The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving that the documents be tabled.
We're bringing in people from South Africa at the moment. There's a huge amount coming into Australia, who have diseases; they've got AIDS …
That the question be now put.
The Senate divided. [09:23]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)
That documents relating to Senator Payman's qualification under sections 44 and 45 of the Constitution be tabled.
Legalising Cannabis Bill 2023
This in turn may increase demand on an already overstretched healthcare system.
There is strong evidence that recreational cannabis is harmful, particularly to susceptible groups such as people with mental health disorders, young people and the unborn child.
In terms of my own understanding of the adverse effects of cannabis on the human body, there are known issues with cardiovascular problems of the heart and pulmonary effects of the lungs; and also issues regarding acute use, chronic use and neuropsychiatric or mental disorders as well. There have been increasing reports of overdose and toxicity by minors with increasing use. Also, I suppose, there's the other perhaps less easy to measure aspect of use, which is the risks on driving and impaired driving.
An overwhelming amount of evidence tells us that cannabis use causes significant harm to people's physical, cognitive and mental health.
… … …
Cannabis use harms children, young people and families.
Subsequent analysis by ACT Policing of roadside drug test results, road accidents (including fatalities) and related intelligence holdings have demonstrated a marked increase in the use of cannabis in the ACT since decriminalisation.
The decriminalisation of cannabis would … result in disproportionately worse outcomes for Aboriginal communities when compared to non-Aboriginal communities.
This could mean the Greens' economic benefits are either wildly overstated or—
predicated on a massive surge in uptake.
The Australian Greens' legal advice was provided by Professor Keyzer. Professor Keyzer gave oral evidence to the committee that the Commonwealth has power to enact the Bill …
"The plague is the black market of marijuana and certainly cartel activity, and a number of victims are out there," Sheriff Shannon Dicus said.
A Times investigation last year uncovered the proliferation of illegal cannabis in California after the passage of Proposition 64, which legalized the recreational use of marijuana in the state. Although the 2016 legislation promised voters—
that the legal market would hobble illegal trade and its associated violence, there has been a surge in the black market.
Growers at illegal sites can avoid the expensive licensing fees and regulatory costs associated with legal farms. Violence is a looming threat at these operations, authorities said, because illicit harvests yield huge quantities of cash to operators who can't use banks or law enforcement for protection.
… 4.2% of the population aged 14 and over … who have never tried cannabis before would try it, if use of the drug were made legal, while 2.6% of the population aged 14 and over … would use more cannabis if its use were made legal.
There is a clear relationship between psychological distress, age and willingness to try or use more cannabis, with those who are young and experiencing high levels of distress most likely to try cannabis …
The current findings nonetheless have significant public health implications. Almost half (45%) of the population aged 16-85 will experience a mental disorder at some time in their life … While the vast majority of people may be unaffected by any change in the legislative status of cannabis use, small changes in the number of heavy users of cannabis could have significant effects on demand for treatment and drug-related harms. This is especially true—
when, as in the present case, vulnerable adolescents and teenagers are among those most likely to use more cannabis if it is decriminalised.
That the question be now put.
The Senate divided. [10:39]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Bilyk)
That the Senate take note of the explanation.
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:
Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024
Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) Bill 2024
Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) (Consequential Provisions and Other Matters) Bill 2024
Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) Tax (Imposition) Bill 2024.
Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Amendment Bill 2024
Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2024
Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024
Surveillance Legislation (Confirmation of Application) Bill 2024.
The Senate divided. [10:59]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Bilyk)
Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024
Initial feedback from stakeholders is that these measures are broadly in line with criminal procedure provisions in the various state and territory jurisdictions. However, the bill is technical in nature, and a close analysis is warranted, informed by the expertise of the legal profession.
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:
(a) notes with concern the unintended consequences associated with the first draft of this bill, which would have adversely impacted the ability to prosecute certain Commonwealth sexual offences; and
(b) notes that these issues were only identified and fixed as a result of the inquiry by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee".
The failure to provide adequate protections and safeguards for complainants and witnesses, particularly during cross-examination, is a significant barrier to victim-survivors reporting sexual, domestic, and family violence and abuse, and engaging in criminal legal processes.
The Senate divided. [11:32]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Neill)
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) in 2019 the Family Law Act 1975 was amended to ban personal cross-examination of parties where there are allegations of family violence between the examining party and the witness party, and
(ii) it is time the same protection was afforded to victim-survivors of sexual violence; and
(b) calls on the Government to prohibit personal cross-examination of a victim-survivor by the accused".
The Senate divided. [11:36]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Neill)
Victim-survivors find the process of the criminal justice system distressing, humiliating and traumatising.
The committee received evidence that demonstrated that the proposal to increase limitations on the admissibility of evidence related to sexual experience could have adverse effects on federal sexual violence proceedings.
The Bill should require witnesses and complainants to be given notice of applications by the defence to admit 'sexual experience' evidence and legal standing to challenge such applications.
In our experience, there is often a conflict between the interests of the prosecutor and the victim-survivor, and there is a need for the victim-survivor to have their own independent advocate who can act on their behalf in ground rules hearings.
… we noted how many survivors feel sidelined by the judicial process and the delegation of the prosecutorial service. Our members have collectively raised the need for Independent Legal Representation (ILR) to be made available to complainants.
While RASARA does not condone the admissibility of sexual experience evidence in any form, should proposed s15YCB be enacted, RASARA recommends that the Act should also be amended to include a provision which requires vulnerable adult complainants and children to be immediately granted access to free independent legal representation to represent their interests in the proceedings where an application for leave to admit sexual experience evidence is filed with the court.
Yes; it would have to be explicit because the usual practice over hundreds of years is that victims-survivors have no standing. It's the prosecution and defence. It would be a similar approach to counselling records and the protection of counselling records. There's legislation in Queensland and also in New South Wales that specifically allows the standing of victims to have legal representation and standing—it specifically says 'has to have legal standing for the judge to hear that perspective'.
The Law Council supports consideration of reforms to permit representation of complainants in procedural hearings, in the absence of the jury, in relation to the admissibility of certain types of evidence about the complainant. However, attention should be paid to the impact of reforms on all parties to the proceedings…
We felt it was a significant issue that would require more time and consultation before we would be able to formalise recommendations on that issue…The department is separately conducting a scoping survey with respect to a potential Commonwealth intermediary scheme. In addition, the Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry in relation to justice responses to sexual violence has also been announced. The position on this occasion was that those questions would be better addressed through those separate processes.
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (before line 7), before subparagraph (ba)(i), insert:
(ia) genocide (within the meaning of that Code); or
(2) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (before line 18), before subparagraph (ab)(i), insert:
(ia) genocide (within the meaning of that Code); or
(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (lines 26 to 31), omit paragraphs (ba) to (bc).
(4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (lines 1 to 12), omit paragraphs (be) to (bh).
(5) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (lines 10 to 17), omit the definition of child complainant , substitute:
child complainant has the meaning given by section 15YAC.
(6) Schedule 1, item 11, page 6 (lines 20 to 25), omit the definition of child witness , substitute:
child witness has the meaning given by section 15YAD.
(7) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 13), after item 17, insert:
17A After section 15YAB
Insert:
15YAC Child complainants
(1) A child complainant , in relation to a child proceeding:
(a) is a child who is, or is alleged to be, a victim of an offence, of a kind referred to in subsection 15Y(1), to which the proceeding relates (whether or not the child is involved in the proceeding or was involved in the initiation of the proceeding); and
(b) includes a person who was such a child at the time the offence concerned was alleged to have been committed.
(2) However, a person who is 18 or over is not a child complainant if the person informs the court that the person does not wish to be treated as such a complainant.
15YAD Child witnesses
(1) A child witness , in relation to a child proceeding:
(a) is a child (including a child complainant) who is a witness in the proceeding; and
(b) includes a witness in the proceeding who was a child at the time the offence concerned was alleged to have been committed.
(2) However, a person who is 18 or over is not a child witness if the person informs the court that the person does not wish to be treated as such a witness.
(8) Schedule 1, items 23 and 24, page 7 (line 24) to page 8 (line 2), omit the items, substitute:
23 Subsection 15YC(1)
Omit "unless:", substitute "unless the court gives leave.".
24 Paragraphs 15YC(1)(a) and (b)
Repeal the paragraphs.
(9) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 2), after item 24, insert:
24A Paragraph 15YC(2)(a)
Omit "or", substitute "and".
24B Paragraph 15YC(2)(b)
Omit "if the evidence relates to the credibility of a child witness and is to be adduced in cross-examination of the child—".
24C At the end of subsection 15YC(2)(b)
Add:
; and (c) either:
(i) the evidence is of sexual activity that is alleged to form part of a connected set of circumstances in which the alleged offence was committed; or
(ii) if the evidence is of sexual activities with a defendant in the proceeding—the evidence relates to sexual activity that occurred or was recent at the time of the commission of the alleged offence.
24D Subsection 15YC(3)
Omit "The", substitute "For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), the".
24E Subsection 15YC(4)
After "value", insert "for the purposes of paragraph (2)(b)".
(10) Schedule 1, item 26, page 8 (line 19), omit "unless:", substitute "unless the court gives leave.".
(11) Schedule 1, item 26, page 8 (lines 20 to 24), omit paragraphs 15YCB(1)(a) to (c).
(12) Schedule 1, item 26, page 8 (line 27), omit "or", substitute "and".
(13) Schedule 1, item 26, page 8 (lines 28 to 30), omit "if the evidence relates to the credibility of the vulnerable adult complainant and is to be adduced in cross-examination of the complainant—".
(14) Schedule 1, item 26, page 8 (line 31), at the end of subsection 15YCB(2), add:
; and (c) either:
(i) the evidence is of sexual activity that is alleged to form part of a connected set of circumstances in which the alleged offence was committed; or
(ii) if the evidence is of sexual activities with a defendant in the proceeding—the evidence relates to sexual activity that occurred or was recent at the time of the commission of the alleged offence.
(15) Schedule 1, item 26, page 9 (line 1), omit "The", substitute "For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), the".
(16) Schedule 1, item 26, page 9 (line 5), after "value", insert "for the purposes of paragraph (2)(b)".
(17) Schedule 1, item 27, page 11 (lines 16 and 17), omit subsection 15YDD(1), substitute:
(1) A recording must be made of the evidence given by the vulnerable person at the evidence recording hearing.
(1A) The recording must be a video recording unless the court is satisfied that extraordinary circumstances require the use of audio recording only.
(18) Schedule 1, page 13 (after line 27), after item 27, insert:
27A After section 15YF
Insert:
15YFA Unrepresented defendants — cross-examination of vulnerable adult complainants
(1) A defendant in a vulnerable adult proceeding who is not represented by counsel is not to cross-examine a vulnerable adult complainant.
Note: A person is not to cross-examine certain persons at committal proceedings or proceedings of a similar kind—see section 15YHA.
(2) A person appointed by the court is to ask the vulnerable adult complainant any questions that the defendant requests the person to ask the complainant.
27B Paragraph 15YG(1A)(b)
Repeal the paragraph.
(19) Schedule 1, item 36, page 15 (before line 7), before subsection 15YM(4), insert:
(2) However, a recording that is an audio recording only must not be admitted under subsection (1) unless the court is satisfied that extraordinary circumstances require the use of audio recording only.
(20) Schedule 1, item 50, page 17 (line 6), omit "physical".
(21) Schedule 1, item 55, page 19 (lines 15 and 16), omit paragraph 15YR(2B)(c), substitute:
(c) include the following details:
(i) the name, qualification and business address of the practitioner;
(ii) the nature and duration of the professional relationship between the practitioner and the vulnerable person; and
The committee divided. [12:18]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)
University staff constantly report to the NTEU the opaque, incoherent and inconsistent decision making coming out of university managements who have not acted in the interests of the community.
John Prescott was one of the great figures of our political era—passionate, loyal, and full of life. I will never forget our many lively exchanges across the despatch box. John was a formidable debater, unflinching in his commitment to his values, and he had a unique ability to speak directly to the concerns of the people he represented.
John's legacy as a voice for working people and a relentless advocate for Labour will endure.
Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024
Germany is arming—she is rapidly arming—and no one will stop her.
The Labor ship has struck the rock of identity politics … with too many of its spokespeople adopting a censorious tone to those who fail to embrace their particular social policy agendas.
The premise of this legislation is that power to determine the accuracy or truth of information … can safely be entrusted to government, an independent statutory authority, digital platforms and/or regulated media outlets. That should be anathema to anyone who cherishes the freedoms that underpin liberal democracy. Australians must be free to access information and engage in the public discourse that shapes political opinion.
It is essential that Australians should be able to express personal views, to critique the evidence and arguments of others and to act in accordance with their individual conscience and personal beliefs.
At the heart of the difficulties presented by the Draft Bill are the definitions of 'misinformation' and 'disinformation'.
… … …
Given the breadth of the definition of 'misinformation' … the Law Council cautions that a digital platform is unlikely to have sufficient expertise or adequate resources to make accurate and completely informed determinations as to whether content is false and, therefore, may choose to censor significant amounts of information in order to ensure compliance and avoid incurring substantial fines. This would—
in turn, have a significant impact on freedom of expression.
This Bill is a Trojan horse that would vest the power of parliament in one person.
… … …
Nobody has a monopoly on truth—least of all public servants who report to a politician.
I lost my mother and 3 siblings to this catastrophic war. My elderly mother and 3 siblings felt unsafe to leave Khartoum … I remember the last day I spoke to my mother I begged her multiple times to leave … the next morning I got a call saying your mother and siblings died in an airstrike attack. All I can remember from that moment is that I screamed and fainted.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers today to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to the Environmental Defenders Office.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today relating to migration.
That divisions may take place after 6.30 pm today.
That—
(a) so much of the resolution on the establishment of the Register of Senators' Qualifications agreed to on 3 April 2019 be suspended as would prevent a matter being referred; and
(b) the matter of Senator Payman's qualifications under the Constitution be referred to the Standing Committee of Senators' Interests for inquiry and report.
The Senate divided. [15:43]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)
(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Population and Its Impacts in Australia, be established to inquire into the effects of population growth and management in Australia, with particular reference to:
(a) the relationship between population growth and housing availability and affordability, including the effects on urban density, housing supply, rental markets and accessibility to affordable housing options;
(b) the adequacy and sustainability of infrastructure development to support a growing population, including transport, health services, education facilities and utilities, as well as strategies to improve public services and quality of life for everyone;
(c) the economic benefits and challenges of population growth, including the impact on labour markets, economic growth, productivity and innovation, as well as potential benefits and challenges for job availability and workforce distribution;
(d) the environmental impacts of population growth, with a focus on an Australian population safely within ecological limits, including effects on biodiversity, natural resource consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as opportunities for sustainable population management and environmental conservation;
(e) the implications of population growth for First Nations communities, including impacts on land, cultural heritage and access to health, education, housing and other services;
(f) the effects of population management policies on regional and rural communities and strategies to incentivise regional migration where needed, including ensuring the availability of support services for new migrants and emerging communities in regional and rural areas;
(g) international best practice for sustainable population growth management, including policies that balance economic, social, environmental and human rights priorities to ensure populations remain within safe ecological limits;
(h) the role of migration in population growth and its impact on diversity, multiculturalism and social cohesion, including the effectiveness of policies and programs to support positive settlement outcomes for new migrants;
(i) the effectiveness of past migration programs in delivering skills in areas that are most needed;
(j) current and proposed federal and state population management frameworks, including coordination among agencies;
(k) the role of local governments and alignment with international sustainability and human rights commitments and conventions;
(l) opportunities for policy reform, including housing policy, urban planning, environmental regulations and migration policies to better manage the impacts of population growth and maintain ecological balance; and
(m) any other related matters.
(2) That the committee present its final report by 30 November 2025.
(3) That the committee consist of 6 senators, as follows:
(a) two nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;
(b) two nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;
(c) one nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate; and
(d) Senator David Pocock.
(4) That:
(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator;
(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee and have all the rights of members of the committee but may not vote on any questions before the committee; and
(c) a participating member shall be taken to be a member of a committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if 3 members of the committee constituting a quorum are not present.
(5) That if a member of the committee is unable to attend a meeting of the committee, that member may in writing to the chair appoint a participating member to act as a substitute member of the committee at that meeting. If the member is incapacitated or unavailable, a letter to the chair appointing a participating member to act as a substitute member of the committee may be signed on behalf of the member by the leader of the party or group on whose nomination the member was appointed to the committee.
(6) That 3 members of the committee constitute quorum, where one member present is a minority party or independent senator, one member was appointed on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate and one member was appointed on the nomination of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
(7) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.
(8) That Senator David Pocock be appointed as chair of the committee, and the committee elect as its deputy chair a member nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
(9) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee, or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.
(10) That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, may appoint another member of the committee to act as chair during the temporary absence of both the chair and deputy chair at a meeting of the committee.
(11) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.
(12) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider.
(13) That 2 members of any subcommittee constitute quorum where one member present is a minority party or independent senator, and one member was appointed on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate or on the nomination of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
(14) That the committee and any subcommittee, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, have:
(a) power to send for and examine persons and documents;
(b) power to move from place to place;
(c) power to sit in public or in private; and
(d) leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.
(15) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.
(16) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, by no later than midday on Thursday, 28 November 2024:
(a) formal documentation from 1 to 15 October 2024 inclusive (correspondence, information briefs, ministerial submissions) to the office of the Minister for Health and Aged Care (the minister) from the department or the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) regarding the need to defer PBAC applications from the March 2025 meeting agenda; and
(b) formal documentation from 1 to 15 October 2024 inclusive (correspondence, information briefs, ministerial submissions) to the minister's office from the department or the PBAC regarding the 3-day PBAC meeting having a maximum total number of cost-effective analysis submissions, as stated on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme website.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) order for production of documents no. 664 (the order) agreed to by the Senate on 19 November 2024, requiring the Minister representing the Prime Minister to table the completed report of the independent review of Commonwealth funding for strategic policy work led by Mr Peter Varghese AO (the Varghese Review), and all written submissions provided to the secretariat of the Varghese Review, has not been complied with, and
(ii) the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister stated in response to the order that the release could 'adversely impact comprehensive and candid discussion by ministers as part of Cabinet deliberations';
(b) rejects the grounds the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister has provided as to why the order cannot be complied with, noting that:
(i) the Senate should only accept a claim of public interest immunity on the basis of Cabinet confidentiality if it is established that disclosure of the documents sought would reveal Cabinet deliberations,
(ii) the disclosure of the documents that are the subject of the order does not constitute a disclosure of deliberations of Cabinet, and
(iii) the Government stating that it intends to release the Varghese Review at the appropriate time is not an acceptable ground to withhold information from the Senate; and
(c) requires the Minister representing the Prime Minister to comply with the order by no later than midday on 28 November 2024.
The government holds the strong view that the documents and information sought would or could reasonably be expected to disclose the deliberations of the cabinet or a committee of the cabinet.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, by no later than 4 December 2024, all written or digital correspondence, briefing notes, file notes, meeting notices, meeting agendas or minutes, or other records of interaction since 1 January 2024 related to online gambling reform, advertising reform for online gambling or the government response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs' report You win some, You lose more between the Minister for Sport and her office and any of the following organisations, including any of their employees or representatives:
(a) National Rugby League;
(b) Australian Rugby League Commission;
(c) Racing New South Wales;
(d) Racing Victoria;
(e) Australian Football League;
(f) Alliance for Gambling Reform;
(g) Gambling Harm Lived Experience Experts;
(h) Responsible Wagering Australia;
(i) Sportsbet;
(j) Pointsbet;
(k) Bet365; and
(l) Tabcorp.
That—
(a) the Senate notes that:
(i) freedom of information (FOI) 4558 made to the Therapeutics Goods Administration (TGA) requesting batch safety testing data on COVID-19 vaccines was returned fully redacted, and
(ii) the TGA has now released data covering contamination in COVID-19 vaccines after the period covered by FOI 4558; and
(b) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care (Senator Gallagher), by no later than 10 am on Thursday, 28 November 2024, FOI 4558 without redaction other than personally identifiable information.
The Senate divided. [15:53]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care, by no later than 4 December 2024, all written or digital correspondence, briefing notes, file notes, meeting notices, meeting agendas or minutes, or other records of interaction since 1 October 2023 related to the implementation of care minutes in residential aged care between the Minister for Aged Care and her office and any of the following organisations, including any of their employees or representatives:
(a) Aged & Community Care Providers Association;
(b) Bupa Aged Care;
(c) Estia Health;
(d) Bolton Clarke;
(e) Opal Healthcare;
(f) Superior Care Group;
(g) Southern Cross Care; and
(h) Regis Aged Care.
That general business notice of motion no. 711, relating to the public release of economic modelling on the impact of caps and curfews on Brisbane Airport, be called on immediately after formal business on Wednesday, 27 November 2024, take precedence over all other business and be determined without amendment or debate.
That general business notice of motion no. 711, relating to the public release of economic modelling on the impact of caps and curfews on Brisbane Airport, be called on immediately after formal business on Wednesday, 27 November 2024, take precedence over all other business and be determined without amendment or debate.
The Senate divided. [16:00]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)
(1) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 5 December 2024, the following documents held by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) relating to a matter involving Thales (the subject of Auditor-General's report no. 47 of 2023-24) and the contract subject to this review, including:
(a) the terms of reference of any NACC review;
(b) all documents relating to the declaration of conflicts of interest, including all documents, emails and briefings that relate to management of conflicts of interest; and
(c) all communications to and from the Department of Defence and the NACC regarding Defence's review of the matter.
(2) That once received by the Clerk or the President, documents returned and any correspondence responding to the order shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate, and publication of the documents is authorised.
The Senate divided. [16:07]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)
(1) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than 5 pm on 3 December 2024:
(a) a copy of the ACIL Allen report on the impact of privacy laws on business; and
(b) all briefing notes, speaking notes, emails and other correspondence regarding the publication or non-publication of the report that is held by the Attorney-General and his office and the Attorney-General's Department.
(2) That once received by the Clerk or the President, documents returned and any correspondence responding to the order shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate, and publication of the documents is authorised.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Science, by no later than midday on 20 December 2024, the following documents:
(a) the unsolicited proposal PsiQuantum provided to the Government in November 2022;
(b) Ministerial Submission MS22-002175;
(c) the non-disclosure agreement (NDA) between the Australian Government and PsiQuantum, signed in March 2023, and any other versions of the NDA updated at other times;
(d) the list of ministerial submissions from the Department of Industry, Science and Resources (the department), Science and Technology Group, including the Office of the Chief Scientist, listing the reference number, date sent to the minister's office and title, for the time periods listed below (noting this is a request for a list of briefs but not requesting the underlying briefs), similar to the list of briefs already provided for other periods of time:
(i) 1 December 2022 to 30 April 2023, and
(ii) 1 October to 30 November 2024;
(e) the department's expression of interest assessment document that was completed as the market testing process for the PsiQuantum deal;
(f) the Deloitte analysis which informed the PsiQuantum investment;
(g) all iterations of the probity risk matrix created by the department and/or the external probity adviser, excluding personal details, related to the development of the PsiQuantum investment;
(h) a document that lists in detail the technology milestones and timeframes associated with the delivery of PsiQuantum's quantum computer, including but not limited to the planning approvals process, the sod turn, the construction of the buildings, the detailed description of the computer that will be delivered by 2027, the number of qubits the computer will have in 2027 and when customers will begin using the computer;
(i) information that details the calculation, categorisation and description of the 400 jobs that were announced with the PsiQuantum investment;
(j) information that describes the role and employment conditions of the independent technology adviser (who will independently assess PsiQuantum's technology for the purpose of meeting commercial terms), including estimated dates of employment and dates of milestones; and
(k) the Senate estimates preparation documents as well as the documents used on the day, as they relate to Quantum Computing, PsiQuantum and matters related to PsiQuantum as used in preparation by the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary for Science and Technology and the Chief Scientist for the November Senate estimates hearings.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Education, by no later than 5 pm on 28 November 2024:
(a) the number of government consultations undertaken by the Department of Education (the department) that required participants to sign non-disclosure agreements since the start of the parliamentary term;
(b) the subject matter of the consultations that required participants to sign non-disclosure agreements since the start of the parliamentary term;
(c) the number of non-disclosure agreements signed by industry sector organisations and other stakeholders as a condition of participating in government consultation undertaken by the department since the start of the parliamentary term;
(d) the number of industry sector organisations and other stakeholders that refused to sign non-disclosure agreements as a condition of participating in government consultation undertaken by the department since the start of the parliamentary term; and
(e) the number of breaches of government non-disclosure agreements that have been legally pursued since the start of the parliamentary term and actions taken by the department.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Education, by no later than 5 pm on 28 November 2024, copies of the letter sent by the Chief Commissioner of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency to universities on 4 October 2024 reminding universities of their obligations regarding student and staff safety.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Education, by no later than 5 pm on 28 November 2024, copies of each draft of the Universities Accord final report provided to the Department of Education (the department) or the Minister for Education (the minister) (which includes his office) and comments, feedback or advice on each draft provided by the department and the minister or his office.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by no later than 10 am on 28 November 2024, all correspondence between federal and New South Wales government representatives since 1 January 2021 to 25 November 2024 relating to the Avoca Drive upgrade project, including correspondence from:
(a) the Prime Minister (Mr Albanese);
(b) the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (Ms C King);
(c) the member for Robertson (Dr Reid);
(d) the Premier of New South Wales;
(e) the New South Wales Minister for Roads; and
(f) the member for Terrigal (Mr Crouch).
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
After three Albanese Labor budgets, most Australians will go into Christmas and 2025 worse off, with weaker real household incomes and struggling through a record-breaking household recession.
Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today the Australian Greens propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
That the Western Australian Government is about to approve Woodside's North West Shelf extension to burn toxic gas until 2070 and Minister Plibersek has to use her power to block it."
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
That the Western Australian Government is about to approve Woodside's North West Shelf extension to burn toxic gas until 2070 and Minister Plibersek has to use her power to block it.
The Senate divided. [17:20]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Walsh)
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the document.
149th IPU Assembly and Bilateral Visit to France—October 2024 Introduction
149th Assembly
Delegation activity
The delegation was particularly active during this Assembly and the highlights of our contribution at the Assembly include:
Committee on Democracy and Human Rights as well as her appointment as the President of the committee.
The Australian delegation was active in a variety of other forums:
Emergency debate and resolutions of the Assembly
The Assembly held an emergency debate on the theme: Response by parliamentarians to the urgent plea by the UN Secretary-General to recommit to multilateralism for global peace, justice and sustainability.
The debate culminating in a resolution on the same theme which calls on the international community, including the IPU membership, to end the "appalling impact of conflict on children" and take other action to protect vulnerable persons.
The IPU membership also endorsed a resolution on the impact of artificial intelligence on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Amongst other things, the resolution calls upon parliaments to:
...effectively and transparently adopt or maintain strong legal frameworks and policies for the responsible creation, deployment and use of Al technology, and to contribute to efforts to establish global standards and frameworks.
Multilateral and bilateral meeting
The delegation held meetings and discussions with parliamentary delegations from Albania, India, Israel, New Zealand, Timor-Leste, Ukraine and Zambia as well as the World Health Organisation.
Bilateral Visit to France
National Assembly and Senate
During our visit to France, the delegation was official received by Madam Yael Braun-Pivet, President of the National Assembly at Burbon Palace.
The delegation met with Madam President alongside Ms Eleonore Caroit MP, Vice President of the Foreign Affairs Committee at the National Assembly.
During the meeting, the strength of the bilateral relationship between the two parliaments was discussed. It was, therefore, most fitting that Mr Speaker was able to present an official Guest of Parliament invitation to Madam President on behalf of the Australian Parliament with a view to further strengthening these relationships.
The delegation was also able to meet with Senator Lo"ic Herve, Vice President of the Senate, as well as Senator Florence Blatrix Contat, Chair of the France-Australia Friendship Group and Senator Georges Naturel, Senator for New Caledonia. At that meeting, the longstanding relationship between the two nations was highlighted and Mr Speaker presented the official Guest of Parliament invitation to the Vice President.
Exchange of information regarding the Olympics
The delegation met with Mr Pierre Rabadan, Deputy Mayor of Paris in charge of Sport, the Olympic and Paralympic Game and the Seine as well as Mr r Etienne Thobois, General Director of the Paris Organising Committee for the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
During both meetings, the delegation was informed of the lessons learned from the Paris Olympics including the importance of integrating social initiatives into project planning for the Olympics.
In the afternoon of 18 October, the delegation travelled to the Arch de Triomphe where Mr Speaker lay a wreath on behalf of the Parliament and people of Australia at the tomb of the Unknown Soldier. It was an honour for the delegation that Mr Speaker was then able to participate in the rekindling of the flame ceremony at the tomb of the Unknown Soldier on behalf of the Australian people.
Acknowledgements
Arab Emirates, o Her Excellency Ms Amanda Gorley, Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations and the Conference on Disarmament, in Geneva, o Her Excellency Ms Emily Roper, Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva, and o Her Excellency Ms Gillian Bird PSM, Ambassador to France.
That the Senate take note of the documents.
That the Senate take note of the documents.
Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) Bill 2024
Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) Tax (Imposition) Bill 2024
Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) (Consequential Provisions and Other Matters) Bill 2024
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
COMMONWEALTH ENTITIES (PAYMENT SURCHARGES) BILL 2024
This Bill is part of a package of three bills which together will formalise longstanding Commonwealth practice by providing express, modernised and consistent legislative authority for Commonwealth entities to continue to charge and collect payment surcharges where the entity has the legislative authority to collect a payment.
Payment surcharges are commonly imposed by businesses and governments across Australia, including by Commonwealth entities. A payment surcharge is an additional amount paid by a person to cover the acceptance cost of a chosen payment method. Payment surcharges are limited to the amount it costs the merchant (including a Commonwealth entity) to accept that type of payment for that transaction under arrangements with the merchant's banking provider.
Surcharging signals to consumers the cost of their payment method and acknowledges the difference in costs across card and other payment methods. Surcharges cannot exceed merchants' 'cost of acceptance' for card payments. These price signals allow consumers to make more efficient and informed payment choices, and many consumers choose lower-cost or no-cost payment options. When making payments to Commonwealth entities, consumers have a choice of how they will make that payment and information is available about whether a surcharge applies.
For example, there are several ways to make a payment to the Australian Taxation Office. Different payment methods are offered so that customers can choose a method that suits them. A range of payment methods are offered, including electronic transfer and direct debit, as well as paying in person at Australia Post. For some payments, such as using a Visa, Mastercard or American Express card, a card payment fee will apply, but many consumers and businesses choose this payment method. They may choose these payment methods because they find them convenient or they are attracted to card benefits such as reward programs.
The package of Bills does not impose new surcharges on those interacting with the Commonwealth, but instead formalises the existing practices of Commonwealth entities under a new modernised whole-of government framework. To that end, the Bills authorise the collection of surcharges by Commonwealth entities from 1 January 2003, to align with when the Reserve Bank of Australia first regulated payment surcharging as part of the then broader payments reforms.
The Bill will also enable the responsible Minister to make Commonwealth surcharging policies, by legislative instrument to support, moving forward, a whole-of -Commonwealth approach to surcharging, including ensuring that any surcharging is applied on a cost recovery basis only. This will also facilitate timely adoption of any changes to whole-of-Government surcharging policy by Commonwealth entities.
This package of Bills supports the Government's broader commitment to reviewing and reforming the imposition of card payment surcharges. The Government is prepared to permanently ban all surcharges on debit cards from 1 January 2026, subject to further work by the Reserve Bank of Australia and safeguards to ensure both small businesses and consumers can benefit from lower costs.
While the Reserve Bank of Australia completes its important work on the Surcharging Review and how payment fees can be reduced economy-wide, we will stop passing on debit surcharges from the Australian Taxation Office and Services Australia from 1 January 2025.
Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
COMMONWEALTH ENTITIES (PAYMENT SURCHARGES) TAX (IMPOSITION) BILL 2024
This Bill is part of a package of three bills which together will formalise longstanding Commonwealth practice by providing express, modernised and consistent legislative authority for Commonwealth entities to continue to charge and collect payment surcharges where the entity has the legislative authority to collect a payment.
This Bill imposes a tax equivalent to the amount of the payment surcharge that has already been collected by a Commonwealth entity, where the authorisation of the past collection of a payment surcharge is beyond the non-tax powers of the Commonwealth.
The Bill will commence on the day it receives Royal Assent.
Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
COMMONWEALTH ENTITIES (PAYMENT SURCHARGES) (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL 2024
This Bill is part of a package of three bills which together will formalise longstanding Commonwealth practice by providing express, modernised and consistent legislative authority for Commonwealth entities to continue to charge and collect payment surcharges where the entity has the legislative authority to collect a payment.
This Bill makes consequential amendments to support the Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) Bill 2024.
The Bill also authorises the collection of surcharges by Commonwealth entities from 1 January 2003 to align with when the Reserve Bank of Australia first regulated payment surcharging as part of the then broader payments reforms.
Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024
Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
AGED CARE (CONSEQUENTIAL AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2024
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 makes transitional and consequential changes to support the commencement of the Aged Care Bill 2024.
It is an essential component in enabling us to move forward with once-in-a-generation reform of our aged care system and services.
The Bill operates so that the references to the 1997 Acts and the Commission Act in other Commonwealth legislation are read as references to the Aged Care Bill 2024.
Schedule 1 makes consequential changes to the Crimes Act 1914 and theNational Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 to facilitate aged care worker screening checks and align aged care worker screening with NDIS worker screening.
It also makes changes to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 , to give effect to Royal Commission recommendation 88 by removing aged care-specific FOI exemptions.
Schedule 2 of the Bill consists of 10 parts—6 of which correspond directly to chapters of the Aged Care Bill. This schedule details the transitional provisions which will ensure the smooth transition of individuals, providers, workers and governance arrangements when the new Aged Care Act commences.
During the exposure draft consultations, we heard very strongly that everyone needs time and support to prepare for the new Act.
With the changes to the aged care system which the new Act will bring, we recognise everyone will need support to understand what it means for them, what they need to do, and when they need to do it.
We will support older people, providers and workers to prepare for the changes arising from the new Act by providing clarity on what is new, what is changing and what is staying the same.
The Bill includes provisions that will ensure that individuals can move as seamlessly as possible from the 1997 Act, Commonwealth Home Support Program and National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program to the new Act.
This Bill also includes provisions which will deem approved providers to be registered providers under the new Act. This will smooth the transition process for providers and ensure they can continue to provide services to older people, uninterrupted.
The Bill also includes technical provisions to clarify how provider obligations, governance arrangements, regulatory powers, information management and decision reviews will transition to the new Act.
The Bill also provides a crucial rule making power—to allow transition to be managed in a careful and considered way. The scale of this reform means we need to be able to act quickly during transition to address challenges and unforeseen impacts.
Finally, this Bill repeals the Aged Care Act 1997 ,Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Act 2018 and theAged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997. From commencement, it will make the Aged Care Act 2024 the Commonwealth's primary aged care legislation and pave the way for the future of aged care.
ONLINE SAFETY AMENDMENT (SOCIAL MEDIA MINIMUM AGE) BILL 2024
Introduction
Keeping Australians safe online is a top priority for the Albanese Government. This Government is focused on positive solutions to issues of national concern, and the issue of harms to children and young people from social media is right up the top of that list.
Since coming to Government, the Albanese Labor Government have taken steps to turn this focus into meaningful outcomes, with a range of measures to help make the online environment better for young people.
Central to this has been the quadrupling of the ongoing base funding for the eSafety Commissioner, to ensure this world-leading regulator has the certainty of resourcing and is equipped to respond to existing and emerging online harms.
The Government has brought forward the review of the Online Safety Act by twelve months. This was in recognition of the need for the Act to remain fit for purpose, and the Government thanks the independent reviewer for recently providing her report.
In May this year, the Government amended the Basic Online Safety Expectations to make clear the Government's expectation that platforms must place the best interest of the child at the centre of their products and services.
Social media, as it is commonly and collectively understood, has become a ubiquitous and a normal part of life for all of Australia's society, and many young Australians take part in this activity without adverse consequence. It can be a source of entertainment, education and connection with the world—and each other. Those things, particularly for young Australians, can be beneficial.
But, for too many young Australians, social media can be harmful. Almost two-thirds of 14- to 17-year-old Australians have viewed extremely harmful content online, including drug abuse, suicide or self-harm, as well as violent material. A quarter have been exposed to content promoting unsafe eating habits.
Research conducted by eSafety found that that 95% of Australian caregivers find online safety to be one of their toughest parenting challenges.
The Albanese Government has heard the concerns of parents, young people and experts. Social media has a social responsibility to do better to address harms on their platforms. That's why the Government is making big changes to hold platforms to account for user safety.
The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 will amend the Online Safety Act 2021 (OSA) by introducing a minimum age of 16 to have an account on age-restricted social media platforms, protecting young Australians at a critical stage of their development.
The Bill puts the onus on social media platforms, not parents or young people, to take reasonable steps to ensure fundamental protections are in place. This is about protecting young people—not punishing or isolating them—and letting parents know the Government is in their corner when it comes to supporting their children's health and wellbeing.
The Government knows that establishing a minimum age for young people having social media accounts is not the only approach that needs to be taken, and also knows that this measure will not be met with universal acceptance.
But this is one step among many that a Government should take in the protection and not the isolation of young people. There is wide acknowledgment that something must be done, in the immediate term, to help prevent young teens and children from being exposed to streams of content—unfiltered and infinite.
It is the right thing to do for the right reasons at the right time.
Through extensive consultation and with the input of states and territories, the Government is agreeing that until a child turns 16, the social media environment as it stands is not age-appropriate for them.
The Government acknowledges everyone who participated in consultation across the country for their contribution, however small, to this world-leading reform.
This Bill does not provide the magic pill to resolve or eliminate every harm children faces online, nor does it seek to rule out digital participation and inclusion for young people.
And it is also acknowledged that harms don't simply switch off on a child's 16th birthday. That is why the Government has taken the decision to bring forward a key recommendation of the Online Safety Act Review, to legislate a Digital Duty of Care.
Legislating a Digital Duty of Care is a separate body of work, and will place the onus on digital platforms to proactively keep Australians safe and better prevent online harms.
Legislating a duty of care will mean services can't 'set and forget'. Instead, their obligations will mean they need to continually identify and mitigate potential risks, as technology and service offerings change and evolve.
While the social media minimum age legislation introduced today is targeted at the protection of children under 16, the duty of care will ensure all Australians are better protected from online harm.
Critically, this legislation will allow for a twelve month implementation period—to ensure this novel and world-leading reform can take effect with the care and consideration Australian's rightly expect.
The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner will be resourced to provide oversight of the privacy provisions as they relate to this Bill.
Regulated activity
This Bill establishes an obligation on social media platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent age-restricted users from having an account.
This places the onus on platforms to introduce systems and settings to ensure that under-age users cannot create and hold a social media account. A systemic failure to take action to limit such circumventions could give rise to a breach.
By regulating the act of 'having an account', as opposed to 'accessing' social media more generally, the Government is seeking to strike a balance between protecting young people from harm, while limiting the regulatory burden on the broader population.
Importantly, this obligation would help to mitigate the risks arising from the harmful features that are largely associated with user accounts, or the 'logged-in' state, persistent notifications and alerts, which have been found to have a negative impact on sleep, stress levels, and attention.
Regulated services
The obligation will apply to 'age-restricted social media platforms', a new term being introduced into the OSA. Its definition includes that a 'significant purpose' of the service is to enable online social interactions between 2 or more users.
While the definition casts a wide net, the Bill allows for flexibility to reduce the scope or further target the definition through legislative rules. Achieving this through rules, rather than primary legislation, enables the Government to be responsive to changes and evolutions in the dynamic social media ecosystem.
Rules can be made to allow for additional conditions that must be met, in order to fall within the definition of 'age-restricted social media platform'.
To be clear, the Government expects that this broader definition will capture services that are commonly accepted to be social media, and the services that are causing many parents the most concern.
This will, at a minimum, include TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), among others. These services will be required to take reasonable steps to prevent persons under 16 years of age from creating or holding an account.
A rule-making power is also available to exclude specific classes of services from the definition. In the first instance, this power will be used to carve out messaging services, online games, and services that significantly function to support the health and education of users.
A key principle of the approach to applying an age limit of 16 to social media was the recognition that our laws should be set to protect young people—not isolate them. There is a legitimate purpose to enabling young people to actively participate in the digital environment where they have grown up. Supporting their digital participation, connection and inclusion is important at every age and stage of a young person's development and our legislation seeks to strike that balance.
The Government is not saying that risks don't exist on messenger apps or online gaming.
While users can still be exposed to harmful content by other users, they do not face the same algorithmic curation of content and psychological manipulation to encourage near endless engagement. Further, the inclusion of messaging apps could have wider consequences, such as making communication within families harder.
Online games are currently regulated under the National Classification Scheme. The Scheme provides information on the age suitability of online games through a combination of the classification and relevant consumer advice. Imposing additional age-based regulation to online games would create unnecessary regulatory overlap.
This categorical rule making power is expected to deem out of scope services such as Facebook Messenger Kids, and WhatsApp. The rule will provide for an "out of scope" status to also be applied to services like ReachOut's PeerChat, Kids Helpline 'MyCircle', Google Classroom, YouTube, and other apps that can be shown to function like social media in their interactivity but operate with a significant purpose to enable young people to get the education and health support they need.
Before making a Rule, the Minister must seek advice from the eSafety Commissioner, and must have regard to that advice; and may seek advice from any other authorities or agencies of the Commonwealth that the Minister considers relevant, and may have regard to any such advice.
This is an important condition to ensure Rules are made with the appropriate safeguards in place while reflecting community standards.
Privacy safeguards
Privacy reform in Australia has been long overdue, and the Albanese Government has taken significant steps to bring privacy standards up to community standards.
This is novel reform, and to implement a minimum age for social media requires steps to be taken by users to assure age. Where this user is a child, a Government must sharpen its focus with the expected level of care to ensure strong privacy provisions are in place.
While the digital economy has generated significant benefits, including consumer convenience, improved efficiencies and new employment opportunities, it has also resulted in large amounts of information about people being generated, used, disclosed and stored. Widespread adoption and reliance on digital technologies increases the risks that personal data will be subject to misuse or mishandling, including through data breaches, fraud and identity theft, unauthorised surveillance and other significant online harms.
For these reasons, the Bill introduces more robust privacy protections, which strictly prohibit platforms from using information collected for age assurance purposes for any other purpose, unless explicitly agreed to by the individual.
The approach taken in the Bill expands on Australia's privacy framework, taking a heightened approach to information protection that is informed by the 2022 review of the Privacy Act.
Compliance with the minimum age obligation will likely involve some form of age assurance, which may require the collection, use and disclosure of additional personal information. The Bill makes it explicit that platforms must not use information and data collected for age assurance purposes for any other purpose, unless the individual has provided their consent.
This consent must be voluntary, informed, current, specific and unambiguous—this is an elevated requirement that precludes platforms from seeking consent through preselected settings or opt-outs. In addition, once the information has been used for age assurance or any other agreed purpose, it must be destroyed by the platform (or any third party contracted by the platform).
Serious and repeated breaches of these privacy provisions could result in penalties of up to $50 million under section 13G of the Privacy Act.
Given the vitality of robust privacy and security for Australians online, in the case of the minimum age for social media, the Government will undertake additional consultation to determine what reasonable amendments we can introduce ahead of passage of the legislation.
Penalties
In making these reforms, it is critical the Government sends a clear signal to platforms about the importance of their social responsibilities to children and all Australians.
As such, this Bill will impose significant penalties for breaching the minimum age obligation. This will be as high as $49.5 million for bodies corporate, consistent with serious offences set out in the Privacy Act 1988 andCompetition and Consumer Act 2010 .
The Bill increases penalties for breach of industry codes and industry standards to up to $49.5 million for bodies corporate. This addresses the currently low penalties in the OSA, and reflects the systemic nature of the harms that could arise from breaches of the codes and standards.
Additional regulator powers
The Bill equips the eSafety Commissioner with additional tools and powers to effectively administer the new minimum age framework. This includes powers to request information from platforms about how they are complying with their obligation, particularly the compliance with privacy provisions.
Commencement
The minimum age obligation on social media services will commence no earlier than 12 months from passage of the Bill. This will allow the necessary time for social media platforms to develop and implement required systems.
This timeframe will also enable implementation to be informed by the Age Assurance Trial, which will provide guidance on the market readiness of age assurance technologies, and inform advice to Government and the eSafety Commissioner on implementation and enforcement of the minimum age.
Review
Finally, the Bill incorporates a review of the legislation two years after effective commencement. This provides the Government with an opportunity to undertake critical societal measurements of the impacts of the legislation, using qualitative and quantative research to understand how this policy is working for young Australians.
It will allow time to recognise any technological advancements since commencement, to reconsider the definition of an age-restricted social media platform, and to consider whether other digital platforms such as online games or additional social media platforms that can be viewed without an account, should be captured within scope.
The Government will work with the education, health, youth organisations and community organisations throughout implementation and during the review to take in their views.
Conclusion
This measure is a key component of the Albanese Government's work across the online safety space and will help enable young people to use the internet in a safer and more positive way. It will signal a set of normative values that support parents, educators and society more broadly.
Australia has consistently paved the way in global online safety, and the introduction of this legislation is no exception.
The Bill builds upon the Australian Government's work to address online harms for young people, including the age assurance trial, establishing an online dating apps code, legislating new criminal penalties for non-consensual sexual deepfakes.
The Government will ensure young Australians retain access to services that primarily provide education and health services, and work constructively with stakeholders to ensure that only services that meet the strict criteria under eSafety's powers are able to be accessed by children under 16 years.
This Bill seeks to set a new normative value in society—that accessing social media is not the defining feature of growing up in Australia.
Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2024
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
A well-functioning migration system is essential to Australia's social, cultural and economic wellbeing.
An essential feature of a well-functioning immigration system is the ability to, where necessary, safely detain non-citizens pending their removal from Australia or while their visa status is otherwise resolved.
Over recent years, asylum seekers have been replaced in immigration detention by individuals who have had their visas cancelled on character grounds, who often have serious criminal histories.
About 90 per cent of the current caseload hold a criminal conviction, including violent and drug-related crimes.
The current cohort includes Outlaw Motorcycle Gang members, which brings a higher degree of volatility and organised criminality.
These convicted criminals seek to continue their criminal behaviour in immigration detention, which has led to an increasing number of events that threaten the health, safety and security of staff and other detainees, as well as visitors.
These events have included harassment, intimidation, threats of violence and actual violence, often fuelled by alcohol and illicit substances.
There have been incidents of criminals in detention facilities using encrypted messaging services to run drug trafficking and other organised crime activities. This causes harm not just to people in detention facilities but to the broader Australian Community.
These behaviours are not acceptable anywhere in Australia; they are not acceptable in Immigration Detention Facilities.
Officers need expanded powers, including the power to search and seize communication devices to stop this from happening.
This Bill responds to calls for action from the Australian Border Force, as well as external parties including the Australian Human Rights Commission.
The Human Rights Commission's report into conditions at Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre recommended expanded search powers for staff.
The Bill would amend the Migration Act to allow the Minister to determine, via a disallowable legislative instrument, that an item is a 'prohibited thing' in relation to Immigration Detention Facilities or persons in detention, if the Minister is satisfied that the thing is unlawful to possess in a place or places in Australia or if the thing would pose a risk to the health, safety or security of a person in a facility, or the order of a facility.
The Bill will also strengthen powers to search for, screen, seize and retain prohibited and controlled items without a warrant, and allow for searches within centres, including the use of detector dogs to search the premises.
The Bill will include safeguards to ensure a detainee's right to communicate freely continues to be met.
The Bill specifically requires that to exercise the powers to search for and seize a prohibited thing that is otherwise not unlawful to possess or use, an officer must first believe on reasonable grounds that such search or seizure is necessary to prevent or lessen a risk to the health, safety or security of people in the immigration detention facility, or to the good order of the facility.
If such a thing is seized it must also be returned as soon as an officer no longer holds that view and the detainee requests its return.
Further, to ensure the right of detainees to engage in communications with others outside of the detention facilities is maintained, if the thing that is seized is a mobile phone or communication device, the detainee will be provided with an alternative device until such time as their device is returned. This will ensure there is no impact on their ability to contact their friends and family, or to engage in any other lawful communication under their constitutionally-implied rights.
The alternative means of communication must be reasonably sufficient to enable the detainee to communicate with family, as well as anyone outside the facility for the purposes of obtaining legal advice.
To be clear, the Bill does not establish a blanket prohibition against the possession or use of mobile phones in immigration detention.
Communication devices may only be confiscated when they are being used in a way which would pose a risk to the safety of others in the facility.
The powers provided in this Bill are reasonable, proportionate and essential to ensure the safety and wellbeing of all people in immigration detention facilities.
The Bill effectively balances the rights of the individuals with the duty of care owed by the Commonwealth, and I commend it to the Chamber.
That this bill be taken together with the Migration Amendment Bill 2024 and the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 for their remaining stages.
That Senator Thorpe be suspended from the sittings of the Senate until the end of sitting on 28 November 2024.
That the question be now put.
The Senate divided. [18:12]
(The President—Senator Lines)
The Senate divided. [18:15]
(The President—Senator Lines)
That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 18 December 2024:
The Minister for the Environment and Water's refusal to make a decision on the future of the salmon industry in Macquarie Harbour and end the uncertainty for the Tasmanian families whose livelihoods depend on it, with particular reference to:
(a) the recent improving oxygenation levels and significantly improved prospects of the Maugean skate;
(b) the need for bipartisan support of the salmon industry;
(c) the catastrophic effect a negative decision would have on the community of Strahan;
(d) the disastrous effect of continued delays of this Government making a decision; and
(e) any other related matters.
1. A moratorium on any new industrial fish farms in Tasmania's coastal, estuary and river waters.
2. An immediate government led transition out of the sea and into landbased farms.
We want jobs and we want sustainability. It's not either-or. It's a matter of how we achieve both.