Senator NASH (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Health) (12:32): The government is fast tracking the full implementation of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program, building on the successes it has achieved to date, thereby providing access for all Australians aged 50 to 74 years to biennial screening by 2020 and continuing to enhance our broader preventive health efforts by supporting the establishment of 10 new headspace sites, which will provide community based services for young people aged 12 to 25 years who have or are at risk of mental illness. We need to make sure that our investment in the health system, wherever it can, encourages Australians to develop and maintain healthy behaviours. This is one reason we are developing a national diabetes strategy, supported by an advisory group which will draw on the expertise of clinicians and researchers who focus on this disease.

Diabetes and its complications places an incredible demand on the health system, particularly type 2 diabetes, a disease which can be prevented and managed through physical exercise and diet. The experts are reviewing current practices and will develop advice to ensure that all parts of the health system are able to respond effectively to those who are diagnosed, as well as increasing our efforts to prevent the disease. The government will also continue working with the primary care and other sectors to promote health behaviours and to support better health outcomes. We are establishing primary health networks, which will seek to embed preventive behaviours in the community. It is important that our general practitioners are seen as a critical part of the preventive health picture.

If we can achieve better outcomes in the health of high-risk and high-need complex chronic disease patients, we will help prevent increased demand on specialists and hospitals. As well as the role for the Australian government, the states and territories have responsibility for providing services and they need to ensure these services include preventive approaches.

Cross-government action on preventive health will not be jeopardised as a result of abolishing ANPHA. There are established and transparent mechanisms available to progress national prevention issues. Similarly, closing ANPHA does not preclude the Commonwealth from working with stakeholders, seeking expert advice or forming productive working relationships with other bodies. Such collaboration is not dependent on having a separately established and funded Commonwealth agency.

Through our continuing programs, this government recognises an ongoing role for the Commonwealth in promoting healthier lifestyles in the context of individuals taking responsibility for their lives. These efforts need to be integrated across the health system with a focus on those who are most at risk and those who can gain most from changing behaviours that lead to poor health outcomes. That said, Australian life expectancy continues to rise, supported by our health system and by quality research and evidence-based interventions. We do not need a separate agency looking at only part of the prevention picture. There is no evidence to show that this is the most effective way to promote responsibility for healthy lifestyles among Australians and address population health priorities.

This government will continue to focus on activities where there is evidence that the government can act to make a difference. This government will continue to work to ensure that preventive health underlines all our health efforts, that preventive health becomes embedded in the health system and in the attitudes and behaviours of all Australians.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the Australian National Preventive Health Agency (Abolition) Bill 2014 be agreed to.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (12:42): The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 is the third national security bill the government has introduced into this parliament, though it is essentially ancillary to the second—the foreign fighters bill—which passed the parliament with Labor's support on 29 October 2014. This bill, introduced into the parliament the same day, 29 October, contains one measure recommended by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in its report on the foreign fighters bill but which was not able to be legislated in that bill due to a need to consult with states and territories.

The bill also contains three new measures: further changes to the control order scheme, streamlining the process for the AFP to apply to the Attorney-General for consent to seek a control order from an issuing court and expanding control orders to apply to persons involved in supporting or facilitating terrorist activities; also, provision for emergency ministerial authorisation for the activities of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, or ASIS, the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation, or AGO, and the Australian Signals Directorate, or ASD; and, lastly, provision for cooperation between ASIS and the Australian Defence Force on military operations. The three new measures were developed in response to operational needs identified by Australia's anti-terror agencies after the foreign fighters bill was introduced into parliament. The government sought to include these measures in the bill without first revealing these measures to the Australian people and without the full scrutiny of the intelligence committee.

It has consistently been Labor's position that all national security legislation should be rigorously examined to make sure that it not only will be effective in protecting our nation but also does not unduly infringe on important rights and freedoms. In keeping with that position, Labor insisted to the government that these new measures be introduced in a separate bill and subjected to public scrutiny and full intelligence committee inquiry. Accordingly, this bill was introduced into the Senate on 29 October and was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The PJCIS sought submissions, held brief hearings and tabled its report on 20 November. I would like to thank members of the committee for their diligence in producing their report promptly. The committee's inquiry into the bill followed on almost immediately from the two successive inquiries the committee held concerning the first two of the government's national security bills—both of which were very substantial pieces of legislation. I thank the members of the committee and the committee secretariat for their tirelessness in dealing with this third inquiry. I am also grateful to those community organisations and members of the public who participated in the inquiry, many of whom also participated in the two preceding inquiries.

The intelligence committee recommended in its report that the bill be passed, and it made 15 substantive recommendations. Significant recommendations include, first, amendment of the bill to require the AFP to provide the Attorney-General with summary of facts when seeking consent to apply to the court for an interim control order, including any facts indicating why it should not be made; second, retention of the requirement for the AFP to explain to the issuing court each condition in a draft control order. The bill as introduced would only require the AFP to justify the control order as a whole. The third significant recommendation is to shorten periods for notification of the relevant minister where agencies issue emergency authorisations. The fourth recommendation is that the government urgently appoint, again, a new independent national security legislation monitor and task it with reviewing whether recommendations for safeguards on the control order regime recommended by the 2013 COAG review should be implemented; and the fifth recommendation is for a range of oversight measures. Labor has asked the government to implement those recommendations and the government has agreed to do so; accordingly, Labor will support the bill.

The recommendations will improve the accountability and transparency of decision making by national security agencies. The recommendations will also ensure that control order applications are closely and appropriately scrutinised. It is worth remembering that in the amendments to the foreign fighters bill that Labor insisted on, we ensured that the entire control order regime would sunset two years after the next federal election. As I said here when speaking to that bill, control orders are extraordinary and unprecedented measures which were introduced in the mid-2000s in response to the September 11 attacks and the Bali and London bombings. In recognition of their extraordinary nature, the Howard government subjected them to a 10-year sunset period. The Abbott government sought to extend this for a further 10 years. Labor was not satisfied that the case had been made for such a lengthy extension. It is not acceptable that these extraordinary powers could operate for two decades without being properly reviewed by the parliament. Labor will always resource our agencies appropriately to deal with the genuine threats that Australia faces, but we will not abandon scrutiny of agency powers properly considered special or emergency measures.

Importantly, Labor has ensured that these sunset provisions are accompanied by mandatory reviews ahead of time. As amended, the foreign fighters bill provides for statutory review of the control orders regime, among other powers, by both the intelligence committee and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. The sunset date and the statutory review which will precede it will ensure that the entirety of the control order regime is again brought before the parliament for its close consideration. That review will necessarily examine the operation of the amendments to the control order regime effected by the current bill.

In its latest report, the intelligence committee has added to this review process by recommending that the government expressly task the monitor with reviewing whether recommendations for safeguards on the control order regime recommended by the 2013 COAG review should be implemented. I note that the office of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor was created by Labor to review, on an ongoing basis, the operation, effectiveness and implications of Australia's counterterrorism and national security legislation. In carrying out this important oversight role, the monitor assists in maintaining public confidence in our national security agencies.   The monitor's role is particularly relevant in the context of the recent changes to and expansion of our counterterrorism and national security laws, as the monitor is also required to consider whether those laws contain appropriate safeguards for protecting the rights of individuals and that they remain necessary and proportionate to any security threats that our nation faces.

I also note the recommendation by the intelligence committee in its latest report that the government appoint a new monitor to fill that important office, which has been vacant since the expiry of Mr Bret Walker SC's term some seven months ago—which is incredible in itself, given that this is the third significant piece of legislation in this space. Senators may have a sense of deja vu about this recommendation. The intelligence committee recommended in its report on the first bill, the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1)—tabled on 17 September—that the government appoint a new monitor 'as soon as practicable'. The intelligence committee repeated itself in its report on the foreign fighters bill, tabled on 17 October, saying the position of monitor should be 'urgently' filled. In its report on the current bill, the committee repeated this recommendation, saying that it was a matter of 'absolute urgency'. Labor is pleased that the government has finally heeded this recommendation and will very shortly announce the appointment of a new monitor. We look forward to the new monitor's contribution at a time of great change in our national security laws.

As I have said here when speaking on the previous two bills, and as the shadow Attorney-General, the member for Isaacs, has said in the other place, Labor approaches national security legislation as a responsible opposition should. Having carefully considered the bill put forward by the government, and having ensured a number of significant improvements to that bill through the intelligence committee inquiry process, Labor has agreed to support the measures being proposed to bolster our national security laws. Here, as previously, Labor has insisted on proper scrutiny. Here, as previously, Labor has worked constructively as an opposition to assist the government in getting the bill right. Here, as previously, Labor is willing to support changes to our national security laws that are necessary and, I stress, proportionate to meet the changing threats that our nation faces. On that basis, I indicate that Labor will be supporting the legislation.

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (12:52): I rise to oppose the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014. This is yet another draconian piece of legislation to add to what is becoming an impressive collection of rushed, poorly crafted national security legislation pushed through this place by the government and, despite all their rhetorical protestations, supported by the opposition. This bill is another highly disturbing example of excessive law-making professed to be about protecting Australians from harm but in fact intruding upon the rights and freedoms of Australians at home and, this time, when overseas as well. It has been introduced without regard to concerns raised by legal and other experts, without scrutiny by a multiparty Senate committee and in the absence of an Independent National Security Legislation Monitor.

Next week I will be introducing a private senator's bill to amend the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act 2010 to preserve and enhance this crucial oversight and scrutiny role, which has been left vacant since April this year. Among other things, my bill will aim to: ensure that the monitor can review proposed as well as existing national security legislation; make it clear that the monitor is required to consider whether Australia's national security legislation is a proportionate response to the national security threat faced; ensure that the position of monitor is a full-time position, cannot be left vacant and is supported by appropriate staff; and ensure that all reports of the monitor are tabled in parliament and that the government is required to respond to the recommendations of the monitor within six months of tabling, something which has not occurred in the past.

The crucial role of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, the INSLM, was outlined by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the PJCIS, in their recent report into this bill. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security recommended that the government finalised the appointment of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor as a matter of absolute urgency. This is not only a position the government has left vacant for a good part of the last six months; it is also a position the government wanted to abolish. I know this government finds it difficult to take advice from the experts, but its attempts to avoid scrutiny of such important legislation, which will affect the rights and freedoms of Australians, are completely unacceptable.

That the position of Independent National Security Legislation Monitor has remained vacant since April is, I believe, no coincidence. This vacancy has coincided with some of the most significant changes to our national security legislation in my lifetime, and the government has wanted to avoid scrutiny on each of the national security bills at every step of the way. I have stood in this place late at night, when the press gallery is empty and the nightly news has gone to air, and witnessed the government push draconian national security legislation through this place without enough time for sufficient scrutiny, without adequate time for senators to know exactly what they are voting for or against, without a full appreciation of the unintended consequences for our freedom of association, of speech, of movement, of the press—and I could continue.

The Australian Greens understand that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies must have the powers to find and prosecute those who engage in terrorist acts or other such hostile activities, but we do not accept that the rights and freedoms of Australians need to be significantly eroded in order to achieve this goal. It is crucial we are able to protect innocent Australians while prosecuting the guilty, and it is crucial we have independent oversight of national security legislation to ensure it is a reasonable, necessary and proportionate response to the national security threat we are facing.

I will now go to the specific content of this bill. I will go first of all to schedule 1 of the bill, which makes control orders easier to get and for a broad range of purposes. The expansion of the control order regime is one of the most serious aspects of this bill. In its 14th report, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights considered the extension and amendment of control orders which was effected by the last national security legislation this Senate considered, the so-called foreign fighters bill. The committee observed that the control order regime involves very significant limitations on human rights in Australia. The committee noted that the control order regime is a coercive regime which engages a significant number of human rights, including the right to security of the person and the right to be free from arbitrary detention, the right to a fair trial, the right to freedom of expression, the right to freedom of movement, the right to privacy, the right to protection of the family, the rights to equality and nondiscrimination and the right to work.

Essentially, the control order regime allows the imposition of controls on an individual, limiting their freedom, without needing to follow the normal and long-established criminal law process of arrest, charge, prosecution and determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the basis of evidence. A control order can impose a number of obligations, prohibitions and restrictions on the person who is the subject of the order, and these include: where a person must stay and when; preventing a person from going to certain places; preventing a person from talking to or associating with certain people; preventing a person from leaving Australia; requiring a person to wear a tracking device; prohibiting access to or use of specific types of telecommunications, including the internet and telephones; preventing a person from possessing or using specified articles and substances; and preventing a person from carrying out specific activities, including in respect of their work or occupation—their livelihood. Control orders can be applied to people who have not been charged with a criminal offence and even to people suspected of harbouring a criminal intent.

These orders have been consistently criticised by domestic and international human rights bodies and described by independent experts as in urgent need of reform. They have been used only twice in Australia and are supposed to be directed at serious criminal activity when a threat is eminent and decisive urgent action is needed to prevent serious harm—serious criminal activity, like participation in terrorism, terrorist training or hostile activities. They exist alongside an ever-expanding arsenal of counter-terrorism that allows police and ASIO to go undercover with immunity to put people and their friends and family under extensive and intrusive surveillance, to arrest, question and detain people without charge, to stop and search people and places, and to charge people on the basis of who they know or what they say. This is Australia in 2014.

This bill would make it possible to get a control order if a police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that it would prevent the provision of support for, or facilitation of, a terrorist act or hostile activity overseas. This bill would also dilute the existing safeguard that requires the court to consider whether each obligation, prohibition or restriction contained in the control order is proportionate and necessary and will make other procedural changes to make control orders easier to get. Some submission makers to the PJCIS inquiry suggested that this would mean that control orders would be sought against controversial street preachers or others who spread extremist interpretations of Islam and expressed their support for violent acts overseas or to prevent engagement in online media, online banking, community or religious meetings, or religious activities, such as attendance at a mosque. The Australian Greens consider this to be a completely unnecessary extension of an already faulty regime that has been consistently criticised by human rights bodies and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor.

The Australian Greens oppose the changes proposed in schedule 1, particularly those proposing additional grounds for which control orders can be obtained and the provisions in schedule 1 which would remove the requirement for an Australian Federal Police officer applying for a control order and the issuing court to consider the necessity and proportionality of each of the obligations, prohibitions or restrictions on a person. The PJCIS also shared some of these concerns and has made a number of recommendations for amendments to schedule 1. If contrary to this position schedule 1 of the bill is pursued, the Australian Greens have proposed sensible amendments to at least ameliorate the harsher aspects of this schedule.

The Australian Greens' amendments limit the use of control orders to require a clearer, stronger nexus between the activity of the person and the commission of a specific criminal offence. The amendments do this by requiring the police officer who is applying for the interim or confirmed control order to demonstrate that he or she suspects on reasonable grounds that the person has in fact provided support for or otherwise facilitated a terrorist act or a hostile activity in a foreign country. As drafted, the bill allows control orders to be sought if reasonably suspected to be necessary to prevent the provision of support for, or the facilitation of, the engagement in a hostile activity in a foreign country and preventing the provision of support for, or the facilitation of, a terrorist act. This is a very slippery slope. It is absolutely unacceptable that a control order would be sought purely as a preventative measure, which is what this bill is seeking to do, when there is no clear evidence that the person subject to the order has actually formed a criminal intent or taken any specific action towards the commission of a criminal offence. Our amendments would ensure that control orders are available only in the most serious of circumstances where the authorities have real evidence to demonstrate that they are necessary to protect the public from a terrorist act or to prevent engagement in a hostile activity overseas.

As currently drafted, the proposed changes in schedule 1 of the bill would significantly expand the scope of the control order regime from one of last resort, which was its original intent, to one available at the early stages of a foreign incursion or terrorist investigation. Expanding the scope of the control order regime goes against expert advice, including that of the former Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, Bret Walker SC, who found that control orders were 'not effective, not appropriate and not necessary' and recommended that they be scrapped. Yet here we are with the government once again ignoring the expert advice and ploughing ahead with an expansion of this faulty regime without making the case for these changes.

As the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law wrote in their submission to the PJCIS, the bill's explanatory memorandum justifies the expansion of the control order regime by pointing to the threat posed by Islamic State and the return of foreign fighters to Australia. Their submission goes on to say that this assertion is 'not sufficient to justify the significant expansion of measures that have already been discredited by major inquiries'. The Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law submission states:

In the absence of some significant evidence presented by the government as to why these changes are necessary to prevent terrorism, we believe that the Committee should recommend against their enactment.

Law enforcement and intelligence agencies in Australia already have a broad range of powers at their disposal. They have extensive surveillance powers, can go undercover with immunity and can already arrest, question and detain people without charge. Why they must continue to significantly expand the flawed control order regime is beyond me, and beyond many others it seems. One of the reasons the INSLM recommended the control order regime be scrapped was that such significant restrictions should not be placed on an individual's liberty in Australia in the absence of a finding of criminal guilt.

I will turn now to schedule 2 of the bill, which relates to ASIS and defence related assistance. Schedule 2 of this bill makes changes to the Intelligence Services Act to make it clear that Australia's overseas spy agency, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, which I will refer to as ASIS, can help the ADF, the Australian Defence Force, in support of military operations. It also dilutes procedural safeguards relating to the grant of emergency ministerial authorisations. These changes greatly extend the functions of ASIS that are already extremely broad in scope and that already exempt ASIS from criminal and civil liability, without providing any new limits or safeguards to ensure that ASIS does not engage in activities that cause harm or result in the breach of fundamental rights. The Gilbert + Tobin Centre and some other commentators have expressed concern that the changes proposed in schedule 2 may lead to ASIS being involved in the targeted killings of Australian citizens fighting in Iraq and Syria. They say that such killings raise significant and difficult questions of domestic policy, human rights and international law. Having a government being able to kill its own citizens in foreign countries, and in the absence of greater parliamentary and public debate about these matters—this should not be facilitated by this bill.

There is also strong concern among legal experts that the Intelligence Services Act does not contain a general prohibition on torture. Other concerns with schedule 2 relate to the changes to the authorisation process. The proposed changes in schedule 2 are of concern as they would enable a minister to authorise an ASIS operation to apply to a class of Australian persons rather than requiring individuals of concern to be identified. This then subjects whole groups of Australians who are overseas to surveillance by ASIS without requiring the authorisation process to actually identify a particular individual. This would vastly extend an already invasive surveillance regime to cover people who have not been identified as raising any particular risk or concern to the safety of others or to the security of Australia, provided they are within the class of persons specified by the minister—doing it in a 'job lot', if you like.

The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has flagged that this may pose difficulties for effective oversight. The proposed changes in schedule 2 also expand the circumstances in which 'emergency authorisations' can be sought—meaning that authorisations can be made orally by the minister, or even by ASIS itself in certain circumstances. Many of these features of schedule 2 have been criticised sharply by those who have made submissions to the PJCIS, and have led to the PJCIS making numerous recommendations for reform of this bill—reforms that would begin to restore some fairness to this process. It remains to be seen if these reforms are adopted, but, even if they are adopted, the government has failed to make the case for why such extensive powers are needed, and why adequate safeguards and limitations have not been introduced.

The Australian Greens consider this to be a completely unnecessary extension of an already overly expansive regime. The Australian Greens oppose the changes proposed in schedule 2. If these features of schedule 2 are pursued, the Australian Greens have proposed an amendment that would specifically prohibit ASIS from engaging in any conduct that would amount to torture in accordance with Australia's obligations under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Torture has absolutely no place in Australia. Under section 14 of the Intelligence Services Act, ASIS officers are not subject to any civil or criminal liability for any act done outside Australia if the act is done in the proper performance of a function of the agency. This has given rise to concerns that, if this bill extends the scope of ASIS's activities to include the provision of assistance to the ADF, this could lead to the targeted killings of Australian citizens fighting in Iraq and Syria, or to other acts constituting serious human rights incursions—including torture. There are currently no specific protections in the Intelligence Services Act to guard against the use of torture by ASIS in its overseas activities. There is, however, limited protection against direct use of violence or weapons by an ASIS officer. The Australian Greens' amendments would make it crystal clear that ASIS officers must not be involved in any conduct that would be contrary to Australia's obligations under the convention against torture.

In closing, I want to reiterate the serious nature of the bill which we are debating. We are talking about expanding a flawed control order regime. No longer would control orders be used only as a last resort. This bill risks control orders being sought during the early stages of a foreign incursion or terrorist investigation. We are debating a bill that may lead to ASIS being involved in the targeted killings of Australian citizens. Once again, the Australian Greens condemn acts of terrorism in the strongest possible terms. But we do not support this government's insistence on eroding the rights and freedoms of Australian people. The Australian Greens will be opposing this bill.

Senator MOORE (Queensland) (13:12): Senator Wright has just said that this is a very serious piece of legislation, and indeed it is. The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 is the third serious piece of legislation about national security which this chamber has considered in recent months. I know that Senator Collins talked about the process that we followed in terms of the bills following each other, but, just to put it on the record, this particular bill actually looks at taking a step further from the recent bill on foreign fighters. It has three new measures: changes to the control order scheme, which we have heard discussed by previous speakers; streamlining the process for the AFP to apply to the Attorney-General for consent to seek a control order from an issuing court; and expanding control orders to apply to persons involved in supporting or facilitating terrorist activities. Secondly, there is the provision for emergency ministerial authorisation for the activities of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, or ASIS, the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation, or AGO, and the Australian Signals Directorate, or ASD; and the provision for cooperation between ASIS and the Australian Defence Force on military operations.

These three new measures were developed in response to operational needs and to needs which were identified by the agencies after the foreign fighters bill was introduced into parliament. That reflects the evolving nature of this area, particularly as we are facing a situation which I believe everyone agrees is a real threat—an international threat and also a local threat—to our security with the rise of the insurgencies in Syria. The important thing for Labor is to ensure there is a very strong balance between the need for intervention and for powers to be given to our security agencies, and the need to ensure the Australian community has trust and confidence in the system and does not lose the rights we have always valued in our community—the kinds of rights Senator Wright was discussing; both our human rights for our own citizens and our international obligations. It is a balancing process—looking at the threat, assessing the threat and responding to the threat and, in those circumstances, ensuring we have the strongest possible scrutiny of our legislation and our operations in our system at home. That is what we expect of our security systems, and it is what I believe the community expects.

I believe there has been some shaking of that trust over a period of time. I believe a lack of trust has been building in the community because of the speed at which some of the changes have been introduced and also because of the feeling that there has not been appropriate scrutiny of the changes proposed. We have looked at making very significant changes to our processes. In the current system, we ensure this kind of change is appropriately scrutinised through the processes that are already inbuilt. Core to that is the operation of the joint parliamentary committee, the PJCIS. This joint committee must have the power, the time and the resources to effectively scrutinise the major changes the government has brought forward. On each occasion when the three bills came to this place there was an extraordinary rush in terms of the time the committee had to consider the submissions put forward and, just as importantly, in terms of the time allowed for the community to engage in the process. We know that across our community we have a number of organisations—highly-regarded organisations and groups that do specific research in these intellectual areas—and community members who feel very strongly about national security. They feel very strongly about any threats to individual or community freedoms. They must have the opportunity, in the system we set up, not only to engage in the process but to engage effectively— which means time to research, to prepare information and to see the content of the information that is being brought forward. In each case, over the last few months, there has been a great rush. We have been deeply impressed by the way that range of organisations has taken the time and effort to engage and bring forward their concerns to ensure the government and the parliament hear what the issues are. In short, they have ensured there is scrutiny.

People can put forward submissions; they can come before a parliamentary committee and engage in questioning and raising concerns that can then build on the legislation and make sure it is better. We know that works. We know with the previous bill, which is known as the foreign fighters bill, the joint committee brought forward 34 recommendations through that process. Those recommendations were accepted by the government and passed into law. That made the bill stronger; it made the bill more responsive and it gave the community an opportunity to feel as though their concerns were listened to and, in all cases, responded to. In some cases the concerns were accepted and brought into the legislation.

The joint parliamentary committee has made 15 recommendations on the bill currently before us. It is my understanding those recommendations have been taken up by the government. Certainly, that was what was in the media this morning, so why would we doubt it! Senator Wright went through, in some detail, some of the issues raised by the people who came forward with their expertise to look at the bills and highlight where they thought the bills could be improved and where they thought issues around individual freedoms were threatened.

One of the areas that was scrutinised in the previous process was the feeling of individuals and groups in the community that they were in some way being targeted exclusively by the legislation. Those concerns need to be heard. They need to have a full response from the parliament and the various agencies to ensure there will be neither undue targeting nor an intrusion on the things we hold dear in our community.

We also have the work of the joint parliamentary human rights committee; I know Senator Wright referred to that in her contribution. This is another element of scrutiny in our parliamentary process: looking at what bills are being brought forward across the board and—particularly in the case of the national security bills—looking very clearly at the human rights aspects of these bills. I know the human rights report will bring forward concerns that have been identified; that is part of the ongoing debate.

There will be times when a decision will need to be made by the parliament and the government. They will listen to the concerns raised but they may determine that the level of the threat or the danger is such that decisions need to be made and explained on that basis. As a relatively new member of that human rights committee, that has happened with a number of these issues. The department has put forward the reasons for making decisions that could and do impact on human rights issues. We talk about freedom, and freedom of access, and the right not to be imprisoned or detained. Those things are part of the series of legislation but parliament has decided—at least with the foreign fighters bill—that the level of danger is so great there have to be decisions made. The important thing is that the scrutiny occurs—that there is appropriate scrutiny in our process and that the wider Australian community knows that not only does that scrutiny exist but that it operates effectively. We know, and I know Senator Collins talked about this, the role of the independent National Security Legislation Monitor. We believe that a decision on that position is going to be made very soon. Certainly, the Attorney-General, in response to a recent question in this place, said that there was no need to ask the question, because the government is going to respond. I have always thought it was a good process to ask questions and then get an answer.

In terms of the response, my understanding is that that position will be filled. That has been a regular recommendation of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security and also of individuals in this place and in the wider community. It is absolutely critical that the role of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor be filled at all times—in particular when the government is moving significant pieces of legislation that impact on security issues. At this most critical time, it is important that that position is filled and that the wider community knows that that position is filled, so that those who are interested in these issues are able to see how it operates.

I do not believe that every person in the Australian community is completely engrossed in our national security system, but I know that some people are. I know that it is a really critical element of their knowledge and their experience that they want to know what is going on. In the evidence that has come before the joint parliamentary committee over the last three exercises of looking at legislation, the demand that this position be filled has been consistent—that we have, in our system, the operation of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor looking at legislation; that we also have the important work of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and her staff, which is a group that operates within the system to ensure that there is effective scrutiny; and, on top of that, because it is part of our job, that we need to have both the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security and the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights working effectively. When we have those processes in place, there should be a confidence that, when legislation is brought forward that is looking at security issues in our community, there will be an effective and robust process of scrutiny that must ensure questioning and an expectation that there will be a full explanation from the department and the government on the rationale for the changes and also the operation of the changes and, most importantly, how the changes will be monitored into the future. That would be an expected process for this place.

There have been concerns that, over the last couple of months, those processes have not been as robust as they should be. By now, having three bills in a certain period of time, we should be about getting it right with how it works. When a request comes forward for a change because of an identified danger, then the process of the legislation goes through each of those elements. Public scrutiny in the operation of the parliamentary committee is absolutely critical. We know from our experience over the last three bills that there will be a response. There will be quite detailed responses and there will be a willingness to be engaged. Through this process with the bill before us today, we have 15 substantive recommendations. Those recommendations have made changes to what the original legislation proposed. For me, one of the most important ones is the fact that there needs to be justification for action. It should be a given that, when significant action is taken, there should be a clear justification for that action. One of the amendments that has been put forward is to require that the Australian Federal Police provide the Attorney-General with a summary of facts when seeking consent to apply to the court for an interim control order. This should and must include any facts indicating why it should not be made. When the AFP, as provided for in this legislation, is seeking to have an interim control order, there must be, when putting forward their case to the Attorney-General, a full explanation of why and also why not—what would be the impact of asking for that particular control order change? That would mean that there would be a record of the reasons for the decision that was made.

We know that, over the last few months, the issues of control orders have been very significant in the community—the operation of control orders, to whom they will apply, what will be the arguments for them and the decision-making process for that have all been subject to considerable concern in the wider community. In fact, in the earlier bill, one of the issues was whether there would be a sunset clause into the future so that the whole use of control orders would be considered again—so we would not automatically continue to have this process in our system, because there are questions about whether this is the most effective way. The important thing is that these issues were raised and that there has been, through this piece of legislation, a response to ensure that there will be justification for such a significant decision from the Attorney-General.

There is also the retention of the requirement for the AFP to explain to the issuing court each condition in a draft control order. The bill as introduced would only require the AFP to justify the control order as a whole. This is a detail of justification, making sure that there is understanding of why each element of the draft control order is justified. This makes sure that a need is identified so that the decision is made with full information. The shortening of periods for notification of the relevant minister when agencies issue emergency authorisation makes sure that there is not an unlimited-time process in place so that, once a decision is made, it would go on into the future without any termination.

One of the issues about which I have been most concerned over the previous months is a feeling that has been put forward in the community that the Labor Party has just waved this legislation through and that we have rolled over and said, 'Okay, government, you can have anything you want. We are not concerned about looking at how these bills will operate.' That is not right. It is very important that the community understands that, through the processes in an effective system of scrutiny, there have been major questions raised about the proposed legislation that has been put forward by the government. There has been an extraordinary effort made by all members of the joint parliamentary committees of intelligence and security, and of human rights. This legislation has not just been waved through. There has been real scrutiny.

Many people will feel that the limitations in the legislation have not been strong enough, and that is their right. They will view the legislation as being too strong. They will believe that there is too strong a focus, and that there is a limitation to rights. Labor believes that there has been a balance struck between acknowledgement of the danger and threat—and that changes have to be made—and ensuring that there is effective legislation and effective review so that people in Australia can feel safe and know that their rights are protected.

That is a tough balance, but we believe that that balance has been reached. That balance can only be maintained if the effective scrutiny in the system is retained and if there is appropriate resourcing to those scrutiny mechanisms. Should that be in anyway diluted, that incredibly important element of community trust—and, indeed, parliamentary trust—will be lost. If that is lost this legislation will lose its impact.

When the government moves legislation that affects the community's freedoms and rights as well as their security, if the community does not believe that the government has their best interests at heart we will have lost, because we will not have maintained the community feeling which is so important to Australians. Our clear message to the government is that we will support appropriate security legislation. We acknowledge that Australians are becoming much more aware of the dangers that are arising out of the militancy and the horrors of what is happening in the Middle East. However, we must ensure that at all times our parliament does its job to effectively scrutinise anything that comes before us. And that will be the message that we will continue to take through what will be an ongoing process.

This process must continue to look at the threats and ensure that we respond appropriately in Australia. But that must mean that the community is involved, as well, because this legislation does not belong to government; this legislation must be supported and owned by the wider community.

Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (13:32): I rise to speak against the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No 1) 2014. This is the third—and narrowest in scope—tranche of the recent national security legislation, and I am sick of it.

I am sick of this government, with opposition collusion, chipping away at our rights and freedoms—rights and freedoms that took hundreds of years to build up, but that are rapidly being brought undone. Once again—as with the National Security Bill and the Foreign Fighters Bill—at no point has the passage of this bill into law been justified evidentially. In speeches, submissions, and articles on the previous two bills I asked for credible examples of harmful activities that only the passage of such laws would discourage. Once again, I make the same request. And once again I expect to hear nothing—because, I am sure, there is none.

On a first pass, part of this bill is actually useful—the proposed enactment of a statutory basis for ASIS to provide assistance to the ADF in support of overseas military operations. I understand that support of this nature has previously been provided only in an ad hoc way, without clear parliamentary authority. Government on the fly is never a good thing, and if this were all there was to the bill, I would support it. However, that useful change to existing law has been bolted onto an expansion of the control orders regime—something, in and of itself, obnoxious because it confounds the basic principle that people should not be deprived of their liberty without a finding of guilt.

This bill will make it much easier to obtain a control order, because it allows two extra grounds on which one can be issued. One, that making the order would substantially assist in preventing the provision of support for or the facilitation of a terrorist act; or, two, that the person has provided support for or otherwise facilitated the engagement in a hostile activity in a foreign country.

In my submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security—which I remind the government and opposition the crossbench is not represented on—I pointed out that these provisions are vaguely drafted and are not even linked to existing definitions in the Criminal Code. I believe they could be used—and I see no evidence to the contrary—to constrain speech: in particular, speech that falls short of incitement but endorses one or another form of extreme Islam. As I have already said, I believe that the main target is Hizb ut-Tahrir, and I am sure there will be further legislation if this law fails to silence them.

To their credit, the PJCIS, in its advisory report, agreed with me on this point, and recommended that the terms 'supports' and 'facilitates' be based on language in the existing Criminal Code. Yet, while the government says it accepts the recommendations of the PJCIS 'in principle', its response on this point is to make a change in the explanatory memorandum to this effect. This is ridiculous. A court will only look at the explanatory memorandum when the legislation is unclear. If there is potential for a need to look to the EM to understand what is intended, why not put it in the bill in the first place? I suspect the government is hoping the court will come up with its own interpretation of these words, which will be more broad than that in the Criminal Code.

Quite apart from the PJCIS's concerns, I wish to repeat my point that this bill catches all sorts of legitimate objections to foreign tyranny. Historically, and more recently, Australians have involved themselves in conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. I personally have no objection to anyone who advocates the violent overthrow of the regimes in Pyongyang or Harare. I suspect many people in this place would agree with me on the last two at least. As it stands, it is simply impossible to know in advance which foreign conflicts will attract censure and which will not.

Finally, control orders are civil orders—the grounds for one need only be made out on the balance of probabilities—yet to breach one attracts a penalty of five years' imprisonment. The idea of sending someone to jail for five years for something he says, on a balance of probabilities, should not be entertained in a liberal democracy.

The second 'bolt on' I find concerning is what amounts to a derogation from the convention of ministerial responsibility. As the law currently stands, emergency authorisations under the Intelligence Services Act must be made personally by a relevant minister—any one of the PM, the defence minister, the foreign minister or the Attorney-General. The authorisations, understandably, are very serious. They concern military operations against Australians who have taken up arms in countries like Iraq for terrorist organisations like Daesh. Leading lawyers—Professor George Williams of the University of New South Wales among them—point out that this amounts to a targeted killing regime. In principle, I have no particular difficulty with this, unlike some people. There comes a point where utterly demented hatred of Australia has to be recognised for what it is. However, the authorisation regime also has to be recognised for what it is and the buck really should stop with an elected minister, not an unelected civil servant.

When it comes to emergency ministerial authorisations for ASIO, ASIS, ASD and the AGO, this bill proposes that the relevant minister may have his emergency authorisation power exercised on his behalf by the head of one of those agencies in the event that he cannot be contacted or is unavailable. The traditional common law caution regarding authorisations where significant individual rights and liberties—in this case life, movement, association—would be affected is in play. To my mind, a regime where at least one relevant minister is always contactable should be instituted. Surely this is not beyond the organisational skills of the government. I am not alone in this view. Both the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties and the Muslim Legal Network made similar observations in their submissions to the PJCIS.

The loosening of definitions in the previous two tranches of national security legislation when it comes to advocating terrorism, hostile acts in a foreign country and facilitation has been carried over into this bill. There is likely to be a serious chilling effect on speech, such that it may become even more difficult to establish who or what is a genuine threat to Australia and its people. The expanded grounds for the issuance of control orders not only abrogate the presumption of innocence but also introduce unwanted vagueness into the law, inviting misuse by future governments. Finally, where an emergency authorisation concerns a matter of life and death, as it almost certainly will, then the minister should exercise that authority personally. The convention of ministerial responsibility demands nothing less. I condemn this bill.

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council, Minister for Arts and Attorney-General) (13:41): I begin by thanking the opposition for its bipartisan support for the important reforms in schedule 2 to the bill and for its recognition of the need to ensure that our intelligence agencies are supported by a legislative framework to act with agility in circumstances of urgency. The government will move amendments in the committee stage to implement the seven recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security which require legislative amendment.

I will deal with two matters raised in the contribution, on behalf the Greens, of Senator Wright. I am afraid, Senator Wright, that once again you misunderstand the purpose and effect of this bill. It has been suggested that the proposed amendments to confer an explicit capacity on ASIS to assist the ADF in support of military operations may enable ASIS to engage in or facilitate targeted killings of Australian persons overseas. That is, as the PJCIS recognises, a baseless assertion. The amendments will not confer any new functions upon ASIS. ASIS can and does support the ADF in its military operations already. The amendments will simply make this explicit. ASIS remains subject to a statutory prohibition on the use of violence, so given that ASIS is subject to a statutory prohibition on the use of violence, and given that these amendments do nothing to change this other than to put on a certain legislative basis what is the existing practice, it is a little hysterical, if I may say so, to suggest that the amendments will enable ASIS to kill people.

In addition, in making use of intelligence provided by ASIS, the ADF is bound by its rules of engagement, which are developed in consultation with the Office of International Law in my department to ensure that compliance with Australia's human rights and other international obligations is observed. So, Senator Wright, the ADF functions ethically, consistently with the laws of war, consistently with its rules of engagement and consistently with Australia's international obligations. ASIS has a prohibition on the use of violence. There is no possible way the assertion that you have made is supported or, indeed, consistent with or made possible by these amendments.

Senator Wright, you have also falsely suggested that the absence of an express prohibition on torture may mean that intelligence services and agencies, including ASIS, can engage in such conduct. As the PJCIS acknowledged in its report on the bill, there is no legal merit in that suggestion. No Australian intelligence agency—none—can or does or is at liberty to engage in torture. Were it to do so, if would be breaking the law. Nothing in this bill changes that position.

The statutory functions of our agencies cannot allow for torture. Intelligence agencies are expressly limited by sections 9, 12 and 14 of the Intelligence Services Act to activities that are necessary for the proper performance of their functions. Given that there is a prohibition on the use of violence by ASIS, there can be no sensible suggestion that conduct constituting torture could be necessary for the proper performance of its functions. Indeed, the use of violence is explicitly prohibited by our law. I know, Senator Wright, that you make these contributions in good faith, but I am afraid that in both respects you are completely wrong.

In closing the debate, I thank in particular the members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, who made an important contribution to this discussion that resulted in recommendations the government has been glad to accept—through the amendments that have now been circulated. As I said in relation to the previous tranche of this national security legislation, this is a very good example of our system of parliamentary democracy working well. The executive government develops legislation as a result of a parliamentary inquiry. It then submits that legislation to the scrutiny of a parliamentary committee. The parliamentary committee examines the legislation and comes up with its own ideas, as we would expect. The government considers those ideas and, where it thinks they are good ideas, it adopts them. What this illustrates is that we do not think that all wisdom resides in the executive government. We want the parliament, in particular through its committees, to be our interlocutors. They have been in this area and the outcome commands bipartisan support and the support of all sensible commentators in this field. It is only criticised, really, by those who take what is, if I may say so, a rather paranoid fantasist view of the national security apparatus of our country. As a result of the process I have described, we arrive at a sensible position with appropriate powers governed by appropriate safeguards.

While I have access to sensitive and classified intelligence reports that I am unable to share publicly, media reporting over recent days points to an increasingly concerning picture—and not just in Syria and Iraq. According to media reporting, as many as 48 Nigerian fishermen were ruthlessly slaughtered over the weekend by members of the Nigerian Islamist group Boko Haram. As I have said on numerous occasions, the first priority of government is to ensure the safety and security of its citizens. It is instructive that the two sides of politics that, from time to time, take on the great and burdensome responsibility of government in this country—the coalition and the Australian Labor Party—both contributed to the development of and support these measures.

Currently, Australia's domestic counter-terrorism legislation concentrates on those intent on committing acts of terrorism. Advice from law enforcement is that some Australians have taken on the roles of supporting and facilitating Australians either to engage in terrorism offences in Australia or to travel to conflict zones and return to Australia with capabilities acquired from fighting or training with proscribed terrorist groups. The threat to Australians posed by these individuals is as great as the risk posed by those engaging in terrorist acts or foreign incursions. This bill expands the preventive purposes of the control order regime to counter this threat so as to allow the Australian Federal Police to seek control orders in relation to a broader range of individuals of security concern—namely, those who support or facilitate terrorists and foreign fighters. There is an innate logic in saying that, if the control order regime ought to be available to deal with foreign fighters and those who engage in actual terrorism, then it should certainly also embrace those who facilitate those very acts.

The bill also amends the Intelligence Services Act—the act that deals with the national security agencies other than ASIO—to streamline procedural authorisation requirements. This will ensure that our agencies are as agile as they need to be in the contemporary security environment, particularly in emergencies.

Following my introduction of the bill on 29 October, I referred it, as I have said before, to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which is chaired by my colleague Mr Tehan, the member for Wannon. The committee made 16 recommendations in its advisory report, which was tabled on 20 November, involving mostly minor changes to enhance operational and administrative safeguards and oversight mechanisms. Most importantly, the final recommendation of the committee was that the bill should be passed. As I announced on 24 November—yesterday—the government accepts or accepts in principle all of those recommendations, and I will move amendments to the bill to implement 11 of them. It is important to bear in mind that not all the recommendations of the committee were recommendations for changes to the bill as initially published. In addition, when the bill is debated in the House, the government will table a revised explanatory memorandum that includes additional information further elaborating on the justification for various measures in the bill—in line with the committee's recommendation.

The bill will make targeted amendments to the Criminal Code to further enhance the control order regime, as I have said, so as to ensure that it extends to the facilitation offence. Placing control orders on individuals engaged in facilitation of terrorism will help the AFP disrupt the activities of enablers, thereby preventing acts of terrorism in Australia and hostile activities overseas. The bill also implements recommendation 8 of the PJCIS inquiry into a previous bill, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill, by authorising the committee to review any proposed legislative instrument listing an alias or removing a former name of a terrorist organisation.

The PJCIS supported the need for amendments in the bill that, as I said a moment ago, would expand the control order regime to facilitators. These included: keeping the existing requirement for the AFP to provide an explanation to the issuing court of each of the requested restrictions, obligations and prohibitions; requiring the AFP to provide the Attorney with additional information when seeking his consent to request an issuing court to make an interim control order, including information about why the order should or should not be made; increasing the period of time before the AFP must seek the Attorney-General's consent after obtaining an urgent interim control order from four to eight hours, rather than 12 hours as initially proposed by the bill.

The government agrees with PJCIS recommendation 2 that the language of the bill should be consistent with the existing language of the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code uses some terms without defining them. To ensure greater explanation around the terms 'supports' and 'facilitates', the government will amend the explanatory memorandum to provide additional information about those terms, consistent with the language of the Criminal Code. The bill will make targeted amendments to the Intelligence Services Act to improve the ability of ASIS to provide timely support to the ADF in support of military operations and to streamline the statutory authorisation process to enable Intelligence Services Act agencies to collect intelligence on Australian persons overseas, in emergency circumstances—the Intelligence Services Act agencies being ASIS, the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation and the Australian Signals Directorate.

The need for the proposed amendments to the Intelligence Services Act has arisen in the context of the ADF's operations in Iraq against ISIL and the number of Australians who are fighting with or alongside terrorist organisations such as ISIL and participating in the hostilities in that theatre. As I noted in my second reading speech on the bill, these circumstances mean that there is a heightened need for urgent intelligence collection on such persons. While agencies have a legislative basis under the Intelligence Services Act on which to undertake all relevant intelligence and collection activities, the agencies have identified some procedural requirements which are not as streamlined as they need to be in circumstances of urgency or emergency. The bill proposes amendments, therefore, to clarify and streamline—without reducing safeguards—those procedural arrangements that enable Intelligence Services Act agencies to collect intelligence on Australian persons overseas, to enable them to operate effectively in circumstances of the kind I have outlined.

Importantly, the amendments do not expand the functions of the Intelligence Services Act agencies or confer any new powers that would enable agencies to engage in activities that they would currently be prohibited from undertaking. Rather, the bill is directed to improving procedural arrangements to ensure our agencies are as agile as they need to be in the contemporary security environment. The inclusion of an explicit function for ASIS concerning assistance to the ADF appropriately enhances the transparency of this role, rather than conferring a new function.

The PJCIS, in its advisory report, supported the need for all proposed amendments to address these issues. The PJCIS made nine recommendations in relation to the proposed reforms to the Intelligence Services Act, including recommendations for seven largely technical amendments to schedule 2 of the bill, primarily to improve ministerial control over relevant decisions made by agency heads in circumstances of emergency and to strengthen the oversight of the IGIS and the parliament over such decisions. As announced earlier today, the government has supported all of those recommendations. As I said before, I will move those amendments in the committee stage.

Of the PJCIS's two remaining recommendations on the Intelligence Services Act, one is directed to amending the explanatory memorandum of the bill to further explain the limitations on the ability of the foreign minister to authorise ASIS to undertake activities in relation to classes of Australian persons for the purpose of providing assistance to the ADF in support of a military operation. The government intends to include this detail in the revised explanatory memorandum.

I note that my department and relevant intelligence agencies gave extensive evidence to the committee on these matters, and the committee concluded that it was satisfied by the existing limitations provided for in the Intelligence Services Act and the bills introduced. Those submissions are on the public record. The committee also directed one of its recommendations to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. It recommended that the IGIS pay close attention to one aspect of the amendments—that is, concerning the issuance of emergency authorisations via non-written means. While recognising that this is a matter for the IGIS, consistent with the statutory independence of that office, the government supports the principle that oral emergency ministerial authorisations should be subject to appropriate independent oversight by the IGIS. The bill has been prepared on the assumption that such rigorous oversight would, in any event, occur as a matter of practice. I note that a number of honourable senators have expressed their support for the implementation of the committee's recommendations. The government looks forward to working constructively with other senators when the amendments to the bill are considered in committee.

I conclude by once again thanking the opposition and those colleagues representing the overwhelming majority opinion of this chamber who recognise the need for these important reforms. The government is undertaking comprehensive reform of our national security to ensure that our counter-terrorism legislative framework is as effective as it can be and is targeted to the current national security threat. The bill will have a direct impact on the ability of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to support our defence force in particular and to protect the Australian public. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Senator LAZARUS (Queensland—Leader of the Palmer United Party in the Senate) (15:36): I seek leave to move a motion to enable the Queensland Government Administration Committee to meet during the sitting of the Senate today.

Leave not granted.

Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:37): At the request of Senator Ludwig, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development (Senator Johnston) and the Minister representing the Treasurer (Senator Cormann), no later than 3.30 pm on Wednesday, 26 November 2014, any documents held in relation to:

(a) the Moreton Bay rail link project (the project);

(b) funding sought by the Queensland Government for this project; and

(c) the assessment and/or priority of this project.

Question agreed to.

Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:38): At the request of Senator Ludwig, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development (Senator Johnston) and the Minister representing the Treasurer (Senator Cormann), no later than 3.30 pm on Wednesday, 26 November 2014, any documents held in relation to:

(a) the Ipswich Motorway, Darra to Rocklea, project (the project);

(b) funding sought by the Queensland Government for this project; and

(c) the assessment and/or priority of this project.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (15:38): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator FIFIELD: In relation to motions 520 and 521, the coalition has committed more than $10.3 billion to improving Queensland's transport network through its Infrastructure Investment Program. The government has been transparent in providing information to the public on infrastructure priorities and details of specific projects. Schedules to the national partnership agreements recently agreed with the states and territories provide details of government commitments and conditions associated with funding of individual projects. Full details of the schedules of the national partnership agreements are available on the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development website.

One thing that Labor and the Greens have in common, we know, is a desire to hold up infrastructure delivery, which results in economic loss. This is in play today. We have a senator essentially asking a department to put on hold their responsibility to deliver our historic infrastructure investment, to divert resources to comply with not one but two unreasonable requests. A large diversion of resources would be required to comply with these requests. It would, in fact, not be possible to comply within the specified time frame.

Question agreed to.

Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:39): On behalf of Senator McLucas, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health, no later than 3.30 pm on Tuesday, 1 December 2014, copies of the following National Mental Health Commission documents in relation to its Mental Health review, as referred to during the estimates hearing of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on Wednesday, 22 October 2014:

(a) the preliminary report completed during February 2014; and

(b) the interim report completed in June 2014.

Question agreed to.

Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:40): At the request of Senators Carr, Muir, Xenophon, Madigan and Rice, I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day of November 2015:

The future of Australia’s automotive industry, with particular reference to:

(a) maintaining the capacity for Australia to engage in advanced manufacturing, by ensuring skills and industrial capabilities that have been sustained by the automotive industry are not lost;

(b) reducing Australia’s dependency on commodity exports by diversifying the country’s economic base, noting the importance of advanced manufacturing, including the automotive industry, in this diversification;

(c) the role of all sectors of the automotive industry, including, but not limited to, motor vehicle production, component making, after market manufacturing, engineering, servicing, retail motor trades, other forms of sales support, and the training of apprentices, in supporting an advanced broad based economy;

(d) the special difficulties faced by component makers in the transition to global supply chains and to other forms of manufacturing, especially as a result of the closure announcements made by the motor vehicle producers;

(e) new technologies influencing the automotive industry, both in Australia and internationally, especially new and developing forms of propulsion, such as hydrogen, electric engines and hybrid engines;

(f) new business models for the industry, including employee share models and attracting international venture capital and private investment;

(g) the possible effects of early closure of motor vehicle producers, including risks and consequences for the industry, skills, capabilities and the broader economy, including social consequences, and what policy actions could mitigate or exacerbate these risks and consequences;

(h) the need to synthesise and consolidate the findings, recommendations and knowledge of other reviews and inquiries pertinent to the automotive industry, in order to identify key policy inconsistencies, regulatory burdens and factors for growth and investment;

(i) the importance of long term, stable employment for workers in the automotive industry, and the need for greater access to transitional training and career opportunities; and

(j) any other related matters.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (15:40): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator FIFIELD: The decisions to cease manufacturing in Australia by 2016 at Ford and by 2017 at Holden and Toyota were made entirely by the motor vehicle producers themselves. Both the Mitsubishi and the Ford decisions to close manufacturing operations in Australia were made under the previous Labor government. All three remaining producers have indicated that the level of government support was not the reason for their decision to cease manufacturing cars in Australia. The federal government has continuously worked with industry to make the transition for workers across the sector as pain-free as possible. The Productivity Commission estimates that the automotive industry received $30 billion in government support from 1997 to 2012. There were five million vehicles manufactured in Australia; that equates to over $5,000 per vehicle of government support during this period. Despite this substantial assistance, the industry has been unable to survive in a highly competitive global environment. Australia's manufacturing industry is moving towards new opportunities in new industries.

Question agreed to.

Senator WATERS (Queensland) (15:42): I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, no later than noon on 27 November 2014, any documents, including any attachments, containing any request to the Queensland Government for further information, including any request pursuant to section 95A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, in relation to the proposal for onshore disposal of dredge spoil at Abbot Point pursuant to EPBC referrals 2014/7355 and 2014/7356.

Question agreed to.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (16:55): On behalf of the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Senator Smith, I present the 16th report of the 44th Parliament of the committee on the examination of legislation in accordance with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Human Services) (16:55): I present two government responses to committee reports as listed at item 13 on today's order of business. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to incorporate the documents in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows—

Australian Government response to the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee report:

Teaching and learning—maximising our investment in Australian schools

September 2014

Australian Government response to Teaching and learning - maximising our investment in Australian schools

The Australian Government welcomes the report by the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee, Teaching and Learning - maximising our investment in Australian schools. The contributions made by individuals and organisations to the Inquiry through evidence and submissions are acknowledged.

The Government believes the first step to achieving a quality education, which is so critical for the future of young Australians and our nation, is to lift the quality, professionalism and status of the teaching profession.

For this reason, the Government has established a Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group to provide advice on how teacher education programmes could be improved to better prepare new teachers with the practical skills needed for the classroom. The Advisory Group will identify those components regarded as world's best practice in teacher education, with a particular focus on:

pedagogical approaches—the ways teachers teach their students, and the different ways teaching and learning can occur

subject content—how well teachers understand the content of the subjects they are teaching

professional experience—the opportunity for pre-service teachers to put theory into practice through quality in-school learning experiences.

While the Government is committed to improving teacher quality, we also respect the role of state and territory governments and non-government school authorities in relation to the provision of school education in Australia.

It is appropriate, therefore, that many of the Committee's recommendations are for consideration by all governments via the Council of Australian Governments' Education Council (formerly the Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood).

In support of these recommendations, the Government will refer the Committee's report to the Chair of the Education Council for consideration.

The Government thanks the Committee, and all contributors to the Inquiry, for their efforts in developing this report.

Detailed response to recommendations

The Australian Government has considered the 23 recommendations made in the Senate Committee's report and provides the following responses.

Recommendation 1

3.17 The committee recommends that the COAG Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood, and the Commonwealth Government, provide teachers with training on how to use and interpret evaluative data.

The Australian Government notes the Committee ' s recommendation and will refer the report to its Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group and the COAG Education Council for consideration.

As the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers are implemented, the Government expects all teachers will have the ability to assess, provide feedback and report on student learning. Interpreting student data is one of the necessary skills identified in the standards, which require proficient teachers to be able to use student assessment data to analyse and evaluate student understanding of subject/content, identifying interventions and modifying teaching practice.

The provision of in-service professional development and training for teachers remains the responsibility of state and territory governments and non-government school employers.

The Australian Government has established a Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group to provide advice on how teacher education programmes could be improved to better prepare new teachers with the practical skills needed for the classroom.

Recommendation 2

3.39 The committee recommends that the COAG Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood continue to monitor the effectiveness of the Close the Gap program and identify further measures to improve outcomes for Indigenous students, particularly for Indigenous students in very remote areas.

The Australian Government notes the Committee ' s recommendation and will refer the report to the COAG Education Council for consideration.

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan 2010–2014 (the Action Plan), endorsed by COAG in 2011, outlines how governments will work together to achieve the Closing the Gap targets in early childhood and school education.

The Australian Government and state, territory and non-government education authorities have been working closely together to progress actions under the Action Plan.

Education Ministers report annually on progress under the Action Plan and reports are published on the COAG Education Council website.

On 2 May 2014, COAG agreed the new five-year target of Closing the Gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous school attendance. COAG agreed that a joint report on progress in improving Indigenous students ' school attendance be provided to COAG in early 2015, including an assessment of the effectiveness of Commonwealth, State and Territory strategies.

Recommendation 3

3.63 The committee recommends that the COAG Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood Development and the Catholic and Independent school sectors work to ensure continued investment in programs with proven effectiveness that assist parents and guardians to support the education of their child, beginning in early childhood.

The Australian Government notes the Committee's recommendation and will refer the report to the COAG Education Council for consideration.

The Australian Government recognises that learning starts at home, with parents being the first and most important influence on a child's learning. Strengthening and valuing parental engagement in education is the foundation of the Government's reform agenda for schooling.

The Australian Government has committed more than $100 million to support parental engagement in vulnerable communities through the Home Interaction Program for Parents and Youngsters. The Home Interaction Program for Parents and Youngsters is currently being expanded from 50 sites across Australia into 50 new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander focussed communities—with the first 25 communities commencing delivery in 2014 and community selection for the next 25 Indigenous focussed communities now underway.

Recommendation 4

3.74 The committee recommends that the COAG Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood, and the Catholic and Independent school sectors, urgently work to identify measures to close the gap between educational outcomes for rural and remote students and metropolitan students. Funding measures may be required to ensure that each student is given every opportunity to thrive and reach their full potential.

The Australian Government notes the Committee ' s recommendation and will refer the report to the COAG Education Council for consideration.

From 1 January 2014, Australian Government funding for all schools has been determined under the Australian Education Act 2013 . Under the Act funding includes a base payment for each student plus a number of loadings that address disadvantage including for students in regional and remote areas.

Recommendation 5

3.75 The committee recommends that the COAG Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood, and the Catholic and Independent school sectors review the current incentives arrangements for hard-to-staff positions in metropolitan, regional, remote and rural schools, to ensure that these are appropriate.

The Australian Government notes the Committee ' s recommendation and will refer the report to the COAG Education Council for consideration.

The employment and remuneration of teachers is the responsibility of state and territory governments and non-government school employers.

Recommendation 6

3.94 The committee recommends that the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership ensure that university teaching programs provide appropriate practical and theoretical training to pre-service teachers in effective behavioural management.

The Australian Government notes the committee ' s recommendation.

The Australian Government has established a Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group to provide advice on how teacher education programmes could be improved to better prepare new teachers with the practical skills needed for the classroom.

Recommendation 7

3.95 The committee recommends that the COAG Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood, and the Catholic and Independent school sectors, consider initiatives to better support teachers and principals effectively manage behaviour in Australian schools.

The Australian Government notes the committee ' s recommendation and will refer the report to the COAG Education Council for consideration.

The Australian Government has established a Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group to provide advice on how teacher education programmes could be improved to better prepare new teachers with the practical skills needed for the classroom.

The provision of in-service professional development and training for teachers is the responsibility of state and territory governments and non-government school employers.

Recommendation 8

3.103 The committee recommends that the COAG Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood work with the Catholic and Independent School sectors to further develop programs to ensure that parents and guardians have the highest expectations for each child, regardless of socio economic status.

The Australian Government notes the Committee ' s recommendation and will refer the report to the COAG Education Council for consideration.

The Australian Government recognises that learning starts at home, with parents being the first and most important influence on a child ' s attitudes and values toward school and learning.

Strengthening and valuing parental engagement in education is the foundation of the Government ' s reform agenda for schooling. This includes moving beyond traditional practices of parent involvement to encompass the attitudes and behaviours that have been shown to help students succeed.

Recommendation 9

3.113 The committee recommends that Commonwealth Government work with state and territory governments and the Catholic and Independent school sectors to ensure that adequate funding for support is provided to all students with a disability, to ensure that each student with a disability is given every opportunity to thrive and reach their potential in a safe and appropriate environment.

The Australian Government supports the committee ' s recommendation.

The Australian Government is committed to better support for school students with disability and learning difficulties. This includes:

the commencement in 2014 of a funding loading for school students with disability that applies to eligible students with disability no matter where they live or the type of school they attend

the $300 million More Support for Students with Disability initiative extended into 2014 to provide additional support for teachers and schools.

The Government is also committed to continuing to refine the funding loading based on levels of student need from the Nationally Consistent Collection of Data on School Students with Disability (NCCD). Work is occurring in close collaboration with states and territories and the Catholic and Independent school sectors.

Recommendation 10

4.69 The committee recommends that the COAG Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood conduct research into whether public schools participating in school autonomy programs have improved student results.

The Australian Government notes the Committee ' s recommendation and will refer the report to the COAG Education Council for consideration.

The Australian Government is working with states and territories to support a transition to more autonomous and independent models of schooling through its Independent Public Schools initiative.

Recommendations 11 and 12

4.7 The committee recommends that the COAG Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood and the Australian Council of Deans of Education consider the research conducted by Incept Labs and the conclusion that multiple methods should be used to select entrants to teaching programs. These methods may include: academic ability; psychometric testing; behavioural based interviews; role-plays; teaching practice.

4.71 The committee recommends that the COAG Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood and the Australian Council of Deans of Education work to ensure that adequate funding is directed to schools to provide quality mentoring and support programs for pre-service teachers during practicum.

The Australian Government notes the Committee ' s recommendation and will refer the report to the COAG Education Council for consideration.

The Australian Government will work to improve admission standards for initial teacher education programmes by establishing best-practice guidelines to encourage universities to base admission standards not just on academic achievement, but also on the personal qualities that make good teachers.

The Australian Government has also established a Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group to provide advice on how teacher education programmes could be improved to better prepare new teachers with the practical skills needed for the classroom. Professional experience (practicum) is one of the three focus areas of the work of the group.

Recommendation 13

4.71 The committee recommends that the COAG Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood work to ensure that demand for quality teachers is high and consider:

restricting the number of places available to pre-service teachers for practical training;

capping the number of graduates who can register as teachers (any cap imposed should be reviewed each year and reflect the expected demand for teachers in particular disciplines); and

introducing a registration exam to be used in conjunction with the current registration standards to assess graduate suitability.

The Australian Government notes the Committee ' s recommendation and will refer the report to the COAG Education Council for consideration.

The Australian Government will work to improve admission standards for initial teacher education programmes by establishing best-practice guidelines to encourage universities to base admission standards not just on academic achievement, but also on the personal qualities that make good teachers.

Recommendation 14 and 15

4.72 The committee recommends that the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency conduct an audit of literacy teaching programs at education faculties in universities to establish whether graduating primary school teachers have an appropriate level of literacy and are equipped to teach the English language. This may indicate a need to moderate student assessment across faculties.

4.73 The committee recommends that the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, in consultation with the Australian Mathematic Sciences Institute, conduct an audit of mathematics teaching programs at education faculties in universities to establish whether graduating primary school teachers are equipped to teach mathematics and numeracy to students. This may indicate a need to moderate student assessment across faculties.

The Australian Government notes the committee ' s recommendation.

The Australian Government has established a Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group to provide advice on how teacher education programmes could be improved to better prepare new teachers with the practical skills needed for the classroom. This work includes a focus on pedagogical approaches and knowledge of subject content to be taught.

Recommendation 16

4.74 The committee recommends that the Australian Council of Deans of Education liaises with the relevant Deans of Sciences and Mathematics to ensure that students in those disciplines receive timely and accurate advice about the pre-requisites required to become secondary mathematics and/or science teachers.

The Australian Government notes the committee ' s recommendation.

The Australian Government ' s Enhancing the Training of Mathematics and Science Teachers Programme is providing $12 million, over three calendar years 2014 to 2016, for collaborative university-led projects to drive a major improvement in the quality of pre-service training for mathematics and science teachers. Five multi-institution projects supported by a formative evaluation commenced in 2013. The projects bring together faculties of mathematics and science and faculties of education to collaborate on new pre-service teacher course design and delivery.

Recommendation 17

5.22 The committee recommends that state and territory governments and the Catholic and Independent school sectors consider rewarding Highly Accomplished and Lead teachers with meaningful remuneration and an improved salary structure under the new national certification process (consistent with initiatives already undertaken in some jurisdictions).

The Australian Government notes the committee ' s recommendation.

The employment and remuneration of teachers is the responsibility of state and territory governments and non-government school employers.

Recommendation 18

5.65 The committee recommends that the COAG Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood commission research into the reasons why teachers are leaving the profession.

The Australian Government notes the committee ' s recommendation and will refer the report to the COAG Education Council for consideration.

The employment of teachers is the responsibility of state and territory governments and non-government school employers.

Recommendation 19

5.66 The committee recommends the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, in consultation with the COAG Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood, develop guidelines on how best to support first year teachers.

The Australian Government notes the committee ' s recommendation.

The Australian Government has established a Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group to provide advice on how teacher education programmes could be improved to better prepare new teachers with the practical skills needed for the classroom.

The provision of in-service professional development and training for teachers is the responsibility of state and territory governments and non-government school employers.

Recommendations 20 and 21

5.107 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth, state and territory governments, and the Catholic and Independent school sectors consider ways to support in-house professional learning and development (including mentoring), with an associated reduction in teaching loads.

5.108 The committee recommends that the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations investigates the potential use of online tools for delivery of professional learning for teachers.

The Australian Government notes the committee ' s recommendation.

The provision of in-service professional development and training for teachers is the responsibility of state and territory governments and non-government school employers.

Recommendation 22

5.109 The committee recommends that the state and territory governments consider creating pathways (for example scholarships) for teachers teaching ' out of field ' in mathematics and science to become qualified in these disciplines. The Commonwealth Government should also consider increasing the number of postgraduate Commonwealth Supported Places in these disciplines. As an interim solution, the committee recommends that programs which assist teachers teaching ' out of field ' be expanded.

The Australian Government notes the committee ' s recommendation and notes that as part of its Terms of Reference, the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group has been asked to examine world ' s best practice to inform an evidence-based approach to teaching mathematics and science subjects.

The Government is committed to exploring alternative pathways into teaching to ensure high-quality entrants are attracted to the profession, and to respond to areas of workforce shortage, such as the need for specialised mathematics and science teachers or teachers in remote locations. The Government will continue to support the Teach for Australia programme which provides an employment-based pathway into teaching for high-calibre non-teaching graduates who may not otherwise have considered a career in teaching.

The Government announced landmark reforms to higher education in the 2014–15 Budget. The reforms will expand opportunities for students and provide additional financial support to over 80 000 students each year by 2018. Government subsidies will be extended to students studying at any registered Australian higher education provider and to students undertaking any accredited undergraduate course including higher education diplomas, advanced diplomas, associate degrees and bachelor level degrees.

The Government ' s immediate priority is to implement these reforms. The Government intends to review policy settings for funding Commonwealth supported postgraduate places in the near future.

Recommendation 23

5.110 The committee recommends that the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations commission a study in 2016 to assess the effectiveness of the initiatives being undertaken by the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership.

The Australian Government notes the committee ' s recommendation.

The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers were the first major product developed by AITSL. They were endorsed by the Ministerial Council on Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs (now the Education Council) in December 2010 for implementation from 2013.

The University of Melbourne is undertaking an evaluation of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers, planned to conclude in December 2015. The purpose of the evaluation is to determine the usefulness and effectiveness of implementation and the impact of the Standards on improving teacher quality.

Australian Government response to the Senate Reference Finance and Public Administration Committee Report:

Senate Order for Departmental and Agency

Contracts

November 2014

Senate Reference Finance and Public Administration Committee Review of the Senate Order Recommendations and Government Response

The Government is committed to ensuring that contracting undertaken by non-corporate Commonwealth entities subject to the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) is accountable and transparent. The Government recognises the role that the Senate Order on departmental and agency contracts has played to date in reinforcing transparency in Government contracting and welcomes the committee ' s report reviewing the operation of the Senate Order.

The Government strongly supports the committee ' s recommendation to trial AusTender as the means by which an entity would satisfy its reporting obligations under the Senate Order and revise supporting guidance accordingly. Meeting the obligations of the Senate Order through AusTender has the additional benefit of removing replication that exists across current reporting regimes and improves the quality and consistency of data reported. The Government also supports the committee ' s proposed name change to the procurement contracts report on AusTender.

The Government partially supports the committee ' s proposed changes to the Senate Order itself. The Government supports the reduced auditing of compliance with the Senate order. As the committee has acknowledged, non-corporate Commonwealth entities now enter fewer contracts containing confidentiality provisions and they are now less likely to incorrectly report contracts as containing confidentiality clauses. The Government also supports further technical amendments to the Standing Order by the committee. However, the Government does not support requiring Ministers to certify the accuracy of entity contract listings. Any potential benefits of this initiative are outweighed by the additional burden on entities of added assurance processes. Further, it does not support the extension of the application of the Senate Order to include corporate Commonwealth entities not currently required to meet the Senate Order. This is undesirable, given that corporate Commonwealth entities have differing responsibilities and compliance obligations, and in the majority of cases are not subject to the Commonwealth Procurement Rules.

Senate Reference Finance and Public Administration Committee Review of the Senate Order Recommendations and Government Response

Senator LINES (Western Australia) (16:56): In respect of the government response to the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee report Teaching and learning—maximising our investment in Australian schools, I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I thank the Senate for the indulgence a few minutes ago. I guess what we saw was an action learning in place on my behalf with some very experienced mentors, so I thank you for that. Looking back at it now, this is a document that the Liberals and Nationals reported in, I think, 2009, so now we have the government reporting on a document that it did whilst in opposition. But it does contain some really sensible sentiments and recommendations. It goes to the importance of supporting teachers and of their professional development, and I do not think anyone in this chamber would argue about the need for us to continue to support our teachers and, in particular, to develop their professional learning. As a teacher in my long-distant past, I certainly appreciated the support that I received when I taught in schools, and I valued the professional development that I was able to take advantage of that enhanced my everyday teaching and the learning opportunities that I then presented to children.

The report also looks at and makes recommendations around the need for continued school improvement and for tools and strategies to make sure that schools have plans in place to lift results. Schools and education do evolve. There are some key principles that stay in place, but when I look back at my own schooling and when I look at the schooling of my children and I now look at the schooling my grandchildren are receiving, while some things remain the same, that constant encouragement and development and changing of the school environment is really to be applauded. That need for school development and school improvement is critical, and it is certainly critical to have plans in place to lift results. We have the NAPLAN, which I think now is well embedded in our system. We did an inquiry on that last year and we made recommendations about the sorts of improvements that could be made to NAPLAN. I am very pleased to say that the government has picked up many of the improvements that we recommended, and we are now undertaking trials of NAPLAN going live. That is a good thing. We are looking at how we develop NAPLAN further so that children from different cultural backgrounds and different language backgrounds are also able to participate in that testing, because I certainly believe it is important for us to check where our children's learning is up to. And it is important to have a reliable test that not only teachers but also students and parents have faith in. It gives us a good picture of how our children are developing in certain areas across the curriculum. NAPLAN does not look at the whole of the child—that is one of the things critics say about it—but it nevertheless does provide a snapshot; and as long as there is bipartisan support for NAPLAN we can look to how we can continually improve it and make sure that schools are providing our children with the very best they can. That is a good thing as well.

The report also talked about the importance of early education and the need to have high expectations for every child regardless of their socioeconomic background. That is something I am very passionate about. We do not ever want to have the situation Gonski identified becoming entrenched in our system, where postcodes determine outcomes. We know there are some pretty horrific statistics in the Gonski report; one in seven 15-year-olds does not have basic literacy. As a community, and in a bipartisan way as a parliament, we really have to lift our school results to make sure that every Australian child has the very best opportunity. We have to have high expectations of all the children in our schools.

The report looked at the vital importance of encouraging more teachers to become qualified, particularly in maths, and at the need to support and mentor new teachers. I can certainly agree with that as a graduating teacher. That is how teaching development has evolved. When I left Murdoch University we did not have a mentoring scheme in place, as we do now in Western Australia, and I was left on my own. That not only did me a disservice as a young emerging teacher but it certainly was not doing the best by the children who were in my class and who I was expected to teach and reach milestones with. Mentoring new teachers is critical because it is in those first few years we can really build and develop good skills and strategies for the future. I was lucky I had some very good teachers around me who acted as natural mentors and taught me an amazing amount, giving me skills and encouragement, but that formal mentoring is critical.

These are good ideas but they are not just good ideas. They are backed up by evidence. If we get the implementation right it would have a significant impact on student achievement—there is no doubt about that. But this report must also be quite inconvenient for the Liberals and the Nationals because, since making those recommendations and coming to government, they have set out to systematically undermine the very initiatives they have themselves argued for in this report.

Labor's Gonski reforms were not just about money. They were about money driving real change in five areas: better quality teaching; higher standards; better training; support; and development. They were about better student outcomes—more individual attention for every student because, whether we like it or not, the facts are that postcodes are determining student outcomes. They do give more flexibility to principals. That was the aim of Gonski—to engage with the parents and the community. A needs based funding system is something I really hope we can achieve so every child in every school gets a great education and support through needs based funding that is applicable to them and their school. We need transparency and accountability to make sure we get results and to ensure states do not cut funding. The sorts of funding cuts we have unfortunately seen in Western Australia are going to the heart of programs that support vulnerable children and children from disadvantaged backgrounds. We have seen those sorts of cuts applied in Western Australia.

This is where the report and the reality really start to be distanced. We have seen the Abbott government break their promise to honour the Gonski agreement. We all heard those famous words—that there was a 'unity ticket' on Gonski and that it did not matter whether you voted Labor or Liberal, Gonski would be put in place. Yet we saw that those became just hollow words and broken promises. They are not commitments that have been lived up to.

The New South Wales state government was one of the early signers of Gonski. In fact, I was in the audience the night the state minister announced it. He said three short words: 'We got Gonski.' How disappointed he must be because actually they have not got Gonski. It matters for New South Wales. It is our biggest state. It has a high number of schools. But like every state it has schools that are struggling, and the Abbott government breaking that commitment on Gonski has been a bitter disappointment for New South Wales schools.

With $80 billion in cuts to schools and hospitals over the next decade, the Abbott government has driven a knife right into the heart of the kind of reforms they advocate for in the report today. We cannot fund professional development and mentoring without years 5 and 6 of the Gonski reforms. I would urge the Abbott government today to look at the report they endorsed and those fine recommendations, to realise the mistakes they have made and to live up to the commitments and the promises they gave to the Australian public.

Senator BACK (Western Australia) (17:06): I am delighted and very proud to rise to speak to the Australian government response to Teaching and Learning (maximising our investment in Australian schools). I am equally pleased to be able to record that three of the four very active members of the committee which addressed this question are here in the chamber: Senator Wright from the Greens political party and my colleagues Senator McKenzie and Senator Alex Gallacher. It was at the initiative of our group. It did not come from shadow ministerial, ministerial or any other sources; we just decided in conversation as a committee that we should look at this. This particular report was not addressed at Gonski level; it was addressed right down at the classroom level. Why can't teachers teach and what is stopping children from learning? This was developed around six pillars: the first being the reasons and causes of disadvantage for children; the second being parental involvement; the third being school autonomy; the fourth being student behaviour; the fifth being quality student-teachers; and, finally, professional learning for classroom teachers.

I am very pleased and proud to see that the government has responded in the way they have to the 23 recommendations contained within a bipartisan and unanimous report. We learned that the government has established a Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group, partially to give effect to the recommendations and to ensure that they are closely examined with a view to implementation, and that many of these recommendations will be or have been passed on to the Council of Australian Governments' Educational Council so that it can be scrutinised by a council of COAG. We understand that the report in its entirety is to be referred to the chair of the Educational Council. So it is one of those situations where, as backbenchers, you often say to yourself, 'What's the point of going through all these exercises? Why do you ask for submissions? Why do you go around the country taking evidence and writing a report with many recommendations?' and you think that there has been no action as a result of it. I am sure my colleagues in the chamber will share my appreciation of the fact that the hard work we did in this particular committee will see its way through to improved outcomes for children—improved educational outcomes and improved social outcomes.

I refer to those six pillars—the first being disadvantaged students. We are well aware of and recognise low-socioeconomic students, those with disabilities or those with Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background. But, because so many of us on the committee have a very keen rural, regional and remote bias and bent, we were able to add in students living in rural, remote and regional areas to the group of disadvantaged students. I do not think that has been recognised, but it is now pleasing to see increasingly the inclusion of students at primary, secondary and higher education in the dialogue. Some of the recommendations go to that.

The second, as Senator Lines quite correctly has addressed, is the issue associated with parents. We came to learn that parental expectations, be they high or low, are critical to the outcome for the children. If the parents have a high expectation from a very young age, children are more likely to realise it. We also had evidence that it is the number of words that children hear as young children—not necessarily words spoken to them but words they hear in conversation. The greater the range of vocabulary with which they have contact the better their literacy will be in the very early years going through to later years. These are not costly impositions or implementations; they are just recognition that children need to hear words and that parents need to be encouraged to actually, in their turn, say to their children, 'We expect you to be the best you can.' That is not socioeconomically backgrounded. It is not rural and regional. It should not be those with disabilities or those with Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background.

The third related to school autonomy, and there has been much spoken about the right of the principal to direct and interact with their community, to take on board the advice of parents and other groups and to run their schools to the best effect for their community—particularly for the children.

When it comes to behaviour, the committee thought it was a shame that, when you speak to teachers or those who have left teaching, they will tell you that it is poor behaviour that often drives them out of teaching. Acting Deputy President Whish-Wilson, the only teacher who came and presented wonderful information was from your home state of Tasmania. If I can quote from that gentleman, these were the words he said to the committee:

Well-behaved children learn a great deal better and a great deal more than poorly behaved children.

He spoke of the problems associated with trying to control a classroom and with trying to teach children, particularly if there is a bully in a classroom. It is not just removal of the bully; it is the fact that you return to a classroom of timid, scared young children who themselves are not in a position to learn. Whilst the government's response speaks to behavioural problems, I still think it is the elephant in the room that we have to address in Australian education. I look at education in Singapore, China, Finland and other places. I have spoken about this in this place before. You will notice the thing that is in common to the countries that are always put up on pedestals for being better educational outcome countries than us: the behaviour of children in the classrooms. I really do appeal to government that we make sure we address the opportunities for those who want to learn and for the teachers to teach them. Some of our recommendations go to that question.

I speak of quality teaching of graduates, and I mentioned that the government is already moving to lift the quality, professionalism and status of the teaching profession. We are training far too many young student teachers. We have a situation where too few of them know where the real opportunities lie when they graduate. We have, in many instances, less than 50 per cent of student teachers believing they are classroom ready, but, worse than that, being asked to teach away from the disciplines they undertook in their university training. Again, we directed ourselves into that area. I am very pleased to see that the government is seriously looking at this whole question with those who provide teacher training to make sure that we are identifying those best equipped, that we are making sure that they receive the best formal education and that they are receiving practica in the classrooms so that they can get a good sense of what the profession is all about, and then, having graduated, they are classroom ready. They will have the mentors that Senator Lines quite rightly suggested were not available years ago and they will be given every opportunity to teach in the field in which they are trained.

The final area to which I referred was professional learning for classroom teachers. It was mystifying to me that so many of our young teachers do not have permanency and are unlikely to get a job at the end of the teaching year because of budgets and other constraints. They are quite often put off at the end of the teaching year—about now—and will possibly be employed again at the beginning of the next year. And we also heard that when it came to professional learning, teachers—generally younger ones, who were not permanent—often did not have the opportunity to participate in professional learning or professional development programs in the schools. Surely, the group that requires that professional development is the group of younger and less experienced teachers.

We also pleaded—I am very pleased to see that, in the government's response, they have noted this—for the opportunity for mentoring by senior teachers, who can sit in the classrooms of more junior teachers. And we pleaded for the opportunity for younger, more junior teachers to sit in the classrooms of more experienced teachers so that they can genuinely interact.

There would not be a person in this place who does not agree that we have to give every opportunity to every child and every young person in this country to be the best that they can be. We all know that 'educo' the Latin root of the work 'education' means, 'I lead you out of the darkness of ignorance.' That is what the Latin term for education is. I am delighted to think the Australian government has responded to this report in such a positive way.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (17:16): I am really pleased to speak once again in this chamber to the passion that ignited my entire career until I came to this place—that is, a love of learning, a love of teaching and a love of the power of education, because it transforms the lives of all those who touch it: those who are delivering it and those who are receiving it. When it is done well it is an incredibly powerful tool for advancing our entire community.

When this report—which received a government response today—was released in May 2013, it was not a bad report. It was a report in which there was a general consensus that things needed to change in Australia to provide equitable access to education to put money where money should go, and to make sure that the principles that we espoused in the Melbourne declaration—about engaging students and giving them a fair opportunity in life—are realised in this place.

But we have to remember that the report was delivered in the context of the community understanding that the Gonski reforms were happening. The community believed that money was going to be allocated to five key areas to top up what was needed and make sure that those who were way out west—away from the cities—and those in rural and remote were considered, and Indigenous kids, kids from low socio-economic backgrounds and kids with disabilities, and young people who were coming to school with little English were considered. These were critical areas that the government—on the advice of Gonski—had considered were vital areas to respond to with funding. That is where we were going.

And we were going in that direction because of some of the evidence that is in the original report. Mr Taylor, who represented the Isolated Children's Parents Association of New South Wales declared to the committee:

We cannot keep doing the same thing and expect the gap to narrow or for the situation to improve. We have to concede that we have a crisis in educational opportunity and outcome in rural and remote areas, set ourselves targets for improvement and become accountable for making that improvement happen. That will require innovation. That will require translating successful programs for isolated students from other schools within Australia and internationally and multiplying those programs across our own schools. That will require collaboration rather than competition in our rural schooling sector.

Mr Taylor could not have been more right. And the Australian people generally agreed with that principle.

This government has revealed the depths of its deception fully this week with regard to the promise to make no cuts to the ABC and no cuts to SBS, along with no cuts to health and no cuts to education. This government has revealed itself to the Australian people, sadly, a year after it was elected. But as it went into the election, on the back of this report, it was looking not so bad. By declaring that they were on a unity ticket with Labor on Gonski funding, they effectively took schooling out of the equation when people were making the decision about how to cast their vote at the ballot. It was an act of gross deception, because since coming into government—barely weeks after arriving in government—this Abbott government walked away from anything that looked like the Gonski commitments. It was certainly not a unity ticket.

So the reality is that, while we have this amazing report, today we have finally got the government's response. Those who are listening to the proceedings of the Senate this afternoon will hear, in the government's response, how little the government are going to do. They claim that the first step in achieving quality education is to lift the quality, professionalism and status of the teaching profession. They go straight back to the old mantra. 'It's all the teachers' fault; we'll just sort out the teachers.' Do you know why they are doing that? They are doing that because they do not want to invest the money. They simply do not understand that we need to invest the money in our students, our teachers and our schools. Certainly, education of our teachers and lifting standards and professionalism is part of the answer, but it should not be the first thing that the government identifies in its response.

A couple of the critical recommendations of the report refer to exactly what I was mentioning—the funding. The report says:

The committee recommends that the COAG Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood work with the Catholic and Independent School sectors to further develop programs to ensure that parents and guardians have the highest expectations for each child, regardless of socio economic status.

And what do we have from this government? We do not have a commitment of money. We do not have an acknowledgement or an agreement; we have the weakest possible language that 'the government notes' the committee report. There is recommendation after recommendation in the original report—about going to COAG, about dealing with this on a national level, about the integration of the state and federal government systems—but the minute they got into government, this mob over here ran away. They tore up agreements left, right and centre in health and in education. They tore them up, ran away from their responsibilities to have an integrated education program for Australians across the entire country. We have got a national curriculum, but we certainly have not got a national funding model. And whatever chance we had of getting to it—and we were so close—the change of government gave that sad lot the opportunity to rip that possibility away from all of those who are attending school now. The disgrace that will live on in terms of the legacy of those opposite will be felt by those children from whom this government have walked away. They walked away from their so-called unity ticket on Gonski.

I find it hard to believe that in all of the recommendations we look through here that 'the committee notes', 'the committee notes', 'the committee notes', 'the committee notes' is pretty much the main response that this government have given: 'We notice that it's going on over there. Yep, it was a nice piece of paper.' There is only one area that I could find in the committee report—and I have looked through it—that the Australian government support. Only one thing, and that is the committee recommendation about schools for students with disability and learning difficulties. The reason they are supporting that is because we had that legislation back here in the chamber only a couple of weeks ago and we have been fighting to make sure they cannot walk away from their commitments to the disability sector. We came in here and we had to fix up a mess of legislation—which we see day after day from this incompetent government—just so that kids with disabilities and their schools could get their funding. And some of you might remember that we were in here debating about how Aboriginal children who are in remote communities and who are going to go to boarding school needed that funding to come through too. The Senate delivered one vital thing, and that is the only thing in this response, in the time I have had to read it, that I can see the government is doing anything about.

Those opposite have absolved themselves of any responsibility, as the national government of this country, for integration with the states. And they do it under the cover of mealy-mouthed phrases: 'We need to move away from the states. They need to have their own autonomy to choose. We should just let the states do their own thing. You know, they have a right—we want to move away from command and control.' Well that is a load of codswallop! What they want to move away from is actually putting funding on the line, from honestly and sincerely committing to the children of this nation and making sure that those who do need the money in exactly the way that Gonski declared get the money that they need.

This government are running every which way from every commitment they have ever made. No cuts to education? We know they have taken $30 billion out—matched that and raised it by taking $50 billion out of health. 'No cuts to health, no cuts to education, no cuts to the ABC, no cuts to SBS'. This response we see here from the government is exactly the same sort of story. This is, 'We will cut to blazes anything to do with education, and we'll do it under the cover of these fancy reports and terminologies—command and control, autonomy to the states.' But it is all just a cover. If you analysed how much each person on that side of the chamber invested in their own children's education, it would tell you pretty quickly that they think money matters. And it should not have to in this country. I understand the power of a great education and I have paid for great education for my children too, but I want every Australian to get it because it is a right in this country. You should not have to have money to get a decent education in Australia any more, but this country will preside over exactly that sort of a mantra. (Time expired)

Senator McKENZIE (Victoria) (17:26): I am very proud to rise to speak to the government's response to the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee report Teaching and learning—maximising our investment in Australian schools. I was one of the senators, with Senator Back and others, who contributed to this report. As Senator Back's contribution noted, this was not a blue-sky report; it was a report where we spoke to principals, where we spoke to teachers and researchers and actually got to the very heart of what makes a difference to teaching and learning.

The inquiry was on the back of the committee's trip to China in the wake of the PISA results, and particularly the Shanghai school systems results. The committee wanted to understand more fully how China were getting the results they were within those international tests, and whether there were any lessons for us to learn—particularly given the prior government's fascination or fixation on ensuring we were in the top five PISA results. And Senator O'Neill, through you, Chair, as an educator I am sure you would appreciate that international tests are not a good education barometer to understanding the quality of an education that goes on within classrooms and within schools and within communities. And yet that is what the former Labor government chose to hold up as the measurement of a quality education, through their so-called Gonski reforms.

Senator O'Neill rails in some faux outrage that this report was handed down in May 2013 to the former Labor -Green's government but that it is our government who are actually responding; however, hers did not. This is despite the fact the great Gonski report was handed down in December 2010 I think, and yet, there they were, running around the country, traipsing behind premier after premier in great haste, in September 2013 in an effort to actually realise the principles that Gonski underlined. And yet we did not end up with the model that Gonski wanted. The government that actually delivered a national, needs-based school funding model that was sector blind was not the Gillard government, was not the Labor-Green's government; it was Christopher Pyne and the Abbott government that delivered that. No matter how you want to paint it, they are the facts. The department has confirmed that fact for the committee in a hearing during recent months—that is, that a sector blind, needs-based national funding model was delivered by the coalition government and not by the former government. Indeed, there is actually an increase of investment in school funding from the Commonwealth over the forward estimates. I just want to put that on the record for all those fabulous Australians listening to the Senate this afternoon.

In looking at the government's response, I realised why the government has decided just to note so many of the recommendations. It is because underlying our recommendations was the recognition that state governments are responsible for the delivery of school education. Many of the recommendations we made went to the heart of that, so our issues have been referred to the appropriate place for the discussions to take place.

One thing we realised in talking to principals, teachers and students about what makes for excellent learning outcomes is that it is about—and all the research bears this out—the teacher in the classroom. Again, I refer to Senator O'Neill's contribution in which she made it sound as if the teacher in the classroom does not make a difference to student outcomes. At the very least she made it sound as if it is not the most important thing in making a difference. But it is. It absolutely is. Our government is committed to putting taxpayers' dollars where they are going to make the biggest difference for our students—not for the AEU or the NTEU but for Australian students who attend state schools, Catholic schools or private independent schools.

The setting up of the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group, or TEMAG, was fundamental to addressing many of the recommendations in our report. It went to the heart of the key questions. What does make a great teacher? What is the role of the deans of education across this country in ensuring our teacher training programs turn out the kinds of graduates who are not going to leave the profession after five years, who are going to understand what is required to be a great teacher and how to deliver lessons in a way that not only engages young Australians but also ensures they actually learn something? A good science lesson does not mean you get to watch MythBusters24/7. You actually have to understand the principles of teaching science.

It is about pedagogical approaches that work and it is about ensuring that our teachers graduate with core subject knowledge—that they are experts in the classroom. Yes, they facilitate students to understand the content within a certain context, but they have to be the experts in the room. You cannot leave it to Wikipedia. It is also about professional experience—and we understand that it is about ongoing learning by teachers, including through ongoing conversations about education and through learning communities. That is something our government has very much understood. The TEMAG report is in and I am looking forward to the government's response to that and to seeing how we are going to ensure that, in the years ahead, every Australian student has quality Australian teaching in their classroom and therefore maximises their opportunity to learn.

Another great initiative of the government in teaching and learning is the appointment of Professor John Hattie to AITSL. He is widely respected within the profession and very focused on ensuring that there is evidence behind what we do in the classroom—on making sure that it is really going to make a difference for all students, not just middle-class white kids. He is about making sure that everything we do in a classroom is based on research and evidence. I think that is going to be very powerful and transformative for teaching. One of the recommendations we made was about the development of online resources. That is one of the key components of AITSL's work—gathering those online resources that teachers can use in the classroom.

Another recommendations we made was about Closing the Gap. The Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Nigel Scullion, is in the chamber today. I congratulate him on his initiatives. Whilst the figures on closing the gap in educational attainment for Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander people are not where we want them to be, his very practical and pragmatic approach to solving this problem through his officers working in the communities with families to ensure young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are heading into the schools is going to be the first step towards ensuring that we do close that gap. You have to get them in the door.

Another focus of Senator Back and mine, because we do both have a mathematical and scientific bent, was on STEM—

Senator Jacinta Collins: Me too!

Senator McKENZIE: And Senator Collins—fabulous, a unity ticket there. We are all focused on the importance of STEM subjects in the curriculum, ensuring that those teachers who are experienced and expert in the teaching of STEM are available right across the school system. That is so important. We made a variety of recommendations to that effect. That is why I am very proud not only of our government's response to the report but of the policy initiatives we are implementing right now through our competitiveness agenda—not to mention Minister Pyne's own personal commitment to ensuring that mathematics, science and technology are a key focus of our government and our education policy going forward.

I commend the report. I enjoyed working with Senator Back on this report—and, Senator Marshall, we do miss you! I appreciated the bipartisan approach the former committee had to all things education. It is a great report and I am very proud of a government that is putting students first in teaching and learning. We are investing taxpayers' money wisely to give effect to that. I look forward to the recommendations of this report bearing fruit in the decades ahead.

Question agreed to.

Senator O'SULLIVAN (Queensland—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (17:36): I move:

That the Senate takes note of the report of Senate Select Committee on Australia’s Food Processing Sector's inquiry into Australia's food processing sector and government response.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (17:38): I table a document relating to the order for the production of documents containing a data retention policy.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Whish-Wilson ) (17:38): The President has received letters from party leaders seeking variations to the membership of committees.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (17:38): by leave—I move:

That—

(a) Senator Wong be discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and Senator Williams be appointed as a member of the committee, pursuant to the Intelligence Services Act 2001; and

(b) Senator Leyonhjelm be appointed as a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement.

Question agreed to.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (17:39): I move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (17:39): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2014

Australian citizenship is something to be treasured. It is a common bond which unites us all, whether we were born here or chose to make Australia our home. Australian citizenship involves a commitment to this country and its people. It is a privilege which should not be taken lightly.

This year, we celebrate the 65th anniversary of Australian citizenship. It is therefore appropriate to review the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to ensure that it upholds the value of our citizenship. This Bill, the Australian Citizenship and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2014, supports the integrity and effectiveness of the citizenship programme, providing a clear legislative framework to underpin the government's policy.

The Bill has a range of amendments grouped into three broad themes:

strengthening programme integrity;

underlining the importance of connection to Australia; and

improving decision-making.

The first theme is strengthening programme integrity.

Currently under the Citizenship Act revocation may be considered in cases where a person has acquired Australian citizenship 'by application' and:

has been convicted of making a false statement or misrepresentation in relation to a migration or citizenship application that resulted in them becoming an Australian citizen; or

has committed a serious criminal offence prior to becoming an Australian citizen, failed to disclose it on application, and is convicted of the offence after making an application to become an Australian citizen. A serious offence is one where a person was sentenced to death or a prison sentence of 12 months or more. This provision applies to serious criminal offences committed in Australia or overseas; or

has acquired citizenship since 1 July 2007 as a result of third party fraud where the third party who committed the offence has been convicted of the offence.

After one or more of these criteria have been met, the Minister then must be satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for the person to remain an Australian citizen.

The Minister can revoke Australian citizenship where a person acquires it 'by application'. This means through conferral, descent, or adoption in accordance with the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption.

The Bill expands the Minister's power to revoke citizenship when satisfied that the person became a citizen as a result of fraud or misrepresentation, by allowing revocation without a prior criminal conviction for fraud. Law enforcement agencies and courts have limited capacity to prosecute all cases of fraud, or any other type of criminal behaviour, thereby reducing the ability of the government to ensure that high community expectations of behaviour are maintained in respect of those who obtain Australian citizenship. In line with other revocation provisions, I intend that the Minister must be satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for the person to remain a citizen.

The Citizenship Act has two mechanisms for assessing the character of an applicant.

The "good character requirement" extends to everyone who applies to become a citizen aged 18 years and over. The Bill amends these provisions to require applicants aged under 18 to also be of good character. Character concerns are not limited to adults and indeed my department has had serious concerns about the character of certain applicants aged under 18. In practice, the change will mean that my department may now seek to obtain police clearances for 16-17 year olds. We would also be able to assess the character of youths younger than 16 if the department becomes aware of particularly relevant character issues.

Secondly, the Act currently prevents the Minister from approving a person becoming a citizen by conferral in circumstances related to criminal offences. The Bill promotes consistency by providing that this bar on approval will also apply to applicants for citizenship by descent, adoption under Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption and resumption.

In addition, the Bill amends the offence provisions to reflect modern sentencing practices, including where a person is subject to a court order for home detention or when they have not been sentenced to prison but are nonetheless under obligations to a court.

The Act currently provides that approval of citizenship by conferral for adult applicants may be cancelled, prior to the Pledge of commitment being taken, in certain limited circumstances. The Bill amends this provision to meet current challenges to programme integrity and extends the cancellation powers to cover applicants aged under 18.

The Bill provides that approval must be cancelled if the Minister is no longer satisfied of the applicant's identity or if they have become a risk to national security. The Bill further provides that the Minister may cancel approval if satisfied that the person no longer meets other eligibility requirements.

The Bill extends the maximum period of time where the Minister can delay an applicant making the Pledge of commitment from 12 months to two years, recognising that investigations into whether there are grounds for cancellation can take longer than 12 months.

The Bill introduces safeguards to the provision giving automatic citizenship to those whose adoptions are finalised in Australia, by requiring such adoptions to be commenced before the applicant turned 18. This amendment is particularly concerned with preventing clients seeking adoption as adults to avoid being removed from Australia after their visas were cancelled under the Migration Act because they were no longer of good character.

The second theme is underlining the importance of connection to Australia.

Most applicants for citizenship by conferral must have been present in Australia for four years prior to making a citizenship application. However, there has been some confusion about when this four year period commences, leading to different interpretations by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal - the AAT. Therefore, the Bill clarifies the start date for this period.

The Bill clarifies the scope of the ministerial discretion to allow overseas absences to count towards the residence requirement for spouses and de facto partners of Australian citizens. It was a guiding principle in the new Citizenship Act in 2007 that partners should qualify for citizenship in their own right, not just as the partner of a citizen. The Bill therefore entrenches the policy position that the discretion should only be considered if the applicant has spent at least 365 days in Australia in the four years immediately before application. It is important that applicants spend a sufficient amount of time here to understand what being Australian means. Indeed, they must have a connection to Australia, not just to an Australian. The Bill also inserts definitions of spouse and de facto partner, aligning them with the definitions in the Migration Act.

People are eligible to acquire citizenship automatically if they are born in Australia to an Australian citizen or permanent resident parent, or if they are ordinarily resident in Australia until their 10th birthday. The Bill limits automatic acquisition of citizenship on the 10th birthday to those persons who have maintained lawful residence in Australia throughout the 10 years, including maintaining a right to return if they travel outside Australia during those years. These amendments will not affect access to citizenship by children born in Australia to New Zealand citizens or children who are stateless.

In addition, the Bill clarifies that a child born to a parent who was in Australia with diplomatic or consular privileges and immunities cannot automatically acquire citizenship if they are still living here on their 10th birthday. This amendment reflects the policy position that such children are not considered to be "ordinarily resident" in Australia but are here for a special or temporary purpose only. It would not apply if the child's other parent is an Australian citizen or permanent resident.

The Bill also amends the provision giving citizenship to children found abandoned in Australia so it is consistent with the original policy intent, which is to reflect Australia's international obligations under the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

The Bill improves the legal position of citizens by descent who are registered as Australian citizens but are later found not to have been eligible to be so registered. Under the current law, these people are automatically taken never to have been a citizen. The Bill repeals this provision and replaces it with a discretion for the Minister to revoke citizenship where a person was registered despite not meeting the requirements for registration. This would allow the circumstances of the particular case to be taken into account when deciding if citizenship of such a person should be revoked.

The third theme is improving decision-making.

In line with the Prime Minister's commitment to facilitate adoptions, the Bill improves access to citizenship by conferral for children who are granted an adoption visa overseas and whose adoption is finalised overseas, allowing them to enter Australia as citizens. Adopted children can encounter difficulties acquiring a document to travel to Australia if not an Australian citizen.

Most applicants for citizenship have come to Australia as migrants and the department has collected personal information about them under the Migration Act. This personal information is relevant when the person applies for citizenship. Likewise, personal information collected about a person under the Citizenship Act can be relevant if the department is considering whether to cancel the person's visa after a citizenship application has been refused. To ensure that the use and disclosure of personal information within the department complies with the requirements of the Privacy Act 1988, the Bill provides that personal information collected under one Act and associated regulations may be used and disclosed for the purposes of the other Act and associated regulations.

The Bill aligns the merits review requirements for conferral applicants aged under 18 with the relevant requirements for citizenship by conferral to prevent unfounded review applications tying up the resources of the AAT.

On occasion, the Minister makes personal decisions under the Act. The Bill makes it clear that the Minister can specify that such a decision is made in the public interest. As it is not appropriate for merits review to be available in respect of decisions that have been made by the Minister personally the Bill protects them from merits review. Judicial review will remain available.

The Bill also provides the Minister with a power to personally set aside certain decisions of the AAT if it is in the public interest to do so. I am concerned that some decisions made by the AAT have led to outcomes that are outside the community standards that citizenship policy is intended to meet, including recent occasions where the AAT found that people were of good character despite having been convicted of child sexual offences, manslaughter, people smuggling or domestic violence.

These amendments to protect the Minister's personal decisions from merits review and to allow the Minister to set aside decisions of the AAT in certain circumstances will bring the Minister's powers under the Citizenship Act in line with similar powers under the Migration Act.

The Bill also provides the Minister with a power to make legislative instruments. Such instruments may cover issues such as the currencies and exchange rates for fee payment, eliminating the need to amend the Citizenship Regulations every six months.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this Bill will result in more consistent decisions on applications for citizenship, bringing fairness and clarity to clients. The amendments uphold the value of Australian citizenship by preserving the integrity of the programme. The amendments will also ensure the connection between the applicant and Australia, helping them to understand the heritage that we share as citizens, an inheritance that is ours to steward, protect and enjoy.

I commend this Bill to the Chamber.

Debate adjourned.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (17:40): I move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (17:40): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS AMENDMENT BILL 2014

The continuing success of the Australian economy depends to a large extent on our ability to innovate, adopt new technologies and capitalise on new markets.

The intellectual property system is crucial to this success because it encourages invention and investment and provides business and consumers with access to valuable new technologies, products and services.

This government is determined to reduce the regulatory burden on business that is holding back Australia's economic prosperity and development. Therefore the intellectual property system needs to fulfil its important role in the most efficient way possible and lower red tape costs for businesses.

The intellectual property system must also enable Australia to be a good global citizen and help less fortunate countries to access vital technologies essential to their health and wellbeing.

The Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2014 contains a package of measures, many of which will reduce red tape for those wishing to obtain or enforce their intellectual property rights and will provide more support for other countries facing health emergencies.

Firstly, Schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill amend the Patents Act to implement the Protocol amending the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, also known as the TRIPS Protocol. The Howard government accepted the TRIPS Protocol in 2007 and its implementation in Australia is well overdue.

The TRIPS Protocol helps developing countries that are suffering health crises such as malaria, HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis to obtain essential medicines from other countries at affordable prices. Millions of people die from such diseases every year.

At present, elements of our patent system can make it harder for Australian businesses to provide assistance to such countries.

To address this, the Bill will enable Australian pharmaceutical manufacturers to obtain a licence from the Federal Court to make generic versions of patented medicines and to export these medicines to countries with a demonstrated need.

The scheme will ensure that patents can only be used under strict conditions and that patent owners are fairly compensated.

The scheme is also designed to be as easy to use as possible, while ensuring appropriate safeguards are in place and consistency with Australia's broader international obligations.

Secondly, Schedule 3 to the Bill will make amendments to the Plant Breeder's Rights Act to extend the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit Court to include plant breeder's rights.

Plant varieties are very important to the success of the Australian agricultural industry. Plant breeder's rights encourage breeders – many of whom are small businesses – to invest in developing new, improved varieties.

At present, breeders can only enforce their rights against alleged infringers by commencing proceedings in the Federal Court. This can be a very expensive path.

The Bill will give plant breeders the option of using the faster, more cost-effective and more accessible Federal Circuit Court for less complex matters.

Thirdly, Schedule 4 to the Bill allows for single patent application and examination processes for Australia and New Zealand; and a single trans-Tasman patent attorney regime.

These measures build on the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations free trade agreement by further integrating trans-Tasman regulation.

At present, most patent applications filed in New Zealand are also filed in Australia, but undergo separate examination processes in each country.

In what I understand to be a world first, the Bill allows patent applications for the same invention to be examined by a single examiner in either country. The regime will take account of differences in national laws and will result in two separate patents for Australia and New Zealand.

A single, more efficient patent application process will remove duplication and make it easier for businesses to protect their intellectual property in both countries. This has the potential to save Australian business and exporters thousands of dollars in professional advice costs.

To support this change, the Bill will allow for an address for service of documents, which is required when parties wish to challenge patents in the relevant courts, to be in either Australia or New Zealand. It will also move the rules relating to addresses for service to the regulations. These amendments will not change in anyway the existing requirement of a physical address for the service of documents.

The Bill will also introduce a single trans-Tasman regulatory framework for Australian and New Zealand patent attorneys.

As the majority of Australian and New Zealand patent attorneys are registered in both countries, a single regulatory body will remove barriers, encourage competition and save time and money for the profession.

The framework will include a single register of patent attorneys, a single IP Attorneys Board and a single IP Attorneys Disciplinary Tribunal.

The Australian Government has worked closely with New Zealand to establish the framework. This is a small but significant step forward for our economic relationship with an important trading partner and the creation of a seamless trans-Tasman business environment.

I thank the New Zealand Government for its cooperation in this endeavour.

Finally, Schedule 5 makes a number of minor administrative changes to the Patents, Trade Marks and the Designs Acts.

These changes will repeal unnecessary provisions that require the government to keep intellectual property documents for longer than they are needed. This will remove unnecessary red tape and help reduce the government's warehousing costs. The Bill also makes a number of technical corrections to the legislation.

In summary, this Bill makes a number of important improvements to Australia's intellectual property system to streamline processes, and reduce barriers and regulatory costs for Australian business.

I note that, when in government, the opposition supported the progression of these measures. I therefore look forward to the opposition's support for this Bill.

Debate adjourned.

Senator O'SULLIVAN (Queensland—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (17:41): Pursuant to order and at the request of the chairs of the respective committees, I present reports on legislation as listed at item 17 on today's order of business together with the Hansard records of proceedings and documents presented to the committees.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (17:43): I have amendments to move in relation to this bill, so I certainly do not want it to stand as printed. I was of the understanding that the Attorney-General would be here to speak to the bill, because I have some questions indeed for the Attorney-General and he might have some amendments to move as well. So I do not see that there is much point in me commencing until the Attorney-General is here to hear my questions.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (17:44): Perhaps I could facilitate matters by pre-empting the government in moving their amendments and indicate the Labor opposition's position with respect to those amendments. It might save the committee some time later in the discussion. It has consistently been Labor's position that all national security legislation should be rigorously examined to make sure not only will it be effective in protecting our nation but also that it does not unduly infringe on important rights and freedoms. In keeping with that position, Labor insisted to the government that these three new measures be introduced in a separate bill and subject to public scrutiny and a full Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security inquiry. In its report the intelligence committee recommended the bill be passed and made 15 substantive recommendations. Significant recommendations include amendment to the bill to require the AFP to provide the Attorney-General with a summary of facts when seeking consent to apply to the court for each control order, including any facts why it should not be made; retention of the requirement for the AFP to explain to the issuing court each condition in a draft control order—the bill, as introduced, would only require the AFP to justify the control order as a whole; shortening of periods for notification of the relevant minister where agencies issue emergency authorisations; that the government urgently appoint a new Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and task it with reviewing whether recommendations for safeguards on the control order regime recommended by the 2013 COAG review should be implemented; and finally, it recommended a range of oversight measures.

Labor has asked the government to implement those recommendations and the government has agreed to do so. Labor will accordingly support the bill. The recommendations will improve the accountability and transparency of decision making by national security agencies. The recommendations will also ensure that control order applications are closely and appropriately scrutinised.

In the absence of the Attorney, I might move through government amendments number by number, although that possibly would not have been necessary had the Attorney been here to move them. I notice the Attorney is here, so I will let him proceed with his amendments.

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council, Minister for Arts and Attorney-General) (17:46): I apologise for not being here when the committee stage began. I just became aware of it. I seek leave to move all government amendments together.

Leave not granted.

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council, Minister for Arts and Attorney-General) (17:47): by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (6), (8) to (14), (17) and (19) to (30) on sheet ES111 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 5 (after line 8), after paragraph 104.2(3)(a), insert:

   (aa) the following:

      (i) a statement of the facts relating to why the order should be made;

      (ii) if the member is aware of any facts relating to why the order should not be made—a statement of those facts; and

(2) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 22), after item 8, insert:

8A Subsection 104.2(6) of the Criminal Code

   Omit "paragraphs (2)(a) and (b)", substitute "subsection (2)".

(3) Schedule 1, item 9, page 5 (line 34) to page 6 (line 4), omit paragraph 104.3(c).

(4) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (line 6), omit "the proposed", substitute "each of the proposed".

(5) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (lines 9 and 10), omit "the proposed", substitute "any of those".

(6) Schedule 1, item 12, page 7 (lines 9 and 10), omit "the order", substitute "each of the obligations, prohibitions and restrictions to be imposed on the person by the order".

(8) Schedule 1, item 15, page 8 (line 3), omit "12", substitute "8".

(9) Schedule 1, item 16, page 8 (line 6), omit "104.3(1)(b) to (e)", substitute "104.3(b) to (e)".

(10) Schedule 1, item 17, page 8 (line 9), omit "12", substitute "8".

(11) Schedule 1, item 18, page 8 (line 12), omit "104.3(1)(a) to (e)", substitute "104.3(a) to (e)".

(12) Schedule 1, item 19, page 8 (line 16), omit "12", substitute "8".

(13) Schedule 1, item 20, page 8 (line 18), omit "12", substitute "8".

(14) Schedule 1, item 22, page 8 (line 22), omit "104.3(1)(c) and (d)", substitute "104.2(3)(aa) and 104.3(d)".

(17) Schedule 1, item 28, page 9 (lines 28 and 29), omit "the varied control order", substitute "each of the additional obligations, prohibitions and restrictions to be imposed on the person by the order".

(19) Schedule 2, page 12 (before line 4), before item 1, insert:

1A After section 3

   Insert:

3A References to Ministers

      Despite section 19A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, in this Act:

   (a) a reference to the responsible Minister in relation to a relevant agency is a reference only to the most senior responsible Minister in relation to that agency; and

   (b) a reference to the Prime Minister or the Attorney‑General is a reference only to the Minister with that title; and

(c) a reference to the Defence Minister is a reference only to the most senior Defence Minister; and

   (d) a reference to the Foreign Affairs Minister is a reference only to the most senior Foreign Affairs Minister; and

(e) a reference to the Minister responsible for administering the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 is a reference only to the most senior such Minister.

Note: A reference to a Minister mentioned in this section may include a reference to a person acting as that Minister (see section 19 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901).

(20) Schedule 2, item 18, page 18 (after line 19), after subsection 9B(4), insert:

Notifying the responsible Minister

   (4A) An agency head who gives an authorisation under this section for an activity or series of activities must notify the relevant responsible Minister of the authorisation within 8 hours after giving the authorisation.

(21) Schedule 2, item 18, page 18 (lines 21 and 22), omit "An agency head who gives an authorisation under this section for an activity or series of activities must", substitute "The agency head must also".

(22) Schedule 2, item 18, page 19 (line 5), omit "being", substitute "the responsible Minister is".

(23) Schedule 2, item 18, page 19 (after line 13), after subsection 9B(8), insert:

Oversight by Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security

   (8A) Within 30 days after the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security is given the documents, the Inspector‑General must:

   (a) consider whether the agency head complied with the requirements of this section in giving the authorisation; and

   (b) provide the responsible Minister with a report on the Inspector‑General's views of the extent of the agency head's compliance with the requirements of this section in giving the authorisation; and

(c) provide to the Committee a copy of the conclusions in the report.

(24) Schedule 2, item 18, page 19 (line 14), omit the heading to subsection 9B(9), substitute:

Status of instruments

(25) Schedule 2, item 18, page 19 (line 15), after "authorisation", insert ", report".

(26) Schedule 2, item 18, page 20 (line 11), omit "Advising", substitute "Notifying".

(27) Schedule 2, item 18, page 20 (line 12), omit "advise", substitute "notify".

(28) Schedule 2, item 18, page 20 (line 15), omit "advice", substitute "notification".

(29) Schedule 2, item 18, page 20 (lines 17 to 23), omit subsection 9C(5), substitute:

(5) The notification must be given:

   (a) for a notification given to the ASIO Minister—before the end of 8 hours after the authorisation is given under section 9A or 9B; and

   (b) for a notification given to the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security—as soon as practicable, but no later than 3 days after the authorisation is given under section 9A or 9B.

Oversight by Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security

(6) Within 30 days after the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security is given the notification, the Inspector‑General must:

   (a) consider whether the agency head complied with the requirements of this section in giving the authorisation under section 9A or 9B; and

   (b) provide the responsible Minister with a report on the Inspector‑General's views of the extent of the agency head's compliance with the requirements of this section in giving the authorisation under that section; and

(c) provide to the Committee a copy of the conclusions in the report.

(30) Schedule 2, page 22 (after line 29), at the end of the Schedule, add:

32 Paragraph 29(1)(bb)

   Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

   (bb) to review, by 7 March 2018, the operation, effectiveness and implications of the following:

      (i) Division 3 of Part III of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 and any other provision of that Act as far as it relates to that Division;

      (ii) Division 3A of Part IAA of the Crimes Act 1914 and any other provision of that Act as far as it relates to that Division;

      (iii) Divisions 104 and 105 of the Criminal Code and any other provision of the Criminal Code Act 1995 as far as it relates to those Divisions;

      (iv) sections 119.2 and 119.3 of the Criminal Code and any other provision of the Criminal Code Act 1995 as far as it relates to those sections; and

These amendments give effect to the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The committee recommended that the bill be passed, with amendment, and these are the amendments arising from the committee's report. They include further strengthening the bill to include the safeguards, transparency and oversight mechanisms I explained in my second reading speech. I should add that there are also some recommendations by the PJCIS for amendments to the explanatory memorandum and those amendments will be made when a revised explanatory memorandum is tabled in the House of Representatives. Beyond that, that is all I have to say.

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (17:49): I indicate that the Australian Greens will be supporting the amendments. Indeed, they replicate some amendments that the Australian Greens were intending to move ourselves and we will not necessarily have to do that now. We are pleased that the government has introduced amendments to act many of the 15 recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and we consider that these changes constitute the absolute minimum necessary to begin to bring the bill closer to what is acceptable in terms of incursions on human rights and civil liberties. However, it is our view that these remain seriously inadequate to remedy the full range of human rights concerns that have been raised by many organisations and, indeed, by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights of this parliament.

There are three of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security recommendations that are not reflected in the government's amendments and I would like to take the opportunity to ask the Attorney-General about those and why the government was not minded to take up those recommendations. The first I want to advert to is the PJCIS recommendation 1, which refers to the need to finalise the appointment of an Independent National Security Legislation Monitor 'as a matter of absolute urgency', to quote that recommendation. Attorney-General, given that the government has stated in the media that it accepts this recommendation, when can we expect to see a fully-qualified, well-resourced person in this role, given that there has never been a time when a person in that role has ever been needed as much as they are today.

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council, Minister for Arts and Attorney-General) (17:51): There is always a time when an Independent National Security Legislation Monitor is needed. Even more importantly though, it is important that the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor be heeded. Unfortunately, when the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor was eventually appointed by the previous government, none of his reports was responded to in a timely fashion. In fact, when the government changed 14 months ago, we inherited most of the reports of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor which had not even been responded to by the previous government and they have been responded to by this government. Senator Wright, you or one of your colleagues asked me about this recently, and I said that the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor would be appointed soon. I think I can tell you, Senator Wright, that I have written to the Prime Minister—who ultimately makes the appointment—recommending some names, with one preferred name of someone who, I think, would satisfy you as a man of very, very great eminence and suitability. I expect that that announcement will be made any day now.

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (17:53): Thank you, Attorney-General. It is interesting that you have often waxed eloquent about the importance of the role and, indeed, you have often claimed credit for being one of the people who moved to have the role introduced after the initial tranche of national security legislation was introduced during the Howard government. But, with respect, you cannot have it all ways. We have to actually look at not the talk but the walk. We have had this office vacant for seven months. Prior to that, you acknowledge that, in fact, your government was going to abolish the position. Given the importance that you put on the role, you will be very pleased to hear that I will be introducing a private senator's bill to require that the role be filled with alacrity in the future and that, indeed, the reports of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor be responded to by governments within a timely period. I agree with you that it has been somewhat scandalous that report after report has not been heeded, as you say. With respect, I would suggest that it is now an opportunity for your government to take those previous reports seriously and to heed them now. Certainly, one of the major concerns that was consistently raised by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor was with the control order regime—and we will come back to that in some questions that I have for you later. As much as it is nice to hear that soon we may have someone within that office, what kind of heed has the government paid to the previous discussion of the control order regime by the INSLM? And how can you point to that being reflected in the legislation that we are considering today?

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council, Minister for Arts and Attorney-General) (17:54): The legislation speaks for itself. The government has reviewed the whole range of Australia's counter-terrorism laws. We do not necessarily share the views of the previous INSLM. The INSLM is a person who contributes in a well-informed and intelligent way to the thinking of the government of the day and, indeed, to the thinking of the parliament. That does not mean that the INSLM is like a final authority on the policy merits of any particular proposal. The policy merits of the particular proposal is ultimately a matter for the government of the day, subject to the will of the parliament. The government respectfully disagreed with some of the views about the control order regime of the former Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, and our views were closer to the views expressed by the COAG review of these laws. The fact that you had one respected person of one mind and another respected person of another mind, neither of them political partisans, should tell you that there is a variety of views about this. But the view of the parliament, or at least the view of the overwhelming sentiment of the parliament as reflected in the unanimous report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, should tell you that both sides of politics—not, of course, you 'Green' people—are of the view that there is a role for control orders. That reflects the overwhelming sentiment of the elected representatives sitting in parliament. It reflects, no doubt, the overwhelming sentiment of the Australian people who want to see this government pass laws that are suitable and appropriate to deal with the issue of terrorism.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (17:57): Thank you, you 'Green' Chair, Senator Whish-Wilson! No, Chair, I should be more respectful. I will take this opportunity to address in some detail the various amendments by the government. I think it might help Senator Wright, particularly on her first question where she was asking for advice from the Attorney in relation to the position on control orders. Perhaps I will address Labor's position, as reflected in these amendments, issue by issue. If the committee will bear with me, I will probably be dealing with some matters that are in what I expect will be in the second tranche of amendments that we will deal with with the next question—that certain items of schedule 1 stand as printed. But they go across issues, if the committee can bear with that.

Government amendments (1), (3) and (14) relate to requesting interim control orders. These, as with, I think, all of the amendments, are the implementation of recommendations of the intelligence committee. Labor accepts that the purpose of this bill is to improve the operation of the control order regime. We support the bill's intention to reduce unnecessary duplication of decision making by the Attorney-General and then the issuing court. However, the Attorney-General's consent is required for an application for a control order for a reason. The Attorney-General's involvement is necessary to provide an appropriate level of oversight and accountability at the highest level of executive government for the exercise of what is an extraordinary power. The intelligence committee's recommendation that the AFP provide the Attorney-General with a statement of reasons related to why a control order should be made and, also, any facts of why the order should not be made is, therefore, a very sensible suggestion. These amendments strike the right balance between the operational effectiveness and appropriate oversight. For this reason, we are supporting them.

I will move now down to amendments (4) and (7) and (15) to (18) regarding details of limitations. Again, these follow the recommendations of the intelligence committee. The committee recommended retention of the requirement under the current law for the AFP to explain to an issuing court each condition in a draft control order The bill as introduced would only require the AFP to justify the control order as a whole. Again, while Labor accept that the purpose of this bill is to improve the operation of the control order regime, we would not support removal of proper testing by an issuing court of the appropriateness and necessity of proposed control orders. Control orders allow for the imposition on a person of conditions, obligations and prohibitions which deprive that person of their usual rights. It is appropriate, therefore, that each and every one of those stipulations is assessed to see whether it is necessary to Australia's national security. Labor believe that extraordinary measures like control orders must always be rigorously justified, and we support these amendments which make sure that this will be the case.

Regarding amendments (8), (10), (12) and (13) around obtaining the Attorney-General's consent, this was another recommendation of the intelligence committee. The government's bill as introduced extended the time which the AFP would have to obtain the Attorney-General's consent to an urgent interim control order from four to 12 hours. As the intelligence committee noted, it is difficult to imagine circumstances where the Attorney-General would be unable to be contacted for a period of 12 hours and that eight hours should be sufficient for any reasonable contingency. Labor agrees, and we will support the government's amendments to implement this recommendation.

We understand amendment (9) to be a technical correction. Amendment (19), regarding references to ministers, implements a recommendation from the intelligence committee. It clarifies a drafting issue the committee raised and it ensures that references to ministers in the Intelligence Services Act are taken to refer only to the most senior responsible ministers. Again, this amendment is consistent with Labor's focus on oversight and accountability. The powers granted in the act should be exercised by senior ministers with the requisite experience and departmental support. The powers granted in the act should be subject to the oversight of the most senior levels of government.

Regarding amendments (20) to (29), this is a further intelligence committee recommendation. The amendments provide that where an agency head gives an authorisation when a minister is unavailable, the minister must be notified within eight hours. Although the bill as introduced imposed an obligation for agency heads to notify ministers as soon as practicable, the bill provides for this time period to not exceed 48 hours at the outside. There can be no justification for such a long delay. Labor supports these amendments, which will ensure that ministers are promptly notified when decisions are taken by agency heads in their absence. This will ensure the oversight and accountability that Labor insists on when powers are exercised under the Intelligence Services Act.

Finally, regarding amendment (30) and the inquiry, this amendment implements the previous intelligence committee's recommendation that new provisions of national security legislation be reviewed by the intelligence committee ahead of sunset periods, now set two years after the next federal election. Labor supports this amendment. There should be proper, sober consideration of new national security measures, and we welcome the guarantee provided by a statutory and timely review.

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (18:03): Coming back to the response of the Attorney-General to my question regarding the INSLM, I would observe that you are quite right, Attorney-General: we 'Green people' did not have an opportunity to be part of the Liberal-Labor club on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security because, as everybody knows, it is a committee for which sole membership is available to the two old parties and none of the crossbenchers have an opportunity to be part of that—to examine the proposed legislation, to ask questions and to hear from the witnesses in person.

Coming back to the point that you made, Attorney-General, in relation to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor's previous recommendations and reports, you were the person who used the word 'heed' in terms of how important it is to have a person in that role and how you will be moving to have someone in that role, but again you are trying to have things all ways. You are saying that it is important to have someone to heed their reports. I have just checked, because my initial reaction was that the word 'heed' is not a neutral term. It is not a term that means just 'take note of'. It has connotations of being guided by, taken to heart, to follow, attend to, listen to, pay due regard to. I do not know what your attitude will be to the new Independent National Security Legislation Monitor that you are proposing to appoint, but it would seem to me logical and reasonable that if someone is appointed to that position—a position that is acknowledged to be an extremely important position, a position which the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security indicated should be filled with absolute urgency—it would be sensible to heed their advice. In fact, it is interesting that you suggested that, because Liberal and Labor members of parliament on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security were able to come to a consensus on the recommendations for changes to this legislation, that that would somehow reflect the overwhelming view of the Australian public. I do not think you can logically conclude that, and certainly I think it is pretty clear from the submissions in relation to this bill that the bill, as it stands—even with the amendments that are being moved by the government today—will not reflect the overwhelming views of those organisations in Australia who are in a position to understand the implications on civil liberties and human rights in Australia by dint of their longstanding work and understanding of these issues and also their experience in seeing how these sorts of issues play out overseas.

I could come back to the fact that, much as you extol the virtues of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the government has not seen fit to pick up all the recommendations of that committee. If I could take you to recommendation 2, which refers to ensuring clarity around the terms 'supports and 'facilitates' in the provisions in the bill that extend the control order regime, certainly this is a term whose potential and vagueness has concern among people who have made submissions on the bill. Recommendation 2 was seeking to ensure clarity around the term 'supports and facilitates'. I note that the government has apparently accepted that recommendation, so, Attorney, can you please explain how these terms have been redefined in the redrafted explanatory memorandum?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN ( Senator Whish-Wilson ): Minister?

Senator WRIGHT: Can I clarify that I am not going to get a response to that, Attorney-General?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The minister does not want the call, Senator Wright. Senator Wright.

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (18:08): Then I ask the next question. I am interested because this is a very vague, broad term that has been—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Wright?

Senator WRIGHT: I am not going to get a response to that question, I imagine, but I do have a follow-up question. I put this to everyone really, and particularly the Attorney-General. I am not playing a game here; I am seriously interested in having clarity from the government which is proposing this legislation, to help answer, reassure people about or clarify the concerns that have been legitimately raised by organisations in Australia who are concerned about the implications of this legislation. The question is: can you, as Attorney-General, give us and give the Australian public—anyone who might be listening, or reading the Hansard transcript—an example of what this term 'supports and facilitates' will mean in context?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Brandis, I am going to get Senator Wright to repeat the very last question she asked so that you can listen to it, because you were in conversation with the Clerk.

Senator WRIGHT: Given that the government has accepted PJCIS recommendation No. 2, referring to ensuring the clarity around the term 'supports and facilitates' in the provisions in the bill that extend the control order regime, I am asking, Attorney, if you can give us an example of what that will mean in context.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Wright, I do not have the right to call you again because you have just spoken twice.

Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (18:11): I am not sure what kind of procedural games the Attorney-General is playing here. Senator Wright asked a series of reasonable questions about the operation of the bill and the context in which it has been drafted, and I draw the Attorney-General's attention to the reasonable questions that have been put to him. This is the stage of the bill debate where senators are able to establish how the bill is going to work in practice. Chair, I ask you to draw the minister's attention to the questions that are being put to him.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I think the minister is aware of the questions that are being put to him. Senator Wright, do you want the call?

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (18:12): Yes. I am going to ask a further question. With respect, I think this is an outrageous abuse of process. Some of my questions later will go to the fact that we have a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, established in this parliament, which has sought clarification on some of the same questions that I am asking. Some of that information that was sought was in relation to the previous national security law, which has now passed—the foreign fighters bill—and that committee is still waiting for clarification and answers, for justification on the basis of necessity, reasonableness and proportionality, which are an acknowledged human rights frame of reference in matters such as this. The committee is still waiting for responses from the Attorney-General in relation to that significant law affecting the rights of people living in Australia in 2014.

This is, in my understanding, an opportunity to clarify the way this legislation will play out if it is passed. I am not abusing the process. I am asking reasonable questions, many of which have been asked by other organisations, and I can only assume that the Attorney-General does not have answers for these questions, or presumably he would be putting those answers on the record. So I am going to go now to Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security recommendation No. 7, another of the recommendations which—although I understand the government has accepted them—have not been put into the form of an amendment to this bill. This concerns schedule 2 of the bill. This is from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. This is the coalition and Labor committee. The recommendation relates to the need for clarity around what constitutes a class of Australian persons for the purposes of the expanded powers given to ASIS to conduct activities in respect of Australians overseas. My question is: given that this recommendation is accepted, how is 'class of persons' defined in the redrafted explanatory memorandum?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Before I put the question—

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (18:15): I have some questions to ask. I will ask them. They will remain on the record. The Attorney-General's silence will speak for itself. I know there are many people in Australia who will be watching this with great interest. So my next question is: Attorney-General, can you give us an example of what the phrase 'class of persons' for the purposes of expanded powers given to ASIS to conduct activities in respect of Australians overseas means in context?

Senator Ludlam: Mr Temporary Chairman, I seek a ruling from you. We have all participated in these debates before and I have never seen a minister behave like this one. I would like a ruling from you, Chair. If a minister refuses to answer a legitimate question put by a senator from any part of this chamber, the senator is entitled to put a different question. We cannot compel the minister to put information into the public domain—it is his choice—but it is the case I believe—and I am seeking your ruling, Chair—that senators are entitled to put other questions to the minister and he can choose to answer them or not.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Wright, if you or Senator Ludlam have a number of questions, you will have 15 minutes to speak. You should outline those questions in the time allocated to you rather than perhaps asking them one by one. You will not be allowed to speak twice in a row. Senator Wright, after you ask one question, Senator Ludlam can ask another question but you will not be allowed to ask two questions in a row.

Senator Wright: Mr Temporary Chairman, I have a point of order. I seek the standing orders you are referring to on those two aspects of that ruling: the first is not being able to ask two questions in a row and the second is why the time limit of 15 minutes. Where does that come from?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: My understanding is it is standing order 189(3) in relation to two questions in a row. In relation to the time allocated, 15 minutes is standard. It was my advice to you to put a number of your questions in that 15 minutes if you want to get them all on the record because under standing order 189(3) you will not be able to ask two questions in a row.

Senator Wright: Mr Temporary Chairman, I am seeking clarification again. So the 15 minutes only pertains if I try to speak twice in a row?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Wright, you have a full 15 minutes and you would be allowed to speak for another 15 minutes but after that you would have to have another senator ask a question in between. Is that clear?

Senator Wright: Yes, thank you, Chair. That is clear. That was the clarification that I was seeking.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Wright.

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (18:19): I want to following on the same theme in relation to the class of persons I was asking about—and I did not receive an answer so we are none the wiser as to the government's understanding of how that would be applied in context, what it means, how it is defined and then how it might actually be applied in practice. I take the Attorney to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' report. It is the 16th report of this parliament. It was tabled today. There were issues raised about the expansion of the ASIS powers in relation to class of persons in that report. Paragraph 1.73 of that report states the expansion of powers will:

… enable the Minister for Foreign Affairs to give an authorisation to ASIS to undertake activities for a purpose which includes producing intelligence on a … class of Australian persons or to undertake activities that will … effect … a … class of Australian persons.

This is a significant shift away from where it would be in relation to an identified individual person. This is where ASIS is providing support for the Australian Defence Force.

So my first question—and these are questions that are raised by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights—is: why is this necessary? The statement of compatibility that accompanied the legislation we are considering today, which is a requirement from the legislation that established the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, provided by the Attorney-General's Department does not actually identify this particular expansion of powers as engaging human rights and certainly does not explain why it is necessary. The frame through which human rights issues are considered is whether they are necessary. When human rights are engaged they may be limited on the basis that it is established that it is reasonable to do it, necessary for a legitimate objective and proportionate to achieving that objective. We have a situation where we have ASIS being able to provide support to the Australian defence forces, to obtain intelligence or to undertake activities which may affect a class of Australians in a foreign country—and the statement of compatibility did not acknowledge that that was engaging human rights, and has not explained why it is necessary. My question to the Attorney-General is: it may well be necessary, but there is not information on the public record as to why this significant step is necessary—so why is it necessary to have that expansion of powers?

Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (18:23): I have some questions as well, but I just want to note, for those who might be observing this debate from outside the building, that this is the most extraordinary abuse of Senate procedure that I have seen since I have been in here. This is the stage of the bill where senators from the government side or the crossbenchers or the opposition get to put reasonable questions to the minister about the operation of the bill in practice. This is not a trivial bill that we are debating. This is the third in a series of national security bills that the government has brought forward with very little explanation that has provoked, I would say, very strong consternation and opposition in people who follow human rights closely—people who care about the operation of the law in this country and the way in which our civil liberties are protected. And the Attorney-General—the first law officer of the country—is treating this chamber with profound contempt. There is nothing unreasonable, Senator Brandis, in anything that Senator Wright has put to you this afternoon. They are reasonable questions that have been asked not just by the Greens but by people who made submissions to the parliamentary joint committee—people who have been observing the way that this bill has run through parliamentary process. They are entirely reasonable questions, and I would seek at the outset an explanation from the minister—maybe just to short-circuit this debate and save us all a bit of time. Does the minister intend to answer any questions put to him from any MPs on the operation of this bill? I see he is maybe even going to dignify us with an answer, so let us start with that: does the minister intend to grace us with any answers to any questions at all this afternoon?

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council, Minister for Arts and Attorney-General) (18:24): I intend to answer all the questions, but I do not intend to allow the Greens, through the misuse of standing order 189(3), to filibuster this debate the way you, Senator Ludlam, tried to filibuster the debate on the first of these pieces of national security legislation. So, rather than refresh your opportunity to continue to prolong the debate by responding to each question sequentially, I will, as the chair has suggested on the advice of the Clerk, respond to all the questions asked of me in one go, and that way we will get through this a lot faster.

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (18:25): It is interesting. I have observed in life how people suspect other people of doing things that they are capable of themselves. Earlier on I was actually asked by a member of the opposition how long I thought this debate would go on for; they had a particular interest in other legislation not coming on. I said to them: I have absolutely no intention of filibustering. I have a series of legitimate and reasonable questions to ask, and once I have asked those I will sit down. I have absolutely no intention of filibustering. I am interested in asking these questions, and I feel in some ways that I am performing the role of asking questions that the committee of which I am a proud member, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, has asked the Attorney, and is in the process of asking the Attorney, in terms of not being able to finalise their consideration of this legislation because those questions are still unanswered. As I said, questions pertaining to the previous national security legislation—which has now been passed, is on the books and will be affecting the lives of everyday Australians from now on—still remain unanswered. But this is an opportunity for me to at least ask those same questions in this chamber and to try and get some clarity for the people in Australia who actually care about these issues. So I am not filibustering, and I take exception to that suggestion. I think it will be very interesting, Attorney-General. I am quite pleased to think that you will be answering these questions—and I hope you are writing them down, because there are quite a few here and I hope that we will be able to see that we have responses to the various questions that I have asked.

As a result of you refusing to answer them as we go, if I am not clear on what you are saying or I need some further explanation, then obviously that puts me at a disadvantage because that will not necessarily be possible. When you have given your answer, maybe I will be able to come back and ask some more questions about those.

For people who may be listening to this debate and who may think: 'Maybe she is filibustering,' I will go to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights report and go to the paragraph which I think really encapsulates why this particular issue of having powers expanded to allow ASIS in overseas countries to support the Australian defence forces in relation to a class of persons—not individual identified persons about whom there may be serious concerns because of their behaviour or their likely behaviour, but indeed a class of persons—is an issue. I will go to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights report to explain why that might be an issue. I am referring to paragraph 1.75 of that report:

As a result of these proposed amendments, ASIS would be able to collect intelligence on an Australian person, including using surveillance techniques on that person, simply because that person belongs to a specified class. The committee is concerned that in the absence of detailed legislative criteria for the determination of a class of persons, a class of persons may include, for example, all Australian persons:

adhering to certain religious beliefs;

adhering to certain political or ideological beliefs; or

who have certain ethnic backgrounds.

That sounds horribly reminiscent to me of the way, throughout history, classes of people have been categorised according to things like their religious beliefs, political or ideological beliefs, or ethnic backgrounds. We are making laws today that will have an effect into the future. We do not know who will be making these decisions in the future. We are putting these laws on the books. These are unprecedented laws, and I am asking questions to clarify why it is necessary to go this far and how this may potentially affect people who are living today and in the future—until these laws, if passed, are revoked. Section 1.76 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights report says:

While the committee acknowledges that there are a number of safeguards in the ISA, the committee considers that a class authorisation power has the potential to apply intrusive interrogation powers to a group, which do not apply to the broader community and as such could be indirectly discriminatory because, although neutral on its face, it disproportionately affects people with a particular personal attribute such as religious or political belief, or ethnic background.

It is on that basis that the committee has sought the advice of the Attorney-General:

… as to whether the amendments in Schedule 2 are compatible with the right to equality and non-discrimination, and in particular whether the limits imposed on human rights by the amendments are in pursuit of a legitimate objective, and are proportionate to achieving that objective.

That is why I am asking this question and that is the question I am asking the Attorney-General now.

Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (18:31): What the Attorney-General is doing in deciding to behave like a child in the course of this debate is preventing us from having the kind of dialogue you normally get in the committee stage of the bill. Some of these questions, I suspect—those of Senator Wright or myself or others—could be resolved on the spot and we could just move on. The problem with Senator Brandis just sitting there mute, instead of providing us with answers, is that we do not know for which of the issues we are chasing the government has a measured and considered response, and for which it does not. I would like to record the profound contempt with which this chamber is being treated. This is not the way in which committee debates are meant to proceed. I suspect, also, that as a result this debate is going to take a lot longer than if we were getting sensible answers to questions as they were being put. I have never come across a minister who treated the rest of us with this kind of contempt.

The questions I am interested in are those that relate to collaboration between ASIS and the ADF. I know Senator Wright has concentrated largely on the control order regime and other elements in the Attorney-General's portfolio, but one of the things Senator Wright indicated in her second reading contribution is the possibility that increased cooperation between ASIS and the ADF may in fact lead to the targeted killings of Australian citizens fighting in Iraq and Syria. It may be that is not remotely the government's intention. Even calling it an allegation is pretty strong, because we simply do not know if that is what the Australian government intends to enable with this bill. Our intelligence services are prevented from this by law at the moment—as section 6.4 of the Intelligence Services Act states quite explicitly:

In performing its functions, ASIS must not plan for, or undertake, activities that involve:

(a) paramilitary activities; or

(b) violence against the person; or

(c) the use of weapons.

If it is the case that this amendment is a backdoor allowing ASIS to directly contravene section 6(4) of the Intelligence Services Act, or to be complicit in the targeted killing of Australian citizens who have not been charged or convicted of any criminal offence, that takes us into uncharted territory.

Senator Brandis, you may thoroughly repudiate that. I am not even putting it to you as an allegation; it is genuinely a question. I am interested to know: is it the intention, in allowing this closer collaboration between ASIS and the ADF—which is sensible on its face—to allow either ASIS or the ADF to specifically seek out Australian nationals fighting in overseas theatres of war and target them for killing or capture? Is that the Australian government's intention? If it is not, Senator Brandis, and you are able to set our minds at rest, I will not continue with the rest of this line of questioning. If you are intending on sitting there for the rest of the afternoon and not providing us with answers, then I am going to continue this line of questioning. You could choose to set this to rest if it is simply not Australian government policy to proceed that way.

I will put the question directly; I think you know where this is heading. Is it the intention of these amendments to allow the targeting of Australian nationals fighting in overseas theatres of war or is that not the case?

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council, Minister for Arts and Attorney-General) (18:35): Senator Wright, if you want to ask your questions, go ahead and ask them and I will respond to them. That is the most efficient way to conduct this debate. But do not deny that you are filibustering and then spend the next five minutes avoiding putting questions.

Senator Ludlam, you should know that the proposition you put is preposterous. Section 6(4) of the Intelligence Services Act contains an absolute prohibition against those agencies engaging in acts of violence. There is no way at all that these amendments can limit or confine or otherwise qualify the operation of the absolute terms of section 6(4), which is not the subject of amendment at all. I explained that, by the way, Senator, in winding up the second reading debate, but you were not in the chamber. So the issue has already been addressed in this debate; but since you raise it again, the answer to your question, 'Is it the Australian government's intention to use this legislation to target people?' is that it is a preposterous suggestion which I dismiss with complete contempt. Section 6(4) of the Intelligence Services Act, which is absolute in its terms, is absolutely unaffected by this legislation.

In relation to the further progress of this debate: Senator Wright, if you are the principal spokesman for the Greens, I am making a note of each of your questions as we progress through. I suggest that rather than comment on your questions you just put the questions and sit down and I will then answer the questions.

Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (18:37): Senator Brandis, you have said that we should put the questions and you will answer them, so I would like to follow up on the question that Senator Wright asked with regard to what constitutes a class of Australian persons for the purpose of the expanded powers, given that ASIS can conduct activities in respect of Australians overseas. I note the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights report, on page 19, points out that, as a result of these proposed amendments, ASIS would be able to collect intelligence on an Australian person, using surveillance techniques on that person simply because that person belongs to a specified class. The committee is concerned that, in the absence of detailed legislative criteria for the determination of a class of persons, that class of persons may include all Australian persons adhering to certain religious beliefs, adhering to certain political or ideological beliefs or who have certain ethnic backgrounds. It goes on to say that the committee considers that a class authorisation power has the potential to apply intrusive interrogation powers to a group which do not apply to the broader community and, as such, could be indirectly discriminatory because—although neutral on its face—it disproportionately affects people with a particular personal attribute such as religious or political belief or ethnic background. So it is not unreasonable to ask you to point out, as Senator Wright has done, how 'class of persons' is defined in the redrafted explanatory memorandum. What does it mean in context? What do you mean by a 'class of persons' that will now be subjected, if this legislation were to pass, to these surveillance powers being unleashed upon them?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (18:39): There is one issue that Senator Wright raised earlier that I would like to go back to for a moment, because she was asking questions in relation to revisions to the explanatory memorandum, which arises also from some of the recommendations of the intelligence committee. For the committee's benefit, I should indicate that my understanding is that a revised explanatory memorandum or supplementary additions to the explanatory memorandum will be dealt with when this bill is dealt with in the House. It concerns me that questions relating to such matters be dealt with in the Senate consideration. I can understand the Greens' frustration that—at least in the earlier stages—some of their questions did not appear to be progressed in the committee consideration. I take Senator Brandis's point now that he is dealing with some questions as they are being presented and I would encourage him to consider to do so, because, whilst the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has considered some of these things in detail and satisfied the Labor Party's concern, we do not think that that is a substitute for the role of the Senate committee stage consideration of a bill. We would encourage that consideration to continue in a substantive manner.

I earlier provided the Labor Party's position on all of the government amendments and what we understood them to be doing and why we were supporting them. Any other substantive matters that need to be raised should be addressed at this stage.

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (18:41): Thank you, Senator Collins. As I indicated at the outset of this, the questions that I was asking at this stage were actually about the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security which have not been reflected in the government's amendments. That is why I am asking the questions—to get more clarification. They were issues that were fairly and squarely raised by that committee, and that is why I have been asking the questions. It is not helpful to not have the answers as we go. It might be, as Senator Ludlam indicated, that we have dealt with those, that I have the best answer that I can have, that I am as clear as possible on it and that we can move on. Hopefully, a lot of information will come from the Attorney-General later, and then there may be further questions that need to come out of that. So I think it is not a very efficient way to do this.

I am going to go to a question. The government amendments include changes to the Intelligence Services Act, relating to what matters the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security must review. The date set for this review is 7 March 2018. This was the date set by the Foreign Fighters Bill, which, among many of its significant changes, pushed out the date set for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to review ASIO's questioning and attention powers from January 2016 to March 2018. My first question is: on what basis was 7 March 2018 set as the date for review of these very serious provisions relating to the Intelligence Services Act and the matters that the PJCIS must review? What was the basis of that date being set?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (18:43): Just briefly in response to Senator Wright, I should indicate that the Labor Party is completely satisfied that the full recommendations of the intelligence committee have been addressed by the government. Some of those matters are dealt with by amendment; some of them are dealt with by what will be a revised explanatory memorandum; and some of them are dealt with by other means. But I should not let the committee have the view, at least from our point of view, that all of those recommendations have been satisfactorily met.

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (18:44): I am genuinely interested in seeing where these clarifications are reflected, and that is why my questions included: 'Where in the explanatory memorandum?' If the Attorney-General or, indeed, you, Senator Collins, or anyone, could point us to where these recommendations are reflected such that there is clarity about the issues raised legitimately by the PJCIS, then that may answer the question. I do not know if you are in a position to do that.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (18:44): Senator Wright, I think my earlier comments made the point, which is that I would encourage the Attorney-General to do so.

Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (18:45): I thank the Attorney-General for actually providing an answer. As I suspected, it does allow us to move the committee stage debate forward on the areas that I am interested in. I should acknowledge, in response to the Attorney-General's helpful advice about who he wants to take questions from and who he thinks should be running the debate, that I am here in my capacity as a shadow spokesperson for defence. The area of questioning that I want to put to the Attorney-General mainly revolves around the operation or interoperation of ASIS and the ADF. This may be a question that goes outside the Attorney-General's portfolio so if you want to take this on notice I will understand.

I thank the minister for clarifying that nothing in this act impinges on section 6(4) of the Intelligence Services Act, so it is not that ASIS's role has profoundly changed and this is about intelligence-sharing between ASIS and the ADF. The question really goes to back to a statement that was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald in a piece by Heath Aston on 12 November 2014—not that long ago:

Chief of Joint Operations Vice Admiral David Johnston said Defence is prepared to deliver strikes against Australian citizens fighting for Islamic State, also known as ISIL, provided they are a legitimate target.

The piece noted:

An estimated 71 Australians have fought in Iraq and Syria.

It said that roughly 15 were known to have been killed. I am interested, I guess, Attorney, to know whether it is a change in defence posture that the Australian Defence Force is seeking out and targeting Australian citizens who are fighting Islamic State—or, I guess, on any side of that conflict.

You have, I think, confirmed for us that this will continue not to be ASIS's role, which is something of a relief. Nonetheless, my reading of the way that this bill has been drafted is that it will effectively streamline intelligence-sharing between ASIS and the ADF. If it is an ADF policy to seek out and target Australian nationals fighting for Islamic State then I think that is an area of concern.

Recognising that you would be outside your portfolio in terms of the positioning of the ADF in these matters, I wonder nonetheless whether you can enlighten us as to whether it is the policy of Australian Defence personnel fighting in Iraq—or potentially in Syria if we end up there—to seek out and target Australian citizens. Is that the purpose behind allowing ASIS these more streamlined intelligence-sharing powers with the ADF?

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (18:48): I was going to seek clarification from the Attorney-General. In the interests of genuinely debating and discussing this legislation, I would like clarification about when the Attorney-General is proposing to answer this bulk lot of questions. Is he going to answer them at the end of the debate, in the last speech, so that there is no opportunity for any further discussion or clarification of the answers and when there is no opportunity to point out that he may have missed one of the questions that I asked because he has taken so many at once? I put that question to the Attorney-General.

Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (18:49): I am not sure whether this is the point of order. With great respect I request from the Attorney-General an answer for that last question, which I think is reasonable. At what stage in this debate does he propose to answer the dozen or more questions that have been put to him already?

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council, Minister for Arts and Attorney-General) (18:49): I will respond to Senator Ludlam. As I said, my only interest here is to make this debate proceed in an appropriate and prompt manner and not allow it to be filibustered by the very cynical exploitation of the provisions of standing order 189(3) which we saw from you, Senator Ludlam, during the last debate.

I regard you as an honest person, Senator Wright. If you tell me that you are not filibustering I will accept that. I would not accept it from Senator Ludlam but I will accept it from you. What I urge you to do, Senator Wright, is to ask all of your questions and I will answer all your questions. This is a little bizarre, frankly, because you announced in your first contribution that the Greens support these government amendments. So we are debating government amendments that you have announced you support. You then asked a series of questions that have nothing to do with the amendments. You have asked a series of questions which relate to aspects of the PJCIS report which do not bear on the amendments which are the question before the chair.

But, be that as it may, I understand that a degree of latitude is allowed in these debates to range over matters that are not precisely on the point of the question before the chair, which is why am not saying that you are out of order here. In order to deal with your questions and progress this debate in the most efficient manner—and to avoid the cynical abuse of standing order 189(3), which we saw from your colleague Senator Ludlam not long ago—I am proposing to listen to your questions carefully, as I have been doing, make a note of each of them and, when you have finished asking all your questions, respond to all of them. You may have subsequent questions of clarification arising out of that. That is a matter for you.

Perhaps you are being made the play thing of a more Machiavellian colleague to your immediate right. Senator Wright, I do not want this debate filibustered. These are important matters. You have announced that you are supporting these amendments and yet, between you, Senator Ludlam and Senator Milne, somehow we do not seem able to get to a vote. Nor, indeed, do we seem able to get to a position where you have asked all your questions so that I can answer all your questions.

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (18:52): There is quite a lot there, Chair. Firstly, I am a big girl—I am a very big girl—and I am big enough and ugly enough to determine my own questions. I do not need to be patronised in any way by anyone. Secondly, yes, I am halfway through my first term in this parliament, but I have sat through enough committee stages of debate to be very, very clear that the purpose of this process in the Senate is to enable questioning, debating and understanding about the implications of any legislation that is being proposed either by the government or whoever has introduced the bill. It is by no means unusual to ask broad-ranging questions. I am also a lawyer, and I know that to some extent even comments that are made in the course of parliamentary debates can provide information and assistance in limited circumstances when interpretation of the legislation is ambiguous and needs to be clarified. It is very useful to have an opportunity to ask questions where there are provisions that are begging explanation and which are not clear. As I have said consistently throughout this debate: this is not something I thought up in the shower this morning; these are questions that have been legitimately put by a range of organisations, and to parliamentary committees in some cases, and I am seeking clarification. This is the national Parliament of Australia, these are significant laws and people in Australia have a right to understand how they may work once they are passed. That is the basis on which I am asking these questions.

I am reassured to think that if you give answers to the questions I have asked, Attorney-General, then there will not be some game played whereby it will be the last speech and then we will have to go to a vote, but that I will have an opportunity to clarify, in good faith, those aspects that I am not clear about. That being the case, I am happy to hear now the responses to my questions. They were all the general questions that I had, and in relation to the amendments. As I said when I was asking my first question: while these amendments go to some of the recommendations of the PJCIS, they do not go to all of them. They certainly do not allay all of the concerns that the Australian Greens have, but given that they do improve the bill we will be supporting them. I am happy to hear answers to those questions now, if the Attorney-General is minded to provide those.

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council, Minister for Arts and Attorney-General) (18:55): Thank you, Senator Wright. I thought you had more questions, I must say, but if those are all your questions then let me give you the answers. In fact, Senator Wright, there are really only three issues you have raised.

First of all, you addressed recommendation 2 of the PJCIS report. I am asked why it is that the legislation does not define the expressions 'supports' and 'facilitates'. What recommendation 2 in fact does, and what the government has accepted because the government accepted all of the PJCIS recommendations, is to provide guidance in a revised explanatory memorandum of those terms. There is a particular reason why both the PJCIS and the government, in responding to its recommendations, have decided to approach the matter in that way. Those terms are borrowed from the Criminal Code. They are not defined in the Criminal Code either, but they are the subject of a body of judicial interpretation. The word 'supports', as you would know, Senator, as a lawyer, is not a lawyer's term of art; it has its common speech meaning. The word 'facilitates' is not a lawyer's term of art; it has its common speech meaning. Those terms used in a number of sections of the Criminal Code have been interpreted by the courts.

So you will readily understand, I am sure, Senator Wright, that if we were now to introduce a statutory definition of 'supports' and 'facilitates' here, then we would have the logical problem of having the terms undefined in other provisions of the Criminal Code, except by judicial interpretation, but defined in this section in a way which may not precisely mirror the judicial interpretation of the words elsewhere, so there would be the risk of inconsistent sets of definitions. You know the way courts approach these issues, Senator Wright: they would say, 'Well, the legislature, in its wisdom, defined these terms here, but it left them undefined there and there must be a reason for that, so the terms here must have a different meaning to the terms elsewhere in the legislation'. Purely from a legislative drafting point of view, the decision was made by both the PJCIS and by the government, in responding, to maintain consistency throughout the Criminal Code in the use of these terms but, as is commonly done, to give a fuller explanation in the explanatory memorandum. That is what the PJCIS asked us to do, and that is what we are doing.

The second issue you raise is an issue raised by recommendation 7 of the PJCIS report, and it is also an issue raised by paragraphs 1.73 through to 1.76 of the human rights committee report. I should say that the human rights committee report was only tabled during the course of the afternoon. I have not had an opportunity to study it carefully, but I accept what you say: that the paragraphs from which you have quoted—paragraphs 1.73 through to 1.76—raise essentially the same issue—that is, the definition of a class of persons. Recommendation 7 of the PJCIS report also was to the effect that that term should be explained in the EM, not in the bill, and that recommendation has also been adopted by the government.

What the amended EM which deals with this matter will explain is that a class of persons is identified solely by reference to the involvement or likely involvement of all of its members in activities of the type specified in paragraph 9(1A)(a) and not the personal or situational characteristics of individual persons, such as religion, political or ideological orientation, ethnicity or mere presence in a particular location. The activities specified in paragraph 9(1A)(a) are activities which involve a threat to security. The common feature of the class members is their involvement in hostile or prejudicial acts—not whether or not, for example, they happen to belong to a religious group or a political or ideological group or a particular ethnicity. So the meaning of 'class' is both narrow and specific to engagement in unlawful conduct. I should add that the Attorney-General's agreement to a class of persons can only be provided where the entire class of persons is involved or is likely to be involved in an activity or activities that are or are likely to be a threat to security as defined in section 4 of the ASIO Act.

In particular I want to make it clear to you, Senator Wright, that the class of persons is defined solely by reference to the involvement or likely involvement of all of its members in an activity that is or is likely to be a threat to security—and not the personal or situational characteristics of individual persons. That is why, by the way, the identification of a group by reference to a class of persons, as opposed to a nominated individual or individuals, is adopted—because, to be a class member, every member of that group has to be involved in the activity prejudicial to security. This is a compendious way of dealing with one or more activities inimical to security in which a multiplicity of persons are jointly embarked. That is the reason for the adoption of that language. It will be clarified in the amended explanatory memorandum which will be circulated tomorrow. That equally explains the question posed by the Human Rights Committee.

Thirdly, Senator Wright, you asked on what basis 7 March 2018 was set as the date of review of this legislation by the PJCIS. The PJCIS report on the foreign fighters bill, of which this is, in a sense, a further elaboration, recommended that certain powers be reviewed and sunset 18 months and two years, respectively, after the next federal election—18 months for review and two years, potentially, for sunset. Rather than have uncertainty about the dates in the legislation, dates 18 months and two years after the third anniversary of the last federal election were used. Those dates are, respectively, 7 March 2018 and 17 September 2018. The judgement that was made, purely for the sake of convenience and clarity, was to take the date three years after the 2013 federal election and identify dates, respectively, 18 months and two years after that. Those were the three issues you raised, Senator Wright, and those are the answers.

Senator Ludlam, you referred to a report by a journalist called Heath Aston quoting Vice Admiral David Johnston. I of course adopt the prudent practice of never taking anything that you say at face value and I will check the report of Vice Admiral David Johnston's remarks. Nevertheless, your question was, according to my notes: is it the policy of the Australian government to seek out and target Australian citizens and is this the purpose of these amendments? The answer to both of those questions is no.

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (19:05): Thank you, Attorney. I do have some questions that flow from that. Although you did take good notes of some of the questions I was asking, there were some you did not respond to. I do not know if that was because you did not want to respond to them or because you did not note them. They were questions about the necessity of the measures and about how these things will actually look on the ground—the context.

First, however, there was an issue about which I wanted to seek clarification. You said, I think, that the two phrases that I had asked about—the 'support and facilitate' phrase and the 'classes of Australians' phrase—are in the explanatory memorandum. Is it right that that has not yet been circulated?

Senator Brandis: That is right.

Senator WRIGHT: That makes it a little difficult to understand what the implications—

Senator Brandis: Senator Wright, I have asked for that explanatory memorandum to be circulated—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN ( Senator O'Neill ): Senator Brandis! In your urgency, you did not wait for the call. Senator Wright has not finished her speech.

Senator Brandis: I was trying to respond to Senator Wright's questions.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: You have to ask me for the call. You might sit down for the moment, because Senator Wright was on her feet and continuing to speak.

Senator Brandis: I am not going to ask you, Madame Chair. I am going to reply to Senator Wright.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Please take your seat, Senator Brandis. Senator Wright has the call.

Senator WRIGHT: I am sorry—I automatically sit down. I am a bit too polite, I think.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I appreciate that, Senator Wright. Please continue your remarks.

Senator WRIGHT: I just automatically did. The point that I make is that this is genuinely frustrating because, if that explanatory memorandum had been circulated before we were debating this issue, some of those questions that I asked may not have needed to be asked or, indeed, I may have other questions that arise from that when I see it. I was listening carefully to the reading that the Attorney-General gave, but I was trying to understand quickly what the implications of that kind of definition might be.

I will come back to the question—and, Attorney-General, you may want to now respond to that—but I will ask another question in the meantime so that you can respond to that too. I did ask not only how the term 'supports and facilitates' has been defined in the redrafted explanatory memorandum—because I understand now that we will see that tomorrow and, presumably, before we vote on the bill; I am hoping for obvious reasons—but also what that will mean in context. That is because the potential breadth of that phrase has caused concern, and some submission makers have even suggested that it could be used to prevent a person from, for instance, using social media or accessing online banking, if it were thought that it might be useful for a terrorist investigation. So what are the outer limits, in a sense, of that regime that is being proposed in the bill and the definition of that phrase?

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council, Minister for Arts and Attorney-General) (19:08): I am very perplexed, Senator. You were criticising me a few moments ago for not responding properly enough to your questions and now, Senator Wright, you are criticising me for being too eager to respond to your questions. All I was trying to tell you, Senator Wright, is that I have asked for the explanatory memorandum to be available as early and as quickly as possible. I expect that it will be able to be circulated in the chamber when the debate resumes tomorrow morning. That was the answer to the question that you asked me and then did not pause for the answer when I offered it.

Senator Wright, in relation to the substantive issue you raise, I think I have already addressed this by pointing out that there are accretions of judicial interpretation to the existing use of those terms in the Criminal Code. It is very bad practice, in fact, and productive of confusion, frankly, to define too narrowly generic common speech language in an act of parliament and to rule in and to rule out whether language is caught by generic common speech words on a series of hypothetical examples. That is not what parliaments do; that is what courts do. The word 'support' and the word 'facilitate' each have an ordinary natural meaning in the English language. As those words are used in the existing provisions of the Criminal Code, they have on occasions been applied to the facts of particular cases, and courts applying those general words to the facts of particular cases have developed their meaning, in the way that the law always does when it applies general language to particular instances. That is the way this should work. That is why the PJCIS and the government both decided that it would be bad drafting practice to include a definition within the statute of these words which have an ordinary natural meaning in the English language. I am not going to speculate about what a court might do on a hypothetical case in applying general words to particular hypothetical facts. I am just not going to do it. You said yourself, Senator Wright—and you were quite right in saying so—that on occasions courts, in construing an act, will have regard to what ministers say in the course of parliamentary debates. How wrong would it be of me, as the responsible minister here, to, as it were, dictate to the guidance of a court how it ought to apply these general words in particular hypothetical cases?

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (19:12): I agree with you: it is the role of courts to determine the meaning of legislation in a particular case when that case goes to the court. However, my view is that it is the responsibility and accountability of parliament to take responsibility for the language that it chooses to enact in legislation which will potentially affect people's lives significantly. It is certainly an accepted principle of law that it is desirable to have clarity in legislation so that a person who is going about their business within the community has some understanding about what behaviour may or may not be caught by what, in this case, are significant provisions which have the effect of potentially destroying someone's livelihood, in the sense that they may not be able to work, there may be an order that they are not able to attend their place of work, and so on. Always, as much certainty as possible is desirable so that people do not have to 'suck it and see'—they do not have to wait and see if they are caught up by behaviour. When there is broad, ordinary language that is encompassed in ordinary meaning—which could be extremely broad; 'support' is a very broad word—I put it to you, Attorney, that it is reasonable to ask about hypothetical examples. I think the requirement for certainty would be directly proportional to the consequences of the legislation or the provisions that are being enacted—and these are significant provisions with a significant effect on the human rights of Australian citizens. That is why I have been asking the question, but I accept that you are not going to give any further answers on that.

I come to the response that you gave to my request for more clarity on the definition of the class of Australian persons. I do not have the explanatory memorandum in front of me, so I do not have the wording here, but I noted that paragraph 9(1A)(a) has defined or indicated that this will not be a class by reference to ethnicity, religious or political belief but will be a class of persons that has to be involved in activity that is prejudicial to security. If I have that wrong, I would appreciate you correcting me on that.

In that case, I am still interested in asking the question: how would that provision operate in context? How would it be possible to identify a class of persons in a foreign country that is involved in a way that is prejudicial to security? How will they be identified? I can envisage various scenarios where—even if people are in a particular geographical area, perhaps dressed in certain clothing, perhaps holding certain flags that might suggest that they are associated with a terrorist organisation—it may still be possible that some of those people are there subject to coercion or for some other reason. I am interested in the parameters again, in how that will operate contextually.

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council, Minister for Arts and Attorney-General) (19:16): They are going to be defined by reference to their conduct. It is that simple. If it is the kind of conduct to which section 9(1A)(a) applies, then they can be deemed a constituted class. For that to occur, every such person has to partake of the proscribed conduct. If not, then not.

If I may say so—with all due respect, Senator Wright—this is a very good example of why it is not a useful or a fruitful exercise, in a debate of this kind, to continually propose hypothetical situations. This is for investigators, and prosecutors, and ultimately it is for the courts to determine. It is for the legislature to give clear guidance, which in the nature of statutory language is of necessity at a level of generality. It is for investigators—perhaps prosecutors, perhaps courts ultimately—to apply those general words to a particular case. But, to answer your question about the conceptual level, the way in which membership of a class will be judged is by reference to conduct.

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (19:17): I indicate that, for the sake of progressing this matter, I do not have any further questions.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The question is that government amendments (1) to (6), (8) to (14), (17), and (19) to (30) on sheet ES111 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council, Minister for Arts and Attorney-General) (19:18): by leave—I move government amendments (7), (15), (16) and (18) on sheet ES111 together:

(7) Schedule 1, item 13, page 7 (lines 18 to 28), to be opposed.

(15) Schedule 1, items 23 and 24, page 8 (line 23) to page 9 (line 10), to be opposed.

(16) Schedule 1, items 26 and 27, page 9 (lines 20 to 25), to be opposed.

(18) Schedule 1, item 29, page 10 (lines 4 to 14), to be opposed.

Senator BRANDIS: I think, in view of the time, I am going to have to make my remarks about these amendments tomorrow when debate resumes.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Indeed, I think that may be the case.

Debate adjourned. Progress reported.