deliberate shortage, what do you think the drug company will do? Of course this will be rorted. We've no protections in place to stop that happening. Four hundred new mRNA drugs are in development. Two mRNA manufacturing facilities are already under construction in Australia alone. What did the drug companies know last year when they started construction of these plants? This bill is what they knew. This was coming for them.

Schedule 9 will save drug companies billions in regulatory costs. During COVID the TGA approved 23 new drugs under an emergency use authorisation. There was no long-term safety testing, minimal testing of any kind, no testing on progeny and no close monitoring of the Database of Adverse Event Notifications other than to minimise the extent of the harm family doctors reported all over Australia or, rather, doctors were reporting until AHPRA bullied medical professionals into silence. With the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 the Albanese Labor government is setting Australia up to be a paradise for big multinational pharmaceutical companies and to be a killing field.

Separately on today's _Notice Paper_is the Work Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2022, which, if passed, will require every business in the country to introduce vaccine mandates for their staff, for their people. Employers who do not will face savage penalties. The Albanese Labor government is not a government of the people. It's a government of the global elites, for the global elites. And with big pharma's $500,000 in election campaign donations to Labor, it's a government under globalist elites—the globalist predators: BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street. Welcome to the facade that they have in front of them, apparently with the consent and aid of the Greens and with the Liberals-Nationals who scored big pharma election donations of $500,000, another half a million bucks. I'm old enough to remember when the Greens campaigned against foreign multinational pharmaceutical companies. Now the Greens actively expand big pharma's influence. They expand their market share, profit and control over people. Talk about 'please explain'.

We cannot say with complete certainty whether the 20,000 excess deaths up to October 2022—that's in just 10 months—were the cause of COVID vaccines or some other factor. Most likely it's a combination of many factors with medical experts saying quite clearly that excess deaths are directly and indirectly attributable to COVID injections causing heart attacks, blood clots, cancers, Alzheimer's and many other adverse effects. What is inexcusable is not knowing the causes and not caring—inhuman. How can 20,000 extra Australians die in a 10-month period and there not be a hue and cry to get to the bottom of it? It's immoral; it's inhuman. Yet now Labor wants to give these callous, shifty bureaucrats greater power to work for their big pharma mates. Surely we have to understand why so many people are dying before we make any significant change to the authorisation of new pharmaceutical drugs.

If, as seems highly likely, the extreme level of harm being experienced is confirmed and death is confirmed as being due to the mRNA technology or the spike proteins in these hideous things, and we as a Senate approve a dismantling of the drug approval process, then the very people we are here to represent will rightly damn you all for all time. I am appalled and disgusted that the Albanese Labor government would even think about introducing this monstrous, inhuman bill.

Long debate text truncated.

Jess Walsh

I understand that we need to vote on Senator McKim's urgency motion and that that needs to occur for reasons that precede my presence in the chair. I will now put the question that the motion moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Hume, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) order for production of documents no. 126 agreed by the Senate on 7 February 2023, requiring the Minister representing the Treasurer to table all reports by Moody's Corporation, Fitch Ratings, Inc., and S&P Global on the Commonwealth's credit rating since 22 May 2022 and associated documents, has not been complied with,

(ii) on 9 February 2023 the Minister representing the Treasurer, in her response to the order, tabled a letter from the Treasurer to her that stated 'Treasury officials are actively progressing the request, but additional time is required to consider the request', and

(iii) an additional month of time has elapsed and no documents have been provided; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply with the order by no later than midday on Thursday, 9 March 2023.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 172, standing in the name of Senator Hume, be agreed to.