David Shoebridge's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
type: channel
language: en-gb
creator: OpenAustralia.org, mprss.php script
date: 2026-02-05T22:06:04+00:00
items: National Anti-Corruption Commission | Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers | Senate debates
items: National Anti-Corruption Commission | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
items: Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025; In Committee | Bills | Senate debates
items: Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
items: Housing, Hanson, Senator Pauline, Tamil Oppression Day, Kurdish Community | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
items: Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025; In Committee | Bills | Senate debates
items: Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
items: Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide | Motions | Senate debates
items: Housing | Matters of Urgency | Senate debates
items: International Relations: Australia and Israel | Motions | Senate debates

National Anti-Corruption Commission | Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers | Senate debates
type: item
description: I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Attorney-General (Senator Farrell) to a question without notice I asked today in relation to the...
encoded: I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Attorney-General (Senator Farrell) to a question without notice I asked today in relation to the Attorney-General's response to the national anti-corruption commissioner. It was pretty extraordinary that we had a prominent story today in the ABC detailing the correspondence that went between the current Attorney-General and the NACC commissioner which set out in detail the series of concerns the Attorney-General has with the NACC commissioner's failure to properly disclose conflicts of interest—failure to disclose them to her predecessor, failure to disclose them to herself and failure to disclose them to the Senate in questions that were asked in committees. That letter was, I think, properly characterised as a bombshell, because up until then there has been this wall of silence, this pretend wall of solidarity from the government around Commissioner Brereton. It didn't matter how appalling his behaviour, how many times he couldn't see a conflict of interest that whacked him in the face like standing on a rake. It didn't matter how many times that happened, we got this mantra from the Albanese government, 'The NACC commissioner has our full confidence.' We now find out that that response is absolute rubbish, because this letter from the Attorney-General shows that at least she's been watching. Maybe she's not allowed to say anything in public because the Prime Minister is gagging her from making any public comments, but this secret letter written in October made it very clear just how real the concerns are that the Attorney-General has with the NACC commissioner. As I said, he couldn't see a conflict of interest if it ran up and whacked him in the face. So what does she do? She says, 'I want a detailed response from you.' The Attorney also noted in her correspondence to Brereton that in his public statements—I'm going to quote here from the Attorney-General. She said this in her …
date: 2026-02-05T15:54:00+00:00

National Anti-Corruption Commission | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
type: item
description: Minister, you don't know if he's actually still the assistant IGADF. You've got no advice from the Attorney-General about her bombshell letter, where she panned him for failure to disclose. The...
encoded: Minister, you don't know if he's actually still the assistant IGADF. You've got no advice from the Attorney-General about her bombshell letter, where she panned him for failure to disclose. The ongoing failure of Commissioner Brereton to deal with his own perceived and actual conflicts of interest and his failure to come even close to transparency with your government or the parliament is rapidly eroding the trust of Australians in the NACC. Why can't you see that, and why can't you do the right thing and sack him? Bring on the motion and sack him.
date: 2026-02-05T14:22:00+00:00

National Anti-Corruption Commission | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
type: item
description: Well, that says a lot, doesn't it? They have no idea whether or not he has resigned. Minister, a bombshell letter from the Attorney-General to Commissioner Brereton, sent in October of last year,...
encoded: Well, that says a lot, doesn't it? They have no idea whether or not he has resigned. Minister, a bombshell letter from the Attorney-General to Commissioner Brereton, sent in October of last year, pointed out repeated failures of Commissioner Brereton to disclose his moonlighting with the IGADF to the Senate, to the former A-G and to the current A-G. Given this, does Commissioner Brereton seriously have the confidence of the Albanese government to head the National Anti-Corruption Commission?
date: 2026-02-05T14:21:00+00:00

National Anti-Corruption Commission | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
type: item
description: My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. On 12 June 2023, Senator Watt, representing the Attorney-General, told the Senate that then justice Brereton would resign his...
encoded: My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. On 12 June 2023, Senator Watt, representing the Attorney-General, told the Senate that then justice Brereton would resign his appointment as Assistant Inspector-General of the ADF 'before taking up his role as the commissioner of the NACC'. On 5 June 2025 the NACC CEO told a Senate committee that Commissioner Brereton had resigned his appointment with the IGADF in or about May 2023. However, on 3 December 2025, the actual IGADF, James Gaynor, in an answer on notice to another Senate committee, said Major General Brereton never provided written confirmation of their May 2023 conversation in which he stated he would resign as an assistant IGADF, effective 1 July 2023. So, Minister, has Commissioner Brereton resigned as an assistant IGADF, and, if so, when and how?
date: 2026-02-05T14:19:00+00:00

Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025; In Committee | Bills | Senate debates
type: item
description: I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 3472: (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 8 (after line 30), at the end of section 110ABB, add: (4) To avoid doubt, this Part is not intended to limit or prevent in...
encoded: I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 3472: (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 8 (after line 30), at the end of section 110ABB, add: (4) To avoid doubt, this Part is not intended to limit or prevent in any way the performance of a function, or the exercise of a power, otherwise than under this Part by an entity other than the Committee. This amendment would say, for abundant clarity, that whatever amendments are made through this bill to parliamentary procedure and oversight would have no impact on existing parliamentary oversight procedures. I can already see the near future, and I can tell you now that, if this bill is passed, we'll be in Senate estimates, asking questions of Defence about why on earth they're spending $45 billion to buy six boats in Adelaide that are undergunned, won't arrive for a couple of decades and will only enrich their mates, and we'll be told: 'You can't ask that question in Senate estimates. We have our secret Defence committee, where they have robust discussions about this in dark rooms, away from the public gaze.' When we ask questions like, 'How many billion dollars are you giving to Donald Trump today for AUKUS, what on earth are we going to get for it and is there a promise we might actually get a boat at the end of it?' we'll get the answer from Moriarty mark 2 along the lines of: 'Well, Senator, you know full well that this would seriously impact national security.'
date: 2026-02-05T13:28:00+00:00

Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025; In Committee | Bills | Senate debates
type: item
description: Doesn't that make you feel safe?
encoded: Doesn't that make you feel safe?
date: 2026-02-05T13:04:00+00:00

Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025; In Committee | Bills | Senate debates
type: item
description: I have heard some remarkable statements in my life, but to suggest that the PJCIS has robust debate—there was a landmark moment some time last year when, for the first time in 20 years,...
encoded: I have heard some remarkable statements in my life, but to suggest that the PJCIS has robust debate—there was a landmark moment some time last year when, for the first time in 20 years, there was actually a dissenting opinion. I think it's only happened once. Everyone thought the sky would fall down, because the members of the PJCIS had been in agreement and had had unanimous recommendations every single time—for two decades! That's the kind of robust debate you get in North Korean politics. That's the kind of robust debate you get in Donald Trump's America. If you speak out against him, you get sued. That's the kind of robust debate that Labor wants in this committee. To suggest that that is robust debate is genuinely embarrassing.
date: 2026-02-05T13:02:00+00:00

Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025; In Committee | Bills | Senate debates
type: item
description: I move the amendment on sheet 3471: (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 22) to page 7 (line 6), omit subsections 110ABA(2) and (3), substitute: (2) The Committee is to consist of 13 members: (a)...
encoded: I move the amendment on sheet 3471: (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 22) to page 7 (line 6), omit subsections 110ABA(2) and (3), substitute: (2) The Committee is to consist of 13 members: (a) 7 Government members, including at least: (i) 2 Senators; and (ii) 2 members of the House of Representatives; and (b) 6 non-Government members: (i) 2 Opposition Senators; and (ii) 2 Opposition members of the House of Representatives; and (iii) 1 Senator who is not a member of the Government or the Opposition; and (iv) 1 member of the House of Representatives who is not a member of the Government or the Opposition. Note: For more detailed provisions on the appointment of Committee members, see Division 5. This amendment would expand the membership of the committee to expressly include crossbench membership from each of the Senate and the House of Representatives. I know there's a separate amendment being proposed by One Nation that has a different formula for extending crossbench membership on the committee, but I'll speak to the Greens amendment. It was extraordinary, what we heard in the contributions from both Labor and the Liberal Party in this debate, in a denial of pretty much every basic principle of democracy, which is meant to be a robust exchange of views where you're not scared of disagreements. A robust debate where disagreements are played out is actually how our democracy is designed to work. You test ideas and you allow people into a chamber who have a contrary view to yours, and you have to win the contest of ideas. That's what our democracy is meant to be. But what we heard from both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party is that they are deliberately establishing this committee so that anybody with a contrary view on either the strategic direction for Australian defence or on which particular international grifter should be favoured with the next arms deal—you could name the former Liberal or Labor defence minister who is out there selling weapons to any tak…
date: 2026-02-05T12:58:00+00:00

Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
type: item
description: I rise on behalf of the Greens to oppose the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee—'secret boys club'—on Defence) Bill 2025. This is a bill that just goes to show how...
encoded: I rise on behalf of the Greens to oppose the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee—'secret boys club'—on Defence) Bill 2025. This is a bill that just goes to show how broken the war parties and the status quo parties are in this parliament. They're setting up yet another dark, smoke-filled cigar room where those who get the tick of approval, from Washington and from the likes of Richard Marles, maybe, or our security heads, can sit in their little private circle and furiously agree on how we should spend even more money buying US weapons to go to war with China on behalf of Donald Trump. They're the same club of people who have got us into an impossible, embarrassing mess on pretty much everything they've touched in defence. This same club of war-hungry, war-mongering war parties, who call themselves parties of government, are the ones who have secret oversight of our security agencies. How's that going? That is now the subject of royal commission review and repeated criticism—the failure of ASIO to get out and communicate with the state police and the failure of state police to talk with the Federal Police. That's all oversighted by the private club that is the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. That's a disaster zone, a complete mess. Nobody thinks it works. So what do the geniuses in parties of government decide to come up with? Let's take the secret, dysfunctional club for security oversight and let's make it part of a secret, dysfunctional parties-of-government oversight of defence. Then we get the representation from Labor: 'Do you know why this is great for democracy and why this is great for parliament? The real magic sauce in this thing is that it will all be in secret and nobody will see it happening.' That's the magic sauce in this oversight. It's a secret meeting of people who already agree, who want post-politics careers in the defence industry, who love Washington and who love Donald Trump. It will all happen in secr…
date: 2026-02-05T10:46:00+00:00

Housing, Hanson, Senator Pauline, Tamil Oppression Day, Kurdish Community | Statements by Senators | Senate debates
type: item
description: If you haven't already bought a house in Sydney, it's basically impossible to do it now. Even with two wages, most families can't manage the obscene mortgages required for what used to be called...
encoded: If you haven't already bought a house in Sydney, it's basically impossible to do it now. Even with two wages, most families can't manage the obscene mortgages required for what used to be called a first home. Workers have been pushed hours away from their workplaces, having to start and end days with hours stuck in banked-up traffic, losing precious family time. Our city's losing the people that make it function and make it special. But now an opportunity does present, with Defence no longer needing Victoria Barracks in Sydney, and in other big cities like Melbourne and Brisbane there's some prime publicly owned land that could deliver genuine public housing. So what does Labor do? They reach for the same tired playbook of privatisation and giving a gift to their developer mates. Instead of seeing this as a chance to recycle public Defence land for other public housing and other public good, we see Labor having a national sell-off of prize Defence land and prize assets to their developer mates for private profit, not public good. Privatisation is not a successful housing policy. It's handing public assets to developer mates and hoping that a few crumbs of affordable housing fall from the table. For those being pushed out of the places they call home by spiralling costs, a tiny number of apartments are available at 30 per cent below market rent for maybe 10 or 15 years. That's not a plan for housing; it's an embarrassment. Victoria Barracks in Sydney is a beautiful public space—green open space, beautiful built heritage. That's exactly why it must be used for maximum public benefit, not to maximise private profit. Build public housing here, real public housing—hundreds of homes owned by the public for those who need it the most and kept in public hands for generations to come. But we also say this: density done right means public parklands, not concrete jungles. It means communities can breathe, children can play, families can thrive and heritage is respected. Labor …
date: 2026-02-04T12:16:00+00:00

Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025; In Committee | Bills | Senate debates
type: item
description: I note the summary provided by Senator Kovacic, and I agree with the factual summary about the effect of these amendments. Amendments (1) and (2) remove the express reference to student visas...
encoded: I note the summary provided by Senator Kovacic, and I agree with the factual summary about the effect of these amendments. Amendments (1) and (2) remove the express reference to student visas from the bill and, instead, give a broad regulation-making power to expand the types of matters that can be decided in the ART on the papers. The history shows that both Labor and the Liberal Party will use that power to expand the number of matters and the classes of cases that will lose the right to an oral hearing and be determined only on the papers. Given that both Labor and the Liberal Party are of one mind about removing the rights, the pretend protection by putting it in the regulations is no protection at all. The Greens will be opposing government amendments (1) and (2) for the clear reasons we said in the contribution in the second reading. People should have a right to an oral hearing. Oral hearings are important for justice. We keep hearing the refrain of 'faster, fairer and more efficient'. Well, it might be faster in the first place, but it sure as heck isn't fairer, and, by the time you take into account judicial reviews and the broader unfairness in the system, it sure as heck won't be more efficient at the end of the day. Amendment (3) gives some greater flexibility to the president to delegate powers. The rationale for that was set out in the report, and we don't oppose amendment (3).
date: 2026-02-04T11:54:00+00:00

Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025; In Committee | Bills | Senate debates
type: item
description: I ask that, when we get to the vote, amendment (3) be put separately to (1) and (2).
encoded: I ask that, when we get to the vote, amendment (3) be put separately to (1) and (2).
date: 2026-02-04T11:51:00+00:00

Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
type: item
description: And they would have decided some of them, too.
encoded: And they would have decided some of them, too.
date: 2026-02-04T10:58:00+00:00

Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
type: item
description: It was closer to 200, but we'll see next week, in estimates, the full-time equivalent gap between what they're meant to be budgeted and resourced for and what they're actually budgeted and...
encoded: It was closer to 200, but we'll see next week, in estimates, the full-time equivalent gap between what they're meant to be budgeted and resourced for and what they're actually budgeted and resourced for. Whether it's 100 or 200—even 100 members short is, I reckon, a pretty bad call. Then the government come in and say, 'Oh well, they might be 100 or 200 members short, but the problem is how the hearings happen, not the fact that we don't appoint tribunal members.' If you look closely, the problem also lies, probably even more fundamentally, with the Department of Home Affairs. Evidence given by the ART revealed that lodgements in the ART for review of Home Affairs student visa refusals have increased exponentially. As the CEO and principal registrar of the ART said, in 2022-23 there were 2,057 student visa refusal matters; in 2023-24 it was 11,668; in 2024-25 it escalated to 32,198; and in the first two months of this financial year there were 5,755 cases lodged. That surge of refusals from Home Affairs also means that student visa reviews have taken up a greater and greater percentage of the ART case load. Mr Hawkins, the CEO, said: … in 2024-25, it was about 37 per cent; in 2023-24, it was 22 per cent; and, in 2022-23, it was 4.6 per cent. I said that the wrong way around, but I'm just repeating the way in which Mr Hawkins gave evidence. So it went up from 4.6 per cent of the case load in 2022-23 to 37 per cent of the case load in 2024-25—dealing with student visas. Not only has the sheer number of student visas reviews increased, such that they now consume over a third of the ART's case load, but the quality of decisions made by Home Affairs, as measured by the overturned rate of review, has dramatically fallen. The ART's chief lawyer, Ms Haddad, told the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee: I've got the percentages for student visa refusals. For 2022-23, the number of set asides was 43 per cent. For 2023-24, the number of set asides was…
date: 2026-02-04T10:46:00+00:00

Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
type: item
description: The earlier changes can apply to protection visas; this particular part can't apply to protection visas. The government is claiming these changes are needed for efficiency; however, the...
encoded: The earlier changes can apply to protection visas; this particular part can't apply to protection visas. The government is claiming these changes are needed for efficiency; however, the Immigration Advice and Rights Centre pointed out this in its submission: … the Bill sacrifices the objectives of being fair and accessible for alleged efficiency When you look at the bill more closely, the problem with the delays and the increased backlog in the ART—which is real—is not the result of the way in which oral hearings are happening; it's not the result of that part of the ART's structure. The problem is twofold. One is that this government has failed to appoint enough tribunal members for the ART to be at full strength and able to deal with it. That's pretty shameful. The ART is wildly understrength, and no doubt we'll explore this next week in estimates. The last time I looked they were some 200 members short of what their full appointment should be.
date: 2026-02-04T10:46:00+00:00

Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
type: item
description: I spoke earlier about the rationale behind this. This is Labor taking failed coalition policy for administrative review designed to punch down on migrants out of the deep freeze, whacking it in...
encoded: I spoke earlier about the rationale behind this. This is Labor taking failed coalition policy for administrative review designed to punch down on migrants out of the deep freeze, whacking it in the microwave and reheating it. It is bad policy of the then coalition, now Liberal Party, punching down on migrants in the ART and deciding to take away basic rights when it comes to challenging visa refusals and basic procedural fairness. The Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 primarily seeks to amend the Administrative Review Tribunal Act to expand the circumstances in which the tribunal can make a decision on migration matters based on the papers without ever hearing from the applicant and without having the benefit of an oral hearing. Currently, the ART can only review a case on the papers if all parties consent. There may be occasions when all parties consent to something being done on the papers. There may be a clearly defined, narrow case in which you're legally represented and you know you've got a narrow issue—an interpretation issue or a narrow factual issue—that can be decided on the papers. If parties agree, then, by all means, do it. But, overwhelmingly, when it comes to migration matters, people are not represented. Overwhelmingly, there are significant cultural barriers and barriers to understanding how the legal system works. The benefit of an oral hearing, particularly with a translator, can be that people who are unfamiliar with the process and don't have legal assistance can actually get a fair go, because the tribunal has an obligation in an oral hearing to try and understand what the issues are before it, to tease them out with an applicant and to fairly decide the case. But, if you remove oral hearings, you remove that chance for fairness. This bill seeks to change it so the ART can consider any case on the papers if the tribunal thinks it can be 'adequately determined' on the papers and that 'it is reasonable in th…
date: 2026-02-04T10:46:00+00:00

Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide | Motions | Senate debates
type: item
description: I rise on behalf of the Greens to indicate we will be supporting this motion. I want to make it clear that the timely medical care and income support veterans need but also the support families...
encoded: I rise on behalf of the Greens to indicate we will be supporting this motion. I want to make it clear that the timely medical care and income support veterans need but also the support families need to see that their loved one who is a veteran is getting the health care they need is a core part of the work my office does. I can't tell you how many veterans not just in New South Wales but across the country who are having enormous difficulty just getting to see a GP let alone specialist care contact my office. Indeed, the lack of psychiatric care is not only a crisis situation for veterans; it's a crisis situation for so many people across the country. But one of the things that keeps coming up when we speak with veterans and when we speak with health providers in in this space is the differential between what DVA pays and what the NDIS pays for the same service. If you come in under the NDIS, the health provider—the GP, physiotherapist or psychiatrist—gets a higher rate for providing services under the NDIS than they do for providing services to veterans. What that means is that veterans go to the back of the queue, if they can even get into the queue. This has been a long-running problem for veterans across the country. We hear it. I want to give a shout-out to my team who provide that support to the veterans who contact our office. I also want to give a shout-out to the veterans organisations and the families of veterans—that support network that has been wrapped around veterans because they need it just to navigate the system. That is a problem with the system. If you need that kind of support network, if you need the support of your partner, your kids, your parents or advocacy networks just to navigate the system, that shows there's a problem with the system. But one of the core things the government could do—and I know it's a budget cost—and must do is at least make an equivalence between the rates that are paid to medical providers under the NDIS and the rates…
date: 2026-02-04T10:26:00+00:00

Housing | Matters of Urgency | Senate debates
type: item
description: I know there are some in this place who are busy telling people the housing crisis is caused by migration. They tell people this easy lie and the supposedly easy solution. We expect to hear that...
encoded: I know there are some in this place who are busy telling people the housing crisis is caused by migration. They tell people this easy lie and the supposedly easy solution. We expect to hear that racist sentiment from One Nation and the Liberals, but we can't forget Labor's role in enabling it. On 4 November last year Senator Bell, from One Nation, asked a question which attempted to blame the housing crisis on migration. He asked the government when serious removals would begin. Instead of condemning or even disputing One Nation's racist dog whistle, Minister Watt from Labor said he had already outlined some of the steps this government has taken to reduce net overseas migration. When someone asks if you are going to kick out migrants who are taking all our houses, you don't accept the premise; you fight it—unless, like Labor, you have no other solutions and you're willing to join the dog whistle. Research by the Australia Institute shows that the number of dwellings is growing faster than the population. The real problem here is clear: it's tax breaks, capital gains rorts and negative gearing—not migrants—that are driving up house prices. How do we know? During the COVID lockdown, when net migration was negative, house prices went up by 20 per cent in just 18 months. It's time to get real. Bring a plan into this place that isn't handouts for developers or investors, that doesn't rely on putting people in horrifically large mortgages and that doesn't blame migrants for the greed of bankers and their political mates in this place. (Time expired)
date: 2026-02-03T18:10:00+00:00

Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
type: item
description: Unlike the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and One Nation, the Greens will be opposing the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I was on the review by the...
encoded: Unlike the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and One Nation, the Greens will be opposing the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I was on the review by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, and I listened to multiple witnesses from a variety of different organisations who gave clear evidence about why this bill should not be supported, how it will take away important procedural rights, how it is unfairly targeted at migrants and how, potentially, it is going to give significantly expanded powers to the government of the day to remove even more rights from reviews in migration matters. I also heard, because I listened, the evidence about the real failures causing the backlog not being in the Administrative Review Tribunal—although I accept that they're underresourced and they don't have the appointments they should have to deal with the work. The real reason the backlog is happening in the ART is the poor behaviour of Home Affairs and its automatic refusal of tens of thousands of visa applications because people haven't got all their documentation together at a particular point in time. The surge of refusals from Home Affairs explains a large part of the backlogs in the ART. What I find remarkable, having listened carefully to Senator Cash and then to Senator Stewart, is that not one of them referred to the multiple compelling submissions from stakeholders and people engaged in the space who said that this bill should not be supported. Not one of them made any reference to those, so no wonder those stakeholders are asking themselves, 'What is the process for—this sham process where the government presents a piece of legislation which is largely reheating the coalition's previous attacks on procedural fairness rights in the ART?' To that extent, Senator Cash was right that this is legislation from the Labor Party trying to put into the microwave some failed efforts from the coalition previously. That part of Sen…
date: 2026-02-03T13:26:00+00:00

International Relations: Australia and Israel | Motions | Senate debates
type: item
description: Let's just ignore the genocide aspect.
encoded: Let's just ignore the genocide aspect.
date: 2026-02-03T12:46:00+00:00