Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

There are a lot of very sensitive people here today—both relevance deprivation and sensitivity.

What do you want me to withdraw? I'm always happy to withdraw. I'm sorry. Whatever it is that I'm supposed to withdraw, I withdraw.

Senator Pocock, I'm glad you turned up for the inquiry, but you choose to come in here with Senator Shoebridge and the coalition to discharge a bill without chatting to us. Why would you do that? Why would you not have the courtesy to use the processes of the Senate? The committee system has been hard fought for in this place for a long time. One of the reasons I wanted to be a senator is we actually do legislation. We actually legislate, and part of how we do that are committee processes, where we can actually do the work in opposition and in government of making suggestions and recommendations around changes to policy and around changes to legislation. That has been a powerful tool for this Senate. It's one I respect. I don't always agree with committee reports, but I respect the legislation committees' work. Why didn't you do that? You don't do that because you want to come in here and pull a stunt. I think it should be called out.

You might be sensitive about it, Senator Pocock, but you should be called out for the fact that you're just working with the non-government parties to discharge a bill without even talking to us, participating in the committee or actually debating the bill. I find it quite remarkable actually. We will remember this next time you talk to us about the processes of the Senate. I know that there are differences of views about this bill, and I know that the minister has been someone who has engaged very closely with senators in this place. I know he engages very closely with Senator Lambie on these issues, and I know the authenticity with which she champions the rights of veterans. I appreciate there may be people in the community who don't want this legislation, and the opportunity for that to be ventilated is in the legislation inquiry, just as the opportunity to speak on and vote against this bill is when this bill comes to the parliament, as it should. It isn't the way to deal with these issues to simply have senators decide that legislation that is before the Senate should be discharged from the Notice Paper summarily and without even the courtesy of the chamber being advised of this ahead of that motion being moved.

Senator Gallagher made some important points about how this chamber operates. We see a number of people in this place who seem to want to use every procedural aspect to frankly make the work of this chamber much more difficult. We have a political contest. I think we're all up for that. We all also know how to play procedure. We're all up for that too. But it might actually help our constituents, the people we represent, the states and territories we represent, and the people who have an interest in legislation if we could at least make sure that how we deal with legislation and committee inquiries is given a little more respect than is being done at this moment by this motion that Senator Shoebridge and Senator Pocock have come up with.

I now want to talk about the opposition. I suspect from the opposition's behaviour that they believe that they're out of government for a while, because there is no other explanation for the lack of responsibility in so many areas. One of the things that has generally made sure that the contest and conflict in this place has been contained has been the recognition by both parties of government that we all have an interest in this chamber ultimately being able to function because we both are parties of government. We understand the importance of this second chamber from a government perspective. I don't think that's the approach Senator McKenzie takes. That's okay; that's up to her. But I would say to the Liberal Party—I appreciate there's a lot of division between the National Party and the Liberal Party at this point—don't let the National Party be the tail that wags the dog in every way, whether it's on climate change or frankly on how you approach the Senate. You are a party of government, and that should be something that is considered by your leadership group in the context of how you deal with procedure inside this chamber.

I propose to move an amendment to the motion that was moved by Senators Pocock, McKenzie and Shoebridge. That's a lovely alliance; isn't it—the National Party, the Greens and Senator Pocock? What an alliance! It's the people who don't believe in climate change, the people who engage in culture wars on a whole range of issues that I and many of my colleagues find so personally objectionable, the people who opposed marriage equality—you're lining up with them on this. Let's remember.

I move:

Omit all words after "That" substitute:

That the question on whether the government business order of the day relating to the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 be discharged from the Notice Paper not be considered until after the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee has tabled its final report on the bill.

I commend that to the chamber, because it's a very reasonable position. It's actually saying, 'Look, I get that you don't agree with the bill, but let's at least have the Senate consider the committee report and, frankly, the government.' You may not believe this, but ministers actually look at what the legislation committees say. They may not always agree—

I'm sorry Senator Shoebridge?