Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be moving the rearrangement motion in the Notice Paper. We will be seeking some slight amendments to that motion to allow for further time, considering the time we lost this morning to the earlier debate, to push out the times for the first votes on the bills listed in the notice of motion; I think they're being circulated now.

The bills we had listed to be considered at 11 am will now be considered at 1 pm because of the time we lost this morning to that earlier debate. The bills that would have been put at 1.30 pm will be moved to 4.30 pm to allow for more time and debate. The tranche of bills outlined at subsection (8), instead of being put at 5.30 pm, will be put at 7 pm. This responds to the concerns of those opposite and the crossbench, to have time to speak to those bills. The amended motion also seeks to remove the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024, as we haven't been able to reach the agreement on electoral reform we had been seeking with the coalition—no surprises there that we weren't able to do that at the last moment. So we are removing that and inserting a couple of other Treasury bills, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023, to be considered in their place.

As I said in the earlier debate on Senator Lambie's motion to suspend, we have moved this motion because these bills need to get done and we have been frustrated this year in a minority chamber where we accept we do not have the votes to bring things to a conclusion and to deal with things in a timely way. This is, at the end of the year, our stocktake of important bills we would like to get done. We think there is a lot of agreement across this list and these bills can be dealt with pretty promptly. I think there is agreement on a number of bills, and where there isn't agreement with one part of the Senate there may be agreement with the other. We have support from the opposition for the social media reform and the migration bills, and we believe we have support for bills like Future Made in Australia from another grouping in the chamber.

It is a shame that we have got to this point. It's not unusual for an end-of-year motion to be moved. When we were in opposition, we tried to work constructively to get a whole range of bills through where we could. Sometimes it requires longer sittings of the Senate. This is our request to the Senate, acknowledging that we will have to win each piece of legislation on its merits, to deal with as much of this as possible. If there are bills here that don't get up, if we put them to the Senate and the Senate votes them down, then that's the view of the Senate. I'm hoping that a range of bills in this motion today will be supported by the Senate and that, hopefully, some common sense will prevail—that we will be able to progress a number of important pieces of legislation through today.

We would have preferred this to have been more evenly spread through the year, but we have seen weeks where the opposition have refused to pass anything, where there have been long filibusters—

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not true.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it is true. It is absolutely true. We have sat here and have not been able to progress one piece of legislation, and that has built up a bank of bills that we would like to deal with before the Senate gets up for the year. There are still a whole range of bills that we will come back to in February. Most of them should be dealt with very quickly so we can progress them through the Senate today.

The amendments to the motion are minor in nature. They remove a bill and insert another one, and there's a longer period of time to allow for debate throughout the day on different tranches of legislation. This is the government's view. These are our priority bills. We would like as many of them as possible to be done. We've already had a good week in the sense that we've got Help to Buy through, we've got wages for early childhood educators through and we've got funding for schools through. All of these things were important. We got that done in the first part of this week, but we believe the Senate should have the opportunity to deal with the remaining bills throughout the course of today.

Obviously we are happy to continue to talk to people throughout the day as that motion progresses, but we do believe that putting some order and process around these bills so that everyone knows what we are hoping to deal with is the best way forward. I commend the motion to the Senate.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Is leave granted to have the motion considered in the revised format as outlined by the minister?

Leave granted.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the motion as amended:

That—

(1) The order of the Senate of 27 June 2024 dividing the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 into two bills no longer apply and the orders of the day for the consideration of the resulting bills be discharged from the Notice Paper.

(2) Consideration of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 resume with consideration of the bill as read a first time.

(3) The following bills may be taken together for their remaining stages:

Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024.

(4) The hours of meeting today be 9 am till adjournment and the routine of business be as follows:

(a) consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (5);

(b) at 11.15 am, notices of motion;

(c) consideration of a report from the Selection of Bills Committee;

(d) postponement and rearrangement of business;

(e) formal motions;

(f) not later than one hour after the giving of notices, consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (6);

(g) at 2 pm, questions;

(h) consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (7);

(i) consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (8); and

(j) consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (9).

(5) Bills be considered in the following order and the questions on all remaining stages of the bills be put at 1 pm:

(a) Treasury Laws Amendment (2024 Tax and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2024;

(b) Treasury Laws Amendment (Reserve Bank Reforms) Bill 2023;

(c) Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2023;

(d) Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Bill 2024;

(e) Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) Bill 2024

Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) Tax (Imposition) Bill 2024

Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) (Consequential Provisions and Other Matters) Bill 2024;

(f) Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024;

Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024.

(6) Bills be considered in the following order and the questions on all remaining stages being put at 4.30 pm:

(a) Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024;

(b) Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024;

(c) Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024;

(d) Family Law Amendment Bill 2024;

(e) Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024;

(f) Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024;

(g) Surveillance Legislation (Confirmation of Application) Bill 2024; and

(h) Migration Amendment Bill 2024

Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2024.

(7) The following bills be considered and the questions on all remaining stages be put at 5.30 pm:

Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023

(8) The following bills be considered and the questions on all remaining stages be put at 7 pm:

Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill 2024

Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024

Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Charges) Bill 2024

Future Made in Australia Bill 2024

Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024.

(9) Bills be considered in the following order and the questions on all remaining stages be put after 15 minutes of consideration on each bill:

(a) Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional Broadcasting Continuity) Bill 2024;

(b) Crown References Amendment Bill 2023;

(c) Customs Amendment (ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Second Protocol Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024;

(d) Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals and Other Measures) Bill 2024;

(e) Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Amendment Bill 2024;

(f) Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024;

(g) Navigation Amendment Bill 2024;

(h) Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill 2024;

(i) Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024;

(j) Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024; and

(k) Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024.

(10) Paragraphs (5) to (9) operate as limitations of debate under standing order 142;

(11) Speaking times relating to any questions proposed in the Senate or in the committee of the whole in relation to any bill listed in this motion be 5 minutes;

(12) Divisions may take place between 1.30 pm and 2 pm, and after 4.30 pm, until consideration of the bills to which this order applies has concluded.

(13) The Senate adjourn without debate on the motion of a minister.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

After paragraph (4)(g), add:

  (ga) tabling (only) of committee reports;

In moving this amendment I draw the attention of the chamber to what happens when you rush things. What happens when you rush things is you forget things. We've got a number of really important reports that need to be tabled, but in their rush to put through this guillotine motion—and, despite what the minister says, the number of bills on this is unprecedented—they forgot to put in the tabling of reports, some of which are very important. I also draw attention to the really important committee work that happens in this place. Part of that importance is the fact that the reports of those committees need to be tabled. But apparently, in the rush to get through this legislative agenda that no-one had seen until last night at eight o'clock, we forgot to put the committee reports in.

I'd also draw the chamber's attention to the fact that, despite the minister's protestations about the significant importance of all of these bills, as I said in my previous contribution, I cannot think of anything that would be less important in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, on the last day of sitting, than changing the gender definition of His Majesty the King, who is apparently now going to be gender neutral, going forward. According to the minister's previous contribution in moving this motion, that's apparently really, really important to the good governance of this country and the welfare of the people who we in this place are privileged to be the parliament for.

Can I just say, in moving my amendment, it is tremendously disappointing that today, despite the fact that we have 38 bills on here, there will be no opportunity—no opportunity at all—for proper scrutiny. I have to say, having experienced putting bills through this place over the last three years, if there is one thing that has been a hallmark of the government it is the fact that they don't deal with the detail and there were always unintended consequences because of the shabby drafting of things because their drafting instructions are obviously inadequate. Right now I am standing here moving an amendment to fix up a mistake because of their shabby instructions when they had this motion drafted. They completely omitted putting in something as important as the tabling of reports.

I think the Australian public know that, unless the scrutiny of this parliament is put over the legislation that's brought into this place by those opposite, they will get substandard legislation. How many times, when we've turned up in here to scrutinise bills that they've wanted to rush through—without the committee process, without due scrutiny—have we had to make amendments? I'll draw your attention to one that happened last week. We put through the Aged Care Bill last week, and there were 91 amendments by the government itself as a result of a committee inquiry—a committee inquiry that this government didn't even want to have. I think the Australian public have every right to be pretty disappointed at the disrespect that this chamber, through the motion by this government, is showing to them with this lack of scrutiny.

We know that scrutiny invariably improves the situation. It calls out unintended consequences, often ones that are likely to negatively impact on Australians. I will absolutely guarantee you that, in this whole list of bills here, there will be many, many bills that would have benefited from the scrutiny of this chamber. That is the reason we get paid to come here every day. Our job is to scrutinise legislation. That is our job, and this government is today forcing through this place a motion to prevent us from doing our job—preventing us from doing the job of the Senate. The sole reason that we exist is for scrutiny, and you are circumventing that by refusing to allow the Senate to scrutinise these bills. I hope for your sake that there aren't unintended consequences in these bills that are going to negatively affect Australians, because so far you've done very little to consider the concerns of Australians in the legislation you've put through in this place. The cost of living is the most important thing that we should be dealing with in this place, not worrying about the gender pronouns of the sovereign.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I won't hold up the chamber for very long. I just want to indicate that the Australian Greens are comfortable with the amendments that have been proposed to the substantive motion by the government, and we also accept the arguments that have just been put by Senator Ruston in relation to the amendment, which I understand will be an amendment to the government's amendment. I would invite you to clarify that, President, when you're able, in terms of the process that the Senate will go through. I'm just flagging that, on the assumption that an amended motion will be put to the Senate, we will be asking that certain questions be put separately, because we intend to vote a different way on different matters in that motion. That's just a heads-up for the chamber, and for you, President.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator McKim. Yes, we will put Senator Ruston's amendment first and then we will go to the amendment moved by the minister. Minister Wong.

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

I was going to propose closing debate so we could get on with debating the bills that you don't want to debate and some of the ones that you do want to debate.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) | Link to this | Hansard source

No. We do want to debate them.

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

Senator Ruston—

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Ruston! You've made your point.

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

This is Senator Ruston this morning, everybody. Senator Ruston is being so helpful in getting so many bills through, as Manager of Opposition Business!

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston, you've just taken 12 minutes to put your point of view. You need to be silent now. Minister Wong, please continue.

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

I move:

That the question be now put.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ruston, shall I just give you the chair? The question is that the question be now put.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Senator Wong, are you seeking the call?

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

Rather than having a fight, we are supporting your amendment. I'm proposing that we close this debate so we can vote on the amendment that we are supporting.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

I have moved the question be put, and a division was called by the opposition.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm seeking clarification that the division we're currently in is on the motion by Senator Wong to put the question and not a division on the question before the chair.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

That's right. That division is cancelled.

Question agreed to.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! There are way too many people interjecting. The question is now that the amendment as moved by Senator Ruston be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question now is that the motion, as amended, moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to. Minister Wong?

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

I appreciate that there has been a bit of confusion on that side. As I understand it, the chamber gave Senator Gallagher leave to move the hours motion in amended form.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, that's correct.

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

So that is what is before the chair?

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

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

Senator McKim has asked that that be voted on separately. You are now putting that. I don't know if there are other speakers on the hours motion. I assume there will be a set of separate votes, given that different senators are voting different ways on different provisions. That's my understanding. I was just clarifying.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks to Senator Wong for clarifying where we find ourselves. President, is it appropriate now to indicate which parts of this motion the Greens would like to be put separately?

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, because the motion is before the chair.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

We are requesting that you separate and put together paragraphs (6)(f), which is the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024; (6)(h), which is the Migration Amendment Bill 2024, the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 and the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2024; and (9)(j), which is the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024. That is so we can vote a different way to our position on the rest of the motion.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion be agreed to in respect of those three paragraphs as outlined by Senator McKim, which are (6)(f), (6)(h) and (9)(j). Senator Birmingham.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to make sure we've got clarity and check in relation to one other aspect of this, because it's a very chaotic process being imposed upon the Senate by the government, which is that the result of Senator McKim's request is that the question on those three bills will be put separately but together. The intent of the Greens in making that request, given what's required in the standing orders, is presumably that they are voting one way on all of the rest of the motion in its totality and a different way on those three particular bills.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

I have put the question. I'm happy to put it again. The question is that 6(f), 6(h) and 9(j) be taken together and voted on. I will say it again. The question I'm asking for agreement on is that the motion as moved by Senator McKim, which is that 6(f), 6(h) and 9(j) be taken together and moved as one, which is exactly as you described, Senator Birmingham.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) | Link to this | Hansard source

President, I propose that you put the rest of the motion first because those clauses on their own are meaningless without the enabling clauses in the rest of the motion. It would make more sense to put the rest of the motion first, excluding those three bills, and then to put those three clauses.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amended motion standing in the name of Senator Gallagher, without (6)(f), (6)(h) and (9)(j), be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that as (6)(f), (6)(h) and (9)(j) don't have operative clauses to them they are now redundant.