Matt O'Sullivan

At the request of Senator Paterson, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than midday on Thursday, 30 November 2023, a copy of the advice provided to the Minister for Home Affairs by the Department of Home Affairs, relating to the Australian Government's prospects of success in the High Court case, NYZQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, as referred to by the Minister in an interview on Sky News Australia on Sunday, 19 November 2023.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 408 standing in the name of Senator Paterson and moved by Senator O'Sullivan, be agreed to.

Lidia Thorpe

I move the second reading amendment standing in my name:

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

(a) acknowledges the historical and ongoing exclusion of First Peoples from the use and management of Basin water resources; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) recognise and respect the Sovereign rights of First Peoples in the Murray-Darling Basin to manage and care for lands and waters,

(ii) undertake work and consultation to align all water legislation and policies with the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,

(iii) ensure that the Minister for the Environment and Water and relevant water agencies, including the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, are required to consult and cooperate in good faith with First Nations in the Basin through their own representative institutions in order to obtain free, prior and informed consent in all decisions around water management,

(iv) recognise that women hold important water knowledge and reflect this in consultation with First Peoples around water use and management; and

(v) commence Treaty processes with all sovereign language groups so that all Nations can self-determine their own aspirations in relation to water access, use and ownership".

Sue Lines

The question is that the second reading motion as moved by Senator Thorpe be agreed to.

Jacqui Lambie

I move:

That—

(a) notwithstanding standing orders 127(1) and 156(3), the Senate requests a conference with the House of Representatives on the following bills sent to the House of Representatives for concurrence:

(i) Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Small Business Redundancy Exemption) Bill 2023,

(ii) Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Protections Against Discrimination) Bill 2023,

(iii) Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill 2023, and

(iv) Fair Work Legislation Amendment (First Responders) Bill 2023; and

(b) the House of Representatives be informed that, in the event of a conference being agreed to, the Senate will be represented at the conference by twelve managers, comprised of Senator Jacqui Lambie, Senator David Pocock, four senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and four senators nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and two senators nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate.

Sue Lines

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

Jacqui Lambie

I move:

That a motion relating to a conference of the House of Representatives may be moved immediately, have precedence over all other business and be determined without amendment or debate.

Sue Lines

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

Jacqui Lambie

I seek leave to move a motion relating to a conference with the House of Representatives, as circulated.

Leave not granted.

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

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to allow a motion relating to a conference with the House of Representatives to be moved and determined immediately.

In September of this year Senator David Pocock and I stood with first responders to ask Minister Burke to split four elements of the industrial relations legislation, what the government calls its closing loopholes bill. The first amendment would mean that federal police, paramedics and firefighters wouldn't have to prove that they have PTSD and go through those traumatic circumstances. The second amendment would protect victims of family and domestic violence being sacked or discriminated against in their workplaces. The third amendment protects redundancy payments for workers when a large business becomes a small business due to insolvency. The fourth amendment brings silicosis into line with asbestosis. These amendments shouldn't have been put into industrial relations legislation in the first place. It was a low-down act to do so, and I call that out this morning.

We have urged Minister Burke to split out these four uncontroversial elements so that we can put these protections in place for vulnerable Australians and so that we can do it this year, because, especially when it comes to PTSD and domestic violence, these areas are so important, according to the Greens and the Labor Party. We've kept asking the minister to do right thing and he's kept stubbornly refusing, pretty much to the point where he doesn't even come and speak to us now.

So we split the bill and we got the support of the coalition and the crossbench, and I thank them both for that. We even gave the minister the split bills, and we were talking about our intentions in the media. In the last Senate sitting we brought the bills on and they passed. The government didn't vote against them. They were silent. That's right—they were silent. God forbid, wouldn't that look bad on social media, eh? Imagine that on social media—voting against legislation dealing with domestic violence and PTSD being brought in, effective immediately.

Then the bills went to the House, where all the government had to do was vote on their own legislation. Senator Pocock and I were hoping, and I was praying, that the minister and the government would finally wake up to themselves and do the right thing, instead of worrying about right of entry having to start on 1 January. Apparently, right of entry for any union is more important than PTSD. It's more important than domestic violence. It's more important than silicosis. What do you know? The bills are not even on the Notice Paper today. But that doesn't matter. They've passed the Senate and can be passed by the government right now in the other place.

Today we are asking the Senate to seek a conference between the Senate and the House because it seems that the minister is not big enough or man enough to man up and get this resolved. I mean, it should be damn embarrassing for the government that we have had to go to this extent to get this done. That is where we are at today. This conference would allow the chamber to seek agreement on a bill when the procedure of exchanging messages fails to promote a full understanding of the issues involved.

Senator Pocock and I are serious about this, we want these protections in place by Christmas, and there isn't one damn reason why they shouldn't be—not one reason, apart from you using those four things as hostages so you can get the rest of your bill done, which is absolutely shameful in itself. We all want what is best for the Australian people and sometimes that means admitting your mistakes and fixing them.

We are about to come into a fire season. We are going to be heavily relying on those first responders. That is what we're going to be doing. But you don't want to give them some relief before Christmas time so they can stop fighting a bureaucratic system that, I can assure you—take it from somebody who knows—not only destroys you as a person but destroys your family and those around you; that is what it does. It is time to stop making these sorts of people—our first responders and people in the AFP—prove that they have PTSD from their jobs. This is beyond a joke, and you should be ashamed of yourselves. So now that is what I am calling for.

Katy Gallagher

The government won't be supporting the suspension of standing orders. This is a similar approach.

Look, I am not going to take lectures on industrial relations from those opposite. Let me say, this is the most you have been concerned about workers' rights for the entire history of the Liberal Party. You couldn't give a hoot about it. Let's be clear, what you care about is disrupting the program and not dealing with water. That is what you care about. You are the party of WorkChoices—remember that? You are the party that has opposed improving workers' rights with every bone in your bodies since you were elected into this place. That is the approach you take, so don't start getting to us about workers' rights because history will show, and history does show, the approach that you have taken on industrial relations. It is convenient for you, I accept, to align yourself with Senator Pocock and Senator Lambie. I accept that. It is convenient. It is a stunt from your point of view. You have no commitment to the issues that are being debated.

The government has a program this week that we are working through. We have important legislation, including water—which, again, I accept you guys don't want to deal with—that you would like to delay. That is the program we have set up. The Senate passed a motion last week which we voted against. The House has its program and that determines how it will deal with matters that are before the House, so we won't be supporting this suspension of standing orders. I know that the minister has been seeking to work with crossbenchers on these important reforms. We were very happy to deal with them this side of Christmas—let's not forget that—but what has happened is people have selected certain elements that they want to deal with but not deal with other parts of the bill and take out those bits. We wanted to deal with this bill; you didn't. You didn't want to deal with the bill. That is what happened. You delayed it through the Selection of Bills Committee report. You kicked the bill off it so it couldn't be dealt with.

Matt O'Sullivan

Are you serious?

Katy Gallagher

Yes, I am serious. That is the position that was taken.

Andrew McLachlan

Through me.

Katy Gallagher

Sorry, Deputy President.

Andrew McLachlan

Senator Henderson, on a point of order?

Sarah Henderson

I was going to raise the point of order about speaking through the President.

Andrew McLachlan

I have it in hand. Minister.

Katy Gallagher

I know the truth hurts but, when the selection of bills came here, you organised for a longer referral so we couldn't deal with them this year. The government wanted to deal with them. We wanted to deal with them in their entirety, even if there were parts that people didn't support. You have that debate and you move those amendments. You don't select the bits that are convenient for you that you want to deal with and trash the rest of it. Let us be clear about what happened two sitting weeks ago when the bills were sent to the House of Representatives. No motion was moved to make them an order of the day, meaning they fell away.

This is not the responsibility of the government. They were not government bills. Instead, the Manager of Opposition Business in the House of Representatives conducted a filibuster rather than moving a motion to put them on the Notice Paper. No arrangements were made to put the bills before the House, so no bills exist in the House of Representatives because the opposition stuffed up the procedure and no other member of the House of Representatives was arranged. I understand that this has been explained to Senator Lambie around how that procedure was stuffed up—

Honourable senators interjecting—

It was on your heads, actually. We will not agree with this. We see it for what it is, which is a delaying tactic and a disrupting tactic. That's why you're aligning on this, because you do not agree with positive industrial relations reforms. Otherwise, some of these things might have been done when you were in government, except they weren't. What a surprise! Your history shows the approach you've taken on industrial relations. You are trying to disrupt the program. We accept that we've lost half an hour and that we'll perhaps get to order before question time, if we're lucky, but that is not the government's position. We will not agree to the suspension. We do not support the motion that's been circulated.

I would encourage crossbench senators to continue to work with Minister Burke to try and secure the successful package of this important set of reforms. They're important for working people across the country, and we want to work with the crossbench to ensure that they get done—all of the reforms, not just part of the reforms, all of them done together.

Simon Birmingham

The Albanese government is proving again and again that it just doesn't listen; that it doesn't listen to Australians and their concerns; that it doesn't listen, as Australians are feeling pain in a range of ways; that it doesn't listen to the business community and those expressing genuine concerns about the enormous complexity and the real risks that exist in their large industrial relations reform proposals; and, in this debate, that it doesn't listen to the crossbench and it doesn't listen to the Senate. It won't listen and is unwilling to budge. It's showing not only that it doesn't listen but that it is stubborn—relentlessly stubborn.

The government has now for weeks had a crystal-clear opportunity to pass key parts of its industrial relations agenda, to pass the very issues that Senator Lambie spoke so passionately about in relation to small-business redundancies, protections against discrimination, asbestos safety and first responders. All of these matters could pass the parliament and be law by Christmas, and the only people standing in the way is the Labor Party. The Albanese government is standing in the way of their own legislation. What's their justification? Their justification is that, on their basis, it's all or nothing. It's our way or the highway. That's the Labor Party approach. And what is their way? Well, of course, a raft of new union powers, a raft of measures that have been identified as being of deep concern in the way they will hurt the Australian economy and of deep concern, in particular, in the way they will hurt productivity. Has anybody heard Treasurer Jim Chalmers talk about the need to lift productivity?

An opposition senator: No!

I have heard him say it. The problem is that the only piece of major economic reform this government has is one that will harm productivity and that will drive productivity down, not up. Senators Lambie and Pocock have wisely identified issues within the government's bill that could progress that identify and address genuine issues, as Senator Lambie has spoken about so passionately. If the government were not so stubborn, they could get these matters past, and then other parts of their bill could still be considered in the normal way. Senators Lambie and Pocock have made clear that they are willing to work with the government in terms of addressing these matters. All they have asked for is time in relation to things in the government's legislation that won't come into effect until the middle of next year or until the end of next year, or even, in some cases, until the year after. Senator Cash has outlined to this chamber previously that there is no urgency for many of the things in the government's bill, but there is urgency for some of the things in the bills presented by Senators Lambie and Pocock. It is the Labor Party's stubbornness, their trickery, their feeling of the wrong priorities, that is seeing the Labor Party oppose these efforts.

So we support this suspension and consideration of what is a historic motion being proposed by Senators Lambie and Pocock. It is a historic motion calling for a conference between the two houses. No such motion has passed this chamber since 22 June 1950, but that is the passion Senators Lambie and Pocock feel in deploying a tactic that will force representatives of both chambers together. That's necessary because what the government is doing in the House of Representatives is basically sweeping the crossbench proposal under the carpet and just saying, 'Not really here, not going to look at it, just going to ignore it.' They haven't had the courage or the guts to vote against what the crossbenchers have done. They haven't had the courage or the guts to put on time for it to be debated or listed. They're doing a see-no-evil, hear-no-evil type of act and not even looking at this proposal or these bills.

Congratulations to the crossbench for calling out the trickery, the contempt and the stubbornness of the Albanese government. The chance is here for the government to change course and get these bills passed by Christmas. This motion shouldn't even be necessary, but we absolutely support it as a means to resolve this impasse.

Long debate text truncated.

Larissa Waters

WATERS (—) (): At the request of Senator McKim, I move:

That the Competition and Consumer (Gas Market Code) Regulations 2023, made under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, be disallowed.

In December, the Greens supported legislation to give the government the power to set caps on the prices of gas and coal—not caps on rents, unfortunately, but we'll come back to that on another day. This regulation is a result of that.

From the outset, I want to make it clear that the Greens support cracking down on the unscrupulous conduct of the gas cartel. This gas code does have many important features that we support. We support shifting negotiating power away from the gas cartel and supporting large industrial users who have been screwed over by gas exporters since the east coast was opened up for exports in 2015. We support the transparency changes so that we can better see what's happening in what is otherwise a very murky gas market. We also support using the code to divert gas destined for export to be used here while we transition off gas. But what we cannot and will not vote for is using this gas code to encourage the opening up of new gas fields that are cooking our planet; we cannot support throwing more petrol on that fire. When the government announced this gas code on 14 June, they said in their media release:

The Gas Code will ensure that Australian gas is available for Australian users at reasonable prices, give producers the certainty that they need to invest in supply …

In the same week that the climate minister will announce how they're falling just short of their 2030 target—expected to be announced on Friday, and which I know is aligned more to two degrees of warming than it is to 1½, which would be catastrophic for the planet—the Albanese government are again going to vote to support new gas fields. What part of 'no new coal and gas' does this government not understand?

We are conscious that there's a gas shortfall hitting the east coast market from 2027 onwards, and that something needs to be done about it. There are three things that the government could do in the four years that we have to prepare for that. They could increase supply through new toxic gas fields. They could reduce demand by electrifying homes, businesses and industry. They could divert existing gas supplies away from the LNG industry, which is the biggest user of gas in this country, and fill the supply gap that way. But it seems like the government is putting all of its energy into simply opening up new gas fields and is completely neglecting the importance of getting Australia off gas and lowering energy bills as a result of doing so.

We do have the time. Germany, for example, reduced their gas use by 18 per cent in one year, when Russia invaded Ukraine. They did this through installing heat pumps and through energy efficiency. We've got four years to do what they managed to do in one year, but what we don't have, seemingly, is the political will. The government could also go harder in making sure that Australian gas stays here while we transition off it. Take, for example, the GLNG terminal in Gladstone which is owned by Santos, a well-known donor to the government and also to the opposition, I might add. Santos are currently buying up to 22 petajoules out of the domestic market to meet their own contractual shortfalls. They jumped the shark on their own contract promises and now they're chewing up uncontracted gas to meet their own overblown commitments, and everybody else is suffering. Santos screwed up their own contracts and now they're sucking gas out of our market to export overseas. It's very nice for them, not so great for Australians.

It's not a sovereign risk to let Santos deal with the mess of their own making. That is not sovereign risk. If we let them keep taking our gas, then it's the Australian people's mess to clean up and they'll be the ones paying higher prices. But because taking action would disadvantage Santos—well, it's a bridge too far for this government. They're going to bend over backwards for Santos and leave the mess for the Australian people to deal with.

The government has a number of options. It could also tighten the baselines of LNG terminals under the safeguard mechanism. If they electrified the compressors they use to convert gas to LNG—to liquefied natural gas—it could free up a staggering 92 petajoules a year. There are many options. This government needs to focus their minds on how we use less gas. Yet, it seems like all they want to do is open up new gas fields. They've drafted a code of conduct that applies a price cap that says: 'You don't have to meet the price cap if you open up new supply.'

Farmers around the country are pulling their hair out. First Nations owners around the country are pulling their hair out. They've seen the damage that coal seam gas and other unconventional gas has already done to farmland, our groundwater, the climate, agricultural productivity and culturally sensitive areas. They've seen that damage and they don't want new gas fields. They don't want what's left of the beautiful farmland in the Darling Downs, for example, where I was a couple of days ago, wrecked by more coal seam gas. I'm yet to find a supporter of this proposal, that there's a gas cap that you can avoid if you open up a new gas field—except, of course, Santos. They would love this. As big donors to the government, perhaps they've written this gas code, like they've written previous bits of regulation.

I was in Toowoomba on Thursday, and I want to commend the Toowoomba Regional Council for being the sixth council in Queensland to declare a moratorium on new coal seam gas operations. It's some of our best soil, in that area. In the 13 years that I've been representing the state of Queensland, I've been out there many times and I've observed the beauty and productivity of that black soil. I think we've even had folk from other political parties take an interest in this issue as well, which is great. Finally, the council have said the farmers don't want this. They don't want new coal seam gas wrecking their farmland and poisoning or dewatering their aquifers, particularly when there is still no legal right for landholders, traditional owners or councils to say 'no' to coal seam gas or coal on their land. I've had a private senator's bill to do that since 2011. It has been voted down more times than I can remember—at least five—even though it's actually in the LNP's platform, or was at some point. They kept voting against their own policy.

Farmers and traditional owners do not have the ability to actually say, 'No, I'd rather use my land for productive agriculture,' or, 'I'd rather simply continue to exist in this beautiful agricultural area than have Santos'—or whichever multinational gas company it is that's eating up the land, poisoning the water and polluting the climate—'come in and ride roughshod.' They don't have that legal right to say 'no'. So I want to take the opportunity to thank the Toowoomba Regional Council for, belatedly but really in a well-done fashion, finally representing the interests of their constituents. As the sixth council that's now done so, it sends a really strong message, both to the state government—who are also in cahoots with the gas industry—and to the federal government.

Councils don't want this. They don't want new gas fields. Farming communities don't want new gas fields. Traditional owners don't want new gas fields. Nobody wants the land wrecked and the water poisoned, or the climate polluted, just for the sake of the private profits of Santos and their other gas mates. What kind of a dodgy outcome is that? What are we meant to be here for? Who are we meant to be representing? I know some of the people in the government used to work for Santos, but you're not meant to work for them now. You're meant to be in here representing the people.

Anthony Chisholm

Name them.

Helen Polley

Order!

Larissa Waters

I'm not sure if I will name them, but I think those interjecting right now know exactly where they used to work—we all know too. I'm sick of the fossil fuel company running this parliament. I'm sick of the donations that they make that buy influence over this parliament. I'm sick of the 'regulation' being written by them in a way that creates loopholes for them. And everybody else is sick of it too.

We've got a gas code here that does do some good things, but the absolute flaw in this code is that it will incentivise the opening up of new gas fields. The Greens just cannot support that. We will never support new coal, oil or gas. We're in a climate crisis, folks. What more scientific evidence do you need? How many more natural disasters do you need us all to experience before the penny will drop that you can't fix this issue by making it worse?

We heard from Minister Bowen, who gave a bit of a sneak peek of what's going to be announced on Friday, that you're not going to meet your greenhouse gas reduction targets. We saw an announcement late last week that you'll underwrite more renewable energy, which is also facing a shortfall, to help meet that target. Yet now you want to write a code that essentially incentivises the gas companies to open up new gas fields. I'm sorry, but it just does not add up. You can't say you're taking climate action and, at the same time, tick off on almost every coalmine that crosses your desk and facilitate new gas fields being opened up. Nobody is fooled by that. They are sick of the mining companies, and the fossil fuel companies in particular, running this parliament.

We will not be supporting this gas code of conduct and we are moving to disallow it. I might just add that, in this place, in our last sitting week, we had a debate about the water trigger, which currently applies to coal seam gas but does not apply to unconventional gas—to the shale and tight gas that exists in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. Currently, their water is not protected at all by federal environmental laws. The Greens, again, have a bill to fix that and to extend that protection to all forms of gas extraction and include all unconventional gas in the water trigger. The timing of that could be quite nice, but rather than the government delivering on expanding the water trigger—which, I might add, is in their party policy, but we're still waiting for the delivery of that one—they're racing through new gas fields.

It hearkens back to 2013, when the initial water trigger was introduced. The then environment minister, Minister Burke, ticked off on two massive coal seam gas fields and then, seven days later, decided we needed a water trigger. The people are alive to how much influence the fossil fuel companies have on this parliament and they're fed up with it. They'd like their democracy back. They want you to stop taking the dirty donations from these companies that so poison your decision-making and they would like to see their water protected. They would like to have affordable energy to run their homes and businesses and they would like you to look at supporting businesses to transition off gas, not to create backdoors to prop up Santos's private profits. That is not your job anymore. Your job is here in this place now, and you are meant to be representing the people, the public interest. You are meant to be protecting the climate. We will be disallowing this gas code and we invite others to join us in doing so.

Tim Ayres

I will keep my remarks to the right amount of time to hear some speakers from the coalition on their position in relation to this disallowance because I'd be very interested to see what the position is of the alternative government in this disallowance motion, which is so irresponsible. It ought never have come here. It ought to be withdrawn. Apart from its stated purpose, the consequences of the Senate adopting the disallowance motion just spoken to, moved by Senator McKim, would be to put thousands of jobs at risk in our manufacturing sector on the east coast, thousands of jobs of people you will never meet, people whose interests you're not interested in, people whose work is fundamental to whether or not we can achieve the energy transition that is required in the manner in default manufacturing sector. We would put thousands of those jobs at risk tomorrow. It would mean the cost reductions that have been assessed for Australian families and businesses of around 25 per cent that have been achieved by the price caps—I know energy prices keep going up—would be at risk because of this disallowance.

The stability, the certainty that is required for investment not only in gas more broadly but in the energy sector in total are fundamental to us achieving our decarbonisation objectives, keeping energy prices low, building new industry. All of that investment would be at risk because of this irresponsible, disconnected-with-reality intervention from the Greens political party. Who knows what the coalition, the alternative party of government, are going to do in this debate? They have been very coy about the position that they intend to adopt on these issues.

It also puts at risk the deal announced today that is based on the code announced by Minister Bowen today with Cenex and APLNG to deliver secure gas supply for east coast manufacturers. All of those things will be put at risk for a stunt and a series of slogans.

The proposition that comes from the interjections over here and also in Senator Waters's contribution that there is a relationship—

Nick McKim

There is a relationship between you and the gas companies!

Tim Ayres

That is exactly the point—undermine any capacity for a decent debate here. You know what, Senator McKim? We are advancing—

You ought to withdraw that. That is a grubby slur, and what we don't like—

Helen Polley

Senator McKim, I would like you to reflect on the comments you've just made and I ask you to withdraw them. They were unparliamentary.

Nick McKim

I withdraw.

Helen Polley

Thank you, Senator McKim.

Long debate text truncated.

David Pocock

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than 1 pm on 30 November 2023, the following:

(a) the total dollar amount of funding provided to the Papua New Guinea Immigration and Citizenship Services Authority (the Authority) or other entities under the 'Funding Arrangement Supporting Papua New Guinea's Independent Management of the Residual Regional Processing Caseload' (the funding arrangement), signed in December 2021;

(b) the schedule of payments, including dates and dollar amount of all monies paid to date, to the Authority or other entities associated with the funding arrangement, including the details of the entity to whom these payments were made;

(c) any correspondence between the Department of Home Affairs, Australian Border Force, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade or any other Australian Government agency relating to the requirements for financial reporting, acquittal or auditing of expenditure under the funding arrangement;

(d) all documentation relating to the fraud and corruption prevention activities and planning undertaken in relation to the funding arrangement, in line with the Commonwealth Fraud Control Framework;

(e) any correspondence from, to or between Australian Government officials relating to concerns about fraud and corruption (actual or prospective) in the expenditure of the funding arrangement;

(f) any agreements or correspondence with the Authority or other entities outlining or negotiating the healthcare, welfare accommodation or other services to be provided to the 'residual caseload' under the funding arrangement, and the period for which these were to be provided; and

(g) any correspondence or representations from, to or between Australian Government officials and the Authority regarding current funding shortfalls or debts to Papua New Guinean businesses that may be considered to be related to the funding arrangement.

Anthony Chisholm

I seek leave to make a one-minute statement.

Andrew McLachlan

Leave is granted.

Anthony Chisholm

Australia and PNG ended their regional processing association on 31 December 2021 through the mutual termination of the regional resettlement arrangement. On 1 January 2022, the PNG government assumed full and independent management of individuals remaining in PNG. The Department of Home Affairs does not have any role in the ongoing management of or service delivery arrangements for individuals remaining in PNG.

Australia agreed a confidential bilateral arrangement with the PNG Immigration and Citizenship Services Authority in December 2021 to support PNG's independent management of the residual caseload. In consultation with and mutual agreement between Australia and PNG, care and management of this group transitioned to the PNG Immigration and Citizenship Services Authority from 1 September 2023. The PNG Immigration and Citizenship Services Authority is providing access to secure and sustainable accommodation, welfare and health services and employment and community linking services. The funding assists the PNG Immigration and Citizenship Services Authority in providing a range of settlement, welfare and health support to individuals remaining in PNG who are pursuing permanent settlement in PNG or pending their resettlement in a third country. Details of the funding arrangement remain confidential between PNG and Australia.

Andrew McLachlan

The question before the chamber is that the motion standing in the name of Senator David Pocock be agreed to.

Wendy Askew

On behalf of Senator Cash I move general notice business notices of motion Nos 399 and 400 together:

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 399

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than midday on 29 November 2023:

(a) all signed and unsigned ministerial submissions received by the Attorney-General's office relating to the Australian Human Rights Commission's appearance in the High Court in the matter of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor;

(b) briefing documents, file notes and correspondence between the Attorney-General and/or his office and the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission in relation to their appearance in the High Court in the matter of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor; and

(c) briefing documents, file notes and correspondence between the Attorney-General and/or his office and the Prime Minister and/or his office in relation to Australian Human Rights Commission's appearance in the High Court in the matter of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 400

That there be laid on the table by the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, by no later than midday on 30 November 2023:

(a) all correspondence between the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Attorney-General and/or his office in relation to their appearance in the High Court in the matter of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor;

(b) all correspondence between the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Attorney-General's Department in relation to their appearance in the High Court in the matter of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor;

(c) briefing documents, file notes and correspondence between the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission and commissioners in relation to their appearance in the High Court in the matter of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor; and

(d) briefing documents, file notes and correspondence relating to the decision of whom to appoint as legal representation, in relation to the Australian Human Rights Commission's appearance in the High Court in the matter of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor.

Andrew McLachlan

The question before the Senate is that the motions standing in the name of Senator Cash concerning orders for the production of documents of the Australian Human Rights Commission be agreed to.

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Henderson, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the 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;

(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 midday on 30 November 2023.

Anthony Chisholm

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Andrew McLachlan

Leave is granted for one minute.

Anthony Chisholm

The government will not be supporting this motion. The minister has made a claim of public interest immunity in relation to the ARC financial sustainability report, which has been used to inform ongoing cabinet deliberations. The claim has been made to ensure cabinet remains an appropriate forum for informed consideration of policy advice and to preserve the confidentiality of its considerations.

Andrew McLachlan

The question before the Senate is that notice of motion 395 standing in the name of Senator Henderson regarding compliance with an order for the production of documents—ARC review reports—be agreed to.

Sue Lines

The question is that the amendment on sheet 2077 be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendment—

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to:

(a) increase the single maximum base payment of the following social security payments to $88 a day:

(i) JobSeeker Payment,

(ii) Parenting Payment,

(iii) Age Pension,

(iv) Carer Payment,

(v) Disability Support Pension,

(vi) Farm Household Allowance,

(vii) ABSTUDY,

(viii) Austudy,

(ix) Youth Allowance, and

(x) Crisis Payment; and

(b) abolish all mutual obligation requirements".