Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for Finance, Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Women, Minister for Government Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:55): 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— Senator McKenzie interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER: No, it's not a debate, Senator McKenzie. The PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie? Senator McKenzie: On relevance to the question before the chair, it is about discharging the bill, not about staffing issues in Veterans' Affairs. The PRESIDENT: The minister is free to talk about the bill, Senator McKenzie. She is being relevant. Senator GALLAGHER: 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. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Cox ): 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. Senator GALLAGHER: 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— Senator McKenzie: The committee decided. Senator GALLAGHER: 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? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Cox ): Senator Henderson, a point of order? Senator Henderson: An imputation has been made against other senators, named as members of this committee. I would ask the minister to withdraw that imputation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: 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. Senator GALLAGHER: If there was any offence to any senator, I withdraw. An opposition senator interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER: 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. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister Wong?