Senator Hanson has submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, today, which has been circulated and is shown on the Dynamic Red.

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

With another rate hike looming because of Labor's out of control spending and inflation, Australians urgently need access to a 3% super pay rise enabling the average worker to save over $33,000 in interest payments on their mortgage.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

I move:

That in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

With another rate hike looming because of Labor's out of control spending and inflation, Australians urgently need access to a 3% super pay rise enabling the average worker to save over $33,000 in interest payments on their mortgage.

With another rate hike looming because of Labor's out-of-control spending and inflation, Australians urgently need access to a three per cent super pay rise, enabling the average worker to save over $33,000 in interest payments on their mortgage. We all know as we travel the country and in our own electorates and wherever we go, people are really doing it tough, absolutely tougher under this current government than what we have ever seen in this country before. We've got over 150,000 people homeless. We've got people losing their homes. The rents have gone up. A lot of groceries, even just your staples, have gone up over 40 per cent to 50 per cent. I'm talking about the cost of eggs. We're talking about bread and milk—the average groceries that everyone needs to buy.

Talking about what people's mortgage is, average payments have jumped by about $1,760 a month since Labor took office. That's more than $21,000 a year or 59 per cent. Worse still, more interest rate rises are looming. The average price of rent has jumped from $520 a week when Labor took office up to $730. That's up $210 a week or more than 40 per cent—and they're saying there's no problem out there and that they're addressing the whole issue with housing. You're not addressing the whole issue. You've opened up the floodgates to this country with high immigration, mass migration into the country, which has caused the problem. You had the highest intake of migrants into the country that we've ever seen, and now you say, 'Oh, we've reduced immigration by 45 per cent.' You're the ones that caused the problem in the first place, and now you're trying to pat yourselves on the back for doing something about it. What an absolute joke this is.

We've seen, under this government, 50,000 small businesses go insolvent. We've got pensioners living in poverty because they can't pay the electricity bills. You've got hundreds of thousands of people who still cannot pay their electricity bills as well. All of this is because of you.

When One Nation put out our policy about the superannuation scheme, you screamed that it's inflationary. Let me tell the people out there what our scheme is. It will enable those people who are truly struggling to access their superannuation. It is their money. It is not your money. It is their money that they have had to put away. It's paid by the employer into their super account. We are going to enable people, those who are renters or mortgage holders, to access their super. They can draw down three per cent, which is one quarter of their super, for a period of up to three years. That saving will be enormous for a lot of these people. If these people are earning $90,500 a year, that would give them about $44 a week or $2,300 a year. That's a saving on their mortgage of $33,000. If you're on $120,000 a year, it will give you $59 a week. That's a saving of $43,000 on their mortgage. Let's go to someone who's on $240,000. If they can access that super for three years, that's $118 a week. That will save them $84,000 on their mortgage in the lifetime of that mortgage. That's going to be money in their pocket to help them. That's also going to assist them because they're now not going to lose their home. That's what's going to happen if they don't get some relief out there.

Let me just say that in this past financial year approximately 120,000 people accessed their super. That was approximately $1 billion, but the government allowed them for hardship. Those people who are accessing their super now are paying 22 per cent tax on that to withdraw their money out of super. This is not inflationary. This is definitely not inflationary. It's going to help people save their homes. What's inflationary is this government being out of control with its spending. You had an extra $400 billion in the coffers. You've spent that, you've wasted that and you've still put more money on the credit card. You have no idea how to control yourselves. I'll tell you I trust the people to control their money and spend their own money before you get your grubby hands on it. That's what I see happening. You can't control your spending, and I damn well know that you're going to turn around and want to access people's superannuation schemes.

I seek leave to move an amendment as circulated.

Leave not granted.

At the request of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wong, and pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving an amendment to the motion.

And I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the motion on closure, as moved by Senator Chisholm, be agreed to.

This was a matter of urgency that was put up by One Nation, by me, and I had written out the matters of urgency. We rarely ever have the chance to put up something in this chamber to speak to. What you have done over there is move an amendment to mine, changing the words of my notice of motion completely. The urgency of this was to do with people accessing their superannuation. As I have said, the workers, the people that are doing it extremely hard out there, want to be able to access their super. That's why it needs to be addressed.

Order!

Senator Bragg, which part of order doesn't apply to you? How disrespectful! Think before you then apologise. Senator Hanson, you need to address your remarks to the suspension.

The suspension was—what they've done is make an amendment to my notice of motion. My notice of motion was about the urgency of speaking about superannuation so that the average person out there who is a renter or a mortgage holder can actually then access their superannuation. Now the fact is that the Labor Party did not want this to be addressed.

Order on my right! If you can't sit in the chamber and listen in silence, leave. Senator Hanson, you need to address the suspension not the substantive matter of your urgency motion or anything else—

This suspension—

No, I haven't finished yet. You need to talk about the suspension, not anything else.

The suspension was brought about because they've changed the notice of motion that I put forward. That's what this is about. It was about the suspension. Why did they do it? They didn't like the wording of my notice of motion to address the superannuation policy that we put out so people who are under hardship can get their three per cent.

Now, we don't get a lot of time in here. The government can actually control this chamber, which they have done many a time. They actually call the guillotine. The crossbench does not have much time to introduce what they feel is a matter of importance to the people of this nation. I was given that opportunity today because it was my time to speak on this. I raised an important motion here that needs to be raised—

Senator Hanson, once again—

They have shut me down, as you are trying to shut me down too—

Senator Hanson, don't speak over me. If you read the standing orders, they are very clear. When a suspension motion is moved, that is what you speak about. I am absolutely consistent about this, and I have always been consistent about this. It is not about shutting you down or anything like that. It is reminding you of the debate before the chamber. If you wish to continue, you still have time.

No, we'll put it to a vote.

What we have just seen in this vote on the suspension motion is One Nation, the National Party, the Liberal Party and the Greens vote against our proposal to suspend to consider an amendment to support tax cuts, wage rises, cheaper medicines and a dignified retirement—

Senator O'Sullivan?

On a point of order, I ask that you bring the senator back to the urgency motion.

I am listening carefully, and I will certainly bring the senator back if she does not shift off the suspension motion.

I can't think of a more important reason for us to suspend standing orders than to talk about the things that Australians need, and that is a real pay rise, not a fake pay rise that One Nation is offering them through their super. There is nothing that is more urgent. What I find ironic is that these kinds of suspension motions are the kinds of tactics that we see from those opposite and the Greens day in and day out in this place, but they don't like it when it's used in a way that doesn't suit their political motive—that doesn't suit their narrative.

This suspension talks to the things that our government is doing to deliver real change for Australians—

Senator Whiteaker, I am going to draw you to the point. The heart of this issue is not enabling the minister to move an amendment. That is what your remarks need to focus on.

Thank you, President, and you're right. This is an attempt to stop a minister talking about the matters that we are focused on as a government—talking about support for tax cuts, for wage rises, for cheaper medicines and for a dignified retirement for all Australians—

Senator Whiteaker, I'm going to remind you again. It's a technical debate about the failure to move an amendment. That is where you need to direct your remarks—and not go on to other substantive measures or matters.

I believe that we must amend this urgency motion put forward by Senator Hanson and we must suspend in order to do that, because, instead of us wasting time in this place talking about Senator Hanson's pretend plan to give Australians a pay rise, we should be suspending to talk about—

Senator Hanson, on a point of order?

Relevance.

The senator's remarks are going directly to the matter before the Senate. Senator Hanson, I will listen carefully and—

No, that's what I keep saying: you're not fair!

Senator Hanson, you are not in a debate with me.

Senator Hanson wants to come in here and sell the Australian people something that is not true, something that Senator Hanson cannot deliver—

Senator Whiteaker, I remind you again that you need to focus on the issue before the Senate.

That is why this suspension is so important—because I think the Australian people deserve better than these kinds of tactics from Senator Hanson and—

Order! I would ask that the chamber come to order! Senator Hanson, the senator is being relevant at the moment, and I will continue to listen carefully.

It is really important that we suspend because One Nation have voted in this place. Their voting record shows that they vote against penalty rates, that they vote against our plan for energy relief, that they voted against our secure jobs, better pay bill—

Senator McKenzie, you are not even in your seat, and you are interjecting, which is discourteous. Senator Hanson, you were on your feet. The level of interjections across this chamber is—I won't say it. If you can't listen in silence, leave the chamber. I don't need your interjections, particularly at one another. Senator Whiteaker, I'm going to remind you again that you need to be talking about the minister's suspension motion.

There is no way—

Senator Mckenzie, I have just called you out. You are disorderly. You are rude. You are disrespectful.

Order! I'm going to remind the chamber again. If you think there are some kind of points by interjecting across the chamber, you're wrong. This is a serious debate. I ask that you listen in silence. If you can't do that, leave the chamber.

There is nothing Senator Hanson hates more than young women coming in this place and having their voice heard, and I am sick of it! I am sick of it!

Senator Cash, if you stand, I will ask for your point of order. But you don't stand and just launch into a debate, particularly as I've just spent quite a few minutes settling the chamber down.

It's on relevance. We consistently are brought up ourselves on that point of order. I'd like you to also bring Senator Whiteaker to the point of order.

I have consistently been doing that. I have drawn her back to the issue at point on quite a number of occasions.

And she keeps ignoring you.

I don't need your commentary either.

On a point of order, I believe that Senator Whiteaker should withdraw her comments in relation to Senator Hanson.

I will seek the advice of the Clerk. It was not a slur as I understood it to Senator Hanson, but I have said, Senator Kovacic, that I will seek the advice of the Clerk. I do not need the advice of senators. I will advise the chamber that it is a debating point. Senator Whiteaker, I would ask you to stick to the suspension matters, please.

You have brought me back to the suspension a number of times, so thank you for your assistance. What I will say in closing is that we should be able to come into this place and suspend to talk about the issues that Australians care about, and I believe that it is in the interests of the Australian people and in the interests of this chamber to suspend to agree to the amendment that was moved by the minister.

I rise to oppose the government's attempt to suspend standing orders to amend the urgency motion. In addressing the issue before the chamber, I want to make this principally as a procedural point. This is not government business. Government business, as you know, was already called on earlier today. This is an urgency debate, and it was brought to the Senate under standing order 75. There is a reason that that procedure exists. There is a reason for the standing orders to provide opportunities for senators to bring urgent matters before this chamber. That is the ordinary rule.

This is not government time. Government time is clearly set out in the Notice Paper. Even if the government doesn't like it, this is the time for those on the opposition side and the crossbench side of the chamber to come to the Senate—it's only a small amount of time that's afforded each week to the opposition and the crossbench—and to bring forward a motion that they want debated. The government, as you know, already has extensive opportunities in which to debate their legislation. They have government business.

As I said, we've already debated government business today. The government can introduce legislation. The government can determine the legislative priorities. Ministers bring the bills in each and every day. That is the opportunity for the government to debate what they wish to debate. This small period of time is the time in which the opposition and the crossbench are able to raise matters that are relevant to them. Standing order 75 is one of those opportunities. It allows a senator to say, 'This is an urgent matter and we believe the Senate should debate it.'

Now, in the normal course of events, without the stunts that have been pulled by the government—we know this is a stunt, and you're entitled to bring on stunts, but sadly, everybody other than the government bench has actually called out the stunt today—this is just a way for a senator on this side to come to the chamber and say, 'This is an urgent matter which we believe the Senate should debate.' This might be news for the government, but the precedent for the government is that it does not have to agree with the matter that is going to be debated. It doesn't need to amend it.

It can speak to it. It can argue why it does not agree with an urgency motion. We've certainly done that. Others have done that. You don't need to agree with what the senator is bringing to the chamber, but one would think you would respect the right of the crossbench and the opposition to bring up matters to the chamber in the small amount of time that is allocated to them. At the end of the day, Labor are able to vote against the motion should they so wish.

One Nation has the time today—

Senator Cash, I'm also going to remind you to focus on the suspension.

In relation to what Labor are doing, there is no matter of urgency to suspend standing orders to debate the amendment—simply not. As I said, the government already has time allocated to it each and every day—way more than those on this side of the chamber will ever have—to debate issues that are of relevance to them in the normal course of events. That's why this motion should not be agreed to. In the normal course of events, a senator would move their motion under standing order 75. That motion would then be debated for a period of time, and at the end of that motion there would be a vote. It is at that point in time—when those bells ring and a vote is called—that all the other parties in the chamber are able to say, 'We agree with the motion,' or alternatively, 'No, we don't agree with the motion.'

This is an urgency motion brought under standing order 75. Standing order 75 is quite deliberate in what it states. It is the opportunity for those of us on this side of the chamber to bring forward a motion we believe should be debated. The government is able to vote against the motion.

The Greens won't be supporting this motion to suspend standing orders by the government. I want to be very clear why that is. If you look at any given week in this Senate, the item of business that gets far and away the biggest slice of this Senate's time is government business. That is a consistent fact across any given sitting week in this chamber. This item that we actually should be debating but we're not because the government has moved to suspend standing orders is where opposition and crossbench senators get to bring issues that are important to the people we represent into the Senate and have them debated, either as matters of public importance or matters of urgency, and this is a precious time for us.

Senator McKim. I'm going to draw you back to the suspension.

I'm explaining—

You're not in a debate with me. I'm drawing you back to the suspension.

The reason we are not to going support the suspension is that we want to preserve the precious time for matters of public importance and matters of urgency that represent the people we represent in this place, whether we be Greens, opposition or other crossbenchers. We are not going to oppose the suspension because we agree with the proposition that One Nation is putting in their matter of urgency. We don't agree with that. We do not agree with what One Nation is bringing forward. However, there are mechanisms for us to voice that disagreement. We can simply mount arguments against what anyone is proposing in a matter of urgency, as we would have on this one, and we can vote against it. I don't understand why the Labor Party doesn't seem to have the courage of its convictions and confidence in its own capacity to run an argument here, because if you had the courage—

Senator McKim, I'm going to draw you back to the matter before the chamber, which is the suspension.

The reason we are not supporting the suspension is because we have the confidence in our capacity to run an argument against the central proposition that One Nation is putting. It's a shame that the government doesn't have that same confidence in their capacity to run that argument.

Matters of urgency and matters of public importance are non-government time. The government gets plenty of time in any given sitting week to debate its issues, and we've spent many hours already this week debating government issues and pieces of legislation that the government has brought in, and that is fine. That is what is provided for in the standing orders. For the government to come in and seek to reframe a debate that has been put forward in an item of business that is reserved for non-government senators is frankly disgraceful, and it will not be supported by the Australian Greens. I want to place very clearly on the record that, outside of absolutely exceptional circumstances, we will not allow or support amendments to matters of public importance or matters of urgency. We won't, and we will preserve the right as far as we are able for non-government senators to bring in issues, no matter how misguided we may think they are. We do think One Nation's is misguided. However, we will preserve that right of non-government senators to bring their issues before this chamber.

We would prefer to be mounting the robust arguments that I had prepared against One Nation's crazy policy on superannuation. That's what we would prefer to be debating today. But Labor, by moving a suspension, has narrowed the scope of this debate so much that that really critical debate, around how flawed the One Nation policy is, now cannot occur in this time, because Labor, in an act of strategic stupidity, has prevented that debate from occurring. If you've got the courage of your convictions and you think you can mount an argument against an MPU, mount the argument against it and vote accordingly. That is my advice to the government.

I stand today to speak against the motion by the government, because it isn't urgent. It isn't urgent. But what is really important in this place is two things. One is that it is really important that the conventions, the precedents and the procedures of this chamber are respected by every single senator in this place. What is also important is that non-government senators are provided with the due respect by those on the government benches to have their time that has been allotted by the standing orders so that they can prosecute the issues that are important to them and to the people that elect them to be in this place. For the government to think that this is somehow urgent, that they would come in here and amend a motion, to change the substance of that motion significantly, to prevent a crossbench senator from being able to talk to their motion in the time that they have been allotted—I think that the government needs to have a very serious think about what they think is urgent and important.

We have to respect the fact that you may not like what a senator in this place moves as a motion. None of us always like everything that others in this place may raise as issues for debate on the floor of this chamber. But the one thing that you cannot move away from is this: every senator has the sovereign right to be able to raise whatever issues they choose to raise. In this place, Senator Hanson, like every other crossbench senator and every other non-government senator, has the right, during this particular time—

Senator Ruston, I'm going to draw you back to the suspension.

Yes. For that very reason, I believe that the motion as moved to suspend by the government is not urgent, for the reasons that I have stated. As I said, what I do believe is important is that the government understands why we believe that they should not have moved the amendment to this motion and why we believe that their motion—

Thank you, Senator Ruston. The total time for the debate on the urgency motion moved by Senator Hanson, which includes the debate on this suspension motion, has now expired. I will now put the question on Senator Hanson's urgency motion. The question is that the urgency motion moved by Senator Hanson be agreed to.