Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of the Defence Service Homes Amendment (Insurance) Bill 2025, as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the consideration of the Defence Service Homes Amendment (Insurance) Bill 2025.

The reason I am doing this is that it's a matter of priority to deal with the legislation I've referred to—that is why we seek to give precedence to this legislation. By way of context, I point to the fact that, by agreement with the government, this bill was exempted from the cut-off, and normally that is a pretty good sign that the government has determined legislation to be important. That is why it is passing strange that the bill is No. 2 on the list. We fear that the government seeks to hold this important legislation, the Defence Service Homes Amendment (Insurance) Bill 2025, to ransom in order to somehow expedite the passage of the Future Made in Australia legislation.

In making the case here, I want to read in its entirety the speech on the bill's second reading by the shadow minister in the other place, Mr Joyce. He said:

I'm not going to yack on for too long. This is pretty straightforward. There has been a review. It has found a potential problem in insurance. You can get a house through the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme, under DVA, and DVA acts as the agent. QBE does the insurance, but DVA is the agent. Technically we don't know whether they're allowed to do that, so we've just got to try and fix this up. I've had discussions with the minister. I appreciate that correspondence. I think it is best for us to expediate this. Why? We have had a massive flood around Townsville. There are a lot of people there who have DVA housing. I'm absolutely certain they want to make sure that, at this point in time, their house is insured.

That was the entire contribution of the shadow minister, in the other place. His entire second reading debate contribution in the other place that day took three minutes, from 9.23 am to 9.26 am. We could get this done here, now, in the same fashion.

We have a contested bill, in the form of the Future Made in Australia legislation, and we have a bill that has agreement in the form of the Defence services legislation I've referred to. There is one that is immediate, urgent and retrospective. There is another piece of legislation, the Future Made in Australia legislation, which, at the earliest, commences on 1 April this year. Parts of it don't even commence until the year 2027.

Why are we doing it in this order? I don't know. We think it's important to get this done, especially for those that have been impacted in Queensland, as the shadow minister highlights, but in his words, 'I won't yack on too long'.

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

():  The government will not be supporting this motion. We have outlined our program, through the daily program, that was circulated last week.

We've commenced the Future Made in Australia bill; we've made good progress on it and we want to continue to do that. We have listed it at item 1. Of course, we would like to also deal with Defence Service Homes Amendment (Insurance) Bill 2025, after we have completed the Future Made in Australia.

These are the lengths that Peter Dutton's opposition will go to, to not support a future made in Australia. It is quite extraordinary that the opposition are trying to avoid debating today positive legislation—which will be particularly positive in the area of WA—to progress legislation to establish a critical minerals tax incentive. This is the extent that they will go to, to say no.

We do not support rearranging the program; there are no logical arguments to rearrange the program. The Defence Service Homes Amendment (Insurance) Bill 2025 can pass, and will pass, this week with the support of this chamber. There is no reason why it should not be dealt with in accordance with the program that's been circulated.

There is a lot of legislation coming up. We want the Administrative Review Tribunal bill to pass. We want the Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024 to proceed. Remember that little baby of yours, robodebt? We've got the keeping the NBN in public ownership bill. We want that to proceed this week. We've got no shortage of legislation to set up a better future for this country, and the opposition, in the time that's allowed for government business, is now wasting time trying to rearrange the program because they don't want to be embarrassed by the position they've taken on the Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024.

You're embarrassed about your position. You're embarrassed in WA, where there's a lot of interest about getting this bill passed and the support that would be provided for industries. Indeed, the WA Liberal leader, Ms Mettam, has said:

We will always stand up for Western Australia, and we will support this measure. It's something that I will raise with my federal colleagues. We are committed to jobs and industry and new industries in Western Australia and that is my position.

That is not Peter Dutton's position. It's not Senator Cash's position. They don't want new jobs, and they don't want the investment that will come—the new industries in WA—and that is being clearly shown here this morning by their attempt to put it down the list of priorities in the daily program.

We don't agree with that. We don't support that. We want this bill to pass. We think it will mean a very strong future, particularly for industries in critical minerals and in pro-manufacturing that will generate the jobs and industries of the future. We want to back WA, and we want this parliament to send a very strong message about the opportunities that will come from this bill, particularly in WA. I'm astounded that Senator Cash would be part of this stunt to reduce investment and the prioritisation of jobs and industries in WA by playing politics with the Daily Program. The Daily Program is there. It's been clear about our priorities, and the Senate should allow us to get on to government business today and deal with all of the legislation on the program.

The reality is that, if you were serious, we could deal with all of this today, but we know you're not going to allow that, and now you're trying to delay the inevitability of trying to deal with production tax credits. If you were serious about progressing the Defence Service Homes Amendment (Insurance) Bill, you wouldn't be trying to rearrange the program. That's the reality. The actual reality is—

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are serious because there are people calling our offices—

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

Right! Yes! So I hope you tell those people calling your offices: 'You know what? We're going to deal with production tax credits. We're going to vote against it, but it can be done this morning, and then we will get onto that bill.' I hope that's what you will say to the people who are calling your office.

You're seeking to delay. You're uncomfortable with your position. It's anti WA. You shouldn't be playing games like this. If you'd like me to, I'm happy to move a motion to have all of these pieces of legislation dealt with before we go to Closing the Gap at midday today. If you were serious about it, that's what would happen.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So the Greens position can be put on the record, I will go to Senator Hanson-Young, and then I will come to Senator Ruston.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens won't be supporting Senator Duniam's motion by leave, as circulated. We came here this morning on the understanding that this was the running order for today, and we would like to progress it in this manner, seeing as this is what the government has proposed.

But, let me say, we have four days of Senate sitting this week. It may very well be the last week before the Prime Minister calls an election, and we would like to see some things pass this week that deliver outcomes for the Australian people. So, if we do indeed get to a point where things are not moving, where we're not getting outcomes and where the government is refusing to work with the Greens and the crossbench, then we may need to come back and have a look at what the Senate actually does want to prioritise.

We are in control of our own destinies here in the Senate, so we know very well that, if indeed things are not moving and the Senate would prefer to deal with other matters, we are prepared to come back and consider that, but for this morning I propose we move ahead with what has been proposed by the government. We have Greens speakers ready to go on this bill and we would prefer to get on with it, rather than wasting more time and more resources.

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

The reality is that, in the time that we have been standing in here since Senator Duniam moved this motion to bring forward a bill that is so terribly important to our defence community, we could have actually had the whole thing passed. We didn't needed the Manager of Government Business in the Senate to spend her entire five minutes just giving us a filibuster blast about what she thinks.

But there are a couple of things that the Manager of Government Business in the Senate mentioned that I think are worth reiterating. First, she just threatened to guillotine a whole heap of bills in this place before we move to the Closing the Gap statement. I think that just goes to show the kinds of tactics that are likely to be used by the government in order to force things through without the appropriate debate that this place is here to do. The purpose of the Senate is debate, so threatening a guillotine just because we've asked for a bill that we think is really important to our veteran community—a bill that has total bipartisan support, a bill that the shadow minister in the other place spoke on for only a matter of seconds—is, I think, a pretty sad indictment.

The other thing, too, is that the Manager of Government Business in the Senate also made comments about being embarrassed. Well, I can assure you the coalition is not embarrassed about the position that we have taken on every piece of legislation that has been brought through this place. It is our job to have a position. We take a position because we believe it's in the best interests of the Australian public, our community, our businesses and our national security and sovereignty. So we are not embarrassed about the position we've taken on any bill that has come into this place. I will make sure that we put that on the record. I think the only party in this place that should be embarrassed about the positions it's taking is the one opposite. We will let the people of Australia make that decision when those opposite eventually let us know when they're intending to go to the polls.

As my colleague Senator Duniam said, I will not continue this debate, but I would suggest to this place that it would be a very good gesture to the veteran community of Australia if we moved this bill immediately so that we could allow them the certainty that you seemed to think was so important when you sought for it to be part of the cut off.

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

I'll make three points. Firstly, please don't play politics with veterans when you are the people who failed to fund veterans affairs so people were left waiting for their entitlements—

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

Forty-two thousand of them, actually.

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

Forty-two thousand veterans—let's remember that. Secondly, if the opposition want to give the government extra hours to pass this bill, the FMIA—

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you asking for them?

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

I'm about to. Thank you for that invitation. The Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate says, 'Are you asking for them?' We will move to have extra hours tonight to finish the defence bill and the FMIA bill with your support. If you are prepared to support it, we will move it.

The third point is that, if the opposition are so keen to get on with the program and get to defence, they've got a couple of options. They can finish FMIA and get to defence. With that, I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

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

The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders as moved by Senator Duniam be agreed to.