David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion to discharge a bill from the Notice Paper as circulated.

Leave not granted.

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

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion relating to the conduct of business of the Senate, namely a motion to discharge a bill from the Notice Paper.

Firstly, I would like to inform the chamber that Senator Lambie will be co-sponsoring this motion. I start by saying that I have a lot of respect for Minister Keogh, and I thank him for his work for veterans in the last term and the work that he is doing now. It's a big job, there's been a lot to work on when it comes to DVA, and I've appreciated his work and his engagement. But this so-called Defence honours bill doesn't honour our veterans. I'm also very concerned by the government's attempts to stop the Senate inquiry doing its job and reporting on this bill. There have been submissions—

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

Senator Pocock, I'm going to stop you right there. You moved a suspension motion, and the debate needs to be around why the suspension is urgent and why you need to put aside standing orders, not around the matters before that.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is why it's urgent—

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

I haven't heard you express to the Senate the urgency, and that's what you need to focus on.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate committee was ready to report weeks ago, and yet the government is delaying that. This is a completely friendless bill. It strips people of their right to a merits review—

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

Senator Pocock, I am going to remind you once again. It's not about the bill. You moved a suspension order; you want the Senate to agree with you that so much of standing orders be put aside for you to demonstrate your position. You need to focus on why you need to do that, not on the bill. Why do you believe that this suspension order is so urgent that the standing orders need to be put aside?

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is urgent because we have a friendless bill that the government is stopping a Senate committee reporting on. So I urge the Senate. It's time to actually say, as the Senate, that we won't stand for that. We will not deal with a bill that the department admitted they did no consultation on. That was very clear from the 60-odd submissions and very clear from every single witness who appeared before the Senate committee. It was a friendless bill. People were bemused by this bill and the need for it, and what I've heard in consulting with veterans here in the ACT is that, in the wake of the royal commission—

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

Senator Pocock, once again you are going to matters not related to the suspension.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sure. I've heard from veterans about the urgency needed to send a message to the government that this should not be the priority. Responding and implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide should be the priority. That is why this is so urgent.

This is urgent because, again, it was disturbing that there was no consultation. This is urgent because this has been prioritised ahead of so many other things that could be done for our veterans, people who have served this country and deserve better recognition and to be looked after. This is urgent because had this bill been law a few years ago Ordinary Seaman Teddy Sheehan would not have been recognised for his bravery and valour. This is urgent because the government is seeking to stop the next Teddy Sheehan from being recognised. This is urgent because we can't play these games any longer. We can't have a Senate committee being denied the opportunity to actually report on a bill which clearly has no support in the Senate.

That's why I'm suspending standing orders and moving this motion to actually discharge this bill, to send a message to the government when it comes to consultation on bills that you bring to the parliament and to the Senate and to send a very clear message to veterans and veterans' families out there that we see you, we hear what you're saying and the Senate will act to ensure the government gets the very clear message that there is a whole range of priorities when it comes to veterans and communities across the country but this is not one of them.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to support Senator Pocock's suspension of standing orders, and the coalition will be supporting the suspension of standing orders that has been moved by Senator Pocock in order for the Senate to be able to discharge this friendless bill. The Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 is an affront to every Australian who has ever worn our uniform. This bill could not be fixed and should not be bought back—

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

Senator McKenzie, I am speaking. This is a suspension motion; that is what you need to address your remarks to.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a betrayal of trust on the eve of Remembrance Day for this Senate not to prioritise suspending our standing orders in order to be able to discharge this bill from our Notice Paper so it can go back from whence it came and the government can actually get on with implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Veteran Suicide. This bill is a betrayal of trust. It's a cynical attempt by this government to strip away the rights of veterans and their families to seek justice, recognition and accountability—

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

Senator McKenzie, the suspension order is not a proxy opportunity to debate the bill. You need to demonstrate to the chamber why the matter is so urgent that the standing orders need to be set aside. It's not a proxy debate. It's a new debate about why a suspension is necessary.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill does not fix a problem. It actually creates one. I'm trying to save the government, through this proxy sort of debate, from the embarrassment of having this bill on their books and continuing to support this bill becoming law on the eve of Remembrance Day.

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

Senator McKenzie, I'm going to ask you to sit—

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's directly relevant.

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

I will determine what's relevant and what's not. There is a suspension order before the Senate. Senators are seeking to suspend standing orders to do something other than what is next. Your arguments, your debate, need to be relevant to why we need to suspend, not the bill. Please continue.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We need to suspend the Senate in order to discharge this bill because we are five days away from 11 November, Remembrance Day, when veterans from around the country will gather to remember those that have fallen in battle, those who were maimed in battle and the great joy of victory and peace. Having this bill on the Senate Notice Paper at that time would, I believe, bring our chamber into disrepute. We want to stand with veterans on Remembrance Day, and we are only days out from that day. We want to be united with our veterans on 11 November and tell them that, while the Labor Party may want to only remember you for 20 years, we, the Senate, are prepared to hold you in our hearts and remember you forever. To say that it's only two decades before you can actually limit—

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

Senator McKenzie, you have drifted once again.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've drifted?

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

You need to focus on the need for the suspension.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the Senate needs to suspend standing orders to save Minister Conroy from the embarrassment that he is in the other chamber.

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

Keogh!

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Keogh. The government are so arrogant that they thought extending the reporting day would buy them time to convince us this bill was palatable, but here we stand, united, to say it can't be fixed. When questioned in the other chamber, Minister Keogh rolled his eyes—

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

Senator McKenzie.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and I don't want Minister Keogh—

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

Senator McKenzie! You are using this suspension order as a proxy for another debate. You are to focus on why the matter before us, the suspension order, is so important that we have to stand aside the chamber's standing orders. That's the focus.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Setting aside the standing orders so the Senate can take a decision about this bill is important. If the government won't recognise that this bill is friendless and withdraw it themselves, then we believe suspending standing orders in this chamber is an appropriate course of action for our chamber to take on the eve of Remembrance Day.

For every single day this bill stays as part of this parliament's consideration, veterans and their families, grandchildren and great-grandchildren would see it as a great disrespect. I think the Labor Party should do themselves a favour and vote with the rest of the chamber to suspend standing orders and discharge the bill. It's okay to admit defeat. It's okay to say you got it wrong. It's actually good leadership to be able to say, 'We should have consulted, and this is a dog of a bill.' To do it quickly, rather than to leave it here and show disrespect to our veteran community over coming days, when they will be gathering on Remembrance Day in country towns, regional capital cities and indeed on barracks, would, I think, be the right thing for the government to do. Please support the suspension motion.

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

I rise to make a couple of points, but, before I do, I'll respond to where Senator McKenzie ended. There isn't a government that's done more for veterans than this government has. There isn't a minister who has done more than Minister Keogh has in shepherding through the recommendations from the royal commission and ensuring that veterans get their entitlements, which is something that this government has done. That's meant that thousands of veterans have actually got the compensation that they were owed and that they weren't getting under the former government. I come back to the point. I had to respond to where you left it, Senator McKenzie.

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

I've got Senator McKenzie on a point of order.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's on relevance to the suspension motion before the chamber. Could you draw the minister to the motion.

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

The minister has drawn herself to the suspension order.

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

I think it's right that the government is able to respond to the sledges that you just did in your contribution, Senator McKenzie.

I've got a couple of points here. The government understand how the numbers work in the Senate, so we understand that this suspension will get up and that this bill will be discharged. I'll say a few things: (1) this is the first the government has heard of it. This is the first the minister has heard of it. So it's clear that Senator Pocock, Senator McKenzie and Senator Shoebridge did not have the courtesy to raise this with Minister Keogh—

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This isn't the first time—

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

We're not in committee. Why are you on your feet?

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The shadow minister has been raising this issue—

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

Senator McKenzie! You don't just stand and launch into a debate. You're either standing on a point of order or standing on something else. Senator Shoebridge?

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a point of order as to relevance, given your earlier rulings in relation to both my other colleagues.

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

I think that Minister Gallagher is being relevant to the suspension order. I will continue to listen closely. If the minister is not relevant, I will draw her to the suspension order.

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

It's relevant because we are suspending on a matter to discharge a bill that has not been raised with the minister by any of you. He's just told me. He said, 'This is the first I have heard of it.' This is why it is not urgent. That courtesy should've been extended to Minister Keogh.

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

Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge?

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A courtesy to a minister is not—

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

Senator Shoebridge, we are not in a debate!

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order is to relevance. I again draw you to your earlier rulings to Senator McKenzie and Senator Pocock, and I ask that you address the same rulings to government speakers.

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

I am addressing the same ruling, and the minister is being relevant.

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

This motion wasn't even on the Notice Paper. The motion that you seek to discharge legislation—we just had formal motions. Why wasn't it put on the Notice Paper yesterday? Why are you having to suspend to put this on? You've had all week. You've had two weeks!

An honourable senator interjecting—

No! You put it as a formal motion.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because you denied leave! You denied leave. That's why we have to suspend!

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

What, because you didn't get it in on time?

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

Order! Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat—

Senator McKenzie! This is not—this is the Senate chamber. It's not okay to be trying to engage in some debate. You are out of order. Minister, please continue.

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

The Senate has sat for eight days. This is day 8. It could have been put on the Notice Paper. The minister could have been afforded the opportunity to speak with people about it or indeed to withdraw the bill himself if he felt that that was the outcome that was going to be needed to be done. But there was no courtesy—no observing of how the Senate runs through formal motions. It's just a straight stunt pulled at the end of formal motions on the final sitting day without any courtesy to the minister and whilst a bill is before a committee.

I've been in here long enough to have had lectures from a number of people in this place that, if a bill is before a committee, it's sacrosanct. That is, the inquiry is underway. The Senate voted on 20 October to extend the reporting date to 21 November. We haven't got to the reporting date. The government hasn't received the report of the committee. That report of the committee might have said, 'Discharge the bill from the Notice Paper,' and the government would have responded to the report. But the report hasn't even been written. It hasn't been delivered. I have sat here plenty of times and been given lectures about why bills before committee should be allowed to report—but not this one, after the Senate itself has voted to extend the reporting date.

I understand how this is going to go today. But I am saying the standards here are unusual: the lack of consultation, the lack of discussion and the lack of opportunity for the minister to speak with any of the movers of this motion—Senator Pocock, Senator McKenzie or Senator Shoebridge—and to respond to your concerns on a matter that is currently before a committee which Senator Ciccone chairs and isn't due to report until 21 November. I would have thought—again, after we've just resolved one of the other issues in the Senate this week—that courtesy and convention matter. It just seems that that doesn't matter to most in this chamber. They can go and stand and pontificate about everyone else but when it comes to actually observing some of the conventions in this place—have a talk to a minister, for goodness's sake. Put it on the Notice Paper. Put a formal motion. Put a notice of motion on the Notice Paper. That is why you give notice that people have courtesy to actually understand and the opportunity to talk or amend or discuss or—

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or shut down!

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

Well, no, Senator Henderson, we don't shut down. No-one has the numbers in this place. We all work together to deliver the outcome. This is an ambush without proper consideration of all parties who are involved, including the committee and including the Senate that voted to extend the reporting date to the 21st. That doesn't matter anymore. I urge people to think about that.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support Senator Pocock's motion to suspend standing orders because it is urgent and it's serious. I watched the inquiry. I felt the pain from veterans, from the serving men and women and from the DHAAT—the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. The veterans are shocked at what is going on. After serving the country, they're shocked, they're in pain and they're in anguish. It's the same with the enlisted men and women right now. It's the same with the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. As Senator McKenzie pointed out, we have Remembrance Day coming up in five days.

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

Senator Roberts, please refer your remarks to the suspension.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have five days. This is the last sitting day before Remembrance Day. That's why it has to be done today. That's why it's urgent. There are two more reasons. One is that Defence morale is shot to bits over this issue and over many other issues, because the government is just listening to, and giving carte blanche to, the Defence top brass. My final point is that the minister and the government need to be saved from themselves. This is a stupid bill that's coming up. It needs to be condemned and consigned to the dustbin.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Lack of consultation and lack of discussion—that's what the government says is the fault of this urgency motion seeking to discharge this bill. 'Lack of consultation and lack of discussion'—is there no sense of shame in the Labor Party? 'Lack of consultation and lack of discussion' is almost the definition of Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill. 'Lack of consultation and lack of discussion' is why the Labor Party are where they are at this moment in the Senate.

They brought in legislation, in relation to veterans, which impacts deeply on the veterans community. You don't understand that until you sit there and listen to them. We've consulted with a series of veterans and veterans organisations, and this bill touches deeply on them. What they find utterly insulting is that this bill came without ever speaking to them. Then, the government here seeks to criticise this motion to wipe the bill off the papers because of a lack of consultation and a lack of discussion.

I say this—through you, President—to the minister: I did meet with Minister Keogh in the last week, and I conveyed to him what I'm going to convey to the Senate now. This bill has no friends. Every single veterans community feels attacked by this bill. They were excluded from the consultation for this bill. I said to the minister, 'The sensible thing would be for the government to withdraw the bill.' The government hasn't withdrawn the bill. That's why this motion, co-sponsored by Senators Pocock and McKenzie and by myself on behalf of the Greens, is before the Senate now—because the government hasn't withdrawn a friendless bill.

Every day that the bill remains on the papers—you ask why it's urgent, President—the veterans community feels insulted and attacked. They feel like the rights that they have for their family members—their grandfathers and their great-grandmas—to be recognised could be taken away. Every day this bill is on the Notice Paper, the veterans community feels insulted because they're being disrespected and ignored.

I'm not going to pretend the government hasn't done good work for veterans. I've celebrated the work that the government has done in putting extra money into processing veterans' claims. I think the secretary is doing great work within the department trying to fix some of that claim stuff.

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

Senator Shoebridge, I bring you back to the suspension.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll stop saying nice things about the government. But, with the history of that work—then coming in without talking to any of the key stakeholders and not even talking to the tribunal itself—how could they bring a bill that is amending the tribunal without getting the views of the tribunal? I invite those members who might be thinking to vote against this resolution to read the submission from the tribunal. The tribunal itself said that this bill is not only unnecessary; it's harmful for their work. In many ways, by bringing this motion up, we're actually doing the government a favour. It's a nice, clean, early kill to a bill which has no friends and which causes the Labor Party harm every day it's on the Notice Paper. Most of the time the work in the veteran space is multipartisan. We try and work it out to help the veterans community, because we all care about ensuring the outcome to help the veterans community, and this bill really stands out as being seriously against that flow. I say again that every minute it's on the Notice Paper it's causing actual harm in the veterans community. Let's get this urgency motion done. Let's get the motion adopted, and then, if there are significant issues—and they have yet to be ventilated through this bill—in how the tribunal works, work with the veterans community, talk through the issues and come forward with something which we can all agree on.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand to make a very brief contribution today also in support of Senator Gallagher's contribution on behalf of the government. As chair of the relevant committee where this report and this bill is before, I find it quite offensive that senators in this place are effectively denying other senators the ability to make a contribution to this bill in the normal democratic processes that this institution so proudly upholds. If senators are so strongly wedded to this bill, then allow the committee to present a report like every other committee does. Let's not pre-empt what the committee and I will put forward to this Senate to consider.

The other point is that thank God that I had the minister here today to tell me that this was on for debate, because I was stuck in another committee and was not able to make a contribution to the substantiveness of this bill. I understand that we are dealing with suspension that is before us today, but you are denying other senators who are not aware of this suspension right now the ability to put their voices on the bill, whether it's for or against. The irony coming from those opposite and the crossbench, who come in here and lecture the government every day about how undemocratic this place is—look at yourselves. How undemocratic is this? You're not allowing senators to come in and prepare an argument for all of us to consider this bill before us. Let's suspend and let's vote on a bill, but let's not wait for the committee's decision. The committee has been working very hard on this bill. We held an inquiry some weeks ago. We've had 73 submitters to the inquiry. There were around six to eight witnesses that appeared before the committee when we held the public hearing here in Canberra and many others.

I've spoken to many senators like Senator Shoebridge and Senator Henderson about me bringing forward a draft report to the committee. In fact I mentioned in our meeting yesterday that I was planning to bring one next week. This is good faith, and this is how you treat me and the committee? Shame on you for making a mockery of the Senate's procedures and the Senate committee processes. I have given the opposition and other members on my committee really great respect and worked very hard with you all on these really important issues. As someone who is married to someone who is a veteran and currently serving in the ADF, I say to all of you: think about what you are doing today. Allow these democratic processes that people like my wife and others have fought so bloody hard for in this place and protect our country every single day. At the end of the day all we are after is to fulfill our democratic processes. This is why the Australian people elected us—to make those tough decisions. Some days we'll win, and some days we'll lose. But allow me and my committee to come to this place and say: 'Here are the recommendations. Here is the evidence.' Guess what? I might even say to the government, 'Go back and reconsider.' But it is the right of the committee to do that, and it's right for this place and every single senator here to have a say and be prepared.

Sadly I feel like this suspension is more a stunt for some in this place, and I hate to say that, but let's stop treating veterans as a political football and be serious about how we treat every man and woman of the fine ADF and every single veteran who serves our country and puts on that uniform every single day with pride. There are a lot of people who have made sacrifices. One of the very important issues before us is around honours and awards. Let's make no mistake; that bill needs to be looked at. There needs to be reform. I don't want to get into the merits of that bill, President, because I know your earlier rulings. But all I plead with every single senator here today is to discharge this motion before us and allow the committee to present a report, and let's have that debate in the last sitting week here in November. At the end of the day, I think collectively, we can all come together and make the right call about how we envisage our honours and awards system for those people who put on the uniform and who have defended this country with great pride. The least we can do is say thank you to each of those people.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the deputy chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, I support this motion because this is democracy in action. I speak on behalf of veterans across this country who came before us in every guise to say, 'This bill is so flawed.' This bill is so flawed it cannot proceed. The fact that this bill is still on the Notice Paper demonstrates that this government is not listening.

I am not able to discuss private discussions and committee discussions that I've had with Senator Ciccone and other members of our committee, because they are confidential. But I want to put on the record one thing very clearly to Minister Gallagher. The shadow minister for veterans' affairs, Mr Chester, has been imploring Minister Keogh to withdraw this bill all week. I think it's also fair to say—

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

Senator Henderson, I refer you to the suspension motion.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is why this is so urgent, Madam President, because the government is not listening, and I reject completely the pious—

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

The time allotted for this debate has expired.

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

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 be discharged from the Notice Paper.

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

I want to outline again that the government will not be supporting this motion. We do not agree that the bill should be discharged from the Notice Paper. For those senators that weren't in the chamber, the contribution made by my colleague Senator Ciccone, the chair of the committee that this bill is currently before, was very convincing about why this bill should not be discharged at this point, prior to the committee reporting and prior to the government being able to consider that report—the view of the committee—and being able to consider those recommendations that the committee might find. That includes perhaps a finding from the committee that the bill be discharged; I don't know. Senator Ciccone chaired a meeting yesterday. I don't know what that committee was deliberating on at that point, but there are opportunities to allow the committee to finish its work.

I've been in consultation with the minister responsible in the last half an hour, as I've been trying to understand the origins of this motion because there was no notice given about this motion being moved or the decision of others in this place to have this bill discharged from the Notice Paper. But the minister advises me that there has been consultation. Again, the committee might come back and say that there should be further consultation or that the tribunal should be able to provide a submission further to how the bill is drafted. I don't know. I don't know because the committee hasn't been in a position to report.

But I can say that, when we came to government, the Department of Veterans' Affairs was broken. To those opposite that sit there and lecture us: it was broken. The backlog was months. Veterans, the men and women who served this country with distinction, did not get the entitlements that were owed to them, because of the enormous backlog—because guess what? There were no staff in the department. The staff had been—

No, it's not a debate, Senator McKenzie.

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

Senator McKenzie?

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On relevance to the question before the chair, it is about discharging the bill, not about staffing issues in Veterans' Affairs.

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

The minister is free to talk about the bill, Senator McKenzie. She is being relevant.

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

I think senators would know that, when we move into debating the actual motion, there usually is a fairly broad and wide-ranging debate that occurs. But, in relation to the comments that were made by Senator Pocock, by Senator McKenzie and by Senator Shoebridge, criticising the government's approach to support for veterans, I think it's only right that we put on the table exactly what has happened in our approach to veterans, whether it be in implementing the recommendations of the royal commission or, indeed, the very substantial increases in entitlements and support for veterans that the government have implemented.

If you look back through the last couple of budgets, you will see that the largest movement of funds, of increases in estimates variations, has occurred in veterans' payments. And why is that? That's because the Department of Veterans' Affairs is being appropriately staffed. They have permanent staff—not contractors, not people that come and go through labour hire arrangements, but permanent staff—that work there and are able to process those compensation claims. That's what has happened. Those massive, multibillion dollar increases in funding have occurred because we have shown veterans the respect that they weren't shown by the former government when it comes to access to their entitlements and when it comes to the department being able to do the job of supporting veterans. That is the approach this government has taken. With Minister Keogh, we're the ones that have been implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. In fact, I had a meeting with Minister Keogh just this week—I think it was on Monday—to talk through some of the next steps that he's bringing to strengthen support and to strengthen the wellbeing arrangements for veterans in this country.

This is priority work for this government, and there were a number of recommendations that Minister Keogh is now overseeing and implementing, including establishing a wellbeing agency and framework to, again, better support veterans. One of the things that the royal commission found was a capability gap. That is the work that Minister Keogh is doing. I know how much he invests in senators in this place. I know how much he puts in relationships to make sure that the work in this area is as bipartisan or tripartisan—multipartisan—as it can be. It's important. The parliament's support for veterans matters. And that is perhaps why this is done today, without notice, without respect, without communication, without even giving a heads-up to the chair who is currently doing the inquiry into the bill.

I mean, honestly! The lectures we get from people in this place about their ability to contribute, and the Senate, this chamber, agrees to agrees to extend the reporting date to the 21st. Honestly, Greens party, we get lectures from you all the time about process, about fairness, about bills before committees—but not on this one, due to report in a week or so, due to provide recommendations to government and let government consider them. But no. The bill isn't due for debate. It's not being brought to the chamber for debate, because it's before a committee, and yet all the democratic warriors in this place who are always championing free speech and saying to allow the debate—not on this bill. There is no courtesy, no consultation, no discussion. 'Discharge the bill.' I honestly don't think I have seen something like this being done and supported. I can understand some senators supporting it. With others, I am surprised that this would be the approach.

Also, even if—we don't know; the committee could have recommended the bill be discharged, in which case we would have responded to that. But, even in the event that the bill comes to this chamber, allow the debate. Vote the bill down. That's what happens. That's what this chamber is for. It's for scrutiny and for consideration of legislation and, at the end of the day, if there isn't a majority of votes, the bill gets voted down. But we allow others to contribute to it. We allow people to give a speech to the bill. You're not even allowing that. That is the extraordinary step that is being taken today.

Bills have been discharged. I think you, Senator McKenzie, discharged a bill on agricultural levies. So it has happened, but it happens rarely and it usually happens with some discussion or some notice, putting a motion on notice in this chamber so people can have a talk about it before it comes to a vote—but not on this. I mean, really. The Senate is going to stop functioning if people continue to dismiss and disregard how the Senate operates, how the committee system operates, how courtesy operates. This is something that has shaped this chamber for 124 years. Yet those practices which have been shaped over decades, into our second century, are now being torn apart because Senator Pocock didn't want to pick up the phone and say to Minister Keogh: 'Let's have a chat about this. We're thinking about discharging your bill from the Notice Paper.' Senator McKenzie didn't want to speak to the chair of the committee and say: 'Hey, Senator Ciccone, I know there's a bill before your committee, and I know it doesn't report till 21 November, which is about a fortnight away, but I'm thinking of supporting a motion to discharge it from the Notice Paper. Do you have a view on that?' None of that has been shown.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I interrupt for a second. The chatter that's happening at the back of the chamber—can you move your conversation to outside the chamber? The noise is carrying to the front of the chamber while the minister is on her feet. Please be aware that that noise carries across the chamber and is disruptive. Please be respectful while the minister is on her feet.

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

That's why people deserve the right to debate this motion, and that's why the government will be debating this motion. People should be able to debate this and raise concerns about the approach that this Senate has taken. If you think you can just walk in here without notice and seek to discharge a piece of legislation without even having the courtesy to speak to the minister, then the government does reserve its right to make a contribution on this.

We have seen, I think, in this sitting fortnight, the way that the chamber approaches its work fundamentally shifting. It might be that the majority of this chamber feels that that's okay, but, in the meantime, I think it's within our responsibility as a government to draw that to the chamber's attention and to be allowed to put an alternative view. That alternative view is that this bill should not be discharged from the Notice Paper. Put this motion on notice and bring it back when we resume on 24 November. By then, Senator Ciccone's committee will have reported in the timeframe that this Senate set. I note there were contributions earlier that said the government had refused to report. That is not the case. The Senate decided—

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee decided.

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

Well, when I look up this bill on the Notice Paper, it says, 'The Senate agreed on 20 October that the committee report on 21 November.' When you look this up on the committee's website, that is what it says. Put the motion on then. Put it on the 24th. Let's have the vote on the 24th. At least the committee will have reported, and at least there will have been notice and there will have been respect shown to people, including the minister, about what the Senate parties' views are on this. Show respect to the minister, allow that to happen, allow the committee to report and have this vote on the 24th. Put the motion on notice. That is the approach that should have been followed, instead of, right at the end of formal motions, lodging this without any notice to anyone at all.

The approach that the Senate is taking—and it appears that the majority of the Senate is taking—on this motion is wrong. It sets a precedent, I think, that should worry any committee who are currently rolling up their sleeves and inquiring into any piece of legislation. 'Don't worry; you can be seven-eighths, one-quarter or two-thirds of the way through your committee inquiry, and the Senate might just discharge the whole thing because we don't care what the committee process that underpins the Senate means anymore. When we do it, we won't talk to the chair, we won't talk to people who are on the committee'—or, maybe, even worse, other people on the committee knew what was going to happen here, Senator Ciccone, but they just didn't tell the chair. That's even more disrespectful. Senator Shoebridge, you must have known about this, but you didn't tell the chair. Well, what an approach. You should pat yourself on the back for that! Honestly, how is the committee system going to work if members of the committee knew what was going to happen today on an inquiry before the committee and didn't have the courtesy to tell the chair?

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Henderson, a point of order?

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

An imputation has been made against other senators, named as members of this committee. I would ask the minister to withdraw that imputation.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't hear the comment, Senator Henderson, so I will rely on the minister in relation to her withdrawal—if that was actually made.

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

If there was any offence to any senator, I withdraw.

An opposition senator interjecting—

I have said, 'I withdraw.' I unconditionally withdraw, but I would say that the idea that senators on a committee knew of this and did not advise the chair—I think that seriously damages that committee's ability to do work in the future because the chair had no idea that this was the approach that colleagues he was working on an inquiry with were going to take.

The point I'm making here is: show some respect. The bill's before a committee. The inquiry should be allowed to finish, and the report should be tabled. If people feel passionately, to the point that they want to discharge the legislation, put the motion on notice and deal with it at that point, once the committee has done its work. I think people should seriously consider this before voting.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Wong?

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

I rise to speak—

I have precedence.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie, a point of order?

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On precedence, around the call being circulated across the chamber, the Minister for Finance has spoken for 15 minutes. A leader of another political party on the opposite side of the chamber has stood up to seek the call, and, inconsistent with other rulings from the chair, the call has proceeded across the Senate chamber.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will hand the call to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. That is the ruling, on the advice I have from the clerk.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, I'm curious as to whether that guidance could be sought from the Clerk.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! There is a senator on their feet seeking clarification.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is just unusual for it not to come back to this side of the chamber.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received advice from the clerk, and I have made the ruling based on the advice from the clerk. Minister?

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

In support of your ruling, this is a matter that I've raised with the Clerk directly in the last week, about the order of the call and how it usually does go to and fro across the chamber. He advised me that that is normally the case, other than in relation to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, where precedence does apply. That was certainly the advice the Clerk gave me, and it is consistent with the advice that you have been provided.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I now hand the call to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Wong.

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

I appreciate the call and the opportunity to speak on this motion. I say to Senators Shoebridge and Pocock: I think there's a fair bit of relevance deprivation in this motion. I think this is a motion about a couple of blokes who really feel a bit of relevance deprivation, so instead of—

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Acting Deputy President, the senator is impugning the character of other senators in the chamber, and that is against the standing orders.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't believe that Minister Wong had made a direct imputation or named any senators, and that's contained within the standing orders. If her commentary has caused offence, I would invite the minister to withdraw in good faith of the work of the chamber.

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

I'm always happy to withdraw. If people are sensitive about the fact that we point out the lack of good faith and the way in which Senator Pocock has handled this—someone who comes into the chamber and tells us how we should behave better. I would say to him that an unholy alliance with Senator McKenzie and the coalition, to prevent a committee from doing the Senate's work, is not your best self, Senator Pocock. What I would say is that I understand that the configuration of the Senate has meant that some crossbenchers feel like they are less relevant. I don't think that is an excuse to engage in stunts and the disruption of the Senate and, frankly, disruption of a committee.

To be honest with you, I find it quite remarkable that Senator Pocock and Senator Shoebridge, along with the coalition, which is the alliance of the same people who blocked more housing in Australia—actually I don't think you were part of this Senator Pocock, but I can't recall—now want to come to this place and say: 'We won't even talk to the minister. We won't participate in the committee. We won't tell the Leader of the Government in the Senate or the manager that we're going to move a stunt.'

Jana Stewart (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or the chair.

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

Or the chair of the committee who is dealing with the inquiry that the Senate referred to it—you're not going to give any of those colleagues the respect of saying, 'By the way, we're going to do this.' You're just going to rock up and discharge legislation from the Notice Paper while Senator Ciccone and his committee are in the middle of an inquiry. And you say, Senator Pocock—

I'll take the interjection, Senator Pocock. He said, 'It's a Labor dominated inquiry.' That's what legislation committees are, Senator. They are legislation committees, which are chaired by the government, and that situation has been the case for a very long time. That doesn't prevent minority reports. As someone who has spent more time in opposition than in government, I wrote many minority reports. I did the work. You do the work. You show up; you do the work, and you provide a minority report.

Senator Pocock, you joked this morning about not going to question time. You joked this morning about not turning up for work. If any of your constituents didn't turn up for work, how would their job be? What you could do, Senator, is actually turn up to the committee with your friends in the coalition—

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, it's not appropriate for Minister Wong to reflect on any senator in relation to their attendance in the chamber or at a committee. I would ask the minister to desist from reflecting on any senator in that way.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might just add to the point of order in terms of misleading the Senate. I was actually at the inquiry into this bill. I've heard a number of times today that I wasn't.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will deal with the point of order, if you can take your seat, Senator Pocock. I would invite the minister to withdraw comments that may have had adverse reflections in relation to the senator's attendance.

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

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't think they do always, but thank you for asking.

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

Senator, I know you're deeply cynical.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sorry, I can't hear what you're shouting, Senator Shoebridge.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, you asked me.

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

Order on my right! I don't want there to be any interjecting.

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

Senator Shoebridge, I think you're wrong. I can say to you that I know when amendments are being considered as a consequence of committee reports, and, of course, we don't always agree. There are different policy propositions. We know, sometimes, the crossbench will move something. We say we don't think that can happen or be dealt with in that way, but it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be ventilated. I would say to the Senate let's make sure that the committee can do its work. Let's make sure Senator Ciccone, who is a very able chair, can finalise his report, and let's consider this legislation in the context of having received that report and what other senators think.

I'm just going to finish on this point. Senator Pocock, if you express a view about a bill—you say you have spoken to the minister. I don't understand that you have flagged with him that your intention is to line up with the Nats to try and knock this off. Maybe you don't have to. We all move motions where we suspend standing orders and we do things, but was that really needed on this one? Was that really needed on this one? Do you think you could have just said to Minister Keogh that 'I'm going to try and get rid of this' or 'I'm really worried about this'? As I said, I'm not across all the policy on this. I remember this legislation. I'm not across some of the controversy about this. Did you really have to do this on this one, or could you have had a conversation in good faith with the minister that said: 'I am really minded to do this. I've got a problem with this legislation. Is there a way through it?' That would have been—and then you could still have moved it after that conversation. I'd encourage you, Senator, to do that and to actually have a chat. If you really are concerned about something, if you really want something to be resolved, perhaps have an opportunity to talk to the minister about it first.

I commend the amendment to the chamber. What I would say to the chamber is that we shouldn't forget history. This committee system has been a really important part of our parliament. It is a really important part of our parliament. It might be the case that legislation committees are chaired by and have majority government members on the committee. It has been for a long time.

Debate interrupted.