Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (13:11): I rise to speak— Senator McKenzie interjecting— Senator WONG: I have precedence. Senator McKenzie interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Cox ): Senator McKenzie, a point of order? Senator McKenzie: 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. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: 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. Senator Kovacic: On a point of order, I'm curious as to whether that guidance could be sought from the Clerk. Senator McKenzie interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! There is a senator on their feet seeking clarification. Senator Kovacic: It is just unusual for it not to come back to this side of the chamber. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I have received advice from the clerk, and I have made the ruling based on the advice from the clerk. Minister? Senator Gallagher: 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. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I now hand the call to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Wong. Senator WONG: 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— Senator Allman-Payne: 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. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Cox ): 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. Senator WONG: 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.' Senator Stewart: Or the chair. Senator WONG: 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— Senator David Pocock interjecting— Senator WONG: 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— Senator Henderson: 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. Senator David Pocock: 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. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: 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. Senator WONG: There are a lot of very sensitive people here today—both relevance deprivation and sensitivity. Senator Henderson interjecting— Senator WONG: 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— Senator Shoebridge interjecting— Senator WONG: I'm sorry Senator Shoebridge? Senator Shoebridge: I don't think they do always, but thank you for asking. Senator WONG: Senator, I know you're deeply cynical. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator WONG: Sorry, I can't hear what you're shouting, Senator Shoebridge. Senator Shoebridge: Well, you asked me. The PRESIDENT: Order on my right! I don't want there to be any interjecting. Senator WONG: 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.