Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (12:28): On behalf of the Economics Committee I present the committee's report entitled Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 2017 (first report) together with the minutes of the proceedings.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

Ms HENDERSON: by leave—On 6 February 2018, the Reserve Bank of Australia left official interest rates unchanged at 1.5 per cent. In making this decision, the governor commented that accommodative monetary policy was continuing to support growth in the Australian economy and the board did not see the need to adjust the cash rate at this time.

At the public hearing on 16 February 2018, the governor noted that many advanced economies are experiencing a synchronised pick-up in growth. Reflecting this broader trend, the RBA forecast Australia's GDP growth to further strengthen from 2¾ per cent in mid-2018 to a little over three per cent over 2018 and 2019. Inflation has been slow to increase, and underlying inflation is expected to rise gradually to around 2¼ per cent by 2020.

As the RBA reiterated, Australia's labour market has been especially strong, with over 400,000 new jobs being created in 2017, three-quarters of which were full time. Labour force participation is close to its record high. Australia has experienced 16 consecutive months of employment growth, which is the first time that has happened in the history of the Labour Force Survey. The RBA expects continued growth in employment to further reduce spare capacity in labour markets and generate a gradual increase in wages and inflation.

Australia is transitioning successfully out of the mining boom, and there is a large pipeline of infrastructure investment currently underway. These projects are creating new jobs now while building Australia's productive capacity for the future. Internationally there is increasing competition between countries to attract foreign investment. One way other countries such as the United States are seeking a competitive advantage is by reducing their corporate tax rates. While there are a number of other factors that make Australia a desirable place to invest, including our diverse, skilled and growing population, natural resources and financial stability, our corporate tax rates are high by international standards. Certainly Governor Philip Lowe welcomed the fact that our budget, which included the government's fully-funded proposed company tax cuts, is on track to deliver a surplus by 2020-21.

The RBA noted that a source of uncertainty in its forecasts is the strength of consumer spending, because many households are experiencing slow growth in their incomes and have high levels of household debt. The governor said that measures by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to reinforce sound lending practices have contained the build-up of risk in this area, particularly in relation to interest-only loans. In relation to the major banks' decision to increase interest rates on existing interest-only loans, the committee reiterates its view from the third report of its review of the four major banks: banks should not be using macroprudential regulation, which is designed to reduce risks in the financial system, as a cover for profiteering.

On behalf of the committee, I thank the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Dr Philip Lowe, and other representatives of the RBA for appearing at the hearing on 16 February 2018. The next hearing will be on 17 August 2018 in Canberra. I commend the report to the House.

Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (12:33): by leave—I join with the chair of the Standing Committee on Economics in thanking representatives of the Reserve Bank for once again meeting with us as part of the regular, biannual meetings of the economics committee with the Reserve Bank. I think the Governor of the Reserve Bank, in his evidence to the committee on that day, perfectly summed up the changing conditions around, and the better outlook for, the Australian economy when he said that the world economy was experiencing 'a synchronised upswing'. Australia has no doubt benefitted from that stronger global growth, particularly around the United States and China. I think that the good work of the Obama administration, in turning around the United States economy, is now beginning to bear fruit, particularly in their employment figures. The governor also pointed out that China is beginning to address some of the risks to their financial system and has a stable outlook for growth into the future.

These favourable conditions are really benefitting Australia, particularly in terms of our trading prospects. Commodity prices, particularly around iron ore and coal, have been increasing in recent years, and that's had a favourable outcome on Australia's terms of trade. That has begun to flow into revenue associated with the budget. Through those trade figures, we are now beginning to see that that revenue is increasing. And we have the situation where companies that have been carrying forward past losses—as they're entitled to do under Australian taxation laws—that occurred in the wake of the global financial crisis and the early years of the Abbott government are now beginning to pay tax again because that period of being able to carry forward those losses has ended. So some of those companies are now starting to pay tax.

According to the Reserve Bank, thanks to some favourable international conditions, we are seeing stronger growth and better outlook prospects for the Australian economy. But it was pointed out—and it's important to note this—that many Australians are still struggling, particularly families, pensioners and workers. The governor was right to point out that income and wealth inequality in Australia is actually increasing at the moment. Household debt levels are still at alarming rates and are very high by international comparisons. Of course, a lot of that is to do with static wages, with wages growth stubbornly around two per cent of the wage price index in terms of a growth figure. There were the remarks of the Reserve Bank governor, and the recent monetary policy statement, which said that wages remain subdued, is an understatement. With many workers in the hospitality industry having their penalty rates cut, subdued wages, many enterprise agreements coming to the end of their terms and—the Reserve Bank governor pointed this out—not being replaced by agreements that have the same or higher wage increases but wage increases that are actually lower than the existing terms in an enterprise agreement, we can foresee that this subdued wage growth is going to continue for some time into the future. That's an alarming factor for many households throughout the country. Wages have been around that two per cent figure for at least the last four years now. Every year, the government has been saying, 'Wages are going to start increasing over the next six months.' It's reflected in many of the updates to the budget that we get through MYEFO and also the annual budget figures. We've managed to tease out of the Reserve Bank representatives that the growth figures for wages in the budget and MYEFO over the last couple of years have been overly optimistic and haven't met the forecast rates.

There was a good discussion about housing and the changes that APRA has made to macroprudential measures and the fact that that has had an impact on competition, but some of the representatives of the Reserve Bank are of the view that the housing market is cooling in Australia on the back of increasing supply and the effect of those macroprudential measures. Unfortunately, it's not something that I can agree with because, in the community that I represent, we're not seeing a cooling in the housing market at all. I asked my office to dig up some statistics about house price growth from four typical suburbs in the area that I represent, and they indicate quite an alarming increase in house prices over the course of the last 12 months. We're only talking about the last 12 months here. In Chifley there was an annual average house growth of 13.5 per cent; in Matraville there was an annual growth of 16 per cent over the last 12 months; in Randwick there was an increase of 12.1 per cent in the last 12 months; and in Coogee there was a whopping 12.2 per cent increase in house price growth. You're talking about median rents in Coogee of $1,370 per week. These are some of the factors that are contributing to massive pressure on households when it comes to the cost of housing.

If this government were fair dinkum about listening to the pleas from many Australians—and not a week goes by when I'm not approached by someone in the community that I represent who is alarmed about house prices—they would hear that parents and grandparents are concerned about how their kids are ever going to be able to afford to live in the communities that they've grown up in and where their family and friendship networks are. If the government are going to be fair dinkum about tackling this issue, they need to look at reforming negative gearing and capital gains tax. The largest tax concessions in the world that exist around housing for investors are in Australia, and they are fuelling much of that house price growth that we've seen in many capital cities over recent years, making it unaffordable and putting a big burden on households with cost-of-living pressures and trying to make ends meet. Labor are proposing, if we're elected at the next election, to be fair dinkum about this issue—to tackle this issue and reform negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts.

The final point I want to mention is the corporate tax cuts, and the chair mentioned this earlier in her statement about competitiveness. I thought it was very interesting that the Reserve Bank governor, when he met with us, made the point that tax cuts should not come on the back of increases to budget deficits. That's exactly what's occurring in the United States at the moment, with their budget deficit forecast to increase to five per cent of GDP. That's close to $1 trillion. The remarks of the Reserve Bank governor squarely pointed the finger at this reform as one of the means for increasing that deficit when he said that the deficit in the United States is 'largely on the back of the tax cuts'. That's the view of the Reserve Bank governor—that in the United States they are reducing company taxes, but they're going to push up their budget deficit to an unsustainable level, and Australia shouldn't be entering into a competition with the United States based on this if it's going to lead to similar outcomes in Australia. And, of course, it shouldn't come on the back of taking money out of investing in education—universities, TAFE colleges and schools—and investing in hospitals and maintaining Medicare, but that's exactly what this government is proposing when it talks about cuts to the Gonski model for needs based funding in schools, cuts to universities and the fact that it's decimated funding for TAFE and when it won't tackle things like negative gearing and capital gains tax. All of these are contributing to the increasing cost of living and pressure for households, and that's why it's important that we, as representatives of the community, are listening to those concerns and taking on the advice and evidence of people like the Reserve Bank governor. In that vein, I commend the report to the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Does the member for Corangamite wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?

Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (12:42): I move:

That the House take note of the report.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the next day of sitting.

Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (12:42): I move:

That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.

Question agreed to.

Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Leader of The Nationals) (12:42): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Industries, Innovation, Science and Resources, I present the committee's report entitled Internet competition inquiry: inquiry into impacts on local businesses in Australia from global internet-based competitiontogether with the minutes of the proceedings.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

Mr JOYCE: by leave—The arrival in Australia of Amazon, the world's largest online retailer, has focussed attention on the effect of internet based competition on Australian business. I'd like to note to the House that the market capitalisation of Amazon is $600 billion. The total retail expenditure of our major supermarkets, including Coles and Woolworths, is $90 billion, so we're talking about an absolute giant here.

Online shopping has grown rapidly in recent years, and this has enabled overseas firms to compete directly with Australian retailers in the domestic market. For some Australian businesses, competing with overseas firms based in lower-cost markets is proving challenging. This is also noted in such things as when people in shopping malls have to pay rent while people online only have to pay for stamps to send the products.

Nevertheless, while online retail is increasing competition, it is also creating opportunities for Australian businesses to export their goods and services globally. For example, almost 90 per cent of Australian small businesses using eBay are exporting products overseas.

The size of the customer base available online enables small manufacturers and retailers to establish highly specialised business models that can succeed and grow. In addition, it allows businesses based in regional Australia to access the same market opportunities as those in urban areas.

A key role for government is to ensure that the digital economy operates with a level playing field and that Australian businesses are equipped with the skills and technologies needed to succeed.

Therefore, the committee has recommended the establishment of a grants program to assist Australian small businesses to take advantage of digital economy opportunities. The grants program should provide matched funding for businesses that are looking to improve their capacity to engage in online retail.

The committee has also recommended that the government develop education materials to assist small businesses to understand the risks and benefits of using online platforms and emerging digital technologies. These materials should also assist businesses to improve their cybersecurity processes.

The committee believes it is important to share the stories of Australian companies that have benefited from engaging in the digital economy. Promoting these stories, especially from companies outside the technology sector, will encourage other small businesses to explore the opportunities that new technologies are creating in their industry.

The speed with which new internet based firms have been able to become significant market actors is unparalleled. For example, in a number of Australian cities it took Uber only a few months to disrupt the taxi market.

The committee heard from representatives of the hotels industry about their concerns relating to the growing market power of online accommodation booking sites. I note that, even in my own local area, basically you have to follow the conditions of the online booking agencies, even though at times they get 25 per cent of the price of the accommodation. If you don't want to be part of them, you don't get any clients.

The hotels are upset by what they perceive as unfair contract provisions and commission rates charged by the booking sites. Due to the popularity of the sites, however, the hotels have little choice but to accept the contract conditions.

There is a concern that digital platforms are able to gain possibly damaging levels of market power before regulators can adequately respond. The committee has, therefore, recommended that the government consider future reforms of competition law in light of the potential for digital platforms to act in anticompetitive ways. I note that I've had a distinct interest in this for a long period of time, since section 46(1AA), otherwise known as the Birdsville amendment.

New digital technologies are changing the world of work and the potential employment impacts of automation and artificial intelligence are a concern for many people.

As with every preceding wave of rapid development there will be some jobs that are replaced by new technologies. The effect on the retail industry may be a movement of staff from customer service roles to warehousing and logistics roles.

Overall, however, the digital economy should result in more jobs being created than lost.

Nevertheless, there are many Australians who have developed skills and expertise in jobs that are at risk from technologies such as automation. For this reason the committee has recommended the creation of a digital retraining fund.

The fund would assist Australian workers develop their digital skills helping them to maintain their employment or, if necessary, transition to new jobs.

It is easier to find a job if you already have one, so it is important to assist Australian workers improve their skills now before digital disruption places them at risk of unemployment.

The committee has also recommended that the government invest in the development of the nation's capacity to forecast future skill needs. This would assist education and training providers prepare courses as well as help local businesses with their workforce planning.

I would like to thank the organisations and individuals who appeared at public meetings or provided submissions to the inquiry. I would also like to thank my committee colleagues and note that this is the first report since I became chair, so I acknowledge those who preceded me for their contribution to the inquiry.

I commend the report to the House.

Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (12:48): by leave—I join the chair in thanking all those that have contributed to this inquiry, a very important inquiry into the impact on our local businesses in Australia from global internet based competition. I want to thank all those that came and gave us their time, their ideas and their thoughts on how we need to prepare for these challenges and what government's role needs to be. In particular, I want to mention Mr Mitchell, the member for Lyons; and Peter Khalil, who supported me in my role as the deputy chair in contributing, with our colleagues from the opposite side, to putting together what I think is an important report. I also want to quickly acknowledge the previous chair, Ms Landry.

The impacts on local businesses are many and varied. It's important that we support small businesses in particular. That's why it's great that the committee has recommended the establishment of a grants program to assist Australian small businesses to take advantage of the opportunities because, whilst there might be challenges in this space from these behemoths, these international global giants, like Amazon, there are also many opportunities. We've recommended that the government fund small business to take advantage of those opportunities. Education materials have also been recommended to assist small business understand the risks and benefits of these emerging digital technologies.

The committee also believes it's important to share the stories of Australian companies and the way they are adapting in this space and doing well. So, to lead by example, I want to quickly mention some people from the Territory and promote their story. Injalak Arts produce fantastic products from the largely Aboriginal community of Gunbalanya. Injalak Arts sell their products through Etsy and regularly receive orders from all over the world, including from as far afield as remote areas of Myanmar, so you've got remote areas in the Northern Territory selling products through the internet to remote areas of Myanmar. There are truly incredible opportunities. They are remote but the internet has levelled the playing field somewhat for them.

Another example is in Darwin, in my electorate—Injalak Arts at Gunbalanya is in the member for Lingiari's electorate. In Darwin some young Territorians have started up an online earring business called Frunky. Marketing for Frunky is conducted primarily through Instagram and sales are made through their website. They're looking to expand their product range shortly. Our committee has promoted the telling of these stories. These are just two from the Northern Territory, and there are many others.

With the advances in marketing through these platforms there truly are great opportunities for small businesses. However, the committee also heard disturbing stories—from the Hotels Association for one and the Booksellers Association for another—about the possibly damaging levels of market power. The committee has, as the chair discussed, recommended that, in light of the potential for digital platforms to act in anticompetitive ways, future reform of competition law would be a good thing to do.

We've heard about the disruption of online businesses, but we also need to focus our mind on adaptation. We must change and adapt and we must help our businesses do the same. That's why we've recommended the creation of a digital retraining fund. The workforce is so important in this space. Workforce is the next big challenge in STEM. I want to recommend to the government something that is not in the report: instead of giving $17 billion to the banks out of your corporate tax plans, how about we put that into education so that our kids in the future can adapt and can get the jobs that are going to be required to be all that we can be as an economy and as a people by using the internet and using the global online marketplace? Workforce is a big challenge and we need to do more.

I again want to thank my fellow members of the committee on that inquiry. I look forward to finding out when we next meet what our committee will turn its mind to next. There are some great recommendations in the report. I recommend it to everyone. We must adapt to stay competitive in this new global scene. I also commend this report to the House.

Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (12:54): Labor has for over a century demonstrated its understanding that it is a paramount responsibility of all parliamentarians to keep our community safe and our nation secure. We in Labor have demonstrated this commitment by working in a bipartisan way, whether in government or in opposition, to ensure that our security and law enforcement agencies have the powers and resources they need to keep our communities safe.

While we will not always agree with our political opponents on how Australians can be best protected, Labor has a long track record of engaging constructively in the political debate about matters of this kind. These are debates that all healthy democracies should have. And because we in Labor do not believe that national security should ever be manipulated or exploited for partisan political purposes, we do not seek to politicise any disagreements that we may have with the government on national security matters. We always seek to resolve those disagreements through constructive and considered debate.

Labor also acknowledges that it is the prerogative of the government of the day to decide how it wishes to organise the executive government and its agencies. This is generally referred to as the 'machinery of government'. The present bill, the Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, is essentially a procedural bill that implements the decision of the Turnbull government to radically reorganise some of our nation's national security and law enforcement agencies.

This bill was carefully examined by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which recommended that it be passed, subject to an amendment being made relating to the role of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. In light of that recommendation and because this bill is essentially a procedural bill that implements the Turnbull government's decisions for machinery-of-government changes, Labor supports the passage of this bill.

However, Labor also wishes to place on the record several of its concerns about the creation of the changes to our national security and law enforcement framework that this bill implements. We do this because the machinery-of-government changes that this bill helps to legally implement are not minor or technical but are rather a significant reworking of our national security and federal law enforcement framework. This is openly acknowledged by the government. As the Prime Minister declared in his second reading speech on this bill on 7 December last year:

… these initiatives represent the most far-reaching reorganisation of our national security architecture since the Hope royal commissions of the late seventies and early eighties.

Labor's primary concern is that the government has struggled to explain why the sweeping changes to be brought about by this bill are required at all. For decades, both Labor and Liberal governments have expounded on the efficacy of our existing national security framework, lauding the existing system of cooperation between agencies and their many successes in detecting and stopping terrorist attacks and in dealing with serious crime. As the Prime Minister said, again in his second reading speech on this bill last year:

To those who argue that the system is not broken, I can reassure you that you are absolutely right.

We have been incredibly well served by our intelligence, security, and law enforcement agencies.

And just last year, a comprehensive review of our intelligence services was conducted by Mr Michael L'Estrange AO and Mr Stephen Merchant PSM, the unclassified version of which was released on 18 July 2017. That review did not in any way recommend the kinds of changes that the Turnbull government is now putting in place. In many respects, the changes brought about are an experiment with our national security. Given how effective our agencies have been to date in keeping Australians safe, we in Labor are concerned that the reasons for this experiment have not been sufficiently explained by the Prime Minister. I also note that the concept of a department of home affairs was previously considered by Prime Minister Howard, Prime Minister Rudd and Prime Minister Abbott. After careful consideration, each of those prime ministers rejected the proposal, yet that is the proposal that the member for Wentworth is now enacting. It is not clear to Labor what has changed, and the government has not been able to explain it.

One key effect of the new arrangements is to concentrate power that was once shared between a number of ministers and their departments into a single minister and a new super department called the Department of Home Affairs. Most democratic nations are very careful to avoid the concentration of power in a single entity or in a single person, instead favouring systems with checks and balances. This is particularly the case with the coercive powers and intrusive capabilities that our law enforcement and security agencies exercise, because concentrating those powers and capabilities under a single department and its minister can only weaken the checks and balances needed to protect Australian citizens from the inappropriate or unlawful exercise of those powers and capabilities. Many of our most senior security experts have also pointed out that the concentration of power may weaken our national security by reducing the contestability of key decisions. Under the arrangements being put in place by this bill, a single minister, the member for Dickson, Mr Dutton, will alone be responsible for complex decisions that have until now been debated by multiple ministers who have shared responsibility for our nation's security.

I also note that the government's approach to legislating the various changes to the existing acts necessary for the creation of the Department of Home Affairs has been somewhat haphazard. The government first stated its intent to establish the Department of Home Affairs in July 2017. On 7 December 2017, the Prime Minister second-read this bill, which at that time amended only four acts of the parliament. Subsequently, following the government's disclosure in evidence to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security that there were a further 33 acts of parliament that required amendment in order to effect the creation of the portfolio, the Attorney-General proposed that the bill have a further 311 amendments to the primary legislation inserted into it.

The opposition was given notice of these substantial further amendments. Amendments (2) to (27) are changes to schedule 1 of the bill to implement the first and second recommendations the PJCIS set out in its advisory report on the Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill 2017—that's the first report that the committee produced. Amendment (28) incorporates a new schedule 2, which amends some 32 acts and provides in large part for minor administrative amendments effecting the transfer of powers from the Attorney-General to the Minister for Home Affairs. These further amendments were also referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, where they were considered. They were reported on by the intelligence committee, which recommended that the amendments should also be passed. In keeping with Labor's bipartisan commitment to national security, Labor accepts that recommendation of the intelligence committee to the effect that the foreshadowed amendments to this bill should be passed. I note that the committee stated at paragraph 1.27 of its report on this bill:

…machinery of government changes are a matter for the government of the day. As such, it is not within the remit of the Committee to consider the broader policy decisions behind the changes, but to scrutinise the amendments as proposed.

In conclusion, and consistent with the intelligence committee's view, I reiterate that Labor acknowledges the prerogative of the executive to determine the machinery of government and supports this bill as implementing changes brought about under that prerogative.

Labor will carefully monitor the operation of these new arrangements and listen carefully to the advice of your security agencies as these arrangements take effect to make certain that the new framework operates as the government intends and is in fact a benefit to our nation's security. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (13:05): It is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this bill. I was somewhat disappointed by the comments from the member for Isaacs, who has suggested that this bill is an experiment. He uses the word 'experiment', a word, I think, that uncovers Labor's clear willy-nilly experimental approach on matters of national security.

Mr Dreyfus: What are you talking about?

Mr TED O'BRIEN: The member for Isaacs wishes to know what it is I'm speaking of. Well, I would like to ensure that the good member is advised that there were 50,000 illegal arrivals in Australia under the last Labor government on 800 boats, and at least 1,200 people died at sea; 1,200 people drowned at sea. There has not been an illegal boat arrival in Australia for 1,381 days, as of this morning. Over 3,481 visas of serious criminals have been cancelled, and yet the member for Isaacs wishes to interject, in absolute confusion. This sort of policy area should never be an experiment, because we are talking about national security.

That is why I am rising to support the Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. Indeed, there is no more fundamental responsibility of a federal government than the security of this nation, nor is there any greater expectation from the Australian people of their federal government than doing everything in its power to ensure their security and that of their families. This is what underpins the establishment of the Home Affairs portfolio and the bill we see before us today, the most significant reform to our intelligence and national security system in decades.

Our security agencies face a never-ending battle to protect Australians against the ever-changing face of terrorism and to defend our national security and our freedoms. Gone are the days when our enemies were relatively easy to identify, wearing uniforms of an opposing power, standing on foreign shores accessible only by boat or plane. Today's enemies are far better camouflaged and include cyberhackers, terrorists and lone-wolf attackers. They are elusive, hiding online in the dark web and at times in our very neighbourhood. The world today is very different from that of 40 years ago, when much of our intelligence infrastructure was conceived as a result of the Hope royal commission. In 2016, 77 countries experienced at least one terrorism related death, more than any other year since 2001. The rise of the internet gives terrorist groups and criminal organisations unlimited global reach. We're seeing increased vulnerability of critical infrastructure, including financial systems, to cyberattack, and we all know the increase in violent extremism now shaping the world we live in.

Recognising these threats and the complex changes faced by our security agencies in responding to them has led to this bill and the establishment of the Office of National Intelligence and the Department of Home Affairs. These are changes that further strengthen our security arrangements as well as the integrity and oversight of our security agencies, changes that recognise the need for closer cooperation between our domestic security and law enforcement agencies, and changes that enable an adaptive infrastructure, limit duplication, and set priorities and shared security goals across the portfolio. Although we speak of changes, I'm sure all of my colleagues would agree that Australia's law enforcement, intelligence and security agencies are nonetheless second to none. Indeed, Australia's domestic situation is more secure than ever, with—and I repeat for the sake of the member for Isaacs—no illegal boat arrivals in almost four years, or, more precisely, 1,381 days as of this morning; with more than 3,481 serious criminals having had their visas cancelled since December 2014; with national security agencies having been responsible for 37 counterterrorism operations since September 2014, resulting in 85 people being charged with terrorism and other offences; and, more importantly, with the prevention of six attacks and 14 major counterterrorism disruption operations in response to potential attacks planned here in Australia.

We do face challenges, though. There are more than 100 Australians fighting or engaged with terrorist groups in Iraq and Syria and 190 people providing support and funding from Australia. Our intelligence agencies are currently managing around 400 high-priority counterterrorism investigations, and so it is essential that we continually invest in and support our national security agencies. This bill before the House today provides for this continued investment to ensure we stay ahead of the game, ahead of the terrorists, ahead of the people smugglers and ahead of the cyberhackers. Furthermore and importantly, this bill confirms that each agency retains full statutory independence while reporting to one single minister, the Minister for Home Affairs—a single point in cabinet who will provide comprehensive and integrated advice to government on the challenges and threats we face and how we should respond.

Strengthening the Attorney-General's capacity is also an essential element of the changes reflected in this bill. This bill sees the Attorney-General take responsibility for the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and for the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. This will provide oversight and accountability to give Australians confidence not only that our agencies will safeguard our nation's security but that they will do so respecting the rights and freedoms of all. Security and freedom, it must be said, are not conflicting or contradictory forces. Despite the usual neo-Marxist drivel coming from the Australian Greens, who claim that Australia is becoming a police state, there is no dichotomy between security and freedom in this country. To claim otherwise is just a shallow excuse. Failing to support a robust national security apparatus is nothing short of an abrogation of duty—

Mr Bandt interjecting—

Mr TED O'BRIEN: Thank you to my honourable colleague from the Greens, who has made a positive contribution finally in this House. Indeed, it shows precisely that, when it comes to the substance, why the Greens are actually not fit for government—because they refuse to support the robust national security apparatus being put forward in this bill. Security and freedom are in fact interrelated and reinforcing and must, therefore, be considered together, side-by-side, in balance and in full realisation of the threat posed. To better enable and empower this relationship is the clear intention of the reforms put forward in this bill. Indeed, to be free is to be secure, and to be secure is to be free.

It's worth noting that we are not alone in this fight. After all, centralised intelligence coordination has been established in the USA, the UK, Canada and New Zealand—key allies of ours in the fight against global terrorism and criminal organisations. It's also worth noting that this bill enacts a key mandate of the 2017 independent intelligence review to take 'individual agency excellence to an even higher level of collective performance through strengthening integration across Australia's national intelligence enterprise'.

This bill will ensure better strategic planning and coordination for our immigration, border protection, law enforcement and domestic security agencies while preserving their operational strength and independence. It will allow them to continue to detect, prevent and respond to acts of terrorism and organised crime within Australia—threats that are ever evolving and complex, driven by new technologies and the expansion of cyberspace. This bill underpins the coalition government's determination and commitment to keep all Australians safe and secure—a fundamental right enjoyed by all Australians. It's on this basis that I'm happy to commend the bill to the House.

Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (13:17): I'm no great fan of George Brandis, the former senator and former Attorney-General. We strongly opposed the laws that he got passed through this place to give greater surveillance powers over everyday Australians' activity online. Watching him in that famous Sky interview trying to explain what metadata was, as a justification for this big power grab, was like watching my dog trying to play chess. It was an absolute debacle from a government that was intent on power grabs without understanding why they were seeking what they were seeking.

When George Brandis, who has been on the inside of this government as the nation's highest law officer, says, 'Be worried about the conservatives within this conservative government and their ideological right-wing bent,' and says when he has been out of the job for five minutes, 'I'm worried about what's happening inside this government,' and when the Deputy Liberal leader, the member for Curtin, organises front-page articles in the Herald Sun to say that she is worried about the Minister for Home Affairs, Peter Dutton, increasing his power in this country, including the power to spy on or surveil ordinary Australians, then alarm bells should be ringing. It's not just the Greens who are saying that if there's someone who deserves the full oversight of parliament and the full scrutiny of the people it's Peter Dutton, the member for Dickson; now his own colleagues and former colleagues are saying that this man cannot be trusted with the greater power to surveil everyday Australians. When they are prepared to say that something is going on in this government, we as a country should all be worried.

What is happening here is that this weak Prime Minister is doing what the Minister for Home Affairs has organised and got the numbers for. He has forced upon the Prime Minister this power grab over security matters—the likes of which we have not seen before. It is no wonder that his current and former colleagues are doing everything they can short of open mutiny to say: 'Hey, Australia, have a look at what is going on here. Something is deeply wrong.' As you go through the bill and the government's proposed amendments to the bill, you will understand exactly what is at stake.

Let's take the question of adverse security assessments, for example. We have seen people languish in limbo in detention centres because they were caught in a diabolical catch-22. They were told they were not eligible to come to Australia because they were a national security risk. When they asked to see the details so that they could respond, they were told: 'No, we can't tell you. It's an adverse security assessment from ASIO. We can't give you the right to respond.' So many people languished in detention for years without any justification all because they were in the situation where they could not respond to an assessment that was put on their file. They had no rights to challenge it, no rights of appeal. But at least that was not being done by the minister responsible for their immigration detention. At least there was another government department and another government agency. As a result of some of the pressure that was brought to bear over many years, we saw many instances of the notices being withdrawn and people being able to move out and live in the community. But under this bill and these sets of proposals, the home affairs minister is now going to accrue both powers: the power to keep someone in detention and also the power to say that they're a security risk but not give them the chance to respond. Those are powers that restrict peoples' liberty and movement, and these are people who have not committed a criminal offence. We are giving to Peter Dutton, the member for Dickson, unfettered power that will not be able to be subject to review by anyone, and that should send a shiver down the spine of everyone in this country.

It doesn't just stop there with respect to adverse security assessments. There are a number of agencies that are now going to come under this minister's control. At the moment, with respect to people who are on welfare, who are doing it very tough and trying hard to make ends meet, there are certain situations in which someone's social security payments can be taken away from them not through the person necessarily having done anything that was proven wrong by a court but just because of ministerial discretion. At the moment, there's a degree of protection because it requires two ministers to do that. When you consider that you're effectively saying to someone, 'You now no longer have any money on which to live,' there's a good reason why that shouldn't be vested solely in one person. But that's what this bill does. This bill gives the Minister for Home Affairs the power to say to certain people, 'You no longer get any money either.' Sole power! It is unreviewable power, in many instances.

It's not just about whether certain people are going to get locked up and it's not just questions about whether or not you're going to be able to survive because you don't have any money, we're also dealing with some of the key questions around peoples' right to move freely in society. At the moment, there's the capacity in certain situations to go and get control orders put on people—that is, they go to a court, and the court can say, 'Person X, even though you haven't committed a crime, we will restrict what you can and can't do.' It's worrying that a government can exercise that power—full stop—because it's effectively saying, 'We are worried about something you might do in the future, even though you haven't been prosecuted, charged or convicted yet.'

A government doing it is an abrogation of the separation of powers, which is why, in most instances in Australia at the moment, there are at least some minimal checks and balances in place. One of those is that, in most instances, it's the Attorney-General who has the power to go and do that, because it is seen as such a fundamental question of liberty that it should be the first law officer in this country who is able to go to a court to seek something so serious—very, very serious—as a control order against someone who has not committed a crime.

That has now gone. In many instances, that has now gone and is being transferred to Peter Dutton, the member for Dickson, the Minister for Home Affairs. What is the justification for that? What is the justification for an abrogation of such a fundamental liberty as the right to freedom of movement and the right to be presumed innocent if you have not been found guilty of committing any offence? It's for that reason that the Law Council said:

Given the extraordinary nature of these powers and the potential for restrictions on liberty involved, the Attorney-General should retain responsibility for their exercise. As the First Law Officer with broader policy responsibility for the administration of the criminal justice system and integrity functions, the Law Council considers it appropriate for the Attorney-General to continue to exercise powers and functions relating to potential restrictions on liberty. This approach would also be consistent with the proposed amendments for the Attorney-General to retain responsibility for powers and functions that have the potential to restrict liberty under the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (Cth) (e.g. questioning, and questioning and detention warrants). As a minimum, the agreement (i.e. not simply a consultation) of the Attorney-General should be obtained prior to the bringing of such applications and for matters subsequently arising out of proceedings.

The Law Council is telling us that this is such a fundamental departure from democratic practices in Western society that we should not do it. But the government does not care.

And when you have a home affairs minister who is willing to broadcast to the nation that certain people are dead to him because they happen to disagree with him, when he is happy to say that journalists, commentators and activists are dead to him because they dare to question him, this is not a man who should be given the unfettered power to go and seek control orders or to detain people or to cut off people's welfare payments. This is a man who should be kept on a much shorter leash, not given bigger powers, but that is what we seem to be about to do.

Everyone else in this chamber, it seems, is prepared to vote for this bill, and that is of grave, grave concern, because we could have the prospect in the Senate of stopping it proceeding. In exactly the same way as the opposition wants us to stand up to the government on a number of other matters, this is one matter that we could be standing up to the government on and should be standing up to the government on. I say to the opposition in particular: please reconsider your position when it comes to the Senate. Do not give this man unfettered power over people's liberty, over people's payments, over people's lives. This is a man who should be held to account. I very much hope that he gets turfed out at the next election, and I hope this government gets turfed out at the next election, and it may happen within a matter of months. If it's potentially going to happen within a matter of months, do not sign off now in this parliament on giving this man more power and on putting in place changes to the way that we deal with fundamental individual rights and liberties in this country, because we might not be able to get them undone after the next election. Who knows what the composition of the Senate will be at that stage?

We've got the opportunity to stand up to this government and to stand up to a very bad minister and to say, once and for all, 'You are not going to get further powers over the rights and liberties of people in this country who have not committed a crime, but instead we will hold you to account.'

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): The debate is interrupted 10 seconds early, in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (14:07): by leave—I move:

That the resumption of the debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the death of the Honourable Jocelyn Margaret Newman AO be referred to the Federation Chamber.

Question agreed to.

The SPEAKER (15:17): I present reports of the Commonwealth Ombudsman's activities under section 65(6) of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016 for the periods 1 July 2016 to 31 March 2017 and 1 April 2017 to 30 June 2017.

Mr GILES (Scullin) (16:31): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the committee's advisory report incorporating a dissenting report on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill 2017, together with an addendum to the report.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

Mr GILES: by leave—I'm pleased to be able to present a report which is, in essence, a consensus report dealing with very difficult and important matters forming part of a complicated bill. Before making some short statements on the substance of the report and its significance, I acknowledge the extraordinary work of the secretariat, who dealt with a very challenging series of issues with the utmost professionalism and deep courtesy. I see that the member for Tangney is here, and I hope that he will join me in expressing those sentiments if he has the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I also acknowledge the hard and indeed tireless work of the chair, Senator Reynolds, and all of my colleagues—my Labor colleagues especially. I pay particular mention to Senator Rhiannon, who also gave her all in an effort to bring the parliament together to resolve these fundamental questions which are contained in the bill.

What the work of the committee and the evidence brought before it showed was that there were fundamental flaws in this legislation. The recommendations, fairly read, show how unworkable the legislation would have been, regardless of some of the issues going to the motivations attaching to particular provisions in the bill. What this shows as a matter of process is that legislation of this nature—legislation which requires, really, the parliament to speak as one in adopting—must go through a proper consultative process and regulatory impact statement. With these steps having been taken, we may have been able to advance this vexed issue of donations reform.

I have next to me in the chamber the member for Isaacs, who had carriage of these matters in government. He knows only too well that for more than 10 years the Australian Labor Party has put forward a considered package of proposals which would advance this debate. We recognise, in Labor, that this has to be a matter upon which the parties can reach substantial agreement. We have been trying to reach that agreement for some time, and I hope this report shows where progress can be made—that we need to look to the broad principles of what we are trying to achieve rather than narrow political advantage or attending in an unfair way to regulate some groups within civil society, in a way which clearly seems designed to regulate them out of existence. A strong democracy requires a very strong civil society. When we talk about a level playing field in politics, political speech and political donations, we have to recognise that a level playing field treats actors appropriately, not as if they are all exactly the same and with the same interests. Those of us who seek to hold executive roles and those of us who have legislative responsibilities are engaged in political activities of a different order than are civil society activist groups.

As we debate this report and as we debate legislation—if the government brings the legislation back on—we also have to recognise that we all have a great duty to all of our constituents to raise the standards of political discourse and to rebuild trust in our political institutions. This requires us to look seriously at the influence of money on politics and to provide for much greater transparency. As I mentioned earlier, the Australian Labor Party has, for some time, set out a series of propositions which would go a long way towards this. I hope they can form the basis of further debate in this place in the very near future. We should be arguing about our competing visions for Australia, not about putting in place rules that benefit the wealthy over those who don't have those material advantages.

I'm pleased that this is substantively a consensus report. In presenting this report, I note there is much more work to be done. Labor members in this place and in the other place stand ready to work with the government and with the Greens and other crossbenchers on advancing donation reform, noting that this report deals with a package of legislative proposals that don't, and can't, constitute the whole of this debate. There is much more to be done, and I ask members to think about those proposals around donation limits and real-time disclosure that the Labor Party has put forward. It's also time for all of us to consider the issue of caps on expenditure, and caps more generally, if we are to genuinely achieve the level playing field that is essential for a democracy in which everyone feels that they have their say and in which they do, in fact, have their say.

Mr MORTON (Tangney) (16:36): by leave—I join the member for Scullin in thanking the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, Senator Reynolds, and the secretariat for their work. Only Australians and Australian money should influence Australian politics and policymaking, not overseas billionaires or foreign governments. A ban on foreign money and influence should apply to all political expenditure and political campaigns in Australia. The government is not alone on this. Alternative legislation from Labor and the Greens would ban donations of foreign property to political parties and candidates or anyone who would use it for political expenditure. This would include charities. The report, in paragraph 1.32 and 1.33, makes it very clear that the Labor and Greens proposals would also extend to charities in relation to banning gifts of foreign property for the purposes of political expenditure.

The majority of submissions to and witnesses before the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters recommended that political donations should be regulated further at the federal level and that there should be further reforms. Despite broad agreement on the principles of greater transparency, there has been significant public debate about who and what activities a ban on foreign donations should apply to. What was very clear in the evidence received was that campaigns have changed over time. Long gone are the days when campaigns occurred after the issuing of the writs and when the only players in a campaign were the political parties and the candidates themselves. We now see a multitude of organisations that spend money and seek to influence voters as they make their decisions and take action as voters. Those voters deserve transparency in relation to where the money that seeks to influence them is coming from as they take part in our nation's democracy.

Much public attention has been placed on the issue of charities, and that was a major focus of concern. It was a focus of concern that I think was whipped up a little bit by some people who were trying to increase the number of people subscribing to their organisations, so I'm going to spend a little bit of time on that issue today. Some in the charities sector in partnership with GetUp! wanted to create a loophole that would allow 55,000 registered charities to use foreign money to influence Australian voters and elections.

What was quite interesting was that many of the organisations giving evidence to our committee were not aware of the fact that charities were already covered by the Electoral Act. They thought that being covered by the Charities Act and being regulated by the charities commission fulfilled all of their responsibilities and they need not be regulated further by the Electoral Act, even though the Electoral Act currently covers them and their activities. Those organisations campaigning for an exemption did acknowledge that they sought to influence Australian elections. They just didn't think that they should be subject to the same rules. In fact, several politically active charities gave evidence to the committee that elections are a very important time for them to achieve their objectives. The chief executive officer of the Australian Council for International Development told the committee: 'We were trying to influence voters through the campaign, all the time during an election period.' Evidence was also presented that showed charities handing out material at polling booths in support of certain candidates and asking electors to pledge their vote.

The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission also confirmed to the committee that there is nothing in charities law that would prevent Australian charities from using foreign money to campaign at Australian elections. The debate is not whether charities should be trying to influence Australian voters. Most accept that the charities sector has a role to play in our democracy. They have a role to have their voice heard in relation to their causes, and I support that. But the issue is whether all political campaigns should be transparent and whether we want foreign money targeting Australian elections and influencing Australian voters at the ballot box.

In evidence to the committee, Professor George Williams compared foreign political donations to water—money, like water, will find a way. Stopping foreign interests funding some political activities but not others would simply see foreign money flow to other sources. Charities, if exempt, would likely end up as proxies for foreign political donations. Professor Williams said, 'It's very clear in the US and a range of countries, including Australia, that you can't exempt one part, or that's simply where the money will flow to.'

Australia's electoral laws must apply equally to all who participate in the political process. Australian charities will still be able to influence Australian voters and elections—and they should—but they should be able to use only Australian donations to do so. Charities can continue to receive foreign income as long as that income is not used to fund political expenditure. In fact, part of the scare campaign was making out that the government was trying to target charities. The actual mention of charities in this legislation was to provide a carve-out and an ability for charities to still be able to receive foreign money for their charitable purpose as long as it wasn't used for political expenditure to influence Australian voters. That is fair and appropriate.

There are some issues with the current legislation. The committee has looked at that and made appropriate recommendations, particularly around the compliance burden. The committee is committed to balancing the need for transparency with compliance and ensuring entities are not adversely affected by the legislation. There are a number of recommendations that are worthy of note. I want to just highlight a few. Recommendation 2 relates to political expenditure. The uncertainty about what that meant caused great concern. The committee recommends that the government consider amending the definition to define the type of expenditure which relates to influencing voters to take action as a voter. There is a recommendation to make the registration process much simpler for all organisations that would be required to disclose under the Electoral Act. Recommendation 4—and this is very important—is making sure that we have increased reporting obligations that affect organisations at particular thresholds. Those organisations that have more significant impact on voter behaviour should have a greater burden of disclosure placed upon them, and the committee recognises that.

I think it's pretty hard to argue against greater transparency for organisations that seek to influence Australian voters and Australian elections. The debate is not over yet. Some will argue that some organisations should be exempted, that they should not be treated with the same level of transparency as other organisations who communicate to voters. But only Australians should be able to influence the outcome of Australian elections. I think that's a pretty simple arrangement and one that this committee supports. I look forward to the introduction of this legislation to the House and working with the opposition to make sure that we pass this legislation in a way that keeps intact those principles that I've mentioned.

Mr GILES (Scullin) (16:45): I move:

That the House take note of the report.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Mr GILES (Scullin) (16:45): I move:

That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.

Question agreed to.

Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (16:45): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, I present the committee's report entitled Examination of the annual report of the Integrity Commissioner 2015-16.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (16:46): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: Report 4 of 2018.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

Mr GOODENOUGH: by leave—I rise to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' Human rights scrutiny report: Report 4 of 2018.

Of the new bills examined in this report, 29 have been assessed as not raising human rights concerns as they promote, permissibly limit or do not engage human rights.

I would like to highlight two of these bills. Measures in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund Bill 2018 actively promote human rights. The statement of compatibility usefully provides a detailed assessment of the human rights implications of the bill and how it achieves positive human rights outcomes.

The Biosecurity Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018 limits human rights, but in ways that are permissible under international human rights law. While the bill imposes limitations on a number of rights, the statement of compatibility provides an excellent analysis of how such limitations are proportionate to achieve their stated objective.

Such work by ministers and their departments in developing legislation with appropriate safeguards and preparing detailed statements of compatibility is to be commended. By addressing human rights issues at the outset, the committee's technical scrutiny function can be undertaken without the need to request further information.

In this report the committee needs to request further information in relation to the human rights compatibility of 10 bills and a number of legislative instruments, and also has to provide three 'advice only' comments to legislation proponents.

The committee seeks to report in a timely manner so that its technical assessment of human rights compatibility can inform the legislative deliberations of the parliament. A number of bills examined in this report are scheduled for debate this week, including in relation to:

the National Disability Insurance Scheme;

higher education (student loan repayments);

social services (newly arrived migrants); and

the Export Control Bill.

Chapter 2 of the report contains the committee's concluded examination of six bills and instruments. Following correspondence with the relevant minister, three of these bills and instruments are likely to be compatible with international human rights law.

In relation to the Treasury Laws (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 1) Bill, questions arose as to whether the strict liability offences in this bill were compatible with the presumption of innocence. Following further information from the minister, including the existence of relevant safeguards in the specific regulatory context, the committee could conclude that the strict liability offences were likely to be compatible.

I encourage my fellow members and others to examine the committee's report to better inform their consideration of the proposed legislation.

With these comments, I commend the committee's Report 4 of 2018 to the House.

Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (16:50): The first duty of any government is ensuring the safety of its citizens. That's a phrase that's often used in this place—one that can be sometimes overused—but its principle remains paramount. Whether it be protecting us from crime, combatting foreign agents or cybercriminals who want to undermine our interests or defeating terrorists who want to destroy our way of life, defending our security must be our government's first priority. This government has always understood that responsibility and prosecuted it with dedication and rigour. This is a government that just last year provided an extra $321.4 million for the Australian Federal Police and, in total, has increased funding for law enforcement, intelligence and security agencies by $1.5 billion. This government is funding 100 more intelligence experts, more than 100 more tactical response and covert surveillance operators and a further 100 more forensic specialists at the forefront of the fight against crime and terrorism. This government has passed eight tranches of national security legislation to strengthen our law enforcement and intelligence agencies and to give them the tools they need to deal with terrorists. We have given the ADF the power to target international terrorists with lethal force and given our law enforcement officers the power to arrest homegrown terrorists before their plots come to fruition. We've invested $100 million in grassroots crime prevention projects and $45 million in counter-radicalisation programs to try to suppress these threats before they are fully developed.

However, this government also understands that the threats we are facing are evolving and growing in complexity and sophistication. Since 2014, Australian intelligence and law enforcement agencies have successfully disrupted 14 imminent terrorist attacks and charged 85 individuals with offences relating to terrorism. Just one of these attacks, a rigorously planned plot against an A380 airliner leaving Sydney, would have led to hundreds of deaths had it not been narrowly averted. We expect the volume of passengers entering our borders to increase by 22 per cent in just the next three years, while the ongoing instability in the Middle East continues to provide a source of potential terrorists and training. At this point, I'd also like to send a huge shout-out to our armed services, our men and women in the ADF, who are doing an absolutely sterling job in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East more broadly to help keep this country safe.

New technology and online channels like powerful mobile encryption, the dark web and advanced cyberwarfare techniques have given state and non-state actors alike new tools to threaten us. Research conducted by Telstra, for example, shows that as many as 60 per cent of organisations in Australia suffered some sort of cyber attack in 2016 alone. However, the government has shown through Operation Sovereign Borders that national security problems of huge scope and considerable complexity can be overcome through a coordinated and integrated approach. This dramatically successful operation has involved the cooperative work of 16 separate agencies. It shows what can be achieved when our security, law enforcement and intelligence agencies work together in a close-knit, common effort.

That success and that experience has led the government to institute the Department of Home Affairs to bring together the management and coordination of our nation's national security, intelligence and emergency management agencies. It's a model that has proved its value overseas. And, like the UK Home Office, the Department of Home Affairs is now able to provide far-reaching strategic planning and policy development that incorporates knowledge from all our myriad experts. It also provides the best possible distribution of resources and closest possible coordination between ASIO, the AFP, the Australian Border Force and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission to ensure that Australia is a safer and more secure place.

The minority who oppose this move, however, point to the many weighty and serious responsibilities that are being concentrated in the hands of one minister, the former Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and now Minister for Home Affairs. Personally, I can think of no-one I would rather have responsible for our nation's internal security. The minister was a Queensland police officer for a decade, protecting not only Queenslanders, in the drug and sex offenders squads, but all Australians, through the National Crime Authority. The minister saw and combatted the worst of crime in our society, and he understands what works. That knowledge and that experience have been manifest in his tireless and resolute work on national security to date.

This government's amendments to the Migration Act allow the minister to cancel visas of noncitizens who are convicted of a serious crime. Those we have welcomed into our country but who have chosen to commit a crime with a sentence of more than 12 months in prison or who have chosen to commit a sexual offence against a child do not deserve to be allowed to stay in Australia, and our duty to protect our citizens requires that they should be removed. The government's new law has allowed this minister to drive a 12-fold increase in the number of these visa cancellations and keep our society safe from people who have chosen to so outrageously abuse our hospitality. Since December 2014, when this minister gained responsibility for the relevant portfolio, the coalition government has cancelled the visas of over 3,000 dangerous criminals. That includes 61 murderers, 135 rapists, 260 child sex offenders, 500 drug dealers and 170 criminal motorcycle gang members. These deportations have made my community of Fisher on the Sunshine Coast safer, as they have for every community across this country. Once again, there are 3,000 dangerous criminals who, through this process alone, can no longer threaten our citizens because of the decisive and robust action of this minister.

But the minister has gone further and driven the extension of this important power to take the strongest possible action to protect us from terrorists trained overseas. By leading the legislation to give the government the power to revoke the citizenship of any dual national who engages in a terrorist act, engages in hostile activity with a terrorist organisation overseas or is convicted of a terrorist act or other terrorism-related offence, this minister has shown that he is not afraid to make the difficult decisions needed to protect our cherished way of life. Critically, this minister has also spent almost 2½ years being responsible for Operation Sovereign Borders. For more than 800 days he has ensured that not one person has arrived in Australia illegally by boat. In this way, he has saved thousands of lives and many millions of dollars while helping to keep closed 17 unnecessary detention centres. Just yesterday we saw again how important his action has been, with a people smuggler's boat carrying 131 people stopped by Malaysian authorities while on its way to Australia.

He has displayed strength in pursuit of our security, but that strength has been accompanied by compassion. By protecting the integrity of our border protection and citizenship systems, this minister has helped the government to accept more refugees under our already generous humanitarian program, rising to 18,750 next year, not to mention permitting a special intake of 12,000 Syrian refugees. So, the current Minister for Home Affairs has amply and consistently demonstrated the strength, the commitment, the decisiveness and the compassion needed to shoulder the broad and serious responsibilities that come with this new portfolio.

But, as a lawyer, I know that we must legislate not for the minister of today but for all the ministers who might come in the future. There must be safeguards in place to ensure that these centralised responsibilities will never be misused. The government recognised this need and from the beginning has ensured that the Attorney-General will continue to have a very powerful oversight role. However, it was the recommendation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security that these safeguards be strengthened even further. The government considered these recommendations and it has responsibly and comprehensively taken them on board. That is why we have proposed these additional amendments. Transparency and clarity are at the foundation of proper oversight.

Historically, it has often been the case that, where responsibilities are unclear, opportunities can emerge for the unintended and unwarranted expansion of powers. This bill therefore contains a range of measures to ensure that there is absolute clarity as to which minister is authorised to execute which powers and which minister should be held to account. First, the government's amendments embodied in this bill will ensure there is clarity as to the fact that it is the Attorney-General and not the Minister for Home Affairs who holds the key powers under the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act. Further, the bill amends 36 other pieces of legislation to ensure that it is clear when it is the Minister for Home Affairs, the Attorney-General, other ministers, secretaries or departments that should exercise a wide range of powers and responsibilities.

The government has also identified that it is critical to proper oversight that the Attorney-General continues to be responsible for issuing ASIO warrants and authorising special intelligence operations. We've also accepted the joint standing committee's recommendation that this fact needs to be made clearer. This bill therefore amends the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act to reflect that important responsibility. Likewise, this bill's amendments will ensure that it is only the Prime Minister who is able to request that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security undertakes an inquiry under section 9 of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act.

This bill will help us to make Australia safer—safer from crime, from cyberattack, from people smugglers, from terrorists and from those who would seek to undermine our way of life. Facilitating the creation of the Department of Home Affairs will protect our national security and our prosperity at a time of increasingly complex and evolving threats. However, by clarifying the lines of responsibility and cementing the critical oversight, accountability and integrity roles of the Attorney-General, this bill will also make Australia safer by respecting the rights and liberties of all Australians.

I started this speech by saying that the duty of every government—its first duty—is to protect its citizens. This is a bill, a very important bill, that seeks to proactively measure and achieve that very goal at a time of sinister new threats. For that, I commend the bill to the House.

Mr KHALIL (Wills) (17:04):    If we are genuinely to hold fast to the fundamental and most basic principles of democracy and the rule of law, we cannot remain silent—we should not remain silent—when faced with one minister collating and consolidating so much power to himself. The member for Fisher, who's leaving now, reads out the CV of Peter Dutton, the Minister for Home Affairs, as if that absolves the government of the necessity of proper scrutiny around the unchecked powers of the home affairs minister. On this side, Labor have been consistent in the argument that we've put forward that this is overreach and that the Minister for Home Affairs shouldn't just be given a rubber stamp for this unchecked power.

I know the Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 is an administrative bill to some extent. In its original form it amended four current acts with the intention to give administrative effect, where required, to legislative changes around the establishment of the new Home Affairs portfolio. It was introduced to the House on 7 December 2017, last year, and then the government referred the bill to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. There were recommendations from that committee's first report, and then the government went ahead and produced a large set of further amendments to the bill, amending 33 further acts. There was constructive negotiation between our shadow Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, and the government's Attorney-General, and these amendments were submitted to the intelligence committee for further inquiry.

The creation of the Home Affairs portfolio, including the department, has been largely realised through the machinery of government, and on this side we've taken the position that specific organisational changes to government departments are typically a matter left to the discretion of the government of the day. That's part of their machinery of government. So that's the position that we've taken. However, this should not exempt elements of the government's proposal from genuine scrutiny. The specific changes, for example, to the remit of the Attorney-General's portfolio deserve rigorous scrutiny.

Many of us here have expressed significant concern with respect to the concentration of power within the Home Affairs portfolio. I've been one of those. I've previously voiced concerns in this place that the establishment of the Home Affairs portfolio has been an opportunity to, if you like, collate and consolidate unchecked executive power to the minister.

It's Labor's intention to ensure that the government is held accountable to its initial commitment, made by the Prime Minister during the bill's second reading speech, about the enhanced role of the Attorney-General. I think it's important to note the speech made by the Prime Minister where he identified how the Attorney-General would have an expanded portfolio, taking on 'a suite of new oversight responsibilities with our intelligence community', but would still retain his responsibility for the administration of the criminal justice system. So Labor understands that the expansion of the Attorney-General's role is a necessary part of the creation of Home Affairs and the Attorney-General's role as first law officer. This is a view, of course, supported by the Law Council of Australia, which supported the changes made in this bill during the council's submission to the parliamentary joint intelligence committee.

While we support the substance of the bill in that respect, I think it's important to use this debate to shine a light on the abysmal way in which this government has actually gone about establishing this new department. There were a lot of articles written in the media. There was one in particular by Karen Middleton for The Saturday Paper which pointed out how changes relating to ASIO were being kept from public view, discussing how the legislation seems to no longer be subject to public scrutiny before it is passed. We are very concerned on this side of the House about the lack of transparency. We hope—and it may well be a forlorn hope—that the government reviews its processes to ensure that any changes undergo the appropriate level of public and parliamentary scrutiny.

I concur with the comments made by the shadow Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, earlier when he said that the new Attorney-General clearly does not understand the bipartisan role that the intelligence committee fulfils. Even the former Attorney-General for this government, George Brandis, claimed in a speech in February that the creation of the Department of Home Affairs was 'unsettling', to use his word. I've said on numerous occasions that we should all be worried by this government's securitisation, particularly of that part of the immigration portfolio under Home Affairs. Troublingly, as I pointed out, there is a large amount of undefined or unchecked executive power under the new department.

I just point out that the fact that the member for Fisher read out Mr Dutton's CV is irrelevant. It doesn't matter who the minister is. He misses the point. The point is not who the minister is. It could be Peter Dutton. It could be Mother Teresa. That doesn't matter. What matters is the structural powers that are given to that minister and making sure that the powers can be checked by the parliament and that they are not just given to a minister to concentrate his ability to dominate an entire portfolio, in the sense that he has discretionary powers that are more than even those of the Prime Minister. That's too much power for one person.

In some respects this minister has built an empire through blatant disregard for the democratic process. According to the 2017 report of Liberty Victoria's Rights Advocacy Project, the Minister for Home Affairs, as I said, holds more power than any other minister, including the Prime Minister. We can't abide this, and we urge the government to put a stop to Minister Dutton's power-grabbing efforts. While the minister's power expands, his competence has been persistently called into question. An independent review of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, looking at the circumstances of the detention of two Australian citizens, was released under freedom-of-information laws earlier this year. The review revealed systematic problems in Minister Dutton's management of onshore detention centres, resulting in two Australian citizens being wrongly detained in immigration detention. Between 2016 and 2017 the then Department of Immigration and Border Protection wrongfully held two Australian citizens for 97 and 13 days respectively. That's right: this government wrongfully held Australian citizens in immigration detention. For all Minister Dutton's arrogant swagger and bluster about management of these centres, about border security, about being tough, the facts are that the incompetence is utterly staggering.

There's been a lot of debate in this House around migration matters in recent months. There is more of it in the debate on this bill. During the debates on several pieces of migration legislation that we have had before us, I have noted my concerns around immigration policy under this government and the tendency of this government to securitise the immigration portfolio itself and the policy around it, particularly under the new Department of Home Affairs. Of course Labor and I support the need to keep Australia safe and secure. Indeed, I've spent much of my professional life doing exactly that. We also understand that security is only one element, albeit it an important element, of migration policy. But it's a much more complex portfolio than that. New migrants contribute economically, socially and culturally. The immigration portfolio has to have elements that are economic, social and cultural to facilitate the successful settlement of migrants in this country. There are many immigrants, including refugees and migrant workers who go on to become permanent residents and citizens, who become entrepreneurs themselves and make great contributions to Australia's economy. I feel and I see that there is a real lack of focus on those elements of the immigration portfolio, and that is a concern. We've seen several research papers that touch on this and the importance of new migrants in, for example, productivity in Australian agriculture and a whole range of sectors. The government focuses attention on security, at the expense of these other important elements. While security and keeping Australia safe are important, that's only one part of a much more complex portfolio. In that respect, I would say that the government have failed to successfully oversee the immigration portfolio and policy for this country.

While we don't reject any of these amendments, on the basis that the organisation of government departments is a matter for the discretion of the government of the day, we do highlight and hold the government accountable for their incompetence when they get it wrong—that's part of our role as an opposition—and the failures and the lack of transparency that have come to define this portfolio. In what is typical of the lack of substance that characterises this government, even views expressed by the intelligence community have noted that the establishment of this department seems to be much more about political grandstanding than actual substantive change. Even the Prime Minister has acknowledged that the new ministry was not recommended in the intelligence review that was conducted by Michael L'Estrange and Stephen Merchant.

It seems in some respects that this Department of Home Affairs is a product of the political bickering and infighting that have characterised this government for so long. Even TheDaily Telegraph, which tends to have stories that are very favourable to the government, mucks in, with Sharri Markson writing a tale about the Department of Home Affairs emerging—being born—out of the conflicting relationships in the Prime Minister's cabinet, claiming that the new ministry is a product of the Prime Minister's 'need to be saved from the conservative faction', and I put that in quotation marks. It appears that this department is more a product of the Prime Minister's inability to lead. The Prime Minister can't control members of his own party, and he consistently caves in to a particular faction in his party to appease them, to placate them, and in so doing just hands over all of these unchecked powers, which is not good for Australia.

We on this side urge the government to take a stronger stance and to assure us and the public that the new Department of Home Affairs is based on expert advice and not the political machinations of their factions. Though it only exists to review and amend legislation, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security provides a very strong form of expert advice, and I would encourage the minister, who's here now, and the government to follow all of the recommendations of the joint parliamentary intelligence committee when constructing and continuing their work to construct the new department.

Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (17:16): I thank all of the members for their contribution to the debate on the Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. As the Prime Minister announced in July 2017, the establishment of the Home Affairs portfolio is part of the most significant reforms to Australia's national intelligence and domestic security arrangements in many decades—in fact, since the Hope royal commissions of the 1970s and 1980s.

The Prime Minister introduced this bill into the House in December 2017 and immediately referred it to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The portfolio itself was stood up later in December with the creation of the Department of Home Affairs and the transfer of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, the Australian Federal Police and AUSTRAC into the portfolio. This new arrangement enhances the government's ability to respond to emerging threats—including terrorism, organised crime and foreign interference—through comprehensive policy development, consolidated and better integrated strategic coordination and the targeted allocation of resources to ensure a safer, more secure Australia. It is a direct response to the evolving and dynamic security environment we face.

This bill implements two key elements of the reforms relating to the Home Affairs portfolio—namely, it facilitates the transfer of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation into the portfolio and enhances the integrity and oversight role of the Attorney-General in relation to our security and intelligence agencies. The bill clarifies the role of the Attorney-General in relation to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, which will transfer to the Attorney-General's portfolio, subject to the agreement of the Governor-General.

I intend to introduce amendments to the bill which will reflect recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in its two reports tabled on 26 February and 28 March this year. These amendments include measures to implement the three recommendations in the committee's first report as well as introduce further amendments proposed by the government which the committee scrutinised in its second report.

On behalf of the Prime Minister, who referred the bill for inquiry, I again thank the committee for its comprehensive, timely and bipartisan efforts in scrutinising this bill and the further amendments proposed by the government. Together with the amendments that I intend to move shortly, the bill ensures that the ministerial and departmental functions and powers effected by the change in national security arrangements to establish the new Home Affairs portfolio and strengthen the Attorney-General's oversight role are clear on the face of the Commonwealth statute book. This strengthened bill will enhance the government's ability to respond to emerging threats through the integration of national security functions and reinforce the integrity of our national security systems, and I commend the bill to the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question agreed to, Mr Bandt and Mr Wilkie voting no.

Bill read a second time.

Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (17:24): I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. I seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (28) as circulated, together.

Leave granted

Mr DUTTON: I move government amendments (1) to (28) as circulated, together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (line 4), omit "the Minister", substitute "the Attorney‑General".

(3) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (line 5), omit "the Minister", substitute "the Attorney‑General".

(4) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (lines 22 and 23), omit the item, substitute:

7 Section 14

Omit "Prime Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General".

(5) Schedule 1, item 9, page 4 (lines 30 and 31), omit the item, substitute:

9 Section 15

Omit "Prime Minister's", substitute "Attorney‑General's".

(6) Schedule 1, item 11, page 5 (line 9), omit "Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General".

(7) Schedule 1, item 12, page 5 (lines 10 and 11), omit the item, substitute:

12 Section 16

Omit "Prime Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General".

(8) Schedule 1, item 13, page 5 (line 17), omit "Minister administering that Act", substitute "Attorney‑General".

(9) Schedule 1, items 14 and 15, page 5 (lines 19 to 22), omit the items, substitute:

14 Paragraph 19(2 ) ( c)

Omit "Prime Minister's", substitute "Attorney‑General's".

15 Section 20

Omit "Prime Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General".

(10) Schedule 1, item 17, page 5 (lines 30 and 31), omit the item, substitute:

17 Subsections 29(1), (2), (2A), (5) and (8)

Omit "Prime Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General".

(11) Schedule 1, item 18, page 6 (line 3), omit "the Minister", substitute "the Attorney‑General".

(12) Schedule 1, page 7 (before line 16), before item 28, insert:

27A Subsection 3(4)

Omit "Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General".

27B Saving provision—declared Commonwealth agencies

A declaration of a body as a Commonwealth agency, that is in effect under subsection 3(4) of the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 immediately before the commencement of this item, continues in effect on and after that commencement as if made under that subsection as amended by this Schedule.

(13) Schedule 1, item 30, page 7 (lines 26 and 27), omit the item, substitute:

30 Subsection 6A(1)

Omit "Prime Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General".

(14) Schedule 1, item 32, page 8 (line 3), omit "the Minister", substitute "the Attorney‑General".

(15) Schedule 1, item 34, page 8 (line 14), omit "Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General".

(16) Schedule 1, item 35, page 8 (lines 15 and 16), omit the item, substitute:

35 Subsection 9(1) (not including the heading)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(1) The Prime Minister may request the Inspector‑General to inquire into a matter relating to an intelligence agency.

Note: This item re‑enacts the existing provision to re‑insert the reference to the Prime Minister: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

35A Subsection 9(3) (not including the heading)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(3) The Prime Minister may request the Inspector‑General to inquire into an intelligence or security matter relating to a Commonwealth agency.

Note: This item re‑enacts the existing provision to re‑insert the reference to the Prime Minister: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

35B Saving provision—inquiries requested by Prime Minister

The amendments of section 9 of the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 made by this Schedule do not affect an inquiry started before the commencement of this item.

(17) Schedule 1, item 36, page 8 (lines 18 and 19), omit "section 8 or 9 by the Prime Minister or the Minister administering this Act", substitute "section 8 by the Attorney‑General or section 9 by the Prime Minister".

(18) Schedule 1, item 38, page 8 (line 26), omit "the Minister", substitute "the Attorney‑General".

(19) Schedule 1, item 40, page 9 (lines 6 to 10), omit paragraphs (5) (a) and (b), substitute:

(a) if the inquiry was conducted as a result of a request under section 8 by the Attorney‑General or section 9 by the Prime Minister—the Minister who made the request;

(b) in any case—the Prime Minister or the Attorney‑General, if the relevant Minister requests it.

(20) Schedule 1, item 40, page 9 (line 12), omit "Minister administering this Act", substitute "Attorney‑General".

(21) Schedule 1, item 43, page 10 (line 4), omit "Minister administering this Act", substitute "Attorney‑General".

[referring to Attorney ‑General]

(22) Schedule 1, item 47, page 10 (line 27), omit "Minister administering this Act", substitute "Attorney‑General".

[referring to Attorney ‑General]

(23) Schedule 1, item 51, page 11 (line 10), omit "Minister administering this Act", substitute "Attorney‑General".

[referring to Attorney ‑General]

(24) Schedule 1, item 54, page 11 (lines 22 and 23), omit the item, substitute:

54 Subsection 28(2)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(2) The Attorney‑General may grant to a person appointed as Inspector‑General leave of absence, other than recreation leave, on such terms and conditions as to remuneration or otherwise as the Attorney‑General determines.

(25) Schedule 1, item 56, page 12 (lines 3 and 4), omit the item, substitute:

56 Subparagraph 30(2 ) ( b ) ( i)

Omit "Prime Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General".

(26) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 16), after item 59, insert:

59A Subsection 35(2)

Omit "to the Minister".

(27) Schedule 1, item 61, page 12 (lines 21 and 22), omit the item, substitute:

61 Subsections 35(4) and (5)

Omit "Prime Minister" (wherever occurring), substitute "Attorney‑General".

(28) Page 15 (after line 9), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2—Other amendments

Part 1—Amendments commencing on Proclamation

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975

1 Subsection 3(1)

Insert:

ASIO Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.

2 Subsection 38A(1)

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "ASIO Minister".

3 Subsection 38A(2)

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "ASIO Minister".

4 Subsection 39A(8)

Omit "Minister administering the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (the responsible Minister)", substitute "ASIO Minister".

5 Paragraph 39A(9 ) ( b)

Omit "responsible Minister", substitute "ASIO Minister".

6 Subsection 39B(2) (heading)

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "ASIO Minister".

7 Subsection 39B(2)

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "ASIO Minister".

8 Paragraphs 39B(5 ) ( a), (5 ) ( b) and (6 ) ( b)

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "ASIO Minister".

9 Subsections 39B(9) and (10)

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "ASIO Minister".

10 Subsection 43AAA(4)

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "ASIO Minister".

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977

11 Paragraphs (daa) and (daaa) of Schedule 1

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister administering the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979".

12 Paragraph (dab) of Schedule 1

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979".

A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999

13 Subsection 3(1) (definition of Attorney ‑General ' s Secretary )

Repeal the definition.

14 Subsection 3(1)

Insert:

Home Affairs Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.

15 Subsection 3(1) (definition of Immigration Minister )

Repeal the definition.

16 Section 57GJ (heading)

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister".

17 Subsection 57GJ(1)

Omit "Attorney‑General" (first occurring), substitute "Home Affairs Minister".

18 Paragraph 57GJ(1 ) ( a)

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister".

19 Paragraph 57GJ(1 ) ( b)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(b) the individual's visa is cancelled under section 116 or 128 of the Migration Act 1958 because of an assessment by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation that the individual is directly or indirectly a risk to security (within the meaning of section 4 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979); or

(c) the individual's visa is cancelled under section 134B of the Migration Act 1958 (emergency cancellation on security grounds) and the cancellation has not been revoked because of subsection 134C(3) of that Act; or

(d) the individual's visa is cancelled under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 and there is an assessment by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation that the individual is directly or indirectly a risk to security (within the meaning of section 4 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979).

20 Subsection 57GJ(3)

Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Home Affairs Minister".

21 Subsection 57GJ(4)

Omit "Attorney‑General's Secretary", substitute "Secretary of the Department administered by the Home Affairs Minister".

22 Paragraph 57GJ(4 ) ( b)

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister".

23 Section 57GK

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister".

24 Section 57GL

Repeal the section.

25 Sections 57GNA and 57GO

Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Home Affairs Minister".

Anti ‑Money Laundering and Counter ‑Terrorism Financing Act 2006

26 Section 5 (definition of Attorney ‑General ' s Department )

Omit "the Attorney‑General", substitute "the Attorney‑General".

Note: This item re‑inserts the reference to the Attorney‑General: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

AusCheck Act 2007

27 Subsection 4(1) (definition of Transport Secretary )

Repeal the definition.

28 Subparagraph 8(3 ) ( a ) ( ii)

Omit "to the Transport Secretary", substitute "under regulations made under the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 or the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003".

29 Subparagraph 8(3 ) ( a ) ( iv)

Omit "to the Transport Secretary", substitute "under regulations made under either of those Acts".

30 Subparagraph 8(3 ) ( a ) ( v)

Omit "by an issuing body, the Secretary or the Transport Secretary", substitute "made under regulations made under either of those Acts, or a decision made under the AusCheck scheme,".

31 Subsection 10(3)

Omit "or the Transport Secretary".

32 Subparagraph 10(3 ) ( a ) ( ii)

Omit "to the Transport Secretary", substitute "under regulations made under the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 or the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003".

33 Subparagraph 10(3 ) ( a ) ( iv)

Omit "to the Transport Secretary", substitute "under regulations made under either of those Acts".

34 Subparagraph 10(3 ) ( a ) ( v)

Omit "by an issuing body, the Secretary or the Transport Secretary", substitute "made under regulations made under either of those Acts, or a decision made under the AusCheck scheme,".

35 Paragraph 11(3 ) ( b)

Repeal the paragraph.

36 Paragraph 11(3 ) ( c)

Omit "subsection (4);", substitute "subsection (4).".

37 Paragraph 11(3 ) ( d)

Repeal the paragraph.

38 Subparagraph 14(2 ) ( b ) ( ia)

Omit "the Secretary or the Transport Secretary", substitute "a Secretary of a Department".

Australian Citizenship Act 2007

39 Subsection 6A(1)

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister".

Australian Crime Commission Act 2002

40 Paragraphs 12(1 ) ( a) and (1A ) ( a)

Omit "Attorney‑General of the Commonwealth", substitute "Attorney‑General of the Commonwealth".

Note: This item re‑inserts the references to the Attorney‑General of the Commonwealth: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

41 Section 16

Omit "Attorney‑General of the Commonwealth", substitute "Attorney‑General of the Commonwealth".

Note: This item re‑inserts the reference to the Attorney‑General of the Commonwealth: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

Australian Federal Police Act 1979

42 Subsection 43(1)

Omit "Minister", substitute "Minister administering the Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Act 1989".

43 Subsection 43(3)

Omit "Minister" (first occurring), substitute "Minister administering the Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Act 1989".

44 Subsection 43(3)

Omit "the Minister" (second occurring), substitute "that Minister".

45 Paragraph 44(b)

Omit "Minister", substitute "Minister administering the Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Act 1989".

46 Section 44

Omit "the Minister" (second occurring), substitute "that Minister".

47 Subsection 47B(3)

Omit "the Minister" (wherever occurring), substitute "the Minister administering the Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Act 1989".

48 Paragraph 49P(1 ) ( c)

Omit "Minister", substitute "Minister administering the Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Act 1989".

49 Subparagraph 51(3 ) ( b ) ( iii)

Omit "Minister", substitute "Minister administering the Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Act 1989".

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979

50 After subsection 8A(1)

Insert:

(1A) Before making guidelines under subsection (1), the Minister must consult with the Attorney‑General.

51 After subsection 8A(2)

Insert:

(2A) Before varying or replacing guidelines given under subsection (2), the Minister must consult with the Attorney‑General.

52 Subsection 18C(3)

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Attorney‑General".

Note: This item re‑inserts the reference to the Attorney‑General: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

53 Subsection 18C(3)

Omit "Attorney‑General's", substitute "Attorney‑General's".

Note: This item re‑inserts the reference to the Attorney‑General: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

54 Subsection 18C(4)

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Attorney‑General".

Note: This item re‑inserts the reference to the Attorney‑General: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

55 Paragraph 27A(1 ) ( a)

Omit "Minister (the issuing Minister) requesting the issuing Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General requesting the Attorney‑General".

56 Paragraph 27A(1 ) ( b)

Omit "issuing Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General".

57 Subsection 27A(1)

Omit "issuing Minister may", substitute "Attorney‑General may".

58 Subsection 27A(1)

Omit "issuing Minister considers", substitute "Attorney‑General considers".

59 Subsection 27A(3)

Omit "issuing Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General".

60 Paragraph 27B(a)

Omit "Minister (the authorising Minister) requesting the authorising Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General requesting the Attorney‑General".

61 Paragraph 27B(b)

Omit "authorising Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General".

62 Section 27B

Omit "authorising Minister may, by writing signed by the authorising Minister,", substitute "Attorney‑General may, by writing signed by the Attorney‑General,".

63 Sections 38 and 38A

Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Minister".

64 Section 65 (heading)

Omit "Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General".

65 Subsection 65(1)

Omit "Minister" (first occurring), substitute "Attorney‑General".

66 Subsection 65(1)

Omit "Minister" (second and third occurring), substitute "Attorney‑General and the Minister".

67 Subsection 65(1A)

Omit "Minister" (first occurring), substitute "Attorney‑General".

68 Subsection 65(1A)

Omit "Minister" (second occurring), substitute "Attorney‑General and the Minister".

69 Subsection 65(3)

Omit "Minister" (wherever occurring), substitute "Attorney‑General".

70 Subsection 92(3)

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Attorney‑General".

Note: This item re‑inserts the reference to the Attorney‑General: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

71 Amendments of listed provisions—substituting references to Minister with references to Attorney ‑General

Aviation Transport Security Act 2004

72 Paragraph 127(1 ) ( aa)

Repeal the paragraph.

73 Subsection 127(4)

Repeal the subsection.

Crimes Act 1914

74 Subsections 3ZZAE(1) and (2)

Omit "Minister", substitute "Minister administering the Judiciary Act 1903".

75 Subsection 3ZZAF(1)

Omit "Minister", substitute "Minister administering the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the AAT Minister)".

76 Subsections 3ZZAF(2) and (3)

Omit "Minister", substitute "AAT Minister".

77 Section 9A

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister administering the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002".

78 Section 15GG (heading)

Omit "Minister", substitute "AAT Minister".

79 Subsection 15GG(1)

Omit "Minister", substitute "Minister administering the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the AAT Minister)".

80 Subsections 15GG(2) and (3)

Omit "Minister", substitute "AAT Minister".

81 Subsection 15LD(1)

Omit "Minister" (first occurring), substitute "Minister administering the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 (the LEIC Minister)".

82 Paragraph 15LD(1 ) ( g)

Omit "Minister", substitute "LEIC Minister".

83 Subsections 15LD(2) and (3)

Omit "Minister" (wherever occurring), substitute "LEIC Minister".

84 Subsection 23WJ(6) (including the note)

Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Attorney‑General".

Note: This item re‑inserts the references to the Attorney‑General: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

85 Paragraph 23WT(1 ) ( ca)

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Attorney‑General".

Note: This item re‑inserts the reference to the Attorney‑General: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

86 Paragraph 23XWU(1 ) ( d)

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Attorney‑General".

Note: This item re‑inserts the reference to the Attorney‑General: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

87 Sections 23YQA and 23YQB

Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Attorney‑General".

Note: This item re‑inserts the references to the Attorney‑General: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

88 Section 23YUK

Repeal the section.

Crimes (Aviation) Act 1991

89 Section 3 (paragraph (c) of the definition of authorised person )

Omit "Attorney‑General's Department", substitute "Department".

90 Paragraph 37(6 ) ( c)

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Attorney‑General".

Note: This item re‑inserts the reference to the Attorney‑General: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

91 Subsection 41(1)

Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Attorney‑General".

Note: This item re‑inserts the references to the Attorney‑General: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

92 Subsections 48(4), (5) and (7)

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Attorney‑General".

Note: This item re‑inserts the references to the Attorney‑General: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

Crimes (Biological Weapons) Act 1976

93 Section 13

Before "The Governor‑General", insert "(1)".

94 At the end of section 13

Add:

(2) For the purposes of the Legislation Act 2003, the Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 is the rule‑maker for regulations made:

(a) for the purposes of section 8 (offences) or 9 (forfeiture and seizure) of this Act; or

(b) for or in relation to the matter mentioned in paragraph (1) (a) of this section.

(3) Subsection (2) applies despite subsection 6(1) of the Legislation Act 2003.

Crimes (Currency) Act 1981

95 Section 30

Before "The Governor‑General", insert "(1)".

96 At the end of section 30

Add:

(2) For the purposes of the Legislation Act 2003, the Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 is the rule‑maker for regulations made for the purposes of Part II (offences) of this Act.

(3) Subsection (2) applies despite subsection 6(1) of the Legislation Act 2003.

Crimes (Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances) Act 1990

97 At the end of section 22

Add:

(3) For the purposes of the Legislation Act 2003, the Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 is the rule‑maker for regulations made for the purposes of this Act.

(4) Subsection (3) applies despite subsection 6(1) of the Legislation Act 2003.

Criminal Code Act 1995

98 Section 5

Before "The Governor‑General", insert "(1)".

99 At the end of section 5

Add:

(2) For the purposes of the Legislation Act 2003, the Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 is the rule‑maker for regulations made for the purposes of the following provisions of the Criminal Code:

(a) Division 71 (offences against United Nations and associated personnel);

(b) Division 72 (explosives and lethal devices);

(c) Division 73 (people smuggling and related offences);

(d) Part 5.1 (treason, urging violence and advocating terrorism or genocide);

(e) Part 5.2 (offences relating to espionage and similar activities);

(f) Part 5.3 (terrorism), other than Division 100 (preliminary provisions);

(g) Part 5.4 (harming Australians);

(h) Part 5.5 (foreign incursions and recruitment);

   (i) Division 270 (slavery and slavery‑like conditions);

(j) Division 271 (trafficking in persons and debt bondage);

(k) Division 272 (child sex offences outside Australia);

(l) Division 273 (offences involving child pornography material or child abuse material outside Australia);

(m) Chapter 9 (dangers to the community);

(n) Chapter 10 (national infrastructure).

(3) Subsection (2) applies despite subsection 6(1) of the Legislation Act 2003.

100 Section 72.28 of the Criminal Code

Repeal the section, substitute:

72.28 Delegation by AFP Minister

(1) The AFP Minister may, by writing, delegate to:

(a) the Secretary of the Department administered by that Minister; or

(b) an SES employee, or an acting SES employee, in that Department, where the employee occupies or acts in a position with a classification of Senior Executive Band 3;

all or any of the AFP Minister's powers under sections 72.18, 72.19, 72.24 and 72.25.

(2) A delegate is, in the exercise of a power delegated under subsection (1), subject to the written directions of the AFP Minister.

101 Section 72.36 of the Criminal Code

Insert:

AFP Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.

102 Subsection 100.1(1) of the Criminal Code

Insert:

AFP Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.

103 Subsections 105.2(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code

Omit "Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General".

104 Subsection 105.37(4) of the Criminal Code

Omit "by the Department", substitute "by the Australian Government Security Vetting Agency or by another Commonwealth, State or Territory agency that is authorised or approved by the Commonwealth to issue security clearances".

105 Subparagraphs 105A.19(3 ) ( a ) ( iii) and (iv) of the Criminal Code

Omit "Department", substitute "Department administered by the AFP Minister".

106 Paragraph 105A.20(a) of the Criminal Code

Omit "Department", substitute "Department administered by the AFP Minister".

107 Paragraph 105A.20(b) of the Criminal Code

Omit "the Department", substitute "that Department".

108 Subsection 117.1(1) of the Criminal Code

Insert:

AFP Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.

109 Section 300.2 of the Criminal Code

Insert:

AFP Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.

110 Section 470.1 of the Criminal Code

Insert:

AFP Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.

111 Section 473.1 of the Criminal Code

Insert:

AFP Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.

112 Paragraph 474.17(2 ) ( d) of the Criminal Code

Omit "Attorney‑General's Department", substitute "Department administered by the AFP Minister".

113 Amendments of listed provisions—substituting references to Minister with references to AFP Minister

114 Amendments of listed provisions—substituting references to Attorney ‑General with references to AFP Minister

Criminology Research Act 1971

115 Paragraphs 33(4 ) ( a) and (b)

Omit "Attorney‑General of the government that the person represents", substitute "Minister of the Commonwealth, State or Territory who appointed the person".

116 Amendment of listed provisions—substituting references to Attorney ‑General with references to the Minister

Customs Act 1901

117 Subsection 208DA(1) (definition of prescribed officer )

Omit "Attorney‑General's".

118 Subsection 208DA(4)

Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Minister".

Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003

119 Paragraph 202(1 ) ( b)

Repeal the paragraph.

120 Subsection 202(4)

Repeal the subsection.

Migration Act 1958

121 Section 143 (heading)

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister".

122 Subsection 143(1)

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister".

123 Paragraph 143(1 ) ( a)

Omit "Attorney‑General's".

124 Paragraph 143(1 ) ( b)

Omit "that Department", substitute "the Department".

125 Subsections 143(2) and (4)

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister".

126 Section 144

Omit "Attorney‑General may", substitute "Minister may".

127 Subsections 145(1), 146(2) and 147(1)

Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Minister".

128 Paragraph 162(1 ) ( a)

Omit ", the Attorney‑General", substitute "—the Minister".

129 Subsection 162(2)

Omit "the certificate, the Attorney‑General or authorised official", substitute "a certificate given under section 146 or 148, an authorised official".

130 Subsection 202(3)

Omit all the words from and including "unless", substitute "unless the Tribunal confirms the assessment".

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006

131 Paragraph 604(5 ) ( a)

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979".

132 Paragraph 604(5 ) ( b)

Omit "the Attorney‑General's", substitute "that Minister's".

133 Paragraph 610(4 ) ( a)

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979".

134 Paragraph 610(4 ) ( b)

Omit "the Attorney‑General's", substitute "that Minister's".

Ombudsman Act 1976

135 Subsection 14(3)

Omit "Attorney‑General" (first occurring), substitute "Minister administering the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (the ASIO Minister)".

136 Subsection 14(3)

Omit "Attorney‑General" (second occurring), substitute "ASIO Minister".

137 Subsection 14(3)

Omit "that Minister", substitute "such a Minister".

138 Section 16

Omit "Prime Minister" (wherever occurring), substitute "Prime Minister".

Note: This item re‑inserts the references to the Prime Minister: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

139 Subsection 35B(1)

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister administering section 7 of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002".

Paid Parental Leave Act 2010

140 Section 6 (definition of Attorney ‑General ' s Secretary )

Repeal the definition.

141 Section 6

Insert:

Home Affairs Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.

142 Section 6 (definition of Immigration Minister )

Repeal the definition.

143 Subsection 200C(4)

Omit all the words after "must give", substitute "a copy of the order, and information likely to facilitate identification of the person, to the Secretary of the Department administered by the Minister administering the Migration Act 1958, for the purposes of administering that Act".

144 Section 278C (heading)

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister".

145 Subsection 278C(1)

Omit "Attorney‑General" (first occurring), substitute "Home Affairs Minister".

146 Paragraph 278C(1 ) ( a)

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister".

147 Paragraph 278C(1 ) ( b)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(b) the person's visa is cancelled under section 116 or 128 of the Migration Act 1958 because of an assessment by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation that the person is directly or indirectly a risk to security (within the meaning of section 4 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979); or

(c) the person's visa is cancelled under section 134B of the Migration Act 1958 (emergency cancellation on security grounds) and the cancellation has not been revoked because of subsection 134C(3) of that Act; or

(d) the person's visa is cancelled under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 and there is an assessment by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation that the person is directly or indirectly a risk to security (within the meaning of section 4 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979).

148 Subsection 278C(2)

Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Home Affairs Minister".

149 Subsection 278C(3)

Omit "Attorney‑General's Secretary", substitute "Secretary of the Department administered by the Home Affairs Minister".

150 Paragraph 278C(3 ) ( b)

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister".

151 Section 278D

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister".

152 Section 278E

Repeal the section.

153 Sections 278GA and 278H

Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Home Affairs Minister".

Proceeds of Crime Act 1987

154 Subsection 4(1) (paragraphs (a) and (c) of the definition of equitable sharing program )

Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister".

155 Subsection 4(1) (definition of prescribed officer )

Omit "the Attorney‑General's Department", substitute "the Department".

156 Subsection 20(3A)

Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Minister".

157 Subsection 23(2)