﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2025-02-12</date>
    <parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>Senate</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 12 February 2025</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The PRESIDENT (Senator </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">the Hon. </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Sue Lines</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span> took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tabling</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Meeting</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsideration of Decisions) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="s1431" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsideration of Decisions) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It gives me great—well, I would say 'pleasure' but I'm concerned that we actually even have to have this debate in relation to this piece of legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsideration of Decisions) Bill 2024, because it's a problem of this government's own making that this piece of legislation addresses.</para>
<para>We shouldn't need to have this debate, but we do because the Minister for Environment and Water took the word of organisations such as the now discredited Environmental Defenders Office over that of the Tasmanian government in relation to a decision on salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour. Instead of taking the word of the Tasmanian government, who in their submission to the Commonwealth in relation to this matter indicated that there had been no substantial change in circumstances that weren't foreseen in relation to salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour, the government went with the environmental groups. It's a pattern that we have seen in Tasmania for a considerable period of time, unfortunately.</para>
<para>Of course, the Environmental Defenders Office are an organisation that have recently had a significant finding against them in the courts in relation to other matters, where they have been found to have fabricated evidence, so it's even more disturbing that the government would take the word of an organisation like this over that of the Tasmanian government. That decision set a precedent, which is that more than 11 years after a decision was made to support salmon farming in Tasmania—a decision that it would not be a controlled action—the government can come back, after all of the businesses involved have made all of the investments they have made, and reconsider the decision. What sort of circumstance is that? What if a council gave you approval to build a house and then 10 or 11 years later they came back and said: 'Hang on a minute. We're not sure about that. We might have another look. In fact, we might make you take your house down. We might make you demolish your house, because we don't think we should have approved it in the first place'? What an absurd circumstance! What level of sovereign risk does that generate?</para>
<para>In respect of this bill to amend the EPBC Act we've seen exactly the same attitude. Those who invest their resources to create jobs in our economy, for whom everything is at risk—every single one of them, from a range of different circumstances—supported this amendment to the act. Obviously, the salmon industry supported it, as did the Forest Products Association; the renewable energy industry—Tilt Renewables; the Business Council of Australia; Senex; Santos, who obviously were the victim of the Environmental Defenders Office, with its corrupt evidence to a court; the Australian Airports Association; the Minerals Council of Australia. These are the organisations that invest tens of thousands of dollars—millions of dollars—in gaining environmental approvals, and every single one of them supported this very simple amendment to the EPBC Act to provide them with some certainty and remove the sovereign risk that this government had created. What does the government do in its majority report on the bill? It sides with the EDO, the Environmental Defenders Office. It sends a message.</para>
<para>The government will get up and say: 'Yes, well, we're going to amend the EPBC Act on a broader scale. There's the nature-positive legislation.' Well, there's not. The government themselves voted against debating that this week. So there is no change on the horizon from this government. That's unless they do a deal with the Greens, which we've seen a fair bit of lately. They stand here today against every user of the EPBC Act—those who invest to create jobs in our economy. That's all that these people are asking for: some certainty that, when a government makes a decision, the decision stands. That's what this very simple piece of legislation does.</para>
<para>This legislation doesn't even remove the capacity for reconsideration down the line in the case of a genuine change in circumstances. It leaves the act exactly as it is for three years, and then, after three years, any reconsideration request must come from an appropriate minister in the state government where the project is being developed. It's a simple piece of legislation. It should be easy for the government to support. They currently don't have anything on the table with respect to changes to the current act but they are prepared to oppose this change simply because the environment group said so.</para>
<para>Let's hear what some of these organisations that submitted to the Senate inquiry had to say. It was an inquiry that wasn't allowed to have public hearings, that was punted back to a time after sittings in the last part of last year. Really, there was zero respect for this piece of legislation shown by the government all the way through, which is a bit of a trademark, I suppose. Senex Energy said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill under consideration … would provide greater certainty in approval conditions for project proponents. Such certainty is essential for investor confidence, particularly in capital intensive industries involving multi-decade investments such as the natural gas industry.</para></quote>
<para>We know the Greens won't support it, because they're the anti-everything brigade, but the government talk about having a future gas strategy as being important for our future energy needs. We know we need more gas in the system. This is what a major investor is saying in respect of this legislation. It's a simple piece of legislation; it should not be difficult to support.</para>
<para>Santos wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Challenges in the form of reconsideration requests will continue to cause delays and uncertainties for proponents, investors and the community if deficiencies in the Act are not addressed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Santos supports the Bill.</para></quote>
<para>Santos also wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Santos supports any reform which will bring clarity and greater investment confidence to the approvals regime.</para></quote>
<para>It's pretty clear. But, of course, the government reject that. They've gone with the corrupt Environmental Defenders Office.</para>
<para>The Australian Forest Products Association wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The proposed changes in the Bill will substantially improve regulatory certainty for investors in projects that require environmental approvals, increase investment overall and directly assist the government's efforts to promote expansion of, and investment in, the plantation forestry sector.</para></quote>
<para>The government have a policy to increase plantations, and here's the forest industry saying this piece of legislation will enhance that, but Labor's gone with the corrupt Environmental Defenders Office.</para>
<para>The Business Council of Australia wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">One of the key criticisms of the existing EPBC Act is the lack of certainty provided to proponents in pursuing a decision via the process. When multi-million and multi-billion-dollar investments, supporting thousands of direct and indirect jobs, are being developed and delivered there must be certainty in process and approvals.</para></quote>
<para>It can't get much clearer. Yet the government, again, poignant in the Santos circumstance, are going with the discredited, corrupt Environmental Defenders Office evidence. BCA continued:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The recently highlighted ability under the existing Act for third parties to challenge an approval, years after it has been given, has the potential to undermine investor confidence in any project that may have an interaction with the EPBC Act. Decisions under the Act range from renewable energy projects to mining, to housing supply—</para></quote>
<para>hello, national housing crisis—</para>
<quote><para class="block">and tourism, and to agriculture and aquaculture.</para></quote>
<para>All users of the act that submitted to this inquiry supported this change. The government has chosen in its report to go with the anti-everything brigade.</para>
<para>The Clean Energy Investor Group wrote:</para>
<list>The EPBC Amendment's clear timeframes for reconsidering decisions will increase investor confidence in clean energy projects.</list>
<list>CEIG believes the EPBC Amendment will improve the predictability and efficiency of environmental approvals.</list>
<para>CEIG also wrote:</para>
<list>CEIG supports the EPBC Amendment as it addresses the current uncertainty surrounding approvals under the EPBC Act.</list>
<para>Here we are with a government with a renewables policy for transition of the Australian economy. This is what the investors into clean energy are saying to the government, and they snub their nose at it. How absurd!</para>
<para>Tilt Renewables, one of the largest owners and operators of wind and solar generation in Australia, with 1,700 megawatts of renewable energy capacity across a number of projects, wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The rationale for this is clear as investors need certainty that a planning approval … is final and will not be overturned as they continue to invest in developing, and then constructing, the project.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">… the Bill would be a worthwhile reform and improvement to the current open-ended EPBC appeal process.</para></quote>
<para>I went about developing this piece of legislation after a conversation with a state environment minister who had told me about the alarm amongst other environment ministers around the country as to the actions of Minister Plibersek in reopening this over-a-decade-old approval in Tasmania. It wasn't just about the salmon industry; it was about all of the other sectors that I've talked about during my contribution. We'll be accused of running a wedge or something of that nature in relation to salmon farming, but this was a genuine concern that was brought to me by a colleague in another parliament who happened to be the environment minister. They were all concerned about the precedent that had been set that would allow any similar approval to be reconsidered by the minister. And this was not through some sort of substantial submission. Three environmental groups—anti-everything brigade groups—wrote a letter to Minister Plibersek. They didn't write a substantial submission; they wrote a letter. On the basis of that letter, an approval process that has been in place for over a decade has been thrown into upheaval, and everybody is asking questions, including environment ministers at a state level.</para>
<para>This is a simple piece of legislation that can provide certainty for investors. Yes, there's a process that may come to fruition, perhaps in the next parliament, with respect to the EPBC Act more broadly. But, quite frankly, people who are putting up million, tens of millions or billions of dollars to invest in projects that support this sector, support industry and support jobs around the country should have the certainty of the decisions that are made by government. It is only reasonable that they do.</para>
<para>As I said earlier, consider if a council approved your house and came back 10 years later and said, 'Sorry, we're going to look at this again; you might have to take the extension down or we might make you take the house apart.' It's an absurdity, and the government should be supporting this legislation. They should be supporting jobs in Tasmania and across the country.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There were so many things that one could respond to in that contribution. I am amazed by the scaremongering that's going on here. The EPBC legislation, as it stands, has stood for a very long time. Senator Colbeck trying to frighten people, saying that someone's going to take down their house, is beyond absurd. It's offensive and unnecessary, and he probably should be quite ashamed of himself.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Colbeck</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Debate the issue, go on!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I stand here ignoring Senator Colbeck's interjections because I listened to him in silence, out of respect, and it would be nice if there were a bit more of it.</para>
<para>The committee that I chair, the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, conducted an inquiry into this bill, and the report was informed by a range of expert submissions. There were a variety of views, of course. This issue and anything around the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act brings us a great deal of debate and two very strong opposing sides: those opposite, the coalition, who back business and business only and have no interest in the environment; and our colleagues over in the Greens, who fight valiantly to protect the environment and have a lesser concern about business.</para>
<para>What we're trying to do here, what we always try and do here, is find the balance that's right for Australia, the balance that respects and encourages investment in business but keeps the integrity of our environment at the heart of the decision-making. The committee found through its inquiry that this bill is unnecessary, misguided and counterproductive, basically, to Australia's environmental governance. The committee recommended that the bill not be passed. As we've heard from Senator Colbeck, it really is a desperate attempt to scare workers in regional Tasmania, and that absurd rant at the end about housing has no place in this chamber.</para>
<para>Labor will always back workers. There is an industry in Tasmania that is, that should be and that will be—we will support it to be—a sustainable Tasmanian salmon industry. It is at the centre of a lot of jobs, and therefore there's a balance in how you proceed. We know how much Tasmanians love their natural environment and we also know how important their local economy is. We stand here on the Labor benches not to pick one side or the other but to support workers, to support business and to support the environment. That is a more complex way to go, but it is the right way to go.</para>
<para>The bill that was introduced by Senator Colbeck is looking to impose arbitrary limitations on the reconsideration of environmental decisions. It basically restricts timeframes within which consideration can occur and limits who can actually request it. Senator Colbeck has argued that this will provide greater certainty for industry and investment, but, as the committee inquiry heard through its submissions, these proposed changes are unnecessary. There are already very strict conditions on reconsiderations that already exist, and those reconsiderations have been in the act for a long time. What we don't want to do, and what Senator Colbeck's bill would do, is undermine the fundamental integrity of our environmental protections.</para>
<para>The most glaring issue in this bill is that it removes an important safeguard in our environmental decision-making. Under the current act, the minister has the ability to reconsider a decision when a new substantial piece of information arises or when circumstances have changed significantly since the original approval. I think what you need to be clear on here is what the words 'substantial' and 'significant' mean. It's not that, as Senator Colbeck would have you believe, we're going to go and tell people they have to take their house down.</para>
<para>These are fundamental issues that need to be held within our environmental protection laws. The environment is not a static thing. As scientific information evolves, as we learn more and as things change, our environmental monitoring needs to identify those things. Then we need to deal with them—not in the manner that Senator Colbeck has dealt with them this morning, through scaremongering. These are often new threats and things that reveal new issues that need to be considered, not just ignored or mowed over for a particular ideological position. There are great dangers in limiting reconsideration to a three-year window, as has been proposed, because sometimes issues occur decades into the future. Things change. We do not live in a static world.</para>
<para>Restricting who can request such a reconsideration is also one of the big challenges with what the coalition is proposing here. Limiting reconsideration requests beyond three years and limiting who can make them is highly problematic. You're turning it into an entirely political situation, as opposed as a scientific, factual one that respects the community, respects business and respects the perspectives put forward when something changes.</para>
<para>This bill deliberately excludes community groups, because, as we know—and we hear it all the time—those opposite aren't big fans of community groups who have views on things, particularly when it comes to the environment. It excludes independent experts. It excludes environmental organisations. We know environmental organisations are public enemy No. 1 for the coalition. They can't bear somebody having an opinion and they can't go through a process of respecting people's ideas. The kinds of restrictions here about who can make a request are going to significantly reduce any public oversight and any community concerns being recognised.</para>
<para>We look at community participation in environmental decision-making as a crucial transparency and accountability measure. Removing this pathway for public engagement is going to erode trust even further than it already has. The system is widely regarded as inadequate. We know that; we talked about this endlessly in this chamber. Endlessly we have spoken about the problems with the EPBC Act. This has been going on for decades. But do you think we can get agreement to bring forward a revised bill? No. Those opposite are business only. Greens colleagues are environment only. Neither of these ways is the way to go. We need to come to a position where everyone gets that business is important and the environment is important. We need to find the pathway through that. That's what we've been trying to do with revisions to the EPBC Act that we've been talking about ever since we got into government, but do you think we can get an agreement? No, because it's an either/or. That's not what we're about. We're about protecting the environment and supporting business. That takes a much more complex thought process and a much more engaged process than either of our major party colleagues in this chamber or the other are prepared to invest.</para>
<para>Now, the EPBC Act, as I've said, already contains strict safeguards to ensure that any reconsideration requests are entertained only with substantial new information that warrants a review, not just for political purposes as proposed by Senator Colbeck. Sustainable investment anywhere in this country, in any industry—be it salmon farming, be it mining, be it housing; it doesn't matter—all relies on robust, reliable environmental governance. Allowing projects to proceed based on outdated or incomplete information creates long-term financial and long-term environmental liability. Ultimately, that will harm business, communities and ecosystems alike.</para>
<para>The comprehensive reform of the EPBC Act was informed by Professor Graeme Samuel's review. He identified—and I don't think anyone disagrees—that our environmental laws as they stand are broken. Yet in almost three long years we have not been able to get our colleagues in the chamber to have a proper conversation and agree to compromise. I know that's maybe not quite where people are at, but compromise is a good thing to get a better outcome. Until we get some more engaged, more thoughtful and more intellectual embrace by my colleagues of the reform that we're trying to get through to the EPBC, we will still be in this situation where we have the same conversation over and over again in this chamber, because the coalition and the Greens are so ideologically entrenched.</para>
<para>If what you are looking for, Senator Colbeck, is a better deal for business, I would suggest you engage with the EPBC reform, because, with the way the laws are now, they're not working for anyone. We know that, in the current situation—we're seeing it—our environment is facing unprecedented challenges: climate change, habitat destruction and biodiversity loss. We have to ensure that our laws on the environment are robust, responsive and informed by the best available science. This bill moves us completely in the wrong direction. Really, it is just a political stunt that Senator Colbeck has been put up to by his Tasmanian Liberal colleagues. We need an answer. We need a pathway. We need a measure that protects business, protects workers and protects the environment. With enough thought and a bit less ideology, we can get there.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to contribute to the debate on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsideration of Decisions) Bill 2024. Let me say straight up that this bill is a bad bill. It's a political stunt from the coalition. It says everything about what the coalition think about the environment, and that is that they hate it. They hate the environment. They hate any moves to protect the environment. They resist any regulation that protects the environment, and they'll do anything they can to weaken environmental protections.</para>
<para>This is one of these issues where the coalition, refusing to listen to the scientists, refusing to listen to independent advice and refusing to listen to the cries and concerns in their local community for the survival of our native species and our ecosystems, are all too obsessed with digging, drilling and polluting. In this case, when we look at the salmon industry's devastation of waterways in Tasmania, the coalition don't give two hoots about the pollution and the damage that the corporate—foreign, I might add—salmon industry is doing to beautiful Tasmania.</para>
<para>We are on the cusp of a biodiversity crisis. We have ecosystems in collapse. We have our beautiful native species—species after species—being acknowledged as in serious danger of extinction, and in this case it's the maugean skate, an animal that has been around for hundreds of thousands of years, facing extinction. The Liberal Party and the National Party don't care about protecting Australia's environment. They don't care about the impact that industry, at all costs, has on ecosystems. I do wonder just how much money and support is flowing from the big salmon corporations to the Liberal Party. Why otherwise would you, day after day after day, ignore the very real threats to Tasmania's environment and waterways so these foreign salmon corporations can make profits? We've been told over and over again that the expansion of the salmon industry in Tasmania will push our native species and our biodiversity to extinction. But the Liberal Party in Tasmania do not care. That's what this bill is all about.</para>
<para>But of course it's not just in relation to the toxic salmon industry in Tasmania. This is emblematic of the coalition under Peter Dutton's rule. It is emblematic of Mr Dutton's attitude to the environment and to nature full stop. Do you know who is, more than anyone else, helping Mr Dutton at this coming election? That of course is Gina Rinehart. Gina Rinehart openly denounces the protection of Australia's environment and seems to have total disdain for Australia's unique and beautiful wildlife. If anyone hasn't seen it, you should look up the crazy, unhinged speech that Gina Rinehart gave last year as part of the Bush Summit. In the list of random points that Gina Rinehart was making, chief among them was that we couldn't possibly have laws that protect Australia's endangered wildlife, because—you know what?—27 of them might kill you.</para>
<para>That is the kind of logic that this unhinged, power-hungry individual has. Of course, we know where Gina Rinehart is putting her money this election. She is funding the Liberal Party. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are being handed over to Mr Dutton to do Gina Rinehart's bidding. Chief among her demands is the trashing of Australia's environmental regulation, the winding back of laws that protect our native species, all in the name of profit for the big mining corporations and Gina Rinehart herself—unhinged, un-Australian and damaging to our precious biodiversity.</para>
<para>The Liberal Party are going to run around this election saying listen to them because they will wind back environmental protection. They will stand in the way of and stare down the advice of scientists and experts about what is best for the sustainability of our natural world, and they will do the bidding of those who want to just keep logging, digging, bulldozing and polluting—and it doesn't matter whether it's the coal companies, the gas corporations, the logging lobby or, indeed, the big, foreign salmon corporations.</para>
<para>This position is not in the interests of local communities here, in Australia. This is in the interests of the profits of these big corporations and at the expense of our environment and the sustainability of jobs in our communities. If you pollute our waterways to a point where nothing can survive, there'll be no jobs in that area anyway. If you continue to log our native forests into extinction, there'll be no jobs there anyway. There are no jobs on a dead planet. That is a very clear, simple fact that is lost day after day on the likes of Mr Dutton, the Liberal Party and the National Party. But it seems that, if you are rich enough, like Gina Rinehart—if you've got billions of dollars yourself—then you don't care about what is being left behind for any future generation, and you don't care about the impacts on jobs in local communities or the health and protection of our environment.</para>
<para>Let's not forget Gina Rinehart was praising the ridiculously low, almost slave-labour wages of overseas workers because that's what she thinks workers should be paid here. She doesn't care about people's jobs. She only cares about her own money, and she only cares about whether Mr Dutton will be elected so that he can implement what she wants.</para>
<para>This bill is a political stunt from the Liberal Party, but it is a dangerous warning sign of what is to come under a Dutton government: the trashing of common sense, the overriding of independent expert advice because they don't like its inconvenient truth and the doing the bidding of the industries that only make their money and profit because they continue to pollute, destroy and bulldoze. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about the interests of the foreign owned salmon corporations, foreign owned logging companies, foreign owned mining corporations or foreign owned big ag.</para>
<para>This is a warning of what is to come from Peter Dutton's government if he were to be elected. They would do the bidding of big corporations at the expense of Australians, Australian jobs and our environment. When we stand up and say, 'Well, these corporations should have to pay their fair share of tax,' who does the squealing and the bidding and the defending of these big corporations? Of course, it's the Liberal Party and the National Party, the coalition who think their job and our job here in the parliament is to pave the way for these big corporations to run riot over our environment, over workers' rights and over Australia. But as soon as you say, 'Maybe you should pay something for that,' the Liberal Party say, 'Oh, no, no, no, you don't have to pay anything.' You don't have to pay anything—unless, of course, it comes in the form of a political donation, and then they'll have their hand out. They're happy to take money for themselves as donations but they don't want money being paid back in tax to the Australian taxpayer.</para>
<para>The beautiful waterways and rivers of Tasmania deserve to be protected for everybody—not just for the survival of the maugean skate and not just for fishermen in the area and the sustainable fishing industry. They deserve to be protected in the public interest because nature needs our help and we are part of the environment. When we come into this place and see pathetic pieces of legislation designed to ignore expert advice and overrule the protection of our endangered species and our environment, you've got to be very wary. Why would the Liberal Party want these rules and this advice ignored and overturned? It's not because they're doing it in the best interests of the Australian people. They are doing it because the corporations who are polluting, logging, digging and burning want to keep making massive profits. Mr Dutton is doing the bidding of the big corporations because he wants them to be able to keep making profits. He wants to be mates with them, like he is with Gina Rinehart, at the expense of what is good for our communities and our environment and at the expense of the survival of some of our most unique and oldest living creatures.</para>
<para>Australia is a beautiful, beautiful country. We have some of the most unique species in the world. But, rather than taking pride in that and having a sense of national pride about how beautiful our country is, the Liberal Party want to sell it for cheap. The Liberal Party want to sell it off to the big corporations at a cheap price with very little regulation and no respect for or understanding of expert advice. Who would you believe—the scientists or Peter Dutton's Liberal Party? Do you take your advice from the Tasmanian Liberals? Or do you take your advice from the environmental scientists and climate experts? I know who I would choose, and I know who most Australians would choose. This bill is a bad bill for Australia and for our environment, and it should be rejected.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's a rumour going around at the moment—would you believe it?—that this could well be the last sitting week before the election, and I'd tend to think it is because, from listening to what both the government and their coalition partners, the Australian Greens, have had to say, you'd say it's all about sandbagging and holding together this little sham difference of opinion long enough for Australians to be distracted and not fooled into some allusion that this crowd over here, the Australian government, are pro jobs and that the Greens aren't the green tail wagging the Labor dog.</para>
<para>The Greens talk about what is to come, and, I have to tell you, this last sitting fortnight is a great representation of what is to come. I've lived through Labor-Green governments before and I can tell you one thing: they are bad. We hear someone talk about a bad bill that's bad for the environment or bad for the country. I'll tell you what's bad for the country, bad for the environment, bad for jobs and bad for the cost of living. It is a Labor-Green government and, if the polls are to be believed, that is what we're going to end up with after this election.</para>
<para>That is why it was so interesting to see the Senate inquiry report into this bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsideration of Decisions) Bill 2024. Both Labor and the Greens lined up together to say: 'Do you know what? We aren't going to touch this bill'—for a range of spurious reasons. They provided their responses and their arguments around why they wouldn't. None of them stack up, because, at the end of the day, there are very few people in this chamber—an exception being a group called the Australian Greens—who believe the laws are broken, in the sense that they don't protect the economy, they don't protect jobs, they do not do anything to advance the cause when it comes to addressing the cost-of-living crisis and keeping jobs in our regional communities.</para>
<para>That's why it is just so ridiculous that, instead of working with the coalition on making sure this bill does something productive for a community that has been left on tenterhooks now for more than a year, almost 18 months, for two Christmases—families in the community of Strahan, in the electorate of Braddon, have been left wondering whether they will have jobs in the months to come, will be able to pay their mortgages or should re-enrol their kids in the local school. These concerns are real, and what this bill was about was attempting to address the issues that that community has faced.</para>
<para>To suggest that we have a good process in place now, where anyone anywhere in the country, masquerading as a concerned citizen or, indeed, as some might categorise them, a scientist, can throw up into the air the certainty of an industry which has operated, in Macquarie Harbour in this case, for more than a decade—for almost 13 years now this salmon farming operation has been in existence. But the Bob Brown Foundation, of course, is not a group of scientists. I don't know how many scientists they have on staff or in their membership, but they are not invested in good outcomes for that community; they are a political outfit. They are green activists who seek to do harm to industries that generate economic outcomes for our community, and it is on that basis that we think we do need to restrain who can make claims of this nature. The fact is that more than a decade after these permits came into operation you can have this happen.</para>
<para>We hear these claims that it's all about foreign owned companies deriving massive, dirty big profits. They're a terrible thing, these profits, which, of course, are invested in our communities by companies like Huon Aqua, Tassal, Petuna and employ people. The fact that they employ 5,000 people in our state is something that gets glossed over by those who oppose the industry and those who won't stand up for it. If you want to talk about foreign money, let's talk about the Neighbours of Fish Farming, who receive overseas donations and grants from foreign, opaque, dark, shady entities like the Global Salmon Farming Resistance. Who are they? Where are they from? Do they have our community's interests at heart. No, I don't think they do, not if they're based out of Argentina and we don't know who they are. Do you think that they want to have Tasmanians employed in the salmon industry? No, I don't think they do, but they're handing over lots of money to the Neighbours of Fish Farming. Indeed, the members of the Global Salmon Farming Resistance, this foreign organisation, have very strong ties with the Bob Brown Foundation and others who are anti industry, anti jobs and anti good outcomes for our community.</para>
<para>So I say that if you're serious about protecting this industry, if you're serious about getting a good outcome and if you're serious about saying you support the salmon workers, then, this being the last sitting fortnight that we will have before this election—and I think that is the case—do something before the election to provide certainty for salmon workers. Do something to ensure that this industry can operate with certainty into the future. You cannot say you support this industry, which, frankly, science has proven is sustainable, is manageable and will create jobs while protecting the environment and protecting the future of the maugean skate—do something! If you don't want to support this bill in its current form, amend it or, I don't know, move a motion to protect this industry. Call on this environment minister, who has sat on her hands and now sat on departmental advice for nearly 18 months, and do something to protect these jobs and this community. It is what any good Tasmanian would do. That's what I am doing, along with Senator Colbeck, Senator Chandler and Senator Askew.</para>
<para>I look forward to seeing how this bill is voted on, because I would characterise a vote against this legislation in one way, and that is, frankly, that you think what is happening here is okay, you think this green activist opposition to this industry is okay and you're going to let it continue. That's what it means if you vote against this bill. I commend the bill, of course, to the Senate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Losing the salmon industry from Macquarie Harbour will devastate the West Coast. Strahan and its surrounding towns will never be the same. If you think I'm being dramatic, don't take it from me. Anyone who's spoken to people on the West Coast knows how important the salmon industry is to their survival. The industry has revitalised the West Coast. It's brought back that sense of pride for the community, and our communities need jobs to thrive. If the salmon industry jobs go, with nothing else to replace them, the community will implode. Families will have to move away to find new work, and the West Coast of Tassie will lose its next generation. It will die another death. The West Coast has taken hit after hit, and it won't survive another.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister has made a few visits to the West Coast recently. He said he's open to passing legislation so reviews can't be made against past decisions—the same kind of bill we're voting on this morning from the coalition. I asked in question time last week if that was the Prime Minister's personal opinion or the official Labor Party policy. The Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water wasn't aware of the Prime Minister's comments, and I think that says everything.</para>
<para>With an election looming and Braddon a key seat, Labor and the Liberals are doing everything they can to win over voters on the north-west coast. Comments like this from the Prime Minister give the community hope. They give them a light at the end of the tunnel, a resolution finally in sight. But, if he doesn't have any intention of following through, it's misleading and cruel to a community on the brink.</para>
<para>Macquarie Harbour has been under review almost the entire time Labor has been in government—three years. Imagine waking up every day for three years not knowing if that's the day your job is going to be ripped out from under you, if it's the day you're going to lose the ability to buy food for your family and pay for the roof over their head. I've visited the workers in Strahan a few times. Each time, I was met by the worried faces of workers not concerned with politics or what's going on here in Canberra but who just want to do their job, provide for their families and be part of the West Coast community. It shouldn't be a big ask.</para>
<para>The chaos around Macquarie Harbour has led to a wider debate about salmon farms, and we've taken an all-or-nothing approach to the salmon industry in Tasmania. Either you support salmon and support jobs or you want to save a fish and damn an industry. This is a major oversimplification of the issue. I think there's a way forward where the industry can thrive and we can look after the environment at the same time.</para>
<para>The salmon industry is a major employer. It directly employees thousands of people in Tasmania. Many of these jobs are in regional and remote areas where other employment opportunities aren't available. But we can't ignore the very real environmental concerns either. Evidence shows salmon farms are contributing to long-term damage in sensitive aquatic habitats. It's not about compromise; it's about finding solutions and genuinely improving outcomes for both sides.</para>
<para>Here are some thoughts on how we could do that. The government can invest in offshore technologies. It'll help take the pressure off vulnerable ecosystems. They should also support research for sustainable food sources. It'll reduce the industry's environmental footprint and wastage. Let's also have more transparent reporting around the industry and bring the community into it. People in Hobart and Lonnie don't have direct contact with salmon farms in Macquarie Harbour or down in the Huon. Let's bring them into the conversation and acknowledge the industry has had its problems and will always be evolving to put them right. People trust that over the usual, 'Nothing to see here.' To genuinely move forward with salmon farming in Tasmania, we need to start looking at how we work together rather than fighting against each other.</para>
<para>The coalition bill aims to do just that. It's trying to make salmon farming no longer a political football. This bill says that reviews won't be able to be launched willy-nilly into past environmental decisions, but it's not a blanket ban on all reviews. The bill allows anyone to call for a review within three years of a decision being made. After three years, the call can be made, but it has to come from the relevant state or territory minister, by whom the review of the action will happen. It's a reasonable buffer where a decision can be examined, but the case has to be made to an elected minister, and not by someone with a beef against the original decision. Businesses investing in our regions don't do it on a whim or easily change direction when somebody thinks they should. They invest with a view to the long-term future, not a three-year election cycle. They have to be viable. They have to pay their workers. They have to make a profit and plan for the future. They take the risk and have to manage that risk. Their opponents know this, too. The bill still allows objections to be made, and, yes, hindsight can often help us look into the future. But it has to be balanced with what's fair and right. Opponents can still make their case to a state or territory minister, but it has to be fought and won on its merits, not on who can make the most noise and cause the most trouble.</para>
<para>Ministers are accountable and can be challenged. They know this, especially at state or territory level. This bill puts the power back in the hands of the local communities where decisions have been made—not in the hands of someone who lives in another state. Any rational person also knows that leaving thousands of workers in limbo for years is a dark place to be. It's not right and it's not fair. When it comes to Macquarie Harbour, I stand with the workers and the West Coast community. I stand for finally getting a solution for an industry that spent three years waiting for the other shoe to drop. That's why I'm supporting this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHANDLER</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsideration of Decisions) Bill 2024 is an incredibly important private senator's bill we are debating here today, introduced by my colleague Senator Richard Colbeck. He's done an incredible amount of work drafting this bill, which will provide the certainty that Tasmania's salmon workers need. Like I said, Senator Richard Colbeck has done an incredible amount of work on this bill. It is important to provide the salmon workers of Tasmania the certainty they need. I have spent many hours over the last few years meeting with Tasmania's salmon workers and talking to them about their concerns of a lack of certainty over their industry. I think it is incredibly important we listen to those concerns in this place.</para>
<para>As my colleagues who have already spoken on this bill, Senator Duniam and Senator Colbeck, have shared, Tasmanian salmon workers are hurting right now. They are hurting because this government has a decision sitting over their heads, meaning that they don't know if they are going to see another Christmas or another year working in their local industry. My colleagues Senator Colbeck and our fellow Senate candidate at the upcoming election, Jacki Martin, and I have spent time on the West Coast of Tasmania in Strahan, speaking to salmon workers and listening to their concerns. I know this bill that Senator Colbeck has introduced here today is incredibly important in doing that.</para>
<para>If we are able to bring this bill on for vote today—and I certainly do hope that is something we can do—then I think that will go some way to providing the certainty that this industry needs. The government has not provided them with that certainty. The government has not listened to Tasmanian salmon workers. It has not listened to the concerns of the industry and what they are seeking to achieve. They just want certainty.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the question be now put.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the question be now put.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [10:04]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>30</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>31</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>6</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                </names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>While global heating is spiralling past 1.5 degrees and while ecosystems are literally crumbling around us, here we have the Liberal Party engaged in a race to the bottom to undermine our already pathetically weak environment laws in Australia. Let's be very clear about the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act—it does not do what it says on the tin. It claims to be about protecting our environment, but what it actually does is facilitate the destruction of nature. It facilitates the undermining of biodiversity. It does that because it was designed to be a fast track for environmentally destructive approvals. It was never designed to be a piece of legislation that protected our environment. That's why it was so disappointing when Labor kowtowed to the fossil fuel industry and refused to progress its so-called nature-positive laws, which were not anywhere near sufficient to fix our broken environment laws.</para>
<para>But Labor wouldn't even progress their weak attempt to fix our weak environment laws, because they got their riding orders from the giant fossil fuel corporations who, remember, are making obscene profits and whose CEOs are making multimillion dollar salary packages by cooking our planet. What that means is they are making obscene profits and their CEOs are making multimillion dollar salary packages by engaging an action that will actually result in large numbers of people dying, even greater numbers of people being displaced from their homes, famine, war and a massive civilisational upheaval that humanity will face as we move through the decades of this century. Instead of actually taking action in the public interest, we have Labor kowtowing to the fossil fuel sector and refusing to progress reforms to fix our broken environment laws and the Liberals coming in here today moving to undermine our already pathetically weak environment laws.</para>
<para>This is a race to the bottom. It is dangerous for humanity. It is absolutely catastrophic for our ecosystems, for that beautiful, complex web of life that actually underpins human survival on this planet. History will view the Labor and Liberal parties very harshly—and rightly so. History will also laud those of us—for example, in the Greens—who are standing up and fighting against what is happening in here. This collaboration, this collusion between Labor and Liberal, to refuse to fix our environment laws and to actually actively undermine them and prevent them from even having an opportunity to do what it claims that they do in the name of the legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, is active collusion and it is against the interests of humanity. We need to understand this because we need to name it and we need to call it out. When you are facing this kind of collusion, this kind of abrogation—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>298839</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time for this debate has expired. You will be in continuation.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>10</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Withdrawal</title>
          <page.no>10</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to move a motion relating to the discharge of bills from the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>, as circulated in the chamber.</para>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name as Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the discharge of bills from the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para></quote>
<para>As if the car tax that was exposed yesterday wasn't enough, we now have the fresh food tax. What the coalition is seeking to do today is to have the farmers tax removed from the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline> of Senate debate to give confidence to the 85,000 farmers across this country that this government will not seek to make them pay for the biosecurity arrangements of importers—their competitors. It is absolutely outrageous and really goes to the heart of the Labor Party's attack on rural and regional Australia.</para>
<para>Our farmers are producing the cleanest, greenest product in the world. Our biosecurity arrangements need to be tough and they need to be secure, but you shouldn't be expecting our farmers to be the ones to pay for that, because—guess what—you tax the farmers but they are price takers. You have to pass that tax through. That means that, in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, fresh groceries are going to go through the roof for everyday Australians. You're seeing in the UK over this week that farmers right across the UK have taken to the streets of London against their own Labor government installing taxes and increased impost on the agriculture sector there. The agriculture sector here in Australia has made it very clear that they do not want this biosecurity tax, this fresh food tax from Labor. Thanks to the tough stance that they have taken, it's sat on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline> for 320 days. We haven't dealt with it. Thanks to the National Farmers Federation and their president, David Jochinke, for being so tough, for actually standing up for our primary producers, because what we have seen under Labor is that Australians are now seeing food at the grocery store go up by 12 per cent during the cost-of-living crisis.</para>
<para>So what do they do? They think it's just not high enough for everyday Australians to pay for their fresh food; let's put a tax on farmers. But that's not all they've done to our agricultural sector. They've torn up the agriculture visa, making it harder for our farmers to find a workforce. They've banned the live sheep export trade, putting men and women—shearers—out of work in WA, and they've also cut and delayed regional infrastructure and water projects. The 82 per cent renewable target by 2030 is seeing farmland carpeted with solar panels, wind towers, and transmission lines—tearing up private property rights. The deceitful changes to superannuation, which I'm sure will be slammed through this chamber before we break, that will see farmers taxed on unrealised gains—as if they're going to sell the family farm to pay their tax bill—are absolutely appalling. There is radical industrial relations law. They're signing up to the Global Methane Pledge. Thank you very much, if you're a beef producer! There are potential cultural heritage laws which put private property rights at risk across this country and the onerous scope 3 compulsory emissions, and I could go on.</para>
<para>They talk a big game about supporting rural and regional Australians, the nine million of us who don't live in capital cities. They say that as they're in front of the cameras, as they're standing up in Merimbula even this morning. But look at people's actions. This government's actions are an assault on rural and regional Australians, on what we do. You can't find a doctor in the regions, for love nor money.</para>
<para>They've torn up projects that were supposed to assist us with road safety and productivity gains with freight. They are attacking our farmers. They've instigated a car and ute tax, which will mean rural and regional Australians pay more for the cars we don't just buy because we love them—which we do—but because we need them to do our work and to travel the hundreds of kilometres just to get to footy training on a Thursday night, let alone earn a living. Labor's assault on the regions has to stop and we need to discharge this bill.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government will be opposing this suspension. We'll oppose it because we don't accept that the opposition should be able to rearrange the program every morning, as has become custom in this place.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>298839</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Rennick, a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Rennick</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was up before Senator Gallagher. I want to make sure I get a chance to speak to this.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>298839</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The government takes precedence, Senator Rennick. I'll come to you.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry, Senator Rennick, I won't be taking the full five minutes. I'm not going to be lectured by Senator McKenzie around biosecurity. When we came to government, Biosecurity, like other areas of the Public Service, was underfunded and unable to do the job it needed to do.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Why are you taxing farmers to pay for it?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is what happened under the former government.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>So pay for it. You're happy to pay for everything else, shovelling hundreds of millions of dollars out the door.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Don't pretend otherwise. You ignored the risks of biosecurity that have massive economic impact on farmers.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McAllister</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order, Acting Deputy President. Senator McKenzie was heard in silence, and it would be appreciated if she would do Senator Gallagher the same courtesy.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>298839</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie, I will remind you that interjecting during debate is disorderly.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The coalition had left our biosecurity system underfunded and insecure, and we heard that from farmers around the country.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>298839</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie, again, I remind you that interjections are disorderly.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Their shameful legacy on biosecurity was ignoring demands from farmers for sustainable biosecurity funding. They did absolutely nothing to make importers pay their fair share, for almost a decade. We have worked on trying to find the balance, to find that sustainable biosecurity funding model going forward. We accept that this bill will not be part of that solution.</para>
<para>But we are not going to be lectured on biosecurity by the National Party. They cut it, they didn't invest in it and they left our farmers vulnerable. Not only did they do that for farmers; they also trashed our international relationships to the point that our farmers lost all of that business with our biggest trading partner, China. Under this government, $20 billion in trade has resumed. That is how much we value farmers. That is how much we value the relationships, and that is how much we will advocate on their behalf. We won't take lectures from Senator McKenzie on any of that, because they left it in absolute crisis and disarray. Minister Watt came in and had to fix it, and the ERC had to find resources to deliver the security that our farmers deserve and our community deserves.</para>
<para>We will not support this suspension. We do not believe in Senator McKenzie grandstanding in opposition when she was unable to do anything in government. That is the problem here.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Greens support discharging the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024 from the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>. I can understand why the Nationals want to have a bit of debate at one minute to midnight, near the end of the 47th Parliament, to show they're doing something for farmers, when most of their focus in this parliament has been on approving new coal projects and gas projects, fighting culture wars and undermining the path to recognition for our First Nations people. But here you are, having a little bit of a debate and raising points in the Senate to show that you're supporting farmers.</para>
<para>I've got a couple of things to say very briefly about this bill. The Greens made it clear to Labor that we didn't support this bill in its current form. We did listen to the concerns raised with us by numerous stakeholders. But I want to be really clear. The funding in this country for biosecurity, which arguably is one of the biggest threats facing our agriculture sector, is through levies that are paid for agriculture producers and goes to a stance or a framework around reacting to biosecurity outbreaks. That funding is there, and, if we get a biosecurity outbreak, it's there to be spent to try and get on top of a biosecurity outbreak. There isn't any funding to try to prevent biosecurity outbreaks. That comes out of general revenue. This bill was designed to add an extra funding stream to help us better futureproof our agricultural sector against enormous biosecurity risks, and I do believe it is something we still need to work on.</para>
<para>I wanted to get this on record today. I spoke to the National Farmers Federation and other stakeholders, and they made it very clear with me that they were prepared to sit down with the government and find a way forward on this and find a new funding stream and a structure that works for them. In good faith, the Greens said to the government that we wouldn't support this, but we do have an expectation the agricultural sector will work with the government of the day to find a way forward so we can get more funding to prevent biosecurity risks. We've recently seen it with the avian flu. There are so many risks facing our country. We've got to do better. I wanted to get that on record today.</para>
<para>We're supporting the discharge of this bill, but we have an expectation that, in good faith, the agricultural sector will work with the government to find a solution to this problem.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>So bad is this government that even the Australian Greens have decided to distance themselves from the government's legislation. Senator Whish-Wilson has just confirmed that the Greens will support the discharge of the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024 from the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>. Congratulation to Senator Whish-Wilson and the Australian Greens for the wisdom that you have shown in this particular instance.</para>
<para>There's no group in the Australian community that the Labor government has not sought to target and undermine. They've undermined the experience of Australian families with their cost-of-living crisis. They've undermined Australia's mining and resources sector with regulatory uncertainty as a result of duplicative environmental laws. There are workplace relations laws that stifle workplaces rather than enliven them, and, of course, Australia's agricultural sector has been at the forefront of Labor's attempts to undermine and attack the very heart and essence of Australia's prosperity.</para>
<para>Let's be very clear about this. The biosecurity protection levy bill was pushed through the House of Representatives in March 2024, almost a year ago, and has sat on the Senate <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline> for no fewer than 320 days. The opposition, in the form of the coalition, opposes it. The Australian Greens have now confirmed that they oppose it, so let's wait to see what the crossbench does. Every crossbench senator is now on notice. Do they support Australia's agricultural sector, or do they want to tax it into oblivion?</para>
<para>This fresh food tax or farming tax—whatever you want to call it—is just another attempt by the Labor government to undermine Australians' agricultural sector. What more evidence do Australia's regional communities need to confirm in their own hearts and minds that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Dr Jim Chalmers are not on their side? No matter what the government might do in the last 24 to 36 hours while rushing out all these new announcements—'terminal to the teller' and all these fancy slogans—the record of this Labor government in terms of supporting agricultural communities at a time of their greatest need is obvious and bad.</para>
<para>Labor has chosen to tear up the agriculture visa. Labor is attempting ill-advised changes to the PALM scheme. Labor is banning live sheep exports, which is sending shivers through the spines of regional communities in my home state of Western Australia; pushing ahead with water buybacks; signing up to a reckless race to 82 per cent renewables; implementing onerous scope 3 compulsory emissions reporting arrangements; making deceitful changes to superannuation; passing radical industrial relations laws that stifle farming communities; signing up to the Global Methane Pledge; potentially passing cultural heritage laws that put farming communities at risk; delaying red imported fire ant eradication funding; and implementing a new tax on trucks and utes.</para>
<para>The list goes on and on and on, and today this Senate chamber can say to the Australian Labor Party: 'Enough is enough. We're making a stand.' The opposition's motion is supported by the Australian Greens, and now the onus is on the crossbench. Will they stand up to support regional communities, or will they let them wither on the vine?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to also support the removal of the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024 from the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>. I can't understand why we don't put a tax on the importers. We've now got the US President wanting to start a trade war, so let's call their bluff. Let's make the importers, the people who are bringing these containers on board, pay.</para>
<para>According to agriculture.gov.au, taxpayers have to pay 44 per cent of this levy. Believe it or not, Australia Post have to pay two per cent as well. Meanwhile, the importers only pay 48 per cent. Our wheat farmers and grain producers already pay through GST and through beer excise, and one of the policies that People First are advocating for is to reduce the beer excise tax from 60c per litre of alcohol down to 20c. This country was built by the beer drinkers and it belongs to them, not the wine drinkers. If wine can get a subsidy, so should beer.</para>
<para>The other thing we need to do to help our agricultural producers in this country is allow the farmers to engage in collective bargaining when it comes to dealing with big wholesale buyers. In the supermarket inquiry, I saw that Coles and Woolworths are leaning very heavily on our horticultural growers—a big shout-out to the guys in the Lockyer Valley and around Bundaberg and to the many producers up in North Queensland. We need to protect our horticulturalists, we need to allow them to engage in collective bargaining and we need much more transparency in the prices that Coles and Woolworths are offering to our farmers. These are two policies that People First will be proposing.</para>
<para>But I'll get back to this bill. We strongly believe that the people who import goods into this country should be the ones who pay for the biosecurity levy. It's not right that the consumers here in Australia have to pay for this. By putting a tax on the taxpayers, it's another impost on the cost of living, through food.</para>
<para>I, for the life of me, can't understand why we'd want to be encouraging foreign farmers and foreign producers to sell their goods into Australia when we have a very viable and competitive agricultural sector here in Australia. I might add that Australia is one of the very few countries in the world that doesn't protect its agricultural and manufacturing industry—it makes my blood boil—and that's if you don't add on the amount of pork that gets dumped in this country from the EU and from Canada. This is the thing. It's all very well to say you believe in free trade, but that doesn't mean you destroy your own producers while other producers in other countries get enormous subsidies—the EU's notorious for this—and then dump. They get enormous subsidies in their own country, and they overproduce and then dump in this country. So I support the disallowance of this bill. I think it's an absolute disgrace that we are trying to impose a tax on the Australian consumer. Let the foreign importers pay for this. I'd also just say that we need to also reduce the excise on beer—it's way out of control—and we need to allow our farmers to engage in collective bargaining with the big retailers like Coles and Woolworths.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the question be now put.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that standing orders be suspended.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [10:35]<br />(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Sterle)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>45</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Antic, A.</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                <name>Cadell, R. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Van, D. A.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>21</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That General Business Notice of Motion No. 785 relating to the discharge of the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024 and related bills be called on immediately and be determined without amendment.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Senate notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Albanese Government has presided over a period of record-high cost-of-living pressures,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the Biosecurity Protection Levy proposed by the Albanese Government is a new tax on Australian farmers and would force them to pay for the biosecurity risks of their international competitors to import products into Australia,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) Australian farmers already contribute significantly to biosecurity measures through their existing industry-led agricultural levies and by measures that they undertake on their properties,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) under the Albanese Government the price of food has risen by 12% and this new tax on agriculture would ultimately lead to higher grocery prices, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) since being received by the Senate, the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024 and related bills have been left on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline> without any debate for more than 320 days;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Senate calls on the Albanese Government to abandon its plan to impose additional biosecurity levies and charges on Australian agriculture; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the government business order of the day relating to the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024 and related bills be discharged from the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I ask that subsection (a) and (b) be put together? I'd like those subsections to be put together and then (c) put separately.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Could I also please ask that sections (a) and (b) be put separately to (c)?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, you can. The question is that parts (a) and (b) of general business notice of motion No. 785 moved by Senator McKenzie be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [10:47]<br />(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Sterle)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>30</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Antic, A.</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>35</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll now deal with part (c) of the motion.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>15</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>15</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7237" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>15</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move the opposition's amendment on sheet 3164:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1)—Schedule 4, page 48 (after line 4), after item 5, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5A At the end of section 237</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Registrar in each State, in the Australian Capital Territory and in the Northern Territory</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Principal Registrar must ensure that at least one registrar is appointed in each State, in the Australian Capital Territory and in the Northern Territory.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5B Section 243</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the section, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">243 Registries</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Minister must cause such registries of the Tribunal to be established as the Minister thinks fit, but so that at least one registry shall be established in each State, in the Australian Capital Territory and in the Northern Territory.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government will be opposing this amendment.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Shoebridge, a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The chamber seems to be in some sort of procedural miasma this morning. My understanding is that the amendment just passed on the voices. Then we had the government stand up and say they 'will be' opposing it, as though it's something in the future they're going to do. You just nodded. It's all somewhat confusing for those of us trying to follow what's going on.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Sorry, I thought I—Senator Scarr?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Acting Deputy President, maybe we should just walk through it again for the benefit of everyone.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Yes. Let's go. You've got the call.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 3164:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 4, page 48 (after line 4), after item 5, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5A At the end of section 237</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Registrar in each State, in the Australian Capital Territory and in the Northern Territory</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Principal Registrar must ensure that at least one registrar is appointed in each State, in the Australian Capital Territory and in the Northern Territory.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5B Section 243</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the section, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">243 Registries</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Minister must cause such registries of the Tribunal to be established as the Minister thinks fit, but so that at least one registry shall be established in each State, in the Australian Capital Territory and in the Northern Territory.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2882 together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1)—Clause 2, page 4 (at the end of the table), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2)—Page 49 (after line 17), at the end of the bill, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 6 — Reconsideration of IAA decisions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Definitions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In this Schedule:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">ART</inline> means the Administrative Review Tribunal.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">IAA</inline> means the Immigration Assessment Authority, as in existence before the transition time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Minister</inline> means the Minister administering the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">new Act</inline> means the <inline font-style="italic">Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">transition time</inline> means the time the new Act commences.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 Reconsideration of decisions on protection visa applications</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Subitem (2) applies if, at any time before the transition time:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a person applied for a protection visa (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline>); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a decision (the <inline font-style="italic">original decision</inline>) under section 65 of that Act on the person's application had been made to refuse to grant the visa to the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the IAA reviewed and affirmed the original decision; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the person has not been granted a protection visa since the original decision was made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Minister must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) refer the original decision to the ART as soon as practicable after the commencement of this item; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) notify the person in writing that the Minister as referred the original decision.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If the person requests the Minister to withdraw the referral, the Minister must withdraw the referral.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If the Minister refers an original decision to the ART under subitem (2), and the referral is not withdrawn on request of the person:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person is taken to have made an application to the ART under section 347 of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline> (as amended by Schedule 2 to the <inline font-style="italic">Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024</inline>) for a review of a reviewable protection decision; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the application is taken to have been properly made under sections 347 and 347A of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline> (as amended by Schedule 2 to the <inline font-style="italic">Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The ART must, as soon as practicable after receiving the referral, review the original decision and:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) affirm the original decision; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) remit the original decision for reconsideration in accordance with such directions or recommendations of the ART as the ART considers appropriate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) In reviewing the original decision, the ART must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) give the person a reasonable opportunity to provide additional information in relation to the original decision; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) disregard the decision made by the IAA to affirm the original decision.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 Effect of this Schedule</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Schedule has effect despite any other law of the Commonwealth.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 Rules</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Minister administering the <inline font-style="italic">Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024</inline> may, by legislative instrument, make rules prescribing matters relating to the review by the ART of decisions covered by subitem 2(1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Without limiting subitem (1) of this item, rules made for the purposes of that subitem may modify the operation of this Schedule or the new Act, to the extent that the modification is necessary to facilitate the review by the ART of the decisions covered by subitem 2(1).</para></quote>
<para>We had a discussion yesterday about the institutional unfairness that was inherent in the coalition's Immigration Assessment Authority process, and we saw some valiant efforts from Senator Scarr to try to hide the fact that some 460-plus determinations of the Immigration Assessment Authority were reviewed by the Federal Court, found to be unlawful and then referred back to the IAA to be determined in accordance with law. We requested of the government some insight into the countless millions of dollars of Commonwealth money that was spent defending the indefensible in the Federal Court and the extent of the delays that were caused by the grossly and, in fact, intentionally unfair process that was established by the IAA, but we haven't yet had that information provided. I understand the minister's argument that it's not the core issue. The failure of the IAA isn't the actual core issue that he came briefed to deal with today and yesterday, but it remains the fact that the fast-track process was an abuse of process that was intentionally designed to refuse valid asylum claims.</para>
<para>I particularly want to note the unfairness that it visited on the Tamil community. Tamil claims for asylum were rejected at an obscene rate. They were almost guaranteed to be rejected. The country assessment from DFAT, relied upon by the IAA, deliberately minimised the ongoing persecution the Tamil community face and deliberately sought to downplay the ongoing violence towards, disappearances of and exclusions against the Tamil community, and, for that reason, hundreds of claims from the Tamil community for asylum were unfairly and unreasonably rejected.</para>
<para>I want to note that it's not just the Tamil community. The unfair approach was adopted for claims from those seeking asylum from persecution in Myanmar, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iran, Sudan—the list goes on. I was particularly moved by the reports of one young woman, who is now an incredible contributor to our society—a leading international researcher on trying to understand skin cancers. I've got to admit I have skin in the game on that one. She is an extraordinary woman, who only found her way through university through grants and scholarships because she was trapped in the fast-track system. Having come here as a child and graduated from high school with all that promise, she was refused HECS and refused support into university, but, thankfully, universities and the broader community worked together with scholarships and grants, and she completed her studies, completed her postgraduate studies and is now a world-leading researcher and scholar on skin cancers. She is repeatedly invited to international forums to speak about it, but she can't leave the country, because she's trapped in the fast-track process. Her asylum claim was rejected by the unfair IAA process. She can't travel and is caught, like thousands and thousands of others, having been rejected by the IAA and had this government, frustratingly, refuse to provide a safe and viable pathway for permanency.</para>
<para>We've heard stories—and, if the government and the opposition were willing to listen, you'd hear stories—about claimants who put their application in to the IAA. They have researched sometimes for weeks or months, with a maximum five-page covering letter and then sometimes countless pages of documentation identifying their persecution and identifying their well-founded fear of persecution in the country from which they fled to Australia for safety.</para>
<para>One case sticks in my mind—this young woman who put together her application, supported by hundreds of pages of documents, and finally submitted it at 10 o'clock one night to the IAA. Having submitted it at 10 o'clock that night, she woke up the next morning, and, at 10 am, she got an email saying it had been rejected. She puts it in at 10 o'clock at night, with hundreds of pages of supporting documentation—it's a hugely considered application—and it's rejected by the coalition's unfair IAA at 10 o'clock the following morning. That was only enough time for the assessing officer to literally open it up. They couldn't have pretended to have considered it. They couldn't have pretended to have looked at it. As a result, she's been caught in 10 years of insecurity and threats of deportation. Surely no government of conscience could let that stand.</para>
<para>Instead, we have this government saying that they're not going to put in a process to reconsider those unfair rejections in the IAA. The only process they have on foot is individual ministerial intervention—literally the feudal lord approach to this. You have to go and beg the minister for an intervention, and he or she may deign to give a tiny handful of people ministerial intervention. Let's be clear: with 7,000 applications for ministerial intervention, if that were actually the approach, considering those matters would be all the minister did for the next decade. It is a pretend solution.</para>
<para>It's a nonsolution, so that's why we advanced this amendment, which is a real solution. This amendment would provide for the reconsideration of those unfair IAA decisions. Instead of placing it in the hands of a feudal lord politician, it would actually take the matter to the Administrative Review Tribunal. It would require the minister to refer to the ART, as soon as practicable, those matters where the circumstances are that there has been a review by the IAA that rejected an asylum claim and the person who was the subject of that review has not been granted a protection visa since that original decision was made.</para>
<para>The minister, having referred them to the ART, obviously gives those individuals the right to seek to have the matter withdrawn. But if they don't, then the ART is required to consider the application, to treat it as a valid application, to then either affirm or reject the decision to review, and, in that process, to allow the person and the department to present whatever additional information is needed, to do the process fairly, to assess the claims in accordance with law and to live up to our commitment to provide a credible, honest and genuine pathway to actually have claims fairly assessed for those thousands of people who were caught in the fast-track process. I urge the government to adopt this. We know the coalition won't, because they specialise in cruelty and they're trying to defend their unfair system.</para>
<para>We repealed the IAA because it was unfair. There are now thousands of people just demanding some fair chance to have their claims assessed—they and others are often protesting out the front of the minister's office. This gives them that fair chance. We urge the government to step up and do the right thing.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I first want to thank Senator Shoebridge for his work in this area over many, many years now, and that includes his time in the Senate. Also, I've seen the way Senator Scarr engages methodically and in good faith on a range of issues, including this. I may very much disagree with his party's position on elements of amendments in this bill, the Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024, but I do think he's a genuinely good-faith actor when it comes to getting across legislation and ensuring that it is sound.</para>
<para>I also want to commend the Attorney-General and the government for making the Administrative Review Tribunal more independent and transparent. This is clearly a crucial and long-overdue step towards a fairer system. But fairness and accessibility, two of the tribunal's stated goals, remain out of reach for many, particularly when it comes to migration matters. 'Fair and accessible' should mean just that, and it should mean that for everyone, but under the Migration Act, the tribunal has no discretion to extend appeal deadlines for migration applicants, regardless of their circumstances.</para>
<para>If you are currently homeless and don't receive a decision in time, too bad. If you're in hospital with a serious illness and you miss the deadline, too bad. If you're fleeing family violence and your decision is sent to your abuser's address, too bad. In these cases, the only option is to go to the Federal Court, where cases drag on for years, clogging our legal system and dragging out the uncertainty.</para>
<para>Migration matters make up 87 per cent of the tribunal's case load, yet the tribunal is stripped of discretion in these cases. I find there is a disconnect in this place, in that we say to these bodies, 'We trust you. You're experts. The appointment process is sound. We're going to have people on there who make great decisions,' but then we take away discretion. We've seen it done time and time again. We saw it done with the NACC, where we don't leave it up to the experts. We say: 'You're experts. Do your thing, except in these circumstances where politics comes into play.' On this issue, it is very cruel politics, and so many Australians want the major parties to do better on this. This bill was an opportunity to fix this, and I think it's an opportunity that has been missed.</para>
<para>Beyond procedural barriers, the government has failed to address another major injustice: the people who have been left behind by the fast-track process. It's a process that, while in opposition, Labor pointed out many times was neither fast nor fair and has left so many people in our communities in limbo. It was a deeply flawed refugee determination system that was, rightly, abolished by this government, yet we have 7,000 people stuck in limbo, denied a fair review of their asylum claims. Many of these people arrived in Australia as children. It wasn't their decision to come here. They came here with their parents or with a parent. They went to school here and made friends here. They learned our history. They play sport in local teams in their community. They have dreamed about their future, like any other Australian kid. But, for them, that future remains uncertain. These young people, many of whom are now in their late teens or early 20s, don't even remember their country of origin. For all intents and purposes, they are Australian. They believe they're Australian. They sound like they're Australian. They are committed to Australian values and want to contribute but, because of the political race to the bottom on asylum seeker issues, our government still refuses to give them a fair go.</para>
<para>For how long have we heard leaders say, 'If you have a go, you'll get a go'? What about these young people? They've grown up in a country that treats them as temporary, in the only home they've ever known. They've been forced onto temporary bridging visas that keep them in a cycle of precarity, preventing them from planning their lives, accessing higher education or pursuing long-term employment. Many aren't even allowed to work or study at all because of the conditions of their bridging visas. Imagine finishing high school alongside your classmates. You've got hopes and dreams for the future. You apply to university, and you get in. Some young people I've spoken to have won scholarships to universities. They've been the top of their class. They've worked harder than their peers, driven by a desire to make something of the opportunities this country should be giving them. They go to university and, when they turn 18, they get a letter from this government saying, 'Sorry, you can no longer study at this institution.' In many cases, they can't work. They have no study or work rights. This is so cruel. When you zoom out, its cruel, and, when you talk to someone in that situation, it's cruel. I do not understand why we do this as a country. We've got young people who have dreamt of working in health care or education. We hear so much about the desperate need for more workers in those areas, and we see a government trying to get more people to migrate to Australia. Yet we have people here in our communities who want to do that, and we're not allowing them to chase their dreams. They're being shut out of university or even TAFE.</para>
<para>This is a moral failure of our country. It's a moral failure to not recognise the contributions of thousands of people who have already given so much to this country despite being given so little in return. I would urge colleagues in this place to think about this moral failure. If we truly love this place, we should expect more of this country. We should be constantly challenging ourselves when it comes to these issues that happen for political reasons but have such a brutal impact on fellow human beings.</para>
<para>I support this bill, given the government's amendments that remove the provisions that would have caused even greater harm to migration applicants. But let's be clear. The tribunal is still not fair and accessible for the majority of its applicants, and the government must act to fix the impacts of the broken fast-track system that has left 7,000 people in our communities in limbo. We must do better. Fairness should not depend on who you are, who you know or where you were born.</para>
<para>Minister, can you advise whether it is the government's intention to continue to work to make the ART more fair and accessible for migration applications, considering they make up 87 per cent of the tribunal's case load?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Pocock, for that contribution and thanks, also, to Senator Shoebridge for moving that amendment. I can confirm that the government will be opposing the amendment moved by Senator Shoebridge. Matters previously determined by the IAA will not be able to be re-reviewed by the ART. All matters that had been finally determined by the IAA prior to the abolition of the IAA remain final and determined. This is appropriate as it provides finality and certainty as the outcome of protection visa decisions.</para>
<para>Individuals whose applications have been considered by the IAA have already had an opportunity to access merits reviews. It is not appropriate to provide an additional right of review. If a person is concerned about a particular IAA decision, the appropriate course of action is to seek judicial review of that decision. In terms of the changes the government have made to the ART, we believe that it is a fairer system and that it is one that is operating better than the previous government's AAT, particularly in regard to dealing with some of those more complex cases that we talked about yesterday as part of this committee process.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I just want to put on record the opposition's position on this amendment on sheet 2882. The ART, under this government, is experiencing an absolutely unprecedented blowout in its case load. In the migration and protection space, its load increased by 6,000 cases in just the first six weeks. When the coalition were in government, we introduced the fast-track process, through the Immigration Assessment Authority, to deal with Labor's previous massive backlog of unauthorised maritime arrivals. It was logical, sensible and appropriate. It was an appropriate response to Labor's incredible failures on border protection during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. The fast-track process that we established through the IAA was able to resolve those cases very quickly, usually in a matter of weeks rather than months. And the overturn rates were in line with other decisions of the tribunal.</para>
<para>Essentially what the Greens want to do with this amendment is reopen every single refugee case that was finally decided by the IAA. This would almost inevitably lead to a massive increase in the burden that is already placed on the tribunal. It will increase costs and increase delays for everyone involved, including the people the Greens say they're trying to help. There is no public benefit in this amendment. It's not an appropriate measure and it should be opposed.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is remarkable but not unprecedented to see how closely Labor and the coalition align on this point and to hear both parties speak about 7,000 people—children, mums, dads, aunts and uncles—and never reference them as people but see them only as a political plaything that they have between them.</para>
<para>I want to thank Senator Pocock for his contribution, for talking about these 7,000 people as though they actually matter and talking about the teenagers who are right now going into their HSC year wondering if politics will ever give them a pathway to go to uni in the only home they've every know. I think we should reflect upon the difference in politics of talking about people as though they're people, as opposed to the way the coalition and Labor are doing it here, talking about them as political problems or political pawns or inconveniences to the case management of an administrative tribunal.</para>
<para>We heard the coalition come up and say they weren't going to provide a just pathway for these 7,000 people—the mums, the dads, the kids, the brothers and the sisters—because it's administratively inconvenient to them. That's the nature of their politics, and I understand that's the nature of their politics, but it's politics the Greens fundamentally reject.</para>
<para>The government stood up and said, 'Well, these people have already had a merits review,' and therefore they're not going to open the door to a review of the fast-track process. I remind the government that we abolished the fast-track process, and we supported the government's bill to abolish it because the government acknowledged, as did every informed observer, that it was an unmeritorious review. It was, as many have said, neither fair nor fast; it was grossly unfair.</para>
<para>To remind the chamber, the IAA fast-track process did not even pretend to observe minimum procedural fairness standards. Nobody had the right to a hearing. Almost 100 per cent of the claims were decided on the papers, because they didn't want to hear from the people who brought the claims. People were only allowed to provide a five-page written submission. They had no legal support, legal advice or support from the government in any case, and they often had only three weeks to provide their submission about their entire life. They were almost always prohibited from providing fresh information and were stuck with whatever the department had decided should be before the IAA. That's not a merit based process. Then the government said, 'Oh, by the way, there was a judicial review.' We know that that's not a merits review. We know that that never went to the substance of the matter.</para>
<para>Again, I urge the Labor Party—I think it's a lost cause with the coalition—to think about the core principles that are meant to underpin their movement, to think about what their members would want, even if it's politically inconvenient to them in the moment, and to think about these 7,000 people as people.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendments on sheet 2882, moved by Senator Shoebridge, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [11:22]<br />(The Temporary Chair—Senator Cox)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>15</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>28</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.<br />Bill, as amended, agreed to.<br />Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>21</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>21</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7217" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>21</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024 has been far too long in the making given the urgency it should have received. This legislation is in response to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide's first recommendation in its interim report, which was handed down in August 2022. The recommendation found that the veteran compensation and rehabilitation legislative system is so complicated that it actually adversely affects the mental health of some veterans and serving ADF members and can contribute to suicidality. The words 'can contribute to suicidality' should have raised a sense of urgency, particularly on an issue that essentially has bipartisan support.</para>
<para>Work on simplifying and harmonising the system should have been a priority even as the royal commission completed its vital and sensitive investigations. Yet it took almost two years for the bill to first be introduced, passing the House of Representatives on 6 November last year after debate originally opened in August. Since then, it has languished on the Senate's <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>. It was first put on the paper on 18 November, and it has been on a veritable roller-coaster, being pulled up and then pushed back on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>, going up and down, which shows you the level of priority this government has put on securing the health and wellbeing of our veteran personnel. We must ask: how many more will be let down and feel abandoned before the changes of this bill finally come about, given they will not come into effect until July 2026, nearly four years after the original recommendation was made?</para>
<para>We currently have about 300,000 veterans in Australia. We currently have about 57,000 serving personnel. So we have a great many reasons why we need to get this legislation correct, to get it passed and to get it working. The royal commission reported that 1,677 veteran suicides had occurred between 1997 and 2021, but it is widely recognised that this figure is probably very shy of the more accurate assessment of upwards of about 3,000. The very, very sad reality is that there is more chance of a veteran dying from suicide than dying while serving our country, and that is tragic.</para>
<para>This legislation combines into one the three separate acts that currently exist for entitlements, compensation and rehabilitation support for veterans. The three acts are the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, commonly known as the MRCA; the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-Related Claims) Act, or the DRCA; and the Veterans' Entitlements Act. They will be combined into an amended military rehabilitation and compensation or the 'MRCA 2.0', as my colleague in the other place shadow minister for veterans' affairs Barnaby Joyce calls it.</para>
<para>Currently, the three acts are over 2,000 pages long. They contain 850 legislative instruments and provide different types of compensation, including pensions, lump sums, periodic compensation payments, healthcare cards and rehabilitation. In some cases, veterans have claims under all three acts. It is no wonder that our veterans community finds it overly complicated as they try and wade through the system. But I want to make the point that it is very important for our veterans community to understand that, in streamlining these three acts into one, no-one who is currently receiving a payment under any of those three acts will be worse off. This is an assurance given to us by the government, and it is an assurance we will hold the government to.</para>
<para>In some instances, allowances will increase: funeral allowances, reimbursement of funeral costs and other service related deaths. There might be higher reimbursements for travel and treatment, and for consolidation of household and attendant care, among other enhancements. This is all welcome. While this bill simplifies veterans' compensation arrangements, the systems remain complex, with veterans and their families still eligible for support under multiple acts. This needs very careful management by Veterans' Affairs.</para>
<para>This bill also requires ongoing consideration and review. That is why we will be moving a second reading amendment, calling for the government to review the statement of principles and the role of the Repatriation Medical Authority offices—not to try and slow things down but to make sure that the statement of principles is fit for purpose and that no-one is slipping through the cracks because the statement of principles is being applied too rigidly—and to look at ways to ensure that the RMAs can do their job without hindrance.</para>
<para>Despite this complexity and despite the time and consideration that has gone into drafting this bill to streamline and harmonise compensation for veterans, we have an eleventh-hour amendment put forward by the government to establish a new veterans commissioner. This is also a recommendation of the royal commission, so the intent and the principle of establishing a commissioner will not be objected to. However, this amendment is being rushed through with a lack of consultation with the very people who have been part of this process all the way along and who participated in the recent Senate inquiry into this bill. This amendment was not part of that inquiry. Those people read about it only last week and have raised quite significant concerns with the way it has been drafted. The question needs to be asked: why does this amendment have to be rushed through today, when a commissioner was already in the pipeline?</para>
<para>On 17 January, Mr Michael Manthorpe was appointed interim commissioner to deliver the establishment of a legislated body by September. This amendment is being rushed through to establish a body by September without allowing consultation and scrutiny, and that is the concern that has been raised with us. The Families of Veterans Guild have written to us specifically requesting the amendment be withdrawn because they say the amendment is a surprise to many stakeholders within the veteran community who, despite receiving multiple communications about the vets bill and a media release about the appointment of the interim commissioner, were not advised about this significant amendment. They fundamentally disagree with rushing this unconsulted amendment through parliament, and they point out that it could have significant consequences for the system and communities within it. The key issues they raise are the lack of transparency and consultation and that there are only two public reports on the status of the implementation of the royal commission required by this amendment; they would like to see further reports.</para>
<para>While we're not opposing this amendment, we are proposing to put through an amendment of our own requiring that the commission be reviewed. Effectively, what should have happened was for us to have had this amendment at the time of the Senate inquiry or to have had it as a standalone bill that we could have sent to a Senate inquiry and had a review on to ensure that it was for purpose, that people could be consulted and that the design of the commission was fit for purpose. We're now having to do that back to front, because the last thing we want to see is the streamlining and harmonisation of the compensation program be held up in disputes. We will pass the substantive bill and accept the amendment, but we hope that our subsequent amendment calling for a review will also gain support. This is a very sensitive and complex area, and most Defence Force personnel enlist and serve their time and then transition back to civilian life okay. Most of them go on to make an enormous contribution to civilian life. A hell of a lot of them work in voluntary services, and I thank them for their continued service to our nation.</para>
<para>I want to take this opportunity to mention and thank Disaster Relief Australia, who are an organisation established by veterans for veterans and veteran volunteers. They step up post disaster and provide management and logistics support to communities that have been impacted by natural disasters. I am sure they are in Far North Queensland as we speak, assisting in the recovery and clean-up efforts. That is an organisation that plays an important role in supporting our veteran community, connecting our veteran members with business holders and with other veterans and giving them that support network. We know through the work of the royal commission that those connections, initiatives and organisations like DRA to assist veterans—similarly to things like veterans' wellbeing centres—provide a hub for connection and support and can really help veterans post their full-time service. We will be supporting this bill, as I said at the outset. It has been a long time coming, but it is the right thing to do to streamline it. I really hope that we continue to watch, monitor and hold the DVA to account. I'm sure they're preparing for the next estimates diligently. Let's hope that we can make our veterans' lives a little bit easier by passing this bill.</para>
<para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add "but the Senate,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that there remains concern about aspects of the operation of this bill and, in particular, the rigid nature of the Statement of Principles used in determining claims for liability for injuries, diseases and deaths made by veterans; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Government to cause a review to be undertaken by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, and in consultation with relevant stakeholders, into:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) whether the Statement of Principles are fit for purpose in ensuring that every veteran receives just and timely support,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the functions of the Repatriation Medical Authority, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) whether further changes are needed to relevant legislation, policy, procedures or guidelines to improve outcomes for veterans with unique or unusual circumstances".</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Australian Greens support the policy of harmonising the current veterans' entitlements and rehabilitation and compensation arrangements from three acts into one. To that extent, we will be supporting the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024, and we will be navigating our way through a variety of amendments that have been proposed from all around the chamber on the bill. However, there needs to be continuing support and dialogue with veterans and their families to ensure that the intent of the bill is met—that is, that no-one is left worse off. We've had that statement repeatedly from the minister, and I take him at his word. But I can tell you now that the veteran community, with their advocates and friends in this chamber, will be holding the government to that and ensuring that that fundamental underpinning of this harmonisation legislation is met and that no-one is actually worse off.</para>
<para>The bill represents what I would call a modest bureaucratic change into how veterans' entitlements are managed in this country. It doesn't pretend to be a response to the final report from the royal commission, for the most obvious reason that it was tabled before the final report was released. That matter has been confirmed by the Department of Veterans' Affairs in the inquiry we had into the bill and in exchanges in estimates as well. This bill won't in itself make any of the essential changes that veterans and their supporters know are needed to address the core recommendations of the spirit of that royal commission. That is unfinished work. This bill largely benefits the bureaucracy, with benefits for veterans—there will be some as a result of this, though largely incidental to the bureaucratic benefits that are delivered from simplifying three schemes into one.</para>
<para>What we did see in the inquiry was very clear evidence that the legislation governing veterans' entitlements and their rehabilitation and compensation rights is extraordinarily complex. It's incredibly difficult for even engaged advocates and lawyers to navigate, and we saw that it harms veterans and harms their families. The current approach of veterans being covered by the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986; the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988, the DRCA; and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, the MRCA, is just not fit for purpose. That was absolutely clear.</para>
<para>The scope of this bill is intentionally limited to not address the fundamental ways in which veterans are dealt with. But as the TPI Federation said in their evidence to the inquiry:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the proposed changes to the legislation actually is not intended to alleviate suicidal ideation but rather tries to address issues that the Government and the Bureaucracy has with the legislation. This 'Simplification' is for the purpose of administration and not for the benefit of the Veterans and their families.</para></quote>
<para>From my perspective, having heard that evidence, having sat through the inquiry and having spoken with veterans and their advocates in the organisation, I think what we can say is that simplified administration could, to some very modest degree, empower veterans to better navigate the bureaucracy. That is a modest win for veterans. But the point is still clear that this bill is not actually intended to address those myriad issues with veteran compensation. It just doesn't; it's urgent unfinished business.</para>
<para>What we do know is that the recommendations of the royal commission remain overwhelmingly unaddressed, and we need to work across the chamber to ensure that the rights and needs based entitlements, rehabilitation and compensation rights that veterans should expect after service are actually in place. We look forward to working with the government. In fact, we look forward to working across the chamber, and I particularly want to commend the work of Senator Lambie. She's been an unfailing advocate, and I acknowledge the bravery she has shown in that space to work across the chamber to implement the recommendations of the royal commission.</para>
<para>There are some matters that remain unaddressed. One of the strong lines of evidence in the inquiry was about how much of the language is incredibly dated, even in the updated bill. The Families of Veterans Guild pointed out in their submission to the committee:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The first thing that needs to be done is to include veteran families and to remove archaic language which perpetuates power dynamics and isn't consistent with contemporary standards. Language like 'wholly dependent partner', 'dependents' and 'attendants' no longer meets community expectations and devalues the role of veteran families. If the Bill were to include amendments to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA) to replace this language with the words 'veteran families' or 'families of veterans' then the Act too would need to define them …</para></quote>
<para>I do note that, when that's tested across the broader veteran community, the difficulty has been landing those definitions and determining where 'veteran families' begin and end or what 'families of veterans' would mean. But it shouldn't be a task beyond a competent government and bureaucracy to engage and take the language from the 1950s and turn it into something that genuinely represents that sweep of supports—family and close support—that veterans have and need, often because the formal system itself doesn't support them.</para>
<para>We note that there's the introduction of reforms to the presumptive liability provisions. They do look like, and we tested that in the inquiry, a modest positive step because there are certain conditions where, if veterans develop them after a period of service, the presumption should be that they actually arose from service without veterans having to go through incredibly complex steps. Tragically, that includes a series of cancers for veterans who were exposed to chemicals that we now know, and indeed a good-faith employer would have known at the time for much of their work, are likely to be cancer causing. Some of that is already covered in existing bureaucratic determinations, but, as the evidence becomes clearer, more of those conditions should be included. Veterans who served in conflict zones or had extended peacekeeping obligations, when they present with often quite complex PTSD, shouldn't have to go through a process of proving that their PTSD arose from their service. Presumptive liability allows for that compensation to flow at the time they need it, which is when they first present, not a year and a half after their lawyers manage to persuade the department to move.</para>
<para>I do ask and I'd seek the minister to address how the new scheme will work in practice. There doesn't seem to be a clear, transparent process. We had a commitment from the government that all the existing conditions covered by presumptive liability would be grandfathered through an administrative process, and we'd like the government to confirm that. But then there is no clarity about what the process will be to add future presumptive liability claims. I think the government owes the veterans, their families and their communities that transparency. We ask for that to be clear.</para>
<para>How will the statements of principles regime be applied? We know that there have been concerns over issues of eligibility, and we've heard these from stakeholders and veterans. They were raised in the inquiry and they've been raised historically. One clear example that has been repeatedly raised with us is the surviving 1965-72 national servicemen who served overseas or personnel who were not in a warlike condition as determined by Defence but certainly were exposed to danger. Those nashos in that period from 1965 to 1972 were conscripted. They didn't have a choice. If they went overseas and served in Vietnam and were directly exposed in Vietnam, they had a certain set of entitlements, but, if, for example, they went to Butterworth in Malaysia and did perimeter patrols, they were found to not be in warlike conditions even though they were under threat of attack throughout much of that work that they did. As for those nashos who spent six years here as conscripts instead of on service overseas, they've been largely rubbed from history. It doesn't seem right to us, and we have amendments to try and remedy that historical injustice to the nashos.</para>
<para>I particularly want to note that many veterans who served in peacekeeping actions with the ADF served in conditions that put them at incredible personal risk. Indeed, one of the most recent serious injuries suffered by ADF personnel was during an attack on a peacekeeping operation on the border between Lebanon and Israel. They were hit by a missile strike. The department has a table of peacekeeping missions that are found to qualify for warlike service, but the question is: why have some peacekeeping missions that were incredibly dangerous not been included? There's a list of them.</para>
<para>We have an amendment that we'd urge this chamber to support that seeks a review of those peacekeeping operations and the extent to which peacekeeping operations where people were exposed to incredible risk have been deemed to not be warlike service. That would include such things as the United Nations Commission for Indonesia in January of 1949—some of those veterans are still with us, and that was an incredibly dangerous deployment—as well as the United Nations Yemen Observation Mission, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon and the Sinai Multinational Force and Observers. Those, of course, were established by protocol between Egypt and Israel. The list could go on. These veterans were exposed to incredible hardship and real and genuine danger, but, because the definition of 'warlike deployment' requires some kind of military intent, despite the risks and despite the dangers, they feel like they're treated like second-class veterans. We hope that will end, and we hope that there will be majority support for a review of peacekeeping operations.</para>
<para>I particularly want to note the advocacy of the Australian Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Veterans Association, the APPVA, who said in their submission:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the APPVA is concerned that a legislative limitation on the definition of a veteran, risks recreating the historical problems created by differentiating between different classes of veterans, even when these veterans served side-by-side on the same operation. If this issue remains unaddressed, the government will simply recreate the policy complexity, inter-veteran tensions, administrative intransigence, and poor outcomes that have adversely impacted veterans' support arrangements for decades.</para></quote>
<para>Stopping there, this may seem like some kind of legal argument about what are or aren't warlike conditions, and there's a definition there, and, if you fall on one side, you're recognised and, if you fall on the other, you're not. When you talk to veterans, this is incredibly important to them not just for the compensation benefits they get but for the status and recognition of their service.</para>
<para>I do want to thank the government for working with us on having amendments to ensure that there will be a statutory review within a year. I think that's important, and that's a good faith amendment. The minister's office, I think, have been dealing with complex legislation, navigating their internal stakeholders and external stakeholders as best they can. We do have very real concerns, though, for how the last-minute amendment to implement recommendation 122 of the royal commission has found its way as a small novel attached to the end of this bill. We will support the creation of the commission, but we've heard from the veterans community how surprised they were that it came in this way and how little consultation there was, and we think it's fundamental that there be a parliamentary review of that.</para>
<para>I finish by giving special thanks to the TPI Federation of Australia, the Families of Veterans Guild, the Australian Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Veterans Association, the Defence Force Welfare Association and the nashos—the national servicemen—for their engagement with my office. I would be remiss if I didn't also acknowledge the work of my staff and, particularly, Sam Brennan in doing that work and getting us to the position we are in.</para>
<para>This bill makes modest changes. We'll back in the modest changes. We hope for improvements by way of amendment, but I can tell you now there's a bloody lot more work to be done.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FAWCETT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to make a few remarks on the substantive bill, the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024, and then a couple of remarks regarding the two amendments that I have co-sponsored with my colleague Senator Davey.</para>
<para>This is probably the sixth or seventh inquiry that I have been involved with during my time as a senator, having come from a defence background. The welfare of our veterans is important, and it has come before the parliament on multiple occasions. This bill seeks to do something that a number of stakeholders over many years have called for, in terms of simplifying the system so that we can put into effect what the current Chief of Army said in his opening remarks at the Land Forces conference last year—that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reduce suicide and suicidality and that we can and must do more to ensure that we do not leave our mates behind, fallen on their own personal battlefield.</para>
<para>There is a challenge we have with this bill, with the eight schedules that were originally part of it and were subject to the inquiry by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—I see the secretary of that committee sitting here in the chamber, so thank you for your work and that of your team in helping to facilitate that inquiry—as well as, as colleagues have highlighted, the surprise ninth schedule that has come in regarding the commission. Those do a lot to bring about some of the structural changes that are required and some reform that will, hopefully, make the process easier, but it's important to remember that this process is dealing with people, with individuals.</para>
<para>I noticed that the royal commission highlighted in their report:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Risk and protective factors interact in complex and unpredictable ways in people's lives. Similarly, exposure to known risk factors for suicide and suicidality does not affect everyone in the same way.</para></quote>
<para>That means that, whilst I applaud and welcome a number of measures to make three complex bills somewhat more aligned and simple, in one measure, we have to remember that no structure in and of itself, particularly if there are rigid definitions, will achieve what the Chief of Army has talked about, which is making sure we don't leave any of our mates behind. While things like the statement of principles, which are going to be embedded into the new system, have proven to be effective in simplifying some decision-making—and I would accept the evidence that, in many cases, it has accelerated the decision-making—they have also had the perverse effect of arbitrarily excluding some veterans who perhaps have unique or unusual circumstances or things that weren't envisaged by the people who put the statement of principles together.</para>
<para>If we are to achieve the Chief of Army's vision of not leaving any one of our mates behind, we need to make sure not only that we refine the process and put in place good measures—I welcome, for example, the fact that we have gone from looking for causality under MRCA to now looking at a temporal connection. The government and Defence have essentially accepted the fact that you don't need to prove that your deployment—for example, to Afghanistan—is the direct cause and have medical records to show it. If you were there at the appropriate time of the kinds of actions that may have caused that, then that temporal causality will establish the fact that the Commonwealth has an obligation to look after you. That's been a long time coming, and it builds on things like non-liability health care, where we have basically said that if you're in the ADF we will look after you. That took a long time to come in, but it's those kinds of changes that meet the real human need and that we have to have.</para>
<para>I will leave my comments on the substantive bill there and address a couple of brief remarks regarding the two amendments. As two other colleagues have indicated, there was significant surprise amongst the veterans community and ex-service organisations about the very-last-minute inclusion of an amendment from the government to establish the commission. Whilst we accept that it's a recommendation of the royal commission, if you read through the amendment, you will see that this is a body which is given quite remarkable powers. People will go to jail if they don't cooperate and work with the commissioner. And yet there is very little transparency in terms of the appointment, oversight, costings and all of the subordinate rules and regulations for how it will run. Most importantly, it was not co-designed with the people who it is intended to benefit or those who have lived experience in the whole veterans and DVA system. If there is one thing that governments of both persuasions have often talked about, it's the importance of stakeholder engagement and the principle of working with people who are going to be affected and to put something in at the last minute with no ability for the Senate to scrutinise that, I think, is very poor.</para>
<para>As Senator Davey said, we are not going to stay in the way of the passage of this bill, because, as groups like the RSL and others have highlighted, we've waited too long for this and we should get this through. But we know that the commission is due to come in in September of this year, and the second-reading amendment that the coalition is putting forward is intended to provide the impetus to commence a review that provides the opportunity for the consultation that should have occurred before this amendment was actually brought before the parliament. I encourage people on the crossbench and in the government to support this coalition position, because what it's providing is an opportunity, even once the parliament is prorogued, for stakeholders to say, 'Yes, there is an inquiry coming. What comment would we like to make on this commission? What do we think it needs to be able to do?' so that, when a new government is formed after the election and even during the caretaker period, while the department is designing and working around what the commission would look like, we start building the evidence base for a co-designed process. In those months leading up to the commencement in September this year, at least there would be an opportunity, which currently there has not been, for stakeholders to have a voice.</para>
<para>I recognise that Senator Lambie has put her own amendment forward, which is welcome. She has given thought to, perhaps, some changes that should occur, who appoints et cetera, but I still believe there needs to be that broader consultation. This amendment is intended to say, 'Let's have a co-designed process for the affected stakeholders so, before it becomes operational in September, we give veterans, their families and their support groups the opportunity to have some input into this commission.' That is the substantive amendment going in.</para>
<para>The second-reading amendment goes to the issue of how we pick up the individual. It picked up on the words of the royal commission that highlight that every person responds differently. I come to the statement of principles. They provide a framework by which some groups—I'm going to refer here to an article that was actually written in the <inline font-style="italic">E</inline><inline font-style="italic">xaminer</inline> newspaper by Mel Dee back in December last year. It's a very useful, succinct summary of some case studies and some of the issues at play. That's where these quotes are coming from. I've chosen these because they are quite a succinct summary of some of the concerns various stakeholders have raised.</para>
<para>I've talked about the statement of principles and the fact that there's broad support by many within the community, because they have expedited decisions for many people. But it's the interaction between the Repatriation Medical Authority, the RMA, and the statement of principles that is of some concern. DVA have come out and very specifically said that they do not want to make individual decisions unless the RMA approves a change to the SOP overall. But if we take what the royal commission said as fact, and if we hear what psychologists and others tell us, individuals do respond differently. So my view is that, like we have non-liability health care, presumptive liability and temporal connections as opposed to causal relationships, if a veteran has a couple of well-credentialled medical experts saying, 'We think this person is suffering this effect because of their defence service, and here is our evidence,' we should have a system that is flexible enough to say, 'The presumption, on the strength of these two medical experts, is that this veteran should be supported by the Commonwealth.' If a subsequent review finds out that this is not actually something that is worth putting into the broader SOP then that's fine, but the timeframe, which the royal commission found in some cases exceeded 12 months, affects the broader framework and system. It doesn't increase the suicidality of the individual.</para>
<para>I recognise that departments and governments hate the concept of unbounded liability, but I think we can put enough checks and balances in to make sure that we avoid a situation where people go doctor shopping to find someone who's known to be supportive. I think there's a way we can do that, but we can provide the flexibility to pick up those individual differences. We can have a presumption of support. By providing the support that the Chief of Army talked about—'Leave none of our mates behind'—we can keep that person out of the dark spiral that they can so easily fall into. And then we take the review over a longer period to see if we should change the system.</para>
<para>So that's our second reading amendment. We recognise it's not going to get done by September this year. It's a complex issue, so the recommendation is that within six months there should be feedback on that particular issue. I would encourage senators on the government benches and the crossbench to support those two amendments looking into the RMA and the SOP to make sure they are fit for purpose and that every individual receives just and timely support from the Commonwealth they have served.</para>
<para>I also encourage support for the opposition's substantive amendments, which would put in place the opportunity for stakeholders to have their voices heard around the design and function of this commission. I understand that that will still overlap with the work others will be doing to stand up the commission. But the best possible outcome would be if the next government—and I trust it will be a coalition government, but, even if it is a Labor-Greens alliance, whoever is in power should do this—sought to commit to use this as an opportunity for co-design, to make sure that what is actually implemented in September is fit for purpose and meets the desires, expectations and needs of the veteran community, including their families.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I support the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024 and I support veterans. Today I want to speak about a World War I veteran who is very close to my heart: my pop, Corporal Harry Thorpe, a Brabralung man of the Gunnai nation. Blackfellas were originally not allowed to serve, under the Defence Act 1903, but as enlistment numbers dwindled and the cost of horrific war grew, the government quietly shifted its stance, allowing First Nations people to serve—only when it suited the government, only when their sacrifice became necessary, but never with the full rights or recognition of those they fought beside.</para>
<para>Harry Thorpe was one of those men. He left his home on Lake Tyers Mission, where my family was displaced, to fight alongside thousands of men and women who hoped to do their part to fight for justice. When Pop left, Pop left his humpy behind. Out of respect, the locals left his old humpy untouched, waiting for his return. But like so many others, he never returned.</para>
<para>My pop, Lance Corporal Thorpe, was awarded the Military Medal and promoted to corporal for his courage and the leadership he showed during operations in Belgium on the night of 4 and 5 October 1917. On 9 August 1918, in France, a stretcher-bearer found him shot in the stomach. He died shortly afterwards and is now buried in the Heath Cemetery at Harbonnieres, France, with his mate William Rawlings, another First Nations Military Medal winner, who was killed on the same day.</para>
<para>Because Harry had been such a big part of the community, when he did not return, the lane where his humpy was left behind was named in his honour. It's now called Thorpes Lane. Thorpes Lane is now the site of the Lakes Entrance tip, right opposite a big mansion overlooking the ocean. This is the difference between how black and white soldiers are commemorated. So today I want to honour my pop and all the other First Nations men and women who fought in World War I and World War II. Their names, their sacrifices and their final resting places are too often forgotten and too often ignored.</para>
<para>Uncle Joe Flick, the grandson of Michael Flick, another black soldier, is changing that. His project, Bringing Their Spirits Home, is about truth, recognition and justice. He has spent years searching for the graves of First Nations soldiers buried overseas in France, Belgium, Egypt and Gallipoli, marking their names, tracing their stories and bringing them back to their families and their country. It's work that should've been done long, long ago.</para>
<para>We also have to reckon with what happened when our soldiers did return. White veterans were honoured, respected, celebrated and granted the land of First Peoples through the Soldier Settlement Scheme. They say 'leave no mate behind'; however, many First Nations veterans were given nothing—no land, no recognition and no mention. The very land they fought for was handed to others, while they were pushed aside, their service erased.</para>
<para>So I'm here today, refusing to let that history be buried. Through Uncle Joe Flick's work and through our voices, we are bringing the spirits home, not just in name but in the respect and honour they have always deserved, so their families will know where the final resting places of their ancestors are. We have all lost so many to violence. Wars have never brought justice, only more stolen land, more bloodshed and more broken promises. True honour lies not in conquest but in peace—and in returning what was taken and in refusing to fight wars that were never ours to begin with.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Lambie, you have about three minutes; my apologies.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I foreshadow that I will be moving the second reading amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024, on amendment sheet 3032 revised, standing in my name. Veterans, their families, their kids and their mates fought for decades to get a royal commission into Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Since the commissioners handed down their recommendations, my office has been continually working and getting feedback from the veteran community and, most importantly, looking at amendments that will make the government's response to the royal commission's recommendations work for our veterans.</para>
<para>Recommendation 122 of the royal commission seeks to establish a new statutory entity headed up by a commissioner to oversee reform across the whole of the defence system. I had an amendment that would give the head of the Defence and Veterans' Services Commission the powers of a royal commissioner, the power to provide independent oversight, the power to hold public hearings and the power to drive reform to improve suicide prevention and wellbeing outcomes for serving and ex-serving Australian Defence Force members. Unless that national commissioner has these powers, then things won't change and our veterans will continue to take their lives in record numbers.</para>
<para>I understand that we, and I, do not have a magic wand to stop all suicides, but if we get this right, by hell, we can reduce those numbers. The government loved this amendment so much that they copied it themselves. They wanted the win, and that's okay; I don't care who gets the credit, as long as our veterans and their families get the benefits.</para>
<para>We must extend the coverage of our liability to situations where members of the Australian Defence Force sustain injuries or fatalities during physical exercise or whilst on shore leave. With the way it is now, the liability falls way short, especially in cases of injury or death occurring outside the narrowly defined scope of 'on-duty service'.</para>
<para>Delays in accepting liability and delays in claims being ticked off massively impact on our veterans and their families. There has to be a time limit. My amendment means that claims for permanent impairment will be resolved within 120 days, and for incapacity it'll be within 90 days. This amendment includes safeguards to stop the clock, to account for reasonable delays like medical advice.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Lambie, I reluctantly have to interrupt you. You'll be in continuance. I now proceed to senators' statements.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</title>
        <page.no>28</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Women's Health</title>
          <page.no>28</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  For too long in this building, women's health hasn't received the attention, solutions or funding that it has deserved. I doubt—actually, I know—there's not a single woman in Australia who is without a story about how our health system has let her down or let someone she loves down. A woman's health journey is simply and categorically different to a man's, not just because our bodies tick differently but because there's a stigma that surrounds everything from our first period to our last. That stigma has not just a personal impact on women and their health journey but a policy impact in the way we fund and deliver services. This stigma has stopped the right conversations happening about women's health, and therefore it has impeded policy solutions which would make a difference in women's lives.</para>
<para>I am deeply proud of the work of two recent Senate inquiries into women's health that have taken place through the Community Affairs References Committee this term—one into the impacts of menopause and perimenopause, and the other on women's sexual, reproductive and maternal health. I want to thank and acknowledge the work of the members of that committee: Senators Pratt, Allman-Payne, Kovacic, Hughes, Askew and, most of all, Waters, who herself is an incredible advocate on these issues.</para>
<para>Our inquiries deliberately harnessed the great big spotlight we have available to us in this chamber through our committee system. We shone that light brightly on an area of public policy that has been shrouded in stigma and ignored for too long. Our work confirmed what I've long been raising the alarm on. We know that, when it comes to women's health, you don't need to look very hard at all to see where women's pain or symptoms are too often ignored or minimised but also where they're just outright dismissed—where women walk into their doctor's surgery and aren't believed for the pain they feel. Women are sick to death of it. They're sick to death of going unheard. They're sick of having their pain minimised by someone who has never felt it. They are sick of feeling like the only part of their health journey that matters is the one that takes place between puberty and childbirth, like nothing of consequence will happen in a woman's life—like she is nothing of consequence—beyond the moment she becomes a mother and as if, when she enters mid-life, she stops mattering.</para>
<para>Over 600 women and organisations shared their stories with our Senate inquiries. These women shared intimate, personal stories of trauma and pain. They fought through the stigma they felt and their fear to share what had happened to them and what needed to change. They told us their stories of being let down by their GPs, of walking into a doctor's clinic—a doctor who they had had a relationship with for years and who dismissed their symptoms and their pain and wasn't equipped with the information needed to help them. They told us of the crappy and misinformed advice that wasn't at all up to date with modern research, that wasn't informed by the availability of modern medicine and that stopped them getting the care they needed; of having to go online, scrolling through Instagram, desperate for answers, desperate for solutions, because they couldn't get that from their GP; and of shopping around for one GP or two GPS—up to six GPs. Women in regional areas are travelling hundreds of kilometres to find a GP who will listen to them, who has time for them and who will be able to help them with their symptoms in a way that is empathetic, well informed and effective.</para>
<para>They told us of their difficulties getting support at work, of being too scared to ask for climate control, of being too scared to ask for a breathable uniform and of not being able to manage the morning train because their symptoms were so overwhelming that travelling to work in peak hour was enough to stop them going to work that day. They told us of their difficulties accessing HRT—of not being able to afford the HRT which helped them. They told us of the stigma. They told us of the information deficit which was stopping them getting help. They told us how they'd been dismissed and denied, not believed. We heard from women in every city around Australia—hundreds of women who shared their pain and fear in the hope that they would see change. As a committee we heard them, and now, as a government, we have heard them, and change is here.</para>
<para>On Sunday I stood with the Minister for Health and Aged Care, the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, Ged Kearney, and our Minister for Women, Katy Gallagher, as we announced a half-billion-dollar investment in women's health. I could barely express my relief as women around the country went: 'Thank God! About time! You're hearing us.' When you get public policy right, you can change lives for the better, and this announcement will change women's lives. It is a massive step forward in ensuring they get the care, support and treatment they need. It shows them that they have been heard, that they are believed and that we take their pain and their experience seriously. It shows them that women in midlife matter as much as every other person in our community, and that their health matters too.</para>
<para>Our committee had over 285 submissions and seven hearings. The message was resoundingly clear: when it comes to their experience of menopause, women felt fundamentally let down in two ways. Firstly, when they walked into their doctor's clinic to get care from a clinician they were unheard and dismissed. They didn't get quality information. It's not all on the doctors. The doctors themselves told us that they wanted to help but in their medical education journey, in their years and years of university and placements, they'd received one hour of training in menopause and perimenopause—things that are not an optional part of any woman's life, not an optional part of ageing. Any woman lucky enough to reach midlife will go through menopause, yet our doctors are getting as little as one hour of training to help them. I don't think it's an unreasonable ask that 51 per cent of the population should feel that their GP knows what they are talking about, that their GP understands the modern medicines that can support women. That's what GPs want too.</para>
<para>Secondly, women told us that the stigma that surrounds these issues, which I've spoken about, is stopping conversations in their workplaces about flexibility and the support that some women need if their symptoms are troubling. I emphasise that it's some women, because many women will go through this period of life with no impact on their work. These are women at their peak, in the prime of their lives, but if there's a single woman in Australia—and we know there are some—whose symptoms mean they're turning down a promotion, missing an opportunity, giving up something they love, whether it's in study, in sport or at their workplace, then that's a problem. There are simple and small changes which could make an impact and keep those women at work and thriving. We don't want a single woman in the prime of her life to miss out on achieving everything she is capable of achieving.</para>
<para>Our package will make a transformational difference. We're funding an extended Medicare health consult so that when a woman walks into a GP clinic she can spend a decent amount of time talking through her symptoms and talking through the solutions, what options might be appropriate for her. We're increasing the number of endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics and expanding their remit to include menopause and perimenopause, so women can access specialist centres of excellence to get support. We're furthering the training and upskilling of GPs so they're better equipped to support women. We're funding a public education campaign, because the work to overcome the stigma that surrounds these issues needs to continue, and women should be empowered with good information that means better quality health care when they walk into their GP clinic. For the first time in two decades, we're putting new medicines, new hormonal therapies, on the PBS. A lot has changed in medicine in 20 years, and it's time that women were able to access more choice and therefore ease the pressures on supply when it comes to these therapies.</para>
<para>These are massive measures that are part of a women's health package which will make a difference in a woman's life, from young adulthood to later in her life. Women have been heard. For too long women's health has been shrouded in stigma. That has left women in pain, feeling dismissed and unheard, and it's not acceptable for it to continue any longer. A half-a-billion-dollar investment isn't just about good policy; it's about showing these women that they are heard and that they matter. It's not an optional part of aging. Now good quality health care for these women won't be optional either.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Domestic and Family Violence</title>
          <page.no>30</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE</name>
    <name.id>263528</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I rise to speak about the domestic violence and related deaths in the Northern Territory as well as the government's inaction and failure to address these issues at their core. Reports in the <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> yesterday highlighted this pressing issue which demands attention from the Australian government.</para>
<para>Yesterday the <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> reported on the alleged murder of a mother of four from Alice Springs at the hands of her partner. This alleged perpetrator had appeared in court 54 times over the last decade. He had an extensive history of criminal activity, including breaches of intervention orders, aggravated assault, fighting in a public place and breaching court orders. I don't know how many more times any of these incidents are needed before the Albanese Labor government takes this issue seriously. But, in case they need reminding, I'd like to highlight some of the incidents that have occurred in the Northern Territory over the last few months.</para>
<para>In September 2024, a man who cut his partner's achilles tendon had a history of three decades of assaulting and perpetrating violence against women. In October 2024, a man who fatally stabbed his wife had a violent history, including kicking his wife in the face and using a traditional hunting stick to fracture her legs. In January this year, a man killed his wife after a session of drinking hand sanitiser. He had previously breached the good behaviour bond for aggravated assault.</para>
<para>There has been ample time and opportunity for the Albanese government to show they are willing to do whatever it takes to combat the rates of family and domestic violence in Indigenous communities, but time is running out. I'm standing here today because this government has failed. They have failed to take definitive action and they have failed to partner in a meaningful way with the Northern Territory government to fight this scourge. The Territory government have called on the Labor government to back them in and to support them in measures that only the Commonwealth can bring about.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister was in Alice Springs, of course. He pops in and pops out quite regularly, but only to pop in and never to speak to those people on the ground, those grassroots people and individuals—not heads of organisations but people. He still refused to commit to implementing the requests of the Territory government. All he wants to do is announce millions of dollars to blind people to the lack of action he and his government are taking. He's not interested in practical solutions or in calling out what is really causing problems in communities, like alcohol and drug abuse, and cultural acceptance of violence. Let me say that again for those who find it hard to listen to those words: cultural acceptance of violence and low expectations of Indigenous leaders.</para>
<para>That last point is critical. Too many Indigenous community leaders, who are Labor aligned of course, are failing our women by refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem or refusing to exhibit behaviour that is any better. In fact we have a striking example of this in the newly appointed chair of the Central Land Council, Mr Warren Williams, who has publicly said that he doesn't agree with me. That is all very well—he's entitled to his own opinion of course—but he has also said that he is 'sick' of my continued attacks on land councils and other organisations. Well, maybe if they didn't have chairmen who had a history of domestic violence and maybe if they had removed these people or knew of their backgrounds before putting them in these places of leadership, I would stop calling them out.</para>
<para>To be clear, I don't attack these organisations just for the sake of it. I call out this behaviour because it falls well below what we should accept in this country, but, for some reason, we have lower expectations of Indigenous Australians. I call it out because these organisations need to do better. We just had the Closing the Gap statement. We've seen the results of the Closing the Gap program yet again, and we sit back and wonder why we can't close the gap and why we can't reduce violence or sexual abuse of Indigenous children.</para>
<para>Let's not forget that the Central Land Council is an organisation that has a key role in implementing policy to combat Indigenous disadvantage in Central Australia. Organisations like the CLC have so much opportunity, and yet, Mr Williams, the chair of that institution, has a criminal history. He has been convicted of violent behaviour and breaches of intervention orders. I will continue to call out the racism inherent in the low expectations that we apply to Indigenous people, especially those in leadership positions. Everyone in a position of leadership in this country must be held to the same standards of behaviour no matter their race, heritage or background. I call this out because we need to end the patterns of violence and violent offending in communities, and I refuse to hold Indigenous Australians to a lower standard than anyone else in this country. I call upon the Albanese government to do the same: to have the courage of their convictions, to stand up for our marginalised and not to be afraid to take meaningful action.</para>
<para>Mr Williams, I know, has lamented the fact that he was called out by me over his previous history. His response, in effect, was that everyone else, such as the previous chairman, has a similar history. Isn't that an indication of a systemic problem, if other chairmen have a history of violence? That is why I've been calling for an inquiry into land councils and statutory authorities, yet the government, in bed with the Greens, has refused every time. I have stood at land council meetings and seen my own grandmother punched in the face. I saw nothing being done about it at that meeting, while men swell around and determine the decisions on behalf of everyone, taking those decisions out of the hands of women.</para>
<para>We talk about the rights of women in this country, but we're not serious about the rights of Indigenous women in this country. Leaders of organisations are saying that I conflate this issue. It's nonsense! Perhaps look in your own backyards. Maybe there's a perpetrator amongst your own that you haven't dealt with. Maybe that's the problem. Indigenous women have not had our feminist movement, and where is our feminist sisterhood to back us up? Crickets! They're nowhere to be seen.</para>
<para>Mr Williams is not the only one, of course. I've called out the chair of NAAJA, Hugh Woodbury, who had a very recent history of domestic violence. The organisation tried to back him up and say: 'No, no, no. He's alright. He's changed his ways.' No, no, no. It's no good in a leadership position, especially in an organisation that's supposed to serve victims of violence. I've called out Mr Benedict Stevens as the chair of the Lhere Artepe board of directors, and then there's the Tangentyere board, which also had a perpetrator on the board, Mr Philip Miller. I will continue to call out these perpetrators because it's my responsibility to do so and because I've fought all my life as a survivor of domestic violence. This is what I will do, and I don't care if it makes people uncomfortable.</para>
<para>I won't accept, from Mr Williams, a statement trying to suggest that he is the right person for the role of Chair of the Central Land Council and his trying to liken his circumstances to my own. I've revealed those publicly lately, in terms of my challenges in overcoming drugs affecting my life. My circumstances came about because I was a victim of domestic and family violence. I was hospitalised by a perpetrator.</para>
<para>Unfortunately for Mr Williams, he was a perpetrator, so he cannot compare his circumstances to my own. I will continue to call for him to stand down, if he thinks he is the honourable man that he suggests he is now—one who claims to now support those trying to reduce violence in Indigenous communities. If that's what you're doing, continue down that path. Step down from that position and let someone who doesn't have a history such as your own—let a woman, perhaps—be the chair of the Central Land Council instead. Step down. Show you're honourable by doing that, and call out sexual abuse of our children in our communities, which is also rife in this country. I'm not going anywhere. I'm here to stay, and you can all be confronted with this.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Greens, Tasmania: Environment</title>
          <page.no>31</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's obviously an election looming, and I want to take this opportunity to share a few thoughts with Australians who are thinking about how they might vote in this election. I have to say, it's getting harder and harder to tell the Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties apart. They are in absolute lockstep on approving new coal and gas projects. They are in absolute lockstep on destroying nature and, in particular, destroying our native forests. They are in absolute lockstep in refusing to make billionaires and big corporations pay their fair share of tax so we can actually offer meaningful support to Australians—for example, by wiping student debt, allowing every Australian to visit their GP with no out-of-pocket costs and putting dental health into Medicare, which is critical. The last time I looked, your mouth was part of your body, and you should be able to get your teeth fixed under the same public health framework that you can use for the rest of your body. On that basis, we should also put mental health properly into Medicare. Labor and the Liberals are in absolute lockstep.</para>
<para>I say to people, if you think the system that we're living under today and that has actually been created by decades of Labor and Liberal governments is going just fine, then, by all means, keep voting for the Labor and Liberal parties. But, if you want change, if you think we need stronger climate action, to do more to protect nature, to make big corporations pay their fair share of tax and to make billionaires pay their fair share of tax so we can do things like allow every Australian to visit a GP with no out-of-pocket costs and put dental and mental health into Medicare, then you have to vote for it. Change is possible. It is possible, but people are going to have to vote for change.</para>
<para>I want to talk a little bit about the billionaires. Australia's billionaires are making off like bandits. Collectively, the 150 Australians who each own over $1 billion have doubled their wealth in the last six years, and collectively now, those 150 billionaires in Australia have hoarded an eye-watering $585 billion in wealth. If we said they had to pay just 10 per cent of that in tax every year that would raise enough revenue to allow every Australian to visit a GP whenever they wanted, with no out-of-pocket costs. Those are the costings that we've had double-checked by the Parliamentary Budget Office. Those revenue measures, those expenditure measures, are rock solid. We know how we would raise the money, and we know how it could be spent. Taxing billionaires 10 per cent of their wealth every year would allow every Australian to visit a GP with no out-of-pocket costs.</para>
<para>Since Labor came to office, Gina Rinehart has pocketed another $10 billion, which brings her fortune to $40 billion, yet millions of Australians cannot afford to see a GP. That tells you everything you need to know about the priorities of the Labor and Liberal parties and the Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, who I remind folks said we should judge a society by how it looks after the vulnerable, not how it looks after billionaires. Under his government, the billionaires are getting richer while millions of Australians cannot afford to see their GP.</para>
<para>This is the system built by the Labor and Liberal parties that is now being protected by the Labor and Liberal parties. Let's be very clear about one thing: billionaires don't create wealth; they accumulate and hoard it. They've either inherited fortunes or profited from industries wrecking the planet. They dodge tax at an industrial scale while public services are crumbling in this country and millions of Australians cannot afford to see a doctor, cannot afford to see a dentist and cannot afford to pay the rent or put food on the table. We should tax billionaire wealth so we can do more to help everyday Australians who are struggling.</para>
<para>Foreign policy is another area where Labor and the Liberals are in lockstep. The slide into fascism in the US continues. President Trump has recently unveiled his dystopian, nightmarish vision for Gaza. He supports a genocide. He wants to ethnically cleanse Gaza and other parts of illegally occupied territories and he wants to turn Gaza into some kind of resort, some kind of Riviera. Well, they really are saying the quiet things out loud now in the United States, aren't they? This has to be resisted. It has to be fought. We have to stand up, resist and fight with everything we've got because, if we don't fight it now, tomorrow may be too late.</para>
<para>Here, the Labor Party should be fighting Mr Dutton and Mr Trump with everything they've got, but Labor have refused to stand up to Israel. They have engaged in hand-wringing, they've engaged in complicity and they've engaged in excuses. While countries like Spain and Ireland are taking a stand, Australia is falling in line behind the US and refusing to call it what it is. This is not the policy of a sovereign nation; it is the policy of a lackey nation enthralled to the United States. We should have in Australia a strong, independent foreign policy that prioritises our national interests over the national interests of the United States and anywhere else. That means an arms embargo on the genocidal government of Israel, sanctions on the genocidal war criminals leading the Israeli government and full self-determination for the people of Palestine, and it includes recognising Palestine.</para>
<para>I want to end by talking about forests in Tasmania. Logging native forests is turbocharging the breakdown of the planet's climate. It is an absolute calamity, a catastrophe, for biodiversity. It is sending species like that beautiful little bird the swift parrot into extinction. It's a mendicant industry that costs the Australian taxpayers many tens and potentially hundreds of millions of dollars a year that should be spent on things like building more homes for people and fixing up our health system. There is every good reason to end native forest logging. Here's another one: logging our native forests makes it more likely that we will suffer catastrophic bushfires. Logging our native forests makes them more flammable than old forests. Logging our native forests exposes our communities to greater fire risk. Logging native forests means more bushfires with a greater impact. If we want to keep our community safe, we need to stop logging our native forests. If we want to protect nature, we need to stop logging our native forests. If we want to end the breakdown of the planet's climate, we need to stop logging. If we want to save tens of millions of dollars a year, we need to stop logging native forests. The time to end native forest logging is right now, and the Greens have a plan to do that. For the sake of nature, for the sake of humanity, we have to stop destroying our precious native forests.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Western Australia: Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>32</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Western Australia's prosperity is every bit as critical to the nation as it is to those in the west, but it is under attack on multiple fronts from Anthony Albanese and his Labor government. The government isn't merely overlooking matters of concern in my home state; it is pursuing policies that are actively damaging key industries and the jobs and communities they support. As I've said, this impacts all of us. Under this Labor government, the resources sector and the agricultural sector, among others, are being strangled by red and green tape and burdened by uncertainty. Vital projects are stalled, investment confidence is down and WA's global competitiveness is in jeopardy.</para>
<para>I'll start with the nature-positive laws, by any measure a policy that is bad for Western Australia and all the things that we need to be doing there. This policy has been on and off the Albanese government's legislative agenda. While it has again dropped off the program for the time being, do not think for a moment that we have seen the end of it. Nature positive threatens the viability of not just mining but also housing, agriculture and infrastructure projects across Western Australia. Labor claims these reform will deliver net positive environmental outcomes, but let's be clear about what they really involve: bureaucratic interference that forces businesses to offset any environmental disturbance, even if it's unavoidable. A report commissioned by WA business and mining industry groups has revealed how damaging these laws would be to Western Australia. WA's wholesale electricity prices could surge by 38 per cent, energy capacity could fall by 2.6 per cent and coal-fired power generation could increase by 244 per cent, completely contradicting Labor's stated and supported environmental goals. Indeed, residential land prices in Perth's northern suburbs could rise by up to 10.6 per cent due to additional red tape further exacerbating the housing crisis amongst Western Australians and their families.</para>
<para>WA Premier Roger Cook knows it better than most. He has warned that these changes would disproportionately impact Western Australians and has said that nature-positive laws, the laws of the Albanese government, should not be progressed. His message to those federal Labor parliamentarians who support it has been clear: do not for a moment think that we will stand idly by and allow you to damage our economy. That is the Labor Premier talking about the damning effect of the Labor Prime Minister's nature-positive laws.</para>
<para>Industry leaders have joined the chorus. From the Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Western Australia to the Chamber of Minerals and Energy, they've made their positions equally clear: these are bad laws for Western Australia. The legislation is bad for business and bad for Western Australia. Major mining projects are now at risk. The property sector is facing delays. Even clean-energy projects could get caught up in Labor's environmental mess.</para>
<para>The Albanese government has refused to release the full report detailing these impacts, raising serious questions about transparency and what else it might be hiding from Western Australian businesses and families. If these laws are as beneficial as Labor claims, why is Labor hiding the truth? Recent analysis has pointed to yet another disturbing reality: as Labor's regulatory burdens increase, the toll is evident in lost opportunities. Reports have confirmed that, despite WA's strong economic potential, investment is stagnating under this government's leadership. Rather than capitalising on WA's natural strengths, Labor is focused on ideology driven policies that deter investors and stifle economic growth.</para>
<para>The cost is not just measured in dollars and percentages. It is measured in lost jobs, closed businesses and wasted opportunities. Labor's own <inline font-style="italic">Resources and energy major projects</inline><inline font-style="italic">: 2024</inline> report reveals that 81 major resource projects worth $119 billion are now stalled or at risk. That's 47,000 jobs in doubt and 47,000 workers left in limbo because of this government's incompetence. It's a simple equation: when investment dries up, so do jobs; when projects stall, so do wages; and, when businesses are buried in regulation, they start to look elsewhere. WA competes on a global stage, and investors don't have to put their money here. Under Anthony Albanese and Labor, they are increasingly turning away from Australia and from Western Australia in particular.</para>
<para>These misguided policies have a compounding effect, so the timing of Labor's Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill, which passed the Senate on Monday night, is particularly unwelcome. The bill lacks essential details on how credits will be measured, distributed or enforced. The lack of clarity surrounding the community benefit principles component poses the greatest risk—something clearly identified in the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry into the bill. The Treasurer will make the rules based on these principles—rules we are yet to see but which will determine whether a company is eligible for the tax credits or is to be penalised in the form of reduced credits for alleged noncompliance. They may include forcing mining companies into compulsory union agreements and duplicative consultation on Indigenous and environmental matters.</para>
<para>On behalf of the coalition, I introduced an amendment aimed at giving industry some certainty around these community benefit principles. Labor and the Greens voted against it. The Minerals Council of Australia has warned that Labor's tax credit conditions could duplicate existing regulatory burdens, increasing costs and slowing down projects. The Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia has raised concern that these so-called benefits provide no actual value while adding additional hurdles. As with the Nature Positive Plan, ongoing regulatory uncertainty, rising project costs and a less competitive WA economy under Anthony Albanese and Labor make Labor a big risk for Western Australia.</para>
<para>The Albanese government has taken an equally damaging and equally ill-informed approach to WA's agricultural sector, something close to my heart and those of my colleagues in this place. The disastrous decision to shut down the live sheep export trade by 2028 is not just an attack on farmers but an attack on entire rural communities across all of Western Australia. The impact is already being felt. WA's sheep flock declined by 25 per cent last year alone, two major abattoirs have already closed, wool production is at its lowest level since the 1920s and shearers have reported business losses of up to 30 per cent in the past year. Labor has ignored the sector's superb advocacy, led by the Keep the Sheep campaign, and is forcing WA farmers into economic ruin while offering them a measly $139 million transition package. The WA government itself has said the real cost will be at least $1.2 billion. The Prime Minister had an opportunity to meet farmers in Canberra and to listen to their concerns. He declined. His declining sums up this government's approach to our state and our Western Australian farmers. The government's refusal to consult and refusal to consider the implications of their policy leaves Western Australia the poorer for it.</para>
<para>Again, it's the compounding effect of these policies that makes them so damaging. which brings me to Labor's $150 million biosecurity protection levy, another direct hit on Australian farmers. This proposed new tax on farmers is fundamentally unfair, charging Australian farmers for the biosecurity costs of importers. Let's put this in the simplest of terms: the government taxing its own farmers to pay for foreigners to bring their products into Australia is absurd. It makes no sense. And, of course, the impact would have been felt widely if the Senate had not today successfully discharged the bill from the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>. The coalition, acting decisively this morning, has given Australian agricultural producers some relief from Labor's bad policies.</para>
<para>It is important to stress, of course, that the federal coalition absolutely recognises the importance of a strong and robust biosecurity system in protecting Australia against pests and diseases. Western Australia's biosecurity is guarded with particular care, and for good reason. We support a sustainable funding model for biosecurity, but, of course, that tax would have hurt WA farmers.</para>
<para>Western Australia's a state that has given so much to our national economy; it deserves better from Labor. We need a government that supports investment rather than discouraging it—a government that reduces red and green tape rather than wrapping businesses in layers and layers of bureaucracy.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>34</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PRATT</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As we approach the next election and I near the end of my term in the Senate, I'm incredibly proud of what the Albanese government has achieved in just three years. Looking back, I see the firm foundation of our legacy and, indeed, where we are headed.</para>
<para>It has been rewarding to not only engage with voters and communicate these accomplishments but also—most importantly—to have voters' input. Serving on the government benches, there are moments when you make your own contribution on key issues and other times when you provide support for the excellent work of others, and this reflects the strength of our political party and movement. Whether it is in the party room, the parliament, the shop floor, the boardroom, the classroom or within community groups, together we listen and together we take action.</para>
<para>Australian voters can be sure of what Labor and an Albanese Labor government stand for. First and foremost, we stand for good jobs that pay well and a tax system that allows people to keep more of what they earn. We've made tax cuts fair, ensuring that every Australian wage earner who pays tax gets a tax cut—not just those at the top. We passed the secure jobs, better pay bill, fixing our workplace relations system to get wages moving again. And what did the opposition promise? They promised to repeal protections for vulnerable workers—repeal them in the middle of a post-COVID cost-of-living crisis. While we want to lift people up, they want to tear people down.</para>
<para>Since coming to office, the Albanese government has created more than half a million new jobs—the most for any new government on record. We've criminalised wage theft and secured pay rises for millions of Australians on the minimum wage. This contrasts starkly with the previous Liberal-National government, which deliberately designed low wage growth into its economic framework. Just this week we saw the coalition vote against tax incentives for critical minerals processing. With over 40 such projects in Western Australia competing for international investment, I'm appalled the coalition still clings to its 'dig and ship' mentality.</para>
<para>Far from keeping the sheep, they want to send the sheep offshore on boats, rather than having them processed onshore like the other 90 per cent of sheep in Australia, which will create new jobs. They failed to recognise the skilled, well-paid, long-term jobs that the critical minerals industry could bring to WA by adding value to our resources. Collie is just one place that wants these projects as part of the transition of its local economy. Instead of critical minerals, however, they want to bring to Collie a nuclear power plant.</para>
<para>On health care, Australians know that Labor is committed to strengthening Medicare. This includes tripling the bulk-billing incentive and opening more urgent care clinics—I had the privilege of opening the one in Bunbury. And this week we announced initiatives to make birth control more accessible and provide better and more affordable support for menopause.</para>
<para>As a government, we've been taking action and listening to women. I've been part of Senate committee inquiries on reproductive health and menopause that have made big contributions to the nature of the policy commitments that we've delivered, and it's been great to participate in both of those. As a committee member, I've also contributed to the fact that the government has raised care standards and accountability in the national aged-care system, including by providing meal standards. While there are so many things to reflect on in what we have achieved—Gonski, education funding, paid parental leave and so many more—I want to say in closing that I'm confident that, with Ellie Whitaker joining Senator Ghosh on the WA Labor Senate ticket for the next election, this good work will continue.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration</title>
          <page.no>35</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia's immigration system is broken. It no longer works in the interest of the Australian people. Immigration policy from both parties of government, Labor and the coalition, does not reflect the views of the Australian people. It's driven by big business and is used to prop up an economy brought low by poor government decisions. Poll after poll shows most Australians think immigration is too high or should be lowered. A staggering 1.4 million people have been brought to Australia since Labor won power in 2022. That's more than the entire population of Adelaide, our fifth-largest city. There has never been such a massive increase in our population in all our history.</para>
<para>Last year I called for a national plebiscite on immigration to determine once and for all the views of the Australian people. Labor, the coalition and the Greens blocked it. This shows that they do not care about the Australian people's views on immigration. It shows that they do not care about the increasing number of Australians struggling to find secure accommodation, struggling to afford increasing rents or trying to survive on the streets. It shows they don't care about the inflation caused by high immigration or its overwhelming impact on services and infrastructure.</para>
<para>I care because I'm an Australian fighting for a decent standard of living for myself, my family and the Australians relying on me to fight for them. One Nation listens to the Australian people on immigration, and we develop our policies accordingly. Late last year, the Department of Home Affairs revealed that more than 75,000 visa holders were in Australia illegally. Under our policy, all of them would be deported immediately. Under our policy, they would not be able to appeal their deportation to the Administrative Review Tribunal.</para>
<para>During the previous two financial years, just over 1.4 million people came to Australia courtesy of the Albanese Labor government, an average of 700,000 per year. These numbers are obscene. One Nation will cap arrivals at 130,000 per year, a drop of 570,000 per year from Labor's record numbers. This will allow Australia to catch its breath, catch up with housing and catch up with services and infrastructure. One Nation's policies introduce a minimum eight-year waiting period before immigrants can apply for Australian citizenship and the privileges that come with it. Over this eight-year period, immigrants will be required to consistently demonstrate that they are fit to become Australians. We want to reinforce the principle that Australian citizenship is a privilege to be earned, not an entitlement to be given away.</para>
<para>Foreign students will be included in our 130,000-a-year cap. Australian universities must be broken of their addiction to foreign students and forced to prioritise the tertiary education of Australian students. With modern communications technology, there is no compelling reason why most of these students can't do Australian courses at home—unless, of course, you factor in the amount of money they send back home from Australia. In 2023, this figure was $10 billion—not million, billion. It's a scam to take jobs and wealth from Australians, and we're going to put a stop to it.</para>
<para>One Nation's policy will also stop those on student visas from using the system as a back door to permanent residency and will prevent students from bringing family members here. Our policy also demands the reinstatement of temporary protection visas and Australia's withdrawal from the UN refugee convention. TPVs are a proven means of deterring people smuggling, stopping the boats and stopping those arriving by plane. Labor is keeping things quiet, but it's well known that people smugglers are constantly testing our borders, and more boats have made it to the mainland in recent months. Under our policy, immigration from nations known to foster extremism will be prohibited. The major parties' failure to screen out extremists at the border is directly responsible for the unrest and violence we've seen on our streets and in our suburbs. One Nation is the only party with a strong immigration policy that reflects the will of the Australian people. That's because we're the only party that puts Australia and Australians first.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Women's Health</title>
          <page.no>35</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This week the Albanese Labor government made a game-changing announcement on women's health. It's an announcement that will impact women of all ages and will really change the game for women's health by providing more choice and lower costs and by bringing health care closer to home.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is investing $573 million to provide better access, lower costs and more choices for women across the country. For the first time in 30 years, new oral contraceptive pills will be listed on the PBS, saving around 50,000 women hundreds of dollars a year. Long-term contraceptives like IUDs and implants will also be more affordable, with bigger Medicare payments and expanded bulk-billing cutting costs up to $400 for 300,000 Australian women.</para>
<para>Menopause care is also getting a much-needed boost, with new Medicare rebates, better training for doctors and the first-ever clinical guidelines—I can't believe we haven't had those until now, but here we are—for menopause. Plus, new hormone therapies will be listed on the PBS, making treatment cheaper for around 150,000 women.</para>
<para>We're also expanding specialist clinics for endometriosis and pelvic pain, bringing the total number of clinics up to 33. I'm really pleased to say that one of the clinics that we rolled out after the last election is in Far North Queensland, and it is making an incredible difference to the people that go there. Funded by the Albanese Labor government, the True Relationships & Reproductive Health clinic provides vital support for women dealing with endometriosis and pelvic pain, and I've even had the privilege of visiting many times to see firsthand the incredible work that they do.</para>
<para>In a huge win for regional areas, women will be able to get contraception and treatment for uncomplicated UTIs directly from pharmacies, with trials covering 250,000 concession cardholders. This package was shaped by extensive consultation with women, health experts and advocacy groups, ensuring real impact where it's needed the most.</para>
<para>Women in my home of Far North Queensland deserve the same quality health care as those in big cities. With this investment we're making sure distance and cost aren't barriers to essential care. With this investment we are making sure that essential care for things like contraception, menopause, IUDs and pelvic pain are not treated as taboo or unserious. From our first periods as young girls to the time of menopause as we get older, women's health is often shrouded in shame and stigma, but none of this is a choice. We don't choose to get older, but we need health care. Women have asked the government to take their health care seriously, and we have listened. There are changes that could save women and their families thousands of dollars across their lifetimes.</para>
<para>On top of this, we are strengthening Medicare, tripling the bulk-billing incentive, making medicines cheaper and opening free Medicare urgent care clinics across the country. We've had 17,000 presentations at the urgent care clinic in Cairns South alone. That's 17,000 patients that didn't need to go to our local hospital. Urgent care clinics are taking the pressure off our hospitals and taking the pressure off the family budget.</para>
<para>But we know that all of this is under threat from Mr Peter Dutton and the Liberal National Party, because they will make cuts. They just won't tell you where. The last time that Mr Dutton was in control of our healthcare system, he ripped $50 billion from hospitals and tried to end bulk-billing forever. We know that our healthcare system is precious. Labor built Medicare and we'll always protect it. But under Mr Peter Dutton, Medicare is at risk. That is why, when it comes to urgent care clinics, cheaper medicines, tripling the bulk-billing incentive, getting access to more GPs or getting access to this amazing women's health system, it is so important that we talk to people about what is at risk if Peter Dutton is elected Prime Minister at the next election.</para>
<para>Women in particular know, after we've announced this women's health policy, that they will be worse off under Mr Peter Dutton, and that's because they will make cuts; they just won't tell you where. They've promised before not to make cuts to things that are important to Australians, but we know what happened last time they were in government. You'll be worse off under Peter Dutton because he will cut Medicare.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>36</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Millions of Australians standing at the check-out feel the pain of our cost-of-living crisis. Yesterday new research revealed that one in three Australians aren't confident they'll be able to afford their housing costs over the next 12 months. Living day in, day out stressed and afraid about how you're going to pay your next bill is not the life in the lucky country that Australians have come to expect.</para>
<para>Canberrans are far from immune from this. Here in the ACT we have the lowest bulk-billing rate in the country. Over half of 17- to 18-year-olds have to fork out the full amount to see a doctor. It's unsurprising but also a source of shame that a growing number of people here in Canberra are turning to Google when they're sick, because they can't afford to see a GP. We also have the nation's highest childcare fees and the highest rate of persistent homelessness in the country.</para>
<para>The cost-of-living crisis has become one of the hallmarks of our time and will be a defining issue at the forthcoming election. I acknowledge the efforts of the Treasurer, the finance minister and this government to address this and, especially, to bring down inflation. There have been steps in the right direction, especially when we here on the crossbench have given them a gentle, and at times not so gentle, nudge in the right direction, but the magnitude of the crisis demands a parliament willing to be much bolder.</para>
<para>The household electrification acceleration projects that the crossbench agreed with Minister Bowen are an important step forward, but we need to roll that out at scale. Rather than offering short-term, one-off energy bill relief, we should be ensuring that every Australian household can fully electrify and so save thousands of dollars every year into the future. Be they renters, apartment owners, or social or public housing tenants, everyone should have the opportunity to benefit from the savings that electrification can bring to Australians.</para>
<para>Rather than the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, we need a $20 billion, a $30 billion or even a $40 billion HAFF. We need to be getting our priorities straight. When we're faced with challenges such as national security, we see both major parties commit to hundreds of billions of dollars on submarines sometime in the future, yet when we have Australians struggling to put a roof over their heads, we see nowhere near that magnitude of urgency, spending and bipartisanship.</para>
<para>We make students pay tens of thousands of dollars for their degrees now, charging them interest for money that they have already repaid. The fact that we haven't changed the date of indexation during this parliament is disgraceful.</para>
<para>There are almost a million Australians living below the poverty line because our so-called safety net payments are so vastly inadequate. Until we start fairly taxing our gas and other natural resources, I simply do not want to hear that we can't afford to do this. Norway has a $2.8 trillion sovereign wealth fund. Imagine if we had the political courage to do that here. If our major parties weren't so completely and utterly captured by the fossil fuel industry, we could have done that, and I think Australians would want us to do that. But it's not too late. We can do that now.</para>
<para>There are some deep structural problems that we as a country need to fix, especially when it comes to competition. We can't keep talking about a cost-of-living crisis and not talk about addressing competition in this country. When interest rates come down, we need to see the banks pass that on and supermarket prices come down. I'm deeply worried that, in our system of duopolies and the big four, we won't.</para>
<para>CommBank just announced a $5 billion half-yearly profit, which is pretty good in a cost-of-living crisis. We know that, in our current system, any savings will be banked, because there's no competition without a strong parliament putting people first. Why would we expect that when we have another duopoly here? Rather than dealing with more competition and trying to improve the lives of, and reconnect with, the people that they should be representing, they're stitching up a deal to lock out competition. It's the duopoly acting in the interests of the duopoly.</para>
<para>This is a last-gasp attempt in a country where people have had a gutful with the lack of choice in our economy and in politics and with you entrenching your power. It's shameful, and I hope people see it for what it is—the duopoly that's overseeing duopolies wants to entrench the duopoly.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Early Childhood Education</title>
          <page.no>37</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My kids are the men they are today because of great early childcare educators. I'm so lucky to have had wonderful educators in my kids' lives when they were little. As a young mum, I returned to work pretty soon after having both of my kids—you've got to keep paying the bills somehow. It's something I know so many parents out there can relate to. So I put my kids into child care in Ulvie, and I'm glad I did. Those educators shaped who my boys are. I want every child to have these experiences—the playtime with other kids and the chance to laugh, play and squeal with joy. It shouldn't matter where they live, what their parents do or how much money their parents make. Every child should have the same opportunity to learn, but the current system doesn't allow that.</para>
<para>There's this little thing in place called the activity test. It was designed to link subsidised child care to the number of hours parents worked, studied or volunteered. It means the more hours you work, the more hours of subsidised care you have access to, except it's actually locking families out of child care. It's punishing parents who have insecure jobs, people looking for work and carers who contribute to their communities in other ways, and it hits families on low or unpredictable incomes the most. It means people get stuck in a vicious cycle where they can't get a job because they can't get care for their child, but they can't get subsidised care for their child unless they get a job. What are these parents supposed to do?</para>
<para>That's why I support getting rid of this test. It's not working the way it's supposed to. This change will help an estimated 126,000 Australian children access more affordable care and will give them a better start to life. But removing the activity test alone isn't enough to solve the tangled web of problems with the childcare system. If we want every child to have access to child care, we have to have somewhere to put them. Tassie has been labelled a childcare desert. There are fewer childcare places available than there are options for water in the Sahara Desert. Parents can be stuck on waiting lists for months. Some of them sign up for places as soon as they find out that they're pregnant. If there aren't enough places now, there definitely aren't going to be enough when universal child care is implemented. The government has got to start getting creative, and Tassie is already leading the way with a solution.</para>
<para>Some family day care centres in Tassie are at risk of shutting down because there are two day cares running out of the same building and the Tassie bureaucrats say this isn't allowed. The Tasmanian Minister for Education, Jo Palmer, has the power to keep them open, but she refuses to do it. Shutting down amazing childcare centres doing their job doesn't make any sense. It will put a hundred families at risk, with no other childcare options available in the area.</para>
<para>Last year, the Productivity Commission said that dual-educator models in childcare centres could help with childcare prices. The federal government should have them in rural and regional areas, where there aren't a lot of options available. The two centres currently under threat in Latrobe are the perfect example of this; they're filling the gap and doing it well. The federal government should use these centres as an example of how dual-educator family day cares could be rolled out across the country, but to roll out new centres you need staff to fill them.</para>
<para>Early childcare educators are underpaid and overworked. Centres are struggling to retain staff, and educators are heading off to work at Woolies because the pay is better. Labor tried to fix that with their recent pay rise for childcare workers, but it hasn't been executed well. The government won't say how many centres have successfully applied for the wage boost so far, because it isn't rolling out as well as they'd hoped. Educators aren't getting pay rises fast enough, because the wage-boost rollout is a bureaucratic, confusing application process. Some providers are on their fourth attempt to get paperwork approved so their staff can receive their wage increase. I absolutely support a pay rise for early childhood educators, but, if the process is so hard that no-one can get the pay rise, then the system is stuffed.</para>
<para>The federal government needs to work with the sector to make this process as easy as possible. Without addressing these issues, we risk creating a system where families are eligible for care but no places exist for them. Universal child care and removing the activity test are steps in the right direction, but make sure there are spaces available for our kids where they're needed and don't close down what we already have.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Freedom of Speech</title>
          <page.no>38</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I will introduce the Constitution Alteration (Right to Free Speech) Bill 2025. The purpose of my bill is to enshrine freedom of speech in the Australian Constitution. This bill is urgently needed and will provide protection of a right that many Australians assume they already have. This assumption, though, is increasingly dangerous. While freedom of speech in this country is generally assumed, it is not guaranteed. Indeed, it is always under threat.</para>
<para>Over the past decade, the right of Australians to say what they think has been increasingly infringed upon, and, while Australian parliaments have made no efforts at all to protect speech, they have, however, passed laws at state and federal level to restrict freedom of speech. We are now at a point where it is dangerous to openly say things that most people privately believe. It's a brave person, for example, who opines that men cannot become women. Is that really the kind of country that we want to live in—a country in which stating a simple truth puts a person in danger of being dragged before a tribunal to be interrogated for their words?</para>
<para>It is time to provide a constitutional right for all Australians to say what they truly think. The Western world became prosperous by allowing, rather than censoring, debate. Free speech is not a thing to be feared. It is a thing which should be embraced. Free speech is something that protects people. It's something that needs to be encouraged. The Enlightenment was built on the ability of people to say what they honestly thought even if it went against established norms. Indeed, it was the ability to challenge norms that made progress possible in the first place. But now we risk going backwards into a new dark age of restricted speech where certain ideas, held sacrosanct by those in power, are beyond challenging. This bodes well for nobody.</para>
<para>Without speech, there is no expression of thought. It is not exaggeration to say that, if people are not able to speak freely, then they are not able to think clearly. That is the key issue here. Freedom of thought supposes freedom of speech; the two are linked. What good are all the other freedoms if people are not free to think independently of the state and to express those thoughts? Australia, at a national level, lacks entrenched protections for freedom of speech. Our role as elected members should be to provide and sustain that right.</para>
<para>This bill will give the Australian people the power to vote in a referendum and determine just how important freedom of speech is to them. I believe that people, if given the chance, will vote overwhelmingly in favour of free speech, because Australians, while we may disagree on many issues, believe in a fair go. We believe in the right of everyone to voice their opinion without fear or favour. My proposed alteration to the Constitution will protect freedom of expression, along similar lines to the first amendment in the United States constitution, which provides that congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.</para>
<para>My bill will put the brakes on efforts to suppress speech, which is shockingly becoming more and more common all around the Western world, especially here in Australia. There shouldn't be a single senator in this chamber who would say that they are against freedom of speech. There shouldn't be a single senator in this chamber who would say to their constituents, 'I want to make it more difficult for you and your family to express your opinions.' It's crazy. We came to Canberra not to oppress our constituents but to defend and to ensure their freedoms forever. This bill does just that. It is long overdue.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Sport Safety: Concussion and Traumatic Brain Injury</title>
          <page.no>38</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In 2022 I set up an inquiry into concussions and repeated head trauma in contact sports due to the shocking accounts from people who approached my office concerned by the lack of action from the major sporting codes and the government, despite decades of attempts to bring this into the public light. The Senate inquiry and increased media reporting have raised awareness over the last two years on this important issue, and there has been some movement in the concussion space since the inquiry handed down its report in August last year. Firstly some sporting codes have undergone rule modification to decrease injury rates, as prevention is the most effective way to address the issue. The government also tabled its response to the Senate inquiry report, which is what I want to address here today.</para>
<para>I appreciate the development of an updated concussion and brain health position statement, released in February last year, which partly addressed recommendation 8 of the inquiry report. The position statement provides updated information on concussion, including the Australian concussion guidelines for community and youth sport. It advances a more precautionary approach than previously seen, including guidance for flexible return-to-play protocols with a more cautious approach, particularly for children and those with previous concussions. The position statement is an improvement on the previous versions and brings concussion advice in line with the UK and New Zealand. However, its development failed to fully take into account some of the existing research in this country and could have gone further in its guidance.</para>
<para>The response to some of the other recommendations has unfortunately been less satisfying. Recommendations 3 to 6 of the report spoke to the need for greater investment in research around concussion and repeated head trauma, including CTE. The government responded by reiterating already existing research funding, which scientists called out as insufficient, particularly for CTE. The existing Medical Research Future Fund funding of $50 million for a 10-year period is very little for a complex research area and does not include CTE. CTE is a neurodegenerative disorder which has been linked to repeated head trauma and gets worse over time. It can sadly lead to mood and behaviour changes and progressive disorders of thinking and memory. It can lead to death.</para>
<para>During the inquiry, we heard from affected players and families, some of whom have tragically lost loved ones, and their accounts were heart-wrenching. Failing to acknowledge the significance of CTE and to invest in better research and support for those affected is the government failing in its duty of care. The government's response also fails to address the need for more independent research on the issue. The Australian Research Council is conflicted with its close associations with sports like the AFL and NRL, who have vested interests to not support research into CTE. This was a matter raised in the inquiry but which the committee report failed to properly call out. It is time funding is provided to independent research rather than the same cohort of suspects deeply connected with the sports, such as internationally discredited Paul McCrory.</para>
<para>Recommendation 7 around improving public awareness and education on concussion and repeated head trauma was fully endorsed by the government. It came as a surprise, though, that in response it committed $12.5 million to Dementia Australia in this year's budget to support populations at risk of dementia, including those with suspected CTE. While I value Dementia Australia's work, it has until recently never worked in the CTE space, and others with decades of experience and high credentials in the field, such as the Australian Sports Brain Bank, have repeatedly missed out on funding. As someone who has suffered from concussion and its long-term impacts, I'm glad that the issue—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry, Senator Thorpe, but the time allotted has expired. We'll now go to two-minute statements.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Women's Health</title>
          <page.no>39</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEWART</name>
    <name.id>299352</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Too often women's health is not taken seriously. But we're changing that with an historic investment of over half a billion dollars into women's health, and we know that will deliver more choice, lower costs and better health care for women. Women make up half of the population—that's a pretty significant proportion of the population—so it's great to see this investment from the Albanese Labor government.</para>
<para>Women have asked and asked governments to take their health seriously, and we on this side of the chamber have listened. We're making big changes to make oral contraceptives and IUDs more accessible and affordable, including the first PBS listing of new oral contraceptive pills in 30 years. Yaz and Yasmin will be listed, saving 50,000 women hundreds of dollars a year, and there is work underway to list more contraceptive pills.</para>
<para>We're also opening even more endo and pelvic pain clinics across the country. We'll open 11 new clinics and ensure that all 33 clinics are staffed to provide specialist support for menopause. And there's a whole bunch of improvements for women experiencing menopause, including a new Medicare rebate of around $110 for menopause health assessments. This will help around 150,000 women each year, saving hundreds of dollars every year. Again, this is not a small proportion of the population. Women make up over 50 per cent of the population, and we all go through menopause. All of the changes that have been announced are going to save women hundreds of dollars every year. In a cost-of-living crisis, it will mean women are more easily able to prioritise their own healthcare needs. This is a government that will always take women's health seriously. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Apology to the Stolen Generations: 17th Anniversary</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COX</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Tomorrow is the 17th anniversary of the National Apology to the Stolen Generations delivered by former prime minister Kevin Rudd in 2008. It's a significant milestone of healing for First Nations people, who have suffered some of the most unspeakable crimes from past government policies of forced child removal and assimilation. As a nation it's important to commemorate and acknowledge the wrongs of the past that remain open wounds. The truth of this era must be put into our school curriculum and our civics and citizenship education. This is the unfinished business of this nation. Stolen generation survivors are some of most vulnerable people and have kept their stories and experiences secret for many years, even decades.</para>
<para>I am a child of the generation following the end of the era of removals. My family were in the missions and on the reserves for five generations, and we are still working our way through the intergenerational trauma. I am extremely grateful for the opportunities I have to work every day to heal from this, and I recognise that this is not everybody's story. I want to respectfully acknowledge the many people who have been taken or lost along the way. Sharing these experiences is critical, and our future collective path should be forged through respect and through understanding our survival and our resilience. We are still here and we are not going anywhere. Woola.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Forestry Industry</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak of some deceptive, dishonest and unethical advertisements that have been calling for the end of the native forest industry in this country based on the fact that 90 per cent of timber used in our economy today is out of plantation. This is not the reason to end native forestry. In fact, if you look at the real values that most people in our community are looking for in relation to the management of our environment, you will actually see a native forest based regime for our forestry system. I know the people in my community really value those important values. If you look at a native forest regime compared to a plantation forest regime, a native forest regime is better for biodiversity. It will store more carbon. In fact, a managed forest will store more carbon over time than a forest that is left to just fallow will. It's better for water quality; it uses no chemicals. Some people might call it organic forestry. And as a carpenter, someone who's worked with timber since I was young—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A builder.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COLBECK</name>
    <name.id>00AOL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A carpenter and joiner. I know that native forest timbers will provide you with the best-quality timbers. They're all around us today here in this chamber. You won't make a piece of furniture that will become an antique one day out of plantation timber. You won't have high-quality veneers. You won't make exquisite musical instruments, and you won't make the types of boats that we celebrated at the Australian Wooden Boat Festival, in Hobart, last week. We need a balanced regime of forestry, one that looks after our environment but also retains all of the values from both native and plantation regimes. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I had the privilege this week to be introduced to a young woman who has a very rare cancer. It was at an event hosted by Rare Cancers Australia. This young woman, living in regional Australia, is 33 years old and got the terrible news that she has a very rare terminal cancer. When she finally got the diagnosis, her choice of whether she lived or died depended on her access to superannuation. She is a beautiful young woman with her whole life ahead of her. She is very lucky that the treatment that she's under at the moment is working, but it is $8,000 every time. That's not what it's about. We provide Medicare and support for all Australians.</para>
<para>That leads me to the meeting I had with rural GPs today in my office. I come from Tasmania, a rural and regional state. We know what it's like not to have access to specialists when we need them, and the demand on GPs is so great. So I give a shout-out to Rare Cancers Australia for all the work that they do about raising awareness.</para>
<para>But we want equality in this country. There's the threat of a Liberal government under Mr Dutton if he were to become Prime Minister. We know his record of cutting and using the health budget and the aged-care budget as ATMs, and that's in stark contrast to the work that Minister Mark Butler has done in the almost three years that we have been in government. There is a stark contrast. You cannot afford to risk the Liberals introducing another GP tax. For a decade, they did nothing about giving any incentives for GPs to allow longer consultations or training more GPs so that we have them in rural and regional Australia. Every Australian living in a regional or rural area is equal to any Australian living in a city in this country. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One Nation's plan to put more money in Australians' pockets has a focus on strengthening Medicare. We'll begin by targeting fraud. As we learnt from the Independent Review of Medicare Integrity and Compliance, released by the Minister for Health and Aged Care in April 2023, the system has been rorted by up to $3 billion a year. There have been many examples of people using other people's Medicare cards or of doctors claiming rebates for patients they did not see. There are other examples of Medicare funded appointments being used to obtain cheap prescriptions sold at obscene profits both here and overseas. Much of this can be prevented by simply requiring photo ID on Medicare cards.</para>
<para>One Nation's policy will increase bulk-billing rates, which have fallen under Labor. According to the 2025 report on government services released this month, in 2023-24 bulk-billing rates declined from 51.7 per cent to 47.7 per cent despite significant funding injections by Labor. In the same year, the average out-of-pocket cost for a patient to see a GP was $45, and nine per cent of patients either delayed appointments or simply didn't go because of the cost. One Nation's policy will also look at increasing the Medicare rebate to better support bulk-billing. GPs facing huge costs increases in rent, rates, insurance and energy need to be better remunerated if bulk-billing rates are to improve and if we want to prevent the exit of GPs from the system.</para>
<para>Medicare must be made sustainable if we want Australians to continue to have access to affordable Medicare. Let's put photo ID on the Medicare card so that we stop this fraud and stop people coming in from overseas, taking up the Medicare cards of friends and family, using our services, getting their scripts and taking back medicines. We know that fraud is up to $3 billion a year. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Banking and Financial Services</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to call out the Labor Party on this absolute cop-out of a decision yesterday. They have rolled over to the big banks yet again, like they did in 1985 when they lifted capital controls and in 1992 when they privatised the Commonwealth Bank. They've effectively got an agreement from the four major banks that they're going keep their branches open until 2027. What a cop-out. That is an absolute insult to the hardworking people out in regional and metropolitan Australia who need to access banking services. Ben Chifley would be rolling in his grave, if he saw the modern Labor Party today. I know you agree with me, Acting Deputy President Sterle; you're an old Chifley man yourself, coming from the working class.</para>
<para>What has happened to the Labor Party? Stop selling out to the big banks. We need more branches in the regions. We need a proper public ban not this postal bank rubbish, whereby little post office franchises are being screwed by the major banks. Yes, it's all very well that they've signed an agreement now. But under the last agreement, the banks went and closed a whole heap more branches, which of course meant that the post offices got more work and the post office itself couldn't actually engage in these transactions for a profit.</para>
<para>The banks are merely shifting costs through Bank@Post. The only party that has a proper solution is the People First Party, which wants a public bank that uses the RBA payment systems that already exist. I know about that because I've actually managed the payment systems in an Australian-listed bank. We need a government insurance office brought back that would also include a government superannuation fund, all under the same roof. We would save billions of dollars to return to the pockets of the Australian people.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia's economy is in trouble, and working people are the ones paying the price. Rents have never been higher, every trip to the grocery store feels like daylight robbery and, while Aussie families struggle to keep up with soaring mortgage repayments, the big banks—like Senator Rennick said—are raking in billions from the very interest rate hikes that are crushing households.</para>
<para>Let's cut through the noise. These aren't just numbers on a spreadsheet. These are parents, who are already budgeting down to the last dollar, skipping meals to keep a roof over their heads; young couples, who worked hard to buy their first home, watching their Australian dream turn into a financial nightmare as their mortgage repayments go up by hundreds or even thousands of dollars a month; and retirees dusting off resumes and forced back into work because their savings aren't keeping up. For most Australians, this isn't just economic theory; it's reality. Yet what we get from the two major parties is a blame game.</para>
<para>Labor points the finger at the Liberals for a decade of economic mismanagement, and the Liberals fire back about reckless spending. But here's the truth: both sides have spent years dodging the hard work of fixing this mess. We know the RBA only has one blunt instrument to address inflation, and it won't hold up as the sole firefighter in this crisis. We need real solutions, like strengthened renters' rights, so landlords can't hike rents at will. We need to invest in affordable housing, instead of leaving it to profit-hungry developers and tackle corporate price gouging so families aren't paying through the nose for essentials. Let's get one thing straight. Tackling inflation should not mean punishing households, because right now the only thing trickling down is stress, and Australians have had enough.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pensions and Benefits</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>298839</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak to just some of the litany of issues that plague the social security system in this country. Firstly, I want to talk about the punitive partner income test for the disability support pension, a test that traps disabled people in abusive relationships by forcing them into a situation of financial dependency where they can lose access to their own income. It's a test that also prevents members of the community from getting married, out of fear of losing their disability support pensions. I hear time and time again from participants and constituents who are exhausted from dealing with a social security system that punishes instead of uplifts. Participants should not be punished for pursuing relationships; it's regressive and undermines marriage equality.</para>
<para>This is on top of the already dismal rate of income support that we have in this country. Today there are more than three million Australians living in poverty, including one in six children. Despite Australia's being one of the wealthiest countries on earth, successive Labor and coalition governments have made deliberate policy choices that keep people in poverty. I urge the government to get their priorities in order. Tax breaks for property investors and giving hundreds of billions of dollars to billionaires and big corporations, including fossil fuel corporations, doesn't help the average Australian get through this cost-of-living crisis and it certainly does absolutely nothing for the millions of people struggling to survive on Centrelink poverty payments.</para>
<para>Poverty is a policy choice, and the Greens are fighting for a strong social safety net and a liveable wage that would raise all Centrelink payments above the poverty line.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Federal Election</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The so-called battle between Labor and Liberal is an illusion. Both parties push the same agenda; it's different only in presentation. The two-party system is designed to give voters the illusion of choice while ensuring that nothing truly changes. For years, both major parties have supported globalist led policies that erode national sovereignty and undermine personal freedom. Labor and the Liberals are both committed to the Paris climate accord, which won't change the weather but will devastate our economy and our quality of life.</para>
<para>Digital ID, censorship laws, so-called hate speech laws and restricting social media for minors are all bipartisan initiatives. The same goes for the indemnity that big pharmaceutical companies were given during the pandemic and the gaslighting of the victims of their products afterwards. Both parties bow to unelected globalist organisations like the UN, the WHO and the WEF while running up national debt, destroying the value of our dollar, undermining Australian culture and implementing mass immigration policies that weaken sovereignty. Their policies are dictated not by the people, in my opinion, but by faceless bureaucrats who remain in power regardless of who sits in the Prime Minister's office. Unlike in the United States, where a president can bring in fresh personnel, Australia's deeply entrenched bureaucracy influences policy from the shadows, ensuring continuity of the globalist agenda.</para>
<para>If Australians believe that voting for Mr Dutton will fix the mess created by Prime Minister Albanese, they are mistaken. These men are two sides of the same coin, the only difference being the colour of their ties. The only way forward, really, is this: reject the two-party system and vote for true disruptors—leaders who will challenge the establishment, fight globalist overreach and, most importantly, put Australia first.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Banking and Financial Services</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CANAVAN</name>
    <name.id>245212</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to say thanks to the many Australians who have fought hard to save the banks in their country towns. I should recognise your efforts as well, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle. A few years ago, Senator Rennick—and I think he might have spoken about this earlier—pushed for a Senate inquiry into regional bank closures. We on the Rural and Regional Affairs and References Committee, along with many everyday Australians, got involved and fought hard to keep banks in our country towns.</para>
<para>Our first act as a committee was to write to all the banks and ask them not to close branches during our inquiry, and three of the four major banks agreed with us and did that. As a consequence, 12 bank branches that were slated for closure were not closed at that time. It was one of the more fruitful Senate committee experiences I've been involved in. It was conducted in a tripartisan way and we delivered real results for people on the ground. I want to thank everybody who got involved. I remember our first hearing down in Sale, in Victoria—organised with just weeks notice. The town hall was packed to the rafters, and that public reaction clearly helped force the hands of the banks to do something here and to stop the ripping out of financial services from our country towns.</para>
<para>I do welcome yesterday's announcement that banks will now extend that moratorium until mid-2027. That's fantastic. All banks have now signed up to provide their banking services through Australia Post branches. That's great, but more needs to be done, too. Our committee did also recommend that a small levy be introduced on our major banks so that we could fund the expansion of new services and we don't just get declining services; we get growth in financial services in the bush. I hope the government can take that recommendation up as well.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7120" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Apparently, there have been a couple of rumours getting around in the last couple of weeks about where I stand with the Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023. I'm here to set the record straight. I don't support the bill. Labor say their bill targets the top end of town. Their plan is that people with $3 million or more in their superannuation need to pay more tax. In theory, it sounds okay. Most of us would say $3 million is a fair chunk of change, but that amount won't be indexed. So, as we move forward 10 years or 20 years, suddenly what seems like a lot of money now won't be a lot of money then. It means more and more Australians will be caught up in this tax, but the real secret assassin of this bill is the unrealised gains.</para>
<para>Think of a Tassie farmer who owns an agricultural property that's been in their family for generations. Maybe that land is worth a few million dollars now and is classed as one of their assets. This bill would ask farmers to pay tax on that land—pay tax on something they haven't sold and something they don't have the cash in the bank for. It makes absolutely no sense at all. So, suddenly, this bill, which Labor says only targets millionaires, is targeting average, everyday working people. That's not giving people a fair crack.</para>
<para>I agree that super needs to be taxed in a way that's fairer and more sustainable. The administration of superannuation is needlessly complex, and it adds costs to everyone who uses the system. Super tax concessions are expensive and will require eventual wind back, but it's got to be done in a way that reduces complexity, gives certainty and improves sustainability. Labor's better targeted super concession bill isn't the right way to do it, and that's why I don't support it—so rumour dispensed.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>First Nations Australians</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>'Are you waiting for us to die?' These words reflect the testimony of survivors of the stolen generation who continue to wait for the implementation of the 1997 national inquiry into the stolen generation, known as the <inline font-style="italic">Bringing </inline><inline font-style="italic">them home</inline> report, which my mum was a co-commissioner of. It delivered 54 recommendations to address the impacts of the removal policies and to provide a pathway forward for healing.</para>
<para>A report by the Healing Foundation today demonstrates that only six per cent of these recommendations have been implemented. The stolen generations continue. Last year, almost one in 15 First Nations children were forcibly removed from their families, and the numbers continue to rise. Victoria has the worst rate, with nearly one in eight of our children forcibly stolen. In the Northern Territory, we're seeing a calculated reversal of progress, with the government moving to dismantle the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle, which ensures our children stay connected to family, kin, culture and country. It's a return to the genocidal policy of assimilation. Each day, my office supports constituents who are desperately fighting to have their children returned or not removed or who are still grappling with the intergenerational trauma caused by being stolen.</para>
<para>Federal governments have pretended that responsibility rests solely with states and territories, but we know that, with leadership, they can develop a national intergenerational healing strategy and a national legislative framework to stop our children being stolen. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bendigo Electorate: Federal Election</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Recently I had the pleasure of joining over 300 proud supporters of Andrew Lethlean, the National Party's candidate for the federal seat of Bendigo. What an event! People from all walks of life throughout the community stood proudly with Andrew, a born-and-bred local who's run pubs in Bendigo for many, many decades. He is also a local tennis champion and footballer who has proudly raised his kids locally. He has put his hand up to get Bendigo a better deal than they're currently getting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie, resume your seat. Point of order, Senator Ayres?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ayres</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I just wasn't sure whether this new Liberal and National Party memo to talk directly to the camera was consistent with the standing orders about directing comments through the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Point taken, but I don't see a point of order. Senator McKenzie, you have one minute and 17 seconds left.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Labor Party might try and shut down the National Party here in the Australian Senate, but they won't shut down the National Party in the seat of Bendigo. We have a local champion who's prepared to stand up for his community against Labor slashing infrastructure locally by refusing to invest in projects. Lisa Chesters is a failed local member. She can't even make it onto Albanese's frontbench. We see in the latest rounds of regional grant funding—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie, I'm going to have to remind you—I hear it so many times from your side of the chamber—that, when you are referring to those in the other house, you refer to them by their titles.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is her name not Lisa Chesters?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You know exactly what I'm saying, Senator McKenzie.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Oh, correct! It's time that Bendigo got a better deal than they are getting from their local member, Lisa Chesters, the failed premier Jacinta Allan—we wonder how long she will hold that post—and, indeed, the Labor Party here in Canberra.</para>
<para>Concerningly, we've seen the regional grants program ignore significant investment in the seat of Bendigo. Andrew Lethlean and the Nationals won't take a backward step in standing up for that community and making sure they get their fair share of federal funding. They are one people, united behind one flag. We know that Bendigo spoke out loudly about the Voice, and Andrew will back Bendigo all the way should he have the great privilege— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Collingwood Football Club Foundation</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I do want to change the tone in the Senate just for a moment. As you'd be aware, the AFL season is less than a month away, and I certainly cannot wait. But today I want to draw attention to the Collingwood Football Club's inspiring work away from the footy field. Recently, over the summer break, I was pleased to receive the club's <inline font-style="italic">C</inline><inline font-style="italic">ommunity foundation impact report</inline><inline font-style="italic"> 2024</inline>.</para>
<para>People doing it tough are being given an opportunity to connect and belong. There are two pillars to the foundation: Barrawarn and A Nest for All. Barrawarn, which means 'magpie', oversees activities in support of First Nations people through cultural awareness and education, while A Nest for All ensures that everyone has a place to belong through the Magpie Nest Cafe, Magpie Nest Housing, the Collingwood Foundation football team and wheelchair football. These programs support those who are experiencing homelessness, mental illness, disability, substance abuse, domestic violence or social and economic hardship. The foundation also has a formidable partnership with the Salvation Army's Melbourne Project 614, which offers housing and meals to those in need. For example, the Magpie Nest Cafe is operated by the Salvation Army, with the help of the foundation, providing over 10,000 free meals each month.</para>
<para>I'm proud to see my club kicking goals away from the footy field, delivering programs that have a profound impact on the community. Well done, everyone at the foundation, including the board and Kerrie Brewer, the executive general manager, and her team, for fostering social and cultural change through football. Keep up the great work. And go Pies! I look forward to the 2025 footy season.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Mortality</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ANTIC</name>
    <name.id>269375</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Australian Bureau of Statistics no longer provides official estimates of the rates of excess mortality in our community but we know that they are alarmingly high, and we know that because they've been alarmingly high ever since the COVID period. In fact, since those figures were switched off in 2022, we've known that the excess mortality rate has been recorded at 11.7 per cent over the rate of normal mortality in this country. My question is: why is this issue still not being investigated?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! It being 2 pm, the time allotted for senators' statements has expired and we will move to questions without notice.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>44</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Antisemitism</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Today Australians witnessed utterly vile footage of two nurses at Bankstown hospital making despicable antisemitic death threats against Israeli patients, with one boasting: 'You have no idea how many Israeli people come to this hospital. I send them to Jahannam.' Jahannam is Arabic for 'hell'. The other nurse declared that she wouldn't treat Israeli patients, saying, 'I'll kill them.' What has the Prime Minister done to ensure the safety of Jewish and Israeli patients across Australia given the threats on their lives that have been made?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This video is disgusting. The footage is sickening, and it is shameful, and the comments to which the senator refers are vile. Antisemitism has no place in this country, it has no place in our health system, and the comments are inconsistent with who we are and fly in the face of all that we are as a country, which is welcoming of and respectful of people of all faiths and all cultural backgrounds.</para>
<para>I am advised that these individuals have been stood down by New South Wales authorities, as they should have been. I'm also advised they've been referred to the NSW Police for criminal investigation, as they should have been, and individuals found to have committed criminal antisemitic acts should face the full force of the law.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question was in relation to what the Prime Minister has done to ensure the safety of Jewish and Israeli patients across Australia.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, the minister is being directly relevant to your question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On this, I would have hoped that response to this issue is above politics. That's certainly how we are approaching it, and the Prime Minister has made very clear statements. This matter has been dealt with in accordance with the appropriate procedures, which is that they have been stood down by the New South Wales authorities, as they should have been.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. I ask the minister: has the Prime Minister called a national cabinet on ensuring the safety of Jewish and Israeli patients across Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister has previously engaged regularly with states and territories about the issue of antisemitism. We know that antisemitism has been on the rise in this country. We know that Jewish Australians have been targeted. I have said in this place many times that people in this country have a right not only to be safe but also to feel safe, and we all have a role, as Mr Dreyfus so eloquently put it in the other place, to work together to stand up against hatred, against antisemitism and for the values that are central to who we are.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, I have a point of order on relevance. The question went directly to: has the Prime Minister called a national cabinet?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Cash. I will draw the minister back to your question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My recollection, as I said, is that the Prime Minister has previously engaged and continues to engage with the states on these issues. I refer the minister to the Prime Minister's public statements today and to the previous discussion.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Given that there has been a wave of antisemitic hate in Australia since October 2023, with these vile threats being the latest horrific example, how does the Prime Minister propose to lead a nationally coordinated approach to ensure Jewish and Israeli patients can have confidence in our healthcare system?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I just provide some information, which I have now located, in relation to some matters in the federal jurisdiction. It's in response to the primary question. There is a national scheme for regulating the safety and quality of health practitioners, including nurses. In the case of New South Wales, the relevant authority is the Health Care Complaints Commission. Any adverse finding by that body will automatically flow through to the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme. I can inform the Senate that the secretary of NSW Health has referred this matter to both the HCCC and informed—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, I raise a point of order in relation to relevance. All three questions directly went to the actions of the Prime Minister of Australia.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I believe the minister is being relevant. I will continue to listen carefully.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was seeking to provide the senator with information about her first question, which I didn't have in front of me when I answered it. What I'd say to Senator Cash is that I am willing to work with anyone to stand up against antisemitism. I hope that that is the case across the chamber.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aviation Industry</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Today, in Merimbula, the Prime Minister announced the Albanese Labor government will work with the administrators of Regional Express Holdings—or Rex, as it's commonly known—as part of an upcoming competitive sale process to ensure crucial regional aviation services continue beyond 30 June 2025. As the duty senator for most of New South Wales, I'm delighted that the government will back regional aviation, just like we back regional telecommunications, because we know our great country towns deserve quality services and connectivity just like our cities. Can the minister please provide further details of today's important—and, I'm sure, much welcomed—announcement.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator O'Neill for the question. It was an important announcement today. Again, the Labor government is standing up for regional communities and making sure that regional transport, including aviation services, is not reduced under this government. We believe in regional and remote communities and in the fact that they deserve reliable, affordable and accessible air travel. Today, the Prime Minister announced that we will support bidders in a second sale process for Rex Airlines to maximise the prospect of a successful sale. We have been clear that the Commonwealth is not a bidder in this process and that we want to see a successful, market led outcome, but this is an important signal to the market. We've been clear that if there is no sale we'll look at contingency options, including Commonwealth acquisition. This is because regional Australians deserve to know that we have their backs.</para>
<para>This announcement today, of course, builds on the announcement yesterday about ensuring regional services like banking are maintained in communities and on the important announcements by the minister for infrastructure today about the upgrade of regional airports—again, infrastructure that is essential not only for day-to-day air travel and transport but also in times of emergencies. We know those communities, Senator O'Neill, where you are the relevant senator rely so much on being able to, at short notice, ship in supplies and support at times of national emergency. We are very pleased to make these investments—certainly, the investments in airports are long overdue—and we believe, in terms of Rex, we need to make a very strong commitment to regional communities that we will maintain your air services, despite Rex Airlines going through a difficult time.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order across the chamber! Senator Watt and Senator McKenzie, order!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie, I particularly just called you to order. Do you have a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like Senator Watt to withdraw his remarks about me across the chamber over the last two minutes of exchange.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator McKenzie. I'm more than happy to ask him to do that, but I also expect that, when I personally call you to order by name, you come to order. Senator Watt, please withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Watt</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. Senator O'Neill, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Recently I was in Griffith, the home of Rex Airlines, and the community is very proud of that. What support has been provided by the Albanese Labor government to date to support Rex, and why is the government support for Rex so important, particularly for regional Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para> (—) (): I thank Senator O'Neill for the question. The announcement today comes on top of the Albanese government providing a loan of up to $80 million to keep Rex's vital regional routes operating until 30 June 2025 and also acquiring $50 million of debt from Rex's largest creditor. We did that earlier this year to ensure that the airline could continue to operate. These actions make clear the government's ongoing commitment to maintaining access to aviation services for regional and remote communities and recognises the critical role of the Rex network in local communities. There does seem to be a bit of a disagreement between the Liberals and the National Party about the approach to Rex Airlines. We have Mr Littleproud saying all options should be on the table and we have members of the Liberal Party—Senator Hume and Ms Ley—saying that governments— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Particularly Senators Watt and McKenzie. If you can't sit in this chamber and show me respect, particularly when I name you, then please leave. Senator O'Neill, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister, for that fulsome response and for putting on the record Ms Ley's response. How will Australians benefit from securing this important regional transport infrastructure, and how would remote and regional communities be impacted if Rex services were no longer available to the communities that absolutely rely on them?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Rex Airlines provides a vital service to regional Australia, a service that hundreds of thousands of regional Australians depend on. I must say, listening to the media comments this morning from those opposite, we had Mr Littleproud saying he believes that everything needs to be on the table and it seems that we had members of the Liberal Party saying that we should never own an airline and criticising the investments that we've made to date to keep the airline flying. So it does seem that there's a bit of a divide over there, in fact a significant division, between the Liberal Party and the National Party. Who pays the price for that division? It's people in regional communities that depend on these airlines to ensure that they can travel around the country. We believe we're making the right decisions for Rex and we look forward to participating in the second sale process.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm going to remind all senators today—my apologies in advance to senators who haven't called out—particularly those that I have named, of standing order 203. I am serious. If I call order, I expect you to come to order. I should not have to name you individually.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing Australia Future Fund</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Yesterday during question time you'll recall that you said that 13,700 houses were 'in the pipeline' under round 1 of the Housing Australia Future Fund. How many homes—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think you should listen to what the President just said. How many homes have been completed under the Housing Australia Future Fund agenda?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator. President, through you, I'd say to Senator Bragg two things. The first is that I refer to my answer yesterday. The second is that I just point out to you that, probably, if we had had the opportunity to have the Housing Australia Future Fund earlier, we would have seen a lot more progress. You were amongst the many people over there who did not want to progress that, and you still don't. So what I can say to you, Senator, is there are absolutely more houses to be built and being built by this government than there would be if Mr Dutton were in power.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Bragg, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Given we couldn't get any more information on the number of houses completed, how many homes 'in the pipeline'—another one of your quotes from yesterday—have actually been completed?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I said yesterday, the government's committed $32 billion in new housing initiatives, including $6 billion in the most recent budget. I'm advised that 24,000 homes are in the pipeline through direct Commonwealth investment, including 13,700 under round 1 of the HAFF.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have a point of order in relation to relevance. I'm going to assume the minister doesn't know the difference between 'completed' and 'pipeline'.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, get to the point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>People can't live in a 'pipeline' house.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Cash, that would be defined as a debating point, not a point of order. The minister may wish to add to her answer; otherwise I call Senator Bragg for a second supplementary.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, will you now admit that the Housing Australia Future Fund is nothing but a pipedream? Why won't the Prime Minister apologise for his failure to deliver a solution that will provide more homes for Australians, as he promised?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor will never apologise for investing in housing. Unlike you, we actually believe that government has a role in housing. You believe that the Commonwealth has no role in housing. We have 24,000 homes into the pipeline—13,700 under round 1 of the HAFF—and those opposite are complaining because they have a government that is investing in housing they don't want. Senator Bragg, at least have the honesty to stand up and say, 'The federal government should not invest in housing,' because that is your policy. At least have the honestly to say to Australians, 'We don't believe that the federal government should help fund housing.' That's your policy—zero! You come in here and complain. Your policy is zero houses from the federal government. That is your policy, Senator Bragg. At least have the honesty to say to Australians, 'Peter Dutton's housing policy is "no houses by a federal government".'</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! It is not a competition to see which senators can yell more loudly than a person providing the answer. You either listen in silence or you leave the chamber. The disorder in this place is, quite frankly, disrespectful. It is particularly disrespectful to me when I am calling you to order.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Murujuga Cultural Landscape</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COX</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to Minister McAllister, representing the Minister for the Environment and Water. Australia has committed to achieving net zero by 2050, but it has no 2035 climate target. We are not on track, due to our emissions, which have increased under this Labor government. Australia has been ravaged by floods, fire and extreme heat. At the same time, Australia is destroying irreplaceable tangible and intangible cultural heritage—all in the name of the bottom line for projects like Woodside's North West Shelf project. Labor has approved 30 new climate-wrecking coal and gas projects—30, in fact! There is an impending World Heritage application for Murujuga on the Burrup Peninsula. Why is this government speaking out of both sides of its mouth, protecting the environment whilst allowing emissions at the Woodside gas plant to accelerate and destroy the precious rock art at Murujuga?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Cox, for a wide-ranging question, which in fact ranges across issues that are covered by Minister Bowen as well as by Minister Plibersek. I think you asked me that question in my capacity as the minister representing Minister Plibersek, and I'll do my best to provide answers to that extent and also provide anything I have that's relevant to the Minister Bowen's portfolio.</para>
<para>Perhaps we can start with the questions you put about proposals before the minister in relation to Murujuga. As I think your question implies, you're aware that there are decisions before Minister Plibersek at this time. It's not possible to comment on the specifics of those proposed projects prior to that decision being made, and it is not wise to do so. I note that Ms Plibersek is the legal decision-maker in relation to those, and she also is the legal decision-maker for a section 10 application that's been made under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act.</para>
<para>More generally, the government is strongly committed to protecting the Murujuga Cultural Landscape. You know, Senator, that it's a place of immense cultural and spiritual significance. It embodies thousands of years of continuous culture and practice, and the petroglyph collection there holds stories and traditions that span for more than 50,000 years. The government was proud to nominate the Murujuga Cultural Landscape for inclusion on the World Heritage list, in partnership with the Western Australian government and the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation. World Heritage listing can provide the highest global protection of this landscape, but it requires strong agreements in place to ensure the ongoing conservation of this precious place, and the Commonwealth provided $2 million to Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation to develop— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cox, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COX</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This Labor government has signed on 29 February 2024 a statement of intent for Murujuga, and just last week released your own department's First Nations strategy. I want to acknowledge the traditional owners who are here today from Murujuga, from Ngurrangga, and to ask why the minister has not replied to them in the three years that that application for section 10 has been sitting on her desk. It was lodged by First Nations women begging the government to protect their cultural places. Why won't the minister answer?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cox, thank you for drawing my attention to visitors in the chamber. You are most welcome. It's very good to see you here today. I will seek any information that I can find from Minister Plibersek about the question you raise, Senator Cox. But I can say to you that the government is deeply aware of the significance of Murujuga to traditional owners and more generally to the Australian public, because, as I indicated in my answer to your primary question, this is a place with immense cultural and spiritual significance. It's why we're pursuing World Heritage listing. It's why we are partnering with the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation to develop a new management agreement with all levels of government and with industry that is operating in that area.</para>
<para>The government will continue to take these issues seriously and to deal with them in a sensible way. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cox, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COX</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With gas prices and the cost of living going up particularly in Western Australia and 80 per cent of Woodside's gas going overseas for export—instead of for domestic use to help bring relief, particularly to Western Australians—will the Labor government listen to the traditional owners and other Australians who have asked the minister to reject the 50-year extension of Woodside's north-west shelf project? Will you break your state capture and protect the precious rock art that is there and surrounding ngura and its connection to the oldest continuing living culture in the world? The time to act is now.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I indicated in my answer to the primary question that I am not in a position to provide comment about specific matters that are before the minister at this point in time. She is the legal decision-maker. It is not wise or sensible to make comment about those decisions or the specifics of those decisions in advance of them.</para>
<para>I do make the point, Senator Cox, that this government is deeply committed to both climate action and addressing some of the unattended issues in relation to cultural heritage—policy areas that were both essentially ignored in the previous decade of coalition government. We have placed our climate change commitments in law. We have made a series of very important decisions in relation to protecting our natural environment, and we're determined to work with First Nations people to protect their cultural heritage also. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The people of our home state of South Australia, who have suffered from a wasted decade on housing under the former Liberal government—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ruston</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You don't have to ask the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for your interjection, Senator Ruston. I know it's quite problematic listening to the realities of what a lack of housing policy, which you had for 10 years, has done to this country. My question to Senator Wong is: how is the Albanese Labor government making it easier for young Australians with a student debt to buy their home sooner?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Grogan for her question, and she knows so well not only from being a senator but from her professional history how important housing is and how tough it is, particularly, for young people to enter the housing market. We know that, because of the failures of the Liberals and Nationals during their time in government, it has been so difficult for young Australians to get into the housing market. Before today, one of the barriers they faced, especially those with HELP debts, was the reluctance of banks to give them a mortgage. I'm very pleased to update the Senate on the commonsense arrangements changes the Albanese government has announced today, which would help even more Australians buy a home sooner.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would hope, Senator Henderson, you might listen, because surely you would want more Australians to buy a home sooner. The government has been engaging with regulators and banks, and financial regulators have agreed to update their guidance to make it easier for Australians with a student debt to responsibly take out a mortgage and buy a home.</para>
<para>You would have thought those opposite would think, 'This is a good thing—more people buying homes.' Helping more people into homes may not be Peter Dutton's priority, but it is one of the Albanese government's highest priorities. We have also asked APRA to update and clarify its regulatory guidance to help unlock the construction of more units. Housing is one of our priorities, which is why we have our Homes for Australia plan, which includes the biggest home-building program of any government in history, delivering 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade. Mr Dutton's cut to housing would mean fewer homes when what Australians actually need is more homes. Australians know they can't trust the same people who created the housing crisis to fix it. Australians will be worse off under Mr Dutton.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Grogan, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We know that one of the most important factors in housing affordability is the supply of housing. Can you step us through how the Albanese government is boosting housing supply now and ensuring Australia has the workforce to continue to build homes into the future?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Grogan. You're right that, after a wasted decade, we do need to urgently boost housing supply, which is why we are building more homes more quickly in more parts of the country. That is why we are training more tradies, funding more apprenticeships and growing the construction workforce. This is why we are kickstarting construction by cutting red tape and providing incentives to state governments to get homes built faster and we are delivering the largest investment in social housing in more than a decade to help reduce homelessness.</para>
<para>Getting over a million homes built by the end of the decade won't happen overnight, but it will not happen at all if the Liberals are back in charge. The reality is Mr Dutton and those opposite would rather fund bosses' long lunches than build homes for young Australians.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Grogan will ask her second supplementary in silence. Senator Grogan?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's really great to hear all of those excellent policies, Minister. There have been reckless calls, however, to allow Australians to raid their superannuation for a housing deposit, which would only make homes more expensive and reduce retirement incomes. Why is the Albanese government—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm not sure which part of, 'She will ask her question in silence,' senators, particularly on my left, didn't understand.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, why is the Albanese government focused on an ambitious housing agenda, and why has the government taken this approach?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We have an ambitious housing agenda because we want to fix the Liberal-made housing shortage. In addition to building 1.2 million new homes and the announcement we have made today, we are supporting first home buyers with the First Home Guarantee, the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee and the Family Home Guarantee. We've introduced the Help to Buy scheme to help 40,000 low- and middle-income households purchase a home of their own. We've strengthened renters' rights across Australia, we've increased rent assistance and we're building more social and affordable rental homes. We have clear, credible, costed and coherent plans to build a better future for the country.</para>
<para>The only policy those opposite seem to have for first home buyers is to say, 'Raid your super,' which will drive up prices. It does nothing for supply; it drives up prices and leaves people worse in the long run. You want people to sacrifice retirement savings; we want people to buy a home and save for the future.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Senator Watt. Minister, the Department of Home Affairs has confirmed that over 75,000 unlawful noncitizens remain in Australia, undermining national security, driving down wages and adding pressure to housing and public services. Why has the Albanese Labor government failed to deport them and enforce our immigration laws?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm not sure what the source of that information is, but every day the Department of Home Affairs takes action to remove from Australia people who have overstayed their visas. This government has made significant efforts to tackle the large amount of immigration that we have seen into Australia since COVID. We attempted last year to pass legislation to limit the number of international students in our universities, but of course that legislation was voted against by the coalition and, I think I'm right in saying, by One Nation. So, when we have made attempts to limit immigration in a way that the Australian community is seeking, that's been blocked or opposed by the very parties who are now asking questions about these issues.</para>
<para>As Senator Ayres has flagged, there is someone seeking election to the highest office in the land while also making secret promises behind closed doors to bring back visas for billionaires from overseas, and his name is Mr Peter Dutton. Mr Peter Dutton likes to go around pretending that he's tough on immigration while also boasting, as he recently did, of having allowed more people into Australia than any other immigration minister in Australia's history.</para>
<para>So let's take it a lot in perspective when it comes to what different parties are saying around migration. Some like to complain and miss the opportunity to vote for legislation designed to put some reasonable limits around immigration. Perhaps, the next time the government tries to do something about immigration levels, Senator Hanson and her friends in the coalition might decide to support what we're doing.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>HANSON (—) (): Under your party, you brought 1.4 million visa holders into Australia. Anyway, these visa loopholes under Labor are being exploited. Foreign workers are taking Australian jobs for lower wages and benefits, and deportations are being stalled by endless legal appeals. When will your government stop bending over backwards to accommodate migrant workers and activist lawyers and start standing up for Australian jobs and wages?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much, Senator Hanson. I wish I had more than 58 seconds to respond. First of all, as I have already said, our government, as has occurred under both sides of politics, takes action every day to remove people from Australia who are not entitled to stay here. Also, our government has attempted to put limits around migration, which you voted against—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Watt, address your comments to the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>which Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts voted against only last year when they had an opportunity to work with us to put those limits around migration. You ask about wages? Seriously? Ever since Senator Hanson entered this parliament, around the same time as me, she has voted against every move the Labor Party has taken to lift wages in this country, and she has the hide to come into this chamber and ask what we're doing about wages? This goes back to well before we were in government. When we were trying to change the law in opposition, you voted with Senator Cash and the Liberal Party to stop coalminers getting the pay that they were entitled to when we tried to fix the same-job same-pay laws. You did it in opposition, and you've done it since we've been in government. Seriously. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind you to direct your answers to me. Senator Hanson, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, it's been reported in the <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> that the Prime Minister recently attended a private dinner in Toorak where he dined alongside a wealthy international education operator whose college was shut down for significant noncompliance—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Whish-Wilson</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Gina Rinehart. Gina Rinehart—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson, please resume your seat.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Whish-Wilson, order!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Whish-Wilson</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Who paid the bill?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Thorpe</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What do we get—a suspension?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Whish-Wilson and Senator Thorpe, I remind you both of 203. I will draw to your attention standing order 203, particularly those parts about senators refusing to conform to the orders and disregarding the authority of the chair. Senator Hanson, I am going to invite you to put your question again. I think you had only just started it. If you wouldn't mind, could you put the question again, and I will reset the clock.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, it's been reported in the <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> that the Prime Minister recently attended a private dinner in Toorak where he dined alongside a wealthy international education operator whose college was shut down for significant non-compliance. Why is Prime Minister Albanese rubbing shoulders with individuals from the scandal ridden student visa sector instead of taking real action to cut down on scams, visa mills and rorts that are flooding Australia with cheap labour and fake students?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Hanson. It's great to see you back in Australia after having had lunch with your donor Gina Rinehart in Thailand. Various people choose various people to hang out with, whether it be here in Australia or overseas. Your own question is answered by what you've asked. The report referred to a function that the Prime Minister attended that turned out to be a function with a group that we are actually taking enforcement action against, so there can be no suggestion that the Prime Minister or anyone else in our government has gone soft on anyone. No government has done more to crack down on dodgy international education providers than the Albanese government.</para>
<para>I think the person who's got some explaining to do is Mr Dutton. Mr Dutton's got some explaining to do about why he's saying he wants to bring back the golden ticket visa that was discredited and got rid of because it was prone to fraud and it was open to bringing in spies and criminals. Maybe you should talk to your friend Mr Dutton, Senator Hanson.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Minister, the GP bulk-billing rate was 86 per cent in December 2019 before the COVID-19 pandemic. What is the bulk-billing rate now?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Ruston. It is good to see the interest in health, and I am certainly interested to know more about your position on Medicare. There is certainly no higher priority for this government in the health portfolio than strengthening Medicare and rebuilding general practice. After nine years of cuts and neglect by the former government, primary care was in the worst shape it had been in in 40 years and bulk-billing rates were in freefall. The former government froze the Medicare rebate for six years, ripping billions of dollars out of primary care and causing gap fees—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ruston</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a point of order on relevance. My question was very tight. It was in relation to what the bulk-billing rate is today. I'd ask you to bring the minister's attention back to my question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The first part of your question went to bulk-billing rates before COVID. I believe the minister is being relevant. I will continue listening carefully.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In the 2024-25 budget and 2024-25 MYEFO, the government provided $34.8 million over two years for the general practice incentives fund—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister McCarthy, please resume your seat. Senator Cash?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is a point of order on relevance. A little like the housing question, our questions are drafted quite specifically.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, you need to just get to the point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We're asking for figures. The question says: the bulk-billing rate—what is it now?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, Senator Cash, and, as I just explained to Senator Ruston, it also made reference to rates before COVID. Minister Wong?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>President, I'd also submit to you that policy which is about addressing bulk-billing rates is entirely relevant to the answer. I know that the coalition may not like the fact that we are actually working to lift bulk-billing, but the minister is going directly to policies that are about bulk-billing.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister Wong. As I said to Senator Ruston, Senator Cash, on the same point of order, the minister is being relevant. I'll continue to listen carefully.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We've tripled the investment. We've seen a turnaround in bulk-billing, a national increase—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If you'd let me finish—a national increase of 1.9 percentage points in the 14 months—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister McCarthy, please resume your seat. I have Senator Wong on her feet.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask if the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate could come to order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like everyone in the chamber to come to order, particularly those on my left.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I was saying, we have tripled the investment, and it's 77.5 per cent.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ruston, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the senator for eventually answering the question. So, yes, the bulk-billing rate that was announced—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order on my right and left!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, come to order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ayres, order! Senator Ruston has the right to ask her question in silence. I expect there to be silence as Senator Ruston continues with her question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, correct: the minister announced yesterday that the GP bulk-billing rate had increased to 77.5 per cent. Can you confirm that the bulk-billing rate in March was actually 77.7 per cent?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This from a shadow health minister who didn't want to believe, and didn't believe, that Medicare was sustainable. I'm not too sure, but what I can confirm to the Senate is that, six months before the last election, the financial viability of general practice was in serious trouble after the coalition's six-year freeze on Medicare rebates that started when Peter Dutton was health minister.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ruston, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just for the record, in the timeframe the minister was referring to, the bulk-billing rate was 88 per cent to the time she was referring to. But right now Australians—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I have requested of this chamber, at least three times today, that senators ask their questions in silence. I don't want to have to keep saying that.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Australians are paying ever-increasing out-of-pocket costs when they visit their doctor. Can you confirm that the average out-of-pocket cost when you see your doctor today is now $44.89?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I can confirm to the Senate that this side of the Senate is very much interested in pushing for further GPs across the country and improving Medicare, unlike those opposite, who had nothing to do with it but wanting to freeze it and who don't care about the health of Australians, in spite of the numbers that they wish to put forward here today.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wreck Bay: Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is that Senator Gallagher or Senator McCarthy?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's Senator McCarthy.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. At a recent community visit and public hearing, the PFAS select committee heard about the devastating impacts of PFAS chemicals on health, country and the loss of culture. Wreck Bay, a First Nations community on the New South Wales South Coast, is experiencing a cancer cluster, and people are dying prematurely at the highest rates in this country. They have no routine health or cancer screening, and they are still drinking PFAS contaminated water. The government has provided absolutely no health support to the community so far. Will you commit to providing regular, free health checks, including cancer screening, for the Wreck Bay community?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>McCARTHY (—) (): I thank Senator Thorpe for the question and for the work that she is doing in terms of the Senate inquiry. I am advised that these latest reports that we are seeing are certainly very concerning, not just with Wreck Bay—where the inquiry has gone—but also in places like where I reside, up in the Northern Territory.</para>
<para>Can I just say, Senator Thorpe, in terms of the minister for health, that the NHMRC is currently conducting an independent review of the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines and, at the government's request, the NHMRC has agreed to expedite the review and will finalise it early this year. A Senate select committee, as you've already identified, is already out there. Australian drinking water is regularly monitored for the presence of chemicals, including PFAS, to ensure those are within the limits assessed as safe by Australian regulators.</para>
<para>I'm also advised that the NHMRC is currently conducting that review. The independent review will consider recent guidance and reviews from international and national jurisdictions and will determine whether they are suitable to adopt or adapt for Australia.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I visited this community and met a 12-year-old who had half her breast cut off. My question is: will you provide cancer screening for the Wreck Bay community before any more children die from cancer relating to PFAS?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>McCARTHY (—) (): I can certainly say that, in terms of cancer care more broadly across Australia and in particular for First Nations Australians, we do have a very strong cancer care program. So, for those families in Wreck Bay, they are very much able to access—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Thorpe</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Relevance: will the Wreck Bay community have cancer screening before any more people die?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister is being relevant to your question, and I invite her to continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe, I realise you are speaking specifically about individual cases, but I will say to all Australians and First Nations people that there is a very strong cancer support program, especially through First Nations, and I am more than happy to provide that information to your office. It doesn't matter whether it's Wreck Bay or anywhere else; for any First Nations person who is suffering from cancer, we have invested a significant amount. I am more than happy to provide that information.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Disappointing. Will your government commit to providing at least free PFAS blood testing to only the Wreck Bay community?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am advised that the Department of Health and Aged Care does not recommend blood testing. This is because results cannot be used to determine whether any medical condition is attributable to exposure to PFAS, in terms of Defence offering blood testing for communities impacted by PFAS.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Relations</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister Watt. Today marks one year since the second tranche of the Albanese Labor government's closing loopholes legislation passed the parliament. These reforms built on the 'same job, same pay' legislation. They contain stronger protections for gig workers, end unpaid overtime with a right to disconnect, and provide more job security for casual workers. Minister, why is closing loopholes in our workplace relations system so important, and how are the Albanese Labor government's policies helping Australian workers earn more and keep more of what they earn?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Polley. I know Senator Polley was very happy to join a whole heap of workers, along with many other colleagues this morning, to acknowledge and celebrate the one-year anniversary of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2024 being passed through this parliament. That piece of legislation passed by the Albanese government has given workers better work-life balance, more job security and improved workplace conditions.</para>
<para>The second tranche of our closing loopholes legislation, which is now one year old, introduced a right to disconnect for eligible workers when they are not working or being paid, set new minimum pay and other standards for workers in the gig economy and the road transport industry, and provided a fairer definition of casual employees, enabling more casual workers to convert to permanent employment. In fact, Senator O'Neill and I were talking with one of the workers this morning who not only has been able to convert to permanency but, along with other colleagues, is able to go to the bank and get a home loan for the first time. That's the kind of difference it's making to people.</para>
<para>But, of course, these reforms are now at risk from Mr Dutton and the coalition because they voted against them, just as they voted against every single one of our workplace law changes that are delivering higher wages and better jobs for Australians, while also voting against every measure we have taken to provide cost-of-living relief. Now, as we approach the next election, they have already confirmed that they will repeal the right to disconnect and our protections for casual workers, and they've flagged further attacks to workers' wages and conditions by promising a targeted set of repeals of our workplace laws. We know they will follow through in doing that because every time they've ever been in government the coalition have gone out of their way to cut workers' wages and cut their conditions to serve their big business mates. Not only did they do that last time they were in government, when they boasted about keeping wages deliberately low, but they voted against every change we've made to try and turn wages around for Australian workers. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Polley, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This morning I met Martin and Nabin, a teacher and a gig worker, to celebrate the passage of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2024. Martin and Nabin told me they were worried about the possibility of Mr Dutton and the coalition tearing away protections in the closing-the-loopholes legislation. Minister, why is it so important to protect the rights that the closing-the-loopholes legislation has given Australian workers?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The fact is that Australian workers like those you met this morning, a teacher named Martin and a gig worker named Nabin, will be worse off under Peter Dutton. They actually made that point this morning when we met with them.</para>
<para>Whether it's teachers like Martin being paid for the hours he works through the right to disconnect, which this lot want to get rid of, or gig workers like Nabin being able to access minimum rates of pay, which this lot voted against, our changes are putting more money into the pockets of working people at a time that they need that help. While we're changing the law to lift Australians' wages, the coalition are focused on finding things to cut, of course, so they can pay for hot dogs for top dogs, long lunches for bosses—taxpayer funded lunches. That's what you lot are about, not about helping pay wages for Australians.</para>
<para>Just last night, we had the member for Petrie on Sky boasting about their plan to cut free TAFE, making training more expensive and students worse off. I guess they've got to find that money from somewhere to pay $10 billion for taxpayer funded long lunches for their big business mates.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Polley, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I note that Mr Dutton and the Liberals have proudly stated, 'We will always stand with employers of Australia,' and have promised a package of targeted repeals at the next election. Minister, how is the Albanese Labor government standing with Australian workers to make sure that more money is in their pockets, and what are the key challenges to helping more Australians into well-paid and secure jobs, which is what they need?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll take some of the interjections from Senator Hume and Senator McGrath while you were asking your question, Senator Polley, because they were trying to make the argument that, if you go after employers, you don't have jobs. The problem with their argument is that not only has our government lifted wages but more jobs have been created in this parliamentary term than in Australian history. Four out of five of those jobs have been in the private sector.</para>
<para>Your problem is that your whole argument is not backed up by a single fact. Under the Albanese government, because of the changes we've made, wages are up, jobs are up, inflation is down, industrial action is down and productivity is going up. That's what a Labor government has done through our workplace laws, and you want to rip that all away. You want workers' wages to go backwards, and you want unemployment to rise because you don't care about working people. None of you ever come and meet with workers like Martin, Nabin and Rosemary, a retail worker, and hear about the difference those wages are making to their lives. You want to look after big businesses; we're looking after workers. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hate Speech</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Senator Watt. The Minister for Sport has thrown her support behind Sam Kerr, the captain of the Matildas, even though body cam footage presented as evidence in court showed Kerr calling a British police officer 'stupid and white'. Why does the Labor Party support people who use racial speech in that manner, and would Sam Kerr be jailed under the hate speech mandatory sentencing laws if she were to behave that way in Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Rennick. I did notice that, overnight, Sam Kerr was actually cleared of the charges against her, so I'm not going to stand in the way of a British court and a British jury making the decision that she was not guilty of the criminal offence that she was charged with. You ask the broader question about hate speech. Our government is proud of the fact that we've taken serious action to restrict hate speech at a time in Australia when we are seeing too much division in the community and we are seeing antisemitic attacks take place. We are seeing Islamophobic attacks take place. And we are seeing a range of other racial slurs meted out against members of our community, and that should not happen.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There you go. Put it in the same sentence as if they're equivalent.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm surprised that the opposition want to contest the fact that we've taken this action, because only last week they voted with us to pass that legislation. The reality is that, in Australia's laws, we've always had a number of restrictions on freedom of speech within Australia. We've got defamation laws, which prevent people from going out there and saying defamatory things about people. We've got laws around the contempt of court, which also restrict people's—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Rennick?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Rennick</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Would that particular comment be considered hate speech under the crime laws?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Was that a point of order? The minister is being directly relevant to your question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Rennick. Obviously, I'm not going to be offering a legal opinion on whether the actions of an individual person breach Australian laws. What we're here to do is to set those laws and let the courts then interpret them. But, as I was saying, there have always been restrictions on freedom of speech in our country—defamation, contempt of court, and of course a really important one that has been there for quite a long time, which is section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. It wasn't that long ago that people like Senator Paterson and Senator Cash were trying to abolish section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, because they wanted to open the floodgates to racial vilification and all sorts of other hate speech. It was the Labor Party who stood against that, just as it's been the Labor Party in government that have passed further laws about hate speech. So we will protect people from unlawful behaviour like that in the future.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Rennick, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Throughout the COVID management, thousands of Australians injured by the vaccine were vilified and gaslit by politicians, the media, medical professionals and employers as antivaxxers. Many of those injured by the COVID vaccine were even forced to get additional shots, causing more harm. Would people who mandate the use of vaccines on people who are clearly allergic to them be arrested under the hate crime laws for inciting violence?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Rennick, I am advised that parts of that question don't adhere to the standing orders, because you can't ask ministers for legal opinions. But I'll invite the minister to answer the pieces of the question that are relevant.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Rennick. Again, I'm not going to offer a legal opinion on whether someone's behaviour breaches the laws that this parliament has passed. But I guess the point I've been making is that we live in a democracy and we do value freedom of speech, but we also recognise that there are limits around what people should be able to say out of consideration for other members of the community. The robust expression of diverse opinions is an important feature of our democracy, and the bill that we passed last week on hate crimes respected the need for vibrant public debate. The offences in that bill were carefully crafted to target only the most serious forms of harmful hate speech—namely the promotion or threat of violent conduct. The offences are not intended to criminalise mere expressions of belief or opinion, however unpleasant they may be. The offences in the bill apply only where a person's communication or other conduct could result in violence or force against groups or members of such groups.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Rennick, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm not sure if this is going to breach standing orders as well, but we'll see how we go.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll let you know!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Will the Labor Party consider the comments made by the two nurses in the video from today to be in contravention of federal hate crime laws or just state laws? And if New South Wales doesn't press charges, would the Labor government recommend or consider that the hate crime laws would apply in this case?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, I'm not going to offer an opinion on that specific case, but I will reinforce the comments that the Prime Minister has made and the Senate leader has made: the statements of those individuals are absolutely disgusting. They deserve to be called out, and I am really pleased to see that that has occurred from a variety of political leaders on all sides of the aisle. That's what deserved to happen, and the disciplinary action that's being taken against those individuals is thoroughly deserved as well. Again, I'm not going to comment on whether their behaviour challenges the law or goes against the law. I am advised, in addition, that the Prime Minister has spoken with the AFP commissioner about this incident and that the AFP have made clear they're available to provide their full support to the New South Wales police. Of course, that's now a matter for the police to investigate, so probably the less I say about it, the better.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</title>
        <page.no>56</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Answers to Questions</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.</para></quote>
<para>Today we saw, in response to a question that I asked of the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator McCarthy tell the chamber that, under Labor, bulk-billing rates are lower and out-of-pocket costs are lower. It has literally never been more expensive or more difficult to see a doctor than it is right now. But, at the same time this is happening, the Labor Party are reheating their disgraced 'Mediscare' campaign in an attempt to distract from their health failures.</para>
<para>Let's be clear: Labor is outright telling factually incorrect information to Australians. In fact, an ABC article published today made that very clear. The ABC article has actually called out the Australian Labor Party for misleadingly editing a video of the Leader of the Opposition which perpetuates their shameful scare campaign. The coalition has been crystal clear, and I'll say it again here: a Dutton coalition government will guarantee the growing funding of Medicare. We support Australians having access to bulk-billing services, and that includes through urgent care clinics. We're focused on ensuring all Australians have affordable and timely access to a GP. But Labor don't seem to care about the truth, and it seems that they're quite happy to continue to focus on efforts to provide misleading information to the Australian public. On the other hand, the coalition is focused on tackling Labor's primary care crisis.</para>
<para>So let's set the record straight, shall we? As I said, Peter Dutton has committed to the coalition guaranteeing the growing funding of Medicare, and this is actually consistent with our record when we were in government. The former coalition government increased Medicare funding every single year and, in our last budget in government, included a $7.3 billion increase in Medicare funding. We increased hospital funding, and we oversaw record-high bulk-billing rates. It doesn't matter what the other side says; the facts of the matter are that, when we left government, bulk-billing rates were in excess of 88 per cent and, in the space of less than two years, under the government opposite, they have actually dropped by more than 11 per cent. As we stand here today, the bulk-billing rate is 11 per cent lower than when they came to government.</para>
<para>When we took the reins of government in 2013 and during our period, we saw a rise of six per cent in bulk-billing. They have seen a fall of 11 per cent. Right now, as we are sitting here, under Labor the bulk-billing rate is 77.5 per cent. That's significantly lower than 88.8 per cent, which is what the bulk-billing rate was under us, when it was at its highest. So at best we have seen a stagnation of the bulk-billing rate, but the government are now claiming that they've seen some sort of increase in bulk-billing. The facts don't lie. The bulk-billing rate has dropped by 11 per cent.</para>
<para>But what makes things even worse is that Australians are now paying 45 per cent more on average to see a doctor under Labor, in comparison to under the former coalition government. The cold, hard facts are that the out-of-pocket costs to see your GP are the highest they have been since records started. But the really, really concerning fact—if those facts aren't concerning enough—is that last year over 1.5 million Australians avoided seeing their doctor because they said they simply couldn't afford to do so. That's a 25 per cent increase on just the year before. That means that our hospitals are now seeing patients who are much sicker because they haven't had access at the primary care level. They are becoming sicker and are presenting at our hospitals. So Labor's primary care crisis is now exacerbating the crisis that we have in our hospitals.</para>
<para>I would say this to Anthony Albanese, who said to Australians that he was not going to leave anyone behind: you have left sick Australians behind. Their out-of-pocket costs are higher. They can't get in to see a bulk-billing doctor. They're sicker before they're able to interact with the healthcare system because they can't afford to see a GP. Hardworking Australians who can't access bulk-billing have become Anthony Albanese's forgotten patients. The healthcare crisis is just another crisis of the making of your cost-of-living crisis.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think we need to correct some of that. It was beautifully spoken and designed to create a sense of belief that the Liberal and National parties have ever done anything innovative and are determined to make sure Australians actually get proper access to health care. But that is a myth. Australians, while they live their lives, don't see everything that goes on in this place, but they are entitled to the truth. And the truth is the party that established Medicare is Labor. Every chance the people opposite and their forebears had in government, every time the Liberal and National coalition got into government, they did every single thing they could to wreck the health system, to make you as an Australian pay more and to try and get rid of your Medicare card.</para>
<para>When they came to government under Tony Abbott, in 2013, I was actually paying attention. Other people were getting on with their lives across this great nation, but I went across this country, to regional, rural, remote and city locations, to document what they did. Let's be clear. There was $52 billion for a 10-year national partnership health agreement that was supposed to proceed. Mr Abbott and the team that is now Mr Dutton's ripped up that agreement and, in doing so, pulled apart and completely dismantled across this country the opportunity for our state governments to deliver primary care.</para>
<para>We heard Senator Ruston talking about primary health. I can tell you what happened. When they last got a go at government, under Mr Abbott they ripped up that agreement, and that meant every single bit of preventive care and community health care fell away. States kept their tertiary institutions, their hospitals, open. That's what they had to do. People who had been looked after no longer got health care. In addition to that—because they think they know something about businesses—they decided to have a crack at the businesses that were being run by our GPs. They wanted to put a $7 tax on. They implemented a freeze on the Medicare rebate, which basically kicked the legs out from under the business model of Australian GPs. That is why we have a crisis. We ended up with the massive crisis of people not being able to go to their GPs, and, because they couldn't go to a GP, they ended up in our hospital emergency centres.</para>
<para>We've got a few doctors in the Labor Party, and they know exactly what is being faced by Australians who seek health care. Amongst them is a very good friend of mine from the beautiful Central Coast, Dr Gordon Reid, who continues to this day, for no fee, to offer his services to support emergency care on the Central Coast. He's joined in such work by Dr Mike Freelander, who, at Campbelltown Hospital, continues to provide support for people who need it. They know a thing or two about the health system. They are the GPs and the specialists who've been at the front line. They tell the truth. And they saw the system decay before their very eyes. Dr Gordon Reid, very wisely, pushed for and had accepted by the Labor Party the urgent care clinic model. Now, across this country, every seat in the country is begging for an urgent care centre, because the need is so great.</para>
<para>There were no Medicare cards for any Australian before Labor brought them in. There were no mental health services through headspace before Labor brought them in. There were no urgent care centres for this country till Labor brought them in. There's a pattern there! The biggest threat to communities, the threat that will take away urgent care centres, is the election of a Peter Dutton government. Those opposite have absolutely no commitment to the policy innovation that gives Australians access to the health care they need through urgent care centres across this country. The biggest threat to your health is a Dutton led government. Give Labor your vote. Hang on to Medicare, hang on to headspace and hang on to our urgent care centres.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That was a lovely speech by Senator O'Neill, and I always admire Senator O'Neill's rhetoric, but let's look at the facts. The facts are these. When the coalition government left office, the bulk-billing rate was 88 per cent. The bulk-billing rate has now fallen to 77 per cent—it has actually fallen. It has gone from 88 per cent to 77 per cent, so it has fallen 11 per cent—fact.</para>
<para>Here's another fact. Over 1.5 million Australians—just reflect on that—didn't go to a GP in 2023-24, because of concerns about costs. In the Albanese Labor government's cost-of-living crisis, over 1.5 million Australians in 2023-24 chose not to go to a GP, because of costs. That's the impact of the Albanese Labor government: people aren't going to see their GP, because they're concerned about the cost. That's another fact.</para>
<para>I want to talk to you about the results of a survey in relation to the region where my senator's office is located, the greater Ipswich region. In 2022-23, in the greater Ipswich region, an outer suburban area in South-East Queensland, the bulk-billing rate—that's the number of clinics with available slots for new patients—when the coalition left office was 59.5 per cent. In 2023-24 it fell to 37.8 per cent. Only 17 out of 45 clinics with available spaces were providing bulk-billing. We now find, with the latest statistics released by Cleanbill, that the percentage has fallen further. It is now at 30 per cent. So in 2022-23, shortly after the coalition government, there was 59.5 per cent bulk-billing in the greater Ipswich region. Fast forward a few years to 2024-25 and it has gone from 59.5 per cent to 30 per cent. That is why in the last year 1.5 million Australians were so concerned about costs that they didn't go and see their GP. That is the direct result of the Albanese Labor government's cost-of-living crisis. Only 15 out of 50 clinics in the Ipswich region and the Somerset region, in the greater Ipswich region where my office is located, provide bulk-billing. What a devastating figure!</para>
<para>I can tell you that in our region there are a lot of people who are doing it tough. The most recent analysis undertaken by the University of New South Wales for the <inline font-style="italic">Four</inline><inline font-style="italic"> Corners</inline> program that aired recently looked at household financial stress across the whole of Australia. It found that over three out of four households in the greater Ipswich region are under financial stress. Over 77 per cent are in financial distress, and that means that those households are barely covering the necessities of life: housing, clothing and food. That is why you have 1.5 million Australians not seeing their GP; they're concerned about the cost.</para>
<para>You'll hear a lot of rhetoric from the other side about the money that's been spent: 'We've done this. We've done that.' But when you look at the raw figures, those figures don't lie. The Cleanbill survey was conducted by an independent organisation that contacted 6,925 GP clinics across Australia. It found that the bulk-billing rate in the Ipswich region and the Somerset region had fallen from 59.5 per cent a few years ago to 30 per cent. So the figures don't lie: the bulk-billing rates under Labor are falling.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PRATT</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, in the opposition's questions in question time today and in their response in the debate now, we see just a political agenda but, somewhat surprisingly, as we go into an election, no policy at all. From Medicare and housing to antisemitism, they're quick on the attack, but that is accompanied by selective hearing and selective facts.</para>
<para>Let's turn first to housing. The last government absolutely abandoned social housing and any kind of national housing initiative through the Commonwealth. The opposition, when in government, turned its back on remote Indigenous communities in areas of dire housing need—communities where the Commonwealth had had a long history of sharing the load of building and maintaining houses—and I believe a Dutton government would do exactly the same.</para>
<para>Equally, under the Rudd government we saw a massive uplift in social housing. Places like St Pats, which I've been pleased to visit, that house people at otherwise extreme risk of homelessness were funded during that period. Now, through the Housing Australia Future Fund, we have a substantial agenda to deliver hundreds of thousands more houses for our nation.</para>
<para>On the question of Medicare, what a joke it was to hear that critique from those opposite. When the opposition say, 'The facts don't lie,' they have pretty selective facts, let me tell you. When the opposition say bulk-billing has fallen by 11 per cent, they're actually comparing it to all of the bulk-billed injections done by the Commonwealth government during COVID, where people walked through the door and got their jab. That's what they have counted as '100 per cent bulk-billed'. Today's bulk-billing rates are actually pretty close to what they were under the last government, but we don't think that's good enough. We want to see that lifted, which is why we are investing in the bulk-billing incentive. It's why we have opened 87 Medicare urgent care clinics that are demonstrably diverting patients away from busy hospitals and emergency departments.</para>
<para>Finally, I come to the topic that Senator Cash started with in question time today, trying to score political points off these appalling antisemitic comments taking place in a hospital in Bankstown, New South Wales. I looked up this particular incident on the internet, and it is, indeed, appalling. The holding of such views, as Senator Wong pointed out, is a contravention of federal law under Ahpra, which is the accreditation and standards body that coordinates health bodies. I daresay those comments will also be an offence under the hate speech laws that we have just passed. But, rather than focusing on what was being done to hold these workers to account and to stop it from happening in the future, Senator Cash wanted to invent some kind of idea that the Prime Minister should have done something other than what he did. Did Senator Cash want the Prime Minister to march into the hospital and sack them himself?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Pratt. Set the clocks for three minutes. Senator Bragg.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In rising to take note of the answers given today, I think the main point is that the government has been very good at building bureaucracies but very bad at building houses. The government made building more houses its central pitch for election, and we heard today—in the pre-prepared answer from the minister in response to a dorothy dixer—that the government had built more houses. That is factually incorrect. All you need to do is ask the Parliamentary Library, like I have, what the average number of houses built under the last government was and how many have been built under this government. The answer is, on average, about 190,000 each year under the last government, the coalition. Under this government, it has fallen to 170,000.</para>
<para>I believe the central reason for this is linked to the faith in this Housing Australia Future Fund agenda, which is a federal government bureaucracy. Minister Wong says it's not reasonable for us to ask questions about this because we voted against it. We did vote against it, and we voted against it because it's a bad idea that bureaucracies in Canberra can build houses in all parts of Australia. Nonetheless, that legislation passed a year and a half ago. I would have thought that in a year and a half the government's central housing scheme, the Housing Australia boondoggle, would have been able to sign a few contracts, dig a few holes and build a few houses.</para>
<para>What it has done is make announcements. In September, the Prime Minister made an announcement with the new Minister for Housing, Ms O'Neil, saying that they will build 13,000 houses. Minister Wong referred to this yesterday and today, saying that 13,000 houses are in the pipeline. At Senate estimates at the end of last year, when we asked Housing Australia how they're going in building those 13,000 new houses, the answer was that they had signed one contract. Since then, they've signed another 11 contracts, so now they have 12 signed contracts. Contracts are fantastic. It's great to have pieces of paper, and we have lots of paper here in this building. But what actually matter are shovels and the assembly of bricks and mortar. That is what counts. That is why we've made the point that it appears that the Housing Australia Future Fund is on a duck. It's on a duck. It's built no houses, and that is because the government have put all of their faith in bureaucracies when they should have been backing the market. They should have been backing builders and developers to build us out of this housing crisis Labor have created.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">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 in relation to migration.</para></quote>
<para>I have to respond to Senator Watt's comment today on my question to him about the 75,400 illegals that are in the country on these visas, and nothing's being done about it. He couldn't even respond to it. He didn't know the numbers. He said, 'I don't know where you got your numbers from.' That tells me that he's not across it and he doesn't know what he's talking about. When you have 75,400 illegal visa holders in the nation, you have to question it, because this has an impact on our housing, our facilities, our doctors—everything like that. Yet we do not address the number of illegals in the country.</para>
<para>You question me about voting for Labor's policies. When you put up decent policies that will make a difference to this country and to the high immigration numbers, then you will get my support. I am the biggest advocate in this whole chamber for people pushing for Australia's way of life. What is happening with the high immigration under this government, with 1.4 million people coming into this country—that is why we have a crisis in housing, infrastructure, roads and health, seeing doctors, everything. So you're to blame for this. Put up decent policies, and I will back them.</para>
<para>What happened with the debacle of those detainees let out of detention centres? That was your problem as well, and your fault—everything that you've touched and done with people in this country. The number of students you've allowed into the country is over the top. As I've said, the students here should be allowed to work, by all means, but they're supposed to be here studying. They're doing plenty of work, to make $10 billion to send back to their respective countries.</para>
<para>There are a lot of questions here. You've failed to answer them on behalf of the Australian people, and this is why I keep questioning you. You don't like it. You can't answer it, and you can't answer the Australian people. That's why I will keep asking, on behalf of the Australian people, why we are overrun by illegal visa holders. One Nation will get rid of them.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Murujuga Cultural Landscape</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Emergency Management (Senator McAllister) to a question without notice asked by Senator Cox today in relation to Murujuga.</para></quote>
<para>I grew up around Karratha and remember very fondly the rocks around Murujuga, where my family and I used to go for picnics. It's a truly special part of our country. In fact, it's globally culturally significant. The answer that Senator McAllister gave to Senator Cox was that the government's taking steps to get a World Heritage listing for the area. Absolutely, this should be listed as national and world heritage, but that's not going to stop the acid rain from emissions from heavy industry in the area destroying this irreplaceable and absolutely priceless First Nations cultural heritage.</para>
<para>Some of the art at Murujuga includes carvings depicting thylacines, Tasmanian tigers, which existed tens of thousands of years ago in the north-west of Western Australia. This is known around the world as the world's largest art site, and the science very clearly tells us, and nobody disagrees with this, that the emissions from the Burrup fertiliser plant and Woodside's gas-processing plant are destroying the desert glass that makes these carvings so unique—the desert glass that has allowed these carvings to survive intact over tens of thousands of years of normal weather in the north-west of Western Australia. But now the desert glass is disappearing because the acid from heavy industry emissions is making it vanish. What a tragedy that would be, not just for First Nations communities who are linked to this area but for all of us and for all of humanity.</para>
<para>The question Senator Cox asked was: will the government stop further development at Murujuga on the Burrup Hub? Right now, we know that the minister, Minister Plibersek, has on her desk before her a decision on whether to extend the Burrup Hub North West Shelf project, which would require the opening up of the Browse Basin and the drilling of Scott Reef, Australia's largest oceanic reef system off the coast of Western Australia. Right now, we're looking at opening one of the biggest carbon bombs this nation has seen in its history. That goes directly to the heart of the damage being done to a priceless cultural treasure on the Burrup Hub at Murujuga.</para>
<para>We'll continue to ask questions about this. I know there are a lot of people in the building today—not just the First Nations mob from this very special area, but also environmentalists and other people—who are campaigning to have this area protected. I would urge senators to look at the facts. I chaired the Senate inquiry into this exact issue nine years ago, and we're still having the same arguments, having the same debates and having questions unanswered. When will we put a stop to heavy industrial development at this extremely sensitive, culturally significant site? We couldn't get an answer out of the government on that today.</para>
<para>Senator Cox was right to raise the impacts that climate change is having on her communities right around this country. We are living in an age where we are witnessing the climate breaking down before our very eyes, and we know that it's decisions made in places like this that are allowing this to happen.</para>
<para>As I mentioned in my adjournment speech last night, we know it's not just the big donors to the Labor and Liberal parties who are facilitating the lack of climate action—in fact, tearing up climate action in this place. It's also the global networks and their decades-long campaign to control our institutions in this parliament. They certainly have control of the Liberal Party. I don't know about the Labor Party, but they don't have control of the Greens. Every day, we will come in here and fight for First Nations communities, fight for climate action and fight for what is right.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>61</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for 13 sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the National Land (Road Transport) (Parking) Rules 2024, made under the National Land (Road Transport) Ordinance 2014 [F2024L01168].</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONDOLENCES</title>
        <page.no>62</page.no>
        <type>CONDOLENCES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hughes, Hon. Thomas Eyre Forrest (Tom), AO, KC</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 28 November 2024, of the Hon. Thomas Eyre Forrest Hughes AO, KC, a former minister and member of the House of Representatives for the divisions of Parkes and Berowra, New South Wales, from 1963 to 1972. Before I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate, I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence with us today of former prime minister the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull AC, Ms Lucy Hughes Turnbull AO, Ms Christine Hughes and Mr Tom Hughes. I also welcome family in the President's gallery today. On behalf of all senators, I pass on our condolences.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate records its sadness at the death, on 28 November 2024, of the Honourable Thomas (Tom) Eyre Forrest Hughes AO KC, former Attorney-General and Member for Parkes and Berowra, places on record its gratitude for his service to the Parliament and the nation, and tenders its sympathy to his family in their bereavement.</para></quote>
<para>I rise on behalf of the government to acknowledge the death of the former member of the House of Representatives and minister, the Hon. Thomas Eyre Forrest Hughes AO, KC, at the age of 101. At the outset of my remarks, I convey the government's condolences to the family and friends of Tom Hughes and, again, join you and others in acknowledging those joining us in the chamber today—Tom's wife, Christine; his son, Tom; and his daughter, Lucy Turnbull AO, and her husband, the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull AC, former Prime Minister of Australia. I also extend acknowledgement to all friends and relatives here today. I extend my personal sympathies to you all, as I do to Mr Hughes's loved ones who are not here with us today.</para>
<para>To be a centenarian puts one in rare air, and Tom Hughes was rare indeed. As the Prime Minister said earlier:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It takes considerable effort to fill a century of life to capacity, yet Tom Hughes certainly managed it. In his 101 years, he gave us many remarkable chapters, each revealing another aspect of a man of wit, intellect, courage, conviction and curiosity.</para></quote>
<para>The narrative that coursed through those chapters was his family—a family flush with talent, a family grounded by civic duty and a family bound by deep love and affection.</para>
<para>Tom Hughes was born in November 1923 in Sydney. His father was a successful lawyer and wartime aviator. His grandfather and great uncles were members of the New South Wales parliament. His brother was the acclaimed historian and art critic Robert Hughes, who was once described in the <inline font-style="italic">New York Times</inline> as 'the most famous art critic in the world'. He was educated at Riverview, where the intellectual discipline of the Jesuits helped shape his character and work ethic.</para>
<para>As with so many of his generation, World War II interceded and upended his trajectory into adult life. He followed his father's footsteps, enlisting in the RAAF in Australia in 1942. He was a celebrated pilot, and when his service concluded in 1946 he held the rank of flight lieutenant. For his contribution to the war in Europe, he would be recognised in 2005 by France with its highest award, the Legion of Honour. Despite his military achievements, Lucy Turnbull recalled that her father 'did not dwell on his war service. He never told us stories of his flying or military adventures.' I think that says something of the character of the man—his respect for the suffering of war and the sacred memory of those who didn't return.</para>
<para>Returning to civilian life, Tom once again followed in his father's footsteps and completed studies in law at the University of Sydney. He was admitted in 1949 and took silk just over a decade later. I'm told it was on the same day as Gough Whitlam. Gough Whitlam and Tom always held each other in high esteem despite their political differences.</para>
<para>Tom Hughes had not long been Queen's Counsel before another family calling resonated. At the 1963 general election, won by Robert Menzies, he successfully contested the division of Parkes—then located in inner Western Sydney—defeating the Labor incumbent, Les Haylen. His campaign manager was future prime minister John Howard. In 1969, Tom became the first member for Berowra.</para>
<para>After a couple of terms on the backbench, destiny prevailed when Prime Minister John Gorton appointed Tom Hughes to the ministry as his Attorney-General. They shared a background as wartime airmen and an enmity for Billy McMahon. The strength of the relationship between them is evidenced by Tom Hughes delivering the eulogy at John Gorton's funeral in 2002. Theirs was a government grappling with change—a restlessness percolating through the Australian public, and politics was catching up with a prime minister orientated towards action. Tom himself, as Lucy recalled, 'became a more liberal Liberal during his time in parliament'. He certainly was 'way ahead of his time' and was 'at the vanguard of pushing to abolish the crime of homosexuality'.</para>
<para>Tom didn't have much time as Attorney-General, only until John Gorton's demise in 1971, but he spent that short tenure at the forefront of legislative reform, applying himself with his typical focus, especially in areas not regarded as the purview of Commonwealth government—pursuing divorce law reform, law reform in the ACT and trade practices legislation. In her eulogy, Mrs Turnbull said: 'Dad, like all traditional Liberals, was always a big supporter of free and fair enterprise. The "fair" bit was very important to him. Dad was very opposed to restrictive trade practices, meaning monopolistic or anticompetitive behaviour, and in those days the legal system didn't have enough power to prohibit or sanction it.'</para>
<para>Tom balanced public expectations with justice in electing not to indiscriminately prosecute antidraft protesters, at the same time as he notoriously confronted antiwar demonstrators streaming down his driveway—with a cricket bat.</para>
<para>Alongside reform inside the parliament, his talents as a barrister were not left idle, personally appearing for the Commonwealth on multiple occasions in the High Court during this time. It was a pretty good deal for the taxpayer, since—a young Malcolm Turnbull later recorded in a profile for the <inline font-style="italic">Bulletin</inline>—Tom's daily rate at the bar was a thousand dollars a day in 1970s money. Perhaps most famously, he appeared for the Commonwealth in the Concrete Pipes case, which led to an expansive interpretation of the corporations power in the Constitution. Former High Court justice Michael McHugh reflected, 'This granted the Commonwealth government power to control and regulate most of the business and economic life, and much of the social life, in Australia.'</para>
<para>The ascent of William McMahon to the nation's highest political office brought about Tom Hughes's ministerial demise. The three airmen—John Gorton, Tom Hughes and their close friend, minister for the Navy Jim Killen—fell together, sacked by the new leader, whom he accurately described as 'a shocking little person'. Tom Hughes left parliament at the ensuing election and returned full time to the New South Wales bar, serving as president of the Bar Association from 1973 to 1975, and he built his reputation and became pre-eminent amongst those learned in the law.</para>
<para>I've read various nicknames and various adjectives for this period in his life: formidable, dominant, theatrical, the nickname 'Frosty'. But above all, unquestionably, he was exceptionally good—a leader at the bar, master of the courtroom—and he applied himself across a broad spectrum of the law. And he'd work his craft as adeptly before the High Court, in which he appeared on nearly 100 occasions in constitutional cases, as he did before the Supreme Court on a defamation trial or criminal matter. His clients included Lionel Murphy, as well as the Packer family, and even—no doubt to the delight of the current Prime Minister—the South Sydney Rabbitohs. Finally, he retired on the occasion of his 90th birthday. It's very impressive.</para>
<para>Tom Hughes was a gifted Australian. He excelled in his chosen field, and he ensured he never treated it like an occupation. Whether in law or politics, it was a calling, and our nation is richer for his pursuit of it. Tom Hughes was, as the Prime Minister said, someone with a sharp wit and a gift for language and persuasion. More importantly, he held a determination to use his talents for the service of others, for causes bigger than himself. And anyone who has had anything to do with the Hughes and Turnbull families would have observed how they treasured their loving patriarch. Lucy's eulogy reveals not just his family's sadness for his passing but also their pride in his life.</para>
<para>Tom returned to the shores of Sydney Harbour for his last days, so fitting when his brother had vividly described Sydney Harbour as 'the amniotic fluid' of Tom's memory. That iconic part of Australia so nurtured Tom Hughes's emotional and spiritual life, and Tom and his family have just as devotedly sought to shape the modern soul of Australia.</para>
<para>On behalf of the government I express again our condolences, following his passing, to his friends and family, especially to his wife, Christine; and his children, Lucy, Tom and Michael.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise on behalf of the opposition to pay tribute to Tom Hughes AO, KC. In doing so, I also acknowledge the presence today here with us in the chamber of Lucy Turnbull and former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, Christine Hughes, Tom Hughes and the broader Hughes family in the gallery. Quite simply, as so many have said, over so long a period, Tom Hughes was a great Australian—born in a bygone era, living to 101. It has been said by his official biographer that he actually had four careers: farmer, RAAF pilot, barrister and politician. And today in the Australian Senate we acknowledge, as appropriate, a truly remarkable life. In fact, when you talk to people about Tom Hughes and his life story, it is amazing to hear people say that his life story reads somewhat like a movie script.</para>
<para>Thomas Eyre Forrest Hughes was born on 26 November 1923 in Rose Bay. His grandfather, Sir Thomas Hughes, was a solicitor who rose to become the Lord Mayor of Sydney. His father, whom Tom always said was the man he most admired and respected, was Geoffrey Forrest Hughes, a solicitor and decorated World War I flying ace. In fact, he was famously involved in a lengthy dogfight over France with the Red Baron. His mother, Margaret, was a vicar's daughter from Devon in England. As well as Tom, the couple had one daughter, Constance, and two more sons, Geoffrey and Robert. Robert Hughes, of course, would become the renowned art critic and author of <inline font-style="italic">A Fatal Shore</inline>.</para>
<para>Tom himself was educated at Saint Ignatius College Riverview and the University of Sydney, where he studied law. That study, however, was interrupted by World War II. As a young man who already had a strong sense of service and love of his country, he joined the RAAF as a pilot. He captained a Sunderland flying boat and a crew of 12, flying out of the United Kingdom over the Atlantic and parts of war-torn Europe at the young age of 21. His Sunderland and crew succeeded in unmasking enemy artillery nests in the south-west of France where it had been assumed the Germans had been expelled. The Sunderland flying boat participated in D-day operations, escorting allied convoys and sinking U-boats. Tom was later awarded the French Legion of Honour, France's highest award. Tom modestly described it as 'a relatively lucky and safe war'.</para>
<para>Tom's time in Britain is also said to have inspired him to become a barrister. It had often been assumed that Tom would become a solicitor, like his father and grandfather. But during World War II in London he attended the law courts and was inspired by the performance of the wigged and black-gowned barristers defending their clients. On return to Australia after the war, Tom resumed his legal studies. He was admitted to the bar in 1949, the same year Robert Menzies won office as head of a Liberal-Country Party coalition government. The young barrister, Tom, had impeccable connections through his father, but his practice also grew because of talent and an insatiable appetite for hard work. Taking silk in 1962, Tom found a mentor and a friend in Chief Justice Owen Dixon, with both men bonding over political discussions.</para>
<para>What was to become a distinguished career in politics began in 1963, when Tom was persuaded to stand as a Liberal candidate in the marginal Labor seat of Parkes in Sydney's inner west. His campaign manager was a young John Howard, who remained a close friend throughout his life. In fact, former Prime Minister Howard reflected on that first campaign after Tom's death:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Quickly adapting from the formality of the courtroom to speaking from the back of a truck near Campsie Railway Station, he fought a vigorous campaign and claimed this highly marginal seat for the Menzies government</para></quote>
<para>Tom was re-elected in Parkes in 1966 and then won in the new seat of Berowra in 1969. In November 1969, Tom was appointed as John Gorton's Attorney-General, a position he held until March 1971. Being responsible for administering the National Service Act and prosecuting those who resisted the draft for Vietnam, Tom's time as Attorney-General was not without difficulties. He was targeted by anti-conscription and anti-war protesters. In fact, in 1970 some 40 protesters turned up on the doorstep of the Hughes family home in Bellevue Hill. Not a man to take a step backwards, though, Tom confronted them with a cricket bat. His son Michael, we are told, just five at the time, was said to have been 'delighted to see hippies in the garden'.</para>
<para>Tom retired from politics prior to the 1972 election, returning to what we all now know was his true love for law. While, as I said earlier, he had a distinguished career in politics, it was as a barrister that he truly excelled and became, quite frankly, legendary. Returning to the New South Wales bar, Tom became president from 1973 to 1975.</para>
<para>Tom had, without a doubt—and it is well known in legal circles not just here in Australia but also on the global stage—a commanding presence in Australian courtrooms for more than half a century, taking on and winning many high-profile cases. He was still practising as a barrister well into his 80s, using his trademark mix of persuasion, intimidation and theatre. Some of Tom's cases included that of Elizabeth Evatt, Chief Judge of the Family Court, who sued when a newspaper article about the court accused her of overseeing the destruction of family lives. He represented disgraced former New South Wales chief stipendiary magistrate Murray Farquhar in his criminal trial, and Jane Makim—sister, of course, to the Duchess of York—who was found to have been defamed when falsely accused of adultery. Tom appeared several times for his law school contemporary Lionel Murphy, former attorney-general in the Whitlam government and High Court judge. In a defamation case, he represented famous rugby league player Andrew Ettingshausen, who sued when a newspaper published a naked photo of him in the shower after a game. The next statistic, quite frankly, is utterly remarkable. Tom Hughes appeared in the High Court 91 times between 1949 and 2010. He only retired from practice in 2013—literally just over a decade ago. It was well known that Tom would travel to chambers by public transport, before dawn spending many hours meticulously preparing for his cases.</para>
<para>The tributes from those within the legal world say a lot about Tom's standing as a barrister. New South Wales Chief Justice Andrew Bell was Hughes's junior counsel at his second-last High Court appearance, in 2009. Chief Justice Bell described Tom as 'one of the finest trial lawyers and advocates in our nation's history' and said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Preparing and appearing with Tom was a privilege and wonderful education for any junior barrister …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Tom Hughes was a wonderful man, of large spirit, great style and a true patriot.</para></quote>
<para>Law Society of New South Wales president Brett McGrath described Tom as 'one of the most formidable, talented and courteous lawyers to grace our justice system', saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Tom Hughes served his nation, in times of war and peace, with distinction, he served his clients with determination and his opponents with the utmost respect.</para></quote>
<para>High Court Judge Michael McHugh said of Tom:</para>
<quote><para class="block">He is a legendary figure who embodies the public's perception of the great advocate: dashing, dominating … and handsome … By any reckoning, he ranks as one of the greatest barristers the Australian legal profession has produced.</para></quote>
<para>There is no doubt that Tom Hughes lived an incredible life. The service he gave to our great country of Australia, combined with the mark he left on this nation's legal profession, carved out a unique place for Tom Hughes in our nation's history. Again, on behalf of the coalition, I offer my heartfelt condolences to Tom's wife, Chrissie; to Tom's children, Lucy, Tom and Michael; and to the wider Hughes family. May Tom Hughes, without doubt a remarkable Australian, rest in peace.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today, on behalf of the National Party, to honour the life and legacy of Thomas Eyre Forrest Hughes AO, KC, a man of towering intellect and unwavering integrity and an indelible contributor to Australian public life. Thomas Hughes was a legal giant, a King's Counsel of great renown whose mastery of the law was matched only by his passion for its fair application. His career spanned decades, during which he set benchmarks for legal advocacy that continue to inspire generations of barristers and solicitors today. It's said he had four careers, and the Nats might just doff a cap—an Akubra—to the fact that he was known to be a farmer, an airman, a barrister and an MP. The mark he left on Australian jurisprudence is significant: his arguments sharp and persuasive, his presence in the courtroom formidable, and his dedication to the rule of law unwavering. This was demonstrated by the fact—and this just speaks volumes—that he only retired from practice in 2013, just shy of his 90th birthday.</para>
<para>Beyond the legal profession, Mr Hughes was a dedicated servant of the Australian people. His military service was an extension of these principles, an affirmation of his willingness to stand in defence of our great country and contribute to the global struggle for peace and security. During World War II, he answered the call to serve his nation, enlisting in the Royal Australian Air Force, where he trained and served as a pilot. Tom enlisted and served in the No. 10 Squadron from 1942 to 1946. No. 10 Squadron was both the first RAAF squadron and the first British Commonwealth squadron to see active service in the Second World War. It was also the only RAAF squadron to see continuous active service throughout the war. In 1943, Tom began a tour of operations and was part of the Normandy invasion. In 2005, he was awarded the French—and forgive my French—Legion d'honneur for his contribution to Operation Overlord. His contributions to the war effort, alongside those of thousands of other Australians, were instrumental in safeguarding the freedoms that we all cherish today.</para>
<para>As a parliamentarian, he represented the constituents of Parkes from 1963 to 1969, in the halcyon days, shall we say, of the Menzies-McEwen government. In 1970, he purchased 800 hectares of good country down near Goulburn and went on to establish a Poll Dorset sheep stud. He exhibited, I'm sure, a fancied fleece not only in the local shows but at the Sydney Royal, which is something he enjoyed. He was also the first member for the electorate of Berowra from 1969 to 1972. Former prime minister John Howard was Hughes's campaign manager for the seat of Parkes in 1963 and became a lifelong friend.</para>
<para>Serving with distinction as Australia's Attorney-General from 1969 to 1971, he demonstrated an unyielding commitment to justice, bringing about reforms that strengthened the legal foundations of our nation and reinforced the fundamental rights of its citizens. His service in public office was defined by his sharp legal mind, his deep understanding of constitutional matters and his ability to balance the weighty responsibilities of his role with an innate sense of fairness. He believed in the principle that the law was not merely a collection of rules but a living institution that must serve the people it governs.</para>
<para>Beyond his public service, many would attest that Thomas Hughes was a man of great personal warmth, wit and generosity. To those who knew him he was a devoted family man, a mentor and a steadfast friend. He was known for a rare trait in politics—his humility despite his formidable achievements and impressive CV. His contributions extended well beyond the legal and political spheres. In 2001, he was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia in recognition of his service to the law and the broader Australian community. He gave freely of his time and expertise, fostering the next generation of legal minds and remaining a respected voice in national discussions on governance and legal affairs.</para>
<para>The passing of Thomas Hughes is a reminder of the legacy that great Australians can and do leave behind, not only in the institutions they shape but in the lives they touch. His influence is still felt in courtrooms across this country, in the pages of our legal textbooks and in the hearts of those who had the privilege to work alongside him.</para>
<para>I would like to acknowledge his daughter, Lucy Turnbull, who is in the chamber today and who inherited from her father and his family a commitment and dedication to public service. On behalf of the Nationals, I extend our deepest sympathies to his wife, Christine; his children, Lucy, Tom and Michael; and their families. We honour his life and contributions and acknowledge him with gratitude. Again, I take this opportunity to thank him for his service to a grateful nation in all four of those careers. May he rest in peace.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator KOVACIC</name>
    <name.id>306168</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Jesuits have a maxim that they teach their students, their seminarians, which is foundational to the way that they see the world. They call on each other to be men and women for others. It builds upon Ignatius's spiritual exercises, which call for love to be expressed not just in words but in deeds. It should come as no surprise to any of us here that Tom Hughes was a product of this very Jesuit education at St Ignatius' College Riverview. Few others readily come to mind in exhibiting this calling throughout a life of service more than Tom—an eminent life of service to his country, to this parliament and to the law.</para>
<para>Tom graduated in law from the University of Sydney and enlisted in the Royal Australian Air Force in 1942. After some training in Australia and the US, Tom volunteered for No. 10 Squadron RAAF in Plymouth, flying Short Sunderlands and protecting Atlantic shipping and, in 1944, the English Channel and Bay of Biscay during D-Day operations. For his work in the war, which he later described as a 'rather minimal contribution to the war', he was awarded the French Legion of Honour amongst his Australian and imperial awards.</para>
<para>On 3 March 1964, Tom delivered his maiden speech in the other place as the member for Parkes and, later, the member for Berowra. In it, he discussed the most pressing matter of the time, particularly for those on his side of politics—the Cold War. Tom was resolute about the risks that Australia faced and the role of Australia particularly in the light of a diminished empire and the threat of communism to the free and open world, particularly in Asia. His words echo true today—the need to be vigilant in the face of threats to our way of life, this time at the hands of authoritarian regimes.</para>
<para>Tom later recalled in regard to the development of his political ideology: 'It's true that I was a fairly conservative politician when I first entered parliament in 1963, but in time I think I learnt to temper that conservatism, and later I think I was regarded as a small-l liberal.' It was this shift that came to a head at the latter end of his parliamentary career. In May 1970, when he was the Commonwealth Attorney-General, Tom gave an address to the sixth national conference of the Australian Council of Social Service at the ANU. In it, the first law officer of the Commonwealth made what was at the time considered to be a remarkable statement. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It is one thing to disapprove on moral grounds of homosexual connection in a private place between consenting adults. It is another thing to permit such disapproval to drive one to the conclusion that conduct of that description should be classified as criminal.</para></quote>
<para>This statement was remarkable at the time because homosexual acts were illegal. He was at that point and for some time after the only Liberal politician to express the desire to decriminalise homosexuality. He was saying then that the government did not belong in people's bedrooms. He was ahead of his time.</para>
<para>Naturally, Tom's calls did not go unnoticed by elements of his own party, and, shortly after ending up on the wrong side of a leadership spill and back on the backbench, Tom was the subject of a preselection challenge. On 8 October 1971, delegates of the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party gathered at their Ash Street headquarters in Sydney to select their candidate for Berowra. Tom was being challenged by four candidates, including leading conservative and state MP Jim Cameron. But, as selectors entered the building, a remarkable thing was happening on the street: the Campaign Against Moral Persecution was staging a demonstration in support of Tom. The <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> newspaper had reported on that morning of the meeting, 'Australia's homosexuals will hold their first public picket'. It was the first ever public demonstration by that group and it was done in support of the preselection of Tom Hughes.</para>
<para>However, whilst Tom was victorious in the preselection, defeating his challengers in the first ballot, he would decide not to contest the next election and would return to the bar full time. He was elected to the Council of the Australian National University and was elected President of the New South Wales Bar Association. As I mentioned at the outset, Tom would carry the values he was taught at a young age whilst at the bar. He represented Robert Askin, Gough Whitlam, Vic Garland, Kerry Packer, Bill Waterhouse and Lionel Murphy during a career that would culminate in him being dubbed, as we've already heard today, a lion of the bar. He retired a month before his 90th birthday. In more recent years, I am particularly proud to have worked on the Tom Hughes Oration, led by my friend the member for Berowra, which is now an annual fixture in the Berowra federal electoral conference, which I led for a number of years. It was a privilege to witness Tom's formidable intellect in person.</para>
<para>Tom is survived by his wife, Christine; his children, Lucy, Tom Jr and Michael; and, of course, Malcolm—all of whom, I might add, have given exemplary services to this country, to the law and to the Liberal Party. I offer my condolences to Tom's family and friends. May he rest in peace. Ad maiorem Dei gloriam.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask senators to join in a moment of silence to signify their assent to the motion.</para>
<para>Question agreed to, honourable senators joining in a moment of silence.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>67</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economics References Committee</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>67</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in September 2025:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Micro-competition opportunities in the Australian economy in relation to e-conveyancing.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>68</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration Amendment (Restoring Medevac) Bill 2025</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="s1448" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Migration Amendment (Restoring Medevac) Bill 2025</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>68</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following bill be introduced:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline>, and for related purposes.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the bill and move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a first time.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>68</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I table an explanatory memorandum, and I seek leave to have the second reading speech in relation to this Medevac bill incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The speech read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">The Migration Amendment (Restoring Medevac) Bill 2025 will bring back the Medevac legislation that saved lives when it was active in 2019.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill would replicate what occurred in 2019, when people held in Papua New Guinea and Nauru, and their families, were transferred to Australia for medical care when assessed by two or more doctors as requiring treatment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This bill replicates the intent of the Migration Amendment (Urgent Medical Treatment) Bill 2018 proposed MPs Kerryn Phelps, Andrew Wilkie, Adam Bandt, Julia Banks and Rebekha Sharkie as well as Senators Nick McKim and Tim Storer's amendment to the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This legislation was known as 'Medevac' and was supported by members of the crossbench, the Australian Labor Party and Greens.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I thank all involved in creating the initial bills for this 2025 bill.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The 2018 Medevac amendments were unfortunately repealed in December 2019 under the Migration Amendment (Repairing Medical Transfers) 2019.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">When 'Medevac' was in place 192 people were transferred to Australia and received urgent, often-lifesaving, medical treatment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Since the repeal in 2019 people seeking asylum held in PNG and Nauru have been unable to access adequate medical treatment. There are currently nearly 100 people seeking asylum held on Nauru and around 40 in PNG who have been denied permanent resettlement for over a decade. Many are in desperate medical condition, too often as a direct result of the cruel treatment they have suffered under the offshore detention regime.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Offshore detention emerged during a period of toxic politics that saw a race to the bottom on how to treat people seeking asylum. As a consequence, people who came to Australia seeking safety and to rebuild their lives were forced, coerced and deceived into going to so called 'regional processing countries.'</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">While the agreement with Nauru endures, there is no current agreement with PNG, despite Australia still being responsible for the refugees held there and continuing to be actively engaged with the PNG Government regarding them.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In January 2025 the UN Human Rights Committee ruled that Australia remained responsible for the arbitrary detention of people seeking asylum who are redirected or transferred to offshore detention facilities, in two cases brought forward by people held on Nauru.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This confirms what the Government has been told for years, going back to Medevac was last in place in 2019 when the Australian Human Rights Commission said: "Transferring asylum seekers to third countries does not release Australia from its obligations under international human rights law."   .   .This bill applies to all people transferred to a regional processing country when an agreement was active. It also applies to those still held in PNG who were forcibly relocated there from Australia. As much as the Australian Government may wish it not to be true, they have a clear legal and moral responsibility to the people who were in Australia seeking safety and the Government chose to remove.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">When this bill last passed, the Labor Party supported it. Now they are in government they seem to have forgotten this policy. I urge Labor to support this bill again. Do not let the fear and division of the last few years, indeed the last few weeks, win.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is well known that the medical treatment provided to refugees and people seeking asylum in regional processing countries is often grossly inadequate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">When Doctors Without Borders published their 2018 report on the medical conditions in Nauru, they found widespread mental and physical illness. One particularly disturbing rare psychiatric condition they saw in people held offshore was called Resignation Syndrome, which one in every four children had. Professor Louise Newman of the University of Melbourne described the syndrome as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"Children may stop talking and isolate themselves in bed; they may also stop eating and drinking. The most serious stage of the disorder is when children enter a state of profound withdrawal and are unconscious or in a comatose state.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"This comatose state appears to be a state of 'hibernation' in response to an intolerable reality. They are unresponsive, even to pain. They appear floppy, without normal reflexes, and require total care, including feeding and intravenous fluids, as otherwise, they risk kidney failure and death from complications caused by immobility, malnutrition and dehydration. This is a life-threatening condition needing high-level medical care."</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The conditions in these facilities were so bad that children entered into a coma to endure it. People are still held in these, or similar, conditions today.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">More recent reporting from the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre found that every single person currently held on PNG was ill, with one in 5 being so unwell their lives are at imminent risk. On top of that not one single person they spoke to could access adequate medical support.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I know this to be true, because at the end of last year I travelled to PNG to meet with those held there after a decade. What I saw should shame every person in this place. People with futures taken from them, for no other reason than seeking safety at a time that was political inconvenient for some here.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I want to relay just one story that I was told, of someone who needed to be evacuated for medical treatment. He was approved under Medevac at the same time as five others. On the day his plane was meant to take off all four of his friends approved for transfer came to Australia for essential treatment. They got the medical care they needed. But no one told him when his flight was, so he missed it.   .   .When he secured another flight, he went to the airport. While he was sitting in the airport, waiting for medical treatment to address his chronic pain the Medevac Bill was repealed. He was not allowed to get on the plane. Five years later that man is still in PNG, still without treatment, still in pain.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That is the image I want everyone to have when you vote on this bill. A man who fled the country where he was born because he might be killed. Came to Australia to seek safety and build a life. But instead was taken away in the middle of the night and forcibly held in a detention centre where he watched his friends die. Became ill because of the horrors the Australian Government put him through. And when there was a glimmer of hope, of fairness, a slim chance that at least some of his pain would be eased, he was left there alone watching the plane he should have been on take-off, watching that slither of justice disappear.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Because of decisions made here.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That is what this bill is, a slim sunbeam of hope. Hope not just for those people who have been denied a decade of their lives and basic dignity. But hope for us too. That we can be a better than what we are now. That the cruelty we have inflicted does not need to continue. I worry that if we do not take a stand against this hatred and division, then it will spread and take deeper root in our society.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I urge everyone to support this bill.</para></quote>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Lobbying (Improving Government Honesty and Trust) Bill 2025</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="s1446" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Lobbying (Improving Government Honesty and Trust) Bill 2025</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>69</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to establish a scheme to promote and enhance transparency, integrity and honesty in dealings between lobbyists and Government representatives, and for related purposes.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the bill and move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a first time.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>70</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I table an explanatory memorandum, and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The speech read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">It is my privilege to introduce theLobbying (Improving Government Honesty and Trust) Bill 2025into the Senate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In doing so, I would like to acknowledge Dr Monique Ryan MP, the independent Member for Kooyong, who drafted an earlier version of this Bill and introduced it into the House of Representatives on 18 November 2024.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill presents an opportunity for the major parties to help restore faith in our political system; to introduce regulations that will give Australians greater confidence that laws and policies are being made to benefit the public interest, not vested interests.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I have been shocked to see the influence that lobbyists can have on the trajectory of public decision-making, and how inadequate the checks and balances are to ensure that these interactions are properly scrutinised.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Lobbying is a legitimate practice. It is a way for various interest groups, such as those advocating for investment in cancer screening, to advocate for investment and attention by Government decision-makers. If lobbying is performed transparently and ethically, it can assist governments—and the Parliament—to identify gaps and ultimately craft policies that benefit Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">However, without any guardrails or transparency, there is no counterbalance to ensure that policies don't favour particular groups at the expense of the public interest. Worse still, when lobbying is performed out of sight, as is so often the case now, it erodes trust in our political system, leaving Australians feeling like the very people they elect to serve them are serving the interests of those with enough money to hire people to walk the halls of Parliament.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I have seen the real consequences of this; of Australians who feel little more than apathy toward our political system, who feel there is no point in engaging with politics because their voice will never be as loud as those who can afford to employ a lobbyist or attend a fundraising dinner.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This is a terrible outcome for our democracy and something we need to urgently repair. Transparency can be the antidote.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australia's weak lobbying laws</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As it stands, the rules that govern the conduct of lobbyists in this building and their interactions with Government decision-makers are so weak that they might not as well exist.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Currently, the only infrastructure we have to ensure integrity around lobbying activities is a largely voluntary Code of Conduct applying to people who register on the Lobbyist Register.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The first issue is that the obligation to register doesn't apply to the vast majority of lobbyists that come to Canberra each sitting fortnight.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Lobbying Code of Conduct (the Code) applies only to third-party lobbyists, that is, professionals who lobby on behalf of other companies or interest groups. This means that people who work in-house as "Government relations advisers" for, say, Qantas, the Minerals Council or Santos, are not captured by the Code and don't have to abide by any formal code of ethics.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As Dr Ryan said in the House of Representatives: <inline font-style="italic">"So it applies only to 20 per cent of the lobbyists roaming our corridors, knocking on our doors, seeking to influence our decisions. The other 80 per cent</inline><inline font-style="italic">—</inline><inline font-style="italic">who knows?"</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The second issue is that the obligation to register isn't really an obligation. There is nothing that mandates that lobbyists register in the first place—and no penalty if they lobby while not on the register.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The breaches are also woefully inadequate. For even the most serious of breaches, for example, if a lobbyist were to lie or threaten a Government representative, the main sanction the Government can apply is a three-month break from lobbying.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Finally, while there may be some transparency around who lobbyists are, there is no transparency about who they are meeting with in the Government and what they are meeting about.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The current Code and Register amount to little more than window dressing; a nod to integrity without actually doing anything to promote integrity or transparency in Government decision-making.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The reforms introduced in this Bill</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill introduces several critical reforms to strengthen our lobbying laws and enhance transparency.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Firstly, it expands the definition of lobbyists to capture in-house lobbyists, industry associations and consultants who have direct access to decision makers, ensuring that everyone who lobbies the Government is held to a code of ethics and can be penalised for breaches.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill also legislates the Lobbying Code of Conduct and introduces stronger penalties for breaches, so that it is no longer a voluntary code with no teeth.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It will require lobbyists to submit online quarterly returns, so the Australian public can see who they have been meeting with, for how long, where and why. At the same time, it establishes a requirement for ministers to publicly disclose their diaries, so the Australian public can compare, cross-check and verify that each party is disclosing accurate information.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian public has a right to know whether key policy decisions are being shaped by the voices of ordinary Australians or by a select group of lobbyists with privileged access. Making ministerial diaries public would shine a light on these interactions and ensure that the Government remains accountable to the people it serves.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It provides the National Anti-Corruption Commissioner with the authority to oversee lobbying activities and investigate breaches of the Code.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Finally, but I believe most importantly, the Bill will prohibit ministers and their senior staff from moving into plum lobbying gigs after they cease employment in Government for a period of three years.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This revolving door between Government and industry is toxic to good governance. When ministers and staff leave public office, they should not be able to use their insider knowledge for personal gain or the commercial benefit of their new employer—and they shouldn't be making decisions prior to leaving office which may advance their employer-to-be.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Almost every resources minister we have had in recent memory has left the Government to work in the resources sector, which may go some way to explaining why Australia receives a dud deal on the export of its gas. It's notable that at least one former communications minister, responsible for regulating online gambling, moved onto work for the online gambling industry's peak body after leaving Government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Critics of reform will argue that this Bill would place an unnecessary burden on Government officials and businesses engaging with policy-makers. However, transparency is not a burden—it is a fundamental obligation of any democratic government. Ultimately, compliance with a legislated Code is a small price to pay if more Australians feel they can trust that their Government is making decisions in the public interest.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australia is lagging behind other democracies when it comes to lobbying transparency. Countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom have far stricter regulations, including real-time public reporting of lobbying activities and independent regulators that actively enforce the rules. We should not settle for a system that is weaker than those of our democratic peers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The need for reform is not new. Calls to strengthen lobbying laws have been made repeatedly, yet successive governments have failed to take meaningful action.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As I outlined in my dissenting report to the Senate inquiry into lobbyist access to Parliament House: "The response to this inquiry shouldn't be another inquiry, it should be real action to fix a broken system sitting at the heart of our democracy".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We cannot allow inertia to continue. Australians deserve a system where policy decisions are made in the open, where the public can see who is meeting with their representatives, and where Government officials are held to the highest standards of integrity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill provides an infrastructure that allows Australians to scrutinise lobbying activities and decide for themselves whether lobbying activities are having too great an influence over the formation of our national policies.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill would allow Australians to look and see for themselves, in near real-time, at the actions of lobbyists. I urge my fellow Senators to support this legislation and take decisive action to reform our lobbying laws. The Australian people deserve nothing less.</para></quote>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>71</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Capital Investment Framework</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>71</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that the response to order for the production of documents no. 742, relating to the National Capital Investment Framework, was due on Tuesday, 11 February 2025 and that the Minister representing the Prime Minister has failed to comply with the order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) requires the Minister representing the Prime Minister to comply with the order by no later than 3 pm on Thursday, 13 February 2025.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>71</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tertiary Education Legislation Amendment (There For Education, Not Profit) Bill 2025</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="s1443" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Tertiary Education Legislation Amendment (There For Education, Not Profit) Bill 2025</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Committee</title>
            <page.no>71</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Tertiary Education Legislation Amendment (There For Education, Not Profit) Bill 2025 be referred to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 1 August 2025.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Remuneration Tribunal Amendment (There For Public Service, Not Profit) Bill 2025</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="s1444" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Remuneration Tribunal Amendment (There For Public Service, Not Profit) Bill 2025</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Committee</title>
            <page.no>72</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Remuneration Tribunal Amendment (There For Public Service, Not Profit) Bill 2025 be referred to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 1 August 2025.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>72</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of the Treasury</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>72</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator VAN</name>
    <name.id>283601</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer, by no later than midday on Thursday, 13 February 2025, the following documents:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) internal departmental reports or memoranda discussing the feasibility, risks and legislative considerations of any proposed legislation to ban genetic testing in life insurance;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any drafts of the proposed legislation as it currently stands;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) documents held by the Assistant Treasurer or Treasury, or communications between the Assistant Treasurer, his staff, Treasury and any other political office or person, in the period after 11 September 2024, pertaining to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the issues that necessitated further consultation before the legislation could be drafted, and when those issues were first considered, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) when the Government set its intention to only consult on the design of the legislation in Q1 2025, rather than to introduce legislation before the election; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) any correspondence between government agencies and stakeholders in relation to this proposed legislation with regard to why, after stating in Parliament on 11 September 2024, the Assistant Treasurer committed to legislating a ban on the use of predictive genetic tests when Australians are attempting to access life insurance products.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>72</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Constitution Alteration (Right to Free Speech) 2025</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="s1447" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Constitution Alteration (Right to Free Speech) 2025</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>72</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to expressly protect freedom of speech.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the bill and move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a first time.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>72</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I table an explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The speech read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">I am pleased to introduce the Constitution Alteration (Right to Free Speech) 2025, the purpose of which is to enshrine freedom of speech within the Australian Constitution.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The proposed alteration will insert a new Chapter IIIA and section 80A in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. The new section will provide that the Commonwealth or a State must not make any law that limits the freedom of speech, including freedom of the press and other media.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill is urgently needed and will provide protection of a right that Australians assume they already have.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That assumption is increasingly dangerous.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">While freedom of speech in this country is generally assumed, it is not guaranteed. Indeed, it is under perilous threat right now.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Over the past decade the right of Australians to say what they think has increasingly come under attack.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">While Australian parliaments have made no effort to protect speech, they have passed laws—at state and federal level—to restrict freedom of speech.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We are now at a point in this country where it is dangerous to openly say things that most people privately believe.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It's a brave person, for example, who opines in public that men cannot become women.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Is that really the kind of country we want to live in? A country in which stating simple biological truths puts a person in danger of being dragged before a tribunal to be interrogated for their words.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is time to provide a constitutional right for all Australians to say what they truly think.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Western world became prosperous by allowing, rather than censuring debate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Free speech is not a thing to be feared. It's a thing which should be embraced.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Free speech is not something to protect people from, it's something to be encouraged.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The enlightenment was built on the ability of people to say what they honestly thought, even if it went against established norms.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Indeed, it was the ability to challenge norms that made progress possible.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But we now risk going backwards into a new dark age of restricted speech, where certain ideas—held sacrosanct by those in power—are beyond challenging. This bodes well for nobody.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Without speech there is no expression of thought, it is no exaggeration to say that if people are not able to speak freely then they are not able to think freely.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And that is the key issue here. Freedom of thought supposes freedom of speech. The two are indelibly linked.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">What good are all the other freedoms if people are not free to think independently of the state and to express those thoughts?</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australia lacks, at a national level, entrenched protections of freedom of speech. Our role as elected representatives should be to provide and sustain that right.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This bill, if successful will give the Australian people the power to vote in a referendum and determine just how important freedom of speech is to them.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I believe the people will vote overwhelmingly in favour of free speech, because Australians may disagree on many issues, but we believe in a fair go and the right of everyone to voice their opinion without fear or favour.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Our proposed alteration to the Constitution will protect freedom of expression along similar lines to the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America which provides that the Congress "shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Constitution already provides some express protection against legislative action by the Commonwealth. Section 116 says that the Parliament "shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion...".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In a similar way, our proposed protection for freedom of speech would reflect the assumption of all Australians that people have the right to express their thoughts with confidence and without fear of censure.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Moreover, it would put a brake on efforts to supress freedom of speech that are, shockingly, becoming more and more common around the Western world including here in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There shouldn't be a single Senator in this chamber who would say they were against freedom of speech.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There shouldn't be a single Senator in this chamber who would say to their constituents, I want to make it more difficult for you and your family to express your opinions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We came to Canberra not to oppress our constituents but to defend and ensure their freedoms. This bill does that. And it is long overdue.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I commend this Bill to the Senate.</para></quote>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>74</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing Australia</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>74</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 9 am on Thursday, 13 February 2025, any communications or documents within Housing Australia in relation to the Government's housing targets from 1 July 2024.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing Australia</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>74</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Thursday, 13 February 2025, all documents that relate to the usage of availability payments in relation to the announcement made by Housing Australia on 31 January 2025, titled 'Housing Australia to fund over 800 homes under the Housing Australia Future Fund Facility and National Housing Accord Facility'.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of the Treasury</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>74</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Hume, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) order for the production of documents no. 751, agreed to by the Senate on 5 February 2025, required the Minister representing the Treasurer to table documents relating to the Coalition's simpler meal tax deduction for small businesses policy or similar policies, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the Treasurer, in his response to the order, did not make any claim of public interest immunity, but simply said he will respond 'as soon as practicable'; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) requires the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply with the order by no later than midday on 13 February 2025.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>74</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration of Legislation</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 be divided into two bills and amended, in accordance with the amendments on sheet 3248, to create two bills as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024—containing Schedules 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8 to 11, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) Electoral Legislation Amendment (Caps and Funding) Bill 2025—containing Schedules 3, 4 and 7;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the bills be printed; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Caps and Funding) Bill 2025 be referred to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 23 May 2025.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that general business notice of motion 778 standing in the name of Senator David Pocock be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:22]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>17</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>25</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>Lines, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>75</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>75</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Senate notes that the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (the minister) has failed to comply with order for the production of documents no. 756, agreed to on 6 February 2025, relating to Rex Airlines, and a further order to comply as agreed to on 11 February 2025;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the minister attend the chamber at 12.15 pm on Thursday, 13 February 2025, to provide an explanation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) any senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (b); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) any motion under paragraph (c) may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes each.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that general business notice of motion No. 787, standing in the name of Senator McKenzie and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:28]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>30</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>31</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Stronger Communities Program</title>
          <page.no>76</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>76</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Senate notes that the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (the minister) has failed to comply with order for the production of documents no. 761, agreed to on 6 February 2025, relating to the Stronger Communities Program, and a further order to comply as agreed on 11 February 2025;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the minister attend the chamber at 12.15 pm on Thursday, 13 February 2025 to provide an explanation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) any senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (b); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) any motion under paragraph (c) may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes each.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that general business notice of motion No. 788, standing in the name of Senator McKenzie and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:32]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>31</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>30</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>77</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Senate notes that the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (the minister) has failed to comply with order for the production of documents no. 762, agreed to on 6 February 2025, relating to Federation Funding Agreements, and a further order to comply as agreed on 11 February 2025;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the minister attend the chamber at 12.15 pm on Thursday ,13 February 2025 to provide an explanation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) any senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (b); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) any motion under paragraph (c) may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes each.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that general business notice of motion No. 789, standing in the name of Senator McKenzie and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:35]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>30</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>31</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Local Content Broadcasting</title>
          <page.no>78</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>78</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) on 6 February 2025, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 760, relating to access to documents dealing with Australian content quotas and/or or associated models between the office of the Minister for the Arts and 9 commercial entities, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) to date the Government has refused to comply with the order and has advanced unacceptable public interest immunity claims; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts to attend the Senate after question time on Thursday, 13 February 2025, to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, for the failure to comply with the order and the misuse of a public interest immunity claim, and that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The government will be opposing this motion. The government firmly rejects Senator Lambie's assertion that we've not complied with the previous order. The documents have already been provided to Senator Lambie with appropriate redactions in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. The government also subsequently provided the documents to the Senate with appropriate redactions under public interest immunity. The redactions were made in order to appropriately protect the commercially sensitive data and personal information of various stakeholders.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that general business notice of motion No. 790 standing in the name of Senator Lambie be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:40]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>42</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>19</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Non-Disclosure Agreements</title>
          <page.no>79</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>79</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Senate notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) on 3 October 2024, questions on notice nos 3633 to 3679 were submitted, requesting that ministers of all portfolios provide specific information relating to the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in this term of Parliament,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a number of ministers responded to questions with identical answers stating that 'governments of all persuasions have used NDAs from time to time to assist in the development of policies and legislative proposals' and multiple others responded that they did not keep 'centralised records',</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the answers to the questions provided by the ministers did not provide the information sought by the questions, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) order for the production of documents no. 728, requiring revised answers to be provided by 7 February 2025, has not been complied with; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if order for production of documents no. 728, has not been complied with by midday on 13 February 2025, the Senate requires the Minister representing the Prime Minister to attend the Senate at the conclusion of motions to take note of answers on 13 February 2025 to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of why the answers have not been provided, and that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the motion may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to move an amendment to the motion.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move that the motion be amended in the terms circulated in the chamber, as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Paragraph (b), omit "at the conclusion of motions to take note of answers", substitute "at the conclusion of question time".</para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Thorpe</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't know what the amendment is. I don't know what he's talking about.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It has been circulated in the chamber, Senator Thorpe. Senator Ayres, I'll give you two seconds to explain.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm happy to read it in if it assists, but it has been circulated. It is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Paragraph (b), omit "at the conclusion of motions to take note of answers", substitute "at the conclusion of question time".</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand that the opposition wishes the question on the amended motion to be split. I'll first put the question on paragraph (a). Yes, Senator Ayres?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Government in the Senate has responded to the order for the production of documents, and answers to all questions on notice requested will be tabled at the time for ministerial statements, in the usual way, today.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that paragraph (a) of motion No. 791 standing in the name of Senator Thorpe, as amended, be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that part (b) of general business notice of motion No. 791, as amended, be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>80</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee</title>
          <page.no>80</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>80</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind senators that yesterday after 6.30 pm a division was called on the motion moved by Senator Roberts proposing a reference to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate to have that deferred vote now. The question is that the deferred motion be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:51]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>30</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>31</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>80</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Non-Disclosure Agreements</title>
          <page.no>80</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>80</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to have a new vote held for part (b) of motion 791 and for that to be recommitted.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McGrath?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGrath</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Can we find out why the government wishes to recommit?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My understanding was that the vote was called and it didn't reflect the will of the Senate and a division wasn't called.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKim?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKim</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I couldn't quite hear Senator Chisholm's explanation. It's the usual practice of the Senate that, if you want a vote to be put again, you be very clear. Suggesting that the vote didn't reflect the will of the Senate is not a satisfactory explanation for having a vote recommitted.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKim, it is a clear indication of Senator Chisholm's position. He has put it in that way. We will put the vote again, and it's really up to senators.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Lambie, Senator Chisholm has indicated that, in his view, it does not reflect the view of the chamber. I'm going to put the question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Lambie! Firstly, I haven't called you. You've just stood there and yelled out at me.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That is not a reason. We want to know why it does not reflect the Senate's wishes. Why is that? If you are embarrassed, too bad, but why?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is the exact question Senator McKim asked. I've given an explanation. I'm going to put the question. The question is that paragraph (b) of general business notice of motion No. 791, as amended, standing in the name of Senator Thorpe be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:57]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>14</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>28</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>81</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>81</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of legislation.</para>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Wong and pursuant to contingent notice, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to allow a motion relating to the consideration of legislation to be moved and determined immediately.</para></quote>
<para>And I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the question be now put.</para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the question be now put.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [17:04]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>27</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Askew, W.</name>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Lines, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>16</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to. </p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [17:08]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>25</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Askew, W.</name>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Lines, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>16</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to. </p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That a motion relating to the consideration of legislation may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.</para></quote>
<para>And I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the question be now put.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the question be now put on the procedural motion moved by Senator Gallagher.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [17:11]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>24</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Lines, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>16</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the procedural motion moved by Minister Gallagher be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [17:14]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>23</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Lines, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>16</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move the motion as circulated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That today:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the hours of meeting be 9 am till adjournment;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the following bills be called on immediately and have precedence over all other business:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2025,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) Social Security Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes) Bill 2025,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2024-2025</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2024-2025</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) Health Legislation Amendment (Modernising My Health Record—Sharing by Default) Bill 2024, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vi) Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the questions on all remaining stages of the bills in paragraph (b) be put after a total of one hour of consideration;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 then be called on and the time allotted for its consideration be as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) second reading—one hour, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) all remaining stages—90 mins;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) paragraphs (c) and (d) operate as limitations of debate under standing order 142;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm until consideration of the bills has concluded; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) the Senate adjourn without debate after consideration of the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 has concluded.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senators, the procedural motion just agreed to requires that the substantive motion be put without amendment or debate, so I'll now put the question. The question is that the motion be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [17:17]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>23</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Lines, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>16</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>85</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>85</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7217" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>85</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This amendment includes safeguards to stop the clock to account for reasonable delays, like for medical advice. If the commission does not determine the claim by the end of the consideration period, the commission is taken to have accepted the claim. Veterans who have to take their matters to the Veterans' Review Board can't be represented by a lawyer. This is hugely unfair for some of them, and it flips all the power to the DVA staff, which are expert lawyers—the known enemy, as we like to call them, who do have access to legal representation before the hearing. My amendment attempts to level the playing field so veterans can get legal representation themselves when they go before the Veterans' Review Board to plead their case. It's a no brainer, and I reckon it gives the veterans a fair go. It also removes section 353L, which allows the Veterans' Review Board to imprison a veteran for up to six months if they insult a person, interrupt proceedings, create a disturbance or cause contempt as part of their proceedings. We need to know as much as possible about the ongoing health and wellbeing of our veterans. That means research and data gathering.</para>
<para>The amendment responds to recommendations 114, 115 and 117 of the royal commission. It establishes an expert committee on veteran research made up of people with real skills and real experience. The amendment also requires the department to establish work plans to outline the immediate research priorities of the department in relation to health and wellbeing, long-term research goals and detailed actions to address gaps in the legislation.</para>
<para>My amendments are not perfect, but they will go a hell of a long way to fixing the injustice that we've put up with for far too long, that is within the system and that has resulted in so many of your mates taking their lives. I ask everyone in this place to vote for my amendments. Veterans put their lives on the line for this country. The least that we can do is make sure that they are looked after during and beyond their service.</para>
<para>I would also like to put on record the shocking and slow response the coalition displayed over nine years. They did everything they could to resist a royal commission. They were aided and abetted by the national RSL. They kept telling me and the veterans that there is 'nothing to see here'. The National President of the RSL even went after Julie-Ann Finney, accusing her of campaigning for a royal commission to assuage guilt for her failed relationship with her son. You, Mr Melick, subsequently apologised, but I have to ask why on earth this man is still the head of the national RSL. It is certainly not the request and it is not the want of every digger who has served and is serving.</para>
<para>I would like to acknowledge the work of Minister Keogh and his willingness to work with me over the summer and over the past two years. I want to take some time here to make sure that the veterans know this: I cannot praise Minister Keogh enough. He has worked over the Christmas period with me. He's given up time with his family. It has been very enduring of him to go through this with me for the past two years. He has carried tears behind closed doors. I want you to know that. He has, fair dinkum, put everything he possibly can into this, knowing we needed to get as much as we possibly could through before an election.</para>
<para>We have done everything that we possibly can over the last eight weeks to get that national commissioner up and to start ticking off those royal commission recommendations. We cannot possibly have any hours left, between the minister and I, to do anything else that is left. We have nothing left. I just wanted you to know that Minister Keogh—over the last 10 years I have been up there, the revolving door of ministers has been an absolute shocker for you people—has put his heart and his soul into this, and I will pay credit where credit is due. I know, at times, that we have sat behind closed doors and cried together, and we have tried to do everything possible in the last eight weeks. I cannot thank you enough, from the bottom of my heart, Minister Keogh. I want you to know that. I want every veteran out there to know that, because nobody during the period of time I've been up here has ever done what you have done or stood beside me.</para>
<para>I want to thank the Prime Minister for giving me the extra staff member over the last two years. I want to thank you, Luke Brown. I don't think this will get you sacked. I want every veteran out there to know that assistant commissioner Luke Brown has saved many lives in the last two years, because, when this government came in, they gave me full access to Luke Brown. I'm not sure if he works for DVA or Jacqui Lambie, but I cannot thank you enough, Luke. I cannot thank you enough. The pressure that you have taken off the people in my office has been absolutely remarkable. It has stopped being the revolving door for you veterans out there as well, and it's caused a hell of a lot less harm to my office and the people working there in the last two years. Luke, thank you. Just to let you know, I have another six people I will need to come and see in the next day. I'm sorry I didn't ring you Monday. I'll be in touch with you tomorrow, mate, but thank you.</para>
<para>Finally, I would like to thank all the organisations, the veterans, the mothers and the families who have fought for the royal commission. I know it has taken it out of you. I know it has taken it out of me. I want to thank especially Julie-Ann Finney and the other mums and the dads who have worked so tirelessly for many, many years, campaigning for veterans and the recommendations of the royal commission. Julie-Ann, I want you to know that your son would be so proud of you.</para>
<para>I know the royal commissioners. You were shaken, and I know that you have been moved by the testimony from so many. I know that has been extremely harmful to you, and I want to thank you for going through that and doing everything you could for us. Nothing can compensate for the pain and the loss of losing your child, and that is the burden of military service that many parents and many families will have to carry with them for the rest of their lives.</para>
<para>The passage of this bill won't fix everything, but the speed of the government response is now down to you. To you, Matt, once again, thank you. I know that we have tried to rush this through, and I'm pretty sure we've got it right—we've got to be damn close—but there is still a lot of work to be done. There are still over 120 recommendations to be put through as quickly as possible.</para>
<para>We have worked hard in my office over the last eight years to do as much as we possibly can to fix the DVA and Defence. Like I said, it has taken a toll on my staff, and I've lost some of them along the way. To my staff, thank you, once again, for your commitment to the veterans over the last eight years. I thank all of you.</para>
<para>I am up for re-election this year, and I am hoping that Tasmanians will give me another six years, but if they don't I want the veteran community to know that I will always stand beside you. I want you to stay vigilant. You will need to keep holding Defence, the Department of Veterans' Affairs and, most importantly, the government to account. You must do that.</para>
<para>I want you service organisations to listen to me—listen very carefully. There are a lot of you out there; there are thousands. I want you to stop fighting with each other, because it is not helpful. You are not standing together as one, so you have no strength. You have a national RSL that is useless; we know that, but if you service organisations continue to fight with each other and bicker with each other, you will continue to not save lives. Dealing with you makes my job up here very difficult, and you are not being fair to your mates.</para>
<para>If you are part of an organisation and you fall out with your mates, don't go and start another one. It has not been helpful. I know that many of you in these organisations are also physically and psychologically damaged. I know your patience only goes so far. I also know that for many, many years you have been fighting a government that has destroyed you. I know that, but the biggest enemy that I have right now and that we, the veterans out there, have right now is you, because you won't come together as one. For God's sake, even the Vietnam veterans worked it out. They only split into two groups, not thousands. That has been extremely harmful to us. I want you to go away and think about that.</para>
<para>I want to see you guys have one group, one union. That's where you should be—and that is what our national RSL should have been. It has failed us, but it has taken great delight over the years in watching us chew each other up for breakfast. Oh, they've loved it! I beg you to recognise that you will only become a force again if you come together as one. You must come together as one. You have to do that today. Then we will get what we want. But, until you do that, you will make the fight harder. I want you to go away and have a good think about that. Surely one of you is big enough to say, 'The rest of us are not doing our job, and we need to come together as one.' I don't even care what you call us, but bring us together because it gives us more power and it gives us more might. Then we can help our own. That is how it works.</para>
<para>Sometimes I know it feels like two steps forward and one step back. But, whenever I have felt defeated, the resilience and the strength of you, even in the chaos you are in—that service organisation community has got me through. I want to make sure that you know that. I want to thank all of you for helping me along the way. There are some who have, along the way, thrown names at me and others out there, and it has been very unhelpful. But I think I've said enough about service organisations out there.</para>
<para>All I'm asking you to do, in my last minute, is to go away and think about where you are, because what you are doing in thousands of groups out there, how you've all separated, is not helpful. It is not helpful to saving your mates.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One Nation supports measures to simplify veterans entitlements. At the moment, it seems to many veterans that they need to be a lawyer just to receive entitlements that should be easily accessible. In this government bill, the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024, it's difficult to say whether the government's proposal will meet veterans' needs for clarity and ease until we see the legislation put into action, when the guidance filters its way through to the service agents. As the saying goes, the proof will be in the pudding.</para>
<para>We're willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt when it comes to converting three acts, 2,000 pages of legislation and more than 800 legislative instruments into one act. As other senators have mentioned, it's not rare for veterans to have claims under all three separate acts. This obviously needs desperate change. Throughout this process, we do not want to see any veterans worse off. One Nation notes with concern submissions that state some changes may have the intention of easier administration not achieving the veterans full entitlements. That's a deep concern. We'll be supporting the amendments codifying the Senate's intent that no veteran is left worse off after this bill's passage.</para>
<para>In relation to the government's amendment on sheet ED101, we've received concerns from the Families of Veterans Guild, as have many other senators, I'm sure. I'll read them out so that they're on the record from the impressively confident chief executive officer of the Families of Veterans Guild on this government amendment to its own bill. Why is the government having so many amendments?</para>
<para>The letter is as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">After being alerted to the amendment, I've read through the detail and have a number of concerns with it which are as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There has been no public announcement or public communication from the Department of Defence or Veterans Affairs about it, and as a result there has been no consultation with the veteran community regarding its content. This amendment proposes a significant structural change to the Defence and Veteran system in Australia. It is arguably a Bill in its own right, and ought to be treated as such. Our view is that it ought to be introduced as an amendment to the Defence Act 1903 and debated accordingly. Instead, it is being added on to the VETS Bill in order to be rushed through the parliament—</para></quote>
<para>Here we go again, Labor rushing. She continues with No. 2:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The intent of the VETS Bill is to harmonise the legislative frameworks that govern the provision of veteran entitlements and supports, it is not to make fundamental structural changes to the veteran system. That is a separate issue—</para></quote>
<para>She says. She goes on to No. 3:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The object outlined in the amendment, "improve suicide prevention", is extremely broad, unclear, and lacks any insight into tangible work that will be done to achieve the objective. This objective requires significant work to be more specific, focusing on issues we know are challenges in the veteran community like reducing the incidents and rate of suicide among the Defence and Veteran population, and improving the effectiveness of suicide prevention initiatives within this community.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendment outlines that the commission only needs to provide two public reports on the status of the implementation of the Royal Commission's recommendations. This isn't good enough.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The reason the concept of the independent body outlined in the amendment received initial support from the veteran community was because for too long recommendations from previous inquiries have been shelved. 700+ recommendations which could have resulted in better health and wellbeing outcomes for veterans and their families were left to collect dust. The amendment ought to compel the commission to report annually to the Parliament, the veteran community, and the Australian public on the status of the Royal Commission's recommendations until such time as they are implemented and their effectiveness evaluated.</para></quote>
<para>She goes on, under No. 5:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The amendment provides the Minister with the power to direct the Commissioner to conduct an inquiry. However, before the Commissioner reports to the Minister (at which point the report is to be tabled) the Minister may vary or withdraw the request. Does this mean the inquiry results are never made public? This point must be clarified.</para></quote>
<para>In No. 6, she says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The amendment outlines that the commission can inquire into the 'entire Defence ecosystem' but doesn't define what that is. With the amendment providing significant powers to the proposed commission, this must be defined understood and consulted. As it stands, the authority this commission would have could affect more than 5,000 non-profit organisations in Australia who provide support to veterans.</para></quote>
<para>She says, under No. 7:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Veteran families once again are omitted from this amendment, other than a mention that they will be 'listened to'. The Royal Commission highlighted the important role of veteran families and the significantly implications (including related to mental health) that service and suicide have on them, yet they are excluded from the commission's remit. Will it require a Royal Commission into the ill health, wellbeing and high suicide rates amongst veteran families before they are taken seriously by their government?</para></quote>
<para>It's a good question she's asking. Under 'our expectations', she says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Families of Veterans Guild supports the establishment of an independent body to oversee the defence and veteran system and the implementation of the Royal Commission's recommendations. However, it fundamentally disagrees with rushing an un-consulted amendment through parliament which could have significant consequences for the system, and the communities within it.</para></quote>
<para>She goes on:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Guild's expectations were set by the Minister in his media release on the appointment of the interim Commissioner—</para></quote>
<para>where the minister said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">"Mr Manthorpe will head the organisation and work across government to deliver the establishment of a legislated oversight body by September 2025.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As part of the Albanese Government's response to the Royal Commission, we have committed $9.5 million of funding, as part of MYEFO, to support its implementation, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">$5 million over two years to fund the appointment of the Interim Head of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission, and to establish a cross-agency taskforce to provide advice to Government"—</para></quote>
<para>that's the end of the minister's quote. She goes on:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We expected DVA and Defence to therefore consult with those who could and would be impacted by this amendment. That hasn't happened.</para></quote>
<para>She said, 'We are especially shocked by this, considering the unwillingness of the minister and the Department of Veterans' Affairs to support and implement amendments to the vets bill aimed at removing archaic and offensive language, due to concerns it would hold up passage of the bill. Yet an amendment which does bring cost implications and hasn't been consulted on is deemed acceptable.' This is the last paragraph: 'We'd like to see this amendment withdrawn so that it can go through the proper process, including consultation, to ensure it is fit for purpose and reduces the risk of having unintended consequences on and within the defence and veteran community.' That quote is from the letter from the Families of Veterans Guild, and that's where it ends.</para>
<para>One Nation is greatly concerned that the government is operating this way and dropping significant changes on the Senate suddenly. We won't even get time to discuss the bills tonight. We will be voting against this amendment because of those concerns and the lack of consultation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In rising to speak on this bill today, I wish to first and foremost express my continued gratitude to Australia's veterans community for their service to our country. The Albanese government accepted and took swift action on the first recommendation of the interim report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide to simplify and harmonise the legislation governing compensation, rehabilitation and other supports for veterans and families so that they can not only access the support that they need and deserve but receive it in a timely manner.</para>
<para>Under the current legislative model, veterans entitlements are determined under one or more of three primary compensation acts: the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, known as the MRCA; the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, known as the VEA; and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-Related Claims) Act 1988, known as the DRCA. Which act or acts apply to a veteran depends on when they served and which period or periods of services caused or contributed to the condition being claimed.</para>
<para>The Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024, known as the VETS bill, modifies the current tri-act legislative framework by providing for all claims for compensation and rehabilitation received from 1 July 2026 to be determined under an enhanced MRCA. In essence, the changes in this bill will make it easier for veterans and families to know what they are entitled to, make it simpler for advocates to assist veterans and their families with those claims, and make it quicker for DVA to process claims so veterans and families get the benefits that they need and deserve in a timely way.</para>
<para>The government will also propose three amendments following the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee inquiry into this bill, the release of the final report of the royal commission, advocacy from the veterans community and consultation with the opposition, the Jacqui Lambie Network and the Australian Greens. The first amendment provides for a Senate foreign affairs and defence committee to initiate a review of the enhanced MRCA, to be conducted 12 months after the act commences. The second allows for apportionment of payments to veterans with severe impairment in relation to their children under section 80 of the MRCA. And the third amendment implements the government's response to recommendation 122 of the royal commission's final report by establishing an independent body, headed by a commissioner, to provide advice and oversight on reducing deaths by suicide in the Defence and veterans community.</para>
<para>I'd also like to take this opportunity to offer additional information for senators following debate. The government notes the concerns expressed by the opposition regarding the statement-of-principles system, known as SOPS, and the role of the Repatriation Medical Authority. However, it should be underscored that the royal commission examined this matter and did not recommend a change to this feature of the military compensation system. I would also note that the VETS bill will actually add flexibility to the SOP arrangements by introducing two new liability tests that do not rely on the SOPS—namely, the presumptive liability arrangements and temporal connection to being on duty, both of which were noted by senators earlier in the debate. Furthermore, the current flexibility under section 340 of the MRCA will be retained, which permits the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to determine its own SOPS outside the RMA process where warranted.</para>
<para>Regardless of these improvements, I would note in this context that, under the MRCA, using the SOP system, the acceptance rate for liability claims sits at 80 per cent or higher on an annual basis. This system ensures that sound medical and scientific evidence is applied consistently, fairly and equitably in the assessment of veterans' claims, with no need for further review of these beneficial arrangements.</para>
<para>With respect to comments made that the bill results in modest improvements for veterans and minor bureaucratic improvements only, I would note that the passage of the bill would result in an additional $222 million being provided to veterans and their families in the form of increased compensation and health care in the first two years of operation alone, with ongoing support beyond this period. In addition to these increased levels of compensation and treatment, it was acknowledged that this legislation will make the veterans system easier for veterans and their families to navigate, ensuring they receive the care and support they need more quickly.</para>
<para>As mentioned, this bill implements the very first recommendation of the royal commission's interim report. Clearly, the royal commission, in prioritising this recommendation, viewed it as resulting in more than just minor bureaucratic improvements and saw harmonising and simplifying veterans' legislation as intrinsically linked to the issues of suicide and veterans' wellbeing. The level of support expressed for this bill by ex-service organisations and the veteran community more broadly would indicate that they see these changes being of real and tangible benefit to them also.</para>
<para>Finally, as this bill was still before the parliament when the government delivered its formal response to the final report of the royal commission on 2 December 2024, and recognising the urgency that veterans attach to recommendation 122 to establish an ongoing, independent body to provide advice and oversight on reducing deaths by suicide in the defence and veteran community, we have taken this opportunity to legislate to implement this recommendation as a priority, and I will speak further on the government amendments shortly, should time permit. The Albanese Labor government is committed to continuously improving and adapting to the needs of current and former serving Australian Defence Force personnel and families.</para>
<para>I acknowledge Minister Keogh, who was here in the chamber earlier. I know that he has worked hard on this historic reform, but I know, too, how much he has valued those who've advocated for reform and, especially, those who participated in and bravely shared their experiences with the royal commission. The government also acknowledges the partnership we have been able to form with Senator Lambie, and we thank her for her advocacy, her constructive approach and her dedication to veterans and their families.</para>
<para>This is an historic reform. It will benefit veterans and their families for generations to come. I commend the bill to the Senate.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the second reading amendment on sheet 3321 moved by Senator Davey be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [17:51]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>40</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Blyth, L.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>18</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para><inline font-style="italic">(In division)</inline> Senator Blyth, you cannot move when a division is in place.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ruston</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's my fault.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's even worse that you encouraged her, Senator Ruston.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ruston</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm apologising.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Lambie, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) clarification is needed to ensure that no veteran will be worse off from the passage of this bill,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the bill must fully protect the rights and entitlements of veterans while ensuring there will be no reduction in any form of compensation,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) improvements are needed in the navigation of government processes to ensure veterans can access the support and services they need without unnecessary obstacles,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) it is essential to expedite claim processing times to reduce delays that can adversely affect veterans' financial stability and overall wellbeing,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) veterans are treated less favourably to those receiving support under the National Disability Insurance Scheme; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Government to ensure that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) no veteran will be worse off from the passage of this bill,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) all 122 recommendations from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide are implemented as a matter of priority,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the Department of Veterans' Affairs Medicinal Cannabis Framework is fit for purpose and aligns with current medical research and best practice to support the health and wellbeing of veterans, including for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorders, traumatic brain injuries, chronic pain management, sleep disorders and other health conditions, with a focus on improving quality of life and facilitating return to work; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) all support and services provided by the Department of Veterans' Affairs align with the National Disability Insurance Scheme to ensure fair and equitable outcomes".</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Original question, as amended, agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>91</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With the concurrence of the Senate, the statements of reasons accompanying the requests circulated for this bill will be incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> immediately after the requests to which they relate. There being no objection, it is so ordered.</para>
<para>I have a statement, so I'll just give my statement. This is somewhat unusual, so it could be a learning experience for some.</para>
<para>According to the statement of reasons for the government amendments on sheet ZA257, amendment (3) is covered by section 53 of the Constitution because it changes the destination of money appropriated by section 423 of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. This reflects the advice to the government from the parliamentary counsel, but the Clerk's view is that this does not accord with the precedents of the Senate.</para>
<para>The third paragraph of section 53 provides:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.</para></quote>
<para>This has relevantly been taken to mean that the Senate may not amend a bill to increase the proposed expenditure under a standing appropriation. However, the amendment in question does not have that effect. Quick and Garran, in their commentaries on the Constitution, say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the Senate is only forbidden to amend [bills imposing taxation] and the annual appropriation bill; it may amend two kinds of expenditure bills … those for permanent and extraordinary appropriations … The Senate may amend such money bills so as to reduce the total amount of expenditure or to change the method, object and destination of the expenditure, but not to increase the total expenditure originated in the House of Representatives.</para></quote>
<para>This position is set out at page 671.</para>
<para>The advice of the Clerk, which is set out on the amendment sheet, is that the amendment deals only with the apportionment of expenditure and does not change the total proposed expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 423 of the act. This is highlighted by the note to proposed subsection 80A(2), which makes it clear that the sum of amounts paid to persons cannot exceed the amount the Commonwealth is liable to pay in respect of an eligible person, which is itself a capped amount.</para>
<para>I have considered the views of the parliamentary counsel and the Clerk and consider that the Clerk's view is consistent with the precedents of the Senate. I therefore rule that the amendment should be framed as an amendment, not a request. It's purely of a technical nature, but we won't be making requests to the other House. We will be amending as we see fit.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table two supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government amendments and the request for an amendment to be moved to the bill. I also seek leave to move amendments (1) and (3) on sheet ZA257 together and amendments (1) and (2) on sheet ED101 together.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET ZA257</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1, column 1), omit "3", substitute "4".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 2, item 93, page 104 (line 24) to page 105 (line 2), omit section 80A, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">80A Whom the additional amount is payable to</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) An additional amount under section 80 in respect of an eligible young person or child of the impaired person is payable to the person or persons determined by the Commission in accordance with an instrument made under subsection (3) of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If the additional amount in respect of an eligible young person or child is payable to more than one person, a proportion of the additional amount determined by the Commission in accordance with an instrument made under subsection (3) is payable to each of the persons.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The sum of the amounts paid to each of the persons cannot exceed the amount that the Commonwealth is liable to pay under section 80 in respect of the eligible young person or child.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Commission may, by legislative instrument, specify criteria or other requirements for determining:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person or persons to whom an additional amount in respect of an eligible young person or child is payable; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the additional amount is payable to more than one person—the proportion of the additional amount that is payable to each of the persons.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Without limiting subsection (3), the criteria or other requirements specified may relate to the circumstances surrounding legal responsibility or other arrangements for the care of the eligible young person or child.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">______</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">P ARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Statement of reasons: why certain amendments should be moved as requests</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Section 53 of the Constitution is as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Powers of the Houses in respect of legislation</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">53. Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate. But a proposed law shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or moneys, or to impose taxation, by reason only of its containing provisions for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment or appropriation of fees for licences, or fees for services under the proposed law.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Senate may at any stage return to the House of Representatives any proposed law which the Senate may not amend, requesting, by message, the omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein. And the House of Representatives may, if it thinks fit, make any of such omissions or amendments, with or without modifications.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendment (3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The effect of this amendment is to change the persons to whom additional amounts under section 80 of the <inline font-style="italic">Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004</inline> are payable.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendment is covered by section 53 because it changes the destination of money appropriated by section 423 of the <inline font-style="italic">Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">______</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendment (3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">According to the statement of reasons for the government amendments on sheet ZA257, amendment (3) is covered by section 53 of the Constitution "because it changes the destination of money appropriated by section 423 of the <inline font-style="italic">Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004</inline>". This does not accord with the precedents of the Senate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The third paragraph of section 53 provides that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This has relevantly been taken to mean that the Senate may not amend a bill to increase the proposed expenditure under a standing appropriation. The amendment in question does not have that effect.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendment deals only with the apportionment of expenditure and does not change the total proposed expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 423 of the Act This is highlighted by the note to proposed subsection 80A(2), which makes it clear that the sum of amounts paid to persons cannot exceed the amount the Commonwealth is liable to pay in respect of an eligible person, which itself is a capped amount.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is therefore in accordance with the precedents of the Senate for the amendment to be treated as an amendment, rather than a request. This is the same approach that the Senate took in relation to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Bill 2016.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET ED101</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Page 324 (after line 6), at the end of the Bill, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 9 — Defence and Veterans' Services Commission</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 1 — Main amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Defence Act 1903</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 After Part VIIID</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part VIIIE — Defence and Veterans' Services Commission</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 1 — Preliminary</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZEA Objects of this Part</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The object of this Part is to improve suicide prevention and wellbeing outcomes for serving and ex-serving Australian Defence Force members through the provision of independent, evidence-based advice on system reform to the Australian Government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZEB Simplified outline of this Part</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner conducts inquiries and reports (including with evidence-based findings and recommendations) on matters relating to systemic reform to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) improve suicide prevention for serving and ex-serving Australian Defence Force members; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) improve wellbeing outcomes for serving and ex-serving Australian Defence Force members.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Commissioner may determine that an inquiry is a special inquiry if certain requirements are met, including that to do so is in the public interest. A range of additional powers are available to the Commissioner for the purposes of conducting special inquiries (see Division 3).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Defence and Veterans' Services Commission assists the Commissioner in the performance of the Commissioner's functions under this Part. The Commission consists of the Commissioner and the staff of the Commission.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZEC This Part binds the Crown</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This Part binds the Crown in each of its capacities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) However, this Part does not make the Crown liable to a pecuniary penalty or to be prosecuted for an offence.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZED This Part extends to things outside Australia</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Part extends to acts, omissions, matters and things outside Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZEE Definitions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In this Part:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">accountable authority</inline>,of a Commonwealth entity, has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Australian intelligence entity</inline> means:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Australian Secret Intelligence Service; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Australian Signals Directorate; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Office of National Intelligence; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the part of the Department known as the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) the part of the Department known as the Defence Intelligence Organisation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">authorised member</inline>: see subsection 110ZGJ(2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth body</inline> means a Commonwealth entity or a Commonwealth company.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth company</inline> has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth entity </inline>has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Defence and Veteran Suicide Royal Commission</inline> means the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, issued by the Governor-General by Letters Patent on 8 July 2021 (and including any later variations of those Letters Patent).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">defence member </inline>means a member of the Defence Force.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">eligible Judge</inline>: see subsection 110ZLB(1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">engage in conduct </inline>means:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) do an act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) omit to perform an act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">entrusted person</inline> means:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a member of staff assisting the Commissioner as mentioned in section 110ZKD; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) persons assisting referred to in section 110ZKE; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) consultants engaged under section 110ZKF.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">head</inline>, of an Australian intelligence entity, means:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) in relation to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation—the Director-General of Security; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in relation to the Australian Secret Intelligence Service—the Director-General of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) in relation to the Australian Signals Directorate—the Director-General of the Australian Signals Directorate; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) in relation to the part of the Department known as the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation—the Director of that part of the Department; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) in relation to the part of the Department known as the Defence Intelligence Organisation—the Director of that part of the Department; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) in relation to the Office of National Intelligence—the Director-General of National Intelligence.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Home Affairs Department</inline> means the Department administered by the Minister administering the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Border Force Act 2015</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">IGIS official</inline> means:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any other person covered by subsection 32(1) of the <inline font-style="italic">Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">intelligence information</inline> means information:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) that was acquired or prepared by or on behalf of an Australian intelligence entity in connection with its functions; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that relates to the performance by an Australian intelligence entity of its functions; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) that identifies a person as being, or having been, a staff member (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">Intelligence Services Act 2001</inline>) or agent of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service or the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Example: For paragraph (a)—information provided to an Australian intelligence entity by a foreign government or an agency of a foreign government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Judge</inline>: see subsection 110ZLB(1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">law enforcement or security agency</inline> means any of the following agencies:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Australian Defence Force;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Australian Federal Police;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Australian Crime Commission;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Home Affairs Department;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the police force of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) any other agency prescribed by the rules for the purposes of this definition.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">official</inline>, of a Commonwealth entity, has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">operationally sensitive information</inline> means:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) information about information sources or operational activities or methods available to a law enforcement or security agency; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) information about particular operations that have been, are being or are proposed to be undertaken by a law enforcement or security agency, or about proceedings relating to those operations; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) information provided by a foreign government, or by an agency of a foreign government, where that government does not consent to the public disclosure of the information.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">paid work</inline> means work for financial gain or reward (whether as an employee, a self-employed person or otherwise).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">personal information</inline> has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Privacy Act 1988</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">protected information </inline>means information (including personal information) made or obtained by an entrusted person for the purposes of this Part.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">reasonable excuse</inline> means:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) in relation to any act or omission by a witness before the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner—an excuse which would excuse an act or omission of a similar nature by a witness before a court of law; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in relation to any act or omission by a person summoned as a witness before the Commissioner—an excuse which would excuse an act or omission of a similar nature by a person summoned as a witness before a court of law; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) in relation to any act or omission by a person given a notice under section 110ZGE or subsection 110ZHD(3)—an excuse which would excuse an act or omission of a similar nature by a person served with a subpoena in connection with a proceeding before a court of law.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">rules</inline> means rules made under section 110ZLD.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">secrecy provision</inline> means:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a provision of a law of the Commonwealth that purports to prohibit; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) anything done, under a provision of a law of the Commonwealth, to prohibit;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the communication, divulging or publication of information, the production of, or the publication of the contents of, a document, or the production of a thing.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">State body</inline> means a department or authority of a State.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Territory body </inline>means a department or authority of a Territory.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">use</inline>, in relation to information, includes make a record of.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">veteran </inline>has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Veterans' Recognition (Putting Veterans and Their Families First) Act 2019</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 2 — Investigations by the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZFA Investigation on own initiative</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner may conduct research and inquire into matters relating to systemic reform to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) improve suicide prevention for serving and ex-serving ADF members; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) improve wellbeing outcomes for serving and ex-serving ADF members.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Commissioner may, after conducting research and inquiry under this section, report to the Minister on the outcomes of the research and inquiry (including any recommendations).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A report given under subsection (2) must be given to the Minister, published and tabled in each House of the Parliament in accordance with any requirements of the rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZFB Inquiry into or advice on specific matter on request by Minister</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Minister may request the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) to conduct research and inquire into, and report on, a specific matter relating to systemic reform to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) improve suicide prevention for serving and ex-serving ADF members; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) improve wellbeing outcomes for serving and ex-serving ADF members; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) to advise on a specific matter relating to systemic reform to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) improve suicide prevention for serving and ex-serving ADF members; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) improve wellbeing outcomes for serving and ex-serving ADF members.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Minister may include in such a request terms of reference (including time frames) for the report or advice.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Commissioner must comply with such a request.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If such a request is made in writing, the request is not a legislative instrument.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The Minister may withdraw or amend such a request at any time before the Commissioner gives the report or advice to the Minister.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZFC Inquiries into implementation of Defence and Veteran Suicide Royal Commission recommendations</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner must conduct at least 2 inquiries into the Commonwealth's implementation of the Government's response to the recommendations of the Defence and Veteran Suicide Royal Commission.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) An inquiry under subsection (1) must evaluate the implementation of the Government's response including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the measures and actions taken by the Commonwealth to implement the response; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the effectiveness of those measures and actions in implementing the Government's response.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Reports on an inquiry under subsection (1) must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) be completed no later than the period prescribed by the rules for the inquiry; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) be given to the Minister, published and tabled in each House of the Parliament in accordance with any requirements of the rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZFD Hearings</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner may hold a hearing for the purposes of performing the Commissioner's functions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A hearing is to be held in public and the procedure for a hearing may be such as the Commissioner thinks fit.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For circumstances where hearings may not be held in public, see subsections 110ZFE(1) and (2), and 110ZGQ(6).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Commissioner may issue written guidelines relating to the procedure for hearings.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The rules may make provision in relation to the procedure for hearings: see section 110ZFG.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Guidelines issued under subsection (3) are not a legislative instrument.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The Commissioner is not bound by the rules of evidence.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) The Commissioner must ensure that a record of a hearing is made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZFE Private hearings</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Disclosure of information that is personal</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Despite subsection 110ZFD(2), a hearing, or part of a hearing, may be held in private if the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner is satisfied that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) information relating to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a deceased person or the family, friends or associates of a deceased person; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a defence member or veteran's lived experience with a suicide risk;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">may be disclosed at a hearing; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the information is personal and private.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Disclosure of operationally sensitive information</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Despite subsection 110ZFD(2), a hearing, or part of a hearing, may be held in private if the Commissioner is satisfied that a person appearing at the hearing may give evidence that discloses operationally sensitive information.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: See also section 110ZGG, which requires a person to give notice of likely disclosure of operationally sensitive information to the Commissioner.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Commissioner must have regard to certain matters when considering whether to hold private hearings</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) When considering whether to hold a hearing, or part of a hearing, in private because of subsections (1) and (2), the Commissioner must have regard to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the potential risk of prejudice to national security (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004</inline>), or to the operations of a law enforcement or security agency; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) whether holding the hearing in private would have a substantial adverse effect on the exercise or performance of the Commissioner's functions or powers; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if the Commissioner invites submissions—any submissions received in response; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the safety and security of any person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) whether legal professional privilege, or any other immunity, privilege or restriction may apply to the disclosure of the information; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) any other matters the Commissioner thinks relevant.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other circumstances</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Despite subsection 110ZFD(2), a hearing, or part of a hearing, may be held in private in any other circumstances prescribed by the rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZFF Consultation in relation to certain private hearing evidence</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If a witness gives evidence at a private hearing because of subsection 110ZFE(2) (disclosure of operationally sensitive information), the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner must, before disclosing or using any evidence the witness has given at, or in relation to, the private hearing:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) consult any law enforcement or security agency to which the evidence relates and consider any information received from the agency following the consultation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) consider any potential risk of prejudice to national security (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004</inline>); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) consider the safety and security of any person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If a witness gives evidence at a private hearing because of subsection 110ZFE(1) or (2) (disclosure of personal or operationally sensitive information), the Commissioner must, before disclosing or using any evidence the witness has given at, or in relation to, the private hearing:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) consider consulting the witness, and any other person whose interests are affected by the evidence; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) consider any potential risk of prejudice to a person if the person is not consulted before using or disclosing information given at, or in relation to, a private hearing; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) consider any preference the witness communicates (whether before, during or after a private hearing) to the Commissioner in relation to consultation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The rules may make provision for or in relation to the disclosure or use of evidence given at a private hearing by a witness because of subsection 110ZFE(4).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZFG Other powers relating to inquiries</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subject this Part and any requirements prescribed by the rules, the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner may conduct research and inquire into matters under this Part as the Commissioner sees fit, including in relation to the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) giving notice of an inquiry;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) inviting submissions;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) making submissions publicly available;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) procedures for hearings (public or private);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) providing draft reports for comment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 3 — Special inquiries</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision A — Determining inquiry is a special inquiry</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZGA Special inquiry</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner may make a determination, in writing, that an inquiry being conducted under Division 2 is a special inquiry if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) public notice has been given of the inquiry; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Commissioner is satisfied that it is in the public interest that the powers in this Division may be exercised in relation to the inquiry; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) any other requirements prescribed by the rules are satisfied.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Commissioner may, at any time, revoke such a determination.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A determination under subsection (1) is in force during the period:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) beginning immediately after the determination is made; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ending at the earliest of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the end of the period of 2 years beginning immediately after the determination is made;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the end of the day on which the determination is revoked under subsection (2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Paragraph (3)(b) does not prevent the making of another determination under subsection (1) in the same terms as the expired or revoked determination.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) A determination made under subsection (1) is not a legislative instrument.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision B — Powers that can be used in relation to a special inquiry</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZGB Application of this Subdivision</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Subdivision applies in relation to an inquiry if there is a determination in force under section 110ZGA that the inquiry is a special inquiry.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZGC Summons</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner may, by notice in writing, summon a person to attend a hearing at a time and place specified in the notice:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) to give evidence relevant to the special inquiry; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) to produce documents or things specified in the notice that are relevant to the special inquiry.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Failure to comply with a notice is an offence: see section 110ZHA.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The notice must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) be in writing and be signed by the Commissioner; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) be served on the person required to attend the hearing.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A time specified in a notice must be at least 14 days after the day on which the notice is given.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) However, subsection (3) does not apply if the Commissioner reasonably believes that the circumstances to which the notice relates are urgent or serious.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) For the purposes of sections 110ZHA (failure to produce), 110ZHD and 110ZHE (legal professional privilege), the power of the Commissioner under this section to require a person to give evidence, or produce a document or thing, includes the power to require the person to give evidence, or produce a document or thing, that is subject to legal professional privilege.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Under section 110ZHD, legal professional privilege might still be a reasonable excuse for failing to produce the document etc.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Before giving a notice under subsection (1) to a person, in the person's capacity as someone who is or has been a coroner or an officer or employee of a coroners' court, the Commissioner must consider requesting the coroner or the coroners' court to disclose information in accordance with section 110ZGP.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) If the Commissioner gives a notice under subsection (1) to an official of a Commonwealth entity, the Commissioner must give a copy of the notice to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the official performs duties in, or services for, an Australian intelligence entity—the head of the Australian intelligence entity; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in any other case—the accountable authority of the Commonwealth entity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) If the Commissioner gives a notice under subsection (1) to an officer or employee of a State body or a Territory body, the Commissioner must give a copy of the notice to the head (however described) of the body.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZGD Evidence on oath or by affirmation</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) At a hearing for the inquiry, the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner may:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) require a witness to either take an oath or make an affirmation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) administer an oath or affirmation to the witness.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: Refusal to take an oath or make an affirmation is an offence: see section 110ZHB.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: This means that a hearing is a <inline font-style="italic">judicial proceeding</inline> for the purposes of Part III of the <inline font-style="italic">Crimes Act 1914</inline>, which creates various offences in relation to judicial proceedings.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The oath or affirmation is an oath or affirmation that the evidence the person will give will be true.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Commissioner may allow a person attending a hearing who has been sworn, or who has made an affirmation, to give evidence by tendering a written statement and verifying it by oath or affirmation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZGE Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner may require information etc.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) For the purposes of performing the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner's functions, the Commissioner may, by written notice, require a person:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) to give the Commissioner information relevant to the special inquiry, or a statement setting out information relevant to the special inquiry, in writing referred to in the notice; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) to produce to the Commissioner the documents or things relevant to the special inquiry that are referred to in the notice.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Failure to give the information or statement, or to produce the documents or things, is an offence: see section 110ZHA.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The notice must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) be in writing; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) specify the period within which the person must comply with the notice.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A time specified in a notice must be at least 14 days after the day on which the notice is given.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) However, subsection (3) does not apply if the Commissioner reasonably believes that the circumstances to which the notice relates are urgent or serious.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) For the purposes of sections 110ZHA (failure to produce), 110ZHD and 110ZHE (legal professional privilege), the power of the Commissioner under this section to require a person to give information or a statement, or produce a document or thing includes the power to require the person to give information or a statement, or produce a document or thing, that is subject to legal professional privilege.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Under section 110ZHD, legal professional privilege might still be a reasonable excuse for failing to produce the document etc.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Before giving a notice under subsection (1) to a person, in the person's capacity as someone who is or has been a coroner or an officer or employee of a coroners' court, the Commissioner must consider requesting the coroner or the coroners' court to disclose information in accordance with section 110ZGP.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) If the Commissioner gives a notice under subsection (1) to an official of a Commonwealth entity, the Commissioner must give a copy of the notice to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the official performs duties in, or services for, an Australian intelligence entity—the head of the Australian intelligence entity; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in any other case—the accountable authority of the Commonwealth entity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) If the Commissioner gives a notice under subsection (1) to an officer or employee of a State body or Territory body, the Commissioner must give a copy of the notice to the head (however described) of the body.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZGF Notice of likely disclosure of operationally sensitive information</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Notice requirement</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a person either:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) intends to give evidence, or give or produce to the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner information or a statement, document or thing in relation to the special inquiry (including as authorised under section 110ZGN or 110ZGP); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) is required under section 110ZGC or 110ZGE to give evidence at a hearing, to give or produce to the Commissioner information or a statement, document or thing, in relation to the special inquiry; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the person considers that giving the evidence, or giving or producing the information or statement, document or thing, may involve the person disclosing operationally sensitive information;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the person must give written notice to the Commissioner before giving or producing the evidence, information or statement, document or thing.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Failure to give written notice is an offence if the person holds or has held an Australian Government security clearance: see subsection 110ZHC(1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The notice must describe the evidence, information or statement, document or thing that the person considers to be operationally sensitive information.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Call for submissions</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If the Commissioner is given a notice under subsection (1), the Commissioner may invite submissions from persons or bodies (including law enforcement or security agencies) whose interests may be affected by disclosure of the information.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If the Commissioner invites submissions, the Commissioner must ensure that the information is not disclosed inappropriately in the course of inviting submissions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZGG Notice of likely disclosure of intelligence information</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a person either:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) intends to give evidence, or give or produce to the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner information or a statement, document or thing in relation to the special inquiry (including as authorised under section 110ZGN or 110ZGP); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) s required under section 110ZGC or 110ZGE to give evidence at a hearing, to give or produce to the Commissioner information or a statement, document or thing, in relation to the special inquiry; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the person considers that giving the evidence, or giving or producing the information or statement, document or thing, may involve the person disclosing intelligence information;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the person must give written notice to the Commissioner before giving or producing the evidence, information, statement, document or thing.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Failure to give written notice is an offence if the person holds or has held an Australian Government security clearance: see subsection 110ZHC(2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZGH Powers of Commissioner in relation to documents or other thing</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner may for the purposes of the special inquiry:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) inspect any document or other thing:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) produced or given to the Commissioner; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) produced or given under a notice under section 110ZGC or 110ZGE; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) retain the documents or other thing for so long as is reasonably necessary for the purposes of performing the Commissioner's functions; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) in the case of documents:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) produced or given to the Commissioner; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) produced or given under a notice under section 110ZGC or 110ZGE;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">make copies of any documents that contain matter that is relevant to the Commissioner's functions or powers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZGJ Search warrants</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner or an authorised member may apply for a search warrant under subsection (4) in relation to the special inquiry.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Commissioner may, in writing, authorise a person, or each person in a class of persons, to be an <inline font-style="italic">authorised member</inline> for the purposes of this Part, if the person, or each person in the class of persons, is a member of the Australian Federal Police, or of the police force of a State or Territory, or is a police member (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">Defence </inline><inline font-style="italic">Force Discipline Act 1982</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Commissioner, or an authorised member, has reasonable grounds for suspecting that there may be, at that time or within the next following 24 hours, on any land or on or in any premises, vessel, aircraft or vehicle, a thing or things of a particular kind connected with a matter into which the Commissioner is inquiring (<inline font-style="italic">things of the relevant kind</inline>); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Commissioner, or the authorised member, believes on reasonable grounds that, if a summons were issued for the production of the thing or things, the thing or things might be concealed, lost, mutilated or destroyed;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the Commissioner, or the authorised member, may apply to an eligible Judge for the issue of a search warrant under subsection (4).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If an application is made under subsection (1) to an eligible Judge, the eligible Judge may, if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for issuing the warrant, issue a search warrant authorising a member of the Australian Federal Police or of the police force of a State or Territory, or any other person named in the warrant (the <inline font-style="italic">authorised person</inline>), with such assistance as the authorised person thinks necessary, and if necessary by reasonable force:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) to enter onto the land or on or into the premises, vessel, aircraft or vehicle; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) to search the land, premises vessel aircraft or vehicle for things of the relevant kind; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) to seize any things of the relevant kind found on the land or in the premises, vessel, aircraft or vehicle and deliver things so seized to the Commissioner.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) A warrant issued under this section must include the following information:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a statement of the purpose for which the warrant is issued, which must include a reference to the matter into which the Commissioner is inquiring and with which the things of the relevant kind are connected;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) whether entry is authorised to be made at any time of the day or night or during specified hours of the day or night;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a description of the kind of things authorised to be seized;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a date, not being later than 1 month after the date of issue of the warrant, on which the warrant ceases to have effect.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) If, in the course of searching, in accordance with a warrant issued under this section, for things of a particular kind connected with a matter into which the Commissioner is inquiring, the person executing the warrant finds:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) any thing of another kind that the person believes on reasonable grounds to be connected with that matter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any thing that the person believes on reasonable grounds to be connected with another matter into which the Commissioner is inquiring;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">and the person believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to seize that thing in order to prevent its concealment, loss, mutilation or destruction, the warrant is taken to authorise the person to seize that thing.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZGK Application by telephone for search warrants</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) An application for a search warrant under subsection 110ZGJ(1) may be made by telephone if the applicant for the warrant considers it necessary to do so because of circumstances of urgency.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If an eligible Judge issues a search warrant on an application made by telephone, the eligible Judge must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) complete and sign that warrant; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) inform the applicant of the terms of the warrant and the date on which and the time at which it was signed; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) forward a copy of the warrant to the applicant.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If a search warrant is issued on an application made by telephone, the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner or a member of the Australian Federal Police or of the police force of a State or Territory may complete a form of warrant in the terms indicated by an eligible Judge under subsection (2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) A form of warrant completed in accordance with subsection (3) is taken to be a warrant issued under section 110ZGJ.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZGL Witnesses subject to questioning</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Any of the following may, so far as the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner thinks proper, examine or cross-examine a witness on a matter relevant to a hearing for the purposes of the special inquiry:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a legal practitioner assisting the Commissioner;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any legal practitioner authorised by the Commissioner to appear before it for the purpose of representing any person;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) any person authorised by the Commissioner to appear before the Commissioner.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Subject to this Part, a witness who is examined or cross-examined has the same protection and is subject to the same liabilities as if examined by the Commissioner.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For other witness protections, see section 110ZLC.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZGM Witness expenses and allowances</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A person may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, be paid the following in respect of the giving of evidence as a witness at a hearing for the purposes of the special inquiry, in accordance with a scale prescribed by the rules:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a reasonable amount for the person's expenses of attending at a place to give evidence;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) an allowance for the person's travelling expense and maintenance while absent from the person's usual place of residence.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) In the absence of a prescribed scale, the amount or allowance the person may be paid is the amount or allowance the Commissioner considers reasonable.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZGN Disclosure of information to the Commissioner — Commonwealth</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Authorisation to disclose</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A Commonwealth body, or an individual who holds any office or appointment under a law of the Commonwealth, may, on their own initiative or at the request of the Commissioner, disclose information (including personal information) for the purpose of assisting in the performance or exercise of the Commissioner's functions or powers in for the purposes of the special inquiry.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A disclosure of information is taken not to have been made by a Commonwealth body for the purposes of subsection (1) if the individual making the disclosure is acting beyond the individual's authority in relation to the body.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Authorisation for Commissioner to use</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Commissioner is authorised to use information disclosed under this section for the purposes of performing or exercising any of the Commissioner's functions or powers for the purposes of the special inquiry.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Authorisation not affected by State or Territory law or the general law</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The authorisation in subsection (1) has effect despite anything in a law of a State or Territory, or the general law, that restricts or prohibits disclosure of information.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Penalties also do not apply under secrecy provisions: see section 110ZHQ.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZGP Disclosure of information to the Commissioner — States and Territories</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Authorisation to disclose</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Any of the following may, on their own initiative or at the request of the Commissioner, disclose information (including personal information) for the purpose of assisting in the performance or exercise of the Commissioner's functions or powers for the purposes of the special inquiry:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a State body or Territory body;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) an individual who holds any office or appointment under a law of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a coroner or a coroners' court.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A disclosure of information is taken not to have been made by a State body or Territory body for the purposes of subsection (1) if the individual making the disclosure is acting beyond the individual's authority in relation to the body.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Authorisation for Commissioner to use</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Commissioner is authorised to use information disclosed under this section for the purposes of performing or exercising any of the Commissioner's functions or powers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Authorisation not affected by State or Territory law or the general law</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The authorisation in subsection (1) has effect despite anything in a law of a State or Territory, or the general law, that restricts or prohibits disclosure of information.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Penalties also do not apply under secrecy provisions: see section 110ZHQ.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZGQ Arrangements for obtaining and protecting intelligence information</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Arrangements</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Commissioner must take all reasonable steps to ensure that entrusted persons obtain, store, access, use and disclose intelligence information relating to an Australian intelligence entity for the purposes of a special inquiry only in accordance with an arrangement, between the Commissioner and the head of the entity, that deals with:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the manner in which entrusted persons obtain intelligence information relating to the entity; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the protection of intelligence information relating to the entity while in the possession of entrusted persons; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the disclosure by entrusted persons of intelligence information relating to the entity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Commissioner must take all reasonable steps to ensure that an arrangement is in force for the purposes of subsection (1) with the head of an Australian intelligence entity before obtaining intelligence information relating to the entity for the purposes of a special inquiry.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Subsections (1) and (2) apply despite any other provision of this Part.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Without limiting subsection (1), an arrangement may:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) limit the circumstances in which intelligence information may be disclosed in a report under this Division; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) set out matters to which the Commissioner must have regard in disclosing intelligence information under section 110ZHP.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) However, except as mentioned in paragraph (4)(a), an arrangement cannot prevent the exercise of the Commissioner's powers or the performance of the Commissioner's functions under any provision of this Part (including section 110ZHP).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Conduct of hearings</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Despite subsection 110ZFD(2), if the Commissioner is satisfied that a person appearing at a hearing might disclose intelligence information:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Commissioner may, subject to paragraph (b) of this subsection, conduct the hearing in public or private; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the conduct of the hearing must be consistent with an arrangement entered into for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section with the Australian intelligence entity to which the information relates.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Arrangement is not a legislative instrument</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) If an arrangement is entered into for the purposes of subsection (1) in writing, the arrangement is not a legislative instrument.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZGR Application of this Part in relation to current and former IGIS officials</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Despite anything else in this Part:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an entrusted person may obtain information from another person that the other person acquired as an IGIS official; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a person may disclose information, that the person acquired as an IGIS official, to an entrusted person;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">only in accordance with sections 34 and 34A of the <inline font-style="italic">Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 4 — Offences</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision A — Failure to attend hearing, give information or produce documents etc.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZHA Failure to attend hearing, give information or produce documents etc.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Failure to attend hearing</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A person commits an offence if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person is served with a notice under section 110ZGC to attend a hearing; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the person fails to comply with the notice.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Failure to give information, or produce a document or thing</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A person commits an offence if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person is given a notice under section 110ZGC or 110ZGE to give information or a statement, or produce a document or thing, specified in the notice; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the person fails to comply with the notice.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Reasonable excuse</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the person has a reasonable excuse.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (3): see subsection 13.3(3) of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Defence of relevance</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Subsection (2) does not apply if the information, statement, document or thing is not relevant to the matters into which the Commissioner was inquiring.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (4): see subsection 13.3(3) of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Subsections (1) and (2) not affected by State or Territory law or the general law</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Subsections (1) and (2) have effect despite anything in a law of a State or Territory, or the general law.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Penalties also do not apply under secrecy provisions: see section 110ZHQ.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZHB Refusal to take an oath, make an affirmation or answer a question</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A person commits an offence if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person is served with a notice under section 110ZGC to attend a hearing; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) either:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the person refuses to be sworn or to make an affirmation at the hearing; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the person refuses to answer a question at the hearing that the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner requires the person to answer.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZHC Failure to give written notice to the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Operationally sensitive information</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A person commits an offence if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person is required to give a written notice to the Commissioner under section 110ZGF; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the person holds or has held an Australian Government security clearance (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline>) that allows, or had allowed, access to operationally sensitive information; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the person fails to give the notice in accordance with section 110ZGF.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Intelligence information</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A person commits an offence if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person is required to give a written notice to the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner under section 110ZGG; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the person holds or has held an Australian Government security clearance (within the meaning of the<inline font-style="italic"> Criminal Code</inline>) that allows, or had allowed, access to intelligence information; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the person fails to give the notice in accordance with section 110ZGG.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZHD Legal professional privilege</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) It is not a reasonable excuse for the purposes of subsection 110ZHA(3) for a person to fail to give information or a statement, or produce a document or thing, that the information, statement, document or thing is subject to legal professional privilege, unless:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a court has found the information, statement, document or thing (or the relevant part of it) to be subject to legal professional privilege; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a claim that the information, statement, document or thing (or the relevant part of it) is subject to legal professional privilege has been made to the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) within the time that the Commissioner, in requiring the information or statement to be given, or the document or thing to be produced, allowed for the giving of the information or statement, or the production of the document or thing; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) within such further time as the Commissioner allows for the giving of the information or statement, or the production of the document or thing.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If such a claim is made, the Commissioner may decide whether to accept or reject the claim.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Commissioner may, by written notice served on a person, require the person to produce the information, statement, document or thing for inspection for the purpose of deciding whether to accept or reject the claim.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If the information, statement, document or thing has been produced for inspection and the Commissioner decides to accept the claim, the Commissioner must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) return the information, statement, document or thing to the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) disregard, for the purposes of any report, recommendation or finding that the Commissioner makes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) if the claim is accepted in relation to the whole of the information, statement, document or thing—the whole of the information, statement, document or thing; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) if the claim is accepted in relation to a part of the information, statement, document or thing—that part of the information, statement, document or thing.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) If the information, statement, document or thing has been produced for inspection and the Commissioner decides to reject the claim, the Commissioner may use the information, statement, document or thing for the purposes of performing the Commissioner's function in relation to a special inquiry.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZHE Offences relating to claims for legal professional privilege</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Offences</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A person commits an offence if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person has failed to give information or a statement, or produce a document or thing as required by the Commissioner under section 110ZGC; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Commissioner has decided under subsection 110ZHD(2) to reject a claim that the information or statement, document or thing (or the relevant part of the information, statement, document or thing) is subject to legal professional privilege; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the person fails to give the information or statement, or produce the document or thing as the Commissioner requires, after that decision, under section 110ZGC.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A person commits an offence if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person is required under subsection 110ZHD(3) to give information or a statement, or produce a document or thing for inspection; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the person fails to comply with the notice.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Reasonable excuse</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the person has a reasonable excuse.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Legal professional privilege</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) It is not a reasonable excuse for the purposes of subsection (3) for a person to fail to give information or a statement, or produce a document or thing, that the information, statement, document or thing is subject to legal professional privilege, unless a court has found the information, statement, document or thing to be subject to legal professional privilege.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection: see subsection 13.3(3) of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Defence of relevance</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence against this section constituted by a failure to give information or a statement, or produce a document or thing, if the information, statement, document or thing is not relevant to the matters into which the Commissioner is inquiring.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (5), see subsection 13.3(3) of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZHF Self-incrimination</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) An individual is not excused from giving information, evidence or a statement, or producing a document or thing, under section 110ZGC on the ground that giving the information, evidence or statement, or producing the document or thing, might tend to incriminate the individual in relation to an offence.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: A body corporate is not entitled to claim the privilege against self-incrimination.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) giving the information, evidence or statement, or producing the document or thing, might tend to incriminate the individual in relation to an offence; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the individual has been charged with that offence; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the charge has not been finally dealt with by a court or otherwise disposed of.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) However:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the information, evidence or statement given or document or thing produced; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the giving of the information, evidence or a statement, or the production of the document or thing;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">are not admissible in evidence against the individual in any criminal proceedings, other than:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) proceedings for an offence against section 137.1 or 137.2 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline> that relates to this Part; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) proceedings for an offence against Part III of the <inline font-style="italic">Crimes Act 1914</inline> that relates to this Part; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) proceedings for an offence against this Part.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If, at general law, an individual would otherwise be able to claim the privilege against self-exposure to a penalty (other than a penalty for an offence) in relation to giving information, evidence or a statement, or producing a document or thing under section 110ZGC or 110ZGE, the individual is not excused from giving the information, evidence or statement or producing the document or thing under those provisions on that ground.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: A body corporate is not entitled to claim the privilege against self-exposure to a penalty.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision B — Witness protections etc.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZHG Dismissal etc. of witness</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A person commits an offence if the person:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) dismisses an employee from employment or a defence member from the Defence Force; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) prejudices an employee in the employee's employment by the person or disciplines a defence member in their capacity as a defence member;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">for or on account of the employee or the defence member having:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) appeared as a witness before the Commissioner; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) given evidence before the Commissioner; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) given information or a statement, or produced a document or thing, in accordance with section 110ZGC.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty: 10 penalty units or imprisonment for 1 year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the employee or defence member was dismissed, prejudiced or disciplined for some reason other than the reasons mentioned in subsection (1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (2): see subsection 13.3(3) of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZHJ Contempt of Commissioner</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A person commits an offence if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person engages in conduct; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the conduct obstructs or hinders the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner in the performance or exercise of the Commissioner's functions or powers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty: 2 penalty units or imprisonment for 3 months.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A person commits an offence if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person engages in conduct; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the conduct would, if the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner were a court of record, constitute a contempt of that court.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty: 2 penalty units or imprisonment for 3 months.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision C — Unauthorised publication, use or disclosure of information etc</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZHK Non-publication direction</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner may, in writing, direct that any of the following material must not be published, produced or disclosed or must not be published, produced or disclosed except in the manner or to the persons that the Commissioner specifies:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) evidence given before the Commissioner;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the contents of a document, or a description of a thing, produced or given to the Commissioner;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) information that might enable a person who has given evidence before the Commissioner to be identified.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Publication in contravention of a direction under this subsection is an offence: see section 110ZHL.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Commissioner may, in writing, vary or revoke a direction under subsection (1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Without limiting subsection (1), the Commissioner may direct that the material must not be published, produced, or disclosed to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a court; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a tribunal, authority or person having power to require the production of documents or the answering of questions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZHL Publication in contravention of non-publication direction</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A person commits an offence if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person publishes information; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the publication contravenes a direction under subsection 110ZHK(1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZHM Unauthorised use or disclosure of protected information</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A person commits an offence if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person is, or has been an entrusted person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the person uses or discloses information; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the information is protected information; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) neither of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the use or disclosure is for the purposes of performing or exercising the Commissioner's functions or powers;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the information is disclosed by the Commissioner in accordance with section 110ZHN.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: See Part 5.6 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline> for offences relating to secrecy of information.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZHN Authorisation to disclose information (other than intelligence information)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Authorisation to disclose</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner may disclose information (including personal information) to an entity specified in subsection (2) if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the information was given to the Commissioner in accordance with a notice under section 110ZGC or 110ZGE, or in accordance with section 110ZGN or 110ZGP; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Commissioner is satisfied that the information will assist the entity to perform any of its functions or exercise any of its powers; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) in the case of an entity specified in any of paragraphs (2)(k) to (m) of this subsection—the Commissioner is satisfied that the function or power mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection is connected with defence member or veteran deaths by suicide; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) in any case—the information is not intelligence information.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The entities are the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Australian Federal Police;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the police force of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Director of Public Prosecutions;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) a Special Prosecutor appointed under the <inline font-style="italic">Special Prosecutors Act 1982;</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) a Royal Commission or a body with functions equivalent to a Royal Commission;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) if the information relates, or may relate, to the contravention, or evidence of a contravention, of a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory—an entity responsible for the administration or enforcement of the law;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) the Australian Crime Commission;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the National Anti-Corruption Commissioner (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022)</inline>;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(j) a coroner or a coroners' court;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(k) any other Commonwealth body;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(l) any other State body or Territory body;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(m) any other individual who holds any office or appointment under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Coronial inquiries</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If the Commissioner believes that the disclosure of information under subsection (1) to an entity specified in any of paragraphs (2)(k) to (m) may prejudice a current or future coronial inquiry, the Commissioner must consider consulting:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) for a current coronial inquiry—the coroner conducting the inquiry; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) for a future coronial inquiry—the head of the relevant coronial jurisdiction before disclosing the information.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">State or Territory police investigations</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If the Commissioner believes that the disclosure of information under subsection (1) to an entity specified in any of paragraphs (2)(k) to (m) may prejudice current or future investigations by a police force of a State or Territory, the Commissioner must consider consulting the head (however described) of the police force of the State or Territory before disclosing the information.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Authorisation for agencies and bodies to use and disclose information</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) An entity to which information is disclosed under subsection (1) may use and disclose the information for the purposes for which the information was disclosed under that subsection.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Contravention of a law</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) A reference in paragraph (2)(g) to a contravention of a law is a reference to a contravention for which a person may be liable to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a criminal penalty; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a civil or administrative penalty.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZHP Authorisation to disclose intelligence information</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Authorisation to disclose</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner may disclose intelligence information (including personal information) to an entity specified in subsection (2) if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the information was given to the Commissioner in accordance with a notice under section 110ZGC or 110ZGE, or in accordance with section 110ZGN or 110ZGP; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) except in the case of a disclosure to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—the information relates, or may relate, to the commission, or evidence of the commission, of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) in any case—the Commissioner is satisfied that the information will assist the entity to perform any of its functions or exercise any of its powers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The entities are the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Australian Federal Police;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the police force of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Australian Crime Commission;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the National Anti-Corruption Commissioner (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022</inline>);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) an agency or body, or the holder of an office that is prescribed by the rules for the purposes of this paragraph.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Consultation requirement</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Before disclosing intelligence information under subsection (1) to an entity other than the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the Commissioner must consult the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person mentioned in subsection (4) for the entity;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the head of the Australian intelligence entity to which the information relates.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) For the purposes of paragraph (3)(a), the person for the entity is as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) for the Australian Federal Police—the Commissioner of Police;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) for the police force of a State or Territory—the head (however described) of the police force of the State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) for the Australian Crime Commission—the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Crime Commission;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) for the National Anti-Corruption Commissioner (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022</inline>)—the National Anti-Corruption Commissioner;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) for an agency or body, or the holder of an office, that is prescribed by the rules for the purposes of paragraph (2)(f)—the person holding, or performing the duties of, the principal office in respect of the body or agency that is prescribed by the rules for the purposes of this paragraph.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) For the purposes of paragraph (3)(a), the consultation must cover the protection of the intelligence information while it remains in the entity's possession.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Matters to which Commissioner must have regard in disclosing information</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) In disclosing intelligence information under subsection (1), the Commissioner:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) must have regard to any matter set out in an arrangement entered into with the head of the Australian intelligence entity to which the information relates; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) may have regard to any other matter the Commissioner considers relevant.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZHQ No criminal or civil liability under secrecy provisions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Information provided in accordance with notices</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A person who is served with a notice under section 110ZGC (summons) or 110ZGE (Commissioner may require information etc.) does not commit an offence, and is not liable to any penalty, under a secrecy provision because the person:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) answers a question at a hearing that the Commissioner requires the person to answer; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) gives information or a statement that the person is required to give in accordance with the notice; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) produces a document or thing that the person is required to produce in accordance with the notice.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (1): see subsection 13.3(3) of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Information disclosed under section 110ZGN or 110ZGP</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A person who discloses information under section 110ZGN or 110ZGP does not commit an offence, and is not liable to any penalty, under a secrecy provision because the person disclosed information in accordance with section 110ZGN or 110ZGP.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2): see subsection 13.3(3) of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 5 — Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZJA The Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There is to be a Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZJB Functions of the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner has the following functions:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) to monitor, inquire and report on (including with evidence-based findings and recommendations) on the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) data and trends regarding suicide and suicidality among serving and ex-serving ADF members;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) systemic factors relating to the Commonwealth's administration of policies, programs, systems and practices that contribute to suicide and suicidality among serving and ex-serving ADF members;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the state of the defence and veteran ecosystem, as it relates to the prevention of suicide and suicidality;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) the Commonwealth's implementation of the recommendations of the Defence and Veteran Suicide Royal Commission, including progress, impact and outcomes;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) to conduct research and inquire into, and report and advise on, specific matters as requested by the Minister under section 110ZFB;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) to conduct inquiries into the Commonwealth's implementation of the Government's response to the recommendations of the Defence and Veteran Suicide Royal Commission under section 110ZFC;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) to improve supports for serving and ex-serving Australian Defence Force members;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) to collaborate with coroners to understand issues contributing to defence and veteran deaths by suicide;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) to promote understanding of suicide risks for defence members and veterans and factors that can improve the wellbeing of defence members and veterans, including through engaging with people with lived experiences and promoting that lived experience;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) any other function conferred on the Commissioner by this Act or any other law of the Commonwealth.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) To avoid doubt, the following are not functions of the Commissioner:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) to make findings of civil or criminal wrongdoing;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) to make findings on the manner or cause of death in relation to a death of a defence member or suspected suicide;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) to monitor or inquire into a single exercise of a power, or a single performance of a function or duty.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) In performing the Commissioner's functions, the Commissioner must have regard to the need to avoid prejudicing current or future criminal or civil proceedings or other contemporaneous inquiries.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: An example of a contemporaneous inquiry is a contemporaneous inquiry conducted by the Inspector-General ADF under section 110C of this Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The Commissioner has power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with the performance of the Commissioner's functions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZJC Powers of the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner has power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with the performance of the Commissioner's functions under this Act or any other law of the Commonwealth.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZJD Independence</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subject to this Act and to other laws of the Commonwealth, the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) has complete discretion in the performance of the Commissioner's functions and the exercise of the Commissioner's powers; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) is not subject to direction by any person in relation to the performance of those functions or the exercise of those powers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The Commissioner must comply with a request by the Minister under section 110ZFB to inquire into or advise on specific matters.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZJE Appointment of Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner is to be appointed by the Minister by written instrument.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The Commissioner may be reappointed: see section 33AA of the <inline font-style="italic">Acts Interpretation Act 1901</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Commissioner is to be appointed on a full-time basis.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Commissioner holds office for the period specified in the instrument of appointment. The period must not exceed 5 years.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Before appointing a person as the Commissioner, the Minister must be satisfied that the person has suitable qualifications, training or experience.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZJF Remuneration of Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner is to be paid the remuneration that is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. If no determination of that remuneration by the Tribunal is in operation, the Commissioner is to be paid the remuneration that is prescribed by the rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Commissioner is to be paid the allowances that are prescribed by the rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) This section has effect subject to the <inline font-style="italic">Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZJK Rules in relation to the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The rules may make provision for, or in relation to the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) acting appointments;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) leave of absence;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) engaging in paid work outside the duties of the Commissioner's office without the Minister's approval;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) disclosure of interests;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) resignation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) termination of appointment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZJL Other terms and conditions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner holds office on the terms and conditions (if any) that are determined by the Minister in relation to matters not covered by this Act or the rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 6 — Defence and Veterans' Services Commission</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZKA Defence and Veterans' Services Commission</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Defence and Veterans' Services Commission is established by this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Commission consists of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the staff of the Commission referred to in section 110ZKD.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Application of the Finance Law</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) For the purposes of the finance law (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013</inline>):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Defence and Veterans' Services Commission is a listed entity; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner is the accountable authority of the Commission; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the following persons are officials of the Commission:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the staff of the Commission referred to in section 110ZKD;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the persons assisting referred to in section 110ZKE; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) consultants engaged under section 110ZKF; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the purposes of the Defence and Veterans' Services Commission include:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the functions of the Commission referred to in section 110ZKB; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the functions of the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner referred to in section 110ZJB.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZKB Functions of the Defence and Veterans' Services Commission</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Defence and Veterans' Services Commission's function is to assist the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner in the performance of the Commissioner's functions under this Act or any other law of the Commonwealth.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZKC Powers of the Defence and Veterans' Services Commission</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner has power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with the performance of the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner's functions under this Act or any other law of the Commonwealth.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZKD Staff</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The staff of the Defence and Veterans' Services Commission are to be persons engaged under the <inline font-style="italic">Public Service Act 1999</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) For the purposes of the <inline font-style="italic">Public Service Act 1999</inline>:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner and the staff of the Defence and Veterans' Services Commission together constitute a Statutory Agency; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner is the Head of that Statutory Agency.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZKE Persons assisting</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Commissioner may be assisted by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) officers and employees of Agencies (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">Public Service Act 1999</inline>), and of authorities of the Commonwealth, whose services are made available to the Commissioner in connection with the performance of any of the Commissioner's functions; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) persons whose services are made available under arrangements made under subsection (2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Commissioner may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, make an arrangement with the appropriate authority or officer of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a State or Territory government; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a State or Territory government authority;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">under which the government or authority makes officers or employees available to the Commissioner to perform services in connection with the performance of any of the Commissioner's functions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) An arrangement under subsection (2) may provide for the Commonwealth to reimburse a State or Territory with respect to the services of a person to whom the arrangement relates.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) When performing services for the Commissioner under this section, a person is subject to the directions of the Commissioner.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZKF Consultants</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, engage consultants to assist in the performance of the Defence and Veterans' Services Commission's functions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The consultants are to be engaged on the terms and conditions that the Commissioner determines in writing.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 7 — Other provisions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZLA Other matters</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The rules may make provision for, or in relation, to the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) delegation by the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner of powers and functions under this Part;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) reporting by the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner or the Defence and Veterans' Services Commission in relation to performance of functions and exercise of powers under this Part.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZLB Eligible judges</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) In this Part:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">eligible Judge </inline>means a Judge in relation to whom a consent under subsection (2) and a declaration under subsection (3) are in force.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Judge</inline> means a person who is a Judge of a court created by the Parliament.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A Judge may by writing consent to be nominated by the Attorney-General under subsection (3).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Attorney-General may by writing declare Judges in relation to whom consents are in force under subsection (2) to be eligible Judges for the purposes of this Part.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZLC Protection of Commissioner, legal practitioners, eligible Judges and witnesses</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Commissioner has, in the performance or exercise of functions or powers under this Part, the same protection and immunity as a Justice of the High Court.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A legal practitioner assisting the Commissioner or appearing on behalf of a person at a hearing before the Commissioner has the same protection and immunity as a barrister has in appearing for a party in proceedings in the High Court.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) An eligible Judge has, in relation to the performance or exercise of a function or power conferred on an eligible Judge by this Part, the same protection and immunity as a Justice of the High Court has in relation to proceedings in the High Court.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Subject to this Part, a person appearing as a witness at a hearing, or giving or producing information, evidence, a statement, a document or thing under section 110ZGC or 110ZGE, has the same protection as a witness in proceedings in the High Court.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZLD Rules</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules prescribing matters:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) required or permitted by this Part to be prescribed by the rules; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to this Part.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) To avoid doubt, the rules may not do the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) create an offence or civil penalty;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) provide powers of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) arrest or detention; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) entry, search or seizure;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) impose a tax;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) set an amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under an appropriation in this Part;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) directly amend the text of this Part.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110ZLE Review of the operation of this Part</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Minister must cause an independent review of the operation of this Part to be undertaken as soon as practicable after the end of the period of 36 months after the commencement of this Part.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the effectiveness of the functions and powers of the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner and the Defence and Veterans' Services Commission to achieve the objects of this Part; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) whether it would be appropriate to provide for the future operation of the Defence and Veterans' Services Commissioner and the Defence and Veterans' Services Commission in standalone legislation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The persons who undertake the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months of the commencement of the review.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">______</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Statement of reasons: why certain amendments should be moved as requests</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Section 53 of the Constitution is as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Powers of the Houses in respect of legislation</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">53. Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate. But a proposed law shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or moneys, or to impose taxation, by reason only of its containing provisions for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment or appropriation of fees for licences, or fees for services under the proposed law.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Senate may at any stage return to the House of Representatives any proposed law which the Senate may not amend, requesting, by message, the omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein. And the House of Representatives may, if it thinks fit, make any of such omissions or amendments, with or without modifications.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendment (2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The effect of this amendment is to establish the office of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner, a new public office within the meaning of Part II of the <inline font-style="italic">Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973</inline>. It is covered by section 53 because it will increase the amount of expenditure out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund under the standing appropriation in subsection 7(13) of that Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">______</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendment (2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If the effect of the amendment is to increase the amount of expenditure under subsection 7(13) of the <inline font-style="italic">Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973</inline>, then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.</para></quote>
<para>I will provide a brief explanation of each of these. The government does seek to bring forward three additional amendments, as I indicated in my second reading contribution, and the decision to do so follows the Senate inquiry into this bill, the release of the final report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, the advocacy from the veterans community, and consultation with the opposition, the Jacqui Lambie Network and the Australian Greens.</para>
<para>The government moves an amendment on sheet ZA257 where a new provision is to be inserted to provide for a Senate foreign affairs and defence committee to initiate a review on the VETS bill changes, to be conducted 12 months after the act commences. There will be broad scope to review all aspects of the reform, specifically how well the changes to the legislation framework have been implemented in the evolution of the veterans compensation and support system, and the intent is to provide an assurance mechanism that the objectives are being achieved and the processes and functions are performing in line with community expectations. We consider that having a review scheduled in advance through legislation demonstrates the government's commitment to transparency, accountability and responsiveness.</para>
<para>The second government amendment, which is on the same sheet, ZA257, relates to one of the changes originally proposed in the bill, relating to lump-sum payments to veterans with severe impairment in relation to their children under section 80 of the MRCA. This compensation is for the additional financial strain of raising children impacted by the service of their veteran parent. The lump sum is currently paid to the veteran regardless of which parent has actual parental responsibilities for the child or children. The VETS bill initially set out changes to allow the lump sum to be paid to the primary carer of the child, which may be the veteran or another person. Feedback on the bill highlighted that the original drafting limited payment to only one parent, rather than allowing for apportionment based on actual caring and family arrangements. In response to this feedback, the government proposes that the VETS bill be amended to account for all combinations of caring arrangements in veterans' families and provide for the lump sum to be apportioned where necessary.</para>
<para>An instrument-making power will be inserted for the Repatriation Commission to prescribe the criteria and requirements for determining the payees as well as their share of the compensation amount, in a manner similar to other government payments, such as family tax benefit and DVA education allowance payments under the MRCA. The revised approach, to be reflected in section 80 of the MRCA, recognises that there are varying caring arrangements that may apply in the community and ensures there is appropriate flexibility to provide support to separated families.</para>
<para>The final government amendments, on sheet ED101, are proposed in response to recommendation 122 of the final report from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. As this bill was still before the parliament when the government delivered our formal response to the final report, on 2 December 2024, and, recognising the urgency veterans attach to this recommendation, we're taking this opportunity to legislate to implement this recommendation as a priority.</para>
<para>I spoke a little about this in my second reading contribution, but I note also that the government has recently announced the appointment of Mr Michael Manthorpe PSM as the interim head of the Defence and Veterans Services Commission, to commence work on getting the commission up and running. The interim commissioner will also be able to advise government before the statutory role commences in September 2025, as recommended by the royal commission, on any improvements to this legislation that may be required.</para>
<para>As the senators would be aware, the government has already established a taskforce in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet which will draw on expertise from across government as well as external experts to consider matters of detailed implementation of the government's response to the final report, including further work regarding recommendations that were noted.</para>
<para>The independence of the commissioner is assured by the ability to always conduct an inquiry of their own volition regardless of any direction of the minister. The remit of the commissioner follows that which was set by the royal commission, including the use of the term 'ecosystem', which is deliberately broad and not confined by further definition but would include non-government organisations, such as ex-service organisations and service providers, as well as defence and veteran families in the context of the overall purpose and functions of the commission, with a systems view of defence and veteran suicide prevention and wellbeing. Implementing the government's response to the royal commission will result in the most comprehensive reform ever undertaken to the culture, systems and processes across the Department of Defence, the Australian Defence Force and the Department of Veterans' Affairs to prevent suicide and improve mental health and wellbeing of serving personnel and of veterans.</para>
<para>I thank all of those who have worked productively with the government on this bill—the opposition, the Jacqui Lambie Network, the Australian Greens and their staff—and I thank you also for recognising the significance of this bill. The transformative reforms in this bill are only possible because of the support and the engagement that has been received from all sides of politics. And, again, I acknowledge the significance of supporting our service personnel, our veterans and their families. I thank those veterans, veteran families, ex-service organisations and experts who have contributed to the development of this legislation. It will benefit the veteran community for generations to come, and I commend these amendments to the Senate.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Amendment (1), omit "substitute '4'", substitute "substitute '5'".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Amendment (2), subclause 4(1), omit "A Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade", substitute "The Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Amendment (2), after clause 4, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 Review of amendments in Schedule 9</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) begin a review of the amendments in Schedule 9 to this Act as soon as practicable after the day this Act receives the Royal Assent; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) report the Committee's findings to the Senate by 29 August 2025.</para></quote>
<para>While we support the government's amendments, we are moving these amendments to include a review, should it pass, of the veterans commissioner to be. The reason why we believe this review must take place is that their amendment, which would add schedule 9 to the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024, has come about at the last minute. There has been a lack of consultation.</para>
<para>The veterans community was taken by surprise when they read about their amendment. The veterans community has been engaged from the outset of developing this bill. They have participated in good faith. They participated in the recent Senate inquiry into the substantive bill, at which time this commissioner was not foreshadowed. At that point in time, the veterans community understood that an interim commissioner had been appointed who would work on developing a framework for a legislated commission to be in place by September this year.</para>
<para>Their amendment fast-tracks that process and puts the cart before the horse, so to speak, and veterans have not been consulted. Veterans are gravely concerned about what it means and how it will be rolled out. So, briefly, we are moving these amendments to ensure that the Senate can undertake the due diligence and scrutiny that should have happened with an amendment of this scale. I commend our amendments to the amendment to the chamber.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McAllister</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>For clarity, I simply wanted to indicate that, as I understand it, we are presently debating the amendments on ZA257, sheet 3322 and also ED101, and I just wanted to confirm that that is a shared understanding across the chamber.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll speak to that bevy of amendments. To be clear, the Greens are grateful for the minister's consultation in terms of the review. We think that it's important that the review be undertaken almost in real time as these amendments are being rolled out. The original proposition was to have a review which would happen significantly after the commencement of the act. The amendments on sheet ZA257, moved by the government, will see the review begin as soon as practicable and within a period of no more than 12 months after the act commences.</para>
<para>It is almost certain, with legislation this complex, that there will be unintended consequences. We think picking them up as early as possible is critically important. We note the breadth of the review proposed to be run by one of the Senate standing committees on foreign affairs, defence and trade, and, again, we're grateful for the government engaging with us and with veterans and listening. We think this review will be both timely and essential.</para>
<para>When it comes to the opposition's amendments—we will end up supporting them, on balance—part of the difficulty we've confronted is that there will then be multiple reviews running, potentially, in parallel. Remember that separate to this we also have the process being undertaken by Mr Manthorpe, who's been engaged by the government to consider what the commission should look like, in implementing recommendation 122 of the royal commission. Since the engagement of Mr Manthorpe, we've now had the government's amendments to form schedule 9, which will institute the commission. So we have these amendments, which we will end up supporting, to institute a commission for oversight, in accordance with recommendation 122; we'll have Mr Manthorpe engaging in a process of determining what that commission should look like; and we'll have the review, by one of the Senate committees for foreign affairs, defence and trade, into what the commission should look like and how recommendation 122 should be implemented. Then we'll also have that Senate standing committee do the broader review some 12 months after the commencement of the act.</para>
<para>I think cooperation between the different parties and the government will be desperately needed in the new parliament to ensure these processes aren't tripping over each other and to ensure we're not putting veterans through multiple different parallel processes. The committee's review of the commission, I think, is essential. How that works with Mr Manthorpe's review, I think, is going to have to be a work in progress. We'll have to make that happen. The broader review of the amending bill itself is also essential.</para>
<para>I want to say clearly to those veterans who are somewhat confused about the multiple hounds running off at the same time as a result of these different reviews that I accept your confusion and I understand why you're confused. I think we all have an obligation to make sure these processes are not tripping over each other and to ensure, as best as possible, that common submissions can be considered and, if possible, that the two reviews run by the standing committee don't replicate the work but are focused and don't put veterans through unnecessary process.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If there are no further questions, I'll put the question. The first question is that the opposition's amendments on sheet 3322, to government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet ZA257, be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The next question is that the government amendments on sheet ZA257, as amended, and the amendment and request for an amendment on sheet ED101 be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments and the request for amendments as circulated by the Australian Greens.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I withdraw the Greens amendments on sheet 3149.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to withdraw Jacqui Lambie Network amendments on sheets 3059 and 2912.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw the amendments and I seek leave to move committee of the whole amendments standing in my name on sheets 2910, 3051, 2913 and 3049.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 2910</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, heading to Division 4 of Part 3, page 51 (line 13), at the end of the heading, add "or while at work etc.".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, item 112, page 51 (after line 26), after paragraph 28(1)(ea), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(eb) the death occurred, or the injury or disease from which the person died was sustained or contracted, while the person was:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) at the person's place of work (other than civilian work); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) temporarily absent from the person's place of work (other than civilian work) during an ordinary recess in that work;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 1, item 113, page 52 (line 2), after "(ea)", insert ", (eb)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 1, page 52 (after line 2), after item 113, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">113A Subparagraph 29(1)(a)(i)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "service injury or service disease", substitute "injury or disease".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 1, item 114, page 52 (line 6), after "(ea)", insert ", (eb)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Schedule 1, item 115, page 52 (line 10), after "(ea)", insert ", (eb)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3051</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Page 1 (before line 5), before clause 1, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 1 — Preliminary</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "Sections 1 to 3", substitute "Parts 1 and 2".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Page 3 (after line 5), after clause 3, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 2 — Research into veteran health and wellbeing</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 1 — Preliminary</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 Definitions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) In this Part:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">defence member</inline> means a member of the Defence Force.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Defence Minister</inline> means the Minister administering section 1 of the <inline font-style="italic">Defence Act 1903</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Department of Defence</inline> means the Department administered by the Defence Minister.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Department of Veterans' Affairs</inline> means the Department administered by the Veterans' Affairs Minister.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Expert Committee</inline> means the Expert Committee on Veteran Research established by section 9.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">veteran</inline> means a person who has served, or is serving, as a member of the Permanent Forces or as a member of the Reserves.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Veterans' Affairs Minister</inline> means the Minister administering the <inline font-style="italic">Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) In subsection (1), the following terms have the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Defence Act 1903</inline>:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Defence Force;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Permanent Forces;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Reserves.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 Departments to which this Part applies</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Part applies to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Department of Defence; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Department of Veterans' Affairs.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 2 — Research into veteran health and wellbeing</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 Research workplans</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A department to which this Part applies must prepare a research workplan.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Content of </inline> <inline font-style="italic">research workplans</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A research workplan must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) outline the immediate research priorities of the department in relation to issues affecting the health and wellbeing of defence members and veterans; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) outline the long-term research goals and priorities in relation to issues affecting the health and wellbeing of defence members and veterans; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) include information on any planned research activities and research that is currently being undertaken under each research priority outlined under paragraph (a), including the timeframes for the completion and publication of the research; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) identify any current evidence gaps that are apparent in relation to a priority or goal under paragraphs (a) or (b) and detail action that is required or planned to address those gaps; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) establish frameworks for the routine release of information held by the department to external researchers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) In determining the research priorities to be outlined in a research workplan the department must consult the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) defence members and veterans;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) researchers in relevant fields of academic study relating to issues affecting the health and wellbeing of defence members and veterans;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Expert Committee on Veteran Research.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">First research workplan</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The first research workplan prepared by a department under this section must be completed before the end of the period of 3 months starting on the day this Part commences.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Research workplans to be updated annually</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) A department that has prepared a research workplan under this section must update the research workplan annually taking account of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) any research activities undertaken during the year under each research priority outlined in the research workplan;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any new research activities that are planned to be undertaken;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) any insights gained as a result of the research conducted;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the outcome of periodic reviews of research priorities undertaken under subsection (6).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Periodic review of research priorities</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Periodic reviews are to be undertaken of the research priorities outlined in research workplans prepared under this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) The purpose of a periodic review undertaken under subsection (6) is to ensure research priorities outlined in a research workplan remain relevant to the strategic direction of the veteran support system.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) A periodic review must be completed by the end of each of the following periods:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the 3 year period that starts when the first research workplan prepared under this section is published;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) each later 3 year period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Publication and tabling of research workplans</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) A department that has prepared a research workplan must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) publish the research workplan on the department's website as soon as reasonably practicable after the workplan has been prepared; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) give a copy of the research workplan to the Defence Minister or Veterans' Affairs Minister (as the case requires).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) The Defence Minister or the Veterans' Affairs Minister (as the case requires) must cause a copy of a research workplan to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the research workplan is given to the minister.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) To avoid doubt, subsection (9) applies to a research workplan that has been updated by a department under subsection (5).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 Research findings are to be published</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Subject to subsection (2), a department to which this Part applies must publish on the department's website the findings of any research undertaken in accordance with a research workplan.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to research, or parts of research, that includes information the disclosure of which would involve genuine legal, commercial or national security sensitivities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) It is the intention of the Parliament that research that is to be published in accordance with subsection (1) should be subject to review by independent researchers, including by the Expert Committee, prior to publication.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 3 — Expert Committee on Veteran Research</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">9 Establishment</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Expert Committee on Veteran Research is established.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Veterans' Affairs Minister is to determine in writing the composition of the Expert Committee, including the qualifications of its members.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Veterans' Affairs Minister is to appoint the members of the Expert Committee on a part-time basis, and must appoint one of the members to chair the Expert Committee.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) A person must not be appointed as a member of the Expert Committee unless the Veterans' Affairs Minister is satisfied that the appointment of the person would ensure that the Expert Committee members collectively:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) include members who are experts from government, academia and the private sector with an appropriate balance of skills and experience across the following areas:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) military and veterans' affairs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) injury and illness prevention, including work health and safety;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) mental and physical health care;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) rehabilitation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) family support and other compensation systems or social insurance schemes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) include members with lived experience of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) service life; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) suicidality; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) poor mental health.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">10 Functions of the Expert Committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The functions of the Expert Committee in relation to a department to which this Part applies are:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) to provide input to the department in the development of research priorities and research workplans; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) to monitor the outcomes of a research workplan; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) to provide advice to the department on research and evaluation matters relevant to improving the wellbeing of defence members and veterans.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 2913</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, Part 3, page 69 (after line 36), at the end of the Part, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 15 — Time limits for determining certain claims</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">204 At the end of Part 2 of Chapter 7</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">343A Time limit for determining certain claims</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Claims for compensation for permanent impairment</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If a person makes a claim under section 319 for compensation under Part 2 of Chapter 4 (permanent impairment), the Commission must determine the claim by the end of the period of 120 days (the <inline font-style="italic">consideration period</inline>) beginning on the day the claim is made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If the Commission does not determine the claim by the end of the consideration period, the Commission is taken to have accepted the claim.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Claims for compensation for incapacity</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If a person makes a claim under section 319 for compensation under Part 3 or 4 of Chapter 4 (incapacity), the Commission must determine the claim by the end of the period of 90 days (the <inline font-style="italic">consideration period</inline>) beginning on the day the claim is made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If the Commission does not determine the claim by the end of the consideration period, the Commission is taken to have accepted the claim.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Stopping the clock</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) If the Commission requests further information in relation to a claim for compensation under Part 2, 3 or 4 of Chapter 4, the time taken for the Commission to receive the further information is not to be included in the relevant consideration period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3049</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 3, item 10, page 131 (line 29), omit "other than", substitute "including".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 3, item 10, page 132 (lines 1 to 3), omit subsection 352G(3).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 3, item 10, page 152 (line 11) to page 153 (line 14), section 353L to be opposed.</para></quote>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask that the amendment on sheet 2910 be put separately.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that section 353L in item 10 of schedule 3—amendment (3) on sheet 3049—stand as printed.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the Jacqui Lambie Network amendments on sheet 2910 be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the Jacqui Lambie Network amendments on sheets 2913 and 3051 and amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3049 be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [18:23]<br />(The Temporary Chair—Senator Sterle)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>17</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>22</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The time for debate on the bill has expired.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>117</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to the contingent notice standing in my name, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the bill without limitation of time.</para></quote>
<para>I know it's a pain when the crossbench does this, but I think Australians probably need to know what's happening here. We have record numbers of Australians being scammed, yet we're having the Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2025 just rushed through this place. The crossbenchers haven't even had time to get amendments drafted. Is that what we want our democracy to be? I find this extraordinary.</para>
<para>The coalition need to have a good hard look at themselves. Senator Dean Smith, from the great state of Western Australia, engaged in the Senate inquiry in good faith. Anyone watching would have seen the probing questions he asked. The coalition put in a very good set of comments and recommendations. Then, it seems, his party said: 'Great work, Dean, but do you know what? We don't care. We don't care what the evidence says, what was tendered to the committee or what you're recommending, because we're just going to roll over. We're going to do a deal on electoral reform and we're going to ram through scams legislation.' This is scams legislation that is so undercooked!</para>
<para>Anyone paying attention in the Senate committee process would have heard experts and consumer groups say, 'This is legislation that is stacked in the interests of the banks.' I find it astounding that on such a big issue we have a lack of evidence based policy. We're told: 'We've got to get this legislation through. It doesn't matter that if it's not going to be effective. It doesn't matter if the codes won't come into effect for ages. It's urgent.'</para>
<para>To the coalition: after your additional comments in the report, it is disgraceful that you're happy to put this bill through unamended. I think it shows real disrespect to Australians. I've met so many people who have lost hundreds of dollars, thousands of dollars, tens of thousands of dollars or hundreds of thousands of dollars. Some have lost millions of dollars. And you guys are happy to just give them the middle finger and say: 'Well, here's some scams legislation. It's better than nothing.'</para>
<para>The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has called the bill in its current form 'unworkable'. The crossbench had briefings with the peak consumer groups, and they said, 'In its current form, this does not work for Australians and should not pass.' They engaged in good faith. The crossbench have tried to engage in good faith, and you have put us in a position where we can't even get our amendments drafted. The crossbench has raised concerns about drafting resources in this place many times. It doesn't seem to have improved. The poor drafters in there are working their arses off, and you won't give them extra resources.</para>
<para>I hope Australians see this for what it is: disrespecting our democracy by not allowing elected representatives to at least engage in a debate. We have had no second reading speeches, no time for committee process and no time to even get amendments drafted for this, and why? The codes that hold everything in this legislation haven't even been drafted. We're told that it will take a very long time to develop them.</para>
<para>I wasn't that surprised when Minister Jones put forward legislation that looked like it had been drafted by Anna Bligh and the Australian Banking Association. I honestly wasn't surprised. What I was surprised by was the coalition, after engaging in good faith—as I said, Senator Dean Smith does excellent work in this Senate, at estimates and in committees. But you don't care. At the end of the day, it's self-interest and vested interest. Australians deserve better. I don't understand why you're doing this.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We will not be supporting the suspension motion. We allowed time for consideration of those bills in the motion today, but obviously senators were keen to debate veterans entitlements legislation, which I acknowledge a huge amount of work has gone into, and we are in the middle of that right now.</para>
<para>Can I just also add that the comments from Senator Pocock about the scam legislation are offensive, and there is no-one in this country who has done more to protect people from scams than Minister Jones. He has spent years on this—years and years of attending forums, consulting with people and working with stakeholders—and for you to diminish that and say that he's done this in the pursuit of self-interest is absolutely offensive. From time to time, we need to get things done in this Senate. That was how the Senate resolved on this procedural motion today. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the question be now put.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pocock, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator David Pocock</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Insinuating motives—that was not why I said that.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [18:38]<br />(The Temporary Chair—Senator Pratt)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>18</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>25</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>119</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>119</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7217" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>119</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to order, we will go back to questions on amendments in committee. The question before the chamber now is that the Australian Greens amendment on sheet 3285 and requests for amendments on sheets 3021 and 3023 be agreed to.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Australian Greens circulated amendment—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3285</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, page 21 (after line 6), after item 66, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">66A After Part 6 of Chapter 11</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 6A — Review</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">438A Review of meaning of <inline font-style="italic">warlike service</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted into whether it is appropriate for the meaning of the expression <inline font-style="italic">warlike service</inline> in section 6 to include peacekeeping service, including in areas of high risk and local or regional instability.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The review must make provision for public consultation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The review must start as soon as practicable after the commencement of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months of the commencement of the review.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.</para></quote>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Australian Greens circulated requests for amendments—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3021</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5), omit the table item, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Page 268 (after line 14), after Schedule 6, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 6A — Nuclear test participants</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests and British Commonwealth Occupation Force (Treatment) Act 2006</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Subparagraph 5(3A)(b)(iv)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "; and".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 At the end of paragraph 5(3A)(b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; or (v) an officer or employee of a government body, or an authority, of South Australia acting in the course of the officer or employee's duties; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3021-EM</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">______</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendment (2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendment (2) is framed as a request because it adds an additional class of persons who are eligible to be provided with Commonwealth-funded treatment under the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests and British Commonwealth Occupation Force (Treatment) Act 2006</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As the effect of the amendment is to increase the number of individuals who would be eligible to be provided with Commonwealth-funded treatment, the amendment is likely to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 49 of the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests and British Commonwealth Occupation Force (Treatment) Act 2006</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendment (1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendment (1) is consequential to amendment (2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">______</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendment (2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 49 of the<inline font-style="italic"> Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests and British Commonwealth Occupation Force (Treatment) Act 2006</inline> then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendment (1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This amendment is consequential on the request. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 58, page 15 (lines 17 and 18), omit the item, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">58 Paragraphs 6(1)(a) and (b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) <inline font-style="italic">warlike service </inline>means service with the Defence Force that is of a kind determined in writing by the Defence Minister to be warlike service for the purposes of this Act, or service that is National Service Act service; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) <inline font-style="italic">non-warlike service </inline>means service with the Defence Force that is of a kind determined in writing by the Defence Minister to be non-warlike service for the purposes of this Act; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, item 60, page 20 (after line 7), after section 6C, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> 6D Meaning of <inline font-style="italic">National Service Act service</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A person has rendered <inline font-style="italic">National Service Act service </inline>if the person rendered service because of a notice under section 26 of the <inline font-style="italic">National Service Act 1951 </inline>in the period beginning on 24 November 1964 and ending on 5 December 1972.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) applies regardless of whether the service was undertaken outside Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3023-EM</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendment (1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendment (1) is framed as a request because it adds an additional class of persons who are eligible to be provided with income support under Part III of the <inline font-style="italic">Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As the effect of the amendment is to increase the number of individuals who would be eligible to be provided with income support, the amendment is likely to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 199 of the <inline font-style="italic">Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendment (2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendment (2) is consequential to amendment (1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">______</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendment (1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 199 of the <inline font-style="italic">Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 </inline>then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendment (2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This amendment is consequential on the request. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request.</para></quote>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [18:42]<br />(The Temporary Chair—Senator Pratt)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>16</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>25</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I'd like to note my support for the amendment on sheet 3285.</para>
<para>Bill, as amended, agreed to, subject to a request.</para>
<para>Bill reported with amendments and a request; report adopted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>121</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration of Legislation</title>
          <page.no>121</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—For the benefit of the chamber, I indicate that the government will be granting leave for any amendments moved after the two-hour deadline for the purposes of the bills that we are currently considering. This is to recognise that the motion agreed earlier was agreed after the two-hour deadline that is being applied. We will not, however, have the same approach to the bill that's being considered later tonight, as the deadline for amendments to be circulated has not yet passed.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>122</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2025</title>
          <page.no>122</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7275" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2025</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>122</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will start with the second-reading amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. One of these amendments was not circulated within the timeframe and can only be considered by leave.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move Greens amendments on sheets 3294 and 3324:</para>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3294</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) too many people and their families experience significant harm from scams each year,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) instead of implementing a best practice model to prevent scams, Labor has caved to the interests of the major banks and their multi-billion-dollar profits, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) under Labor's bill, it would take a person impacted by a scam up to 30 steps and 2 years to seek redress, and at the end of the process there is no guarantee they will get any of their money back; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Government to amend the bill to include a presumption of reimbursement, similar to the UK model, which would require banks to promptly reimburse people who have been scammed, and then recover costs from other businesses involved in the scam in proportion to their liability, including telcos and digital platforms".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3324</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the bill fails to address the jurisdictional impediments to enforcement of laws against offshore social media companies,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) any measures or civil penalties the bill imposes on online platforms will be unenforceable and require voluntary compliance,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society considered the impact of online scams and jurisdictional impediments and recommended that the Australian Government consider options for greater enforceability of Australian laws for social media platforms, including amending regulation and legislation, to effectively bring digital platforms under Australian jurisdiction; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Government to urgently act to bring digital platforms under Australian jurisdiction and ensure jurisdiction is not an impediment to enforcement measures in the bill".</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the Australian Greens amendments on sheets 3294 and 3324 be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [18:50]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>14</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>29</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will now deal with the second reading amendment circulated by Pauline Hanson's One Nation. As this amendment was not circulated within the required timeframe, it can only be considered by leave.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that this legislation fails to make adequate provisions for the compensation of vulnerable Australians who have been victims of scams; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Government to introduce legislation similar to the successful UK model of reimbursement, which ensures that banks are required to initially refund scam victims, providing stronger consumer protection and accountability in the financial sector".</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that Pauline Hanson's One Nation amendment on sheet 3325 be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [18:54]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>18</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>26</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.<br />Original question agreed to.<br />Bill read a second time.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by the government. I understand the minister has a document to table.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to the Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2025.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the government amendments on sheet FR102 be agreed to.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Government's circulated amendments—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 13 (line 9), before "Matters", insert "(1)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 13 (after line 16), at the end of section 58BB, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) In determining whether a regulated entity has taken <inline font-style="italic">reasonable steps</inline> for the purposes of a provision of this Division, the primary consideration must be the matter in paragraph (1)(e) (if applicable).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 30 (after line 34), after subsection 58BZE(1), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1A) To avoid doubt, guidelines prescribed for the purposes of subparagraph (1)(b)(ii) do not have to be consistent with sections 58FZD to 58FZK (about proportionate liability for concurrent wrongdoers in actions for damages).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 44 (after line 24), at the end of Subdivision B, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">58EFA Roles and responsibilities statement</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The SPF general regulator must publish a statementon its website summarising, in general terms, the roles and responsibilities of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) each SPF regulator; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) each operator of an SPF EDR scheme; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) any other entity the SPF general regulator considers appropriate;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">with respect to the regulation, enforcement and administration of the SPF provisions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The purpose of the statement is to explain these matters at a high level.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Before publishing the statement, the SPF general regulator must consult the entities mentioned in subsection (1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The statement is not a legislative instrument.</para></quote>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask that you put amendments (1) and (2) separately to amendments (3) and (4). I can indicate that's because the Australian Greens will be voting differently on those matters.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet FR102 be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [18:58]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>27</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>11</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that government amendments (3) and (4) on sheet FR102 be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>125</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Security Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes) Bill 2025</title>
          <page.no>125</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7310" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Security Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes) Bill 2025</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>125</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a first time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>125</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I shall now deal with the second reading amendment circulated by the Australian Greens. As this amendment was not circulated within the required timeframe, it can only be considered by leave.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Disability Support Pension (DSP) partner income test traps disabled people in abusive relationships by forcing people into a dynamic of financial dependency,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the DSP partner income test also prevents members of the community from forming relationships and getting married, and genuine marriage and partner equality must include the abolition of the partner income test,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the low rate of the DSP forces many disabled people in vicious cycles of poverty, fear and pain,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) the tightening of eligibility of the DSP forces many people living with disability to rely on the lower rate under JobSeeker, entrenching poverty and disadvantage,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) poverty is a political choice; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) abolish the punitive partner income test for the DSP, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) raise the rate of income support payments as a matter of urgency".</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the Australian Greens amendment on sheet 3301 be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [19:03]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>12</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>27</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the bill be now read a second time.</para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [19:06]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>26</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>10</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Bill read a second time.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>126</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.</para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [19:08]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>25</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>10</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to. <br />Bill read a third time.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2024-2025, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2024-2025, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025</title>
          <page.no>127</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7307" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2024-2025</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r7308" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2024-2025</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7309" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>127</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That these bills be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bills read a first time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>127</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the bills be now read a second time.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bills read a second time.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendment to Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2024-25 by Pauline Hanson's One Nation. As this amendment was not circulated within the required timeframe, it can only be considered by leave.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to move Pauline Hanson's One Nation amendments on sheet 3311.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (1) to (9) on sheet 3311:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 6, page 5 (line 4), omit "$5,080,634,000", substitute "$1,396,800,000".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 2, page 11 (table item dealing with the Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water portfolio), omit the table item.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 2, page 11 (table item dealing with the total), omit "5,080,634", substitute "1,396,800".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 2, page 13 (table item dealing with the Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water portfolio), omit the table item, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 2, page 13 (table item dealing with the total), omit the table item, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Schedule 2, page 20, Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water Portfolio, omit the table, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Schedule 2, page 21, Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water Portfolio, omit the table, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Schedule 2, page 22, Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water Portfolio, omit the table, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Schedule 2, page 23, Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water Portfolio, omit the table, substitute:</para></quote>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>129</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and the bills be now passed.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bills read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Legislation Amendment (Modernising My Health Record—Sharing by Default) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>129</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7290" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Health Legislation Amendment (Modernising My Health Record—Sharing by Default) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>129</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. The addendum responds to matters raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move Pauline Hanson's One Nation amendment on sheet 3327:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate is of the view that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Australians are increasingly concerned about the privacy and security implications of increasing use of centralised Digital IDs and other government data frameworks;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) My Health Record was originally promised to the Australian people as an   .opt-in, opt-out, voluntary system; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) sharing sensitive medical information by default to My Health Record breaches this promise to the Australian people".</para></quote>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move my amendment on sheet 3258:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) significant barriers exist in accessing and transferring medical records for people in prisons, including minimal use of My Health Record, which disrupts continuity of care,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the National Review of First Nations Health Care in Prisons (the Review) identified urgent reforms needed to address substandard healthcare in prisons, including improving access to medical records upon entry, transfer and release,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) recommendation 157 from the 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (the Royal Commission) states that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">…</inline> <inline font-style="italic">efforts must be made by the Prison Medical Service to obtain a comprehensive medical history for the prisoner including medical records from a previous occasion of imprisonment, and where necessary, prior treatment records from hospitals and health services. In order to facilitate this process, procedures should be established to ensure that a prisoner's medical history files accompany the prisoner on transfer to other institutions and upon re-admission and that negotiations are undertaken between prison me</inline> <inline font-style="italic">dical, hospital and health services to establish guidelines for the transfer of such information</inline>,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) systemic issues, such as incompatible information systems, force individuals and their advocates to submit freedom of information requests to access their own medical records, further delaying appropriate care,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations are already understaffed and subjected to high administrative burdens, which will be further strained by these reforms to My Health Record,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vi) there remains significant privacy concerns amongst the public about their digital rights relating to My Health Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) work with States and Territories to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(A) resolve the issues highlighted in the Review regarding medical record access and transfer in prisons, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(B) urgently implement the Review's recommendations to improve continuity of care for people in prisons, many of which reflect recommendations from the Royal Commission still yet to be implemented; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) ensure privacy protections and cybersecurity practices adequately protect health data and prevent the unauthorised sharing of health data with third parties,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) provide additional support, including financial compensation where appropriate, to smaller healthcare providers, particularly Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations, for the additional staffing requirements and administrative burden associated with uploading data and complying with these reforms; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) allocate resources to ensure that consumers are aware of the changes and the much more active role they will have to play in ensuring that the information they don't want on My Health Record is not uploaded".</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that Senator Thorpe's amendment on sheet 3258 be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [19:15]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>12</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>23</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.<br />Original question agreed to.<br />Bill read a second time.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendment and the request for an amendment circulated by Senator Thorpe. As these amendments were not circulated within the required timeframe, they can only be considered by leave.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3250</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, page 26 (after line 21), after item 25, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">25A After subsection 19(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2A) Despite subsection (2), a medicare benefit is payable in respect of a professional service if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the professional service has been rendered by, or on behalf of, or under an arrangement with:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a State or an internal Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an authority established by a law of a State or a law of an internal Territory; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the professional service has been rendered in relation to a person who is in prison or has been recently released from prison; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the professional service is of a kind specified in an instrument made under subsection (2B).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2B) The Minister must, by legislative instrument, specify one or more kinds of professional services for the purposes of paragraph (2A)(c).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2C) The first instrument made under subsection (2B) must be made by the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day this subsection commences.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendment (1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendment (1) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to increase the kinds of professional services in relation to which a Medicare benefit is payable. Specifically, it would require payments in relation to certain services provided to people in prison or recently released from prison. The amendment would therefore increase the amount of Medicare benefit payments made from the Medicare Guarantee Fund (Health) Special Account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As the effect of this amendment is to increase payments made from the Medicare Guarantee Fund (Health) Special Account, it will increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 80 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 or in certain circumstances the standing appropriation in section 18 of the Medicare Guarantee Act 2017.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000</inline> </para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendment (1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under a standing appropriation, then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3268</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 2, page 44 (after line 28), after the heading specifying <inline font-style="italic">National Health Act 1953</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">16A After subsection 100(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1AA) Without limiting subsection (1), the Minister must, by legislative instrument, make special arrangements for, or in relation to, providing that an adequate supply of pharmaceutical benefits will be available to persons who are in prison or another place of detention.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1AB) The first instrument made under subsection (1AA) must be made by the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day this subsection commences.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">16B At the end of subsections 100(2) and (3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add "or (1AA)".</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that Senator Thorpe's amendment and request for amendment on sheets 3250 and 3268 be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [19:18]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>14</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>23</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>132</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>132</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7258" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>132</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will now deal with the Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024. I understand the minister has a document to table.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024. The addendum responds to matters raised by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will now deal with the second reading amendment circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that the Australian Greens' amendment on sheet 3252 be agreed to.</para>
<para class="italic"><inline font-style="italic">Australian Greens' circulated amendment—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) Robodebt was the worst failure of public administration in Australian history, raising an estimated $1.73 billion of illegitimate debts from over 430,000 vulnerable Australians,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) there is widespread community outrage due to a lack of accountability and insufficient findings from completed investigations; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the Robodebt scheme flourished because of a political and media culture that stigmatises income support recipients, and failures in public sector leadership and culture in key departments; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Albanese Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) implement all 57 recommendations of the Robodebt Royal Commission in full to ensure that Robodebt can never happen again,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) immediately release the confidential additional chapter of the Robodebt Royal Commission report,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) provide the Parliament with an update regarding the status of any civil or criminal referrals made in connection with Robodebt,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) reinstate the six-year limitation on debt recovery as a matter of urgency,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) abolish the punitive Work for the Dole and the Targeted Compliance Framework, that have propagated a culture of punishing income support recipients; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vi) ensure that the lessons for public sector leadership, management, culture and policy are learned by incorporating study of this failed chapter across public sector leadership education and development training".</para></quote>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [19:22]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>13</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>24</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.<br />Original question agreed to.<br />Bill read a second time. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>133</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that this bill be read a third time.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>133</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7280" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>133</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024. This bill responds to this parliament's inquiry, conducted by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, into the 2022 election. An inquiry into our electoral laws is conducted after every election, which is right and proper. These inquiries consider both the performance of the electoral system and its legislation following an electoral event and whether changes are required to keep our electoral regulations consistent with the current and practices. These inquiries are conducted by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and are some of the most in-depth and detailed work of the parliament. I want to thank my colleague Senator McGrath, a veteran of this committee over several parliaments, for his work in contributing to the committee's deliberations.</para>
<para>The bill that was introduced by the government last year seeks to implement recommendations from that committee's work, which the assistant minister referred to as being 'multipartisan'—but not multipartisan in the agreement of the recommendations of that the committee and its inquiry. Coalition members of that committee reflected our positions when they provided a dissenting report to that committee's work on several occasions. As coalition members stated, the coalition believes that any proposed electoral changes should support our system of fair, open and transparent elections which treat all political participants equally. Our system must encourage political participation that protects freedoms of speech, belief, association and thought. No participant should have fear of retribution for their belief or their support. The coalition believes those who join or actively support political parties, like those who support civil society movements or not-for-profit organisations, do so on the basis of sincerely held beliefs and a genuine desire to participate in their democratic society. Members of established political parties are not less worthy than those who support other forms of political campaigning, movements or civil causes. Changes to regulations at federal and state levels of government have increased the regulatory burden on political parties, making it harder for grassroots participation. This is not a good outcome for democratic participation in Australia. Financially stable political parties with active membership representing the broad political spectrum are important foundations for a healthy democracy. The governing legislative and regulatory framework for political parties should ultimately encourage grassroots participation, not make it harder.</para>
<para>This bill looks to implement recommendations 1 to 10 of the joint standing committee's interim report that was tabled in June 2023. Recommendation 1 proposed to lower the disclosure threshold of donations to $1,000. As the coalition stated in the response to the committee's report, we are concerned there must be a balance between privacy and transparency. We've seen the political intimidation by some in the community recently and often on the offices of parliamentarians. Any threshold should not be a discouragement to participation in the electoral system, where there is any fear of intimidation or retribution from the publication of the support of political parties or particular candidates. The Grattan Institute argued for a higher threshold of $5,000, noting this important balance. They stated that this would protect the privacy of small donors and keep administrative costs manageable, while ensuring that all donations that are big enough to matter are on the public record. The opposition notes that the government has taken on board many concerns of the proposed changes, including that of the Grattan Institute, and will move to amend the bill to raise the threshold to $5,000. The opposition supports this change, noting that it is a sensible compromise and acknowledging that the Prime Minister himself has advocated for a threshold of $1,000 for some time.</para>
<para>Recommendations 4, 5 and 6 of the interim report are also reflected in the bill's schedules. These propose to introduce donations, known in the legislation as gifts, and expenditure caps to the electoral system. The bill originally proposed to introduce a donation cap of $20,000 each year, indexed annually, which would apply to an individual donor whether they are a person or an entity. On expenditure, the bill proposes to introduce a cap of $90 million for each political party, and a cap of $800,000 would apply to expenditure by any party or candidate in an individual electorate. A Senate cap would apply for a state or territory that will be valued at the number of electorates in that jurisdiction. The key concern for coalition members through the process of the committee's inquiry on this matter was that caps be applied fairly and equitably. The ability to set caps of donations for the Commonwealth system, which has never had this limitation, is new ground and may well require review. The opposition notes that the government is intending to move amendments that will lift this cap to $50,000, and we will support this change.</para>
<para>Another important aspect of the government's legislation is that it will capture political entities outside parties and candidates. As Professor George Williams stated on the potential loopholes with caps when he appeared before the joint standing committee:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Unless we actually have a holistic regime, people will set up the equals, whether they be charities, third parties or the like. We need to make sure that they are equally covered with appropriate caps, disclosure and the like. Otherwise, we'll just end up with the electoral fundraising and the fight moving from parties to third parties.</para></quote>
<para>We welcome the review of the government that these caps should also apply to significant third parties, associated entities and third parties who will be subject to expenditure of $11.25 million annually, with other limits at electorate, state and territory levels. Recommendations 2, 3 and 7 of JSCEM's inquiry are being implemented through measures to implement faster disclosure timeframes. These also alter the definition of a gift under the electoral law and establish a system of common accounting for Commonwealth campaign accounts. These recommendations were all supported in principle by the coalition members, and we see merit in these as improvements to the current system's integrity.</para>
<para>The opposition notes that these changes will not take effect until after the upcoming election. This may enable further issues to be considered by the next parliament. The government has worked with all parties and members, including the opposition, to improve this legislation. While this is not the electoral reform that we would have brought forward, and while some parts do remain of concern, we note and appreciate that the amendments that have been brought forward address the concerns around the potential impacts of the proposed laws. Our electoral system and our electoral legislation is complex and intricate. Changes should rightly be made with care, and the devil is always in the detail.</para>
<para>I want to thank the minister and his staff for working constructively to remove as many of those devils as could be found. In particular, I want to thank the minister's chief of staff, Ben Rillo, and the department for working through dense and complex drafting. If you'd indulge me, I'd also like to thank opposition staff who have worked on this legislation, particularly those out of my own office and that of Senator McGrath's, particularly Hughston Parle and John Harris. I'd also particularly like to thank those staff from the leader's office, who have put in long hours to check and recheck the implications of this bill, in particular Michelle Hutchinson and Mike Horner. This legislation represents some very significant changes to the electoral system in Australia, and, like all changes, they've been made in good faith with a bipartisan approach to ensure that our electoral system remains, to the extent that it ever can be, above politics.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, finally, the jig is up. We see many, many months of negotiations that both of the major parties denied having culminating in a very cosy little arrangement that suits both of them quite nicely. It's one of the ironies of this appallingly bad process that we didn't see an inquiry happen into this incredibly detailed, 400-page bill. But I think the greatest irony is that we still have not seen the detail of that deal, the stitch-up that was just finally landed by Mr Albanese and Mr Dutton, who are BFFs on this matter. It is 7.33 pm, we are to vote on this in 2½ hours, and we still have not seen the amendments.</para>
<para>This is absolute insanity. I've seen some pretty shabby process in my time here since 2011, but I reckon this one takes the cake. We are debating a bill where there has been a stitch-up, and they still won't tell us what the stitch-up is. They still haven't even circulated the amendments that they've been working on for these long hours, as Senator Hume describes. Meanwhile, the minister has spent more time telling journalists that he's consulting with the Greens and the crossbench than he has actually spent consulting with the Greens and the crossbench. Senator Hume has just belled the cat—it's because they've been having these long, detailed conversations between themselves for quite some time.</para>
<para>The vote for the two big parties at the last election was the lowest it had ever been. What's the lesson that any ordinary person would take from that? 'Well, maybe I need to fix my policies. Perhaps what I'm offering the public isn't that attractive.' But no: rather than actually having a good, long, hard look at themselves and maybe taking action on the climate crisis, taking real action on the cost-of-living crisis or building some actual affordable housing—rather than doing that—they're just chatting to each other about how they can cancel their competitors. They're just chatting to each other to change the rules to make it harder for anyone that's not already elected and harder in particular for anyone that is not in the Labor, Liberal or National parties. This bill is going to make it harder for the parliament to represent the community. This bill is going to lock in the shape of the parliament for years to come in a cosy little stitch-up that suits the two-party system, which has been crumbling. Their only response is, 'Let's rig the rules to try to keep us both in power.' Nothing unites that lot like self-interest, and it's on fine display tonight.</para>
<para>You would have thought that, with the most momentous reforms to our democratic system, as they have been described by the previous speaker, which have such a momentous outcome that will dictate what sorts of decisions the country takes on the big issues that really make a difference in people's lives, the normal process would apply and we'd have a Senate inquiry. But oh, no; we don't want to tell you anything about what's in this cosy little deal. And so last week, once again, when I moved for an inquiry, the two big parties voted together as they're going to do later tonight. They didn't want the scrutiny. They don't want the expert analysis of what this bill will really do. I think it's because, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck. This is a deal designed to shore up their own flailing power and it's designed to cancel the competition. Well, there are other ways of improving your vote in the polls, and I suggest that you actually improve your policies rather than rigging the rules.</para>
<para>Now, we have repeatedly said to the government, in what scarce discussions we have had about this topic in the last 18 months, that the Greens stand ready to pass the transparency measures that were originally in this bill: the $1,000 disclosure threshold, lowered down from $16,900. We have repeatedly said that truth in political advertising needs to pass. There's a bill to do that, but do you think that's what's being rushed through tonight? No, they introduced that bit, but then they said, 'We're not going to do that bit.' That bit's not being guillotined and rammed through the chamber tonight; in fact, that part will probably never see the light of day, because that's the part that the opposition didn't want to see happen and, frankly, it's the part that Labor was only ever half committed to and was just doing for the look of it.</para>
<para>So we have a situation where the Greens said to the government, 'You have a pathway to pass reforms through this parliament. We will pass these transparency measures. We will pass truth in advertising. We will pass funding reforms. But we want a Senate inquiry into your particular type of funding reforms because they look pretty suspicious to us,' and we were right. They were suspicious. An inquiry was denied, and now, at the eleventh hour, we see a guillotine motion to ram this cosy deal through and we still haven't seen the damn amendments! This is absolutely remarkable. Democracy is a sham, folks. When the two big parties reach an agreement, none of this here actually matters. The deal was done in a back room, probably between Mr Albanese and Mr Dutton personally, probably last night after he tried to wine and dine the teals while kneecapping them at the same time, and here we go. The parliament is now meant to just rubberstamp this stuff. I'm grateful that the Greens and the crossbench won't ever just rubberstamp stuff, particularly not very large reforms with very consequential outcomes.</para>
<para>I can't wait to see these amendments, because we thought the bill was a bit dodgy, but what we're now reading through the newspapers, not through the actual amendments, is that there are changes that make it even less effective. The disclosure threshold, which was going to be $1,000, now is going to be increased, at the behest of Mr Dutton and the opposition, to $5,000, so there will be more secrecy, not more transparency, than was originally planned by this bill. The donations cap, originally planned to be $20,000, is now going to be $50,000—again, at the behest of Mr Dutton and the Liberals. So that's more money sloshing around in the system.</para>
<para>There is a particularly egregious change which we haven't yet seen the detail of, because we still haven't seen those amendments. We read from the media, not from the minister, that the draft bill would have capped the amount that peak bodies could receive from their member bodies—folk like the Business Council and the Minerals Council—in membership fees at $20,000, which could then be spent on electoral matters. I will confirm this if I get the opportunity in committee stage, but, on my reading of this, each of those big mining companies will be able to give $250,000 in membership fees to the Minerals Council, who will then be able to spend that money on electoral campaigning to the tune of $11.5 million. It doesn't seem like that's getting big money out of the system to me. Call me a purist, but that still seems like an awful lot of dough that the big vested interests will spend on campaigns to try to get policies and politicians to act to boost their own private profits.</para>
<para>We're all meant to be here to fix the problems that people are facing and trying to fix the planet, but, no, this deal has got these additional loopholes designed and built into it to facilitate the likes of the Minerals Council, the Business Council and all sorts of other political players who are very cashed up and whose profit bottom lines very much depend on the access and influence that they peddle with politicians here. Now there are special favours for them. This is precisely why we needed an inquiry process and, frankly, precisely why we need to see these amendments. It's quarter to eight, and we still have not seen the detail of this deal.</para>
<para>I mentioned before that we didn't have an inquiry into this bill. Indeed, that doesn't bother just me; it bothers quite a lot of learned academics and professionals in this field. The Centre for Public Integrity, which has been really active in this space in the last few years—they had a lot to do with the design of what then became the NACC, the National Anti-Corruption Commission—had a lot to say about how we should better structure our democratic decision-making. They've put out a statement today saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Centre for Public Integrity has long advocated for reform of our political donations laws. We have fought for greater transparency via a reduced disclosure threshold and real-time disclosure, as well as a broader definition of what constitutes a donation. We have fought for solutions to the problem of undue influence in the form of donations and expenditure caps. We have also fought for fairness, because the advantages of major-party membership and incumbency are significant and need to be compensated for in any system capping donations and spending.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is an affront to our democratic process that the Electoral Legislation Amendment—significant, complex legislation which concerns the very foundations of our democracy—is proceeding without proper parliamentary process and scrutiny. The Government's guillotining of debate, and proceeding in the absence of a parliamentary inquiry or the advice of an independent expert panel, is of profound concern.</para></quote>
<para>That was a statement from the Hon. Anthony Whealy KC, the Hon. Michael Barker KC, the Hon. Margaret White AO, Professor Allan Fels AO—and he would know all about anti-competitive conduct, I might add—Professor Joo Cheong Tham and Geoffrey Watson SC.</para>
<para>This is a debasing of our democratic process, and it's just such a choice example of it. They're scratching each other's backs. Meanwhile, the community is going to be hung out to dry, because the community actually wanted a more diverse parliament and they wanted decision-makers who were not for sale to corporate donors and to these business councils, minerals councils and other conglomerates. They've now had this special little pathway given to them where their big money can keep sloshing about, trying to influence democracy.</para>
<para>You should be embarrassed by this, and I think you've got the audacity to be proud that you've pulled it off. Well, everyone else is going to be appalled. This is not the fix for your falling popularity that you might think it is. I'm going to be moving a second reading amendment that was in fact circulated last November, so hopefully the excellent chamber attendants will be able to circulate that for your convenience.</para>
<para>But in that second reading amendment we have noted that reforms have to strengthen democracy, not just the electoral fortunes of the two big parties. We are concerned that the proposed reforms entrench incumbency and stack outcomes in favour of the two-party system, and we will continue to advocate, as we have for decades, to get big money out of politics and to ban donations from fossil fuel companies and other social-harm industries. And there's a list of folk that are used to buying influence in this joint: the gambling industry, the pokies industry, the alcohol industry, big property developers, weapons manufacturers, the big banks and big pharma. There's a list of vested interests that should not be allowed to donate. Do you think this bill does that? No way, Jose! It rolls out the red carpet for them with these dodgy little backdoor provisions.</para>
<para>We will keep advocating that those dirty industries and social-harm industries not be allowed to make political donations to anyone. They've got enough influence over our system. They should not be buying further influence. We will keep pushing to implement truth in political advertising because people deserve to make decisions based on the actual policies of a party, not on some bullshit that has been promulgated—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Waters, withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My apologies—not some lies that have been promulgated and been put on the nightly news and every damn billboard you see as you drive down any road. We will keep pushing for the lobbying code of conduct to be strengthened, because it is a joke. It is an actual joke. Lobbyists run this place, and ministers who formerly were meant to have regulated an industry have left this parliament and gone off to work for the very same industry in five seconds flat. It doesn't breach anything, and that is a complete joke. We need a five-year cooling-off period for ministers. Otherwise, these industries have their claws into our democracy, and it is not right.</para>
<para>My second reading amendment calls on the government to split the transparency measures and the truth-in-political-advertising measures off and to pass those ones pronto. They are good disclosure provisions, and they are good protections for the public against lies. You can't lie to a consumer about what's in the tin of some grocery product they're buying, but you're allowed to lie to them about what your policy platform is or what you opponent's policy platform is. It's pathetic.</para>
<para>We call again for an inquiry into the funding elements of this bill, to allow proper scrutiny. This is the dodgiest deal that I've seen done between these two big parties in my 14 or 15 years here—however long I've been here. This is it, folks. When they're going down in the polls, this is all they've got. They don't have policies to help you. They've got policies to help each other. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) any legislation to deliver electoral reforms must strengthen democracy and not just the political fortunes of the major parties,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the Greens are concerned that the proposed reforms entrench incumbency advantages that stack outcomes in favour of the two-party system, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the Greens continue to advocate for genuine electoral reform including getting big money out of politics, banning donations from fossil fuel corporations and other social harm industries, implementing truth in political advertising laws, strengthening the Lobbying Code of Conduct and enforcing longer post-parliamentary cooling-off periods for Ministers before they go to work for industries they were regulating; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) separate the transparency measures in this bill so that Parliament can pass them as a matter of urgency, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) support an inquiry into the funding elements of the bill to allow for democratic scrutiny of its provisions".</para></quote>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024. Elections matter. None of us would be here without an election. I speak as a former chair and current deputy chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I speak as someone who volunteered on my first campaign when I was 15 years old and still at school in Toowoomba. I speak as someone who has spent most of their working life fighting the Left and campaigning for a civil, civic and considered conservativism. I was raised on the belief that politics, voting and elections are part of our civic duty. I also speak as someone who's probably forgotten more about elections and election law than some in this chamber can claim to actually know.</para>
<para>We are blessed to live in one of the world's oldest and most successful democracies. I know that because I've worked in some of the world's newest democracies. Our country works because over the years a lot of people, paid and unpaid, have worked to make it so. Countless Australians have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect our democracy and our inherent freedoms that shield us from the dark. The coalition therefore holds that any electoral changes that will impact upon this very special country ought to be assessed on the following four core principles: fair, open and transparent elections; equal treatment of all political participants; freedom of political communication and participation without fear of retribution; and the recognition of freedom of thought, belief, association and speech as fundamental to free elections.</para>
<para>Australia's success as a liberal democracy is reliant on the effectiveness of the Australian Electoral Commission, the federal government and political participants more broadly to satisfy and uphold these four principles. Ensuring that Australians have continued faith in the electoral system is paramount to Australia's faith in its institutions of government and indeed to the very notion of Australia. As such, when assessing legislative proposals, the coalition will always do so through the lens of upholding its four principles to promote a free and fair liberal democracy.</para>
<para>We will look at the amendments moved by the government on this legislation to see if they address some of the concerns that we had with the original bill. The bill will introduce a lower disclosure threshold for Commonwealth elections, real-time disclosure of donations, caps on gifts to political parties and caps on expenditure for political parties. The electoral reforms have a planned commencement date from 2026, which means the laws would not apply for the 2025 general election. That is important. It is very important that we provide political actors with the time required for these laws. We do not support rushed attempts to force these provisions to come into effect in the heat of an election campaign. We should be vigilant in remembering that the Liberal National Party, my party, like other political parties, is run not by faceless ghouls but by volunteers—men and women who see their involvement in a political party as a civil duty akin to their service in other community groups and who have a strong desire to leave their community, their state and their country in a better place than was bequeathed to them. So, while the Queensland voters are my boss, it is the volunteer branch members of my party who give their all so I can stand up for their values.</para>
<para>The Commonwealth Electoral Act is extremely complex, and, with significant reform, we must give all political participants, like my volunteer branch members, time to adjust before the reforms come into effect. We do not want unintended consequences of these changes that could hinder Australians joining political parties or act as a handbrake on party political participation. I have long spoken in this chamber about the inconsistent approach of the intelligentsia, who regard members of mainstream political parties as less worthy than those who support the Greens, the teals or other Climate 200 groups. I would suggest all political participants should be treated equally when it comes to their motivation for joining a party or a cause.</para>
<para>Sadly, the teals and the Greens and their vested, conflicted donors do not share such views. In the last federal election, the teal candidates spent ridiculous amounts of money to win their seats. Monique Ryan spent $2.1 million, Allegra Spender spent $2.1 million, Zoe Daniel spent $1.5 million, Kylea Tink spent $1.3 million and Sophie Scamps spent $1.2 million. This bill would establish an $800,000 cap on spending per seat. So perhaps I can understand why the teals are so upset. It is the teals who are using big money from vested donors to buy elections. The cap for expenditure is a very reasonable upper limit, but still the teals say they cannot support it. The teals have argued that $800,000 sounds good but only for major parties. If you are a minor party or a so-called Independent—remembering that teals are not independent; they're a part of the teal political movement—you should be able to spend more than that. That is not how Australia's democracy operates. All political participants should be treated equally; otherwise you will have a teal coloured gerrymander being brought into Australia. As a former campaign director, I can say to the teals that, if they can't get their message out in a seat with $800,000, then they need to look at their message or they need to look at what they are spending that money on.</para>
<para>This bill takes power away from vested interests and puts limitations on the likes of Simon Holmes a Court by implementing a donation cap. As such, the coalition will consider the amendments but notes that the contents of this bill are not inconsistent with our four core principles. In my foreword to the 2020 JSCEM report into the 2019 election, I noted:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We sleep safely in our beds protected from the claws of the banality of evil because we—</para></quote>
<para>voters—</para>
<quote><para class="block">decide who governs.</para></quote>
<para>We should never forget that we owe it to the voters to have a fit-for-purpose democracy. The coalition supports this bill on that basis.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, what hypocrisy we're hearing here today. We have all the government amendments coming in for a bill that we're about to vote on—the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024. Good one, Labor! Shame on you again.</para>
<para>What I'm about to say echoes the concerns of other Independents and minor parties—namely, that these so-called electoral reforms are a massive stitch-up by the major parties to cement their power and influence. We've got to keep the two old white guys running against each other every election!</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe, withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Why? Can't I say 'white guys'?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe, you are not in a debate with me. Just withdraw the comment.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What am I withdrawing, though? Can you explain what I've said wrong? Am I not allowed to say 'two old white guys'?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe, withdraw the comments, please.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>But can you explain what is wrong with saying 'two old white guys'?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is unparliamentary.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's not unparliamentary.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe, you are not in a debate with me. If you don't withdraw, I will be left with a choice to withdraw the call from you. I don't want to do that. You have a right to be heard. But you must—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw from the colony. What I'm about to say—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe, I've asked you to withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw to you, President of the colony.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, Senator Thorpe.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor—your Labor Party, President— went to the last election promising electoral reforms, giving voters the impression that the days of corporate influence over our political system would be over—you lied—and that the battlers and everyday people would be better represented. You lied.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe, I'm going to ask—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That was all a lie.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe, I'm asking you to withdraw once again.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What have I done now?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe, the use of the word 'lie' is unparliamentary. It is well tested. I'd like you to withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>  That was all dishonest—very dishonest of Labor. It was very, very dishonest. It was dishonest to the voters out there, who think that the two major parties are the way to go when they are rorting the system every day here and siding with each other to scrape the bottom of the barrel and try to pass legislation tonight because you stitched it up. You got in bed together to disallow Independents, people of colour and the battlers out there from being represented in this place. This was done by your masters of the colony—one for the Labor Party and one for the Liberal Party. They're masters of the colony. You want to maintain the white supremacy of the colony.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe, withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Which part now?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm not going to repeat what you have said.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>'White supremacy'?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe, withdraw. I think you've been a senator long enough now to know what is acceptable in this chamber and what is not. I've asked you to withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I wasn't asked to withdraw 'white supremacy' the other day. Why is it—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, I'm the President, and I'm asking you to withdraw it. If you don't withdraw it, I will withdraw the call, and I don't want to do that. You are entitled to have a say.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Okay. I'll be a good little blackfella like the ones in your party. The bill before us does offer—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe, you've made a further derogatory comment against senators—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, I'm not a good little blackfella.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe, I will withdraw the call. I've asked you to withdraw the first comment you've made, and now I'm asking you to withdraw—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>But you're not even explaining.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe, I am not—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're not even explaining, President. Every other person that sits in that chair explains the situation.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe, I will withdraw the call and ask that you no longer be heard. You're not in a debate with me. I'm the President of this chamber. I've asked you, on two occasions, to withdraw. Simply withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you—for the first offence. And, for the derogatory comment you made towards Labor senators, there's a second withdrawal.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Point of clarification, President: what was the first thing that I was asked to withdraw for?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe, I've said to you a number of times I do not intend to repeat your offensive words. I've asked you to withdraw them.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. And before you continue—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator, withdraw that comment.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe, withdraw that comment.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would hope that that is the role of your staff. Please withdraw the comment.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I want you to withdraw before you go on.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe, just a moment. I don't think broadcasting is on. So I would ask—is that what you were—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, sure. Thank you. We'll make sure it's broadcast. Thank you, Senator.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Where do I begin? I mean, the microphone's been turned off because I said 'white supremacy' and I said 'gammon', and I got shut down—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>and I've never been told that—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe! You are repeating offences I've asked you to withdraw. I draw your attention now to standing order 203, particularly those parts about senators refusing to conform to the standing orders and disregarding my authority. Do not repeat those offences. I'm, again, asking you to withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw to the President of this place, which is on stolen land.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Thorpe.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm going to start again. What I'm about to say echoes the concerns of other Independents and minor parties—namely, that these so-called electoral reforms are a massive stitch-up by the major parties to cement their power and influence in the colony.</para>
<para>Labor went to the last election promising electoral reforms, giving voters the impression that the days of corporate influence over our political system would be over, that the battlers and everyday people would be better represented. 'That was dishonest!' said the President. The bill before us does offer some small, positive changes to give these pretend Labor and Liberal politicians some talking points to distract and gaslight the public into thinking this is a good bill. But that is not the truth.</para>
<para>The bill goes some way to limit influence from major donors, with donation caps and more transparency around political donations, by lowering the disclosure threshold. But it also brings in a suite of measures to make the whole system more undemocratic and less representative of the people in this country. Look at this place! When you walk outside, this place does not represent the people out there. Look how white this place is.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe, I ask you to withdraw once again. Please don't refer to senators in that way.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I didn't refer to senators. I just said 'this place'.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, and I'm asking you to withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The white part?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And I have asked you, on about four occasions, not to repeat the offence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This spits in the face of voters and is not in their best interests. The government is even refusing to put this bill through an inquiry process, which is a standard parliamentary procedure. This should be an absolute necessity for a bill which will dramatically change electoral and policy outcomes for everyone in this country. This bill gives more public funding to parties and incumbents. We're in a cost-of-living crisis. You're all paying each other.</para>
<para>It makes it much harder for new and independent candidates to run election campaigns—and you know that—particularly those that cannot front up large sums to run election campaigns, and you know that too. We don't have mates like Gina. Who do you think those people will be? Gina's mates. And the ones who are grassroots, from the community, those people coming from more diverse socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds? Forget it! Not with Gina's mates here! Not the ones who would actually be more representative of a large share of this country's population. It locks out candidates who would actually fight for country, people, equality and justice, who understand that, while the politicians play games and hoard more power and wealth, people on the ground are starving—starving! Youse are all in your little money pits with all your donors and your mates.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>President! President, attention! I'm being heckled here by a well-known, convicted racist.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe, once again, withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>She's attacking me, and you weren't watching.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe, once again, withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Thorpe</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw. Can you please pull up this person.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind Senator Hanson—I didn't hear the interjections; they are hard to hear up here—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Thorpe</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Of course they are. Thank you.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe, I haven't finished yet, and I haven't yet given you back the call.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Thorpe</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Okay. Thanks.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson, every senator in here has been heard in silence. I would ask that Senator Thorpe have that same opportunity. Please continue, Senator Thorpe.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It locks out candidates who would actually fight for country, people, equality and justice, who understand that, while the politicians play games and hoard more power and wealth, people on the ground are starving. They're having trouble accessing medications, housing, education and many other basics, which you people wouldn't understand. Why is it that after over 200 years of the so-called civilisation of colonisation, this gammon government can't even—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe: withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This government—I withdraw 'gammon'—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Thorpe</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe, you are persistently and wilfully refusing to conform to the standing orders and disregarding the authority of me as the President. I ask you again to come to order and not to repeat remarks which you know are offensive. I am a long way down with standing order 203, Senator Thorpe, and I would not want you to miss the opportunity to make a contribution. But I am warning you: this is not a game. Every senator in here is expected to conform to the standing orders. That includes you.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Thorpe</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. Can I move on?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks. Why is it that after over 200 years of the so-called civilisation of colonisation, this 'g' government—bleep, bleep, bleep—can't even figure out how to make sure children are fed? How is that not the No. 1 priority? That shows you exactly the values of a government that is more interested in its own survival than that of the people.</para>
<para>In addition to spending caps, which will disadvantage independent candidates who don't have the broader advertising and campaign infrastructure that political parties have, the expenditure cap would still allow country-wide political parties to spend up to $90 million on broad political advertisements. How can an Independent keep up with that, especially someone from a non-wealthy background who hasn't stolen any land? For many, running for office means putting their careers and livelihoods on hold, a stark reminder that the opportunity to serve is not a universal right but a privilege afforded only to those with big cash and powerful mates.</para>
<para>The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights pointed out that the measures in the bill may increase the relative monetary power of incumbents and bigger parties and disproportionately impact people with particular protected attributes who are already underrepresented by major political parties, such as women or ethnic minority groups. The committee pointed out that this might limit the right to equality and nondiscrimination in this country. The Scrutiny of Bills report also pointed out that this bill may impact representative government by negatively affecting the diversity of opinions, arguments and other political matters that can be in electoral communications.</para>
<para>This would be a further violation of our basic rights in a country where we already only have limited right to take part in public affairs. This right is supposed to include a guarantee of the right of citizens to stand for public office, to vote in elections and to have access to positions in public service. However, section 44 of the colonial Constitution prohibits those with dual citizenship to stand for federal political office, thereby possibly excluding up to half of the population unless they renounce ties with the other country. This is in a country which, apparently, prides itself on multiculturalism. Any further hurdles put in the way of diverse representation, like those proposed by this bill, need to be avoided by all means.</para>
<para>This bill basically means that many of us don't fit into the middle-class, white-Australian picture and we will be less likely to have real representation in this place. Have a look at it! It says it all. So many of us already don't feel represented by the major parties and their assimilation practices. We want our representatives to be able to speak freely and vote along their conscience. People in the community want parliamentarians to stand up for them, not just a tired old backbencher twiddling their thumbs, taking orders and asking 'How high?' when they are told to jump.</para>
<para>The disappointment with the political status quo is exactly why the Independent and minor party vote has grown over the last decade, and that's what the major parties are scared of. They're scared of the crossbench because we demand transparency and accountability, but these are basic and essential democratic measures and we owe this to the voters. This term alone has shown, so many times, that the crossbench contributes to better policy outcomes through bringing a diverse lens to negotiations, listening to communities and stakeholders—they fall on deaf ears with the major parties—and ensuring that they are being heard. That is the very heart of representative democracy.</para>
<para>This bill is a done deal between the major parties and is being rushed through parliament, explicitly because they know it is so flawed and they're so ashamed of it themselves and it's in breach of basic democratic rights. I want to make clear to everyone here and all voters out there that this bill represents an erosion of democratic principles, participation and representation. This is why I'm proposing to rename it the 'Sham Democracy Bill', because at least that would tell people the truth about what they're up for.</para>
<para>For the record, I would like to see the majority of the politicians in this place recognise how out of touch they really are and give their seats to someone who deserves it and who will actually use it for good. The younger generation know the way. Give it to them. There are too many people that have been here for way too long, crusty—and all the rest of it. I don't want to get in trouble again. After all that, I foreshadow my second reading amendment.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Clearly, after the government said to the crossbench they were interested in consulting over the summer, and they've used that as leverage with the Libs and managed to convince them that this is in both of their interests—to pass in a guillotine with no scrutiny.</para>
<para>The government claims that this bill, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024, will get big money out of politics. I'm all for doing that. Politics should be a contest of values, of ideas and of support in our communities, not who can raise the most money or wage the dirtiest campaign. There's been a lot of talk about what I and other first-time Independent candidates spent last election to crack the two-party stranglehold—to have in a handful of seats, for the first time ever, someone who wasn't from the major parties or, in some cases, from a single party. But there hasn't been much talk about what the major parties spent and what they spent in seats that have never gone to anyone else. They would be totally safe seats. We had the Special Minister of State, months ago, in question time, having a go at me about how much I spent in my election campaign. ACT Labor spent $1.24 million; the ACT Liberals spent $1.43 million in a territory where they had never, ever lost a seat, in the safest of seats.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Gallagher, interrupting is disorderly.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Both parties also had more than $1 million in receipts. As I said, I'm all for getting big money out of politics, but this bill doesn't get big money out of politics. It will result in more than $80 million worth of additional taxpayer money being spent on the major parties, and that's every single electoral cycle. So it's not actually about less money; it's about Australian taxpayers picking up the bill. More than that, it's about the major parties reducing competition in a desperate attempt to plug the leaking of votes of Australians who see that there are better options. There are other options in the political landscape now. It's a last-gasp attempt to hold back a rising tide of Independents and minor parties. Rather than stepping up and meeting this challenge and reconnecting with the people you should be representing, you're seeking to skew our electoral system even further to your advantage. My hope is that communities will see through this attempt to suppress community voices, and it will fail.</para>
<para>There are so many loopholes built into this bill. They're clearly designed to stifle competition. Senator McGrath made a contribution earlier. I fear that he misunderstands the issues that Independents have with this bill. He talked about a spending cap of $800,000 per electorate and $200,000 per state or territory in the Senate election, but, if you actually look at the details, that is the individual spending cap. If you stack up some of these contests around the country, where you have a first-time Independent, no-name candidate spending $800,000, an incumbent major party candidate spending $800,000, this bill allows the party to then spend basically an unlimited amount of money up to their $90 million national cap to shore up support in that electorate. There could be $800,000 backing the Liberal or Labor candidate by name and $2 million backing the Liberals or Labor—just don't mention the name. That's not a level playing field. It would be a very different conversation if it truly created a level playing field.</para>
<para>The second loophole is that the major parties can receive unlimited transfers from what are now being called 'nominated entities'. In the last election cycle, the coalition accepted nearly $10 million from the Cormack Foundation and the Labor Party accepted around $6 million from Labor Services & Holdings Pty Ltd.</para>
<para>The third loophole is something called administrative funding. Administrative funding can be used for all kinds of party expenditure, but it doesn't count a cent towards spending caps. It basically makes spending caps meaningless. In a briefing with the department when asking about this—basically anyone who isn't directly campaigning isn't counted in your spending. We know the party infrastructure. People organise events and doorknock and do all the other things. That's not counted. So when the government says, 'We've been spending $120 million on elections and we're going down to $90 million,' that's very disingenuous because that $120 million is actually all the in-kind hours that people are putting into it. Now that's not counted. You've essentially said: 'What do we currently spend on elections? Let's get a lot more of that from the taxpayer, and let's ensure that Independents who are trying to challenge us have a very hard time doing it.'</para>
<para>The increase in taxpayer funding is huge. First—and this is one I take real exception to—is for administrative expenses, which don't account for economies of scale and greatly advantage the major parties. You can't tell me that, with $30,000 per MP, at some point you haven't covered your administrative expenses. That should not scale in a linear fashion. For the coalition, who keep telling us they're the party of business and all the rest, you'd surely know that that is not the case. In South Australia I think they cap it at $5,000, which is probably fair enough. With $5,000, that's enough money to do your administrative tasks.</para>
<para>On top of that—others have talked about this—there's taxpayer funding from votes, from three to five bucks per vote.</para>
<para>Finally, the definition of 'gift', which is really a donation, has three pages of exceptions. The major parties say, 'If the gambling industry takes us out for a birthday dinner, that will be a donation,' but if the gambling industry has a subscription to the Federal Labor Business Forum or whoever it might be—no; that's a subscription. The fact that you may get a few dinners here and there is just one of the perks of having a subscription. As I said, there are three pages of exceptions: subscriptions, levies and dozens of other things. I don't see how you can say with a straight face that this is creating a level playing field, particularly given how challenging so many Australians are finding it.</para>
<para>The major parties want to give themselves millions of extra dollars and don't want to accept the responsibility of truth in political advertising. It's very telling that Labor introduced two bills. One they basically shelved—a bill that had the support of the crossbench to pass. Then they do a deal with the coalition that is clearly in their interests. A bill like this not going through a Senate committee process is, I think, tragic and reflects really badly on this Senate. We call it the house of review—that's not for this bill. In the words of Professor Anne Twomey:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Any suggestion that this bill has already been subject to proper scrutiny is completely disingenuous.</para></quote>
<para>Do the major parties want transparency or scrutiny? It seems like what they really want, when it's in their interest, is a stitch-up. This is a sad, sad day for our democracy. You're ramming through electoral reform that's going to reduce competition at a time when Australians want more competition. They want more competition in politics and more competition across our economy. One of my observations is that there are a whole bunch of things that Australians want that the major parties team up to block, like getting more money for the gas that we export and actually transitioning away from fossil fuels. The major parties voted together to expand the fossil fuel industry. Major parties will vote together on gambling reform. You guys totally squibbed scams legislation to actually protect Australians. We had an opportunity to protect Australians being scammed. We've got half-baked legislation that's just passed: mandatory minimum sentencing, things with absolutely no evidence behind them and protecting lobbyists. We should have more regulation around lobbyists. The list goes on and on.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator Pocock! Pursuant to order, the time for debate on the second reading of this bill has expired.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>144</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration of Legislation</title>
          <page.no>144</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to contingent notice of motion, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the second reading stage of the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 without limitation of time.</para></quote>
<para>Well, the fix is in, isn't it? We've got the two major parties in the dead of night trying to pass a bill that is going to entrench their stale, putrid monopoly. That's what you expect from stale, putrid major parties who have no policy ideas of their own and where all they can do is manipulate the law and manipulate the rules to constantly protect themselves. The public are awake to this. If you look at the combined primary vote of the two major parties, it is going one way and that is down—because this chamber is nothing but a Punch and Judy show by members of parties who are party bred and party fed. One of my former staffers used to call it 'Union bred, union fed', but what we really have here is major party bred, major party fed. They're the same careerists who started off in the Young LNP and Young Labor, they've never had any real life experience and they don't know how to relate to the common man on the street. The only way that they can continue to protect their little racket is to manipulate the rules of the game. I'm a victim of that because my own party manipulated the rules of the game, and I took them to court. Do you know what the judge said? 'We're not going to rule. Political parties aren't justiciable.' There you have it, people. The Supreme Court of Queensland ruled that the very political parties who make the law are above the law. What sort of a democratic system is that?</para>
<para>We've had three years to debate this bill, but no—these guys cannot face scrutiny. If you put any sunlight on these guys, it's like throwing water on a witch: they'll just fade away like in the <inline font-style="italic">Wizard of Oz</inline>—'I'm melting!' Not only do they not have any policy solutions to deal with the cost of living or anything like that; they just want to keep their protection racket going. I am calling you guys out. I think it's a very low act to be guillotining this bill, and it's a very low act to be pushing it through in what looks to be the last sitting week of this term. There have been no solutions in this term. The first half of the term was dominated by Labor and the Voice, where they wanted to split the country on race. The second half has been all about Israel and Palestine, because that's a nice deflection from the fact that none of you guys have any solutions to deal with the cost of living, the immigration problem, the cost of housing or the energy crisis, or to help people who are struggling from government neglect through vaccine injuries, robodebt—you name it.</para>
<para>This place has a stench. It is a dead, putrid carcass flapping in the breeze, and the people of Australia are awake to it. We'll see more and more people turn away from the major parties. The only way the major parties can protect themselves is by having dodgy rules. The one that really grinds my gears—and I'll be moving an amendment on this in a minute—is that parties that get less than four per cent of the vote don't get any electoral funding whatsoever. So, if you vote for a minor party, in the eyes of the major party you're not as worth as much. They will only reward you if you vote for one of them. That's straight-out bribery. There ought to be laws against that. Everyone who votes should be worth $3.50 a vote, but, of course, the major parties don't want the minor parties and wouldn't like the minor parties getting some money, because God forbid the minor parties actually have some solutions and aren't beholden to the big end of town.</para>
<para>Pay attention to all these amendments. What are we always asking for at this end of the chamber? Greater accountability, greater scrutiny and greater protection of the people. But do we get that? No. What we have is these two major parties protecting the big end of town, big government, the big bureaucracies, big media, big corporations and their mates in the big super funds. It's all about the establishment. On that side you've got the command-and-control communists and on this side you've got the born-to-rule fascists. It doesn't matter what you do, the two major parties are only interested in controlling you, not serving you.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the question be now put.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion moved by Senator Gallagher that the question be put be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [20:33]<br />(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Fawcett)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>26</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                <name>Wong, P.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>19</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to. </p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the chamber is that the standing orders be suspended.</para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [20:37]<br />(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Fawcett)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>19</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>26</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Cadell, R. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                <name>Wong, P.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>146</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024</title>
          <page.no>146</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7280" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>146</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The time allotted for the remaining stages of the bill has expired. I will first deal with the Australian Greens' amendment moved by Senator Waters on sheet 3194. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Waters on sheet 3194 be agreed to.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">Australian Greens' </inline> <inline font-style="italic">circulated </inline> <inline font-style="italic">amendment—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) any legislation to deliver electoral reforms must strengthen democracy and not just the political fortunes of the major parties,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the Greens are concerned that the proposed reforms entrench incumbency advantages that stack outcomes in favour of the two-party system, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the Greens continue to advocate for genuine electoral reform including getting big money out of politics, banning donations from fossil fuel corporations and other social harm industries, implementing truth in political advertising laws, strengthening the Lobbying Code of Conduct and enforcing longer post-parliamentary cooling-off periods for Ministers before they go to work for industries they were regulating; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) separate the transparency measures in this bill so that Parliament can pass them as a matter of urgency, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) support an inquiry into the funding elements of the bill to allow for democratic scrutiny of its provisions".</para></quote>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [20:40]<br />(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Fawcett)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>15</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>26</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll now deal with Pauline Hanson's One Nation amendment on sheet 3319. The question is that the Pauline Hanson's One Nation amendment on sheet 3319 be agreed to.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">Pauline Hanson One Nation's </inline> <inline font-style="italic">circulated </inline> <inline font-style="italic">amendments—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) hold a referendum to alter the Constitution so that;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(A) senators and members of the House of Representatives serve four years terms, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(B) elections for the House of Representatives and the whole Senate must be held on the same day, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(C) the number of senators from each State is fixed at no more than twelve, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(D) the number of senators from the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory is fixed at no more than two, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(E) senators and members of the House of Representatives must resign from the Parliament if their party affiliation, or status as an independent, at the time of their election changes during the course of their term, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) modernise and digitise the electoral roll so that an elector is automatically marked as having voted in an election as soon as they are provided with a ballot paper as currently occurs in Queensland".</para></quote>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [20:43]<br />(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Fawcett)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>3</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I. (Teller)</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>39</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will now deal with Senator Thorpe's amendment on sheet 3316. As this amendment was not circulated within the required timeframe, it can only be considered by leave.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Senate notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the bill and the associated explanatory memorandum are together more than 400 pages long,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) there has been limited parliamentary scrutiny of the more than 400 pages,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) Australians expect the Senate, as the house of review, to consider legislation carefully,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) in the midst of cost of living pressures, the Government is giving itself and other parties substantial increases in public funding instead of prioritising increased support to Australians who are doing it tough,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) the bill creates an unfair playing field, giving advantage to incumbents over new candidates by failing to give all candidates the same public funding for administrative support and failing to account for incumbent resources such as an office, staff, a vehicle and marketing budget whilst imposing a spending cap on candidates,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vi) the bill provides disproportionate yearly administrative assistance funding to major political parties, and fails to account for any economies of scale,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vii) the bill entrenches political party advantage over independent candidates by imposing a spending cap on individual seats while still permitting additional party advertising under a party's $90 million national cap,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(viii) the bill provisions particularly disadvantage independent candidates from diverse cultural and socio-economic backgrounds, resulting in a parliamentary system and policy outcomes less representative of a wide range of the population; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Senate calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) undertake an assessment of realistic administrative compliance costs under the bill, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) place a cap on administrative assistance funding to political parties to accurately reflect administrative compliance costs".</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that Senator Thorpe's amendment on sheet 3316 be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [20:46]<br />(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Fawcett)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>19</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>25</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that this bill now be read a second time.</para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [20:49]<br />(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Fawcett)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>25</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Wong, P.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>19</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to. <br />Bill read a second time.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>149</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table eight supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government amendments to be moved to the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024, and I seek leave to move all sheets of government amendments together, to facilitate as wide a discussion as possible.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move government amendments on sheets EE102, EE103, EE105, FJ101, SC130, SC131, SC136 and SC138:</para>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET EE102</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 13, page 11 (before line 3), before the definition of <inline font-style="italic">Senate-only election</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">peak representative body</inline> means an entity in respect of which the following conditions are satisfied:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the majority of the entity's income is payments made by the members, branches or affiliates (however described) of the entity;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) none of the members, branches or affiliates (however described) of the entity is a natural person except:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) an officeholder of the entity who is a non-financial member, branch or affiliate of the entity; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a person who is a non-financial member, branch or affiliate of the entity in their capacity as an officeholder of a body corporate or another organisation; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) an honorary non-financial member, branch or affiliate of the entity;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the entity operates for the sole or dominant purpose of representing the shared interests of the members, branches or affiliates (however described) of the entity;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the majority of the entity's income is not used for the purpose of incurring electoral expenditure or making gifts for the purpose of incurring electoral expenditure;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the entity was formed in Australia, or incorporated by or under a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or a Territory.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: A peak representative body represents the shared interests of other organisations, and may also be a significant third party, an associated entity or a third party.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, item 18, page 14 (after line 36), after paragraph 287AAB(3)(g), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: See subsection (3A) for an exception to paragraph (g).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 1, item 18, page 17 (after line 7), after subsection 287AAB(3), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) Despite paragraph (3)(g), a disposition of property (including the provision of a service) made by a core member of a registered political party's expenditure group to another core member of the expenditure group is a <inline font-style="italic">gift</inline> if the disposition is made, for a federal purpose, by a core member who is a candidate, a member of the House of Representatives or a Senator.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Gifts for a federal purpose are subject to caps (see Division 3A) and expedited disclosure obligations (see Division 4).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 1, item 18, page 17 (line 10), after "third party", insert "(including a peak representative body)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 1, item 18, page 17 (lines 23 to 26), omit "See especially subsection 292FA(6), which prevents the crediting of these kinds of amounts to a federal account to the extent they exceed the annual gift cap.", substitute "These kinds of amounts may, up to a limit, be credited to a federal account (see subsection 292FA(4) and section 292FAE).".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Schedule 1, page 21 (after line 19), after item 42, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">42A At the end of section 302CA</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Extended meaning of gift</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) Disregard subsection 287AAB(3) in working out whether something is a gift for the purposes of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Schedule 1, page 21 (after line 23), after item 44, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">44A After subsection 314B(9)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9A) Disregard subsection 287AAB(3) in working out whether something is a gift for the purposes of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Schedule 6, item 4, page 161 (line 19) to page 163 (line 19), omit subsections 292FA(4) to (6), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Obligation to credit only required or permitted amounts</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) A person or entity covered by column 1 of an item in the table in subsection (1) must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the only amounts that are credited to a federal account kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to the person or entity covered by column 2 of the item are the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) amounts required to be credited to a federal account kept for the purposes of that person or entity under subsection (2) or (3) of this section or another provision of this Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) amounts that are:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) to be used for a federal purpose; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) permitted to be credited to a federal account kept for the purposes of that person or entity under section 292FAA, 292FAB, 292FAC, 292FAD or 292FAE or another provision of this Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Schedule 6, item 4, page 163 (after line 36), after section 292FA, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">292FAA Permitted credits to federal account for registered political party, State branch or nominated entity</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For the purposes of subparagraph 292FA(4)(b)(ii), the following amounts may be credited to a federal account kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to a person or entity (the <inline font-style="italic">account beneficiary</inline>) covered by column 2 of item 2, 3 or 7 of the table in subsection 292FA(1):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) interest earned on money standing to the credit of the account;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a loan;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a bequest;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) an amount paid from another federal account kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to another person or entity that is a core member of the same expenditure group as the account beneficiary;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) if the account beneficiary is a registered political party or a State branch of a registered political party—an amount paid from another federal account kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to another political party if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the account beneficiary and the other political party are related to each other within the meaning of paragraph 123(2)(a) because one is a part of the other (while not being a State branch of the other); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the one that is a part of the other is a registered political party;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) an amount of a kind prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: The effect of paragraph (b) is that a commercial loan or a non-commercial loan can be credited to a federal account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: The effect of paragraph (d) is that any amount can be credited to the federal account of a registered political party, a State branch or a nominated entity if the amount is paid from the federal account of a candidate, a member of the House of Representatives, a Senator, or another registered political party, State branch or nominated entity, and both the recipient and the payer are core members of the same expenditure group.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 3: There are penalties for crediting an amount to a federal account if the amount is not required or permitted to be credited: see subsections 292FA(4) and (8).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">292FAB Permitted credits to federal account for registered political parties: contributions by candidates and sitting members</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) For the purposes of subparagraph 292FA(4)(b)(ii), an amount may be credited to a federal account kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to a person or entity (the <inline font-style="italic">account beneficiary</inline>) covered by column 2 of item 2 or 3 of the table in subsection 292FA(1) if all of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the account beneficiary is a registered political party;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the amount is credited to the federal account by a person (the <inline font-style="italic">payer</inline>) at a time in a calendar year and is an amount of the payer's own money;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) at the time the amount is credited, the payer is either or both of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a candidate endorsed by the account beneficiary;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a member of the House of Representatives, or a Senator, who is a member of the account beneficiary;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) if the payer is a candidate at the time the amount is credited—the amount is credited to the federal account for the purposes of the payer's election campaign in the calendar year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: An amount may only be credited under this section if it is for a federal purpose. The amount will be a gift (see subsection 287AAB(3A)).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) However, the sum of the following amounts must not exceed the annual gift cap (within the meaning of Division 3A) for the calendar year:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) amounts paid by the payer that are covered by subsection (1) and credited in the calendar year to federal accounts kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to the account beneficiary;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) amounts paid by the payer that are covered by subsection 292FAC(4) and credited in the calendar year to federal accounts kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to the payer.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: There are penalties for crediting an amount to a federal account if the amount is not required or permitted to be credited: see subsections 292FA(4) and (8).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">292FAC Permitted credits to federal account for candidate, member or Senator</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">General</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) For the purposes of subparagraph 292FA(4)(b)(ii), the following amounts may be credited to a federal account kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to a person (the <inline font-style="italic">account beneficiary</inline>) covered by column 2 of item 1 or 4 of the table in subsection 292FA(1):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) interest earned on money standing to the credit of the account;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a loan;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a bequest;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) an amount paid from another federal account kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to another person or entity, if both the other person or entity and the account beneficiary are core members of the same expenditure group;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) an amount of a kind prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: The effect of paragraph (b) is that a commercial loan or a non-commercial loan can be credited to a federal account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: The effect of paragraph (d) is that any amount can be credited to the federal account of a candidate, a member of the House of Representatives or a Senator if the amount is paid from the federal account of another candidate, member of the House of Representatives or Senator, or a registered political party, a State branch or nominated entity, and both the recipient and the payer are core members of the same expenditure group.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 3: There are penalties for crediting an amount to a federal account if the amount is not required or permitted to be credited: see subsections 292FA(4) and (8).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Contributions by independent candidates and members</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) For the purposes of subparagraph 292FA(4)(b)(ii), an amount may be credited to a federal account kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to a person (the <inline font-style="italic">account beneficiary</inline>) covered by column 2 of item 1 or 4 of the table in subsection 292FA(1) if all of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the amount is credited to the federal account by the account beneficiary at a time in a calendar year and is an amount of the account beneficiary's own money;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) at the time the amount is credited, the account beneficiary is either or both of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a candidate who is not endorsed by a registered political party;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a member of the House of Representatives, or a Senator, who is not a member of a registered political party;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if the account beneficiary is a candidate at the time the amount is credited—the amount is credited to the federal account for the purposes of the account beneficiary's election campaign in the calendar year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For an amount to be a gift, it must be a disposition of property from one person to another person (see subsection 287AAB(1)).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) However, the sum of amounts that are covered by subsection (2) and credited in a calendar year to federal accounts kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to the account beneficiary must not exceed the annual gift cap (within the meaning of Division 3A) for the calendar year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: There are penalties for crediting an amount to a federal account if the amount is not required or permitted to be credited: see subsections 292FA(4) and (8).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Contributions by other candidates and sitting members</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) For the purposes of subparagraph 292FA(4)(b)(ii), an amount may be credited to a federal account kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to a person (the <inline font-style="italic">account beneficiary</inline>) covered by column 2 of item 1 or 4 of the table in subsection 292FA(1) if all of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the amount is credited to the federal account by the account beneficiary at a time in a calendar year and is an amount of the account beneficiary's own money;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) at the time the amount is credited, the account beneficiary is either or both of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a candidate who is endorsed by a registered political party;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a member of the House of Representatives, or a Senator, who is a member of a registered political party;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if the account beneficiary is a candidate at the time the amount is credited—the amount is credited to the federal account for the purposes of the account beneficiary's election campaign in the calendar year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For an amount to be a gift, it must be a disposition of property from one person to another person (see subsection 287AAB(1)).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) However, the sum of the following amounts must not exceed the annual gift cap (within the meaning of Division 3A) for the calendar year:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) amounts that are covered by subsection (4) and credited in the calendar year to federal accounts kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to the account beneficiary;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) amounts that are covered by subsection 292FAB(1) and credited in the calendar year to federal accounts kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the registered political party that endorsed the account beneficiary; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the registered political party that the account beneficiary is a member of.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: There are penalties for crediting an amount to a federal account if the amount is not required or permitted to be credited: see subsections 292FA(4) and (8).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">292FAD Permitted credits to federal account for significant third party, associated entity or third party</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For the purposes of subparagraph 292FA(4)(b)(ii), the following amounts may be credited to a federal account kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to a person or entity covered by column 2 of item 5, 6 or 8 of the table in subsection 292FA(1):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) interest earned on money standing to the credit of the account;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a loan;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a bequest;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) an amount of a kind prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: The effect of paragraph (b) is that a commercial loan or a non-commercial loan can be credited to a federal account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: There are penalties for crediting an amount to a federal account if the amount is not required or permitted to be credited: see subsections 292FA(4) and (8).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">292FAE Permitted credits to federal account for significant third party, associated entity or third party: capped amounts of subscriptions etc.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) For the purposes of subparagraph 292FA(4)(b)(ii), the following amounts paid by a person or entity (the <inline font-style="italic">payer</inline>) may be credited in a calendar year to a federal account kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to a person or entity (the <inline font-style="italic">account beneficiary</inline>) covered by column 2 of item 5, 6 or 8 of the table in subsection 292FA(1):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a subscription paid in respect of the payer's membership of the account beneficiary;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) an amount paid in respect of the payer's affiliation with the account beneficiary;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if the payer is an elected official or employee of the account beneficiary—an annual levy paid by the payer to the account beneficiary.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Amounts covered by paragraphs (a) to (c) that are credited to a federal account are gifts: see subsection 287AAB(4). Subdivision E of Division 4 imposes disclosure obligations in relation to gifts.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) However, the sum of amounts paid by the payer that are covered by subsection (1) and credited in a calendar year to federal accounts kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to the account beneficiary must not exceed:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the significant third party, associated entity or third party is a peak representative body—4 times the annual gift cap (within the meaning of Division 3A) for the calendar year; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) otherwise—the annual gift cap (within the meaning of Division 3A) for the calendar year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Amounts covered by subsection (1) that are credited to a federal account are gifts: see subsection 287AAB(4). Subdivision E of Division 4 imposes disclosure obligations in relation to gifts.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET EE103</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, page 17 (after line 26), after item 18, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">18A Subsection 287AB(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subsection (not including the notes), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Dominant purpose of creating or communicating electoral matter</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Expenditure is <inline font-style="italic">electoral </inline><inline font-style="italic">expenditure</inline> if it is incurred for the dominant purpose of creating or communicating electoral matter.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">18B Subsection 287AB(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "In addition, any expenditure incurred by or with the authority of a political entity, a person or entity", substitute "Any expenditure incurred by or with the authority of a political entity, a member of the House of Representatives or a Senator, or a person or an entity".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">18C Subsection 287AB(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "a member of the House of Representatives or a Senator in relation to an election is <inline font-style="italic">electoral expenditure</inline>, except to the extent that the expenditure is, or is to be, paid or reimbursed by the Commonwealth (except under Division 3 (election funding)) to or in relation to a person who is or was a member of the House of Representatives, a Senator or a Minister, because that person is or was such a member, Senator or Minister", substitute "is <inline font-style="italic">electoral expenditure </inline>to the extent that it is in relation to an election".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, page 17 (after line 31), after item 19, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">19A After subsection 287AB(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Specific electoral expenditure</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) Any expenditure incurred by or with the authority of a political entity, a member of the House of Representatives or a Senator, a third party, or a person or an entity that is (or is required to be registered as) a significant third party, an associated entity or a nominated entity, is <inline font-style="italic">electoral expenditure</inline> to the extent that it is in relation to an election and also any of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) expenditure on electoral matter in the form of advertisements in radio, television, the internet, cinemas, newspapers, billboards, posters, brochures, how-to-vote cards or any other form;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) expenditure on the production and distribution of electoral matter;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) expenditure on the internet, telecommunications, stationery or postage for the purposes of communicating electoral matter;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) expenditure incurred in employing staff engaged in an election campaign;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) expenditure incurred for office accommodation for any such staff and candidates;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) expenditure on travel and travel accommodation for candidates and staff engaged in an election campaign;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) expenditure on research associated with an election campaign (other than in-house research);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) expenditure incurred in raising funds for an election;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) expenditure of a kind prescribed by the regulations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: The expenditure caps in Division 3AB apply in relation to all electoral expenditure unless an exemption in Subdivision G of Division 3AB applies.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: References to an election mean an election of a member of the House of Representatives or an election of Senators for a State or Territory (see subsection 287(1)).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 3: A candidate's staff includes any volunteers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Expenditure that is not </inline> <inline font-style="italic">electoral expenditure</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3B) Despite anything else in this section, expenditure is not <inline font-style="italic">electoral expenditure</inline> to the extent that it is, or is to be, paid or reimbursed by the Commonwealth (except under Division 3 (election funding)) to or in relation to a person who is or was a member of the House of Representatives, a Senator or a Minister, because that person is or was such a member, Senator or Minister.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3C) Despite anything else in this section, expenditure is not <inline font-style="italic">electoral expenditure</inline> to the extent that it is incurred by a person or entity (the <inline font-style="italic">service provider</inline>):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) in providing a communication service or communication platform that is used to create or communicate electoral matter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in providing a service for another person or entity that engaged the service provider, on a commercial basis, to create or communicate electoral matter.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 1, item 20, page 18 (line 1), omit the heading to subsection 287AB(4).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 1, item 20, page 18 (after line 11), after paragraph 287AB(4)(c), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ca) expenditure to the extent that it is administrative expenditure;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(cb) expenditure to the extent that it would be administrative expenditure if references in subsection 287AAA(1) to a registered political party included references to a political entity, a member of the House of Representatives or a Senator, a third party, or a person or an entity that is (or is required to be registered as) a significant third party, an associated entity or a nominated entity;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(cc) expenditure incurred in relation to an election other than an election within the meaning of this Part (see subsection 287(1));</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 7, item 2, page 170 (lines 36 to 40), omit note 2.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Schedule 7, item 2, page 171 (line 7), after "particular electoral matter", insert "or electoral matter generally".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Schedule 7, item 2, page 171 (lines 19 to 22), omit subsection 287AAA(3).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET EE105</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 8), after "Schedules 6", insert ", 6A".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 5, item 8, page 134 (after line 18), after subsection 310(4), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Details of federal administrative accounts</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4A) The return must set out details of any federal administrative accounts kept in relation to the entity at any time in the calendar year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 5, item 8, page 136 (after line 3), after subsection 310A(3), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Details of federal administrative accounts</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) The return must set out details of any federal administrative accounts kept in relation to the candidate at any time in the calendar year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 5, item 8, page 137 (after line 29), after subsection 310B(3), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Details of federal administrative accounts</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) The return must set out details of any federal administrative accounts kept in relation to the member or Senator at any time in the calendar year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 5, item 8, page 139 (after line 30), after subsection 310C(3), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Details of federal administrative accounts</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) The return must set out details of any federal administrative accounts kept in relation to the person or entity at any time in the calendar year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Schedule 5, item 8, page 142 (after line 34), after subsection 310D(3), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Details of federal administrative accounts</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) The return must set out details of any federal administrative accounts kept in relation to the entity at any time in the calendar year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Schedule 5, item 8, page 144 (after line 30), after subsection 310E(3), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Details of federal administrative accounts</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) The return must set out details of any federal administrative accounts kept in relation to the entity at any time in the calendar year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Schedule 5, item 8, page 146 (after line 6), after subsection 310F(3), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Details of federal administrative accounts</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) The return must set out details of any federal administrative accounts kept in relation to the person or entity at any time in the calendar year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Schedule 5, item 12, page 156 (table item 4), after "an address", insert "or details of federal administrative accounts".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) Page 168 (after line 4), after Schedule 6, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 6A — Federal administrative accounts</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Subsection 287(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">federal administrative account</inline> means an account where:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the only amounts deposited into the account are amounts to be used only for a federal administrative purpose; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the only amounts withdrawn or transferred from the account are amounts:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) withdrawn or transferred for a federal administrative purpose; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) transferred to another federal administrative account; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the account is with an ADI within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">Banking Act 1959</inline>; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the account is kept in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: ADI is short for authorised deposit-taking institution.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Example: A federal administrative account of a federal party may be established by the federal party or a State branch of the federal party.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">federal administrative purpose</inline> means the purpose of incurring:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) administrative expenditure; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) expenditure to the extent that it would be administrative expenditure if references in subsection 287AAA(1) to a registered political party included references to a political entity, a member of the House of Representatives or a Senator, a third party, or a person or an entity that is (or is required to be registered as) a significant third party, an associated entity or a nominated entity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: See section 287AAA for the definition of <inline font-style="italic">administrative expenditure</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 Subsection 287(1) (at the end of the definition of <inline font-style="italic">regulated entity</inline> )</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; and (c) in sections 314C and 314D—a political entity, a member of the House of Representatives or a Senator, a significant third party, a third party, an associated entity or nominated entity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 After section 314B</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">314C Gifts made etc. for federal administrative purposes</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Offering gifts</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a person or entity may offer to give a gift to, or for the benefit of, a regulated entity if the gift is expresslyoffered for federal administrative purposes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Seeking gifts</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a regulated entity, or a person on behalf of a regulated entity, may seek a gift if the gift is expresslysought for use for federal administrative purposes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Giving gifts</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a person or entity may give a gift to, or for the benefit of, a regulated entity if the gift is expresslygiven for federal administrative purposes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Receiving or keeping gifts</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">money</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a regulated entity, or a person on behalf of a regulated entity, may receive a gift of money if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the money is deposited into a federal administrative account as soon as practicable after the money is received; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the money is not transferred or withdrawn out of the account except:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) to use the money for federal administrative purposes; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) to transfer the money to another federal administrative account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a regulated entity, or a person on behalf of a regulated entity, may keep a gift of money if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the money is kept in a federal administrative account; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the money is not transferred or withdrawn out of the account except:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) to use the money for federal administrative purposes; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) to transfer the money to another federal administrative account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) To avoid doubt, subsections (4) and (5) are taken never to have applied if, at any time, the money is transferred or withdrawn out of the account, or any other federal administrative account, except as provided by subparagraph (4)(b)(i) or (ii) or (5)(b)(i) or (ii).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Receiving or keeping gifts</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">gifts other than money</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Despite any State or Territory electoral law and despite subsection 302CA(5), a regulated entity, or a person on behalf of a regulated entity, may receive or keep a gift that is not money unless the regulated entity keeps the gift for use for, or uses the gift for, purposes other than federal purposes or federal administrative purposes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) To avoid doubt, subsection (7) is taken never to have applied if, at any time, the regulated entity keeps the gift for use for, or uses the gift for, purposes other than federal administrative purposes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Receiving or keeping gifts</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">additional operation</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Subsections (4), (5) and (6) also have the effect they would have if a reference to a gift were confined to a gift expressly given for federal administrative purposes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Using gifts</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">money</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a regulated entity may use, or authorise the use of, a gift of money for federal administrative purposes if the gift has been continuouslykept in a federal administrative account since it was deposited in that account, or any other federal administrative account, in accordance with subsection (4).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Using gifts</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">gifts other than money</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a regulated entity may use, or authorise the use of, a gift, that is not money, for federal administrative purposes if the gift has been continuouslykept for federal administrative purposes since it was received.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Using gifts</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">relationship with State or Territory electoral laws</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(12) To avoid doubt, the fact that, as a result of subsection (10) or (11), a State or Territory electoral law does not prohibit the use of a gift does not prevent that law from prohibiting the offering, seeking, giving, receiving or keeping of the gift.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Gifts not otherwise prohibited by this Part</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(13) To avoid doubt, this section applies to a gift only if this Part does not prohibit the giving, receiving or keeping of the gift.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Parts of gifts</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(14) For the purposes of this section, if a part of a gift is offered, sought, given, received, kept or used for a particular purpose, and that same action is taken in relation to another part of the gift for a different purpose, each part of the gift is taken to be a separate gift.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Extended meaning of gift</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(15) Disregard subsection 287AAB(3) in working out whether something is a gift for the purposes of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">314D Disclosure of amounts given etc. for federal administrative purposes</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Disclosure of amounts and benefits given </inline> <inline font-style="italic">etc.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a person or entity is not required to disclose under that law an amount of money, or information relating to an amount of money, (including a gift or loan) if the person or entity expressly gives the amount to, or for the benefit of, a regulated entity for federal administrative purposes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a person or entity is not required to disclose under that law the value of a non-monetary benefit, or information relating to a non-monetary benefit, if the person or entity expressly provides the benefit to, or for the benefit of, a regulated entity for federal administrative purposes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For the definition of <inline font-style="italic">non-monetary benefit</inline>, see subsection (11).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Disclosure of amounts and other benefits received</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a regulated entity is not required to disclose under that law an amount of money, or information relating to an amount of money, (including a gift or loan) that is received by or on behalf of the regulated entity if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the amount is deposited into a federal administrative account as soon as practicable after the amount is received; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the amount is not transferred or withdrawn out of the account except:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) to use the amount for federal administrative purposes; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) to transfer the amount to another federal administrative account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) To avoid doubt, subsection (3) is taken never to have applied if, at any time, the amount is transferred or withdrawn out of the account, or any other federal administrative account, except as provided by subparagraph (3)(b)(i) or (ii).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Despite any State or Territory electoral law and despite subsection 314B(2), a regulated entity is not required to disclose under that law the value of a non-monetary benefit, or information relating to a non-monetary benefit, that is received by or on behalf of the regulated entity unless the regulated entity keeps the benefit for use for, or uses the benefit for, purposes other than federal purposes or federal administrative purposes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) To avoid doubt, subsection (5) is taken never to have applied if, at any time, the regulated entity keeps the benefit for use for, or uses the benefit for, purposes other than federal administrative purposes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Subsections (3) and (5) also have the effect they would have if a reference to an amount or benefit were confined to an amount or benefit expressly given or provided for federal administrative purposes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Disclosure of administrative expenditure</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a regulated entity is not required to disclose under that law an amount, or information relating to an amount, of expenditure if the expenditure is administrative expenditure.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Disclosure of debts</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a regulated entity is not required to disclose under that law an amount, or information relating to an amount, of a debt (except a debt incurred as a result of a loan) if the debt is incurred for federal administrative purposes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Interpretation</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, if, as a result of this section, a person or entity is not required to disclose under that law an amount, information or value referred to in this section (the <inline font-style="italic">federal information</inline>), then:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) it is immaterial whether the federal information is required to be included in a return provided under this Part; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a total amount, or information relating to a total amount, that is required to be disclosed under that law is not required to include the federal information.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) A <inline font-style="italic">non-monetary benefit</inline> is a gift, or a good or service that is lent, that is not money.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(12) For the purposes of this section, if an action (such as giving or using) is taken in relation to a part of an amount or non-monetary benefit for a particular purpose, and that same action is taken in relation to another part of the amount or benefit for a different purpose, each part of the amount or benefit is taken to be a separate amount or benefit.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(13) Disregard subsection 287AAB(3) in working out whether something is a gift for the purposes of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Compulsory production provisions excluded</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(14) This section does not apply in relation to any compulsory production provision in a State or Territory electoral law.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(15) A <inline font-style="italic">compulsory production provision</inline> in a State or Territory electoral law is a provision that confers a power on a person or body (the <inline font-style="italic">regulator</inline>) to compel a particular person to disclose information (including an amount or value) for the purposes of the regulator investigating a potential contravention of that or any otherlaw.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: A provision that confers a power for a person or body to give a notice to produce to a regulated entity is an example of a compulsory production provision.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 After subsection 302AE( 3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) The account may be a federal administrative account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 After subsection 302AE(8)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8A) The account may be a federal administrative account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 After subsection 302AF(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) The account may be a federal administrative account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 Subsection 317(1A)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "or 314B", substitute ", 314B, 314C or 314D".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 Subsection 317(1A) (example)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "federal account", insert "or federal administrative account".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">9 Paragraph 317(2)(e)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "or 314B", substitute ", 314B, 314C or 314D".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) Schedule 9, item 3, page 194 (after line 25), at the end of subsection 314AN(2), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: This may include a requirement to produce information or documents relating to a federal account or federal administrative account kept for the purposes of this Part.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET FJ101</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 3, page 71 (line 2), after the heading to the Schedule, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 1 — Amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 3, page 94 (after line 28), at the end of the Schedule, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 2 — Relationship of this Schedule with Schedule 4</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">11 Relationship of this Schedule with Schedule 4</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) It is the intention of the Parliament that the amendments made by this Schedule (gift caps) and by Schedule 4 (expenditure caps) are to operate together and not to be severed from each other.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Subitem (1) operates despite section 15A of the <inline font-style="italic">Acts Interpretation Act 1901</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) To avoid doubt, subitem (1) does not apply in relation to any other amendments made by this Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 4, page 95 (line 2), after the heading to the Schedule, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 1 — Amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 4, page 129 (after line 8), at the end of the Schedule, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 2 — Relationship of this Schedule with Schedule 3</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 Relationship of this Schedule with Schedule 3</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) It is the intention of the Parliament that the amendments made by this Schedule (expenditure caps) and by Schedule 3 (gift caps) are to operate together and not to be severed from each other.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Subitem (1) operates despite section 15A of the <inline font-style="italic">Acts Interpretation Act 1901</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) To avoid doubt, subitem (1) does not apply in relation to any other amendments made by this Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET SC130</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 4, item 2, page 121 (after line 32), at the end of subsection 302AQC(1), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 3: A candidate's staff includes any volunteers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 4, item 2, page 122 (after line 11), at the end of subsection 302AQC(2), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 3: A candidate's staff includes any volunteers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET SC131</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 18, page 14 (after line 36), after paragraph 287AAB(3)(g), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ga) a loan made by a core member of a registered political party's expenditure group to another core member of the expenditure group;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(gb) an amount of uncharged interest on a loan, as mentioned in paragraph (2)(b) of this subsection, if the loan was made by a core member of a registered political party's expenditure group to another core member of the expenditure group;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET SC136</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 3, item 1, page 71 (line 28), omit "$20,000", substitute "$50,000".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 3, item 1, page 72 (line 1), omit "$20,000", substitute "$50,000".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 3, item 1, page 72 (line 26), omit "$20,000", substitute "$50,000".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET SC138</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 10, page 10 (line 16), omit "$1,000", substitute "$5,000".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, item 10, page 10 (line 17), omit "$1,000", substitute "$5,000".</para></quote>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, regarding the amendment to introduce peak representative bodies, natural persons are included as being members or officeholders only in a non-financial capacity. Can you confirm that this is to make sure that these natural persons cannot pay a subscription, an affiliation fee or an annual levy to a peak body at a rate higher than the annual gift cap of $50,000 to which they would otherwise be entitled?</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senators, I have asked you, if you're going to remain in the chamber, to resume your seats and not to interject, in accordance with standing order 197.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for the question. Yes, we've sought to make sure that, by including these natural members as being members or officeholders in a non-financial capacity, as an individual, they cannot pay a subscription or an affiliation fee.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can you confirm that the bill will not change the National Party's existing affiliation arrangements between the federal party and state parties as per their constitutions? In particular, can you confirm that the state National Party entities, such as the National Party of Australia Victoria and the LNP, will continue to be recognised as state branches of the federal National Party for the purposes of the Commonwealth Electoral Act?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for that question, Senator Hume. Yes, I can confirm that requirements to party registration and affiliations are not amended by the bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, can you confirm that the provisions of the bill do not alter the status of the LNP as the recognised state branch and, specifically, the Queensland branch of both the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia for the purposes of the Commonwealth Electoral Act?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Hume for her question. The bill does not alter the status of the LNP for the purposes of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, is it also correct that a state branch in a federal party is a core member of the federal branch's expenditure group?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, a state branch in a federal party is a core member of the federal branch's executive group.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, on peak representative bodies, could you please give an example of a natural person who is a member of the type organisation captured by the definition of a peak representative body?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If you can give me a little bit of time, I will get a formal answer to that question.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to ask some questions about the expenditure cap by electorate. Independent candidates are provided a divisional expenditure cap of $800,000 while political parties are provided with a national expenditure cap of $90 million. That's correct, yes?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, that is correct.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If a political party runs candidates in all 150 seats, that equates to just $600,000 per seat. Given this, what do you then say to people who say that this bill disadvantages Independents who have a cap of $800,000?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  Thank you, Senator Hume, for your question. The beauty of this bill is that it treats everybody equally. It sets an amount of money that you can spend—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I like Mary MacKillop. She was a wonderful lady and—</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Minister, you'll ignore the interjections. Senator Rennick, you know the standing orders. Minister.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The beauty of this bill is that it puts downward pressure on total expenditure, but it also ensures that everybody gets treated equally, in terms of their ability to run a campaign. What I say about the $800,000 is simply this. If you can't get your message out to the Australian community with an expenditure of $800,000 then you shouldn't be in the game of politics.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I know you disagree, Senator Lambie.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Minister, ignore the interjections. Senator Lambie, standing order 197.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Wake up, Senator.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Minister, you have the call.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This bill is about putting downward pressure. It's all about taking big money out of the electoral process and it's all about treating all candidates equally, in terms of their ability to get elected to this place. You shouldn't, any longer, be in the thrall of a billionaire to be elected to this place. Ordinary Australians have to have the ability to be elected, and that's exactly what this bill does.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have some questions about disclosure periods. First of all, Minister, can you confirm the length of time that a candidate or a political party will have to disclose a donation outside of an election?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to that is monthly.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, can you confirm the length of time that a candidate or a political party will have to disclose a donation after the writs for an election have been issued?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's weekly, until the last week when it becomes daily. That's significant because, for the first time in Australian electoral history, when you go into the ballet box to vote, you will know in advance who else is backing the particular candidate that you're contemplating voting for. This is one of the historical changes and, I think, very beneficial changes to our democratic process that will result as a result of this legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I just want to reconfirm then that, after the writs are issued, disclosures for donations have to occur within a week, but, during that last week of a campaign, disclosures for donations have to occur daily—is that correct?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That's correct, and that is one of the terrific transparency provisions in this new legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have some questions about parliamentarian resources. First, could you confirm that the resources provided to sitting parliamentarians are not considered electoral expenditure for the purposes of the expenditure cap?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, that is correct.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, can you also confirm that, in relation to staff provided to parliamentarians, the changes proposed in this legislation will also ensure that volunteers are not inappropriately captured by the expenditure caps?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, I can confirm that. I think there's an amendment to clarify that point amongst the one's I've just presented here this evening.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have no further questions for the minister other than hoping that he will be able to come back on that original question of an example of a natural person who is a member of the type of organisation captured by the definition of 'peak representative body'. If you could come back to us before we get to the end, that would be terrific.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think we're going to be here for a very long time tonight, so I have ample time to ensure I get the accurate advice for you, Senator.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, well, well. I have to say I'm rather offered. The only way I got up here, the only way I was given an opportunity as a normal Aussie out there, was by billionaire Clive Palmer. Are you now saying to me that after 10 years in this place I do not belong here? Is that what you're saying—that that opportunity was given to me and that you're going to take it off everyone else and that I haven't earnt my way up here? By God, I'm offended. Why don't you answer that one?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>No, I'm not saying that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I actually don't recall—maybe I was comatose during the last three years—the Labor Party taking this to the last election. When did you get the majority? When did you get a social licence from the Australian people to ram this down our throats and theirs and to charge them more? Instead of $3, $5 will pass over to us. When did you get Australia's social licence to do that?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Labor Party took transparency provisions to the last election, and, in the almost three years of this parliament, we have had inquiry after inquiry into the best way of ensuring the ongoing electoral system in this country to ensure that democracy survives in this country and to ensure that democracy prospers in this country. Those committee hearings and the resultant legislation which you now see before you tonight are a reflection of all of those discussions which we have conducted in this parliament with the Australian people, and I'm very firmly of the view that the Australian people want this legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Democracy? It's a stitch-up. You have stained democracy. That's what you've done by doing this. Anyway, during this time, I've never seen the opposition throwing dorothy dixers to the government. At what time did the opposition provide copies of the questions they were going to ask you whilst you were in the committee stage of consideration of this bill?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We've had very extensive conversations over a long period of time with the opposition, with the Greens, with Senator Pocock and even with Senator Rennick.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, we might have to agree to disagree, Senator Rennick. The number of amendments that you've put into this legislation suggests to me that you had a pretty good outing. Throughout this whole process, I've been willing to talk to anybody who wants to talk about electoral reform. I've invited people to come forward with their ideas. If the opposition choose to do that, then I choose to respond, and I think that's a good thing, Senator Lambie.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's not a confession box, but do you actually think you could stand in a court of law right now and state under oath that this is not an attempt by both of your major parties to limit the crossbench representation in the future for what is the greatness of democracy in this country? You can't be serious. You could stand under oath, could you? Could you seriously do that?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, I could.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, we just got a whole bevy of amendments that constituted the changes that the Liberal Party required in order to back in this piece of legislation. We literally received those while I was on my feet giving my second reading speech. That was when they came into my email inbox, so I've had about an hour to glance through them whilst also trying to pay attention to what's happening in the chamber. My first question is: can you please run us through the changes that the Liberal Party asked you to make to this bill that are now being reflected in the amendments that you've just tabled? What do they do?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The changes reflect the negotiations that we've had with all of the parties in this parliament. People have made suggestions. As you know, I came up to Brisbane to your beautiful offices in Paddington.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, the invite was there. Senator Pocock, of course, is in Canberra. He came in to see me. I've invited everybody in this place to come forward. The bill didn't pass in November last year. Months have transpired. You've all had opportunities to come forward and say, 'I'd like this change or that change.' These changes reflect those people who have come forward, and I think they make the bill stronger in terms of getting the broadest possible support that we can get.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That actually didn't answer my question at all. I didn't ask about the process of the cosy chats you've had with the opposition. As a courtesy to the chamber, who only just received these amendments, I asked for you to explain what they do.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The amendments are there. You can read them for yourselves. They're simple amendments. They're straightforward. I invite you to do so.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm sorry, are you kidding me? I have been in here paying attention and doing my job. I do not have time to read all of the 400-page bill and the eight amendments you've just tabled. I asked you twice, 'Can you please tell the chamber what they do?' You don't even have the courtesy to do that. That is rude and arrogant.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I reject the suggestion I'm rude and arrogant. I took the trouble to fly up to Brisbane, to make an appointment to come and see you, to sit down with you and to invite you to come on board with some much-needed electoral reform in this country. When you said, 'Look, I want a briefing from the department on this legislation', I facilitated that briefing.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Waters</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Two months ago!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, I facilitated the briefing. It would have been earlier had you been available earlier.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm sorry, Senator Waters, it would have been available if you had been available earlier.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator, you're complaining about a 400-page document. You've had that document now for months.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Waters</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm asking about the individual—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, you were also asking about the 400-page—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Waters</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're not answering!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>With respect, Senator Waters, I am answering.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Waters, that's enough!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am answering your question. We've provided you with a briefing. As you know, we were going to meet last week and talk about the legislation. That didn't happen. I then approached you and said, 'Look, is there going to be an opportunity for us to discuss what you would like changed in this legislation?' You reiterated to me your earlier—</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Minister, resume your seat. Senator Lambie, do you have a point of order?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Lambie</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I do. I'm confused, and I too would like to know what the eight amendments that the Liberal and National parties have just put in do. That's all we're asking. Could you please explain to us what those eight amendments do?</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you; please resume your seat. Minister, if you could attend to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I've said everything I needed to say on that point.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Lambie, before you start, can I ask you to stick to the point. There's a lot of emotion in here; that's fine, but let's be clear about the questions we're asking.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's not emotion; I just need to understand what the eight amendments are. They've done a deal here, but I've got a minister here that cannot explain what those eight amendments do. How can we—</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Lambie, if you would put your question.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Can you please explain what the eight amendments do? What do the LNP's eight amendments that you've agreed to do, Minister? I would have thought that was democracy. Please explain it to us.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Lambie, democracy is all about people like you taking advantage of offers by people like me in government to go through the legislation. It's part of democracy. If you say to me, Senator Lambie, 'I want an explanation', and I offer to provide you with that explanation, as I have done for weeks and weeks—</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Lambie, just wait. Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Lambie, if you would wait for the call it does a couple of things. One, it helps the chamber understand what you're trying to say and it allows <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> to record what you're saying. It is a common practice of this Senate to wait until you are called and, when you have the call, to say your piece. Senator Lambie, you have the call.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you! We have just been given these amendments. We are not staffed up. These amendments didn't come in two months ago; they've come in in the last hour. I am simply asking you to please explain what these amendments do.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Lambie, for weeks and weeks my office reached out to your office to give you a briefing on this legislation. You have chosen not to take that briefing. In fairness to the Greens, when the offer was made, they readily accepted, and we gave them—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Lambie</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Do you understand—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Lambie, I'm going to ask you again to wait for the call. Senator Lambie, please go ahead. You have a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Lambie</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm simply asking, these amendments—we're not talking about the bill; we're talking about—</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Lambie, this is not a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Okay. The amendments—</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The minister was speaking.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Lambie</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The relevance.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: He has eight minutes and 40 seconds left on the clock—if you would like to resume your seat. Minister, would you like to continue with your answer.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I make the observation, as I have done, that Senator Lambie was given the opportunity of a full briefing on the bill. She chose not to take advantage of that. If she wishes to have an explanation of the proposed amendments, then I'm happy to go through those. Amendment (1) proposed originally a disclosure threshold of $1,000, and we have increased that to $5,000. This is currently $16,900 and was again set to increase for the new financial year. No. 2, the amended gift cap from an individual or entity was originally $20,000 in the bill. That has been increased to $50,000. No. 3 is a provision to allow genuine peak representation bodies to manage their affiliation under the cap of four times the proposed gift. No. 4 is a technical amendment to limit the risks associated with constitutional changes to the reform package. No. 5 is a clarification that administrative expenditure is not electoral expenditure. Amendment (6) is technical amendments to ensure that state and territory electoral laws do not apply to the receipt and the use of funds for federal purposes or federal administrative purposes. No. 7 is technical amendments to ensure candidates, MPs and senators are able to contribute to their own political party or individual campaign account up to the annual gift cap. No. 8 is technical amendments to ensure political parties are able to loan funds between their branches without being subject to the gift cap. No. 9 is technical amendments to clarify that volunteers are to be treated as staff for the purposes of travel and accommodation related expenses and exemptions.</para>
<para>While I'm on my feet, Chair, Senator Hume did ask a question earlier. The answer to that is that a peak body can only be representative of other organisations. The only time a natural person can be a member of such a body is when they are a life member or elected official, not a replacement for affiliates or genuine organisations. This bill, including its amendments, is about promoting participation while limiting big money, as it restricts big donors.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. I appreciate you finally giving us a rundown of those amendments. I'm not sure why it took seven attempts to do so, but I do genuinely appreciate the guidance that you've given there. I have a follow-up question in relation to the affiliation fees, which was the third amendment that you mentioned. I don't know which number amendment it is, unfortunately. You mentioned that affiliation fees up to four times the amount of the gift cap for peak bodies can be contributed. I understand that, under the bill that was tabled, there would have been a $20,000 cap on the amount that peak bodies—such as the Business Council or the Minerals Council, for example—could take from their member organisations for their own national political campaigns. Is it correct that the amendment that you've just flagged essentially changes that? Is it the case that every single big mining company that is a member of the Minerals Council can now contribute $250,000 in affiliate fees to the Minerals Council—not $20,000 anymore but $250,000? Is it the case that the Minerals Council could then spend that on electoral purposes and only be capped from doing so above $11½ million? Please let me be wrong about that, but is that the case?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This issue was certainly the subject of discussion with a range of member organisations, and, yes, we have increased the amount of money that they are going to be able to spend on the election process. But the key here, Senator Waters, is that at the moment there is no limit. They can spend as much as they want, and many of them do. The billionaires spend an awful lot of money on elections. At the last election we saw Clive Palmer spend $117 million.</para>
<para>To the extent that we are capping the ability of these organisations to spend money in elections, we are putting downward pressure on these organisations and their ability to spend money in the election. At the moment, there is no restriction. Nothing at all restricts those companies from spending as much as they like. We have capped the spending of these organisations.</para>
<para>You don't want money going to gambling organisations or fossil fuels companies, and you don't want donations from them. For the first time in the electoral history of the federal parliament, we are capping the spending of those organisations which you say you don't like. We are treating them the same as all other organisations, but we've finally put a cap on their spending. I am disappointed that the Greens haven't come on board to support that legislation, because for the first time we are putting downward pressure on the ability of all of these organisations to spend money in the electoral cycle.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On this line of questioning, you mentioned you spoke with a range of member organisations in crafting this amendment. Which mining companies or gas companies did you speak with about this amendment?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't believe I spoke to any gas or mining companies about this amendment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Which member organisations that you said you'd had discussions with did you speak to about this amendment?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We had a number of discussions—for instance, with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and with the BCA. I think we might have discussed it with the National Farmers Federation, and there were a few others.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, did you speak to the Minerals Council about this amendment?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Not that I can recall.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, have you or the department obtained advice from the AEC about how easy it will be to understand and comply with this law, and, if so, what is that advice?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, throughout the whole process. Right from the start of the discussions about this legislation, we have engaged with the Australian Electoral Commission. I would have liked this legislation to have been in force for this particular election, but, because of the very transformational nature of the changes that we're making here—particularly those provisions that relate to real-time disclosure, and to the donations caps and disclosure caps—the AEC requested extra time to implement the changes because they are such significant changes.</para>
<para>I wanted to get this legislation through the parliament in this term to give the Australian Electoral Commission as much time as I possibly could to implement these changes. They are significant and important changes, and we want to get them right. I am planning to give the AEC as much time as possible to implement them, and, because they have been engaged in the process and have seen the changes that we're proposing, they have had the opportunity to provide input into what we're doing here. So the answer to your question is yes, we have consulted extensively with the AEC.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Minister. What consideration has been given to the impact of these laws on a new party contesting an election, and what modelling has been conducted on these impacts?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Pocock. New parties are popping up all the time—we've got Mr Rennick's new party popping up here—and the good thing is that all parties, new or old, are treated exactly the same under this legislation. Nobody gets an advantage and nobody is disadvantaged by this legislation.</para>
<para>I know we've had a number of discussions and I guess we've had to agree to disagree, but the significance of what we're doing here by capping expenditure on individual electorates is that all of the parties in the process are limited by how much they can spend. So, if you are a new party, you know that, if you can raise $800,000, your opponent can only spend $800,000. You know you're on an equal footing with that other party if you choose to challenge them. So I think that, for the first time, we have established a level playing field in every electorate in this country from the election after next.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. That sounds good but it's not actually what's in the legislation. The 'playing field' is level on a candidate level, where it's $800,000 each, but, if you have a party, you can then tip in more money promoting that party as long as you don't mention that candidate.</para>
<para>One of the other things with new entrants and minor parties is that, if the candidate's name is in the party's name, you cannot spend more, as Labor or the Liberals could do. I understand you're trying to sell it as a level playing field, but, if you actually look at the details, it doesn't seem to be that way. Part of my question is: what modelling has been conducted on these impacts on new entrants—on new parties?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Pocock. Again, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree about this issue. If you're a candidate in a lower house seat then you are limited to an expenditure of $800,000. You're right; there is a total expenditure for the major political parties. But that figure is lower than what the parties have spent in previous elections, and it will certainly be lower than what the parties spend in this election. You'll have seen the rivers of gold, particularly flowing into the teal seats, in this election cycle. There's going to be a huge amount of money spent at the next election.</para>
<para>What this legislation does, and the reason I think you're wrong about your analysis of the benefit for the major parties, is that we're capping the amount of money that the major parties can spend in elections. We are, Senator Pocock. We're capping the amount of money that political parties can spend in elections. If we were seeking, as has been claimed in the press today, to benefit the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the National Party or the Greens by this legislation, we wouldn't be limiting the amount of money that we can spend; we'd be increasing the amount of money that we can spend vis-a-vis the Independents. We're taking a haircut—I know you have a haircut from time to time, Senator Pocock. We're taking a haircut, voluntarily, to limit the amount of money that the major parties can spend. For that reason, your argument doesn't follow. We're limiting the expenditure in the seats. We're also limiting how much the political parties can spend on a broader scale. That, Senator Pocock, is the reason that, I hate to say, your analysis of what this legislation is doing is completely wrong.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Minister. A lot of the stuff I'm saying is from the departmental briefing, so I'd suggest that you check with the department that's actually drafted this legislation.</para>
<para>To your point about parties being able to spend less: it looks that way, but, when we actually look at the way that you calculate spending, all the people who aren't directly campaigning are just in admin, and they don't count. That is a massive loophole, and again it doesn't take into account the advantage of (1) being an incumbent, where you have a team who can do that work; and (2) the party machinery. Then you add on top $30,000 per MP and $15,000 per senator. That's a lot of cash to be organising in the background. That's not part of that $90 million cap. I understand the narrative that you're pushing, but it doesn't stack up with what your department is saying and it doesn't sound like there was any consideration given to new parties or Independents. It doesn't sound like there was any modelling done to work out what this will mean for new entrants.</para>
<para>I note that, at paragraph 528 of the explanatory memorandum, three Independent candidate campaigns have been cited as examples of campaigns which were successful with expenditure well below the proposed expenditure cap. I'm interested in what other analysis were conducted of these campaigns informing a view that an Independent candidate may be successful with total electorate expenditure of $100,000 to $340,000. Were incumbency factors considered? Was the nature of the electorate considered? How did you actually come up with this conclusion?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Pocock for your question. Coming back to your preamble, I don't know how I am going to explain to you, but you are simply wrong in your—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You are simply wrong in your analysis.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pocock, I will put my arguments against yours any day of the week. I actually think the Australian population will have come to the conclusion that too much money is being spent on elections. They will know this government and the opposition and anyone else who now chooses to come on board—there is still time to come on board—are putting downward pressure on the cost of elections. Can I refer to that great American president, President Biden. In his final speech, he talked about the oligarchy of the billionaires controlling the American political system. I hate to say it, but that's the direction that our system is heading. It doesn't matter whether you're a conservative-aligned billionaire or a progressive-aligned billionaire, we can't have a situation where the only people who get elected to this parliament are people who are supported by billionaires. It just can't work for democracy. What I'm saying to you, Senator Pocock, is this is incontrovertible. This is a plain outright fact: at the next election, when this legislation applies, the major parties will have cut their ability to spend money by 30 per cent. This is not a bill that increases the advantage of the major parties but a bill where major parties are cutting back.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, it's the truth.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senators, you've asked the question; the minister answering.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Stay sitting up, please, Senator Pocock. If you look at the legislation, I'm happy to go through it after the legislation goes through tonight. I'm happy to sit down with you again, if you are still of the view that I'm wrong on this point. But the major political parties, for the first time since Federation, since this legislation came into force, are limiting their ability to spend money at the next election. I know it is so attractive when you have access to these rivers of gold that are coming from all the billionaires and millionaires to keep that coming. I know that's attractive. I'm sure it might be attractive to the Liberal Party and to the Labor Party, but we are saying, 'No, we're not going to take that money anymore.' We are going to self-limit the amount of money that we are going to take from donors.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Lambie, it's a good thing that this legislation is passing. I'm not sure if you're still running candidates in lower house seats. I know you are running candidates in the Senate in South Australia. We are self-limiting the amounts of money. That's the first time in Australian political history that any party has proposed that, and it's a good thing for Australian democracy. I think the Australian people will get behind this legislation. In fact, I think most of them would think, 'Geez, I wish that was applying this election, so we don't have to wait for it for another three years.'</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If you want to move an amendment for it to start applying from this election, I'll give that some consideration, Senator Lambie. But this is an historic piece of legislation. The major parties are limiting the money that they're going to spend at the election after next. They've put downward pressure on the cost of elections, and that's good for ordinary Australians. It's good for ordinary Australians who want to participate in the electoral process, because it gives them a chance. It gives them a chance. They don't have to be beholden to a millionaire or billionaire.</para>
<para>They can have a crack at a lower-house seat. They can, for the first time, Senator Pocock. Was it $2.1 million that you spent at the last election, Senator Pocock? In the whole history of ACT Senate—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pocock, on a point of order only.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator David Pocock</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes—misleading the Senate. You can't just make numbers up. I'm happy to hear the facts of it, but you can't just pull numbers out.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They are the facts. I hate to say it.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Pocock, on a point of order.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator David Pocock</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order for misleading the Senate. I'd ask him to withdraw. It was $1.7 million.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I'm not the adjudicator of the facts. Minister, you have the call. I ask you not to mislead the Senate with facts that are beyond your knowledge. You can continue. Senator Lambie?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Lambie</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm just wondering, if that is evidence, can you please table that to the Senate, effective immediately? Thank you.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That was a question, Senator Lambie, not a point of order. The minister was on his feet, and I will give him the indulgence. He's able to continue his reply.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just so I'm clear, Senator Pocock, you say the figure is $1.7 million, not $2.1 million. Is that your point? Let's accept that. For the point of argument tonight, let's accept your figure of $1.7 million. In the whole history of time of elections in the Australian Capital Territory, no Senate candidate has ever spent anything like $1.7 million to get themselves elected. No candidate has ever, ever done that.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor, the Liberals or the Greens have never spent $1.7 million to get themselves elected. Good luck to you. I'm not complaining. They were the rules back then. You complied with the rules, and you got yourself elected. But what I say is that, if you want ordinary Australians—people like Senator Urquhart, here, who are very ordinary; extraordinary, I should say! I'll pick some ordinary people. Senator McGrath, he's volunteered. He is a very, very ordinary person. I can tell you that. Ordinary people like him should be able to stand and project their crazy views about—</para>
<para>An honourable senator interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, he should be able to put himself up to the electorate and say, 'Please vote for me, because I've got these ideas, however crazy those ideas might be.' But not everybody, Senator Pocock, has access to $1.7 million, and then there's the other Senator Pocock—I bet she didn't spend anything like $1.7 million to get herself elected. She went out there—</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Point of order, Senator Hanson?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hanson</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Because we're lacking time, and the clock is running down to actually get some questions answered, I'd ask the minister to stop waffling on, running down the clock and answer the questions. If not, let the other people ask their questions.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson, you can seek the call once the minister has finished using his allotted time, based on the question that he was asked. He's still running down the clock. Do you have a point of order, Senator Lambie?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Lambie</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm just wondering if he's finishing his answer. I'm sorry, I thought he'd answered the question. Is it finished?</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I will return the call to the minister, and he can advise us, based on the two minutes left on the clock, how much of his answer he still has to go.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator, I know you're embarrassed by that figure, so I won't labour the point any longer.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Farrell, you just said that all ordinary Australians should be able to stand, but here is the thing: you've got to find $2,000 just to register. I've had many candidates come to me who want to run, but you know what? They don't have $2,000. If they were able to get that money refunded then they might be able to run. I would actually be able to finance them myself. But the problem is that we don't know if they're going to get four per cent of the vote. So, when you say that all Australians can run, that is not entirely true, because they have to get four per cent of the vote to get any electoral funding.</para>
<para>This is ultimately my question to you: by capping all the other money that external people from outside the major political parties can donate, you can then monopolise the electoral funding by increasing the dollar per vote. That's what you'll do in the next cycle—cut off all external sources now and then, knowing that you get the bulk of the votes and you will cut the threshold off at four per cent, lift the dollar count per vote, from $3.50, up to $7 or $8. That's how you're going to make up for the fact that other parties can't actually raise external dollars. That is my question to you. If you genuinely want ordinary Australians to be able to run, why don't you reduce the threshold in order to receive electoral funding from four per cent to one per cent so that people can at least get their registration fee and some costs of the election paid? It's all very well talking about the big end of town and capping them, but you've choked the little end of town and the minor parties, like People First, from actually getting off the ground.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Rennick, this legislation doesn't do what you say. It does the opposite of what you say. Instead of having to raise, for Senate candidates and the Australian capital cities, $1.7 million to compete with other candidates, there is now a ceiling. For smaller parties this is a boon. This is the best piece of legislation that has ever been presented to the Australian parliament. Now, your candidates at the election after the next election are going to have to raise a whole lot less money in order to get themselves elected.</para>
<para>Look, if they do get that four per cent, yes, they get some government funding; that is true. I don't think that's an unreasonable position to get to. If you believe people are going to be attracted to your political party, Senator Rennick, then one imagines they're going to get a lot more than four per cent. But your candidates are going to have to raise a damn sight less money to contest the election after next than they're going to have to do now, and that's a good thing. That's a good thing for Australian democracy. It's a good thing for your fledgling party. You are not disadvantaged by this legislation, Senator Rennick; you are advantaged. It's helping parties like yours by creating, for the first time since Federation, a level playing field.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I note there are some amendments that have been moved by others to attempt to implement further voter integrity measures in our system. We should be clear that the coalition supports and continues to support strengthening the integrity of our electoral system, particularly around voter ID—something that I've pushed for for many years, which the minister would be aware of. The coalition notes the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters reports into the conduct of the 2013, 2016 and 2019 elections that have raised this issue. However, the amendments in relation to this issue have been received very late in the process of discussions around this bill and were not socialised with the opposition. We were not allowed enough time to ensure that this proposed amendment is consistent with the current bill. As a result, the opposition will be opposing those amendments. It remains coalition policy to move towards an election system that requires voters to provide an acceptable form of identification in order to cast an ordinary prepoll or polling day vote in federal elections and referendums. Can I just confirm that there is no plan for the Labor Party to implement further voter integrity measures?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wouldn't describe them as voter integrity measures. I would describe them as voter discouragement measures. As you well know, you convinced a former minister of state to bat up a piece of legislation in this area, and I had the great satisfaction of campaigning successfully to convince the last parliament not to proceed with that legislation because it simply would have discouraged ordinary people, who want to vote, from voting. This is a comprehensive package of changes to our electoral system. It's been three years in the making. There have been two inquiries. There have been heaps, and heaps, and heaps of discussions. We're now at the point where we've got to make a decision. Are we going to increase the integrity of the Australian electoral system? Are we going to make it fairer? Are we going to make it more possible for ordinary Australians to participate, or are we not? What might happen in future parliaments to this particular act? I don't know. What I'm very confident about is that we've struck the right balance here. I am disappointed that the Greens and the independents have not come on board. I am genuinely disappointed about that because I think we want to be on the right side of history here. This is a significant change—a good change—to our democratic process. But for the moment, this is our package. This is what we want the parliament to vote for, and this is what the government is supporting.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think you've put a real spin on it tonight, because two of the major political parties are going along with this. When you have everyone in the Greens and on the crossbench opposing this, it tells you something stinks to high heaven. Senator Pocock is right. Whatever anyone spends on an election should be questioned. You've said you're actually bringing down the cost in elections. The House and half-Senate elections in 2019 were $372,473,000 for the Australian people. The election of 2022 was $522,390,000, so it actually hasn't come down. The by-elections for Dunkley were over $3 million. Your referendum that you had in 2023 was over $411 million. You haven't brought anything down whatsoever. On top of that, it's actually costing the taxpayers now. You're increasing the $5 per vote on the primary vote. You're increasing that. On top of that, you're putting a cap of $90 million on spending, nationally, for a campaign of any political party. My concern is that the Labor Party is funded by the unions through the backdoor all the time, and this is not registered at all. This is behind-the-scenes backdoor funding that you are getting from the Labor Party, and you are going like a snake through the grass. You are not exposing this, and you expect us to be upfront in where we get our donations from. I don't trust the Labor Party. I don't trust you, the government, in what you are doing and where you're getting donations from.</para>
<para>Now, it has been extremely hard for the minor parties and Independents to actually win seats in parliament against the major political parties, but the Australian people are waking up to you because they've had a gutful of it and they want true representation. When you came into my office and spoke to me about it, and you wanted to raise the threshold, getting $30,000 per person in the lower house, per member of parliament, and $15,000 for each senator in the upper house, as compliance costs, I was absolutely ropeable, and I still am. This is nothing but a cash grab—a greedy grab by the government and the coalition. You know you've got the members in this House. I think you'll benefit by about $2.7 million a year to the party, at the cost of the taxpayers, for your compliance costs. But you have actually put compliance costs onto farmers, businesses and everyone else out there. Have you compensated them for the fact that they have to get tax agents and other people to do their compliance costs? No, you haven't. And you use this as an excuse to fill your coffers with taxpayers' moneys.</para>
<para>What you are doing is absolutely disgraceful. You know damn well that the Independents and minor parties can't compete with this. To have the coalition support you on this tells me, and the Australian people out there, a lot about both of you.</para>
<para>On top of that, you're getting $5 per primary vote as well. Is that fair? No, it's not. It stinks to high heaven. That's why you've got the Greens and all the crossbench here opposing this, based on principle. When you sit there, day in, day out, and push your policies, and reckon that you're fighting for the Australian people out there, trying to put them in a house and all the rest of it, you're two-faced hypocrites. And I'll tell you to your face: you're two-faced hypocrites. And we have to try and compete with you, to get democracy in this place, to give people fair representation. I don't always agree with my colleagues here and their policies—by no means. And they know it. But we should look at it, based on policy, to give fair representation for people. You are not doing that in this piece of legislation that you've put before us. You're rushing it through the parliament as well, without real debate.</para>
<para>This is a cash grab by the major political parties. I'll tell the public who are there: this is a cash grab by the major political parties for your money, taxpayers' money, and you're suffering out there. That is why we, all the crossbench here, are standing up to fight for your rights.</para>
<para>Yes, we'd love to have more cash. I run a political party and I do it bloody tough to try and get donations. We don't get the donations from the big end of business or the banks or the corporations—or from the unions that actually dominate and run the Labor Party. You, the elected people from the Labor Party, don't run it; the unions run you. That's who runs this country when the Labor Party is in government. The unions run you—tell you what to do and how to vote. They watch over you.</para>
<para>So, Minister, do you honestly believe that what you're pushing here is fair on the purse, the pocket, of the taxpayer? You've made comments about how it's going to be easier for anyone to run in this election—democracy. I've put up amendments to this to say: 'Let's get rid of the two-week polling. Let's get rid of all of this campaigning material; it shouldn't be allowed at polling booths; just put it up in the booth itself so that people can look at it.'</para>
<para>Why don't you run fair? You know that the minor parties and Independents can't compete with the money that you guys get. We can't compete with that. You've actually put a $90 million cap nationally on the major political parties. That's who can run this sort of campaign. We can't. You can put out all the material, all the advertising on TV and everything, and you're going to get refunded through the electoral system. You're going to get your money back. We can't do that.</para>
<para>Where's the fair play in this? Where is the democracy? Where is the fair play? Minister, are you going to address this honestly? Can I get a fair answer out of you? Do you think it's fair that parties can spend up to $90 million in this election and get refunded by the taxpayer? Is that fair?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Hanson, for your question. You raised an awful lot of issues in your rant there. Let me try and answer—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Do you want the answer?</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Alright, I'll withdraw. Let's deal with a few of the issues that you raised in your question. The unions are going to be subject to the same rules as everybody else—in particular, all of the disclosure requirements. In other words, if they donate more than $5,000, they're going to be required to declare that donation. In the course of the election, they're going to have to reveal those donations, so that, when you go to the ballot box, you will know whether a union has donated to a particular candidate. This is the first time in our history that that sort of disclosure is going to be made available to Australian voters. That's a really, really significant step forward in the democratic process.</para>
<para>You talk about the $90 million. Yes, it's true; there is a total cap. Elections don't cost nothing; elections cost something. My objective with this legislation is to put downward pressure on the total cost of the election, but political parties and individuals do have to spend money in order to get their message out. If they want to get their message out to people, then they're going to have to spend some money. That's just the way things work. What we've done in this legislation is—voluntarily, by virtue of a piece of legislation—cut back how much the major political parties can spend on elections. For the first time since Federation, the first time in 125 years, there's going to be a cap on how much political parties can spend. I say that's a good thing, not a bad thing, Senator Hanson. I say it's a good thing—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And others, as—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, it's not just about Clive Palmer. Of course, he donated $117 million at the last election. We're putting downward pressure on the cost. I say to the people you're directing your question at that that's a good thing. It's going to cost less to get elected to parliament. If you're a new party or an Independent, you're going to have to spend a damn sight less than you used to.</para>
<para>All of these disclosure rules that we're introducing—firstly, there are a couple of things about them. They're going to take some time to implement. You can't just click your fingers and make all these changes, because the changes are so significant. There is a cost to them as well. The small number of extra payments that are made either to candidates or to political parties, I say, is worth the price of improving our democracy. Our democracy is going to be improved by this legislation, Senator Hanson. I am personally disappointed, given the amount of time that I spent in your office going through this legislation, and I was unimpressed by how you spoke to some of my staff. If you're looking at getting apologies, then maybe an apology to my staff would be appropriate, Senator Hanson. We came to your office to genuinely engage with you, as I've done with anybody who's wanted to have that discussion with me. I have directly answered every point that you have asked. You may not necessarily like the answers, but this is the truth of it: this is good legislation that's going to be good for democracy in our country. I'd ask everybody in this place to vote for it.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CADELL</name>
    <name.id>300134</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, thank you for earlier answering the question about the state and federal relationships of the National Party. I'll just clarify that each party is a registered federal party. What would be the effect if one of the parties were to either disaffiliate or run non-affiliated candidates with the National Party? Where would the admin funding go? What would be the funding arrangement in that circumstance?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The regime of administrative funding in our legislation is clear that the funds are paid to the endorsing national entity. For Independents, the administration funding is paid directly. This was in response to feedback from some Independents who were constructively engaged in this process. I don't want the parliament to think that there wasn't constructive discussion with some of the Independents, because there was. Some of them made good suggestions, which we have picked up. Some of the Independents in this room would lead you to believe that there is no support from Independents for this legislation, but, in fact, there is.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pocock.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister back up his claims with fact or withdraw the statement that Independents support this legislation?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll give one example. Dr Scamps asked if we could lift the donation cap to $50,000, and that's what we've done. For Independents, the administration funding is paid directly, and that's in response to some of the Independents who worked constructively with us. Should parties or party structures change, the AEC will rely on the party registration, with the members themselves electing where that compliance funding is attributed. This is funding that cannot be used for campaigning.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's been reported by the media that you had an encounter with Simon Holmes a Court:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Farrell told a small group how the Climate 200 convenor had approached him to complain that his proposed changes to election donation laws would entrench the two-party system and lock out challengers. "I mean," Farrell quipped, "that's the fucking point!"</para></quote>
<para>Minister, did you or did you not say that to Simon Holmes a Court?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>No. And, I might add, we told the journalist that I didn't, and he never reported it. That is not the sort of language I use either, publicly or otherwise.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, can you confirm that, under your legislation, entities are able to take donations under this proposal before passing them on to other entities? For example, it's common practice for branches of parties to accept donations into a bank account, check that the donor is not a prohibited donor and then pass on the donation to the party head office. For many Independent campaigns, it's common practice for a 'Voices of' group to accept donations and then transfer those to the candidate once they are endorsed by the community. If donations are legal and declared, will such practices still be valid under your proposal?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for your question. We're not supporting super PAC models here like in the United States. So, if your question is, 'Will they be allowable?' the answer is, no, they won't. But, if a transfer is clearly reported and ends up in a federal account, yes, that is permissible.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks for clarifying that. So I assume it is okay for that to happen. With the JSCEM review, all major parties made submissions saying that they needed increased administrative funding in order to deal with any real-time disclosure regime or increased regulatory burden. What consideration has been given to the ability of new entrants to comply with these laws without such funding?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Pocock. The administrative funding is only available to existing candidates.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. That perfectly leads me to my next question. The explanatory memorandum is silent on incumbency benefits. How were incumbency factors considered when modelling the expenditure caps and the donation caps?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for your question. We'll get back to fundamental principles here. The whole point of this legislation is to create a level playing field, to allow ordinary Australians to participate in the electoral process and to limit big money in our electoral system. So how do new entrants benefit? Well, they benefit in all of those ways. The task of raising money is nowhere near as great as it was prior to this legislation and—</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a point of order on relevance. We're running up on time. I'm just interested in how incumbency factors were considered when modelling the caps.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll just take that as not a point of order but another question. Minister.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We may have to just agree to disagree again, Senator Pocock. This whole regime is all about putting downward pressure on the costs so that, for new entrants, it is less expensive. If this legislation were in place at the last election, Senator Pocock, you would not have had to raise $1.7 million to get yourself elected. There would have been a ceiling that both you were subject to as a new competitor and the existing incumbents—exactly the same amount of money, to limit it. If you're saying that the system should allow more money for new incumbents to spend, I don't agree with that. If we're going to have a fair electoral system, then I say you have to have a level playing field, and a level playing field is applying the caps equally to all participants in the process.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. I might just explain, for the chamber, how the cap would actually work. In the territory, a new entrant could spend $600,000 on their Senate campaign. The Liberal and Labor candidates could spend $600,000 on their campaign, promoting themselves. If one of the parties thinks that this new entrant is a threat to the seat that they've held for 50 years, they could spend as much money as they are willing to allocate under their $90 million national cap as long as that advertising does not mention that person. This is the crux of the level playing field disagreement that Minister Farrell and I have. I have a lot of respect for the way that Minister Farrell is able to get things done, and I'm not going to go down into personal attacks. But that is the fact of it—if you ask the department or read the legislation. It's not the level playing field we're hearing about. There is the benefit of being a party.</para>
<para>Minister, I asked about consideration that's been given to the ability of new entrants to comply with the real-time disclosures and all the things that you've been talking about. We know that MPs get 30 grand a year and senators get 15 grand a year to do that. Can you please confirm that no consideration has been given to the ability of new entrants to comply with new laws without the additional administrative funding.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for the respectful way you asked that last question and for the fact that you did not make any disparaging remarks about me; I appreciate that, Senator Pocock.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKim</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I could offer a couple.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Come on—what have I done to upset you, Senator McKim?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKim</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're putting through this absolute stitch-up between the major parties—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, Senator McKim. This is democracy at work.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Farrell, you're responding to a question from Senator Pocock.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry, Senator Pocock. You've reiterated some points that you'd made previously, and I really have to disagree with you about the advantage that the existing parties get by virtue of their ability to promote the party as distinct from the individual. We are reducing by 30 per cent the amount of money that the Labor Party and the Liberal Party can spend on promoting their party. The comparison can't be the fact that the existing parties can spend that money. The comparison has to be: what can those parties do now, and what are they not going to be able to do under this new legislation? That's got to be the comparison. I say: for a new entrant into the scheme, that's a good thing. That's an advantage you have under this legislation which you did not have under the previous legislation. Given the amounts of money that are pulled out of the Australian political system as a result of this legislation, that does give the new contestants an advantage which they don't currently have. They don't currently have that advantage. They are going to be advantaged by this legislation, and, in the process, democracy is going to be a damn sight better in this country.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, can you confirm that no consideration has been given to the ability of new entrants to comply with new laws without the additional administrative funding.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've answered the question.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, will there be a statutory review?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Waters, for your question. Yes, there's a JSCEM review built into the legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand that there was some desire for stakeholders to have an independent statutory review, not just a JSCEM one. Is there an independent statutory review provision? If not, was there ever and did the Liberal Party ask you to drop that in order to get their support?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government always supported a JSCEM review. Kate Thwaites and all of the people on that committee have done a terrific job over the last three years in getting us to this point. They should be congratulated for the work that they've done. I'm very comfortable with a JSCEM review.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time for consideration of the bill has expired. After I put the questions before the chair I will then put the questions on the remaining stages of the bill. I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments, starting with the amendments moved by Senator Farrell. The first question is that the amendments moved by Senator Farrell on sheets EE102, EE103, EE105, FJ101, SC130, SC131, SC136 and SC138 be agreed to.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Government's circulated amendments—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET EE102</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 13, page 11 (before line 3), before the definition of <inline font-style="italic">Senate-only election</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">peak representative body</inline> means an entity in respect of which the following conditions are satisfied:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the majority of the entity's income is payments made by the members, branches or affiliates (however described) of the entity;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) none of the members, branches or affiliates (however described) of the entity is a natural person except:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) an officeholder of the entity who is a non-financial member, branch or affiliate of the entity; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a person who is a non-financial member, branch or affiliate of the entity in their capacity as an officeholder of a body corporate or another organisation; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) an honorary non-financial member, branch or affiliate of the entity;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the entity operates for the sole or dominant purpose of representing the shared interests of the members, branches or affiliates (however described) of the entity;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the majority of the entity's income is not used for the purpose of incurring electoral expenditure or making gifts for the purpose of incurring electoral expenditure;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the entity was formed in Australia, or incorporated by or under a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or a Territory.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: A peak representative body represents the shared interests of other organisations, and may also be a significant third party, an associated entity or a third party.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, item 18, page 14 (after line 36), after paragraph 287AAB(3)(g), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: See subsection (3A) for an exception to paragraph (g).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 1, item 18, page 17 (after line 7), after subsection 287AAB(3), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) Despite paragraph (3)(g), a disposition of property (including the provision of a service) made by a core member of a registered political party's expenditure group to another core member of the expenditure group is a <inline font-style="italic">gift</inline> if the disposition is made, for a federal purpose, by a core member who is a candidate, a member of the House of Representatives or a Senator.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Gifts for a federal purpose are subject to caps (see Division 3A) and expedited disclosure obligations (see Division 4).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 1, item 18, page 17 (line 10), after "third party", insert "(including a peak representative body)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 1, item 18, page 17 (lines 23 to 26), omit "See especially subsection 292FA(6), which prevents the crediting of these kinds of amounts to a federal account to the extent they exceed the annual gift cap.", substitute "These kinds of amounts may, up to a limit, be credited to a federal account (see subsection 292FA(4) and section 292FAE).".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Schedule 1, page 21 (after line 19), after item 42, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">42A At the end of section 302CA</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Extended meaning of gift</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) Disregard subsection 287AAB(3) in working out whether something is a gift for the purposes of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Schedule 1, page 21 (after line 23), after item 44, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">44A After subsection 314B(9)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9A) Disregard subsection 287AAB(3) in working out whether something is a gift for the purposes of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Schedule 6, item 4, page 161 (line 19) to page 163 (line 19), omit subsections 292FA(4) to (6), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Obligation to credit only required or permitted amounts</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) A person or entity covered by column 1 of an item in the table in subsection (1) must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the only amounts that are credited to a federal account kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to the person or entity covered by column 2 of the item are the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) amounts required to be credited to a federal account kept for the purposes of that person or entity under subsection (2) or (3) of this section or another provision of this Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) amounts that are:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) to be used for a federal purpose; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) permitted to be credited to a federal account kept for the purposes of that person or entity under section 292FAA, 292FAB, 292FAC, 292FAD or 292FAE or another provision of this Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Schedule 6, item 4, page 163 (after line 36), after section 292FA, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">292FAA Permitted credits to federal account for registered political party, State branch or nominated entity</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For the purposes of subparagraph 292FA(4)(b)(ii), the following amounts may be credited to a federal account kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to a person or entity (the <inline font-style="italic">account beneficiary</inline>) covered by column 2 of item 2, 3 or 7 of the table in subsection 292FA(1):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) interest earned on money standing to the credit of the account;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a loan;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a bequest;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) an amount paid from another federal account kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to another person or entity that is a core member of the same expenditure group as the account beneficiary;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) if the account beneficiary is a registered political party or a State branch of a registered political party—an amount paid from another federal account kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to another political party if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the account beneficiary and the other political party are related to each other within the meaning of paragraph 123(2)(a) because one is a part of the other (while not being a State branch of the other); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the one that is a part of the other is a registered political party;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) an amount of a kind prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: The effect of paragraph (b) is that a commercial loan or a non-commercial loan can be credited to a federal account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: The effect of paragraph (d) is that any amount can be credited to the federal account of a registered political party, a State branch or a nominated entity if the amount is paid from the federal account of a candidate, a member of the House of Representatives, a Senator, or another registered political party, State branch or nominated entity, and both the recipient and the payer are core members of the same expenditure group.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 3: There are penalties for crediting an amount to a federal account if the amount is not required or permitted to be credited: see subsections 292FA(4) and (8).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">292FAB Permitted credits to federal account for registered political parties: contributions by candidates and sitting members</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) For the purposes of subparagraph 292FA(4)(b)(ii), an amount may be credited to a federal account kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to a person or entity (the <inline font-style="italic">account beneficiary</inline>) covered by column 2 of item 2 or 3 of the table in subsection 292FA(1) if all of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the account beneficiary is a registered political party;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the amount is credited to the federal account by a person (the <inline font-style="italic">payer</inline>) at a time in a calendar year and is an amount of the payer's own money;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) at the time the amount is credited, the payer is either or both of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a candidate endorsed by the account beneficiary;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a member of the House of Representatives, or a Senator, who is a member of the account beneficiary;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) if the payer is a candidate at the time the amount is credited—the amount is credited to the federal account for the purposes of the payer's election campaign in the calendar year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: An amount may only be credited under this section if it is for a federal purpose. The amount will be a gift (see subsection 287AAB(3A)).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) However, the sum of the following amounts must not exceed the annual gift cap (within the meaning of Division 3A) for the calendar year:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) amounts paid by the payer that are covered by subsection (1) and credited in the calendar year to federal accounts kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to the account beneficiary;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) amounts paid by the payer that are covered by subsection 292FAC(4) and credited in the calendar year to federal accounts kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to the payer.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: There are penalties for crediting an amount to a federal account if the amount is not required or permitted to be credited: see subsections 292FA(4) and (8).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">292FAC Permitted credits to federal account for candidate, member or Senator</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">General</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) For the purposes of subparagraph 292FA(4)(b)(ii), the following amounts may be credited to a federal account kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to a person (the <inline font-style="italic">account beneficiary</inline>) covered by column 2 of item 1 or 4 of the table in subsection 292FA(1):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) interest earned on money standing to the credit of the account;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a loan;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a bequest;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) an amount paid from another federal account kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to another person or entity, if both the other person or entity and the account beneficiary are core members of the same expenditure group;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) an amount of a kind prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: The effect of paragraph (b) is that a commercial loan or a non-commercial loan can be credited to a federal account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: The effect of paragraph (d) is that any amount can be credited to the federal account of a candidate, a member of the House of Representatives or a Senator if the amount is paid from the federal account of another candidate, member of the House of Representatives or Senator, or a registered political party, a State branch or nominated entity, and both the recipient and the payer are core members of the same expenditure group.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 3: There are penalties for crediting an amount to a federal account if the amount is not required or permitted to be credited: see subsections 292FA(4) and (8).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Contributions by independent candidates and members</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) For the purposes of subparagraph 292FA(4)(b)(ii), an amount may be credited to a federal account kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to a person (the <inline font-style="italic">account beneficiary</inline>) covered by column 2 of item 1 or 4 of the table in subsection 292FA(1) if all of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the amount is credited to the federal account by the account beneficiary at a time in a calendar year and is an amount of the account beneficiary's own money;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) at the time the amount is credited, the account beneficiary is either or both of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a candidate who is not endorsed by a registered political party;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a member of the House of Representatives, or a Senator, who is not a member of a registered political party;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if the account beneficiary is a candidate at the time the amount is credited—the amount is credited to the federal account for the purposes of the account beneficiary's election campaign in the calendar year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For an amount to be a gift, it must be a disposition of property from one person to another person (see subsection 287AAB(1)).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) However, the sum of amounts that are covered by subsection (2) and credited in a calendar year to federal accounts kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to the account beneficiary must not exceed the annual gift cap (within the meaning of Division 3A) for the calendar year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: There are penalties for crediting an amount to a federal account if the amount is not required or permitted to be credited: see subsections 292FA(4) and (8).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Contributions by other candidates and sitting members</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) For the purposes of subparagraph 292FA(4)(b)(ii), an amount may be credited to a federal account kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to a person (the <inline font-style="italic">account beneficiary</inline>) covered by column 2 of item 1 or 4 of the table in subsection 292FA(1) if all of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the amount is credited to the federal account by the account beneficiary at a time in a calendar year and is an amount of the account beneficiary's own money;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) at the time the amount is credited, the account beneficiary is either or both of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a candidate who is endorsed by a registered political party;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a member of the House of Representatives, or a Senator, who is a member of a registered political party;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if the account beneficiary is a candidate at the time the amount is credited—the amount is credited to the federal account for the purposes of the account beneficiary's election campaign in the calendar year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For an amount to be a gift, it must be a disposition of property from one person to another person (see subsection 287AAB(1)).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) However, the sum of the following amounts must not exceed the annual gift cap (within the meaning of Division 3A) for the calendar year:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) amounts that are covered by subsection (4) and credited in the calendar year to federal accounts kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to the account beneficiary;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) amounts that are covered by subsection 292FAB(1) and credited in the calendar year to federal accounts kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the registered political party that endorsed the account beneficiary; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the registered political party that the account beneficiary is a member of.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: There are penalties for crediting an amount to a federal account if the amount is not required or permitted to be credited: see subsections 292FA(4) and (8).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">292FAD Permitted credits to federal account for significant third party, associated entity or third party</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For the purposes of subparagraph 292FA(4)(b)(ii), the following amounts may be credited to a federal account kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to a person or entity covered by column 2 of item 5, 6 or 8 of the table in subsection 292FA(1):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) interest earned on money standing to the credit of the account;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a loan;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a bequest;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) an amount of a kind prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: The effect of paragraph (b) is that a commercial loan or a non-commercial loan can be credited to a federal account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: There are penalties for crediting an amount to a federal account if the amount is not required or permitted to be credited: see subsections 292FA(4) and (8).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">292FAE Permitted credits to federal account for significant third party, associated entity or third party: capped amounts of subscriptions etc.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) For the purposes of subparagraph 292FA(4)(b)(ii), the following amounts paid by a person or entity (the <inline font-style="italic">payer</inline>) may be credited in a calendar year to a federal account kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to a person or entity (the <inline font-style="italic">account beneficiary</inline>) covered by column 2 of item 5, 6 or 8 of the table in subsection 292FA(1):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a subscription paid in respect of the payer's membership of the account beneficiary;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) an amount paid in respect of the payer's affiliation with the account beneficiary;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if the payer is an elected official or employee of the account beneficiary—an annual levy paid by the payer to the account beneficiary.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Amounts covered by paragraphs (a) to (c) that are credited to a federal account are gifts: see subsection 287AAB(4). Subdivision E of Division 4 imposes disclosure obligations in relation to gifts.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) However, the sum of amounts paid by the payer that are covered by subsection (1) and credited in a calendar year to federal accounts kept for the purposes of this Part in relation to the account beneficiary must not exceed:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the significant third party, associated entity or third party is a peak representative body—4 times the annual gift cap (within the meaning of Division 3A) for the calendar year; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) otherwise—the annual gift cap (within the meaning of Division 3A) for the calendar year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Amounts covered by subsection (1) that are credited to a federal account are gifts: see subsection 287AAB(4). Subdivision E of Division 4 imposes disclosure obligations in relation to gifts.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET EE103</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, page 17 (after line 26), after item 18, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">18A Subsection 287AB(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subsection (not including the notes), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Dominant purpose of creating or communicating electoral matter</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Expenditure is <inline font-style="italic">electoral </inline><inline font-style="italic">expenditure</inline> if it is incurred for the dominant purpose of creating or communicating electoral matter.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">18B Subsection 287AB(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "In addition, any expenditure incurred by or with the authority of a political entity, a person or entity", substitute "Any expenditure incurred by or with the authority of a political entity, a member of the House of Representatives or a Senator, or a person or an entity".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">18C Subsection 287AB(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "a member of the House of Representatives or a Senator in relation to an election is <inline font-style="italic">electoral expenditure</inline>, except to the extent that the expenditure is, or is to be, paid or reimbursed by the Commonwealth (except under Division 3 (election funding)) to or in relation to a person who is or was a member of the House of Representatives, a Senator or a Minister, because that person is or was such a member, Senator or Minister", substitute "is <inline font-style="italic">electoral expenditure </inline>to the extent that it is in relation to an election".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, page 17 (after line 31), after item 19, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">19A After subsection 287AB(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Specific electoral expenditure</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) Any expenditure incurred by or with the authority of a political entity, a member of the House of Representatives or a Senator, a third party, or a person or an entity that is (or is required to be registered as) a significant third party, an associated entity or a nominated entity, is <inline font-style="italic">electoral expenditure</inline> to the extent that it is in relation to an election and also any of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) expenditure on electoral matter in the form of advertisements in radio, television, the internet, cinemas, newspapers, billboards, posters, brochures, how-to-vote cards or any other form;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) expenditure on the production and distribution of electoral matter;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) expenditure on the internet, telecommunications, stationery or postage for the purposes of communicating electoral matter;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) expenditure incurred in employing staff engaged in an election campaign;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) expenditure incurred for office accommodation for any such staff and candidates;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) expenditure on travel and travel accommodation for candidates and staff engaged in an election campaign;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) expenditure on research associated with an election campaign (other than in-house research);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) expenditure incurred in raising funds for an election;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) expenditure of a kind prescribed by the regulations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: The expenditure caps in Division 3AB apply in relation to all electoral expenditure unless an exemption in Subdivision G of Division 3AB applies.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: References to an election mean an election of a member of the House of Representatives or an election of Senators for a State or Territory (see subsection 287(1)).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 3: A candidate's staff includes any volunteers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Expenditure that is not </inline> <inline font-style="italic">electoral expenditure</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3B) Despite anything else in this section, expenditure is not <inline font-style="italic">electoral expenditure</inline> to the extent that it is, or is to be, paid or reimbursed by the Commonwealth (except under Division 3 (election funding)) to or in relation to a person who is or was a member of the House of Representatives, a Senator or a Minister, because that person is or was such a member, Senator or Minister.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3C) Despite anything else in this section, expenditure is not <inline font-style="italic">electoral expenditure</inline> to the extent that it is incurred by a person or entity (the <inline font-style="italic">service provider</inline>):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) in providing a communication service or communication platform that is used to create or communicate electoral matter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in providing a service for another person or entity that engaged the service provider, on a commercial basis, to create or communicate electoral matter.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 1, item 20, page 18 (line 1), omit the heading to subsection 287AB(4).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 1, item 20, page 18 (after line 11), after paragraph 287AB(4)(c), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ca) expenditure to the extent that it is administrative expenditure;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(cb) expenditure to the extent that it would be administrative expenditure if references in subsection 287AAA(1) to a registered political party included references to a political entity, a member of the House of Representatives or a Senator, a third party, or a person or an entity that is (or is required to be registered as) a significant third party, an associated entity or a nominated entity;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(cc) expenditure incurred in relation to an election other than an election within the meaning of this Part (see subsection 287(1));</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 7, item 2, page 170 (lines 36 to 40), omit note 2.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Schedule 7, item 2, page 171 (line 7), after "particular electoral matter", insert "or electoral matter generally".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Schedule 7, item 2, page 171 (lines 19 to 22), omit subsection 287AAA(3).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET EE105</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 8), after "Schedules 6", insert ", 6A".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 5, item 8, page 134 (after line 18), after subsection 310(4), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Details of federal administrative accounts</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4A) The return must set out details of any federal administrative accounts kept in relation to the entity at any time in the calendar year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 5, item 8, page 136 (after line 3), after subsection 310A(3), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Details of federal administrative accounts</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) The return must set out details of any federal administrative accounts kept in relation to the candidate at any time in the calendar year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 5, item 8, page 137 (after line 29), after subsection 310B(3), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Details of federal administrative accounts</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) The return must set out details of any federal administrative accounts kept in relation to the member or Senator at any time in the calendar year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 5, item 8, page 139 (after line 30), after subsection 310C(3), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Details of federal administrative accounts</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) The return must set out details of any federal administrative accounts kept in relation to the person or entity at any time in the calendar year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Schedule 5, item 8, page 142 (after line 34), after subsection 310D(3), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Details of federal administrative accounts</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) The return must set out details of any federal administrative accounts kept in relation to the entity at any time in the calendar year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Schedule 5, item 8, page 144 (after line 30), after subsection 310E(3), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Details of federal administrative accounts</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) The return must set out details of any federal administrative accounts kept in relation to the entity at any time in the calendar year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Schedule 5, item 8, page 146 (after line 6), after subsection 310F(3), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Details of federal administrative accounts</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) The return must set out details of any federal administrative accounts kept in relation to the person or entity at any time in the calendar year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Schedule 5, item 12, page 156 (table item 4), after "an address", insert "or details of federal administrative accounts".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) Page 168 (after line 4), after Schedule 6, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 6A — Federal administrative accounts</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Subsection 287(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">federal administrative account</inline> means an account where:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the only amounts deposited into the account are amounts to be used only for a federal administrative purpose; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the only amounts withdrawn or transferred from the account are amounts:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) withdrawn or transferred for a federal administrative purpose; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) transferred to another federal administrative account; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the account is with an ADI within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">Banking Act 1959</inline>; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the account is kept in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: ADI is short for authorised deposit-taking institution.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Example: A federal administrative account of a federal party may be established by the federal party or a State branch of the federal party.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">federal administrative purpose</inline> means the purpose of incurring:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) administrative expenditure; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) expenditure to the extent that it would be administrative expenditure if references in subsection 287AAA(1) to a registered political party included references to a political entity, a member of the House of Representatives or a Senator, a third party, or a person or an entity that is (or is required to be registered as) a significant third party, an associated entity or a nominated entity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: See section 287AAA for the definition of <inline font-style="italic">administrative expenditure</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 Subsection 287(1) (at the end of the definition of <inline font-style="italic">regulated entity</inline> )</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; and (c) in sections 314C and 314D—a political entity, a member of the House of Representatives or a Senator, a significant third party, a third party, an associated entity or nominated entity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 After section 314B</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">314C Gifts made etc. for federal administrative purposes</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Offering gifts</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a person or entity may offer to give a gift to, or for the benefit of, a regulated entity if the gift is expresslyoffered for federal administrative purposes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Seeking gifts</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a regulated entity, or a person on behalf of a regulated entity, may seek a gift if the gift is expresslysought for use for federal administrative purposes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Giving gifts</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a person or entity may give a gift to, or for the benefit of, a regulated entity if the gift is expresslygiven for federal administrative purposes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Receiving or keeping gifts</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">money</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a regulated entity, or a person on behalf of a regulated entity, may receive a gift of money if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the money is deposited into a federal administrative account as soon as practicable after the money is received; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the money is not transferred or withdrawn out of the account except:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) to use the money for federal administrative purposes; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) to transfer the money to another federal administrative account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a regulated entity, or a person on behalf of a regulated entity, may keep a gift of money if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the money is kept in a federal administrative account; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the money is not transferred or withdrawn out of the account except:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) to use the money for federal administrative purposes; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) to transfer the money to another federal administrative account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) To avoid doubt, subsections (4) and (5) are taken never to have applied if, at any time, the money is transferred or withdrawn out of the account, or any other federal administrative account, except as provided by subparagraph (4)(b)(i) or (ii) or (5)(b)(i) or (ii).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Receiving or keeping gifts</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">gifts other than money</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Despite any State or Territory electoral law and despite subsection 302CA(5), a regulated entity, or a person on behalf of a regulated entity, may receive or keep a gift that is not money unless the regulated entity keeps the gift for use for, or uses the gift for, purposes other than federal purposes or federal administrative purposes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) To avoid doubt, subsection (7) is taken never to have applied if, at any time, the regulated entity keeps the gift for use for, or uses the gift for, purposes other than federal administrative purposes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Receiving or keeping gifts</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">additional operation</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Subsections (4), (5) and (6) also have the effect they would have if a reference to a gift were confined to a gift expressly given for federal administrative purposes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Using gifts</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">money</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a regulated entity may use, or authorise the use of, a gift of money for federal administrative purposes if the gift has been continuouslykept in a federal administrative account since it was deposited in that account, or any other federal administrative account, in accordance with subsection (4).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Using gifts</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">gifts other than money</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a regulated entity may use, or authorise the use of, a gift, that is not money, for federal administrative purposes if the gift has been continuouslykept for federal administrative purposes since it was received.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Using gifts</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">relationship with State or Territory electoral laws</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(12) To avoid doubt, the fact that, as a result of subsection (10) or (11), a State or Territory electoral law does not prohibit the use of a gift does not prevent that law from prohibiting the offering, seeking, giving, receiving or keeping of the gift.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Gifts not otherwise prohibited by this Part</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(13) To avoid doubt, this section applies to a gift only if this Part does not prohibit the giving, receiving or keeping of the gift.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Parts of gifts</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(14) For the purposes of this section, if a part of a gift is offered, sought, given, received, kept or used for a particular purpose, and that same action is taken in relation to another part of the gift for a different purpose, each part of the gift is taken to be a separate gift.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Extended meaning of gift</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(15) Disregard subsection 287AAB(3) in working out whether something is a gift for the purposes of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">314D Disclosure of amounts given etc. for federal administrative purposes</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Disclosure of amounts and benefits given etc.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a person or entity is not required to disclose under that law an amount of money, or information relating to an amount of money, (including a gift or loan) if the person or entity expressly gives the amount to, or for the benefit of, a regulated entity for federal administrative purposes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a person or entity is not required to disclose under that law the value of a non-monetary benefit, or information relating to a non-monetary benefit, if the person or entity expressly provides the benefit to, or for the benefit of, a regulated entity for federal administrative purposes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For the definition of <inline font-style="italic">non-monetary benefit</inline>, see subsection (11).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Disclosure of amounts and other benefits received</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a regulated entity is not required to disclose under that law an amount of money, or information relating to an amount of money, (including a gift or loan) that is received by or on behalf of the regulated entity if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the amount is deposited into a federal administrative account as soon as practicable after the amount is received; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the amount is not transferred or withdrawn out of the account except:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) to use the amount for federal administrative purposes; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) to transfer the amount to another federal administrative account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) To avoid doubt, subsection (3) is taken never to have applied if, at any time, the amount is transferred or withdrawn out of the account, or any other federal administrative account, except as provided by subparagraph (3)(b)(i) or (ii).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Despite any State or Territory electoral law and despite subsection 314B(2), a regulated entity is not required to disclose under that law the value of a non-monetary benefit, or information relating to a non-monetary benefit, that is received by or on behalf of the regulated entity unless the regulated entity keeps the benefit for use for, or uses the benefit for, purposes other than federal purposes or federal administrative purposes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) To avoid doubt, subsection (5) is taken never to have applied if, at any time, the regulated entity keeps the benefit for use for, or uses the benefit for, purposes other than federal administrative purposes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Subsections (3) and (5) also have the effect they would have if a reference to an amount or benefit were confined to an amount or benefit expressly given or provided for federal administrative purposes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Disclosure of administrative expenditure</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a regulated entity is not required to disclose under that law an amount, or information relating to an amount, of expenditure if the expenditure is administrative expenditure.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Disclosure of debts</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, a regulated entity is not required to disclose under that law an amount, or information relating to an amount, of a debt (except a debt incurred as a result of a loan) if the debt is incurred for federal administrative purposes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Interpretation</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) Despite any State or Territory electoral law, if, as a result of this section, a person or entity is not required to disclose under that law an amount, information or value referred to in this section (the <inline font-style="italic">federal information</inline>), then:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) it is immaterial whether the federal information is required to be included in a return provided under this Part; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a total amount, or information relating to a total amount, that is required to be disclosed under that law is not required to include the federal information.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) A <inline font-style="italic">non-monetary benefit</inline> is a gift, or a good or service that is lent, that is not money.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(12) For the purposes of this section, if an action (such as giving or using) is taken in relation to a part of an amount or non-monetary benefit for a particular purpose, and that same action is taken in relation to another part of the amount or benefit for a different purpose, each part of the amount or benefit is taken to be a separate amount or benefit.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(13) Disregard subsection 287AAB(3) in working out whether something is a gift for the purposes of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Compulsory production provisions excluded</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(14) This section does not apply in relation to any compulsory production provision in a State or Territory electoral law.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(15) A <inline font-style="italic">compulsory production provision</inline> in a State or Territory electoral law is a provision that confers a power on a person or body (the <inline font-style="italic">regulator</inline>) to compel a particular person to disclose information (including an amount or value) for the purposes of the regulator investigating a potential contravention of that or any otherlaw.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: A provision that confers a power for a person or body to give a notice to produce to a regulated entity is an example of a compulsory production provision.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 After subsection 302AE(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) The account may be a federal administrative account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 After subsection 302AE(8)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8A) The account may be a federal administrative account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 After subsection 302AF(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) The account may be a federal administrative account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 Subsection 317(1A)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "or 314B", substitute ", 314B, 314C or 314D".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 Subsection 317(1A) (example)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "federal account", insert "or federal administrative account".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">9 Paragraph 317(2)(e)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "or 314B", substitute ", 314B, 314C or 314D".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) Schedule 9, item 3, page 194 (after line 25), at the end of subsection 314AN(2), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: This may include a requirement to produce information or documents relating to a federal account or federal administrative account kept for the purposes of this Part.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET FJ101</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 3, page 71 (line 2), after the heading to the Schedule, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 1 — Amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 3, page 94 (after line 28), at the end of the Schedule, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 2 — Relationship of this Schedule with Schedule 4</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">11 Relationship of this Schedule with Schedule 4</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) It is the intention of the Parliament that the amendments made by this Schedule (gift caps) and by Schedule 4 (expenditure caps) are to operate together and not to be severed from each other.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Subitem (1) operates despite section 15A of the <inline font-style="italic">Acts Interpretation Act 1901</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) To avoid doubt, subitem (1) does not apply in relation to any other amendments made by this Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 4, page 95 (line 2), after the heading to the Schedule, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 1 — Amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 4, page 129 (after line 8), at the end of the Schedule, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 2 — Relationship of this Schedule with Schedule 3</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 Relationship of this Schedule with Schedule 3</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) It is the intention of the Parliament that the amendments made by this Schedule (expenditure caps) and by Schedule 3 (gift caps) are to operate together and not to be severed from each other.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Subitem (1) operates despite section 15A of the <inline font-style="italic">Acts Interpretation Act 1901</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) To avoid doubt, subitem (1) does not apply in relation to any other amendments made by this Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET SC130</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 4, item 2, page 121 (after line 32), at the end of subsection 302AQC(1), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 3: A candidate's staff includes any volunteers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 4, item 2, page 122 (after line 11), at the end of subsection 302AQC(2), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 3: A candidate's staff includes any volunteers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET SC131</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 18, page 14 (after line 36), after paragraph 287AAB(3)(g), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ga) a loan made by a core member of a registered political party's expenditure group to another core member of the expenditure group;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(gb) an amount of uncharged interest on a loan, as mentioned in paragraph (2)(b) of this subsection, if the loan was made by a core member of a registered political party's expenditure group to another core member of the expenditure group;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET SC136</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 3, item 1, page 71 (line 28), omit "$20,000", substitute "$50,000".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 3, item 1, page 72 (line 1), omit "$20,000", substitute "$50,000".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 3, item 1, page 72 (line 26), omit "$20,000", substitute "$50,000".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET SC138</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 10, page 10 (line 16), omit "$1,000", substitute "$5,000".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, item 10, page 10 (line 17), omit "$1,000", substitute "$5,000".</para></quote>
<para> </para>
</continue>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [22:25]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>28</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>18</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I indicate that I have changed my vote on SC136 from support to oppose.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Pauline Hanson's One Nation. These are on sheet 3309, amendments (9), (10) and (13). The first question is that sections 310P and 311 in item 8 of schedule 5 stand as printed and part 1 of schedule 7 stand as amended.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Pauline Hanson's One Nation's circulated amendments—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Schedule 5, item 8, page 154 (lines 7 to 21), section 310P to be opposed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) Schedule 5, item 8, page 154 (line 22) to page 155 (line 10), section 311 to be opposed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(13) Schedule 7, Part 1, page 169 (line 3) to page 184 (line 28), to be opposed.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the committee is that Pauline Hanson's One Nation's remaining amendments on sheet 3309 and the amendments on sheets 3299, 3307, 3308 and 3310 be agreed to.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Pauline Hanson's One Nation circulated amendments—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3309</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 8 (lines 20 to 22), paragraph beginning "Administrative assistance funding", omit the paragraph.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, item 18, page 15 (lines 5 to 6), omit "or Division 3AA (administrative assistance funding)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 5, item 8, page 133 (lines 29 to 31), omit paragraph 310(3)(g).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 5, item 8, page 134 (lines 19 to 23), omit subsection 310(5) (including the heading).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 5, item 8, page 134 (lines 24 to 26), omit subsection 310(6).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Schedule 5, item 8, page 137 (line 1), omit paragraph 310B(1)(c).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Schedule 5, item 8, page 137 (lines 30 to 33), omit subsection 310B(4) (including the heading).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Schedule 5, item 8, page 138 (lines 1 to 3), omit subsection 310B(5).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) Schedule 6, item 4, page 162 (line 29 to 32), omit note 3.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(12) Schedule 7, heading, page 169 (lines 1 to 2), omit "Administrative assistance funding and election", substitute "Election".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3299</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 13); insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Page 205 (after line 19), after Schedule 9, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 9A — Voter identification</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Subsection 4(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">proof of identity document </inline>has the meaning given by section 4AB.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 After section 4AA</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> 4AB Definition of <inline font-style="italic">proof of identity document</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A <inline font-style="italic">proof of identity document</inline> is any of the following (including any of the following in electronic form):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a current driver's licence issued under the law of a State or Territory or a law in force in Norfolk Island;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a current Australian passport;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a current proof of age card issued by or on behalf of a State or Territory or an authority of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a birth certificate issued by or on behalf of a State or Territory or an authority of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) a notice evidencing a person's Australian citizenship that is given under section 37 of the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Citizenship Act 2007</inline>;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) a current identification card (however described) issued by or on behalf of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Commonwealth or a State or Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an authority of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) an account statement or notice (however described) issued by a local government body, utilities provider or carriage service provider in the last 12 months;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) either:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a current credit card or debit card issued by an Australian financial institution; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an account statement issued by an Australian financial institution in the last 12 months;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a notice of assessment (including an amended assessment) issued in the last 12 months under the <inline font-style="italic">Income Tax Assessment Act 1936</inline> in respect of a year of income;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(j) a notice issued by the Electoral Commissioner under this Act notifying a person of the person's enrolment;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(k) a document that relates to the affairs of a particular person, that specifies the person's name and that is issued in the ordinary course of business by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander land council or land trust (however described) established by or under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a body corporate that is prescribed by, or is of a kind prescribed by, regulations made for the purposes of section 59 of the <inline font-style="italic">Native Title Act 1993</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: For paragraph (f), a medicare card, a Commonwealth seniors health card, a Commonwealth pensioner concession card and a Commonwealth Repatriation Health Card are examples of identification cards.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: For paragraph (g), a council rates notice, an electricity account statement, a gas account statement, a water and sewerage account statement, a mobile phone account statement and an internet service account statement are examples of account statements or notices.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 After paragraph 200DG(1)(a)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(aa) a request made of the voter under paragraph 200DI(1)(a) is satisfied in accordance with subsection 200DI(4); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ab) the voting officer is reasonably satisfied of the identity of the voter; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 Paragraph 200DG(2)(b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) any of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a request made of the voter under paragraph 200DI(1)(a) is not satisfied in accordance with subsection 200DI(4);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the voter refuses to answer fully any question the voter is asked under subsection 200DI(2);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the voter answers a question under paragraph 200DI(1)(b) so as to indicate that the voter has voted before in the relevant election or elections (as the case requires); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 Paragraph 200DG(2)(c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the voting officer who made the request under paragraph 200DI(1)(a) is not reasonably satisfied of the identity of the voter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 At the end of section 200DG</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If, under this section, the voter is not entitled to vote by pre-poll ordinary vote, the voting officer must inform the voter that the voter may make a pre-poll declaration vote in accordance with Division 4.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 Section 200DI</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the section, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">200DI Establishing voter's identity</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A voting officer must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) request each person attending before the voting officer, and claiming to vote in an election or elections (as the case requires), to produce to the voting officer a proof of identity document for the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ask questions of the person in order to work out whether the person has voted before in the election or elections (as the case requires).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The voting officer may ask questions of the person in order to work out the person's full name or the person's place of living, or both.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If the voting officer is not satisfied that the person is a particular person on a copy of the certified list of voters, or on an approved list of voters, for a particular Division, the officer may ask the person one or more questions about matters shown on the list for the particular person to establish whether the person is that particular person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) A request made of a person (the <inline font-style="italic">voter</inline>) under paragraph (1)(a) is satisfied if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the voter produces to the voting officer a proof of identity document for the voter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) all of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) another person (the <inline font-style="italic">attester</inline>) who is enrolled produces to the voting officer a proof of identity document for the attester that satisfies subsection (5);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the attester attests to the voter's identity by completing the approved form, including by specifying the attester's full name, enrolled address, the kind of proof of identity document produced by the attester and the name of the voter;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the attester and the voter sign the approved form in the presence of the voting officer.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) A proof of identity document produced by the attester satisfies this subsection if either or both of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) it is issued by or on behalf of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Commonwealth or a State or Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an authority of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) it contains the attester's name and place of living.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) A voting officer must not:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) make a copy (including an electronic copy) of a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) electronically scan a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) make a record (including an electronic record) of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the kind of proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) any information contained in a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) retain a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) A voting officer may, at the request of the attester, complete (but not sign) the whole or a part of the approved form mentioned in subparagraph (4)(b)(ii) for the attester. By doing so, the voting officer does not make a record of information covered by subparagraph (6)(c)(i) or (ii).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Section 336 deals with signing an approved form.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 At the end of subsection 200DJ(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Division 4 deals with pre-poll declaration votes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">9 At the end of subsection 202AB(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add "The regulations must not make provision for such a person to be requested or required to produce a proof of identity document for the person.".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">10 At the end of subsection 202AB(1A)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add "The regulations must not make provision for such an elector to be requested or required to produce a proof of identity document for the elector.".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">11 Subsection 221(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "unless a person shows by his or her answers to the questions under section 200DI or 229 that he or she is not entitled to vote", substitute "subject to the application of section 200DG or 229 in relation to a person".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">12 At the end of subsection 227(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Subsection (3) has the effect, for example, that section 200DI or 229 applies in relation to taking votes under this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">13 Section 229 (heading)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the heading, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">229 Establishing voter's identity etc.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">14 Subsections 229(1) to (4)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subsections, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The presiding officer or a polling official must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) request each person attending before the officer or official, and claiming to vote in an election or elections (as the case requires), to produce to the officer or official a proof of identity document for the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ask questions of the person in order to work out whether the person has voted before in the election or elections (as the case requires).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The presiding officer or the polling official may ask questions of the person in order to work out the person's full name or the person's place of living, or both.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The presiding officer or the polling official must also ask each person claiming to vote as an absent voter in an election or elections (as the case requires) to identify the Division for which the person is enrolled.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If the presiding officer or the polling official is not satisfied that the person is a particular person on the certified list of voters, or on an approved list of voters, for the relevant Division, the officer or official may ask the person one or more questions about matters shown on the list for the particular person to establish whether the person is that particular person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4A) A request made of a person (the <inline font-style="italic">voter</inline>) under paragraph (1)(a) is satisfied if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the voter produces to the presiding officer or the polling official a proof of identity document for the voter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) all of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) another person (the <inline font-style="italic">attester</inline>) who is enrolled produces to the presiding officer or the polling official a proof of identity document for the attester that satisfies subsection (4B);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the attester attests to the voter's identity by completing the approved form, including by specifying the attester's full name, enrolled address, the kind of proof of identity document produced by the attester and the name of the voter;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the attester and the voter sign the approved form in the presence of the presiding officer or the polling official.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4B) A proof of identity document produced by the attester satisfies this subsection if either or both of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) it is issued by or on behalf of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Commonwealth or a State or Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an authority of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) it contains the attester's name and place of living.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4C) The presiding officer or a polling official must not:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) make a copy (including an electronic copy) of a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) electronically scan a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) make a record (including an electronic record) of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the kind of proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) any information contained in a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) retain a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4D) The presiding officer or a polling official may, at the request of the attester, complete (but not sign) the whole or a part of the approved form mentioned in subparagraph (4A)(b)(ii) for the attester. By doing so, the officer or official does not make a record of information covered by subparagraph (4C)(c)(i) or (ii).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Section 336 deals with signing an approved form.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">15 Paragraphs 229(5)(a) and (b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) any of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a request made of the person under paragraph (1)(a) is not satisfied in accordance with subsection (4A);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the person refuses to answer fully any question the person is asked under subsection (2);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the person answers a question under paragraph (1)(b) so as to indicate that the person has voted before in the relevant election or elections (as the case requires); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) either:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) if the presiding officer made the request under paragraph (1)(a)—the presiding officer is not reasonably satisfied of the identity of the person; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) if a polling official made the request under paragraph (1)(a)—the presiding officer or the polling official is not reasonably satisfied of the identity of the person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">16 At the end of section 229 (after the note)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) paragraph (5)(a) or (b) applies in relation to the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the person is not claiming to vote as an absent voter;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the presiding officer or the polling official must inform the person that the person may cast a provisional vote in accordance with section 235.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">17 Paragraph 231(1)(a)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "the person's answers to questions put to the person show that he or she is entitled to vote", substitute "neither paragraph 229(5)(a) nor (b) applies in relation to the person".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">18 At the end of subsection 231(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Section 235 deals with provisional votes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">19 Paragraph 235(1)(c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) paragraph 229(5)(a) or (b) applies in relation to the person and the person is not claiming to vote as an absent voter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">20 Application provision</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments of the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline> made by this Schedule apply in relation to elections the writs for which are issued on or after the commencement of this item.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">21 Subsection 3(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">proof of identity document </inline>has the meaning given by section 3AA.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">22 After section 3</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> 3AA Definition of <inline font-style="italic">proof of identity document</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A <inline font-style="italic">proof of identity document</inline> is any of the following (including any of the following in electronic form):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a current driver's licence issued under the law of a State or Territory or a law in force in Norfolk Island;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a current Australian passport;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a current proof of age card issued by or on behalf of a State or Territory or an authority of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a birth certificate issued by or on behalf of a State or Territory or an authority of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) a notice evidencing a person's Australian citizenship that is given under section 37 of the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Citizenship Act 2007</inline>;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) a current identification card (however described) issued by or on behalf of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Commonwealth or a State or Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an authority of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) an account statement or notice (however described) issued by a local government body, utilities provider or carriage service provider in the last 12 months;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) either:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a current credit card or debit card issued by an Australian financial institution; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an account statement issued by an Australian financial institution in the last 12 months;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a notice of assessment (including an amended assessment) issued in the last 12 months under the <inline font-style="italic">Income Tax Assessment Act 1936</inline> in respect of a year of income;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(j) a notice issued by the Electoral Commissioner under the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline> notifying a person of the person's enrolment;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(k) a document that relates to the affairs of a particular person, that specifies the person's name and that is issued in the ordinary course of business by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander land council or land trust (however described) established by or under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a body corporate that is prescribed by, or is of a kind prescribed by, regulations made for the purposes of section 59 of the <inline font-style="italic">Native Title Act 1993</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: For paragraph (f), a medicare card, a Commonwealth seniors health card, a Commonwealth pensioner concession card and a Commonwealth Repatriation Health Card are examples of identification cards.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: For paragraph (g), a council rates notice, an electricity account statement, a gas account statement, a water and sewerage account statement, a mobile phone account statement and an internet service account statement are examples of account statements or notices.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">23 Section 30 (heading)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the heading, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">30 Establishing voter's identity etc.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">24 Subsections 30(1) to (4)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subsections, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The presiding officer or a polling official must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) subject to subsection (4A), request each person attending before the officer or official, and claiming to vote in a referendum or referendums (as the case requires), to produce to the officer or official a proof of identity document for the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ask questions of the person in order to work out whether the person has voted before in the referendum or referendums (as the case requires).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The presiding officer or the polling official may ask questions of the person in order to work out the person's full name or the person's place of living, or both.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The presiding officer or the polling official may also ask each person claiming to vote as an absent voter in a referendum or referendums (as the case requires) to identify the Division for which the person is enrolled.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If the presiding officer or the polling official is not satisfied that the person is a particular person on the certified list of voters, or on an approved list of voters, for the relevant Division, the officer or official may ask the person one or more questions about matters shown on the list for the particular person to establish whether the person is that particular person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4A) If the voting day for the referendum or referendums (as the case requires) is the same as that fixed for the polling at an election, the presiding officer or a polling official is not required to make a request of a person under paragraph (1)(a) if the officer or official is reasonably satisfied of the identity of the person because of the following in relation to the election:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a request made of the person under paragraph 229(1)(a) of the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline> being satisfied in accordance with subsection 229(4A) of that Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) answers by the person to questions (if any) asked under section 229 of that Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4B) A request made of a person (the <inline font-style="italic">voter</inline>) under paragraph (1)(a) is satisfied if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the voter produces to the presiding officer or the polling official a proof of identity document for the voter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) all of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) another person (the <inline font-style="italic">attester</inline>) who is enrolled produces to the presiding officer or the polling official a proof of identity document for the attester that satisfies subsection (4C);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the attester attests to the voter's identity by completing the approved form, including by specifying the attester's full name, enrolled address, the kind of proof of identity document produced by the attester and the name of the voter;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the attester and the voter sign the approved form in the presence of the presiding officer or the polling official.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4C) A proof of identity document produced by the attester satisfies this subsection if either or both of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) it is issued by or on behalf of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Commonwealth or a State or Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an authority of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) it contains the attester's name and place of living.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4D) The presiding officer or a polling official must not:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) make a copy (including an electronic copy) of a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) electronically scan a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) make a record (including an electronic record) of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the kind of proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) any information contained in a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) retain a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4E) The presiding officer or a polling official may, at the request of the attester, complete (but not sign) the whole or a part of the approved form mentioned in subparagraph (4B)(b)(ii) for the attester. By doing so, the officer or official does not make a record of information covered by subparagraph (4D)(c)(i) or (ii).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Section 127 deals with signing an approved form.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">25 Paragraphs 30(5)(a) and (b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) any of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a request (if any) made of the person under paragraph (1)(a) is not satisfied in accordance with subsection (4B);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the person refuses to answer fully any question the person is asked under subsection (2);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the person answers a question under paragraph (1)(b) so as to indicate that the person has voted before in the relevant referendum or referendums (as the case requires); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) either:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) if the presiding officer makes a request of the person under paragraph (1)(a)—the presiding officer is not reasonably satisfied of the identity of the person; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) if a polling official makes a request of the person under paragraph (1)(a)—the presiding officer or the polling official is not reasonably satisfied of the identity of the person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">26 At the end of section 30 (after the note)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) paragraph (5)(a) or (b) applies in relation to the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the person is not claiming to vote as an absent voter;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the presiding officer or the polling official must inform the person that the person may cast a provisional vote in accordance with section 37.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">27 Section 31</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">28 Paragraph 33(1)(a)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "the person's answers to the questions referred to in sections 30 and 31 show that he or she is entitled to vote", substitute "neither paragraph 30(5)(a) nor (b) applies in relation to the person".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">29 At the end of subsection 33(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Section 37 deals with provisional votes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">30 Paragraph 37(1)(c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) paragraph 30(5)(a) or (b) applies in relation to the person and the person is not claiming to vote as an absent voter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">31 At the end of subsection 51(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Subsection (3) has the effect, for example, that section 30 or 73CI applies in relation to taking votes under this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">32 After paragraph 73CG(1)(a)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(aa) a request (if any) made of the voter under paragraph 73CI(1)(a) is satisfied in accordance with subsection 73CI(5); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ab) a voting officer is reasonably satisfied of the identity of the voter; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">33 Paragraph 73CG(2)(b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) any of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a request (if any) made of the voter under paragraph 73CI(1)(a) is not satisfied in accordance with subsection 73CI(5);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the voter refuses to answer fully any question the voter is asked under subsection 73CI(2);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the voter answers a question under paragraph 73CI(1)(b) so as to indicate that the voter has voted before in the relevant referendum or referendums (as the case requires); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">34 Paragraph 73CG(2)(c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a voting officer makes a request of the person under paragraph 73CI(1)(a) and the officer is not reasonably satisfied of the identity of the voter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">35 At the end of section 73CG</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If, under this section, the voter is not entitled to vote by pre-poll ordinary vote, the voting officer must inform the voter that the voter may make a pre-poll declaration vote in accordance with Division 4.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">36 Section 73CI</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the section, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">73CI Establishing voter's identity</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A voting officer must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) subject to subsection (4), request each person attending before the voting officer, and claiming to vote in a referendum or referendums (as the case requires), to produce to the voting officer a proof of identity document for the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ask questions of the person in order to work out whether the person has voted before in the referendum or referendums (as the case requires).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The voting officer may ask questions of the person in order to work out the person's full name or the person's place of living, or both.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If the voting officer is not satisfied that the person is a particular person on a copy of the certified list of voters, or on an approved list of voters, for a particular Division, the officer may ask the person one or more questions about matters shown on the list for the particular person to establish whether the person is that particular person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If the voting day for the referendum or referendums (as the case requires) is the same as that fixed for the polling at an election, a voting officer is not required to make a request of a person under paragraph (1)(a) if the officer is reasonably satisfied of the identity of the person because of the following in relation to the election:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a request made of the person under paragraph 200DI(1)(a) of the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline> being satisfied in accordance with subsection 200DI(4) of that Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) answers by the person to questions (if any) asked under section 200DI of that Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) A request made of a person (the <inline font-style="italic">voter</inline>) under paragraph (1)(a) is satisfied if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the voter produces to the voting officer a proof of identity document for the voter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) all of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) another person (the <inline font-style="italic">attester</inline>) who is enrolled produces to the voting officer a proof of identity document for the attester that satisfies subsection (6);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the attester attests to the voter's identity by completing the approved form, including by specifying the attester's full name, enrolled address, the kind of proof of identity document produced by the attester and the name of the voter;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the attester and the voter sign the approved form in the presence of the voting officer.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) A proof of identity document produced by the attester satisfies this subsection if either or both of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) it is issued by or on behalf of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Commonwealth or a State or Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an authority of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) it contains the attester's name and place of living.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) A voting officer must not:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) make a copy (including an electronic copy) of a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) electronically scan a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) make a record (including an electronic record) of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the kind of proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) any information contained in a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) retain a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) A voting officer may, at the request of the attester, complete (but not sign) the whole or a part of the approved form mentioned in subparagraph (5)(b)(ii) for the attester. By doing so, the voting officer does not make a record of information covered by subparagraph (7)(c)(i) or (ii).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Section 127 deals with signing an approved form.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">37 At the end of subsection 73CJ(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Division 4 deals with pre-poll declaration votes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">38 At the end of subsection 73M(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add "The regulations must not make provision for such a person to be requested or required to produce a proof of identity document for the person.".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">39 At the end of subsection 73M(1A)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add "The regulations must not make provision for such an elector to be requested or required to produce a proof of identity document for the elector.".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">40 Application provision</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments of the <inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984</inline> made by this Schedule apply in relation to referendums the writs for which are issued on or after the commencement of this item.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3307</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 5), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Page 129 (after line 8), after Schedule 4, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 4A — Pre-poll voting period</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Subsection 200BA(1AA)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "12 days before polling day", substitute "7 days before polling day".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 Subsection 73AA(1AA)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subsection, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1AA) The day, or the earliest of the days, declared under paragraph (1)(b) must not be earlier than the day that is 7 days before the voting day for the referendum.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3308</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 7), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Page 158 (after line 5), after Schedule 5, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 5A — Postal voting</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 After subsection 195A(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2A) If the date of receipt is a date after the Friday immediately preceding polling day, the DRO or officer must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) immediately cancel the postal ballot paper or papers contained in the envelope; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) write "discarded postal ballot paper or papers" on the back of the envelope; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) sign the envelope.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2B) The envelopes containing discarded postal ballot papers that have been cancelled under subsection (2A) must be bundled up and given to the DRO for the Division after the close of the poll.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 Subsection 195A(5)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "If an envelope", substitute "Subject to subsection (2A), if an envelope".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 Subsection 195A(6)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "If an envelope", substitute "Subject to subsection (2A), if an envelope".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 After subsection 67(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2A) If the date of receipt is a date after the Friday immediately preceding polling day, the DRO or officer must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) immediately cancel the postal ballot paper or papers contained in the envelope; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) write "discarded postal ballot paper or papers" on the back of the envelope; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) sign the envelope.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2B) The envelopes containing discarded postal ballot papers that have been cancelled under subsection (2A) must be bundled up and given to the DRO for the Division after the close of the poll.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 Subsection 67(5)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "If an envelope", substitute "Subject to subsection (2A), if an envelope".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 Subsection 67(6)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "If an envelope", substitute "Subject to subsection (2A), if an envelope".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3310</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 11), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Page 191 (after line 6), after Schedule 8, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 8A — Amendments to electoral offences relating to how-to-vote cards</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Subsection 335(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subsection, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A person shall not, except for the purposes of section 234, exhibit or leave in any polling booth:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a how-to-vote card; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any card or paper having thereon any direction or instruction as to how an elector should vote or as to the method of voting;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">unless the how-to-vote card or the card or paper is exhibited on the wall of the polling booth directly facing one or more entrances to the booth.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty: 5 penalty units.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 After subsection 340(1A)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1B) A person commits an offence if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person engages in any of the following activities:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) distributing how-to-vote cards;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) distributing card or paper having thereon any direction or instruction as to how an elector should vote or as to the method of voting;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the activity is engaged in at an entrance to, or in any place (whether public or private) within 500 meters of an entrance to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a polling booth at which voting in the election is taking place; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a pre-poll voting office at which applications for pre-poll voters may be made, or pre-poll ordinary voting is available, for the election; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the activity is engaged in:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) in relation to a polling booth—on polling day or on a day to which the polling is adjourned for the election; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) in relation to a pre-poll voting office—at any time during which applications for pre-poll votes may be made, or pre-poll ordinary voting is available, at the office.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty: 5 penalty units.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 Subsection 340(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "or (1A)(ba)", substitute ", (1A)(ba) or (1B)(c)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 Subsection 126(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subsection, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A person shall not, except for the purposes of section 36, exhibit or leave in any polling booth any card or paper having thereon any direction or instruction as to how an elector should vote or as to the method of voting unless the card or paper is exhibited on the wall of the polling booth directly facing one or more entrances to the booth.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty: 5 penalty units.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 After subsection 131(1A)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1B) A person commits an offence if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person distributes card or paper having thereon any direction or instruction as to how an elector should vote or as to the method of voting; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the activity mentioned in paragraph (a) is engaged in at an entrance to, or in any place (whether public or private) within 500 meters of an entrance to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a polling booth at which voting in the referendum is taking place; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a pre-poll voting office at which applications for pre-poll voters may be made, or pre-poll ordinary voting is available, for the referendum; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the activity mentioned in paragraph (a) is engaged in:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) in relation to a polling booth—on polling day or on a day to which the polling is adjourned for the referendum; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) in relation to a pre-poll voting office—at any time during which applications for pre-poll votes may be made, or pre-poll ordinary voting is available, at the office.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty: 5 penalty units.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 Subsection 131(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "(1A)(ba)", substitute "(1A)(ba) or (1B)(c)".</para></quote>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [22:30]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>4</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I. (Teller)</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>42</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I request to have my support recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Journals</inline> for the amendments on sheet 3309.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that Senator Thorpe's amendment on sheet 3200 be agreed to.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">Senator Thorpe's circulated </inline> <inline font-style="italic">amendment—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 6 and 7), omit "<inline font-style="italic">Electoral Reform</inline>", substitute "<inline font-style="italic">Sham Democracy</inline>".</para></quote>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [22:34]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>17</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>29</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the Jacqui Lambie Network amendments on sheets 3198 and 3317 be agreed to.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">Jacqui Lambie Network</inline> <inline font-style="italic">'s</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> circulated amendments—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3198</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 6 and 7), omit "<inline font-style="italic">Electoral Reform</inline>", substitute "<inline font-style="italic">Snouts in </inline><inline font-style="italic">the Trough</inline>".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3317</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Page 94 (after line 28), after Schedule 3, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 3A — Prohibiting donations from gambling, liquor and tobacco industries</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Before Division 5B of Part XX</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 5AA — Prohibited donations</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">314AGA Definitions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In this Division:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">close associate</inline> of a corporation means each of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a director or officer of the corporation or the spouse of such a director or officer;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a related body corporate of the corporation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a person whose voting power in the corporation or a related body corporate of the corporation is greater than 20%, or the spouse of such a person;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) if the corporation or a related body corporate of the corporation is a stapled entity in relation to a stapled security—the other stapled entity in relation to that stapled security;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) if the corporation is a trustee, manager or responsible entity in relation to a trust—a person who holds more than 20% of the units in the trust (in the case of a unit trust) or is a beneficiary of the trust (in the case of a discretionary trust).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">electoral expenditure</inline> has the same meaning as in Division 5.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">gambling industry business entity</inline> means:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a corporation engaged in a business undertaking that involves wagering, betting or other gambling (including the manufacture of machines used primarily for that purpose); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a person who is a close associate of a corporation referred to in paragraph (a).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">liquor industry business entity</inline> means:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a corporation engaged in a business undertaking that involves the manufacture or sale of liquor products; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a person who is a close associate of a corporation referred to in paragraph (a).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">officer</inline>, in relation to a corporation, has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Corporations Act 2001</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">political donation</inline> has the meaning given by section 314AGB.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">prohibited donation</inline>, for a relevant donor, has the meaning given by section 314AGC.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">related body corporate</inline> has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Corporations Act 2001</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">relevant donor</inline> means:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a gambling industry business entity; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a liquor industry business entity; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a tobacco industry business entity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">spouse</inline> of a person includes a de facto partner of that person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For <inline font-style="italic">de facto partner</inline>, see section 21 of the <inline font-style="italic">Acts Interpretation Act 1901</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">stapled entity</inline> means an entity the interests in which are traded along with the interests in another entity as stapled securities and (in the case of a stapled entity that is a trust) includes any trustee, manager or responsible entity in relation to the trust.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">State branch </inline>includes a division of a State branch.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">tobacco industry business entity</inline> means:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a corporation engaged in a business undertaking that involves the manufacture or sale of tobacco or inhaled nicotine products; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a person who is a close associate of a corporation referred to in paragraph (a).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">voting power</inline> has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Corporations Act 2001</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">314AGB Meaning of <inline font-style="italic">political donation</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Each of the following is a <inline font-style="italic">political donation</inline>:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a gift made to or for the benefit of a political party or a State branch of a political party;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a gift made to or for the benefit of a member of the Commonwealth Parliament;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a gift made to or for the benefit of a candidate (including a member of a group);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a gift made to or for the benefit of an associated entity of a registered political party;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) a gift made to or for the benefit of a significant third party;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) a gift made to or for the benefit of an entity or other person (not being a party, elected member, group or candidate), the whole or part of which was used or is intended to be used by the entity or person:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) to enable the entity or person to make, directly or indirectly, a political donation or to incur electoral expenditure in relation to an election;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) to reimburse the entity or person for making, directly or indirectly, a political donation or incurring electoral expenditure in relation to an election;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) a loan:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) that, if it had been a gift, would have been a political donation under this section; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) that was not made by a financial institution (within the meaning of section 306A).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">314AGC Meaning of prohibited donation</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A political donation is a <inline font-style="italic">prohibited donation</inline> for a relevant donor if the relevant donor is:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a gambling industry business entity; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a liquor industry business entity; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a tobacco industry business entity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">314AGD Prohibited donations by relevant donors unlawful</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) It is unlawful for a relevant donor to make a political donation that is a prohibited donation for the relevant donor.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) It is unlawful for a person to make a political donation on behalf of a relevant donor if the political donation is a prohibited donation for the relevant donor.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) It is unlawful for a person to accept a political donation that was made (wholly or partly) by a relevant donor, or by a person on behalf of a relevant donor, if the political donation is a prohibited donation for the relevant donor.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) It is unlawful for a relevant donor to solicit another person to make a political donation that is a prohibited donation for the relevant donor.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) It is unlawful for a person to solicit another person on behalf of a relevant donor to make a political donation that is a prohibited donation for the relevant donor.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) If a person receives a gift that, under this section, it is unlawful for the person to receive, an amount equal to the amount or value of the gift is payable by that person to the Commonwealth and may be recovered by the Commonwealth as a debt due to the Commonwealth by action, in a court of competent jurisdiction, against:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) in the case of a gift to or for the benefit of a political party or a State branch of a political party:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) if the party or branch, as the case may be is a body corporate—the party or branch, as the case may be; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) in any other case—the agent of the party or branch, as the case may be; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in any other case—the candidate or a member of the group or the agent of the candidate or of the group, as the case may be.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">314AGE Offences — prohibited donations</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A person (the <inline font-style="italic">defendant</inline>) commits an offence if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the defendant is a relevant donor; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the defendant makes a gift; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the gift is a prohibited donation for the relevant donor.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or 400 penalty units, or both.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A person (the <inline font-style="italic">defendant</inline>) commits an offence if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the defendant makes a gift on behalf of another person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the other person is a relevant donor; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the gift is a prohibited donation for the relevant donor.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or 400 penalty units, or both.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A person (the <inline font-style="italic">defendant</inline>) commits an offence if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the defendant accepts a gift; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the gift was given (wholly or partly) by, or by a person on behalf of, a relevant donor; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the gift is a prohibited donation for the relevant donor.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or 400 penalty units, or both.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) A person (the <inline font-style="italic">defendant</inline>) commits an offence if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the defendant is a relevant donor; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the defendant solicits another person to make a gift; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the gift is, or would be, a prohibited donation for the relevant donor.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or 400 penalty units, or both.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) A person (the <inline font-style="italic">defendant</inline>) commits an offence if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the defendant solicits another person to make a gift; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the defendant does so on behalf of another person (the <inline font-style="italic">donor</inline>); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the donor is a relevant donor; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the gift is, or would be, a prohibited donation for the relevant donor.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or 400 penalty units, or both.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Fault element</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) The fault element for the following paragraphs is knowledge by the defendant:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) paragraphs (1)(a) and (c);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) paragraphs (2)(b) and (c);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) paragraphs (3)(b) and (c);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) paragraphs (4)(a) and (c);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) paragraphs (5)(c) and (d).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Civil penalty</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes any of subsections (1) to (5).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Civil penalty:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The higher of the following amounts:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) 400 penalty units;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if there is sufficient evidence for the court to determine the amount or value, or an estimate of the amount of value, of the gift at the time the gift is made—3 times that amount or value.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">314AGF Offence — scheme to circumvent prohibitions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A person commits an offence if the person enters into or carries out a scheme (whether alone or with others) for the purpose of circumventing a prohibition or requirement of this Division.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) It does not matter whether the person also enters into or carries out the scheme for other purposes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) In this section:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">scheme</inline> includes an arrangement, an understanding or a course of conduct.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">314AGG Electoral Commission may determine that a person is presumed not to be a relevant donor</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Electoral Commission may determine, in writing, that a person (the <inline font-style="italic">donor</inline>) is presumed not to be a relevant donor for the purposes of this Division if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a donor or another person (the <inline font-style="italic">applicant</inline>) applies to the Commission for the determination to be made; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Commission is satisfied that it is more likely than not that the donor is not a relevant donor.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Electoral Commission can decide whether or not to make a determination under subsection (1) on the basis of information provided by the applicant and their own inquiries.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A determination under subsection (1) remains in force for 12 months after it is made, unless it is revoked earlier.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The Electoral Commission may, by written notice to the applicant, revoke a determination under subsection (1) if the Commission is no longer satisfied of the matter in paragraph (1)(b). Subsection (2) does not apply to a decision of whether or not to revoke a determination under this subsection.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Effect of presumption</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) If a person is, under a determination made under subsection (1), presumed not to be a relevant donor, then sections 314AGD, 314AGE and 314AGF do not apply in relation to a gift made by or on behalf of the person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) However, subsection (5) does not apply to a person who knows that information provided to the Electoral Commission in connection with the making of the determination was false or misleading in a material particular.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) The onus of proving that a person is not presumed not to be a relevant donor under a determination made under subsection (1) is born by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) in proceedings under section 314AGD—the Commonwealth; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in proceedings for an offence against section 314AGE or 314AGF—the prosecution.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Register of determinations</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) The Electoral Commission must maintain, and publish on the Commission's website, a register of determinations made under subsection (1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Determination is not a legislative instrument</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) A determination made under subsection (1) is not a legislative instrument.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 Subsection 315A(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "or subsection 301(3)", insert "or 314AGD(6)".</para></quote>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [22:38]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>16</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>30</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the Australia's Voice amendments on sheets 3187 and 3266 be agreed to.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">Australia's Voice</inline> <inline font-style="italic">'s</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> circulated amendments—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3187</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 6 and 7), omit "<inline font-style="italic">Electoral Reform</inline>", substitute "<inline font-style="italic">Compromising Our Rightful </inline><inline font-style="italic">Representation and Undermining Political Trust</inline>".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3266</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 3 (table item 14), omit "10 and 11", substitute "10, 11 and 12".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Page 221 (after line 29), at the end of the Bill, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 12 — Ceasing allowances for former members</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Paragraph 3(2)(a)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraph.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 Paragraph 3(2)(aa)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "in recognition that the resources mentioned in paragraph (a) will not be provided".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 Section 13</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "A former member may be paid allowances and expenses relating to ceasing to be a member, as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal.".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 Section 15 (heading)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "former members and".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 Subsection 15(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subsection.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 Subsection 15(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "(2)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 Subsection 15(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "in recognition that allowances are not payable to such persons under subsection (1) of this section".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 Section 46</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">9 Subsection 46A(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "(1)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">10 Subsections 46A(2) and (3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subsections.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">11 Application and transitional provision</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The amendments of the <inline font-style="italic">Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017</inline> made by this Schedule apply in relation to a person who is a former member if the person ceases to be a member on or after the commencement of this item.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Despite the repeal of subsection 15(1) and section 46 of the <inline font-style="italic">Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017</inline> by this Schedule, Part 4 of <inline font-style="italic">the Remuneration Tribunal (Members of Parliament) Determination 2024</inline>, as in force before the commencement of this item, continues to apply on and after that commencement to a person who is a former member if the person ceases to be a member before that commencement.</para></quote>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [22:41]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>16</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>29</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will now deal with amendments circulated by Senator David Pocock. As the amendments on sheet 3248 were consequential on a motion to divide the bill that was negatived earlier today, I will not put the question on those amendments. The question before the committee is that Senator Pocock's amendments on sheets 3158 and 3199 be agreed to.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3158</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 13), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Page 205 (after line 19), after Schedule 9, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 9A — Fair territory representation</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Subsections 40(1) to (3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subsections, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are each to be represented in the Senate by senators for the Territory directly chosen by the people of the Territory voting as one electorate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The number of senators for each of these Territories is to be half of the number of senators for a State (rounded up or down to the nearest whole number (rounding up if the number ends in .5)).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 Sections 42 and 43</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the sections, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">42 Term of service of a senator for a Territory</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Section 13 of the Constitution applies in relation to a senator for the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory as if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a reference in that section to a State included a reference to the Territory; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a reference in that section to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) when the Senate first meets; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the first election;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">included a reference to the first Senate election held after the commencement of this subsection.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The term of service of a senator for any other Territory:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) commences on the day of the senator's election; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ends on the day immediately before the polling day for the next general election.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">43 Times of elections of senators for Territories</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The times of elections of the senators for the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory are to be determined in a corresponding way to the way determined for the senators for a State.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) An election of the senators for any other Territory is to be held at the same time as each general election.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 Application of amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subsection 40(2) of the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline> (as inserted by this Schedule) applies for, and on and after, the first Senate election held after the commencement of this Schedule.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3199</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 6 and 7), omit "<inline font-style="italic">Electoral Reform</inline>", substitute "<inline font-style="italic">Reducing Electoral </inline><inline font-style="italic">Competition to Stitch-up Major Party Duopoly</inline>".</para></quote>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [22:44]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>15</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>31</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will now deal with the amendments circulated by the United Australia Party. We're on sheet 3189 on amendments (12), (25) and (28) and on sheet 3192 on amendments (3) and (5). The first question is that the following elements of the bill stand as printed: in schedule 5, section 310M in item 8; in schedule 6, items 5 to 11; in schedule 8, items 3 and 4; and schedule 4.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">The United Australia Party opposed schedule </inline> <inline font-style="italic">4</inline> <inline font-style="italic">, schedule </inline> <inline font-style="italic">5, schedule </inline> <inline font-style="italic">6</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> and </inline> <inline font-style="italic">schedule </inline> <inline font-style="italic">8</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> in the following terms—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3189</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(12) Schedule 4, page 95 (line 1) to page 129 (line 8), to be opposed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(25) Schedule 5, item 8, page 152 (line 1) to page 153 (line 18), section 310M to be opposed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(28) Schedule 8, item 3, page 189 (lines 15 to 18), to be opposed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3192</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 6, items 5 to 11, page 167 (line 8) to page 168 (line 4), to be opposed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 8, page 189 (lines 19 to 22), item 4 to be opposed.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We now come to sheets 3188, 3189, 3192 and 3218. The question now is that the remaining United Australia Party amendments on sheets 3189 and 3192 and the amendments on sheets 3188 and 3218 be agreed to.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">United Australia Party's circulated amendments—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3188</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 3, item 2, page 75 (after line 14), after subsection 302BA(3), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) Subsections (1) to (3) are subject to Subdivision AD (gifts that do not exceed gift caps).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 3, item 2, page 87 (after line 31), after subsection 302CI(3), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) Subsections (2) and (3) are subject to Subdivision AD (gifts that do not exceed gift caps).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 3, item 2, page 89 (after line 32), after subsection 302CJ(4), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4A) Subsections (3) and (4) are subject to Subdivision AD (gifts that do not exceed gift caps).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 3, item 5, page 91 (after line 12), after Subdivision AC, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision AD — Gifts that do not exceed gift caps</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">302CL Definitions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In this Subdivision:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">electoral cycle</inline> means a period:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) beginning on the day on which the writs for a general election are issued; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ending immediately before the day on which the writs for the next general election are issued.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Government party</inline> means a registered political party that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) forms part of the Government; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the House of Representatives is expired or dissolved—formed part of the Government immediately before the expiration or dissolution.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">maximum gift amount</inline>, on a day, means the amount that is the greater of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the sum of the amounts or values of all of the annual gifts, by-election gifts and Senate-only election gifts made to every Government party during the period:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) beginning when the writs for the most recent general election were issued; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) ending at the end of that day;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the sum of the amounts or values of all of the annual gifts, by-election gifts and Senate-only election gifts made to every Opposition party during the period:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) beginning when the writs for the most recent general election were issued; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) ending at the end of that day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Opposition party</inline> means a registered political party that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) forms part of the Opposition; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the House of Representatives is expired or dissolved—formed part of the Opposition immediately before the expiration or dissolution.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">302CM When a gift does not exceed a gift cap</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) For the purposes of this Division, and despite anything in Subdivision AA, AB or AC:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an annual gift to which subsection (2) applies does not:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) exceed the annual gift cap; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) exceed the overall gift cap; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) exceed the State and Territory gift cap; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a by-election gift to which subsection (2) applies does not exceed the by-election gift cap; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a Senate-only election gift to which subsection (2) applies does not exceed the Senate-only election gift cap.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) This subsection applies to an annual gift, a by-election gift or a Senate-only election gift if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the gift is made to a person or entity (the <inline font-style="italic">recipient</inline>) mentioned in column 1 of an item in the following table on a day during an electoral cycle; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) neither of the following applies:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the amount or value of the gift is more than the maximum gift amount on that day;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the amount or value of the gift, when added to the amount or value of each previous annual gift, by-election gift and Senate-only election gift (if any) made during the same electoral cycle to the person or entity (the <inline font-style="italic">receiving party</inline>) mentioned in column 2 of that item, results in an amount or value that is more than the maximum gift amount on that day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3189</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5, column 1), omit "2 to 4", substitute "2 and 3".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 8 (lines 23 to 28), omit the paragraph beginning "Broadly, political entities".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 1, item 8, page 8 (lines 29 to 31), omit the paragraph beginning "There are also caps".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 1, item 8, page 8 (line 32), omit "The caps are indexed each year.".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 1, item 9, page 10 (lines 12 and 13), omit the definition of <inline font-style="italic">core member</inline> in subsection 287(1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Schedule 1, item 11, page 10 (lines 20 and 21), omit the definition of <inline font-style="italic">expenditure group</inline> in subsection 287(1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Schedule 1, item 17, page 13 (lines 17 to 18), omit ", and expenditure by candidates may be subject to an electoral expenditure cap (see Division 3AB)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Schedule 1, item 18, page 14 (lines 33 to 36), omit paragraph 287AAB(3)(g).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Schedule 1, item 18, page 15 (lines 13 to 22), omit paragraph 287AAB(3)(m), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(m) the provision of labour (including the provision of an asset or piece of equipment to be used by a person in providing the labour, the asset or piece of equipment) shared between an associated entity and any branch of the associated entity;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) Schedule 1, item 18, page 15 (lines 32 to 37), omit paragraph 287AAB(3)(o).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) Schedule 1, item 20, page 18 (lines 6 to 8), omit paragraph 287AB(4)(b).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(13) Schedule 5, item 8, page 131 (line 27), omit the definition of <inline font-style="italic">by-election period</inline> in section 308, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">by-election period</inline>, for a by-election, means the period:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) beginning on the day the writs for the by-election are issued; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ending on the polling day for the by-election.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(14) Schedule 5, item 8, page 132 (lines 1 and 2), omit the definition of <inline font-style="italic">Senate-only election period</inline> in section 308, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Senate-only election period</inline>, for a Senate-only election, means the period:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) beginning on the day the writs for the election are issued; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ending on the polling day for the election.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(15) Schedule 5, item 8, page 132 (line 3), omit the definition of <inline font-style="italic">targeted</inline> in section 308.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(16) Schedule 5, item 8, page 133 (lines 21 and 22), omit ", together with the details required by section 310M".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(17) Schedule 5, item 8, page 135 (lines 29 and 30), omit ", together with the details required by section 310M".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(18) Schedule 5, item 8, page 137 (lines 22 and 23), omit ", together with the details required by section 310M".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(19) Schedule 5, item 8, page 139 (lines 19 and 20), omit ", together with the details required by section 310M".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(20) Schedule 5, item 8, page 142 (lines 24 and 25), omit ", together with the details required by section 310M".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(21) Schedule 5, item 8, page 144 (lines 20 and 21), omit ", together with the details required by section 310M".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(22) Schedule 5, item 8, page 145 (lines 28 and 29), omit ", together with the details required by section 310M".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(23) Schedule 5, item 8, page 147 (lines 28 and 29), omit ", together with the details required by section 310M".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(24) Schedule 5, item 8, page 149 (lines 17 and 18), omit ", together with the details required by section 310M".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(26) Schedule 6, item 4, page 162 (lines 12 to 14), omit paragraph 292FA(5)(e).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(27) Schedule 7, item 2, page 170 (line 40), omit "and counts towards the expenditure caps in Division 3AB".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(29) Schedule 9, item 10, page 202 (lines 15 and 16), omit subparagraph 314AS(1)(b)(ii).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(30) Schedule 9, item 10, page 203 (lines 26 and 27), omit subparagraph 314AT(1)(b)(ii).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3192</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 8 (lines 12 to 19), omit all the words from and including "Registered" to and including "election).".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 6, item 4, page 161 (lines 11 to 18), omit subsection 292FA(3).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 7, page 169 (line 1) to page 188 (line 29), omit the Schedule, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 7 — Abolishing public funding</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Part XX (heading)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "Election funding and financial", substitute "Financial".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 Section 286A</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Registered political parties, candidates and groups may be entitled to election funding. The election funding is payable in relation to any candidate who received at least 4% of the total formal first preference votes cast in the election.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 Subsection 287(1) (definition of <inline font-style="italic">gift</inline> )</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit paragraph (a).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 Paragraph 287AB(1)(a)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "(except under Division 3 (election funding))".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 Paragraph 287AB(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "(except under Division 3 (election funding))".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 Section 287V (paragraph beginning "The agents")</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "The agents are responsible for making claims for election funding under Division 3."</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 Division 3 of Part XX</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit the Division.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 Section 315</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit the section, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">315 Requirement to refund payments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a person is convicted of an offence under section 137.1 of the Criminal Code in relation to the giving of a return or the making of a claim under this Part; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a civil penalty order is made against a person in relation to a contravention of a civil penalty provision in this Part;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">a court of competent jurisdiction may, in addition to imposing a penalty under section 137.1 or making the civil penalty order, order the person to refund to the Commonwealth the amount or value of any gift made in contravention of this Part.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">9 Subsection 315A</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "section 299 or 302Q or subsection 301(3)", substitute "section 302Q".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">10 Subsection 320(1) (table items 1 to 3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit the table items.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">11 Section 321 (definition of <inline font-style="italic">relevant amount</inline> )</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit the definition, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">relevant amount</inline> means an amount specified in the definition of <inline font-style="italic">group amount</inline> in subsection 287(1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">12 Paragraph 321(6)(b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit the paragraph, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a relevant amount.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">13 Transitional rules</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 11 to this Act (which deals with transitional rules) does not apply to an amendment or repeal made by this Schedule.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3218</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 13), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Page 205 (after line 19), after Schedule 9, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 9A — Voter identification</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Subsection 4(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">proof of identity document </inline>has the meaning given by section 4AB.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 After section 4AA</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> 4AB Definition of <inline font-style="italic">proof of identity document</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A <inline font-style="italic">proof of identity document</inline> is any of the following (including any of the following in electronic form):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a current driver's licence issued under the law of a State or Territory or a law in force in Norfolk Island;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a current Australian passport;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a current proof of age card issued by or on behalf of a State or Territory or an authority of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a birth certificate issued by or on behalf of a State or Territory or an authority of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) a notice evidencing a person's Australian citizenship that is given under section 37 of the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Citizenship Act 2007</inline>;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) a current identification card (however described) issued by or on behalf of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Commonwealth or a State or Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an authority of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) an account statement or notice (however described) issued by a local government body, utilities provider or carriage service provider in the last 12 months;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) either:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a current credit card or debit card issued by an Australian financial institution; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an account statement issued by an Australian financial institution in the last 12 months;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a notice of assessment (including an amended assessment) issued in the last 12 months under the <inline font-style="italic">Income Tax Assessment Act 1936</inline> in respect of a year of income;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(j) a notice issued by the Electoral Commissioner under this Act notifying a person of the person's enrolment;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(k) a document that relates to the affairs of a particular person, that specifies the person's name and that is issued in the ordinary course of business by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander land council or land trust (however described) established by or under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a body corporate that is prescribed by, or is of a kind prescribed by, regulations made for the purposes of section 59 of the <inline font-style="italic">Native Title Act 1993</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: For paragraph (f), a medicare card, a Commonwealth seniors health card, a Commonwealth pensioner concession card and a Commonwealth Repatriation Health Card are examples of identification cards.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: For paragraph (g), a council rates notice, an electricity account statement, a gas account statement, a water and sewerage account statement, a mobile phone account statement and an internet service account statement are examples of account statements or notices.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 After paragraph 200DG(1)(a)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(aa) a request made of the voter under paragraph 200DI(1)(a) is satisfied in accordance with subsection 200DI(4); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ab) the voting officer is reasonably satisfied of the identity of the voter; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 Paragraph 200DG(2)(b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) any of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a request made of the voter under paragraph 200DI(1)(a) is not satisfied in accordance with subsection 200DI(4);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the voter refuses to answer fully any question the voter is asked under subsection 200DI(2);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the voter answers a question under paragraph 200DI(1)(b) so as to indicate that the voter has voted before in the relevant election or elections (as the case requires); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 Paragraph 200DG(2)(c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the voting officer who made the request under paragraph 200DI(1)(a) is not reasonably satisfied of the identity of the voter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 At the end of section 200DG</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If, under this section, the voter is not entitled to vote by pre-poll ordinary vote, the voting officer must inform the voter that the voter may make a pre-poll declaration vote in accordance with Division 4.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 Section 200DI</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the section, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">200DI Establishing voter's identity</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A voting officer must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) request each person attending before the voting officer, and claiming to vote in an election or elections (as the case requires), to produce to the voting officer a proof of identity document for the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ask questions of the person in order to work out whether the person has voted before in the election or elections (as the case requires).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The voting officer may ask questions of the person in order to work out the person's full name or the person's place of living, or both.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If the voting officer is not satisfied that the person is a particular person on a copy of the certified list of voters, or on an approved list of voters, for a particular Division, the officer may ask the person one or more questions about matters shown on the list for the particular person to establish whether the person is that particular person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) A request made of a person (the <inline font-style="italic">voter</inline>) under paragraph (1)(a) is satisfied if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the voter produces to the voting officer a proof of identity document for the voter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) all of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) another person (the <inline font-style="italic">attester</inline>) who is enrolled produces to the voting officer a proof of identity document for the attester that satisfies subsection (5);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the attester attests to the voter's identity by completing the approved form, including by specifying the attester's full name, enrolled address, the kind of proof of identity document produced by the attester and the name of the voter;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the attester and the voter sign the approved form in the presence of the voting officer.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) A proof of identity document produced by the attester satisfies this subsection if either or both of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) it is issued by or on behalf of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Commonwealth or a State or Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an authority of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) it contains the attester's name and place of living.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) A voting officer must not:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) make a copy (including an electronic copy) of a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) electronically scan a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) make a record (including an electronic record) of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the kind of proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) any information contained in a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) retain a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) A voting officer may, at the request of the attester, complete (but not sign) the whole or a part of the approved form mentioned in subparagraph (4)(b)(ii) for the attester. By doing so, the voting officer does not make a record of information covered by subparagraph (6)(c)(i) or (ii).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Section 336 deals with signing an approved form.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 At the end of subsection 200DJ(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Division 4 deals with pre-poll declaration votes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">9 At the end of subsection 202AB(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add "The regulations must not make provision for such a person to be requested or required to produce a proof of identity document for the person.".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">10 At the end of subsection 202AB(1A)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add "The regulations must not make provision for such an elector to be requested or required to produce a proof of identity document for the elector.".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">11 Subsection 221(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "unless a person shows by his or her answers to the questions under section 200DI or 229 that he or she is not entitled to vote", substitute "subject to the application of section 200DG or 229 in relation to a person".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">12 At the end of subsection 227(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Subsection (3) has the effect, for example, that section 200DI or 229 applies in relation to taking votes under this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">13 Section 229 (heading)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the heading, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">229 Establishing voter's identity etc.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">14 Subsections 229(1) to (4)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subsections, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The presiding officer or a polling official must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) request each person attending before the officer or official, and claiming to vote in an election or elections (as the case requires), to produce to the officer or official a proof of identity document for the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ask questions of the person in order to work out whether the person has voted before in the election or elections (as the case requires).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The presiding officer or the polling official may ask questions of the person in order to work out the person's full name or the person's place of living, or both.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The presiding officer or the polling official must also ask each person claiming to vote as an absent voter in an election or elections (as the case requires) to identify the Division for which the person is enrolled.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If the presiding officer or the polling official is not satisfied that the person is a particular person on the certified list of voters, or on an approved list of voters, for the relevant Division, the officer or official may ask the person one or more questions about matters shown on the list for the particular person to establish whether the person is that particular person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4A) A request made of a person (the <inline font-style="italic">voter</inline>) under paragraph (1)(a) is satisfied if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the voter produces to the presiding officer or the polling official a proof of identity document for the voter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) all of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) another person (the <inline font-style="italic">attester</inline>) who is enrolled produces to the presiding officer or the polling official a proof of identity document for the attester that satisfies subsection (4B);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the attester attests to the voter's identity by completing the approved form, including by specifying the attester's full name, enrolled address, the kind of proof of identity document produced by the attester and the name of the voter;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the attester and the voter sign the approved form in the presence of the presiding officer or the polling official.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4B) A proof of identity document produced by the attester satisfies this subsection if either or both of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) it is issued by or on behalf of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Commonwealth or a State or Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an authority of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) it contains the attester's name and place of living.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4C) The presiding officer or a polling official must not:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) make a copy (including an electronic copy) of a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) electronically scan a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) make a record (including an electronic record) of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the kind of proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) any information contained in a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) retain a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4D) The presiding officer or a polling official may, at the request of the attester, complete (but not sign) the whole or a part of the approved form mentioned in subparagraph (4A)(b)(ii) for the attester. By doing so, the officer or official does not make a record of information covered by subparagraph (4C)(c)(i) or (ii).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Section 336 deals with signing an approved form.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">15 Paragraphs 229(5)(a) and (b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) any of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a request made of the person under paragraph (1)(a) is not satisfied in accordance with subsection (4A);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the person refuses to answer fully any question the person is asked under subsection (2);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the person answers a question under paragraph (1)(b) so as to indicate that the person has voted before in the relevant election or elections (as the case requires); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) either:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) if the presiding officer made the request under paragraph (1)(a)—the presiding officer is not reasonably satisfied of the identity of the person; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) if a polling official made the request under paragraph (1)(a)—the presiding officer or the polling official is not reasonably satisfied of the identity of the person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">16 At the end of section 229 (after the note)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) paragraph (5)(a) or (b) applies in relation to the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the person is not claiming to vote as an absent voter;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the presiding officer or the polling official must inform the person that the person may cast a provisional vote in accordance with section 235.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">17 Paragraph 231(1)(a)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "the person's answers to questions put to the person show that he or she is entitled to vote", substitute "neither paragraph 229(5)(a) nor (b) applies in relation to the person".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">18 At the end of subsection 231(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Section 235 deals with provisional votes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">19 Paragraph 235(1)(c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) paragraph 229(5)(a) or (b) applies in relation to the person and the person is not claiming to vote as an absent voter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">20 Application provision</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments of the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline> made by this Schedule apply in relation to elections the writs for which are issued on or after the commencement of this item.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">21 Subsection 3(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">proof of identity document </inline>has the meaning given by section 3AA.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">22 After section 3</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> 3AA Definition of <inline font-style="italic">proof of identity document</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A <inline font-style="italic">proof of identity document</inline> is any of the following (including any of the following in electronic form):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a current driver's licence issued under the law of a State or Territory or a law in force in Norfolk Island;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a current Australian passport;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a current proof of age card issued by or on behalf of a State or Territory or an authority of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a birth certificate issued by or on behalf of a State or Territory or an authority of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) a notice evidencing a person's Australian citizenship that is given under section 37 of the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Citizenship Act 2007</inline>;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) a current identification card (however described) issued by or on behalf of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Commonwealth or a State or Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an authority of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) an account statement or notice (however described) issued by a local government body, utilities provider or carriage service provider in the last 12 months;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) either:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a current credit card or debit card issued by an Australian financial institution; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an account statement issued by an Australian financial institution in the last 12 months;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a notice of assessment (including an amended assessment) issued in the last 12 months under the <inline font-style="italic">Income Tax Assessment Act 1936</inline> in respect of a year of income;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(j) a notice issued by the Electoral Commissioner under the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline> notifying a person of the person's enrolment;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(k) a document that relates to the affairs of a particular person, that specifies the person's name and that is issued in the ordinary course of business by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander land council or land trust (however described) established by or under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a body corporate that is prescribed by, or is of a kind prescribed by, regulations made for the purposes of section 59 of the <inline font-style="italic">Native Title Act 1993</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: For paragraph (f), a medicare card, a Commonwealth seniors health card, a Commonwealth pensioner concession card and a Commonwealth Repatriation Health Card are examples of identification cards.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: For paragraph (g), a council rates notice, an electricity account statement, a gas account statement, a water and sewerage account statement, a mobile phone account statement and an internet service account statement are examples of account statements or notices.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">23 Section 30 (heading)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the heading, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">30 Establishing voter's identity etc.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">24 Subsections 30(1) to (4)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subsections, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The presiding officer or a polling official must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) subject to subsection (4A), request each person attending before the officer or official, and claiming to vote in a referendum or referendums (as the case requires), to produce to the officer or official a proof of identity document for the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ask questions of the person in order to work out whether the person has voted before in the referendum or referendums (as the case requires).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The presiding officer or the polling official may ask questions of the person in order to work out the person's full name or the person's place of living, or both.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The presiding officer or the polling official may also ask each person claiming to vote as an absent voter in a referendum or referendums (as the case requires) to identify the Division for which the person is enrolled.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If the presiding officer or the polling official is not satisfied that the person is a particular person on the certified list of voters, or on an approved list of voters, for the relevant Division, the officer or official may ask the person one or more questions about matters shown on the list for the particular person to establish whether the person is that particular person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4A) If the voting day for the referendum or referendums (as the case requires) is the same as that fixed for the polling at an election, the presiding officer or a polling official is not required to make a request of a person under paragraph (1)(a) if the officer or official is reasonably satisfied of the identity of the person because of the following in relation to the election:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a request made of the person under paragraph 229(1)(a) of the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline> being satisfied in accordance with subsection 229(4A) of that Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) answers by the person to questions (if any) asked under section 229 of that Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4B) A request made of a person (the <inline font-style="italic">voter</inline>) under paragraph (1)(a) is satisfied if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the voter produces to the presiding officer or the polling official a proof of identity document for the voter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) all of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) another person (the <inline font-style="italic">attester</inline>) who is enrolled produces to the presiding officer or the polling official a proof of identity document for the attester that satisfies subsection (4C);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the attester attests to the voter's identity by completing the approved form, including by specifying the attester's full name, enrolled address, the kind of proof of identity document produced by the attester and the name of the voter;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the attester and the voter sign the approved form in the presence of the presiding officer or the polling official.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4C) A proof of identity document produced by the attester satisfies this subsection if either or both of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) it is issued by or on behalf of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Commonwealth or a State or Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an authority of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) it contains the attester's name and place of living.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4D) The presiding officer or a polling official must not:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) make a copy (including an electronic copy) of a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) electronically scan a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) make a record (including an electronic record) of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the kind of proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) any information contained in a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) retain a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4E) The presiding officer or a polling official may, at the request of the attester, complete (but not sign) the whole or a part of the approved form mentioned in subparagraph (4B)(b)(ii) for the attester. By doing so, the officer or official does not make a record of information covered by subparagraph (4D)(c)(i) or (ii).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Section 127 deals with signing an approved form.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">25 Paragraphs 30(5)(a) and (b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) any of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a request (if any) made of the person under paragraph (1)(a) is not satisfied in accordance with subsection (4B);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the person refuses to answer fully any question the person is asked under subsection (2);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the person answers a question under paragraph (1)(b) so as to indicate that the person has voted before in the relevant referendum or referendums (as the case requires); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) either:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) if the presiding officer makes a request of the person under paragraph (1)(a)—the presiding officer is not reasonably satisfied of the identity of the person; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) if a polling official makes a request of the person under paragraph (1)(a)—the presiding officer or the polling official is not reasonably satisfied of the identity of the person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">26 At the end of section 30 (after the note)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) paragraph (5)(a) or (b) applies in relation to the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the person is not claiming to vote as an absent voter;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the presiding officer or the polling official must inform the person that the person may cast a provisional vote in accordance with section 37.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">27 Section 31</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">28 Paragraph 33(1)(a)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "the person's answers to the questions referred to in sections 30 and 31 show that he or she is entitled to vote", substitute "neither paragraph 30(5)(a) nor (b) applies in relation to the person".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">29 At the end of subsection 33(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Section 37 deals with provisional votes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">30 Paragraph 37(1)(c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) paragraph 30(5)(a) or (b) applies in relation to the person and the person is not claiming to vote as an absent voter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">31 At the end of subsection 51(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Subsection (3) has the effect, for example, that section 30 or 73CI applies in relation to taking votes under this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">32 After paragraph 73CG(1)(a)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(aa) a request (if any) made of the voter under paragraph 73CI(1)(a) is satisfied in accordance with subsection 73CI(5); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ab) a voting officer is reasonably satisfied of the identity of the voter; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">33 Paragraph 73CG(2)(b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) any of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a request (if any) made of the voter under paragraph 73CI(1)(a) is not satisfied in accordance with subsection 73CI(5);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the voter refuses to answer fully any question the voter is asked under subsection 73CI(2);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the voter answers a question under paragraph 73CI(1)(b) so as to indicate that the voter has voted before in the relevant referendum or referendums (as the case requires); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">34 Paragraph 73CG(2)(c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a voting officer makes a request of the person under paragraph 73CI(1)(a) and the officer is not reasonably satisfied of the identity of the voter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">35 At the end of section 73CG</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If, under this section, the voter is not entitled to vote by pre-poll ordinary vote, the voting officer must inform the voter that the voter may make a pre-poll declaration vote in accordance with Division 4.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">36 Section 73CI</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the section, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">73CI Establishing voter's identity</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A voting officer must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) subject to subsection (4), request each person attending before the voting officer, and claiming to vote in a referendum or referendums (as the case requires), to produce to the voting officer a proof of identity document for the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ask questions of the person in order to work out whether the person has voted before in the referendum or referendums (as the case requires).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The voting officer may ask questions of the person in order to work out the person's full name or the person's place of living, or both.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If the voting officer is not satisfied that the person is a particular person on a copy of the certified list of voters, or on an approved list of voters, for a particular Division, the officer may ask the person one or more questions about matters shown on the list for the particular person to establish whether the person is that particular person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If the voting day for the referendum or referendums (as the case requires) is the same as that fixed for the polling at an election, a voting officer is not required to make a request of a person under paragraph (1)(a) if the officer is reasonably satisfied of the identity of the person because of the following in relation to the election:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a request made of the person under paragraph 200DI(1)(a) of the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline> being satisfied in accordance with subsection 200DI(4) of that Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) answers by the person to questions (if any) asked under section 200DI of that Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) A request made of a person (the <inline font-style="italic">voter</inline>) under paragraph (1)(a) is satisfied if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the voter produces to the voting officer a proof of identity document for the voter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) all of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) another person (the <inline font-style="italic">attester</inline>) who is enrolled produces to the voting officer a proof of identity document for the attester that satisfies subsection (6);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the attester attests to the voter's identity by completing the approved form, including by specifying the attester's full name, enrolled address, the kind of proof of identity document produced by the attester and the name of the voter;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the attester and the voter sign the approved form in the presence of the voting officer.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) A proof of identity document produced by the attester satisfies this subsection if either or both of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) it is issued by or on behalf of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Commonwealth or a State or Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an authority of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) it contains the attester's name and place of living.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) A voting officer must not:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) make a copy (including an electronic copy) of a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) electronically scan a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) make a record (including an electronic record) of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the kind of proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) any information contained in a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) retain a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) A voting officer may, at the request of the attester, complete (but not sign) the whole or a part of the approved form mentioned in subparagraph (5)(b)(ii) for the attester. By doing so, the voting officer does not make a record of information covered by subparagraph (7)(c)(i) or (ii).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Section 127 deals with signing an approved form.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">37 At the end of subsection 73CJ(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Division 4 deals with pre-poll declaration votes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">38 At the end of subsection 73M(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add "The regulations must not make provision for such a person to be requested or required to produce a proof of identity document for the person.".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">39 At the end of subsection 73M(1A)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add "The regulations must not make provision for such an elector to be requested or required to produce a proof of identity document for the elector.".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">40 Application provision</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments of the <inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984</inline> made by this Schedule apply in relation to referendums the writs for which are issued on or after the commencement of this item.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">41 Transitional rules</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 11 to this Act (which deals with transitional rules) does not apply to an amendment or repeal made by this Schedule.</para></quote>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I'd like to have my vote changed for 3218. I'd like to be in favour of that.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will now deal with amendments and requests for amendments circulated by Senator Rennick's People First Party. We're on sheets 3190, 3196 and 3197. The question is that Senator Rennick's People First Party's amendments on sheets 3190 and 3197 and requests for amendments on sheet 3196 be agreed to.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">People First</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">Party</inline> <inline font-style="italic">'s</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">circulated amendments—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3190</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 13), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Page 205 (after line 19), after Schedule 9, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 9A — Voter identification</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Subsection 4(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">proof of identity document </inline>has the meaning given by section 4AB.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 After section 4AA</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> 4AB Definition of <inline font-style="italic">proof of identity document</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A <inline font-style="italic">proof of identity document</inline> is any of the following (including any of the following in electronic form):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a current driver's licence issued under the law of a State or Territory or a law in force in Norfolk Island;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a current Australian passport;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a current proof of age card issued by or on behalf of a State or Territory or an authority of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a birth certificate issued by or on behalf of a State or Territory or an authority of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) a notice evidencing a person's Australian citizenship that is given under section 37 of the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Citizenship Act 2007</inline>;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) a current identification card (however described) issued by or on behalf of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Commonwealth or a State or Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an authority of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) an account statement or notice (however described) issued by a local government body, utilities provider or carriage service provider in the last 12 months;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) either:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a current credit card or debit card issued by an Australian financial institution; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an account statement issued by an Australian financial institution in the last 12 months;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a notice of assessment (including an amended assessment) issued in the last 12 months under the <inline font-style="italic">Income Tax Assessment Act 1936</inline> in respect of a year of income;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(j) a notice issued by the Electoral Commissioner under this Act notifying a person of the person's enrolment;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(k) a document that relates to the affairs of a particular person, that specifies the person's name and that is issued in the ordinary course of business by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander land council or land trust (however described) established by or under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a body corporate that is prescribed by, or is of a kind prescribed by, regulations made for the purposes of section 59 of the <inline font-style="italic">Native Title Act 1993</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: For paragraph (f), a medicare card, a Commonwealth seniors health card, a Commonwealth pensioner concession card and a Commonwealth Repatriation Health Card are examples of identification cards.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: For paragraph (g), a council rates notice, an electricity account statement, a gas account statement, a water and sewerage account statement, a mobile phone account statement and an internet service account statement are examples of account statements or notices.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 After paragraph 200DG(1)(a)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(aa) a request made of the voter under paragraph 200DI(1)(a) is satisfied in accordance with subsection 200DI(4); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ab) the voting officer is reasonably satisfied of the identity of the voter; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 Paragraph 200DG(2)(b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) any of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a request made of the voter under paragraph 200DI(1)(a) is not satisfied in accordance with subsection 200DI(4);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the voter refuses to answer fully any question the voter is asked under subsection 200DI(2);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the voter answers a question under paragraph 200DI(1)(b) so as to indicate that the voter has voted before in the relevant election or elections (as the case requires); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 Paragraph 200DG(2)(c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the voting officer who made the request under paragraph 200DI(1)(a) is not reasonably satisfied of the identity of the voter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 At the end of section 200DG</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If, under this section, the voter is not entitled to vote by pre-poll ordinary vote, the voting officer must inform the voter that the voter may make a pre-poll declaration vote in accordance with Division 4.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 Section 200DI</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the section, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">200DI Establishing voter's identity</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A voting officer must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) request each person attending before the voting officer, and claiming to vote in an election or elections (as the case requires), to produce to the voting officer a proof of identity document for the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ask questions of the person in order to work out whether the person has voted before in the election or elections (as the case requires).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The voting officer may ask questions of the person in order to work out the person's full name or the person's place of living, or both.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If the voting officer is not satisfied that the person is a particular person on a copy of the certified list of voters, or on an approved list of voters, for a particular Division, the officer may ask the person one or more questions about matters shown on the list for the particular person to establish whether the person is that particular person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) A request made of a person (the <inline font-style="italic">voter</inline>) under paragraph (1)(a) is satisfied if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the voter produces to the voting officer a proof of identity document for the voter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) all of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) another person (the <inline font-style="italic">attester</inline>) who is enrolled produces to the voting officer a proof of identity document for the attester that satisfies subsection (5);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the attester attests to the voter's identity by completing the approved form, including by specifying the attester's full name, enrolled address, the kind of proof of identity document produced by the attester and the name of the voter;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the attester and the voter sign the approved form in the presence of the voting officer.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) A proof of identity document produced by the attester satisfies this subsection if either or both of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) it is issued by or on behalf of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Commonwealth or a State or Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an authority of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) it contains the attester's name and place of living.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) A voting officer must not:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) make a copy (including an electronic copy) of a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) electronically scan a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) make a record (including an electronic record) of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the kind of proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) any information contained in a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) retain a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) A voting officer may, at the request of the attester, complete (but not sign) the whole or a part of the approved form mentioned in subparagraph (4)(b)(ii) for the attester. By doing so, the voting officer does not make a record of information covered by subparagraph (6)(c)(i) or (ii).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Section 336 deals with signing an approved form.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 At the end of subsection 200DJ(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Division 4 deals with pre-poll declaration votes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">9 At the end of subsection 202AB(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add "The regulations must not make provision for such a person to be requested or required to produce a proof of identity document for the person.".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">10 At the end of subsection 202AB(1A)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add "The regulations must not make provision for such an elector to be requested or required to produce a proof of identity document for the elector.".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">11 Subsection 221(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "unless a person shows by his or her answers to the questions under section 200DI or 229 that he or she is not entitled to vote", substitute "subject to the application of section 200DG or 229 in relation to a person".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">12 At the end of subsection 227(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Subsection (3) has the effect, for example, that section 200DI or 229 applies in relation to taking votes under this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">13 Section 229 (heading)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the heading, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">229 Establishing voter's identity etc.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">14 Subsections 229(1) to (4)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subsections, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The presiding officer or a polling official must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) request each person attending before the officer or official, and claiming to vote in an election or elections (as the case requires), to produce to the officer or official a proof of identity document for the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ask questions of the person in order to work out whether the person has voted before in the election or elections (as the case requires).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The presiding officer or the polling official may ask questions of the person in order to work out the person's full name or the person's place of living, or both.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The presiding officer or the polling official must also ask each person claiming to vote as an absent voter in an election or elections (as the case requires) to identify the Division for which the person is enrolled.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If the presiding officer or the polling official is not satisfied that the person is a particular person on the certified list of voters, or on an approved list of voters, for the relevant Division, the officer or official may ask the person one or more questions about matters shown on the list for the particular person to establish whether the person is that particular person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4A) A request made of a person (the <inline font-style="italic">voter</inline>) under paragraph (1)(a) is satisfied if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the voter produces to the presiding officer or the polling official a proof of identity document for the voter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) all of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) another person (the <inline font-style="italic">attester</inline>) who is enrolled produces to the presiding officer or the polling official a proof of identity document for the attester that satisfies subsection (4B);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the attester attests to the voter's identity by completing the approved form, including by specifying the attester's full name, enrolled address, the kind of proof of identity document produced by the attester and the name of the voter;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the attester and the voter sign the approved form in the presence of the presiding officer or the polling official.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4B) A proof of identity document produced by the attester satisfies this subsection if either or both of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) it is issued by or on behalf of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Commonwealth or a State or Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an authority of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) it contains the attester's name and place of living.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4C) The presiding officer or a polling official must not:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) make a copy (including an electronic copy) of a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) electronically scan a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) make a record (including an electronic record) of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the kind of proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) any information contained in a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) retain a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4D) The presiding officer or a polling official may, at the request of the attester, complete (but not sign) the whole or a part of the approved form mentioned in subparagraph (4A)(b)(ii) for the attester. By doing so, the officer or official does not make a record of information covered by subparagraph (4C)(c)(i) or (ii).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Section 336 deals with signing an approved form.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">15 Paragraphs 229(5)(a) and (b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) any of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a request made of the person under paragraph (1)(a) is not satisfied in accordance with subsection (4A);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the person refuses to answer fully any question the person is asked under subsection (2);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the person answers a question under paragraph (1)(b) so as to indicate that the person has voted before in the relevant election or elections (as the case requires); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) either:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) if the presiding officer made the request under paragraph (1)(a)—the presiding officer is not reasonably satisfied of the identity of the person; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) if a polling official made the request under paragraph (1)(a)—the presiding officer or the polling official is not reasonably satisfied of the identity of the person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">16 At the end of section 229 (after the note)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) paragraph (5)(a) or (b) applies in relation to the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the person is not claiming to vote as an absent voter;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the presiding officer or the polling official must inform the person that the person may cast a provisional vote in accordance with section 235.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">17 Paragraph 231(1)(a)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "the person's answers to questions put to the person show that he or she is entitled to vote", substitute "neither paragraph 229(5)(a) nor (b) applies in relation to the person".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">18 At the end of subsection 231(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Section 235 deals with provisional votes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">19 Paragraph 235(1)(c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) paragraph 229(5)(a) or (b) applies in relation to the person and the person is not claiming to vote as an absent voter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">20 Application provision</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments of the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline> made by this Schedule apply in relation to elections the writs for which are issued on or after the commencement of this item.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">21 Subsection 3(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">proof of identity document </inline>has the meaning given by section 3AA.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">22 After section 3</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> 3AA Definition of <inline font-style="italic">proof of identity document</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A <inline font-style="italic">proof of identity document</inline> is any of the following (including any of the following in electronic form):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a current driver's licence issued under the law of a State or Territory or a law in force in Norfolk Island;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a current Australian passport;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a current proof of age card issued by or on behalf of a State or Territory or an authority of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a birth certificate issued by or on behalf of a State or Territory or an authority of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) a notice evidencing a person's Australian citizenship that is given under section 37 of the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Citizenship Act 2007</inline>;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) a current identification card (however described) issued by or on behalf of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Commonwealth or a State or Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an authority of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) an account statement or notice (however described) issued by a local government body, utilities provider or carriage service provider in the last 12 months;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) either:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a current credit card or debit card issued by an Australian financial institution; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an account statement issued by an Australian financial institution in the last 12 months;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a notice of assessment (including an amended assessment) issued in the last 12 months under the <inline font-style="italic">Income Tax </inline><inline font-style="italic">Assessment Act 1936</inline> in respect of a year of income;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(j) a notice issued by the Electoral Commissioner under the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline> notifying a person of the person's enrolment;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(k) a document that relates to the affairs of a particular person, that specifies the person's name and that is issued in the ordinary course of business by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander land council or land trust (however described) established by or under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a body corporate that is prescribed by, or is of a kind prescribed by, regulations made for the purposes of section 59 of the <inline font-style="italic">Native Title Act 1993</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: For paragraph (f), a medicare card, a Commonwealth seniors health card, a Commonwealth pensioner concession card and a Commonwealth Repatriation Health Card are examples of identification cards.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: For paragraph (g), a council rates notice, an electricity account statement, a gas account statement, a water and sewerage account statement, a mobile phone account statement and an internet service account statement are examples of account statements or notices.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">23 Section 30 (heading)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the heading, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">30 Establishing voter's identity etc.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">24 Subsections 30(1) to (4)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subsections, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The presiding officer or a polling official must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) subject to subsection (4A), request each person attending before the officer or official, and claiming to vote in a referendum or referendums (as the case requires), to produce to the officer or official a proof of identity document for the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ask questions of the person in order to work out whether the person has voted before in the referendum or referendums (as the case requires).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The presiding officer or the polling official may ask questions of the person in order to work out the person's full name or the person's place of living, or both.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The presiding officer or the polling official may also ask each person claiming to vote as an absent voter in a referendum or referendums (as the case requires) to identify the Division for which the person is enrolled.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If the presiding officer or the polling official is not satisfied that the person is a particular person on the certified list of voters, or on an approved list of voters, for the relevant Division, the officer or official may ask the person one or more questions about matters shown on the list for the particular person to establish whether the person is that particular person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4A) If the voting day for the referendum or referendums (as the case requires) is the same as that fixed for the polling at an election, the presiding officer or a polling official is not required to make a request of a person under paragraph (1)(a) if the officer or official is reasonably satisfied of the identity of the person because of the following in relation to the election:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a request made of the person under paragraph 229(1)(a) of the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline> being satisfied in accordance with subsection 229(4A) of that Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) answers by the person to questions (if any) asked under section 229 of that Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4B) A request made of a person (the <inline font-style="italic">voter</inline>) under paragraph (1)(a) is satisfied if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the voter produces to the presiding officer or the polling official a proof of identity document for the voter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) all of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) another person (the <inline font-style="italic">attester</inline>) who is enrolled produces to the presiding officer or the polling official a proof of identity document for the attester that satisfies subsection (4C);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the attester attests to the voter's identity by completing the approved form, including by specifying the attester's full name, enrolled address, the kind of proof of identity document produced by the attester and the name of the voter;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the attester and the voter sign the approved form in the presence of the presiding officer or the polling official.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4C) A proof of identity document produced by the attester satisfies this subsection if either or both of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) it is issued by or on behalf of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Commonwealth or a State or Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an authority of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) it contains the attester's name and place of living.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4D) The presiding officer or a polling official must not:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) make a copy (including an electronic copy) of a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) electronically scan a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) make a record (including an electronic record) of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the kind of proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) any information contained in a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) retain a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4E) The presiding officer or a polling official may, at the request of the attester, complete (but not sign) the whole or a part of the approved form mentioned in subparagraph (4B)(b)(ii) for the attester. By doing so, the officer or official does not make a record of information covered by subparagraph (4D)(c)(i) or (ii).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Section 127 deals with signing an approved form.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">25 Paragraphs 30(5)(a) and (b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) any of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a request (if any) made of the person under paragraph (1)(a) is not satisfied in accordance with subsection (4B);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the person refuses to answer fully any question the person is asked under subsection (2);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the person answers a question under paragraph (1)(b) so as to indicate that the person has voted before in the relevant referendum or referendums (as the case requires); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) either:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) if the presiding officer makes a request of the person under paragraph (1)(a)—the presiding officer is not reasonably satisfied of the identity of the person; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) if a polling official makes a request of the person under paragraph (1)(a)—the presiding officer or the polling official is not reasonably satisfied of the identity of the person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">26 At the end of section 30 (after the note)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) paragraph (5)(a) or (b) applies in relation to the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the person is not claiming to vote as an absent voter;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the presiding officer or the polling official must inform the person that the person may cast a provisional vote in accordance with section 37.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">27 Section 31</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">28 Paragraph 33(1)(a)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "the person's answers to the questions referred to in sections 30 and 31 show that he or she is entitled to vote", substitute "neither paragraph 30(5)(a) nor (b) applies in relation to the person".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">29 At the end of subsection 33(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Section 37 deals with provisional votes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">30 Paragraph 37(1)(c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) paragraph 30(5)(a) or (b) applies in relation to the person and the person is not claiming to vote as an absent voter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">31 At the end of subsection 51(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Subsection (3) has the effect, for example, that section 30 or 73CI applies in relation to taking votes under this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">32 After paragraph 73CG(1)(a)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(aa) a request (if any) made of the voter under paragraph 73CI(1)(a) is satisfied in accordance with subsection 73CI(5); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ab) a voting officer is reasonably satisfied of the identity of the voter; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">33 Paragraph 73CG(2)(b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) any of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a request (if any) made of the voter under paragraph 73CI(1)(a) is not satisfied in accordance with subsection 73CI(5);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the voter refuses to answer fully any question the voter is asked under subsection 73CI(2);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the voter answers a question under paragraph 73CI(1)(b) so as to indicate that the voter has voted before in the relevant referendum or referendums (as the case requires); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">34 Paragraph 73CG(2)(c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a voting officer makes a request of the person under paragraph 73CI(1)(a) and the officer is not reasonably satisfied of the identity of the voter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">35 At the end of section 73CG</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If, under this section, the voter is not entitled to vote by pre-poll ordinary vote, the voting officer must inform the voter that the voter may make a pre-poll declaration vote in accordance with Division 4.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">36 Section 73CI</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the section, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">73CI Establishing voter's identity</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A voting officer must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) subject to subsection (4), request each person attending before the voting officer, and claiming to vote in a referendum or referendums (as the case requires), to produce to the voting officer a proof of identity document for the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ask questions of the person in order to work out whether the person has voted before in the referendum or referendums (as the case requires).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The voting officer may ask questions of the person in order to work out the person's full name or the person's place of living, or both.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If the voting officer is not satisfied that the person is a particular person on a copy of the certified list of voters, or on an approved list of voters, for a particular Division, the officer may ask the person one or more questions about matters shown on the list for the particular person to establish whether the person is that particular person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If the voting day for the referendum or referendums (as the case requires) is the same as that fixed for the polling at an election, a voting officer is not required to make a request of a person under paragraph (1)(a) if the officer is reasonably satisfied of the identity of the person because of the following in relation to the election:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a request made of the person under paragraph 200DI(1)(a) of the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline> being satisfied in accordance with subsection 200DI(4) of that Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) answers by the person to questions (if any) asked under section 200DI of that Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) A request made of a person (the <inline font-style="italic">voter</inline>) under paragraph (1)(a) is satisfied if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the voter produces to the voting officer a proof of identity document for the voter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) all of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) another person (the <inline font-style="italic">attester</inline>) who is enrolled produces to the voting officer a proof of identity document for the attester that satisfies subsection (6);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the attester attests to the voter's identity by completing the approved form, including by specifying the attester's full name, enrolled address, the kind of proof of identity document produced by the attester and the name of the voter;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the attester and the voter sign the approved form in the presence of the voting officer.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) A proof of identity document produced by the attester satisfies this subsection if either or both of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) it is issued by or on behalf of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Commonwealth or a State or Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an authority of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) it contains the attester's name and place of living.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) A voting officer must not:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) make a copy (including an electronic copy) of a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) electronically scan a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) make a record (including an electronic record) of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the kind of proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) any information contained in a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) retain a proof of identity document produced by a person under this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) A voting officer may, at the request of the attester, complete (but not sign) the whole or a part of the approved form mentioned in subparagraph (5)(b)(ii) for the attester. By doing so, the voting officer does not make a record of information covered by subparagraph (7)(c)(i) or (ii).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Section 127 deals with signing an approved form.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">37 At the end of subsection 73CJ(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Division 4 deals with pre-poll declaration votes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">38 At the end of subsection 73M(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add "The regulations must not make provision for such a person to be requested or required to produce a proof of identity document for the person.".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">39 At the end of subsection 73M(1A)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add "The regulations must not make provision for such an elector to be requested or required to produce a proof of identity document for the elector.".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">40 Application provision</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments of the <inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984</inline> made by this Schedule apply in relation to referendums the writs for which are issued on or after the commencement of this item.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3196</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 8 (line 14), omit "at least 4%", substitute "at least 1%".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 7, page 188 (after line 29), at the end of the Schedule, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 4 — Lowering election funding threshold</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">12 Subparagraphs 173(1)(a)(i) and (ii)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "at least 4%", substitute "at least 1%".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">13 Paragraph 173(b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "at least 4%", substitute "at least 1%".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">14 Section 292G (paragraph beginning "Election funding")</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "at least 4%", substitute "at least 1%".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">15 Paragraphs 293(1)(a) and (b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "at least 4%", substitute "at least 1%".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">16 Paragraph 294(1)(b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "at least 4%", substitute "at least 1%".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">17 Paragraph 295(1)(b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "at least 4%", substitute "at least 1%".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendment (2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendment (2) is framed as a request because it lowers the threshold of formal first preference votes needed for registered political parties, candidates and groups to receive election funding under Division 3 of Part XX of the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline> from 4% to 1%.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As the amendment would increase the number of registered political parties, candidates and groups that would be eligible to receive election funding, the amendment will increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 302 of the<inline font-style="italic"> Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendment (1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendment (1) is consequential to amendment (2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendment 2</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 302 of the<inline font-style="italic"> Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline> then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Amendment (1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This amendment is consequential on the request. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 3197</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 5), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Page 129 (after line 8), after Schedule 4, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 4A — Pre-poll voting period</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Subsection 200BA(1AA)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "12 days before polling day", substitute "3 days before polling day".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 Subsection 73AA(1AA)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subsection, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1AA) The day, or the earliest of the days, declared under paragraph (1)(b) must not be earlier than the day that is 3 days before the voting day for the referendum.</para></quote>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—Can I have my vote recorded as in favour of 3197 and 3190.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I record my support for 3196.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—Can I have my support recorded for 3196.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>219</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.</para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [22:50]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>27</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Darmanin, L.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Ghosh, V.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>19</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hodgins-May, S.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Bill read a third time.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>22:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  That concludes consideration of the bills. The Senate stands adjourned and will meet again at 9 am on Thursday, 30 February.</para>
<para>Senate adjourned at 22 : 52</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
</hansard>