Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (09:31): by leave—I move revised motion No. 776, standing in my name:

That—

(1) T he Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee be required to hold a private meeting today, 25 June 2015, otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1), immediately following the adjournment of the scheduled Legislation Committee meeting or at 11 am, whichever is earliest and that the agenda for the Reference Committee meeting include:

(a) The election of a new chair of the committee; and

(b) Deliberation on the committee's progress on its inquiry into the handling of a letter sent by Mr Mon Haron Monis to the Attorney-General, including the letter, dated 24 June 2015 from Mr Thawley, Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, and received by committee on 24 June 2015.

(2) The time for the presentation of the report on the handling of a letter sent by Mr Mon Haron Monis to the Attorney-General be extended to 12 August 2015.

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (09:32): I would like to speak to the motion. This is another outrageous abuse by the Labor Party of the whole Senate practice. In case people do not know: I am the chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. I am told by Senator Collins—nobody has bothered to tell me, as chair of this committee or as deputy chair of the references committee—that apparently the chair of the references committee, Senator Wright, has resigned. No-one has had the courtesy to tell me as deputy chair, and now I am apparently the acting chairman of the references committee and chairman of the legislation committee.

This motion just announced by Senator Collins sets up a meeting with me—as the acting chair, apparently—and with other colleagues, without any consultation about their diaries, their timetables or their requirements for today. This is just outrageous, and it brings the Senate committee system into abject disrepute.

You might recall, Mr President, that this Monis letter, the subject of the references committee, was a matter that the legislation committee was dealing with as a result of evidence that came up in the estimates committee at the last estimates hearings. There was a request from two Labor senators and one Greens senator to have a spillover specifically on the matter of the Monis letters. The legislation committee has dealt with that and has set down or is about to set down hearings for that particular matter. The Greens support Labor on everything—all of their dodgy deals—and I do not think the crossbenchers care about these things, because they are just committee matters, so, unfortunately, with crossbench and Greens support, the references committee was then given the same reference, given the whole inquiry that the legislation committee had properly already before it.

I say to the crossbenchers: I know these are not matters of great consequence to you and they are just more political games by the ALP, but we have to draw the line somewhere. We have to say, ' Enough is enough.' If the Senate committee system is going to mean anything at all, then we have to do this regularly. I had not even seen the motion that Senator Collins just moved. She just showed it to me when I went to tell her, a minute ago, that, because I thought there were going to be a lot of divisions early, I have changed the scheduled meeting of the legislation committee, which was set down for 9.30. I just went to tell Senator Collins that, instead of having it in 1S6, we are going to have it outside here so we are available to come in if there are divisions. It was then that Senator Collins, for the first time, showed me this amended motion before the chair.

I am not sure, but I think I saw that Senator Lazarus was about to be appointed the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. Those positions usually go to the Labor Party. Occasionally the Labor Party allows them to go to the Greens, as happened in this case. Now we are going to apparently—according to a motion by the Labor Party—have as chair an Independent senator, who is a nice guy but who has taken absolutely no interest in the legal and constitutional affairs committees of this parliament and who has taken no apparent interest in the Monis letters. And suddenly this person, so I am told, is about to be appointed by a majority as chair. I will have to have a look at where the numbers lie on that committee now, because, with Senator Wright having resigned, it may be that the voting—

Senator Jacinta Collins: No; it is a standing order, Ian.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: What is the standing order?

Senator Jacinta Collins: It is a crossbench position.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Macdonald, you have the call.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: This sort of activity brings not only the Senate committee system but the Senate generally into disrepute. The motion says that:

… the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee be required to hold a private meeting today, 25 June 2015, otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1), immediately following the adjournment of the scheduled Legislation Committee meeting or at 11 am, whichever is earliest …

The agenda for the references committees shall be:

(a) The election of a new chair of the committee—

Senator Whish-Wilson: Boring!

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Do you know why I am reading this out? Because it is the first time that I, as the deputy chairman of the committee, have had the opportunity of seeing it. It goes on to say:

(b) Deliberation on the committee's progress on its inquiry into the handling of a letter by Mr Mon Haron Monis to the Attorney-General, including the letter, dated 24 June 2015 from Mr Thawley, Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, and received by committee on 24 June 2015.

Apparently we are going to elect a new chair and we are going to deliberate on the committee's progress on its inquiry into the Man Haron Monis letter. That should not take very long because there has been absolutely no progress. What we have had is two committee hearings so far where officers of the department are being required to advise to the exact minute when they made a phone call three months ago. I have been critical of them because they have been able to give the minute when they got the thing but they have not been able to give a second. This committee is so outraged that these public officials are being asked three or four months later to say exactly what minute of the day they actually went to the toilet, when they blew their noses and when they happened to make a phone call to someone else. It is outrageous. There is a standing convention, of course, that secretaries of the Department of Prime and Cabinet do not appear before committees. In this instance, that does not really matter because the deputy secretary, who was principally involved in this inquiry, the 2IC—certainly, Mr Thawley is the nominated person who had oversight and who released the report—and who knows everything, I would say, has not been 'grilled'—the questioning was a bit like a lettuce leaf, except when I demanded that he give the second rather than just the minute.

Senator Jacinta Collins: Oh, it was you!

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Yes, but it shows how stupid the whole thing was: was the phone call at 8.55, 8.56 or 8.57? Because the officials could not quite remember, they were berated by members of the Labor Party. Deliberation on the progress of this committee's inquiry will not take long because there has been no progress. What Senator Brandis said in the estimates committee hearing, and he then corrected in one small area immediately he was able, has all been there on the public record for weeks and for months; yet, this references committee has sat for two days already going over and over and over and over the same things. This abuse of the process, again, continues today.

Somewhere along the line this Senate has to get the Senate committee system back to the times when it was respected and when it operated properly, when it operated with cooperation between all senators because we were doing good things. I am sorry that Senator Lazarus seems to be tied up in this because you will recall that that Queensland committee—the reference about the Newman government to be investigated by a select committee which Senator Lazarus chaired—was a committee set up notwithstanding that the government had by far the biggest number of senators in this chamber. The government had one senator on that committee, the Labor Party had two, the Greens had one and Senator Lazarus was the other one. So of a five-member committee, the government had one member. That brought the Senate into disrepute. It was an absolute farce, that committee; nothing came out of it and nothing was achieved. No new information came out and it was just a waste of the senators' time and the taxpayers' money.

There have been a couple of other instances and this is just another one—purely political. Once the Senate adopts what seems to be an increasing situation by the Labor Party that we will run these committees purely for partisan political purposes or to give one of their allies the additional resources that comes with the chairmanship of a committee—

As I say, the chair is a person who, to my knowledge, has taken absolutely no interest in this matter at all—has not attended an estimates committee and has not, as a participating member, attended any of the other committees. As I understand it—someone has mentioned this to me—I am assuming the suggestion is that this crossbench senator will become the new chair.

The motion we are dealing with states:

The time for the presentation of the report on the handling of a letter sent by Mr Mon Haron Monis to the Attorney-General be extended to 12 August 2015.

This committee should have been able to report five minutes after it started, but the reporting date is now being extended to 12 August. I have no indication of what that is about. There has been no argument by the mover of the motion as to the reason for this. The committee was supposed to report today. I would have hoped that the committee would have had its report circulated to committee members, as is usual. Certainly, those of us who suspect what the chair's report might be have taken the precaution of getting a dissenting report ready for tabling today, in accordance with the procedures of the Senate.

Again, changing these things without notice to other members of the committee—with 10 seconds notice—is not the way that this chamber should operate. It is not the way the Senate committee system has operated in years gone by. It distresses me, as someone who has been in this place a long time, who has seen the good work that Senate committees have done, very often in a bipartisan way, very often correcting legislation and actions of governments, be they Liberal governments or Labor governments. Committees have investigated various areas and looked into them, as they should, and have made recommendations which both Liberal and Labor governments have accepted as being a sensible addition to the debate on these issues. Yet, in recent times, we have had the sort of dodgy dealing that is evidenced by this motion today.

Does it matter that I and other members of the committee have other things planned for 11 o'clock today? Did it matter that, when this committee first sat, the majority of the committee members picked a day that they knew I would be in Cairns for the launch of the northern Australia policy and that Senator Reynolds, the other regular member of this committee, would be in Amberley with a defence committee, that being a longstanding commitment? They knew that, so they set down the meeting for that day, when government senators would not be available. Fortunately, we were able, at short notice, to get another senator—one senator only—to fill in. But that sort of activity just brings the whole system into disrepute and means that the cooperation needed to run the Senate is rapidly dissipating.

I suspect that one of the decisions of this committee—I have no notice of this—is that they will probably want to have a hearing tomorrow. That is because they know that tomorrow is the meeting of the Federal Council of the Liberal Party and they know that all Liberal senators will be in Melbourne for the Federal Council.

Senator Bilyk: I didn't, but I do now!

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Well, if you did not know that, you should ask Senator Dastyari—he is the one with all the intelligence, although that is mainly within the Labor Party, not outside.

This procedure is a sad indictment of where the Senate has gone. I am sad that the Senate has come to this. The Greens political party are no Democrats, I have to say—at least the Democrats used to follow some of the norms of this chamber and some of the procedures that made the place work. This is an outrageous abuse of the proceedings of the Senate.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Collins be agreed to.

The PRESIDENT (09:57): Does any senator wish to have the motion put on that question about the committee meeting? There being none, I will call Senator Fifield to move a motion.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (10:22): 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 FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (10:22): I seek leave to move a motion to exempt this bill from the bills cut-off order.

Leave not granted.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (10:22): Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Abetz, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of the matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion to exempt this bill from the bills cut-off order.

As I indicated in my contribution on the motion relating to hours, the offshore processing arrangements are central to the government's efforts to protect our borders. We place a very high premium as a government on the protection of our borders. We are seeking exemption from the cut-off in order to enable this legislation to be debated and resolved today. The government is clearly of the view that it is important to that it is important to ensure certainty and a robust legislative basis for offshore processing. In seeking to move exemption from the cut-off, we are not attempting to do anything other than what has frequently been done in this place for bills which are time critical.

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (10:24): I am scratching my head about why this is so critical today because we are told that it is important to rush this legislation through, that it is absolutely critical that we bypass the ordinary procedures of the Senate to ensure there is certainty around the law. I go back to a question asked by my colleague Senator Hanson-Young of Senator Brandis yesterday where she asked whether the government was ramming this through the Senate because the actions of this government have indeed been unlawful

Senator Brandis said:

No, that is incorrect, Senator. The government is of the view that the offshore processing arrangements are lawful. That is the view of the government. … and I understand the former Labor government also believed—that the offshore processing arrangements were lawful.

You cannot have it both ways. Either Senator Brandis was misleading the parliament yesterday when he put his position forward that these arrangements are lawful, or this legislation is necessary because they are unlawful. Only one of the two is correct.

If we are to accept that Senator Brandis did not mislead the parliament yesterday, there is absolutely no need to do this. There is no need to bypass the ordinary procedures of the Senate. There is no need to ram through this legislation; there is no need to do it without any scrutiny; there is no need to bypass the courts; there is no need to trample on the democratic institutions this country is founded on. There is no need to do it. Senator Brandis made it crystal clear: in his view, in the view of the government, existing arrangements are lawful. So why are we having the debate? What is the reason for doing this? There is none. Or perhaps there is a reason. Perhaps Senator Brandis was misleading the parliament.

We will give him the opportunity to correct the record. If he indeed does believe, and if he is certain, that the arrangements are not legal, then I am sure the Labor Party would agree that we can assume that this is totally unnecessary and that what we are doing here is wasting the parliament's time. If, on the other hand, the government feels the urgency to support this motion, again with the support of the Labor Party, then I expect that Senator Brandis will correct the record, and he will correct the response that he gave to Senator Hanson-Young in question time.

This is a disgraceful abuse of the parliament. We have a system of detention where there is some contention. It is the job of the High Court to resolve that; it is not the job of this parliament to bypass the law. We do not support the motion. We think it should go to committee for further scrutiny. We think that it is critical that a decision of this importance—effectively saying that the court needs to be bypassed by the actions of this parliament in a last minute rush on the verge of a long break—is not appropriate. We will not be supporting the motion. We think that the Labor Party and the crossbenchers should join us in opposing this abuse of the parliament.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders, moved by Senator Fifield, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (10:28): I move:

That a motion to exempt this bill from the bills cut-off order may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business today until determined.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (10:34): I move:

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the bill, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.

I move:

That the question be now put.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that that motion—that the question be now put—be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: The question now is that the cut-off motion be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (10:35): I table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows—

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2015 WINTER SITTINGS

MIGRATION AMENDMENT (REGIONAL PROCESSING ARRANGEMENTS) BILL

Purpose of the Bill

The bill amends the Migration Act 1958 to provide express statutory authority for actions undertaken by the Commonwealth in relation to an arrangement with a regional processing country or the regional processing functions of a country, including expenditure related to those arrangements or functions.

Reasons for Urgency

This bill should be introduced and passed in the same sittings as it makes critical amendments to the Migration Act 1958 which will ensure that there is a robust legislative basis for regional processing and related expenditure.

Proceedings have been commenced in the High Court which challenge aspects of the Commonwealth’s regional processing arrangements. The amendments in this bill seek to address the issues raised in these proceedings. As it is desirable for these amendments to be in place prior to the High Court Hearing, this bill must be passed as a matter of urgency.

Senator FIFIELD: 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—

MIGRATION AMENDMENT (REGIONAL PROCESSING ARRANGEMENTS) BILL 2015

I move that this Bill be now read a second time.

The Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill 2015 amends the Migration Act 1958 to provide express statutory authority which applies where the Commonwealth has entered into an arrangement with another country with respect to the regional processing functions of that country.

The amendment solely goes to:

1. Enabling payments; and

2. Enabling the fact of regional processing.

The legislation does not change or in any way expand the current situation in regional offshore processing.

The amendments made by this Bill strengthen and put beyond any doubt the existing legislative authority to give practical effect to the substantive regional processing provisions inserted by the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Act 2012.

This is achieved by providing clear express statutory authority for the Commonwealth to provide assistance to other countries to carry into effect arrangements for the processing and management of unauthorised maritime arrivals who have been taken to regional processing countries. This also extends to the expenditure of Commonwealth money on these arrangements.

The substantive regional processing provisions came into effect on 18 August 2012. It provides for the transfer of illegal maritime arrivals, who arrive in Australia by boat without a visa, to be transferred to another country for assessment by that country of their claims to be refugees. The only condition for the designation of a country is that the Minister thinks that it is in the national interest to make the designation. Currently, the Republic of Nauru and the Independent State of Papua New Guinea are designated as regional processing countries.

The current regional processing framework was introduced by the Labor Government. The amendments were made to the Migration Act 1958 by the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Act 2012 to:

provide that an offshore entry person is a person who has, at any time, entered Australia at an excised offshore place after the excision time for that offshore place and became an unlawful non-citizen because of that entry;

allow a regional processing country to be designated without limitation by the international obligations or domestic law of that country;

provide that, subject to relevant limitations, that an offshore entry person detained under section 189 of the Migration Act 1958 must be taken to a regional processing country as soon as practicable.

On 10 September 2012, the then Minister for Immigration and Citizenship designated Nauru a regional processing country.

On 9 October 2012, the then Minister for Immigration and Citizenship designated the Independent State of Papua New Guinea a regional processing country.

The Bill confirms the ability of Australian officials, acting on behalf of the Commonwealth, to take action to assist the foreign government in the regional processing country, consistent with the law of that country.

The Bill only seeks to ensure that there is express legislative authority for the Commonwealth to provide assistance to other countries to carry into effect arrangements for the processing and management of unauthorised maritime arrivals who have been taken to regional processing countries. It does not purport to have any effect in itself on the rights of those persons.

The Bill applies where the Commonwealth has entered into an arrangement with a person or body in relation to the regional processing functions of a country. 'Person' includes a 'body politic' and therefore a country

Specifically, the Bill provides statutory authority for the Commonwealth to:

take, or cause to be taken, any action in relation to the arrangement or the regional processing functions of the country;

make payments, or cause payments to be made, in relation to the arrangement or the regional processing functions of the country; and

do anything that is incidental or conducive to the taking of such action or the making of such payments.

In this Bill, "regional processing functions" includes the implementation of any law or policy, or the taking of any action, by a country in connection with the role of the country as a regional processing country, whether the implementation or the taking of action occurs in that country or another country.

The Bill also makes clear that an arrangement is a very broad term, and can apply to arrangement, agreement, understanding, promise or undertaking, whether or not it is legally binding.

The term "action" explicitly includes exercising restraint over the liberty of a person. I wish to make it clear that Australia does not restrain the liberty of persons in regional processing countries. To the extent that the liberty of persons taken to regional processing countries is restrained in those countries, this is done by those countries under the respective laws of those countries.

These amendments do not otherwise provide authority for any restraint over the liberty of persons. The lawful authority for any restraint over liberty arises under the law of the relevant regional processing country.

To avoid any doubt about the intention of these amendments, the Bill includes a provision to clarify that these amendments are intended to ensure that the Commonwealth has capacity and authority to take action, without otherwise affecting the lawfulness of that action. The purpose of this provision is to assist readers to understand the purpose of these amendments, which are limited to providing the Commonwealth with express legislative authority to take action to assist foreign governments in regional processing countries.

These amendments will apply from 18 August 2012. This has the effect of retrospectively and prospectively authorising Commonwealth actions and expenditure in regional processing countries. 18 August 2012 is the date on which the existing legislative framework for regional processing under the Migration Act commenced. The retrospective operation of these provisions will provide authority for all activity undertaken in relation to regional processing arrangements for the entire period these arrangements have been in place.

The Government wishes to ensure that there is a sustainable and solid framework for Australia's role in regional processing arrangements. To ensure the long term viability of regional processing, the amendments in the Bill seek to strengthen the existing legislative framework for regional processing activities.

There is no question that the regional processing arrangements are important to Australia's strong border protection policies. Specifically, regional processing arrangements help combat people smuggling. Offshore processing removes the attraction of engaging a people smuggler and taking a dangerous boat journey. Anyone who comes to Australia illegally by boat without a visa will never be settled in Australia. Regional processing is therefore an important regional solution for maintaining Australia's strong border protection policies.

The Government does not want the sustainability of regional processing weakened. The Australian people do not want to see a surge in people smuggling ventures again. Nor do we want people's lives put at risk. We want a sustainable and solid framework for processing claims in regional processing countries. The Australian population deserves greater confidence in the integrity of the regional processing framework.

Regional cooperation is a key element of the Government's approach to the protection of our borders. This Bill will ensure that Australia is able to continue to provide the necessary support and assistance to regional processing countries to carry out these arrangements.

I trust this Bill will have the support of all members, most particularly those with an interest in ensuring the continued success of regional processing arrangements.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (10:36): This government seeks this chamber's support to deal with an urgent bill which it introduced yesterday, the Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill 2015. It would be comforting to say that this level of disorganisation was unusual for this government, an aberration to its otherwise smooth and efficient running of policy and parliamentary processes. That would be comforting but it would not be true. This is a government that is characterised by chaos and dysfunction. I do not think I have seen anything like this in my 22 years in this chamber, where a government has had matters before it—as has been indicated—since February and discovers, on the second last day of a session, that as a matter of urgency it must resolve this question within 24 hours.

We of course acknowledge there are occasions when governments do have to act quickly, but the government has had these matters—this court case—before it since February and has only resolved to act in the last 24 hours of this session. That strikes me as gross incompetence. But it does not change the fact that there is a major problem that requires resolution, and, despite the fact that those opposite have never provided the level of support that they are now seeking from us—they never provided that when we were in government—we will offer that support today. We will help the government out. This urgent bill does require the support of this chamber, and the opposition will be doing all that it can. Despite the gross misrepresentations that this government has made of Labor's position, despite the extraordinary attempts to manipulate, divide and polarise the community around these issues, we will be supporting these measures, because we are better than them when it comes to these questions.

We could retaliate in exactly the same way as the Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, acted when the High Court took steps on the Malaysia agreement. When Prime Minister Gillard wrote to Mr Abbott seeking his support for legislative change, what did Mr Abbott say? He said, 'This is a problem that you have created and it is your responsibility to solve it.' Just imagine if Mr Shorten responded to the Prime Minister's request in exactly the same terms. Where would we be? Of course, the reality is we will not be responding in those terms. We will not be responding in the way Mr Howard acted on the Tampa issue or Mr Reith acted on the 'children overboard' issue. We will not be presenting to the people of this country a proposition that the government wants to roll out the red carpet to people smugglers and terrorists. We said that there are substantive issues of principle that we need to deal with in a proper and peaceable way. That is the approach we will be taking.

We have accepted the assurances put down in the second reading speech by this government that this bill does not seek to go further in the introduction of new policy in regard to regional processing. It seeks only to enable payments to be made at law. That is the basis on which we are acting. We accept the assurances put down in the second reading speech that the purpose of this legislation is quite specific.

We acknowledge that regional processing is necessary. We reintroduced regional processing in government. We did so on the clear understanding that it was a mechanism that was necessary to stop the criminal syndicates sending people to this country, endangering their lives and exploiting their misery. There was no question that that policy was successful. The number of boats that came immediately after the introduction of that policy dropped by 90 per cent. But in no circumstances did we ever sign up to the proposition that the establishment of regional processing centres meant that we were going to legitimise the brutalisation and mistreatment of people who were detained. At no point have we signed up to that. That is the substantive question that I have no doubt we will want to explore here today.

There is no excuse whatsoever for a country like Australia to abandon its responsibilities at law, on international terms or in terms of basic morality. We have a duty of care when we detain people, and they have not been treated properly. Under the current arrangements, we cannot even guarantee people's security let alone assure them that they will not be mistreated by people who we pay to protect them.

The proposition we have before us is a very simple measure, but there are circumstances on which I believe firmly there need to be some answers. Labor senators will be pursuing that. What the opposition leader put yesterday is that these are circumstances in which the government comes before the parliament where trust is in short supply. This is a government that has managed to take a political advantage out of every circumstance here. This is a government that has, as I have indicated, since Peter Reith and John Howard had the firm belief that it can appeal to the most xenophobic and racist elements of our community and that it can seek to win votes by being more brutal about these issues than anybody else.

If anyone even raises a question, it is presented in a dog whistle way that the person asking the question lacks legitimacy. That is a proposition we reject. It is our responsibility to defend our country's reputation, to make sure that people who are detained by this country are treated properly and humanely. We will be supporting this legislation on the basis of what the government has said, but we will not stop criticising the way in which this government has behaved when it comes to the gross political exploitation of these issues. We acknowledge that there should be no confusion between the need to stop criminal syndicates exploiting human misery and the need to act properly, humanely and compassionately. That is the basis on which we will proceed on this question.

There are genuine refugees. The proposition that the government seems to advance is that that is an alien concept. There is a notion in this government that rejects the idea that people have any rights to appeal for refugee status in this country. Why else would the government constantly refer to these people as 'illegals'? They do not even acknowledge the legal right that people have to seek political refuge.

What we have at this time throughout the world is probably the greatest period of social distress and displacement of people that we have seen since the Second World War. There are more displaced people, more asylum seekers and more refugees on the planet today than at any time since the extraordinary upheavals of 1945. Our response calls upon us to acknowledge that there is a huge crisis throughout the world. Our response should not be to draw up the bridges and say, 'We don't want to know anything about that.' Our response should be to engage through the international community and the regional processing arrangements to ensure that Australia does its bit to end the human misery.

That is why we have committed to the highest numbers ever for humanitarian settlement. That is why we have committed to ensure that people are treated properly. We also have to acknowledge that desperate, downtrodden people will do desperate things. We have to stop that occurring when it endangers their lives. We are supporting this bill because we acknowledge that people's safety comes first—much before any partisan advantage that politicians can derive on human rights.

We know that the regional processing arrangements work. The government is acknowledging that in the fact that it has brought this legislation forward. We know that the agreements that have been negotiated with Papua New Guinea and Nauru are very important in stopping the actions of those criminal syndicates. We also note, however, that there is no reason why those actions in themselves should legitimise the mistreatment of people as part of a deterrent.

This issue was first raised through the Malaysia agreement. I have already mentioned Tony Abbott's response to that, but I have not forgotten the fact that the Greens and the Liberal opposition at the time came together to stop that. I can understand that the conservatives in this country would play politics hard on these issues. We now know, though, that the real reason they did it was not because the agreement was not any good. I can remember Joe Hockey in tears. Do you remember that? There were extraordinary scenes of Joe Hockey in tears. He said he would not send unaccompanied kiddies across to Malaysia. Yet he has sat in a cabinet of a government that has done the sorts of things that this government has done to people on Nauru. We know that the real reason the Liberals opposed the Malaysia agreement was not that they thought it was morally objectionable. They opposed it because they thought it might work and take away from the Liberal opposition at the time a major political weapon that they could use against the Labor government.

Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition reminded the government of another truth about this country. It is probably one of the single most important truths about this issue. That is that this country as a nation has been made great because of migration. It has been made great because of multiculturalism. It has been made great because of our diversity. We are a country that should believe—and I believe the overwhelming number of people do believe this—that we are great because we embrace every faith, every flag and every culture. It is our good fortune that people are attracted to this country and are able to live lives that do not call upon them to turn their backs on other cultures. That is at the heart of multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism is so vital to the prosperity of this nation. Yet, since 2001, we have seen this issue be exploited by the most racist and xenophobic in this country, tearing at the fabric, the very idea, of a multicultural Australia. We are saying that we as a nation need to move beyond that. We need to turn our backs on that sort of division and help this community reach an understanding of how important it is not only to honour our international obligations but to demonstrate that we are not a soft touch but that we are a country that acknowledges the strengths of diversity and understands the importance of a national consensus around multiculturalism.

Labor's approach is founded on that principle—that is, our obligations to the international community, international conventions, international treaties and international human rights. Our approach is to ensure that this nation is welcoming of people of all faiths, and there is a demand that we place upon them of the shared respect and tolerance of other faiths. And our approach is that we have to find a place for the most vulnerable in the world; they should be able to come to this country safely and they should come legitimately. On that basis, we are saying that we will support the government in its efforts, but we will not endorse the dehumanising, inflammatory language or the vicious attempts to divide and to shame those that take a different view or those that seek to exercise their rights to approach this country for the purposes of political asylum.

Some hope that this bill might be an opportunity to change the terms of political debate in this country. I am not quite certain that that will occur; but we could at least proffer the idea that, as a country, we should be calling on this parliament to enact laws for a nation that is compassionate, that is strong, that is generous, that is secure, that is safe and that is fair. I look forward to that actually happening.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (10:54): I rise today to speak in opposition to the Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill 2015. I have already raised my concerns about the way this bill has been rushed into the parliament without any real justification by the government. We really have to get to the heart of what this debate is about.

Back in 2012 under the Gillard government there was an agreement between Julia Gillard as Prime Minister and Tony Abbot as the Leader of the Opposition to pass legislation in this place to reopen the detention camps on Manus Island and Nauru. The Greens strenuously opposed that at the time and we spent hours in this place debating the legislation and running through amendment after amendment. Back then we questioned the wisdom of pushing through legislation that would not have significant safeguards for conditions inside the Nauru and Manus Island detention centres, the fact that there was no independent oversight of these centres, the fact that there was no media access, the fact that there was no time limit on the detention of any person held in these places, let alone those who are most vulnerable, including children and minors who arrive here on our shores all on their own. Every single one of those amendments was opposed at the time by both the Labor government and the Abbott opposition.

What we have seen since then, unfortunately, despite being told, 'It will all be okay, Joe—trust us; we will run these places properly' is the exact opposite. These places have turned into camps of hell. Children have been detained for over two years; young men have been detained for three or four years. There are children who are now suffering in Nauru after being sexually abused and assaulted. One young girl, five years old, was swallowing razor blades because of her level of depression and mental health—a five-year-old child swallowing razor blades. That is what is going on in the Nauru detention camp.

Last year explosive evidence was brought forward in relation to child sexual abuse in Nauru, with women, mothers, being forced to exchange sexual favours so that they could get more time in the shower blocks to clean their children. Witness account after witness account, through the Moss review, the Human Rights Commission report and now this chamber's own parliamentary inquiry, shows that the conditions inside the Nauru detention centre are toxic, are seedy and are inhumane, and it is simply unconscionable for this parliament to not act in order to clean this up.

The bill that we have before us today has been brought forward in a rush, in less than 24 hours, because there is a case before the High Court that involves a number of families. One of those families has had a baby, born here in Australia—a little baby born here in an Australian hospital. In any other world, that child would be considered an Australian, considered to be able to have access to Australian citizenship. That family, in any other circumstance, would be able to celebrate the birth of that child and think about how they would be providing for that child, what school that child would go to, what a great Australian that child would grow up to be. One of those families is one of the claimants in this case, and they are horrified and scared about being sent back to indefinite detention in Nauru.

There are two parts to this case. The first is that the government has not had the legal authority to pay contractors and the Papua New Guinea and Nauru governments the billions and billions needed over the last three years to run these camps. This bill would give legal authority to keep paying billions of Australian taxpayer dollars to keep these camps, that are being run atrociously, operating. The second aspect of this legal challenge is the authority to keep these people in detention, the authority to transfer that newborn baby from Australia to Nauru and to lock her up indefinitely and to lock up the other 80 children who are here in Australia that the immigration minister wants to send to Nauru. There are 80 children here in Australia who have been told they are on the next plane to Nauru, to be locked up in these hellhole conditions indefinitely. I have heard the government's comments on this bill and I have heard the statements made by members of the Labor Party. I want to make it very clear that this bill does more than just give the power to pay contractors. This bill specifically goes to allowing the Commonwealth to do several things, the first of which is:

To take, or cause to be taken, any action in relation to the arrangement or the regional processing functions of the country; …

It is unfettered power as to how they want to run these places; it is an action that is defining this piece of legislation as legislation that permits the exercising of restraint over the liberty of a person. This goes to the heart of the lawfulness of indefinitely detaining a person, whether it is a man, woman or child, in these places.

This is not just about plugging a loophole. These detention camps have been getting worse by the day for the last three years. Now we find they have been run illegally; they have been paid for illegally. You could probably fix those things pretty simply, sure, but the only way to clean these things up is to put some constraints on the government's power to detain people. That is why we will propose a number of amendments in the committee stage. I do not agree with offshore processing; I do not agree that the 'do whatever it takes' attitude means locking children up in an island prison indefinitely. I do not agree that keeping people in squalid conditions in the vain hope that they will give up on seeking protection and just go home to a war zone to face their torturers is what we should be doing. I do not agree that Australia should just legislate away our legal, international and moral obligations and responsibilities. I do not agree with any of those things—but these hellholes exist.

This government and the Labor opposition are rock-solid on keeping these places going. I wish that was not the case. While they are open, Australian taxpayers are going to be spending billions and billions of dollars—one contract for Transfield Services to keep Nauru open for 20 months costs the Australian taxpayer $1.2 billion, and yet there is no running water in these camps. There is not enough food for the children. There are not any toys in the camp. Two years ago hundreds of Australians donated toys to my office to send to Nauru because there were no toys for the children locked up in this place—yet the contractor is paid $1.2 billion of Australian taxpayer money. What is it being spent on? It is not being spent on running a camp that is humane, that is well functioning or that is safe. Staff employed by these contractors are abusing children, are raping women, are sexually assaulting people, are intimidating people detained there. We know this because the evidence has come forward over and over again, and particularly in recent months, to this Senate chamber's own parliamentary inquiry into the matter.

We have to put some restrictions on how these places are run. There need to be some time limits. Why do we think it is okay to fly somebody to Nauru and lock them up forever without trial, without ever being able to see a judge, with no legal protection, with no access to a lawyer—lock them up and effectively throw away the key, all because they had the courage to flee a war zone with their family? Australia's asylum seeker policy is an international disgrace. We have to be doing things better. I do not think anyone can argue that the detention of a child is worth this; that robbing a child of their childhood simply to send not a message to the people smugglers—let's get real—but a political message in the midst of what has become an ugly, ugly debate in this country is worth it.

The Human Rights Commission has no access to the Nauru or Manus Island detention centres, and neither does the Commonwealth Ombudsman, despite the fact that billions of Australian taxpayers' dollars are spent funding these. One of the elements of this court case that the government wants to scuttle is that these facilities are Australia's responsibility. We sign the contracts. The Australian government sets the rules. They sign the cheques. They train the staff. They decide who goes in, who comes out and how long they are there for. These places are run by the Australian government. This government and the previous government put these places in Nauru and PNG so that they could be out of sight, out of mind and out of the hands of what we would normally expect in Australia to be the rule of law. But they are still Australian. These are still Australia's camps that are locking up men, women and children—punishing them for fleeing torture, abuse and war.

There are a number of Syrian families detained in Nauru. There are also 68 people who are Rohingyans who have fled the torture camps in Burma and then in the jungle in Malaysia and Thailand. There are 68 of them locked up in Nauru. We have seen, over recent weeks, the footage of how these people are treated. We have seen the world, the international community, condemn the treatment of these people by both the Burmese government and of course the people smugglers who tricked them. And yet, rather than dealing with the problem at the source, we are punishing those 68 people by keeping them locked up indefinitely in a hellhole in Nauru. That is wrong.

Those people have not committed any crime. There is nothing in Australian law that says that it is illegal to come here as a refugee—nothing. There is a law that says: 'For administrative purposes, you must be detained,' but nothing that says: 'It is illegal to seek asylum.' It does not matter how you get here; that is not what the Australian law says. It does not matter how many times the government wants to use the word 'illegal'. It does not matter how many directions the minister gives his public servants to use the word 'illegal'. It is not illegal in Australian law, let alone international law, to seek asylum or to be a refugee.

This would have been and this is today an opportunity for us to try and fix things. And I appeal to the crossbench and to the Labor Party. I have on the record my views and the Greens' views. We do not support offshore processing. But we will do whatever we can to make it a less cruel place. The dozens of children and women who have suffered at the hands of abusers in the Nauru detention centre over the last two years deserve that. They deserve some help. They deserve to have their suffering acknowledged, heard and acted upon. Today is an opportunity to do that.

We could have spent a good amount of time going through the legislation and working out if there was anything else that needed to be done. If we are going to spend Australian taxpayers' money running these places, let us make sure that they are being run properly, because we know that at the moment they are certainly not.

The private contractors that are making hundreds of millions and billions of dollars' worth of profit out of the people's misery on Nauru do not even want to answer basic questions. We saw that in the recent Senate inquiry. They do not want a bar of it. They want the Australian government to take responsibility. And then we have the Australian government saying, 'We don't want to take responsibility; it's all Nauru's and PNG's fault.' No—what the case before the High Court and the Australian government's response today, of rushing through legislation, shows is that the responsibility lies squarely at the feet of the Australian government, the immigration minister and his department.

So this is where we have to fix it. Let us get some time limits on detention. Let us stop children who are being born in Australia having to be deported back to Nauru. Let us ensure that people who are employed in these places have a legal requirement to report abuse and suffering, just as we would in any other government institution or agency. There should not be an explosive decision for this chamber today to make to ensure that if staff, who are employed to care for individuals, children and families who are locked up, see abuse happening, they must report it—and that cannot just be to the immigration department, because we know that, in 2013, two years ago, children were being sexually abused, the department knew about it, and nothing was done to remove those children from the centre. We know that because that is the evidence that has been given. We know that because some brave staff who work in these places have had enough—enough of the secrecy; enough of the cruelty—and have been prepared to stand up. And now is the time for the Senate to do the same. I urge the Labor Party to act with courage.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ): Senator Hanson-Young, your time has expired. Were you intending to move your second reading amendment?

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I should also add—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I do not need you to add anything; I just need you to move the second reading amendment.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I move:

At the end of the motion, add “but the Senate notes:

(a)    the findings of the review by Mr Phillip Moss into conditions in Nauru and the evidence currently before the Select Committee on the Recent Allegations relating to Conditions and Circumstances at the Regional Processing Centre in Nauru that women and children have been suffering rape, sexual assault, child abuse and severe physical and mental trauma associated with the conditions in Nauru; and

(b)    the United Nations Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture found the conditions on Nauru to amount to torture and trauma”.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.

Senator LINES (Western Australia) (11:14): I have long advocated the rights of refugees. I support those who seek asylum, who flee persecution, war, uncertainty. Before coming to this place, I actively worked with refugee organisations on processing claims and I continue to donate to refugee organisations. In some ways, the work that I did on behalf of refugees was easier than being in this place and having to make decisions in the best interests of our country—having to make the difficult decision to support this legislation. I take this opportunity to set out why I support this legislation and to make it very clear what I do not support.

I do not support the Abbott government's continued demonisation of refugees and asylum seekers. They began this attack in opposition and they have ramped up this attack in government. I will never forget, during the election campaign, the billboards demonising refugees which sprang up in Western Australia. With those horrendous billboards all over the city and on the backs of trucks, there was nowhere you could go in the metropolitan areas of Perth and ignore them. That a political party thought it was okay, in Australia, to make the plight of people fleeing persecution an election issue is a disgrace. That it continues this attack, almost on a daily basis in this place, on those fleeing persecution shows the depths they will go to to ensure their political survival.

My reservations about this bill go to the fact that, like many in the Australian community, I do not trust the Abbott government. It has betrayed the trust of the Australian people by breaking its election commitments—its promises. So, when the government comes to Labor for support of this bill at the eleventh hour, my suspicions are aroused. The Abbott government, if it ever had any morals, has certainly lost its way on the issue of asylum seekers and refugees. The Labor opposition opposed this bill and demanded assurances, and we demanded that they be in the second reading speech. So the government set out assurances, in the second reading speech, that the amendments in this Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill 2015 solely go to enabling payments and enabling the fact of regional processing, and that the legislation does not in any way change or expand the current situation with regional offshore processing. Labor have been given the commitment that this bill does not empower new conduct and that nothing in it is the basis for new action. That was set out in the second reading speech.

Our leader, Bill Shorten, summed up the feelings of the Labor Party on this proposal by the government in his speech on this bill. He said:

When Labor were asked to support this amendment there was some considerable recollection in my party of Labor's first regional resettlement policy that centred on the Malaysian arrangement. Because of the High Court's decision in that case, the fate of this plan was left in the hands of the parliament, just as we are being entrusted now. It was a debate that captured, for all to see, the poisonous, obstructionist negativity of the Abbott opposition. We remember that, after years of slogans and scaremongering, they suddenly sought to lecture us on the rights of refugees. We remember the then shadow minister for immigration, the member for Cook—

Mr Scott Morrison—

the man who said in 2011 that allowing relatives of asylum seekers who drowned at sea to attend the funeral of their loved ones and, for some, the funeral of their own child was not a reasonable use of money—lecturing us about being humane.

…   …   …

We will never forget that when Prime Minister Gillard wrote to Tony Abbott asking for bipartisanship, seeking cooperation to reach a solution, he wrote back saying: 'This is a problem that you have created and it is your responsibility to solve.' That was his idea of leadership: 'This is your mess, you fix it.'

We will never forget the deal that the Liberals and the Greens did in teaming up to defeat the Malaysia arrangement. We will never forget the 689 souls that were lost after that vote. My fear is that the truth is that the coalition opposed the Malaysia arrangement not because they thought it would not work but precisely because they were afraid it would work. They played their politics hard.

It is precisely because we remember that that Labor are determined to be better. When confronted with the same facts as Mr Abbott was when he was Leader of the Opposition, our leader and our Labor caucus did not draw the same conclusion that he did—that it was his mess and he needed to fix it.

The Moss review, the Human Rights Commission and the Senate select committee on Nauru have all reported on the inhumane treatment of refugees, the alleged sexual abuse of children, the alleged rape of women, and on mental illness and poor health. What is the response of the Abbott government? They bury their heads in the sand, they ignore the truth and they continue to demonise those who seek asylum.

Questions about the death of Reza Berati remain unanswered. I remember how the then minister, Scott Morrison, in his initial response, blamed asylum seekers for protesting and creating a dangerous situation—again, using the tragic death of this young man as an opportunity to demonise and blame asylum seekers. Where is the justice for Reza Berati? Where is the pressure on the Papua New Guinean government to undertake a thorough and transparent inquiry? There is no pressure being applied by the Abbott government for the truth to be told, because their agenda is about the demonisation of those who seek asylum and those who seek refuge.

Under John Howard our notion of a fair go country was under attack. He went too far, and it was his changes to industrial relations which finally turned Australians against him. Not only was the Howard government voted out of office—he lost his seat. The Prime Minister was unseated. Now we are seeing the same attacks by the Abbott government—our fair go once more under attack. I would hope that the treatment of those who seek asylum is one of the issues which ensures that the Abbott government are voted out of office at the next election. The Abbott government is turning Australia into a small, mean, closed-border country. No longer do we see words or actions from our government that we are a global player on any issue, let alone see or hear the Abbott government acknowledge that displaced persons and refugees are a global issue. We are becoming the outlier—a country which says that refugees are anybody's problem but ours.

There is no doubt that as a Labor senator I will be criticised by refugee advocates for supporting this bill. My support for this bill in no way legitimises the inhumane way in which the Abbott government are treating refugees. There is no doubt that the situation on Nauru and Manus Island is horrendous. No matter how much the Abbott government tries to cover up, to hide the truth, to hide behind national security, to hide behind border protection, to hide behind on-water matters, the truth always comes out. I want Australia to take its responsibilities for refugees seriously. I want Australia to be a global player, to take its global responsibilities seriously. I want to see the humane treatment of refugees. I want to see timely and fair processing and giving people who seek asylum the opportunity to rebuild their lives. There is a world refugee crisis. Australia needs to be part of the solution to that crisis. In my view that does involve regional processing, but it does not in any way involve the sorts of actions and inactions that we are seeing from the Abbott government when we see what they are doing on Nauru and Manus Island.

The reality is that there are refugee camps all over the world. There are people living on the borders of Turkey; there are people fleeing into Jordan and other places. All over the world there are people seeking refuge, seeking a safe place. There are displaced people everywhere, and it needs a global solution.

What we want to see from the Abbott government is the timely and fair treatment and processing of asylum seekers—not holding people in camps for years and years and years; not picking the cheapest contractor, who does not understand that people are traumatised and need to be treated fairly and humanely. That is what I want to see from the Abbott government. But I do not believe that I will see that. I know in my heart and my head that it suits the Abbott government to continue to demonise asylum seekers, to call them illegals, to give them numbers, to deny their humanity. That is not good enough, and I am working, every day that I can, to expose the inhumane treatment of the Abbott government, the way it treats people in asylum. Any one of us, depending on where we were born, could have been faced with that situation. I know that if my family were under threat I would do everything that I could to remove them from that threat. We want to see asylum seekers, no matter where they land, being processed quickly and being treated fairly and humanely. I do not believe we will see that from the Abbott government.

This morning, before coming down here, I took a call from a refugee advocate who was in tears at the treatment of children. She told me many stories. Of course we all know those stories are there, yet they fall on the deaf ears of the Abbott government and we have no response. How many more times do reports have to come before this parliament, have to be published, that talk about the inhumane treatment of refugees on Manus Island and Nauru? How many more times do those things have to be reported before the Abbott government finally steps up to its responsibility? I fear that for the term of this government they will continue to ignore those pleas.

My take is that in detention camps, wherever they are run, people need to be processed humanely and fairly. Of course that is not what this bill is about, but those emotions become aroused when we talk about Australia's treatment of refugees. I certainly will continue to condemn, in this place and in other places, the inhumane treatment of refugees. It reflects on all of us, whether we are elected politicians in this place or members of the community. The way the Abbott government is treating refugees in our name is a reflection on all of us. And I know that this is gaining currency in the Australian community. You can only demonise asylum seekers so far. When ordinary Australians actually meet people who are fleeing persecution they can imagine themselves in exactly the same situation. Any of us in this place would do exactly the same thing—take action to protect ourselves and our families.

The legislation before us today is an opportunity for the Abbott government to step up to the plate, to start treating asylum seekers humanely, to stop calling them illegals or illegal boat arrivals, to stop using refugees as some kind of political football. But I suspect that will not happen in this place today. During the committee stage we will be questioning the government and seeking further assurances on just exactly what their intentions are. Despite the bill setting those intentions out, we have no trust in the Abbott government and what they put forward as legislation. We will be assuring once again that they are very clear about particular causes in the amendment they are seeking today. We will hold them to account on this bill and any other bills they bring before this place. I can only urge them today to look at their own actions, to look at their poor, unjust, unfair, inhumane treatment of those seeking asylum. I can only urge them to get on with the processing, to give people the opportunity to rebuild their lives, to give people their humanity back and to treat people fairly.

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (11:31): I rise to speak against this bill. This bill is really an acknowledgement that the operation of our detention centre network is illegal. This bill is an acknowledgement that the abuse and atrocities that have been committed in detention centres have been committed under an illegal framework. Far from asylum seekers being illegal, it is the actions of this government that are illegal. Yesterday we heard assurances from Senator Brandis that what is occurring in our offshore detention centre network is legal, lawful and within the rule of law. But a government that is confident that what it doing is within the law does not rush through legislation like this at a minute to midnight. A government that is confident that what is going on in its name is within the law does not bypass the parliamentary processes that need to be scrutinising bills like this. This is an acknowledgement that what is going on in detention is going on illegally.

The case that has triggered the response from the government was brought on by the Human Rights Law centre. It involves a number of families, some members of whom are children born here in Australia, who are being deported. Their stories and their families represent the stories and families of many other thousands of people who are suffering in detention in our name. We recently had 40 people transferred from a detention centre near Darwin. Many of those people were going back to Nauru after reporting sexual abuse in that detention centre. They were returning to a place where they have suffered horrific abuse. There were allegations of rape and people being denied antenatal care or decent medical care and children exposed to violence being forced to self-harm. That is what this bill is about. It is about changing the law to allow these things to happen within the law. It is about changing the law to allow the continued abuse, rape and violence that our system of detention centres now represents.

This is part of a worrying pattern from this government. Far from being a conservative government, this is a radical and extreme government that is prepared to trash the very foundations of our democracy. It has used bribes to turn back boats on the high seas in an effort to aid people traffickers. It has implemented gag orders to prevent doctors, nurses and teachers from disclosing what is happening in detention centres. It has referred journalists to the Australian Federal Police. It has engaged in surveillance, going as far as to spy on a senator in the Australian parliament doing nothing else but her duty in ensuring that we get access to what is going on in these facilities. It is a government that across so many other areas is trashing the rule of law. In the very unedifying debate around citizenship, we saw a government that is prepared to deny people a very basic and fundamental right. This is a government that is lawless, that is out of control and that needs a check. That check should be the Australian parliament, the Senate, and yet here we are forced to rush through this legislation with the support of the Labor Party. The government will argue that all of these actions are justified because it has stopped the boats. In the words of the Prime Minister, 'that is all that matters'. Well no, Prime Minister, that is not all that matters. What matters is respect for our democratic institutions. What matters is respect for the separation between executive government and the courts.

We are paying a huge price. Stopping the boats is not difficult. The question is: what price are we prepared to pay for it? Are we prepared to trash the institutions that all of us have fought so hard to protect? Are we prepared to justify the epidemic of mental health issues that are occurring inside detention? Are we prepared to justify young children self-harming? At a time when the nation is asking itself about how we could allow child sexual abuse to occur in our national institutions, are we going to turn a blind eye when that occurs in those institutions that are dealing with people who are fleeing torture and persecution and doing nothing other than coming to us for help? What is the economic cost of what we are engaged in? What is the economic cost? The billions of dollars that are necessary to sustain this immoral, illegal policy of offshore detention comes at a huge economic cost. I cannot help but wonder if that money were invested in resettlement in our regional communities what sort of contribution they could be making to the nation right now. We would be a richer, better, more decent nation for having offered them assistance and for allowing them to do what they want to do, which is to contribute, to give their kids a decent education, to become citizens of this nation and to contribute in a way that generations before them have been able to do.

I think of the cost in terms of our international reputation and the relationship we have with our nearest neighbours, like Indonesia. We recently met with the Indonesian ambassador, and it is very clear that they are hurt, angry and disappointed in the way we have responded to this problem by isolating ourselves from the rest of the world and by not recognising that what we are confronting is a global issue that requires a global response. We must engage at a regional level with Indonesia, with Malaysia and with our neighbouring countries to ensure that we all work together to resolve what is a diabolically difficult issue.

What we will hear from the government, and from good people on all sides, is that we have to do this to stop the boats and to stop the drownings at sea. But this response started long before the issue of people drowning at sea entered the public consciousness—it started with language like 'queue jumpers' and 'illegals'; that we were being 'swamped'; we need to 'protect our borders'; we have to 'keep terrorists out'. That is the language in which this debate started. Not for a moment do I believe that this is driven by any concern for drownings at sea—not for a moment.

We need to ask ourselves: by stopping the boats are we keeping people safe? If people do not drown in Australian waters but die elsewhere, does that mean that they are safe? If we, through our policy of deterrence, condemn someone to remaining in an environment where they are being tortured, where they are being raped, where they are suffering tremendous abuse, and where they are at risk of being killed for their religious beliefs or their sexual orientation, that does not mean they are safe. It means that we have outsourced the problem to someone else.

The issue here is that we have a political debate dominating what really is a moral question. The politics have become so toxic in this debate that political self-interest is motivating the actions of this government and governments before them. There is a different way. We saw bipartisanship in the early 1980s in response to the wave of South-East Asian refugees. There was a compact back then that we would not play the race card. There was a compact that said that we as a rich, prosperous, decent nation would play our part in resettling people who are fleeing horrendous circumstances. We did that through leadership, and we brought the Australian community with us. We can do that again, but what we are engaged in now is a race to the bottom—it is a political race to the bottom because we have one party that knows no boundaries on this issue. It will gag people from speaking out. It will pay people traffickers. It will bring in legislation at one minute to midnight to allow what is an unlawful policy to continue to operate, which means more abuse, more torture and more children being driven to self-harm. That is what is being allowed to happen in this parliament today.

I say to the Labor Party: this is a race you cannot win because with each step this government will take us further away from what is decent, from what is right and from what cannot be justified in any way. There are no perfect solutions; I readily admit that. It is a diabolically difficult problem. There is no perfect solution to this issue, but what we are doing cannot continue. No matter what the problem is, forcing young children to self-harm and condoning abuse within detention centres can never be a solution—it can never be a solution. There has to be another way. Through this debate, we will introduce a range of amendments that, while not perfect and while not going far enough, will improve what is a terrible situation.

Let me talk to some of those amendments. We have to have time limits in detention. We cannot continue to operate a system that deprives people of all hope, and that is what we are doing right now. We cannot have forced deportations of young children who are being born here in Australia and sent away to the hellholes that are the Nauru and Manus Island detention centres. We cannot continue to allow that to happen. We have to lift the cloak of secrecy that exists within our detention centres. Journalists should get access to what is going on there and we should be forced to witness it with our own eyes. We cannot continue to keep this 'out of mind, out of sight'. The whole edifice depends on the Australian community not knowing what is going on in detention—because the moment that we connect with people in there as people, with children in there as children, we know that what goes on there cannot continue. We have to lift the veil of secrecy that sustains this inhumane policy, and that is why journalists must get access.

There must be mandatory reporting of child abuse. How can we have a situation, as reported, where a four-year-old girl is exhibiting behaviour consistent with a child who has been sexually assaulted:

… including sexualised dancing and pulling her pants down to invite adults to insert their finger into her anus. Despite child protection workers assessing her to be at "high risk of ongoing sexual abuse", … the immigration department did not remove her from detention.

That is a report from The Guardian. How can we allow that to happen? At this time, we are questioning the issue of institutional childhood sexual abuse, where we are hearing horrific stories of people whose lives have been damaged right across the nation. We have a royal commission and we are asking ourselves that singular question: how could we let this happen? Yet here we are with people going through what we have accepted as a huge tragedy and a wrong that needs to be addressed. So we must have mandatory reporting of sexual abuse. We have to give access to the centres to the institutions that are a check on the executive, like the Human Rights Commission. Rather than denigrating the human rights watchdog, which is doing nothing other than speaking truth to power, we should be allowing it access to these institutions so that we know what is happening in our name.

There is another way. This is an opportunity for the Labor Party to stand up with us and for the crossbench to stand up with us and say to the government, 'Enough is enough.' This cannot continue, it must stop and this bill cannot be supported.

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (11:48): I rise to contribute to the debate and oppose the Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill 2015. I want to make it clear that I support the principle of offshore processing of illegal immigrants, as long as it is done according to the law of our country and the countries which are being paid to process illegal immigrants trying to travel to Australia. I am pleased that the boats have been stopped and that the deaths at sea and the exploitation of those illegal immigrants by Indonesian government officials and people smugglers have been severely curbed. I am happy that our boarders have been secured and I will not be supporting any Greens amendments to undermine the principle of offshore processing.

However, having said that, it is clear that this legislation is nothing more than a get-of-jail-free card for the government. Before any legislation is passed through this parliament, we should wait and hear what our High Court has to say. We should learn the valuable legal lessons that the High Court challenge will provide. The possibility still exists that this legislation is overreach and not needed. The manner in which this legislation is being brought into the Senate, with no community consultation and in a blind panic, smells of political fear. Because of a High Court challenge to the Migration Act by the Human Rights Law Centre, both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party have agreed to rush legislation through this parliament at a dangerous, rude and unseemly speed, in order to justify expenditure on offshore processing of illegal immigrants at Nauru.

According to a media report written by Shalailah Medhora in The Guardian, the Human Rights Law Centre:

… also claims that the government does not have jurisdiction to detain people offshore. Constitutionally, Australia has authority to lock people up onshore, and deport people. The HRLC—

the Human Rights Law Centre—

maintains that Australia does not have specific legislative authority to lock people up in another country.

If this media report turns out to be true, then both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party in this place have a lot of explaining to do. Why wasn't this legislation fixed in the first place? If it is proven to be defective, who will be held accountable? Labor will have been the culprits to have introduced dodgy migration laws and the Liberals will have been the ones to turn a blind eye to them and operate under them.

Isn't it strange to think that yesterday I delivered a speech to the National Press Club in Canberra, where I defended independent crossbench senators from the claim by this government that we had caused chaos in this parliament? And here we are today debating dodgy government legislation which was rushed through the lower house and into the Senate yesterday in two hours, in order to carry out a pre-emptive political strike on a future High Court decision which may find that the Australian government has broken the law and made illegal payments to host countries participating in our offshore processing and detention of illegal immigrants. Of course, all this comes after our Prime Minister refused to answer questions about credible allegations that his government has also arranged for international criminals who smuggle illegal immigrants to be paid $30,000 worth of bribes.

The definition of chaos is when a government rushes dodgy legislation through parliament in order to make a pre-emptive political strike on the rule of law, while paying international criminals $30,000 worth of bribes. What we have before us is proof of chaos and dysfunction within the present Liberal government and an example of the lingering chaos and dysfunction from the old Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Labor government.

More examples of chaos and dysfunction can been seen by the disclosure, yesterday, of the PM's stage-managed trip to ASIO headquarters and subsequent media coverage that illegally disclosed the location of terrorism hot spots. For his own political survival, this PM is milking the terrorism threat for all it is worth—for every single, last, little drop. His deliberate media strategy of overly focusing on the threat of terrorism is covering up the cuts to the entitlements of pensioners and veterans.

We do not need new terrorism laws. We already have laws of sedition and treason that will protect us from those who assist and help our enemies in any way whatsoever. We just do not have politicians who will allow our law enforcement authorities to properly apply the laws of sedition and treason which must be approved by the Attorney-General.

Another example of this Prime Minister milking the threat of terrorism for all it is worth is the deployment of Australian troops to the Middle East. There is absolutely no military sense in basing our troops in the Middle East and exposing them to threats of insider attack, abduction and attack by gas. Our allies, the Americans, by their own standards with only 3,000 troops in Iraq—about one-third of the number of US forces in Afghanistan—are guilty of flying the flag with a token force. The main purpose of our troops' presence in the Middle East is so that the Liberal backbench will not revolt and overthrow their own PM. Our troops' presence in the Middle East provide a great backdrop for our Prime Minister's next staged-managed press conference.

As Mr Abbott's popularity drops, and the Liberal backbenchers plot, he will continue to milk the terrorism threat for all it is worth and fly to the Middle East to visit our troops. Mr Abbott will shamelessly pose with our diggers, the people he has taken money from, yet he still denies them back pay and a fair pay rise of a full three per cent not, effectively, a two per cent pay cut. Back home, according to last year's budget papers, his government spends $20 million on culturally appropriate residential aged care to Arabic-speaking communities in Western Sydney, which is one of the places, according to yesterday's ASIO maps, that is a terrorism hot spot. How about that!

As I have indicated in this place before, if you want to address and defeat the threat from Islamic State, accept the fact that Iraq, Syria and Libya should be allowed to organise itself into three ethnic and religious groups—the Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunnis—and then fund and provide resources to the Kurds. They are the only effective democratic force on the ground against the Islamic State brutes, and with 40 million people in the Middle East the Kurds are a stateless nation deserving of our support. They deserve our support and that is where we should be sending our resources. This is who we should be assisting.

The government's official explanation of the bill in their explanatory memorandum reads:

The Bill provides statutory authority for the Commonwealth to:

take, or cause to be taken, any action in relation to the arrangement or the regional processing functions of the country;

make payments, or cause payments to be made, in relation to the arrangement or the regional processing functions of the country; and

do anything that is incidental or conducive to the taking of such action or the making of such payments.

This Bill provides statutory authority for the Commonwealth to provide assistance to other countries to carry into effect arrangements for the processing and management of unauthorised maritime arrivals who have been taken to regional processing countries, including the expenditure of Commonwealth money on these arrangements. The Bill confirms the ability of Australian officials, acting on behalf of the Commonwealth, to take action to assist the foreign government in the regional processing country, consistent with the law of that country.

The amendments in the Bill will have retrospective and prospective effect.

Everyone knows that retrospective law making is extremely bad law making. It breaches fundamental human rights, democratic and legislative standards, and must be avoided at all costs. Yet this government expects the people of Australia to accept these retrospective laws.

You do not have to search far to find quotes which describe the kind of legislative madness and chaos that the Liberal government has created by introducing the retrospective element. If you look at the Attorney-General's website it will tell you—and I quote:

Where does the prohibition on retrospective criminal laws come from?

Australia is a party to seven core international human rights treaties. The prohibition on retrospective criminal laws is contained in article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

The Australian Law Reform Commission said in one of its papers on retrospective laws, at paragraph 7.5:

Retrospective laws are commonly considered inconsistent with the rule of law. In his book on the rule of law, Lord Bingham wrote:

'Difficult questions can sometimes arise on the retrospective effect of new statutes, but on this point the law is and has long been clear: you cannot be punished for something which was not criminal when you did it, and you cannot be punished more severely than you could have been punished at the time of the offence'.

At paragraph 7.6 of the paper the Australian Law Reform Commission also said:

Retrospective laws make the law less certain and reliable. A person who makes a decision based on what the law is, may be disadvantaged if the law is changed retrospectively. It is said to be unjust because it disappoints 'justified expectations'.

How many Australians today with disappointed justified expectations would like the opportunity to retrospectively cast their vote at the last election now that the truth about the dysfunction and chaos besting this Liberal government is starting to emerge?

While the Liberal government seems as if it is prepared to use bribery to reward and stop people smugglers from sailing into Australian waters, I believe there are better solutions to target people smugglers and take them out of business permanently. That way we would not have to rely so much on the threat of offshore processing to deter illegal immigrants from trying to breach our border protection.

People smugglers, wherever they are in the world, must be treated like international criminals and referred to the International Criminal Court, the ICC. A Parliamentary Library study I commissioned says:

While the ICC—

the International Criminal Court—

has jurisdiction over "crimes against humanity" and these could include people smuggling type offences ...

There's a couple of different ways that the ICC could be tasked by the UN—

the United Nations—

to target people smugglers.

It is sitting here! Further, it says:

1) Australia could ask the UN Security council to refer cases of people smuggling to the ICC. If that request was granted by the security council, then the ICC would be officially authorized to Compulsory jurisdiction and against people smugglers.

2) The ICC statute or the Rome Statute, Australia signed on the 9th of December 1998, establishes a permanent international Criminal Court to try individuals accused of the most serious of crimes to the International community as a whole, namely genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.

3)    The Rome Statute contains obligations on the State parties to co-operate fully with the ICC. The Rome statute applies to natural persons irrespective of whether they are government officials (eg Heads of State, Government and parliamentary officials)

4)    No statute of limitations applies to crimes within the ICC's jurisdiction

5) The ICC is empowered by its enabling statute to sentence an offender to a term of imprisonment (not exceeding 30 years) a fine and to order forfeiture of assets and property derived directly or indirectly from e crime.

Wouldn't a few Indonesian people smugglers think twice about bringing illegal immigrants to Australia—raping and murdering them along the journey—if they and their government accomplices or travel agents organising the trip knew they all could receive a long jail sentence, heavy fines and have their assets seized after the ICC investigated them and hauled them before an international court? The involvement of the ICC must be seriously considered by the Australian government. Once again, I call on—and will continue to call on—the foreign minister to make the appropriate representations to the UN on our behalf.

Another method of deterring people smugglers and having fewer people transferred to offshore processing facilities is to decrease our foreign aid budget to Indonesia every time our forces detect people-smuggler boats. Our foreign aid budget to Indonesia is currently over $300 million a year and over the forward estimates it is worth $1.2 billion. If Indonesia allows people smugglers to fill their boats and leave their ports bound for Australia, then, for each boat our Customs and Navy vessels intercept, let's take away a minimum of $5 million worth of foreign aid to Indonesia. Let's put our foot down. I am sure they would get the message very quickly. The money could be spent on looking after our serving diggers, our pensioners and our veterans who are being unfairly targeted by this government with cuts to their pay, entitlements and pensions.

I note that this matter was supposedly dealt with on 21 September 2011 when the then Minister for Immigration and Citizenship introduced amendments to the immigration act in response to another High Court challenge. During the debate, Minister Bowen said:

The purpose of this bill is clear: to restore to the executive the power to set Australia's border protection policies, specifically the power to transfer asylum seekers arriving at excised offshore places to a range of designated third countries within the region, while ensuring protection from refoulement, for the processing of their claims.

This is a power that was thought to exist until 31 August this year, when the majority of the High Court decided that transfers under section 198A of the Migration Act could only take place to countries legally bound to provide protections equivalent to those offered by Australia.

Subsequent legal advice has made it clear that the High Court's decision has thrown into significant doubt the ability of governments—present or future—to effect transfers to a range of countries in our region who are prepared to offer protection from refoulement, and will allow processing of refugee claims to be made, including Papua New Guinea and Nauru.

So today the government is introducing amendments to the Migration Act to make parliament's intention absolutely clear.

The questions I pose to the Senate after considering Mr Bowen's speech are the following. Why didn't both the Liberal and the Labor parties have a good look at the immigration legislation four years ago after the High Court raised the red flag? The red flag was raised so high you could not miss it. Will we be going through the same chaotic rushed process in another three or four years? Surely a properly measured, thoughtful, independent review of our immigration laws would be a good idea.

In closing, I again repeat my introduction. While I oppose this legislation, I support the principle of offshore processing of illegal immigrants as long as it is done according to the law of our country and the countries which are being paid to process illegal immigrants trying to travel to Australia. I am pleased that the boats have been stopped and the deaths at sea and the exploitation of the illegal immigrants by Indonesian government officials and people smugglers has been severely curbed. Before any legislation is passed through this parliament, we should wait and hear what our High Court has to say. This parliament must show respect to our High Court. We must do that. We should learn the valuable legal lessons that the High Court challenge would provide. The possibility still exists that this legislation is overreach and not needed.

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council, Minister for Arts and Attorney-General) (12:06): I rise to sum up the debate. I am bound to say that I did not hear most of the debate. I will reply to you in a moment, Senator Lambie. From what I heard of the contributions made by the Greens, we heard nothing more than the usual platitudes and insincere objections to a series of measures that has saved hundreds, if not thousands, of lives, and it is disgraceful.

Senator Lambie, I did hear your contribution. May I answer the question that you put directly at the end of your contribution—when the High Court, some four years ago, struck down what was then called the Malaysian Solution of the previous government, why the Migration Act was not amended at that time. That, of course, Senator Lambie is a question for those who were then the government—the Labor Party. It was a Labor scheme that, at the time, was opposed by the coalition of which you speak. But, nevertheless, and to be fair, the issues in the Malaysian Solution case—and I have, of course, studied carefully the judgements in the Malaysian Solution case—were not about offshore processing. So the issues addressed in this legislation are completely unrelated to the issues that were before the High Court in the Malaysian Solution case. And, of course, Senator Lambie, it goes without saying that we respect the High Court. Nobody knows that better than I, as a person who used to practice before the High Court.

I will dealing with bill itself. The amendments provided for in the bill give the Commonwealth express statutory authority to take certain action to give effect to regional processing arrangements. The amendments apply where the Commonwealth has entered into an arrangement with another country with respect to the regional processing functions of that country. The current regional processing framework was introduced by the Labor government. It provides for the transfer of unauthorised maritime arrivals, who arrive in Australia by boat without a visa, to another country for assessment by that country of their claim to be refugees. The bill strengthens and puts beyond doubt the existing legislative authority for the Commonwealth's regional processing arrangements provided for by the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Act 2012. As I said to Senator Lambie a few moments ago, this is an act of the previous Labor government. But this government believes that that act has a sound legal foundation. The fact that we are introducing this legislation and passing it through the parliament today does not mean we do not consider that the act already has a sound legal foundation. But, as honourable senators would be aware, it is the subject of challenge in three proceedings before the High Court at the moment and is to be disposed of, as I understand it, in the second half of August.

Regional processing arrangements are important to Australia's strong border protection policies to ensure the long-term viability of regional processing. The amendments in the bill strengthened the existing legislative framework for regional processing and activities so as to put it beyond doubt. The amendments in the bill are necessary to ensure that the legislative framework for regional processing remains solid, as it is—but, as I said, to put it beyond doubt. The bill confirms the ability of Australian officials acting on behalf of the Commonwealth to take action to assist the foreign government in the regional processing country, consistent with the law of that country.

The bill ensures that there is express legislative authority for the Commonwealth to provide assistance to other countries to carry into effect arrangements for the processing and management of unauthorised maritime arrivals who have been taken to regional processing countries. It does not purport to have any effect in itself on the rights of those persons. In other words, the bill is declaratory. It does not change the law; it provides additional legislative support for the existing law. It represents neither a change of law nor a change of policy.

Regional cooperation is a key element of the government's approach to the protection of our borders, consistent with the Australian government's responsibility to maintain strong border protection policies. The bill will ensure that Australia is able to continue to provide the necessary support and assistance to regional processing countries to carry out these arrangements. It deserves the support of all parties, and I acknowledge and thank the opposition for both their support to the bill and their willingness to facilitate this passage through the parliament today. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (12:12): Mr Deputy President, I seek your advice in ruling in respect of the second reading amendment moved by Senator Hanson-Young. Senator Hanson-Young's amendment does refer to evidence that is before a Senate committee, which, although not specifically, may include evidence that has been received by the committee in confidence. It has always been my understanding that matters before the Senate should not be further adjudicated on by a vote of the Senate before they are ready. That may not be the correct technical term, but it has always been my understanding that was the case. I just wonder whether this second reading amendment is actually in order. I seek your guidance.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There is no such rule and, therefore, I do not rule in favour of your point of order. The second reading amendment will stand, and that is now the question before the chair.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (12:13): Mr Deputy President, could you advise the chamber on the status of the second reading amendment, such as the one that we have before us, in terms of the overall bill.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The status, as I understand it, is that, if passed, it will be noted in the Journal of the Senate.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (12:13): I seek leave to amend the second reading amendment.

Leave granted.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Obviously, I want to be able to get through this legislation today in the most constructive way, despite the fact that I have very strong feelings about this legislation. I want to make sure that I am, at the outset, providing an opportunity of goodwill in this place. I would just like to amend the second reading amendment to end after the words, 'The findings of the Review by Phillip Moss into conditions in Nauru and the evidence currently before the Senate Select Committee into conditions in Nauru.' Therefore, I move:

but the Senate notes:

the findings of the Review by Phillip Moss into conditions in Nauru and the evidence currently before the Senate Select Committee into conditions in Nauru.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The second reading amendment of the Greens has been amended in the terms outlined by Senator Hanson-Young.

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council, Minister for Arts and Attorney-General) (12:14): Can I seek clarification on that. So, Senator Hanson-Young, when you say there will be a full stop after the word Nauru, where it appears in the second line of the amendment, everything thereafter is deleted. Is that right?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is also my understanding of the amendment. The question now is that the second reading amendment, as amended, moved by Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question now is that the second reading motion, as amended, be agreed to.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (12:24): There are a number of amendments to this legislation that are in the process of being circulated that we will move throughout this committee process. But, firstly, I have some questions. A bunch of amendments is being circulated as we speak—I can see the attendants handing out wads of paper as I stand here. As I said from the beginning, in relation to this debate this morning—

Senator Brandis: Mr Chairman, on a point of order: is there a question before the chair at the moment?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, the question before the chair is that the bill stand as printed, and Senator Hanson-Young is speaking to that question.

Senator Brandis: When are we going to have the amendments?

The CHAIRMAN: The amendments are being circulated now. I have the amendments in front of me.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I need to say it five times—I have already said it four times. Maybe there is a bit of chatter over on that side. I want to make it clear that I asked the attendants to circulate the amendments over 40 minutes ago. I am sorry: it is not my fault. Perhaps, if we had not rushed this legislation into the chamber so quickly, we would all be in a much better situation to deal with the piece of legislation and amendments before us. In the meantime, I ask the minister: how much money has already been spent on the legal action in relation to the court case that this legislation is seeking to undermine?

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council, Minister for Arts and Attorney-General) (12:26): The question is based on a false premise, Senator.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (12:26): I ask the minister: how much money has been spent on the current case before the High Court in relation to these matters?

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council, Minister for Arts and Attorney-General) (12:27): It is not the practice to disclose fees paid to individual legal practitioners.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (12:27): I do not understand why the government is so desperate to keep this secret. We know there are actually a number of High Court cases currently afoot in relation to offshore detention, the detention of children and the legalities in relation to the indefinite detention of children and families. You would think that—even being the Attorney-General—there would be some understanding of how much money these current laws are costing the Australian taxpayer, because they were not drafted very well in the beginning. They have tried for years now to keep it quiet and they are now being found to be illegal.

I would like clarification as to whether the amendments have been circulated to everybody who needs them. I have one copy before me.

The CHAIRMAN: I have seen the attendants surround the chamber and I believe everyone who is in the chamber now has a copy.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (12:29): I wish to move the amendments on sheet 7738. We are normally given a running sheet—

The CHAIRMAN: That is correct, Senator Hanson-Young. We are just going to take our time and get through this so there is no confusion in the chamber. There are a number of amendments. I suspect that maybe you want to deal with (1), (2) and (3) together? I will leave it to you. It may be easier, without a running sheet, to simply deal with them one at a time.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (12:29): The opposition will be asking the government a number of questions. We have indicated that we will facilitate the passage of this legislation, and we are not in any way moving away from that commitment. There will be a number of questions, and it will facilitate the passage of this legislation if we are able to get answers to our questions.

Minister, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection tabled a statement on the urgency of the bill. Can the minister advise the Senate as to why it took the government from February, when the court proceedings were initiated, to now to take this action? Can you indicate in your answer the process that determined that this bill should amend the Migration Act in the manner that it does?

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council, Minister for Arts and Attorney-General) (12:31): The process was the ordinary process of deliberation by cabinet and the party room.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (12:31): Senator Brandis, at the risk of repeating myself, it will facilitate the passage of this bill if we can get some answers. To say that it is the normal process of deliberation is not quite what I call a fulsome answer. So I will ask again: will the minister be able to indicate what was in the government's mind as to why it was necessary to change the legislation and, in particular, why it took from February to now to reach that conclusion?

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council, Minister for Arts and Attorney-General) (12:31): In relation to the first question you ask, I have already answered that in my summing up speech to the second reading debate. In relation to the second question you ask, I have nothing to add to my answer to your earlier question.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (12:32): I have been told that we are not going to have a running sheet, which will mean that I will have to pick out which of my amendments relate to each other and explain that to the chamber as we go. Amendment (1) is linked to amendment (7), and this is in relation to stopping children that are here in Australia being sent to Nauru for further detention.

Obviously, I am extremely concerned. The Australian Greens have been on the record for a long time that we do not believe that children should be kept in indefinite detention. We do not believe that they should be kept in the conditions in Nauru. We have seen over and over again the mounting evidence that detention harms children—frankly, whether it is here in the Australian mainland or in offshore facilities. Despite the fact that across most sides in this place most people would argue that children do not belong in detention, we have a situation where children remain in detention as a matter of course. Whether they arrive here or are born here in Australia to asylum seeker parents, as a matter of course, children are being put on a plane and sent to detention in Nauru. This amendment says that children should not be deported to Nauru for the purpose of detention.

We are talking about young children. We are talking about newborn babies who have been born here in Australian hospitals. One of the claimants in relation to the case currently before the court is a family with a newborn baby. That baby was born on Australian soil. That baby was born in an Australian hospital and, like every other child that is born here in Australia, that baby should have access to protection here under Australian law. Instead, that baby is staring down the barrel of being deported for detention in Nauru. It is unconscionable that, with all of the evidence of the damage that detention does to children, we continue to keep children locked up and we continue to automatically detain children simply because they have been born to asylum seeker parents.

Over the last six months, we have seen more and more evidence come forward about the specific conditions in Nauru and how unfit those conditions are for children—particularly young children. Save the Children are the agency contracted by the government to provide services to children in detention. They are the people employed to look after these children, and they themselves say that they cannot do that properly while it is going on in Nauru. That is how bad the conditions are in the camp. It is unsafe for children. It is unsafe for babies. The issues of child abuse, you would have to argue, is the worst example of how unsafe Nauru has become for children and babies in this place. While we continue to send more children there, we are turning a blind eye to the harm that is being done inside.

It is beyond belief that this still happens after the Moss review, which detailed horrific evidence in relation to the abuse of children; after the Human Rights Commission report The forgotten children, which listed that there were 38 cases of child abuse inside centres; and after the evidence from staff who work in Nauru themselves saying that they cannot look after these kids properly. They cannot do their job as social workers, teachers or case managers properly while they are in these conditions. The conditions are simply not fit for children.

We have to make a stand today. This is an opportunity. The government wants more power to detain people and wants to shore up its power to detain people. It should not include children who are currently here in Australia being deported to Nauru. That is what these amendments do. I hope that we can get some agreement across this chamber that no more children should be sent to this place from here in Australia. I would argue that never again should children be detained but, with the conditions as they are at the moment, surely people can understand that for now there should be no excuse for continuing to send children, infants and babies to be detained indefinitely in Nauru or any other offshore facility. That is the substance of those particular amendments.

The CHAIRMAN: Senator Hanson-Young, I have now had an opportunity to look at your amendments and have taken some advice, and it would appear that they could be done in groups, with (1) and (7) together, (2) and (8) together, (3) and (5) together and (4) and (6) together. That is just a suggestion from me given that they are on different topics, but it is simply a matter for you. Do you want to move any amendments at this point?

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I think we can go to (1) and (7), which are in relation to the further detention of children.

The CHAIRMAN: Do you seek leave to move amendments (1) and (7) together?

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I seek leave to move those amendments together.

Leave granted.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I move amendments (1) and (7) on sheet 7738 together:

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

3. Schedule 2   The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent.

(7) Page 4 (after line 5), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2—Detention of vulnerable persons

Migration Act 1958

1 Subsection 198AD(1)

   Omit "sections 198AE, 198AF and 198AG", substitute "sections 198AE, 198AF, 198AG and 198AGA".

2 After section 198AG

   Insert:

198AGA Vulnerable persons

(1) Section 198AD does not apply to an unauthorised maritime arrival if the person is a vulnerable person for the purpose of subsection (2).

(2) A person is a vulnerable person for the purpose of this subsection if:

   (a) the person is aged under 18; or

   (b) the person is the parent of guardian (or other family member) of a person covered by paragraph (a).

3 Application

   The amendments to the Migration Act 1958 made by this Schedule apply in relation to an unauthorised maritime arrival on or after the day on which this Schedule commences.

4 Transitional—vulnerable persons transferred before Royal Assent

(1) This item applies to a person if:

   (a) the person was an unauthorised maritime arrival at any time on or after 13 August 2012; and

   (b) the person was taken from Australia to a regional processing country in accordance with subsection 198AD(2) of the Migration Act 1958; and

(c) at the time the person was taken to the regional processing country the person was:

      (i) aged under 18; or

      (ii) the parent or guardian (or other family member) of a person covered by subparagraph (i); and

(d) on the day this Act receives the Royal Assent, the person is:

      (i) aged under 18; or

      (ii) the parent or guardian (or other family member) of a person covered by subparagraph (i).

(2) As soon as reasonably practicable, an officer must ensure the person is removed from the regional processing country and returned to Australia.

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Vice-President of the Executive Council, Minister for Arts and Attorney-General) (12:39): Senator Hanson-Young, you do not have a monopoly on compassion, you know. These measures, which were introduced by the previous Labor government and continued by the current government, were designed as part of a solution to a problem. The previous government, because of the lack of other measures which we have now introduced, failed to solve the problem, but this is nevertheless an important element in the solution to the problem. Please, Senator Hanson-Young, do not insult everybody else in this Senate by suggesting that there is anyone in this chamber who is glad to see children in detention. Of course there is not—not one person. But what we want to do is to stop the people-smuggling trade, a trade which, as we know, during the six years of the Labor government cost the lives of more than 1,100 people, many of them children. This measure, supported by the opposition, gives further legal strength to arrangements that the opposition, when they were the government, put in place. We want to see children out of detention. We have released more than 90 per cent of the children who were in detention.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (12:40): I have some questions to put to the Attorney, and I have had a brief discussion with the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection's office this morning. I can indicate that I do broadly support the legislation, with some reservations. I understand that Senator Leyonhjelm, for instance, has an amendment that has just been circulated, which I think is an excellent amendment and an excellent safeguard which I hope the government will seriously consider. He will obviously speak to that very soon.

My question goes to the litigation that is in place. I am happy for this to be taken on notice: insofar as there has been a challenge to the existing legislation and the litigation or the challenge took place based on the legislation as it stands, and this legislation seeks to change the legislation so that there is no question mark or potential valid challenge to this legislation, what is the government's attitude, firstly, to there being no costs orders to this date against those parties that sought to challenge the legislation—that is, if they are given an opportunity to withdraw their case up until this point in time—and also to meeting any reasonable costs to this time, given that they proceeded on the basis of the current legislation and the rules? The goalposts are being shifted. I understand why, but there seems to be an issue of fairness in respect of that aspect of this legislation and the impact on those parties that have sought to challenge this legislation.

Progress reported.

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (12:44): Continuing my previous contribution, quoting from a letter received from a member of the Defence community:

The Bill gives statutory recognition which in effect does little to enhance the perceptions of a decreasing control by the chain of command.

Little consultation has been undertaken by DL in this process and little thought has been given to the mechanics. For example, the proposed section 110ZA(2) states that CDF (Chief of Defence Force) is to appoint the DDCS (Directorate of Defence Counsel Services) Director.

Firstly is it appropriate that the head of the chain of command should be the one appointing the body whose sole purpose is to assist the member, usually as a result of discipline decisions by the chain of command?

Currently the Director is a policy officer on rotation from DL (Defence Legal) for a period of 3 years.

This is problematic in that once their rotation is completed, they go back into Defence Legal and report through the same chain of command that they have been supposedly been battling against on behalf of the ADF accused members.

This has created significant difficulties in moving DDCS forward in both its roles and functions.

This year, however, a (RLO Reserve Legal Officer) on CFTS is in the role which has brought the first independent Director, allowing significant changes in policy and procedures to allow the Directorate to become effectively a legal aide office for the ADF members.

Significant concern has to be raised as to what will occur in 2016 unless the current Director is extended, or another independent RLO is appointed.

The functions in the proposed section 110ZB should be expanded to include the independent provision of legal assistance for all ADF members regardless of whether it is required as a result of discipline or administrative decisions by command.

Currently Navy has 3 independent personnel billets around Australia that solely looks after the member's interests. They report directly to DDCS.

As Army and Air Force are reluctant to enter into this arrangement, DDCS should be tasked with being the independent provider of legal assistance.

Currently command legal officers arrange the provision of legal assistance for members which is obviously a major conflict.

This can result in a number of issues depending on the Service—for example Air Force reluctant to engage a non Air Force RLO for a member despite the members request.

I would respectfully suggest that significant consultation needs to be undertaken in relation to this aspect of the Bill and/or it being referred off to a Committee.

The opportunity to create a statutorily independent DDCS (Directorate of Defence Counsel Services) for the benefit of all ADF members should not be lost.

I hope that the minister and government will listen carefully to the concerns I have raised with this legislation. The key question is: is the Director of Defence Counsel Services truly independent and serving in the best interests of the troops? Our military justice system is all about justice and fairness. I remind this government: how can you have military leaders and politicians talking about justice and fairness when you have still denied a fair wage rise to the men and women of our Defence Force? You must deliver an extra one per cent pay rise and you must back pay our troops from November last year.

I pray to God that the troops we have in the Middle East stay safe. I make this simple plea: bring them home. We have the wrong policy in the Middle East. We could bring our troops home from the Middle East and save $750 million a year or $3 billion over the forward estimates. It is dumb, so dumb, to risk our diggers' lives in Iraq when the US has made a half-hearted commitment with only 3,000 troops in the recognition that it is a lost cause in Iraq now. Any clear-thinking person knows that the current Iraqi army will turn on our diggers and betray them to the ISIS enemy in a heartbeat. If, as Australian Strategic Policy Institute executive director Peter Jennings suggests, Australian troops' role is upgraded from 'advise and assist' to 'advise, assist and accompany' it is a recipe for disaster.

After my briefing with the Australian Kurdish lobby last week and many conversations with Australian veterans who have previously fought in the Middle East, it is clear that the best future for the Iraqi people is for the country to split into 3 autonomous regions controlled by the Shia, the Sunnis and the Kurds. There are 40 million Kurds living in various countries in the Middle East. They are the only fighters on the ground who are able to take on the brutes in Islamic State and they do not drop their weapons and do a runner. The Kurdish people have a culture and value system that is similar to Australians'. Unlike the majority of cultures in the Middle East, the Kurds value human, women's and animal rights. They also support a democratic federal system of government similar to Australia's, which is made up of autonomous regional governments.

If Mr Abbott and his government fail to bring our soldiers home soon and listen to the advice of Australian Strategic Policy Institute executive director Peter Jennings, who wants the diggers' role upgraded from 'advise and assist' to 'advise, assist and accompany', then they had better be ready for questioning. Will you negotiate if ISIS captures any of our diggers? How will our military justice system deal with that scenario? Would it authorise cash payments to terrorists to secure the safe release of our Australian diggers?

I am aware of a system that the military has whereby our troops are authorised to give cash payments to foreign nationals. It is called tactical payments. After receiving a heads-up from our young diggers, I questioned our senior ADF officers during the recent Senate estimates hearings about the practice of our troops paying large sums of Australian cash to Afghan and Iraqi nationals. As the official parliamentary record shows, this practice was confirmed to me by senior officers in charge of our ADF, who described the policy of paying large sums of cash to Afghan and Iraqi civilians as 'tactical payments'.

However, the official record also shows those in charge of our military were very reluctant to release any further information. Rear Admiral Griggs told me in relation to tactical payments authorised by the Australian government: 'There will be elements of that which we will not be able to answer.' My response is: why not? That cash was Australian taxpayers' money. It still comes with a strict level of accountability. There should be no cover-up. My genuine fear was that, if this scheme was not properly administered, then the Australian government could have been guilty of giving cash to the Taliban and other enemies, and funding their fight against our own people.

With the knowledge that our government officials, perhaps working with our military, could have been involved in paying off or bribing people smugglers—who are not only international criminals, murders and rapists but clearly also enemies of Australia—I am even more determined to find out the truth of this matter and to hold this government to account.

I have questions on notice regarding the full details of our military's tactical cash payments and I would like them to be answered. I expect the government to cover them up; however, they are now getting to the 28-day period from estimates, and I would like my questions answered. As I said to Rear Admiral Griggs on 1 June, I want to know: who it was paid to; where it was paid to; the dates, times and locations; how much all up we have spent over the last 12 years paying this money; and whether or not that information has been paid for, for counterintelligence, within that domain.

With our Prime Minister and senior Liberal ministers dodging questions about cash payments to people smugglers, it is reasonable to ask: were tactical cash payments made to bribe our enemies in the Middle East? Are cash payments to people smugglers part of our military's tactical payment scheme? How does the current military justice system deal with the rights of diggers who, on behalf of this government, may be part of a cash payment scheme which a future royal commission may determine to be illegal? And exactly where do our soldiers stand on these illegal payments? Those are the answers I am looking for. I want to make sure that it is not our soldiers who are going to be thrown behind bars.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and Training) (12:54): I thank senators for their contribution.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The CHAIRMAN (12:54): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and Training) (12:54): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and Training) (12:54): I thank senators for their brevity.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (12:53): As no amendments to the bills have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bills be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and Training) (12:55): I move:

That the bills be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and Training) (12:56): I again thank senators for their courtesy.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (12:56): As no amendments to the bills have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bills be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and Training) (12:56): I move:

That the bills be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and Training) (12:57): I again thank senatorial colleagues for their courtesy.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (12:57): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and Training) (12:57): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (12:58): I present the eighth report of 2015 of the Selection of Bills Committee, and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Senator BUSHBY: I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 8 of 2015

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 24 June 2015 at 7.22pm.

2. The committee resolved to recommend—That—

(a) the Australian Government Boards (Gender Balanced Representation) Bill 2015 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 8 September 2015 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b) the provisions of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Amendment Bill 2015 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 August 2015 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(c) contingent upon its introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Fairer Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2015 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 15 September 2015 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(d) the provisions of the Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2015 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 18 August 2015 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral) ; and

(e) the Voice for Animals (Independent Office of Animal Welfare) Bill 2015 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 15 September 2015 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral).

3. The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:

Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015

Excise Tariff Amendment (Fuel Indexation) Bill 2015 Customs Tariff Amendment (Fuel Indexation) Bill 2015 Fuel Indexation (Road Funding) Special Account Bill 2015 Fuel Indexation (Road Funding) Bill 2015

Higher Education Support Amendment (New Zealand Citizens) Bill 2015

Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill 2015

Passports Legislation Amendment (Integrity) Bill 2015

Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Consumer Lease Exclusion) Bill 2015

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Defined Benefit Income Streams) Bill 2015

Tax Laws Amendment (Small Business Measures No. 3) Bill 2015

Treasury Legislation Amendment (Small Business and Unfair Contract Terms) Bill 2015.

The committee recommends accordingly.

4. The committee considered the following bill but was unable to reach agreement:

Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015.

5. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:

Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2015

Acts and Instruments (Framework Reform) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2015

Australian Centre for Social Cohesion Bill 2015

Australian Defence Force Superannuation Bill 2015

Australian Defence Force Cover Bill 2015

Defence Legislation Amendment (Superannuation and ADF Cover) Bill 2015

Civil Law and Justice (Omnibus Amendments) Bill 2015

Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Country of Origin Food Labelling) Bill 2015

Corporations Amendment (Publish What You Pay) Bill 2014

Motor Vehicle Standards (Cheaper Transport) Bill 2014

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Caring for Single Parents) Bill 2014

Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2015 Measures No. 2) Bill 2015

Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2015 Budget Measures) Bill 2015.

David Bushby

Chair

25 June 2015

APPENDIX 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITIEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Australian Government Boards (Gender Balanced Representation) Bill 2015

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

In undertaking the inquiry, the Committee should consider:

1.   The benefits of ensuring gender-balanced representation on Government boards;

2.   The reasons behind existing policy in this area;

3.   The support given to existing policy by both major parties;

4.   The need to secure such measures in legislation; and

5.   Any related matters.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet — Office for Women

Boardlinks

Women on Boards

Women's Leadership Institute Australia

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee (Legislation)

Possible hearing date(s):

July 2015

Possible reporting date:

September 2015

(signed)

Senator Rachel Siewert

APPENDIX 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITIEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Amendment Bill 2015

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

This bill deals with sensitive matters pertaining to the administration of radioactive and nuclear materials. It should be referred to committee for examination to ensure that the wider community of involved stakeholders has the ability to put forward its views to fully inform Senators on the details of the legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Friends of the Earth, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Beyond Nuclear Initiative, the Office of the Supervising Scientist, ARPANSA, ANSTO, the Medical Association for the Prevention of War, Northern Territory Environment Centre, Department of Industry and Science, Sutherland Shire Council.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

N/A

Possible reporting date:

17 August 2015

(signed)

Senator Rachel Siewert

APPENDIX 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITIEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Fairer Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2015

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To scrutinise the impact of proposed changes to Paid Parental Leave through this legislation..

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Department of Social Services

ACTU

National Foundation for Australian Women

The Parenthood

Economic Security for Women

The Victorian Women's Trust

Australian Council of Social Service

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

To be determined by the committee

Possible reporting date:

12 October 2015

(signed)

Senator Anne McEwen

APPENDIX 4

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITIEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2015

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To consider:

Changes to license variation, including extending licenses beyond the scope of the original Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan.

Amendment to the list of factors which the regulator must consider before the dealings can be declared Notifiable Low Risk Dealings by the Governor-General. This includes removing the requirement that the GMO be biologically contained so that it is not able to survive or reproduce without human intervention.

Any other matter of the committee's interest.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

OGTR

CSIRO

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

The committee's discretion

Possible reporting date:

1st week August 2015

(signed)

Senator Anne McEwen

APPENDIX 5

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITIEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:

Name of bill:

Voice for Animals (Independent Office of Animal Welfare) Bill 2015

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

This Greens private members bill establishes the Office of Animal Welfare as an independent statutory authority - with its CEO responsible for reviewing and advising upon the protection of animal welfare in Commonwealth regulated activities.

Animal welfare is an important issue to Australians across political divides. It receives regular media coverage and commensurate outrage from community and large animal welfare networks. The recent inquiry into National Senator Back's Ag-gag private members bill received over 2,000 responses.

In the face of continuing animal abuse, this government has responded by dissolving the federal Australian Animal Welfare Strategy and its independent advisory committee, and the Inspector General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports.

In 2012 Labor endorsed the developing of a model for an Office of Animal Welfare, which was then set aside when Labor gained government. Last week Labor tabled a motion in the House noting the Government's abolition of Inspector General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports. This inquiry can provide an opportunity to test Labor's commitment.

The inquiry will also provide an important animal welfare campaign hook, especially if an early election is called.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Animals Australia, RSPCA Australia, Animal Liberation Australia, Barristers Animal Welfare Panel, Sentient, Vets against Live Export, PETA Asia Pacific, Humane Society International, Humane Research Australia, Australia Veterinary Association, Voiceless, Lawyers for Animals, World Animal Protection, Animal Justice Party, Choose Cruelty Free.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport

Possible hearing date(s):

Weeks of beginning 21 & 28 August

Possible reporting date:

September sittings

(signed)

Senator Rachel Siewert

Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (12:58): I move:

That the report from the committee be adopted.

Senator MOORE (Queensland) (12:58): Mr Deputy President, I have an amendment. We have circulated the amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report, and I believe the Greens also have an amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report. Ours, as circulated, refers to the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. I move:

That the provisions of that bill be referred immediately to the Rural, Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day of 2016.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (12:59): Bear with me a moment, Senator Fifield. Senator Siewert, my advice is that your amendment is actually in the form of an amendment to Senator Moore's amendment. So I might call on you now—and I will see how I deal with your amendment to those two amendments. We will see how we go.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:59): I do understand now. Senator Moore moved her amendment first, and I am now amending hers. I do apologise. I move:

At the end of the amendment, add, "and:

(1) the Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill 2015, the bill be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 18 August 2015; and

(2) the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015, the provisions of the bill be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry and report by 19 August 2015.".

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (13:00): Senator Fifield, I understand that you have foreshadowed a further amendment. What I intend to deal with first is Senator Siewert's amendment to Senator Moore's amendment, and then I will come back to you for a further amendment to the amendment. The question before the chair now is that Senator Siewert's amendment be agreed to.

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (13:07): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (13:08): Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (13:08): I want to express the great disappointment of the Australian Greens on the vote that just took place, when the government and the opposition and a significant number of the crossbenchers voted not to refer the citizenship bill, also known as the allegiance to Australia bill, to the full scrutiny of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee of the Senate.

The Prime Minister indicated that this significant legislation, which will be looking at the revocation of one of the most fundamental rights in a democracy—that of citizenship—would be given a full inquiry, but that means it will only go to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The only members of that committee are government and opposition members, and all nine men on that committee have had past associations with the military, security and spy agencies through government. This means that those other MPs in this parliament who represent people who have voted for the Greens and Independents will not have the ability to ask and inform ourselves properly, and it will not be transparent for the public. It is a shame and it should not keep happening.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (13:09): I move an amendment to Senator Moore's amendment in respect of the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015:

omit "Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee", substitute "Economics Legislation Committee"; and

omit "the first sitting day of 2016", substitute "12 August 2015".

Let me just emphasise that Senator Moore's amendment seeks to have the inquiry into this legislation report in 2016. I know that it will not have escaped your attention that it is currently 2015. In fact, we have yet to reach the middle of 2015. What this amendment from Senator Moore seeks to do is to put the consideration of this legislation out into the never-never. The government is not adverse to an inquiry. We are very comfortable with an inquiry. In fact, we would have understood if the opposition had elected to have a date later in the year, but they have chosen not to.

The Deputy Prime Minister, who has responsibility for this legislation, has repeatedly stated the government's intention to ensure that the bill be subject to scrutiny by the parliament. We do not have an issue with that, but, as I have indicated, an inquiry process that will take more than six months is not reasonable, is counterproductive and will do nothing but further damage the shipping industry in Australia. We have already seen the number of major Australian registered ships with coastal licence plummet from 30 vessels in 2006-07 to just 15 in 2013-14. I pose the question: do Labor and the Greens want to wait until the industry is past the point of no return before action is taken?

The government has been consulting with stakeholders for more than a year on coastal shipping policy. Their response has been resounding. They want Labor's overly bureaucratic, deliberately cumbersome and inflexible legislation changed. It is also interesting that Labor would propose such a long committee process when this is the complete opposite of their behaviour when they introduced their own legislation when last in government. Labor rushed the legislation through the parliament, dumping a significant number of amendments on the parliament and without providing the then opposition or industry the opportunity to consider them in any detail to determine their impact. Such significant economic reform that will have such wide-reaching positive impact on the Australian economy warrants the consideration of the Senate economics committee, we propose. It warrants a reasonable time to be considered, but it does not need more than six months. This bill is broader than just shipping companies and our transport network. This is about the cost of doing business in Australia. This is about our sugar industry, our cement industry, aluminium, mineral sands, the resource sector, fertiliser industry, gypsum and petrol refineries to name but a few.

The government would like to send this bill to the Senate economics committee for a report date after the winter break, which would provide adequate time for consideration of this. If the opposition has proposed a date between that which we are nominating and next year, I could have understood that, but they are not. They have nominated 2016. That is unreasonable. We are proposing that this legislation is referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for report on 12 August 2015. We think that is an entirely reasonable proposition.

Senator MOORE (Queensland) (13:13): We are seeking that this piece of legislation go to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. We are doing that for a number of reasons. One is that this is the committee under which most of these issues around shipping and transport are normally heard. We have Senator Sterle, behind me, who works in this committee. The important issues of shipping in Australia are already the subject of an extensive Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee hearing, so it makes sense for the people who are working and negotiating all the time in this area, as an effective Senate committee, to have the same issues that they have been looking at to go to the same committee, which already has the estimates process for this industry.

We know that this is an extraordinarily complex area. We know that there was a long history of engagement in this process when Labor was in government

There were extensive considerations in the House of Reps looking at the whole area around national shipping, and we know that it has important environmental, national security and freight transport efficiency implications.

This is an important issue. There have been a number of reviews in the past, all of which reinforce the need for these issues to be considered carefully. They need a wide range of engagement. Sensibly, if you already have a committee process operating that has a reporting date in the first sitting week of next year, we truly believe that this is a more effective way. It will use the expertise best and respond most effectively to the industry if this matter is referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee with the same reporting date as the references inquiry so that the work can be done together, all the issues can be looked at and we can maximise the efficiency of the debate. It is an important process. In speaking against Senator Fifield's amendment, I am also speaking to mine to minimise the length of the debate.

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (13:15): Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator LAMBIE: Thank you. The crossbenchers are a little concerned. August is too early, but 2016 is too late, so we are asking that some other compromise be made. Like you said, Senator Moore—and I respect you for it—it is a really important matter and it needs to be dealt with. I just think that leaving it to 2016 is too long.

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (13:16): Mr Deputy President, are we debating a motion?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question before the chair is that the amendment moved by Senator Fifield be agreed to.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: I will speak to that.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And let me advise the Senate that the time for this debate will end at 1.28. If the question has not been put by then, it will be put at that time.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: I come from North Queensland, as I never stop telling people. Some of the big industries up there, such as sugar, aluminium and cement, are industries which use coastal shipping. Because of the actions of the Labor government in previous years, industries are being forced to ignore Australian product and import product—in sugar, in cement and in lots of things—because they simply cannot afford the cost of domestic shipping in Australia. This has been an issue for a long, long period of time and the government intends to do something about it. The opposition will no doubt oppose it, but, more than oppose it, they want to delay any real consideration of the bill out into the never-never. Suggesting that this be put out to next year is just incredibly dishonest. It shows that the Labor Party have no real interest in it. They are frightened that an earlier consideration by the committee and report to the Senate would encourage the crossbenchers to support the government's legislation. Labor do not want to take their chances, so they put it out into the never-never.

Senator Moore's contribution was full of hypocritical jargon. She was talking about sending things to another committee when a different committee is looking at it. Of course, the Labor Party have just facilitated another one of the abuses of the committee system by referring a matter that was being dealt with by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—the Monis letters. It had come up in estimates and a request had been made. The legislation committee had moved to have a spillover so that people could be questioned about that. But, in the meantime, the Labor Party introduced a motion to send this to a references committee—the exact same issue.

As I said earlier today, this makes just a complete mockery of what was once a revered and respected Senate committee system. When I first joined the Senate 25 years ago, Senate committees worked cooperatively. They worked in a nonpartisan way. They actually achieved results that were good for governments. They alerted governments to obvious errors. Be they Liberal or Labor governments, the Senate committee system used to work in a bipartisan way. Today, I say with a lot of regret, the Senate committee system has just become a tool in the armoury of the Labor Party and the Greens political party to use them for purely political purposes—no real gain and no real policy commitment but purely for political purposes. That is what brings these committees into disrepute.

I think that Senator Fifield's motion is a good one, but perhaps I could foreshadow a further amendment that would, as Senator Lambie suggests, be a compromise that would involve something between August and next year. Rather than me foreshadowing an amendment, perhaps others in the chamber will. (Time expired)

Senator Xenophon: Mr Deputy President, I seek to move an amendment to Senator Fifield's amendment, and seek your guidance as to how we do this. The first part is that I move that the amendment be put in two parts. The question of which committee it ought to go to should be a separate question to the issue of the date, and, in respect of the date, that I move an amendment to Senator Fifield's amendment that the date be amended to Monday, 12 October 2015. I hope that is clear enough, Mr Deputy President.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Fifield and Senator Moore are indicating it is clear.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (13:23): I am glad they find it clear. I move:

—At the time of printing the text of the amendment was not available—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question now is that Senator Xenophon's amendment, which is amending Senator Fifield's amendment, which is amending Senator Moore's amendment, which is amending the motion moved by Senator Bushby, be agreed to. The trouble is that I do not have any of these amendments in front of me, and I should have, so maybe we will get that and I can then put them in two parts for you, as requested. Your amendment, Senator Xenophon, is seeking simply to amend the date on Senator Fifield's amendment. That does not need to be put in two parts. That can just simply be done. Your amended amendment will then be put, Senator Fifield.

Senator Xenophon's amendment amending the date on Senator Fifield's amendment is the question before us. The question is that Senator Xenophon's amendment be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Xenophon, do you need another part?

Senator XENOPHON: It is the issue of which committee it goes to and whether that be a separate question. We have dealt with the issue of the date, so there is some consensus in respect of that.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That has amended Senator Fifield's amendment. The other part of Senator Fifield's amendment, as I am reading it now, is effectively that it be referred to the Economics Committee, and that is in opposition to Senator Moore's amendment. Is everyone clear on that?

Senator Siewert: We are trying to achieve what we have and, I think, we have reached agreement of a sort in the chamber. Now, as I understand it, if we vote on Senator Fifield's motion, we vote it down, therefore we vote down the amended date. That is the problem. We actually then will have to amend Senator Moore's amendment.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: This is part of the problem when senators simply get up and move amendments verbally without having them circulated. It does make it difficult for the chair. We are all trying to keep up, and we all know what we are trying to achieve. I am sure that will be the final outcome.

The part of Senator Fifield's amendment relating to the committee is the question before the chair. So everyone is clear on that. The question is that that motion be agreed to.

The problem we are facing is that we are trying to sort out an amendment, which everyone agrees to, as an amendment to an amendment that may not succeed. So the way through this I suggest—and this might be a first for the Senate—is why don't we see if Senator Moore will accept the change to the date as part of her amendment, and then Senator Fifield's amendment simply deals with the committee. Is everyone happy with that course of action? Senator Moore, could you indicate for the record that you would be happy with that.

Senator MOORE (Queensland) (13:28): I support that, Mr Deputy President.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Now let us put Senator Fifield's amendment to the chamber. Thank you, Clerk.

The Clerk: The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Fifield proposing that Senator Moore's amendment referring the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee be amended to send the bill to the Economics Legislation Committee.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald.

Senator Ian Macdonald: Senator Moore's motion went to more than that. It said that it report by an October date. She has reframed her motion, as I understand it, to say it goes to the transport committee by 10 October. Senator Fifield is moving an amendment to say it goes to a different committee. That is the motion. That is what I was asking be read out to make sure it is absolutely clear. Perhaps I could ask again whether Senator Moore's motion, which she has accepted an amendment to, be read, and then Senator Fifield's motion be read.

The Clerk: The amendment as moved by Senator Moore and amended by leave by Senator Moore says: 'At the end of the motion to adopt the Selection of Bills Committee add: "But in respect of the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 October 2015". Senator Fifield's amendment is "to omit Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee and replace it with Economics Legislation Committee".'

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is where I thought we were. The question is that Senator Fifield's amendment be agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (13:38): I can advise the chamber, after all of that, that the question now is that Senator Moore's amendment, as amended by leave by Senator Moore, be agreed to. So that everyone is very clear: Senator Moore's amendment is the same, apart from the date. It has now been changed to October 2015.

Question agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question now is that Senator Bushby's motion, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (13:39): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being no such requests, I shall now proceed to the discovery of formal business.

Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (13:40): I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 13 June 2016:

The economic and social impact of legislation, policies or Commonwealth guidelines, with particular reference to:

(a) the sale and use of tobacco, tobacco products, nicotine products, and e‑cigarettes, including any impact on the health, enjoyment and finances of users and non‑users;

(b) the sale and service of alcohol, including any impact on crime and the health, enjoyment and finances of drinkers and non‑drinkers;

(c) the sale and use of marijuana and associated products, including any impact on the health, enjoyment and finances of users and non‑users;

(d) bicycle helmet laws, including any impact on the health, enjoyment and finances of cyclists and non‑cyclists;

(e) the classification of publications, films and computer games; and

(f) any other measures introduced to restrict personal choice 'for the individual's own good'.

Question agreed to.

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (13:41): I move:

That the Federal Courts Legislation Amendment (Fees) Regulation 2015, as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2015 No. 70 and made under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, the Family Law Act 1975, and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999, be disallowed [F2015L00780

Thirteen sitting days remain, including today, to resolve the motion or the instrument will be deemed to have been disallowed.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 4 be agreed to.

Senator LAZARUS (Queensland) (13:48): I ask that business of the Senator notice of motion No. 6 standing in my name, which refers a matter to a committee, be taken as a formal motion.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?

Senator Ian Macdonald: I rise on a point of order. This motion refers to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee the use of smoke alarms to prevent smoke and fire related deaths—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator, what is your point of order?

Senator Ian Macdonald: I am saying to you that this motion has absolutely nothing—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It is not a point of order. Sit down, Senator Macdonald. Formality has not been refused. I now call on you to move your motion, Senator Lazarus.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There is no point of order, Senator Macdonald. Resume your seat.

Senator Ian Macdonald: You did not even hear the point of order, Mr Deputy President.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There was no point of order. Resume your seat, Senator Macdonald.

Senator LAZARUS (Queensland) (13:49): I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 3 December 2015:

Use of smoke alarms to prevent smoke and fire related deaths, with particular reference to:

(a) the incidence of smoke and fire related injuries and deaths and associated damage to property;

(b) the immediate and long term effects of such injuries and deaths;

(c) how the use, type and installation set-ups of smoke alarms could affect such injuries and deaths;

(d) what smoke alarms are in use in owner-occupied and rented dwellings and the installation set-ups;

(e) how the provisions of the Australian Building Code relating to smoke alarm type, installation and use can be improved;

(f) whether there are any other legislative or regulatory measures which would minimise such injuries and deaths; and

(g) any related matter.

Question agreed to.

Senator Ian Macdonald: I raise a point of order, which I tried to raise before. This motion has nothing whatsoever to do with the Legal and Constitutional Affairs—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order.

Senator Ian Macdonald: It is. You have to rule it out because it is not relevant to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I have ruled that it is not a point of order. Resume your seat.

Senator Ian Macdonald: I take issue with your ruling—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Take issue if you like. I have called the question.

Senator Ian Macdonald: I will give notice that your ruling be disagreed with. I will put it in writing as soon as I can.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: In accordance with the standing orders, you do so in writing and you do it immediately and it will be a decision for the next day of business. Thank you, Senator Macdonald.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (13:50): by leave—Changes to the National Construction Code relating to smoke alarms were only completed in 2014. The Building Code of Australia, Volume 1, pertaining to class 2 to class 9, commercial buildings, and Volume 2, for class 1 and class 10 buildings, residential buildings, are being amended to require interconnected smoke alarms where more than one smoke alarm is required in class 1 dwellings, and in sole occupancy units of class 2, 3 and 4 parts of buildings. At the time that the Australian Fire and Emergency Services Authorities Council, said:

AFAC and member agencies have lobbied hard for these changes and we have successfully collaborated with the Australian Building Codes Board to achieve this outcome.

All of the other matters relating to the motion, as Senator Macdonald indicated, fall within the responsibilities of the states and territories.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (13:51): I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend various Acts relating to law and justice, and for related purposes. Civil Law and Justice (Omnibus Amendments) Bill 2015.

Question agreed to.

Senator FIFIELD: I present the bill and move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (13:52): I table the explanatory memorandum and I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

CIVIL LAW AND JUSTICE (OMNIBUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 2015

Introduction

The Civil Law and Justice (Omnibus Amendments) Bill 2015 is an omnibus bill which will primarily amend the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Bankruptcy Act 1966, the EvidenceAct 1995, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999, the FederalCourtofAustralia Act 1976 and the International Arbitration Act 1974.

The Bill will make minor and technical amendments to provide more clarity to the legislation, correct legislative oversights and amend obsolete provisions. The Bill will also make a number of consequential amendments. The combined effect of these amendments will improve the efficiency and operation of the justice system administered by the Attorney‑General's portfolio.

Summary of Bill

The Government aims to make all Commonwealth legislation coherent, readable and accessible to the widest possible audience. To this end, the Evidence Act will be amended to move the journalists' privilege provisions from Division 1A of Part 3.10 to new Division 1C of Part 3.10. This will provide consistency with the numbering of the NSW, ACT and Victorian Evidence Acts and is consistent with the Parliamentary Counsel's Committee Protocol on Drafting National Uniform Legislation, which provides that the numbering of uniform legislation should be consistent.

To provide clarity to legislation, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act will be amended to ensure that police officers and court sheriffs who are authorised by the Act, or a warrant issued under the Act or the Rules of Court, have the power to use such force as is reasonable and necessary in the circumstances to enter premises to execute an arrest warrant. Currently, there is uncertainty about whether reasonable force can be used to enter premises to execute an arrest warrant. This means that circumstances may arise where an arrest warrant is unable to be executed because an arrestee is inside premises. This can delay the Court process and burden the justice system.

Other amendments to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act will repeal an obsolete reference to improve the accuracy of the Act.

The Bill will also streamline and enhance the jury empanelment process under the Federal Court of Australia Act so that a person summoned for jury duty would not be summoned for a particular trial. Instead, they would be summoned to form part of a panel of potential jurors for a three month period. This will save the Court significant time and resources and ultimately lead to the more efficient resolution of disputes.

Other amendments to the Federal Court of Australia Act will ensure fairness in the pre‑trial process and will improve the clarity of the Act.

The Bill will also make minor and technical changes to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act, further supporting amalgamation of four key commonwealth merits review tribunals. The amendments will ensure all persons who are parties to a review receive notice that an application for review has been made. The Bill will clarify that the Tribunal may make orders that certain information is not to be disclosed to the parties. It will enable the President to authorise any member of the Tribunal to exercise existing powers to dismiss applications and ensure that in matters with more than one non-government party, other than the applicant, they may seek to have the application reinstated. The Bill will provide flexibility to the Tribunal to set out the manner for lodging or giving documents to the Tribunal, or to a person, in a regulation, in a practice direction, or both.

Amendments to the Bankruptcy Act will remove unnecessary requirements to notify the Official Receiver of certain decisions and will streamline some application for review processes in bankruptcies. The amendments also insert a 60-day time limit for applications to the court to review certain decisions. This will avoid undue delay in challenging such decisions and is consistent with other provisions of the Bankruptcy Act. Additionally, the amendments will clarify how confidentiality requirements in bankruptcies interact with statutory requirements for disclosure. The amendments will also remove a reference to a repealed provision.

The amendments to the International Arbitration Act will simplify provisions governing the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Australia and improve compliance with the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. It will also apply confidentiality provisions to arbitral proceedings seated in Australia on an opt-out rather than opt-in basis. Finally, the amendments will make minor amendments in the interests of clearer laws.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the intention of this Bill is to make minor and technical amendments to a number of Acts in order to increase access to justice for all Australians by removing ambiguity in legislation and streamlining legal processes. The Bill will increase the currency, clarity and consistency of legislation administered by the Attorney-General's portfolio. Significantly, the amendments contained within the Bill will improve the justice system by making it easier for individuals to understand and comply with the law.

Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.

Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:52): On behalf of Senator Gallagher, I move:

1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Families, be established to inquire into and report by 13 October 2015 on the following matters:

(a) the short- and long-term impact and potential impact on Australian families and children of decisions of the Abbott Government taken since its election, including:

   (i) proposed changes to Family Tax Benefits contained in the 2014-15 and 2015-16 budgets,

   (ii) proposed changes to income support payments, including Newstart Allowance and Youth Allowance contained in the 2014-15 and 2015-16 budgets,

   (iii) proposed changes to child care contained in the 2014-15 and 2015-16 budgets,

   (iv) proposed changes to Parental Leave Pay contained in the 2015-16 Budget,

   (v) the abolition of the Schoolkids Bonus and the Income Support Bonus, and

   (vi) any other changes by the Abbott Government to payments and/or concessions made directly by the Commonwealth Department of Social Services to Australian families; and

No. 102—25 June 2015 2835

(b) the impact of these changes on particular groups of vulnerable families and children, including single parent families, single income families, families of people with disability, low-income families, Indigenous families and other vulnerable groups.

(2) That the committee consist of 5 senators, 2 nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and 1 nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens.

(3) That:

(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator; and

(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee.

(4) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee.

(5) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.

(6) That the committee elect as chair one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and as deputy chair the member nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens.

(7) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.

(8) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.

(9) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.

(10) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider.

(11) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.

(12) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (13:53): Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator FIFIELD: This is a stunt by the opposition designed to frustrate the government's legislative agenda. There is a process in place whereby senators are able to scrutinise legislation by referring it to a committee for inquiry and report. This has happened for the three social services budget related bills that have come before the chamber this week. In addition to individual bills being referred to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, a Senate select committee to inquire into the effect of changes in the Commonwealth budget has already been established. This is yet another example of the Australian Labor Party seeking to deal themselves out of constructive negotiations in this place.

Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (13:54): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator LEYONHJELM: I simply note in this motion that there is absolutely no provision for crossbench representation. The motion proposes five senators from the government, the opposition and the Greens but none from the crossbench. For that reason, I will be opposing it and I encourage my fellow crossbench senators to similarly oppose it.

Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:54): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator McEWEN: I note in relation to the comments made by Senator Leyonhjelm that of course all senators can be participating members of the select committee and contribute to proceedings in that way.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion no. 772 be agreed to.