The CHAIR (09:31): The committee is considering the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020 and amendment (1) on sheet 1117 revised moved by Senator Keneally.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (09:31): Yesterday, in the committee debate, I note that Minister Seselja started to make comments about the fact that this important debate on an important national security bill was somehow 'holding up the passage of the bill'. I think it might be useful to put on the record the history of this legislation because if there is anyone holding up the passage of important reforms to transport security clearances it is the Liberal-National government. Let's understand the background of this bill. Similar bills have been introduced in the 44th and 45th parliaments and both failed to pass the parliament. In the 44th Parliament the bill was put forward, Labor senators provided additional comments at a Senate inquiry and the bill was allowed by the Liberal-National government to lapse at the election. We had the 2016 election and this bill which is before the parliament was allowed by this government, this Liberal and National government, to lapse at the election. In the 45th Parliament, Labor supported the legislation in principle, but successfully amended it in 2017 with support from the Greens and Senator Lambie and we have here that One Nation senators did not vote on that amendment. The bill was also amended by then Senator Leyonhjelm. What happened to that bill in the 45th Parliament? The bill was allowed to lapse by the Morrison government at the 2019 election.

Here we have a government that all of a sudden discovers an urgency about the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020. They had a similar bill in the 44th Parliament; they allowed it to lapse. They had a similar bill in the 45th Parliament; they allowed it to lapse. I'm not going to stand here and be lectured by a Liberal-National government that, for some six years now, has had half-hearted attempts to get a transport security bill up in the parliament and keeps letting it lapse, that does not even have the courage to put it forward for a vote. This current bill, introduced to the 46th Parliament, is largely similar to the other bills. There are some changes that have been highlighted in Senate inquiries. More than three years had passed since the legislation was last reviewed by a Senate committee, which is why it was referred to a Senate inquiry again. In that inquiry, there were a number of issues raised about the fact that the bill didn't even have a definition of 'serious crime' even though the bill was called the serious crime amendment, and that the bill did absolutely nothing to address the gaping hole that sits in this legislation around foreign crew on flag-of-convenience vessels. That gaping hole wasn't pointed out by the Labor Party; it wasn't pointed out by the unions; it was pointed out by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and the national security agencies upon which this parliament should be taking its advice.

As this bill went through the House of Representatives earlier this year, it was the government that moved another amendment to the bill. It was the government that added something onto the bill. Since what they added on was an entirely new process to do with criminal intelligence assessments, an inquiry was supported by the Senate to look at that very issue. Let me be clear: we didn't relish the idea of having to go off to another inquiry. It was the mismanagement of the Liberal and National government with their own legislation; the fact that they introduced legislation that wasn't finished into the House of Representatives and the Senate after the Senate inquiry. Then they go and move an amendment to their own legislation. This Senate, with the support of the crossbench, agreed to another inquiry into that.

If the government had had their act together and put the legislation fully formed before the parliament we might have had a more efficient process. If the government had had their act together and actually put the legislation as amended by this Senate in the last parliament, if they'd put that legislation to a vote, if they'd accepted the amendments, we would have had this regime in place. It is entirely within the discretion of the Liberal-National government, the Morrison government, which sets the agenda in the parliament, to determine whether bills come forward for a vote. They let it lapse in the 44th Parliament, they let it lapse in the 45th Parliament and then they completely mismanaged the process in this parliament. I'm tempted to say it's like a clown car of ministers over there, running around trying to work out what to do with their own legislation.

While all this mismanagement is happening, we had the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, last week in a clumsy misfire trying to say that Labor is responsible for holding up the national security legislation. It was a clumsy and stupid statement by the Prime Minister. He cited three bills. He cited the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020. That is currently with the PJCIS, a Liberal dominated committee. He cited the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020. That was the subject of a bipartisan, unanimous report by the PJCIS recommending the bill be passed subject to legislative and non-legislative changes, and the government haven't even responded to that report yet. The Prime Minister doesn't even know what his own members are doing on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. He seems ignorant of the fact that the PJCIS had a unanimous recommendation supporting the passage of the bill.

So let's not be lectured by the Prime Minister on who is doing what in relation to national security, when he seems completely unaware of what is happening with various pieces of national security legislation. If he had been truthful with the Australian people, he would have acknowledged that it was his government that let the transport security bill lapse at the 2019 election. It was his government that mismanaged this legislation through the parliament. It was his government that brought forward an additional amendment requiring the Senate to have to look at a new process through an inquiry. Let's not be lectured by this government that somehow the appropriate scrutiny that opposition and crossbenchers apply to this bill is somehow holding it up. It is entirely the Liberal-National government, the Morrison government, that is holding up this legislation. If it had just fixed the foreign crew issue in this legislation that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection flagged as a 'gaping hole' in the regime at our ports and airports, this bill would have already been passed. Let's take no lectures from Mr Morrison on national security legislation. He doesn't know what he is talking about.

I also want to point out that the government, which sets the agenda in the Senate, found time this year to prioritise superyacht legislation. It's great that the Senate has dealt with superyachts! We have not yet dealt with national security clearances at our ports and our airports. They set the agenda, they allocate the time and they make those decisions. Why have they prioritised superyacht legislation over the fundamental need to have appropriate security clearance regimes in place at our ports and airports?

Yesterday Minister Michaelia Cash made statements that foreign crew are constantly supervised—that they must be always supervised at maritime ports when they are in a secure area. My question to the minister at the table is: can she confirm that foreign crew do not require additional security checks because they will always be under constant supervision while they are in a maritime port?

Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (09:41): I can confirm that anyone seeking to have unescorted access to secure areas of both our airports and our seaports must have an ASIC or an MSIC regardless of their nationality. Again, as per yesterday, Senator Keneally is deliberately seeking to muddy the waters. There is no Australian government requirement for all Australian seafarers to hold an MSIC.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (09:42): I never said there was. Did I ever say there was a requirement for every Australian port worker to hold an MSIC? Of course not. The minister came in late to this. I will forgive her for that misstatement because she is new to this debate; she was not at the table yesterday.

I'd like to flag for the minister that the Panama flagged Glorious Plumeria, carrying woodchips, arrived at Corio Quay in Geelong on Friday. Yesterday Senator Seselja confirmed that the Geelong port is a secure zone and that all people in the zone are required to have an MSIC or be escorted by an officer who has an MSIC. That is the advice we received from Senator Seselja yesterday. If the government needs to correct that advice, I'd be happy to hear it.

The Glorious Plumeria was docked about 500 metres from the port's main security station. At approximately 2 am on Sunday 13 June, two sailors, who have only been described in media reports as 'Asian', reportedly crept at pace down a gangway and a set of stairs before disappearing into the night. This is on Sunday 13 June, a few days ago—not last year and not in 2016 but a couple of days ago. After that, it's speculated these two sailors jumped onto the beach and escaped along the foreshore or scaled a standard barbed wire fence to make their getaway. At the time the Australian Border Force did not alert the local community.

I understand the Australian Border Force took 19 hours to respond to questions from the Geelong Advertiser but refused to answer these questions. I'm advised the ABF only responded with:

The Australian Border Force (ABF) is aware of two foreign nationals who absconded from a commercial vessel that arrived in North Geelong port on Friday—

11 June 2021. The ABF said they were 'closely working with state and federal authorities'. The ABF has not provided any updates via Twitter or on its media release. This goes to the very point that the opposition and crossbench have been arguing—that the checks and the security arrangements, when it comes to foreign crew at our maritime ports, are not sufficient. Yesterday Minister Cash and Minister Seselja both repeatedly claimed that foreign crew did not require additional security checks, because they would always be under constant supervision while in port. Senator Cash said:

Maritime crew visa holders who do not hold an MSIC are required to be escorted and monitored by an MSIC holder at all times whilst in a restricted zone of a seaport.

Senator Seselja said:

An MCV check is tailored to a temporary visa for entering Australia; the ASIC-MSIC checks are more detailed assessments of people with an ongoing need for unsupervised access to the secure areas of Australia's ports and airports.

Yet, just a few days ago, we had two foreign crew absconding, and it seems the ABF don't know where they are, what's happening or how it happened. So my first question to the minister is: who are the men that the Australian Border Force are now searching for?

Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (09:45): In relation to the question of the crew desertions, I will make two points. I will come to the identity, because I do have some further information for the chamber on that. But I would again counsel Labor against deliberately conflating two very separate issues. You've got the maritime crew visas, of which the two crew members mentioned were holders, and I understand those visas have now been cancelled. Again you are conflating it with the requirement for an MSIC. As Senator Seselja said yesterday, as I understand it, part of the port of Geelong is a secured area, but part of it is not. Regardless, any foreign crew need to have a visa. Through you, Chair: Senator Keneally can keep filibustering by being completely insulting to the minister, to the Prime Minister and to many others, but it does not change the fact that those opposite have had five years to consider this legislation, and endless filibustering does not make our ports any safer.

In relation to the detail of the incident that you raised, that of the Glorious Plumeria, the two crew that deserted over the weekend are Vietnamese nationals. At approximately 10 o'clock yesterday, ABF, VicPol and DHHS were notified that these two members were unaccounted for during their morning crew muster. ABF officers boarded the vessel to conduct the master's questionnaire and relevant ship search at approximately midday—just after midday. ABF officers cancelled or ceased the crew members' visas. The master advised the ABF that the crew were in possession of their passports, which they had obtained from the master's cabin, where the passports had been secured. The master advised that one of the missing crew cleans the master's cabin daily and noted that that was likely how he had obtained the two passports.

Investigations remain ongoing. Senator Keneally, your concern about the time it took the ABF to get back to the Geelong Advertiser is noted. But I would also note that their primary responsibility is to do exactly what they did yesterday: to work with VicPol and other relevant authorities to investigate this. Again, it is a valiant effort you are putting up to filibuster on this and to conflate these two issues, but they are two separate issues.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (09:48): Here we have it again—the government trying to say that, somehow, they're not responsible for the fact this bill, in various forms—

Senator Reynolds interjecting—

Senator KENEALLY: Five years—exactly, Minister.

Senator Reynolds interjecting—

Senator KENEALLY: I will take that interjection from the minister. She seems not to have listened to the fact that it was her government that allowed this bill to lapse at the 2016 election. They didn't bring it forward for a vote. Minister, how can Labor be holding up something that your government doesn't bring forward for a vote? Further, your government let it lapse at the 2019 election. The Morrison government let this bill lapse at the 2019 election, after Labor had already voted for it. It was amended, and, in a fit of petulance and stubbornness, the Morrison government didn't accept the amendments. They didn't even deal with them; they just let the bill lapse. Let's understand this, Minister: this bill would be law today if your government had not let it lapse at two elections.

So don't talk about filibustering. Your government did not even prioritise this legislation. You put time in for the superyacht legislation, but you didn't put time in for this one.

Senator Reynolds interjecting—

Senator KENEALLY: Here we have a minister who, with her constant little interjections over there, doesn't seem to understand the basic facts. Yes, this bill has been hanging around for five years, because they let it hang around for five years. They haven't done the work. They mismanaged it. They amended their own bill halfway through the parliamentary debate.

Don't sit here and lecture the opposition and the crossbench for applying appropriate scrutiny. I think it is reasonable to have more than one hour of debate on a piece of national security legislation, especially when we have a circumstance that makes the very point that the opposition and crossbench have been raising, and that is that the regime that exists around maritime crew visas is not sufficient. These aren't my words, Minister; these are the words of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. In 2017 it made clear that the regulatory regime and the practices around foreign crew allow for the importation of drugs, weapons and other illegal activities, and this bill doesn't do anything about solving that—it doesn't.

In fact, what have we seen? Your government and your border protection in the last few days have seen foreign crew abscond from a ship in an Australian port. If you think I'm not going to raise that, you've got to be kidding. This is the fundamental part of the bill. The minister just provided some additional information about these two crew members on the Glorious Plumeria. I thank her for the information. It's a pity it couldn't have been provided to the Geelong Advertiser, who I'm sure are watching this debate and may well be able to make use of that information, since they didn't get it through their inquiries, because the local community in Geelong are interested in this; Australians are interested in this. How is it the case that our borders are so porous that two crew members can just wander off a ship?

The minister said in her answer that somehow these two crew members got hold of their passports while one of them was cleaning the master's cabin. I believe that is the information she provided. It's my understanding that these passports are meant to be held in a safe on board a ship. Is the minister saying that the passports were not being held as they should have been on the vessel?

Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (09:52): I have no more information to provide than that that I've already given this chamber, and any further details will of course be the subject of the AFP and Victoria Police inquiry. Can I address what Senator Keneally has also alleged, saying that this legislation does nothing to fix the serious problems that we have at our ports? That is simply and utterly not true. Instead of calling for endless reviews, which Labor does all the time, I can confirm that we know there are over 200 individuals with links to serious and organised crime holding ASICs and MSICs, and I believe up to 70 per cent of those actually hold the MSIC. These individuals can currently access secure and sensitive areas of airports and seaports without supervision. We also know that serious and organised criminals use our airports and seaports as transit points to import weapons, illicit drugs and other harmful goods into Australia. Trafficking of these illegal goods puts Australian security and prosperity and the welfare of our communities at great risk.

This bill, contrary to what Senator Keneally has just said, will establish a regulatory framework that ensures that people convicted of serious offences or with known links to serious and organised crime groups will be ineligible to hold an ASIC or MSIC. These amendments will also provide ACIC with the ability to conduct criminal intelligence assessments for use in background checks on both cards. This is important. It is clearly needed, and this government is keen to get this through as soon as possible. No more stalling. No more delay tactics from those opposite. This bill must be passed.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (09:54): Labor thinks this is a good bill. We just think it should be strengthened. There's no review being called for here. The only review that got called for by this Senate was because your government, the Morrison government, didn't present their legislation fully formed to the parliament; they amended it after they introduced it. It is laughable that the government sit here and insist that somehow this is some kind of model legislative process they've gone through and the rest of us are just standing in the way. What we are trying to do here is deal with what you put forward, which was a half-formed piece of legislation. You amended it halfway through the legislative process. We've held an additional inquiry, supported by the crossbench in the Senate. We think this bill should be strengthened. We're not calling for an additional review.

The point of the amendment we are debating right now, for those who are watching this debate at home, is to actually facilitate the implementation of the ASIC as soon as possible and to invite the government to fix what the Department of Immigration and Border Protection in 2017 said was a hole in our maritime port security when it came to foreign crew. Again, I'm not making this claim. Senator Sheldon isn't making it. Senator Rice isn't making it. Senator Hanson isn't making it. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection is making it. We take that seriously. Whether they take that seriously is up to them, and we'll see, when we vote on this amendment, where they come down.

What I would like to ask the minister about these two foreign crew who have, on Sunday, walked off a ship in a secure port there in Geelong is: is there any information she can provide the parliament as to whether or not these men pose a risk to the community, if they pose a COVID risk to the community and if it is known why the men left the ship?

Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (09:56): As I've said, I can't confirm any more than I currently have, but I am absolutely confident that between the Victoria Police and the ABF they will be conducting all necessary inquiries into that matter. Again, that matter, while important—and it's important for ABF and law enforcement to deal with—is detracting very effectively, I would argue, from Labor's calls to split the aviation and maritime sections of the bill. Can I just remind all in this chamber that serious crime is a major threat to the Australian way of life and it causes enormous human suffering.

In relation to your call to split the aviation and maritime sections of this bill, of the 227 ASIC and MSIC holders 73 per cent are in the maritime sector, and, by Labor seeking to split the bill, the vast majority of card holders the ACIC has serious concerns over—that is, those with a history of serious and organised crime—will continue to have unsupervised access to maritime secure areas. It should be of great concern to all Australians that it is the Labor Party who are seeking to have them exempted by the application of their amendments, and I think that is absolutely outrageous. Kilograms of illicit goods enter Australia through airports but tonnes enter through containers through our seaports. We have to close off all entry points to trusted insiders and serious criminals, not just those in the aviation sector. Otherwise, organised criminals will continue to exploit Australia's ports. There will be only one party to blame for that, and that is the Labor Party, which is seeking to split this bill and water down the impact of this legislation.

Senator Keneally, if you really support this legislation—through you, Mr Temporary Chair—Labor will stop filibustering, you will stop playing games with this bill and you will pass the bill so that we can get on and actually make our airports and our seaports more secure.

Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (09:58): Well, that's amusing, isn't it? We've just been told that we're closing off entry points. It is simply not true. I appreciate the fact that the minister has not been informed yesterday or the day before of the answers that were given yesterday morning and yesterday afternoon regarding this subject, because you aren't closing off all the entry points. In actual fact, Senator Seselja said:

An MCV—

a Maritime Crew visa—

check is tailored to a temporary visa for entering Australia; the ASIC-MSIC checks are more detailed assessments of people with an ongoing need for unsupervised access to the secure areas of Australia's ports and airports.

What Senator Cash quite clearly said was:

Maritime crew visa holders who do not hold an MSIC are required to be escorted and monitored by an MSIC holder at all times whilst in a restricted zone of a seaport.

What has happened at Geelong? Two foreign crew, who have not been MSIC checked, who have not had the more rigorous check, have now absconded into the Australian community. What was the response from the government and the ABF? It's taken them days to start responding to the Geelong Advertiser, days to start making public announcements about what is happening with those two individuals and days to give any sort of indication as to who these people are. What's particularly worrying is the government's politicising of the ABF. You would have thought that, when two people were found to have absconded from a ship, the government would have notified the public and asked for the public's involvement. But they didn't do that because they wanted to hush it up. National security is not an issue when they want to hush something up. Quite clearly, this government is making sure that there is still access to our ports for foreign crews who are carrying out criminal activities—gun running and the sorts of things that put our country in jeopardy.

At this point, those two people and what their motivation is haven't been identified. But what has been demonstrated is that they could have been terrorists, they could have been importing drugs or they could have been gun running. What do ABF do? They don't notify the public. These are the people at the forefront of national security, yet they don't notify the public that there has been a breach of our national borders. They hush it up because of politics—not in the interests of national security but because they wanted to make sure they weren't held to account for the failings in the system which we've been highlighting in the past 24 hours.

It is critical that these maritime crew visas be upgraded and reviewed, and not only in light of the fact of what's happened in Geelong. As we discussed yesterday, last year Rio Tinto had eight ships off Queensland. Four were Australian vessels with Australian crew with MSIC passes, the high background checks. The four others were flag-of-convenience vessels with foreign crew and low security checks. If you want our borders to be secure then make them secure by making sure the standards apply to foreign crews as well. That will protect the community. That will protect all Australians.

To go back to the case in Geelong, we have seen Border Force refuse to give details of the two Asian sailors who are still at large after abandoning ship in Geelong, something that is keeping the community on edge over whether the duo is dangerous or carrying COVID-19. That's from a report just this morning in the Geelong Advertiser. So here's the Advertiser, a major communication network, making sure it announces it to the public, to the local community in Geelong—'Keep an eye out; this is critical'—while the government keep trying to hush it up. They haven't made people in Geelong aware for many, many hours and, of course, there's still no detail. 'But don't worry,' we heard yesterday. 'We don't have to actually escort a foreign crew member on a maritime crew visa, because they're supervised by somebody on an MSIC card.' One of the comments made in the Geelong Advertiser, which I take to be accurate, was:

It's understood security footage showed the pair creep at pace down a gangway and set of stairs before disappearing into the night.

Where was the surveillance? It wasn't there.

The thing that's particularly disturbing about this is that over the past five years we've had evidence and more evidence about these foreign crews breaching security at our ports. Of course, the government didn't act. Why didn't they act? Because they say that it's too complicated and it actually involves too many resources.

Here is a government that has the hide to say it is protecting our borders. It didn't notify the local community for many hours. It still hasn't given details days after these people absconded. Here is a government that has turned around and said that it's too expensive to make sure our border is secure. When we're talking about potential gun running, terrorist activities and drug running is it too expensive? They do not have a system in place. This amendment proposes the government having a system in place that is properly considered to make sure our ports are protected and we have security at our ports.

In the last days they have said that there's a conspiracy about why we want changes. Why we want changes is self-evident. We want changes because they secure our borders, they secure Geelong and they secure our community. As I raised yesterday, we have large amounts of ammonium nitrate being moved around on coastal shipping by foreign crews. None of them are security checked. Only about a third of that tonnage of ammonium nitrate was involved in the unfortunate incident in Beirut that caused the devastation and terrible loss of life. It was horrific. If that were to get in the hands of a terrorist, it would be extremely horrific in any country, but particularly this country. But they say, 'Don't worry; we haven't done security checks on them.'

We get 24 or 48 hours notice that these people have been given a low-level security check. We've seen in Geelong how that low-level security check works. It doesn't work. We've seen in Geelong how the supervision and oversight of people who don't have MSICs doesn't work. We've seen another instance where our borders have been put at risk by this government's lack of action. They're hiding behind politics and engaging in cheap political point-scoring rather than making a decision to make our borders secure and support the very sensible amendment that has been put up by Labor. We will secure our borders. We will protect our borders. We will protect them from foreign seafarers, not only Australian seafarers, if there is a concern.

Quite clearly, the government has failed to act in an appropriate way to make sure the border is protected. As I said, we've seen the Rio Tinto example and we've seen examples at the RRAT inquiry. In response to question on notice No. 3 in the RRAT inquiry, Home Affairs also admitted that foreign crew are not subjected to routine—as we've seen—bag checks or inspections for drugs, weapons or other contraband. There are no metal detectors to detect other weapons being imported into the country and no checks by drug detector dogs. These are the people protecting our border. They talk about the ways and means of securing our borders. Instead of pretending to secure our borders, they should be.

Minister, is it the government's intention to review the maritime crew visa? I noted yesterday that they said they have not done a review of the maritime crew visa whilst doing an assessment of what should happen at our ports and security. They are leaving the bulk of the people left behind. (Time expired)

Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (10:08): As I've noted several times now, there is only one gaping hole in this chamber, and that is Labor's lack of support for this critically important bill. Labor have filibustered—and both senators this morning have continued their heroic efforts to filibuster on this bill—and have tried to water down the bill by splitting it.

In relation to some of your comments or your assertions, Senator Sheldon, I think it is highly insulting and in fact demeaning to be so rude about the ABF staff and criticise their professionalism. They do an extraordinary job for our nation. In relation to some of your assertions, ABF officers do conduct regular visits to any vessel of interest. They do conduct regular wharf patrols and provide a high-visibility presence. They maintain a periodical or permanent ABF-marked-vehicle presence at the gangways and they also seek continuous CCTV monitoring of vessel gangways by the Customs National Monitoring Centre. In response to all of your assertions about their competence, they do a magnificent job on behalf of our nation and they do take security of our ports seriously.

Again, there's only one side of politics that's seeking to delay this bill or to have this bill not pass the Senate, and that's Labor. As I've said, of 227 ASIC and MSIC cardholders of concern to the ACIC, 73 per cent are in the maritime sector. This is exactly the reason we want this bill passed, so that we can implement these measures and so that law enforcement can make sure that people like that no longer have access to secure areas of our ports. As Labor keeps conflating them, let me be very clear: we're talking about these cards in the secure areas of our ports, not the more general access that we're talking about through the MCVs.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:11): The minister has made several statements about the ACIC assessments in maritime ports. The very amendment that we are dealing with, which is my amendment on sheet 1117, actually only deals with schedule 1. If the amendment were accepted, it won't deal with schedule 2, which means that the criminal intelligence matters that you point out can go ahead in maritime ports. Unfortunately, I don't think the minister has properly read the amendment and I think that demonstrates yet again the lack of attention to detail the government has when it comes to this legislation. They let the bill lapse in 2016, they let the bill lapse in 2019. They brought it to the parliament in this term of parliament, the 46th Parliament, and then they amended their own legislation halfway through, causing the Senate, including the crossbench, to vote for an additional inquiry.

They don't seem to understand that what Labor is seeking to do here is to take what we see as a good bill and make it better. That's what this is about: strengthening the security clearances at our borders. We say their bill has good intention. We supported it in the 45th Parliament. It's not our fault that the Morrison Government let the bill lapse in 45th Parliament. They control the agenda; they determine what legislation goes forward. They let it lapse. They write the bills. In the 46th Parliament, this parliament, they presented a bill that was half-finished. They amended it part way through. The amendment that I'm moving would allow the entire regime to be implemented immediately for aviation. It only affects schedule 1, not schedule 2, so the concerns the minister raises around criminal intelligence assessments can be dealt with for maritime workers as well. What we're seeking to do is to get the government to acknowledge what the former Department of Immigration and Border Protection had already said. The minister wasn't here yesterday, so let me make clear for her what the then Department of Immigration and Border Protection told the Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee in 2017. I note no minister has wanted to touch this advice with a barge pole in this debate. They seem to want to ignore the fact that a national security agency, one that is concerned with border security, has given clear evidence to this chamber that there's a hole in our border security. The minister says that somehow the hole exists from the opposition crossbench asking legitimate questions. Let me read to the minister what the then Department of Immigration and Border Protection said to this chamber in 2017:

There are features of flag of convenience registration, regulation and practice that organized crime syndicates or terrorists may seek to exploit.

Reduced transparency or secrecy surrounding complex financial and ownership arrangements are factors that can make flag of convenience ships more attractive for use in illegal activity, including by organized crime or terrorist groups. This means that FOC ships may be used in a range of illegal activities, including illegal exploitation of natural resources, illegal activity in protected areas, people smuggling, and facilitating prohibited imports or exports …

That is the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

My question to the minister—and two ministers ducked this yesterday—is this: does the government accept this advice of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection? Can the government point to any steps they have taken since 2017 to improve the security arrangements around flag-of-convenience vessels and foreign crew?

Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (10:16): It is imperative that this government put measures in place to prevent serious and organised crime, for the safety and security of all Australians. This bill was developed in response to a number of independent reviews that recognised the critical vulnerability created by serious and organised criminals exploiting the ASIC and MSIC schemes for criminal purposes. The government does acknowledge that flag-of-convenience ships can also pose a risk to the maritime environment that can be exploited by these very same organised crime groups. The government regularly reviews the aviation and maritime environments to address all vulnerabilities and to strengthen aviation and maritime security.

In relation to Senator Keneally's comments about the government, can I point out some of the facts about Senator Keneally's amendments and her attempt, on behalf of Labor, to water down this bill very significantly. Senator Keneally's amendment links the commencement of this bill to her own private member's bill, the Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020, which proposes amendments to the maritime crew visa. The new MCV bill provides that the transport security amendment bill would only commence on the passage of her own bill.

The vast majority of MCV holders do not require unescorted access to maritime security zones—again, I remind those opposite that these are two different issues that you are valiantly trying to conflate—and requiring visa holders to comply with elements of the MSIC scheme could pose a significant financial burden on the administration of the MCV scheme for absolutely no discernible benefit. It would cause a completely unacceptable level of uncertainty and further delay for industry for the government to link both the MCV and the MSIC as well as the commencement of the bills. This is just another delaying tactic by those opposite. I would just say, please just pass the bill, stop filibustering and stop playing games, so that we can get on and deal with the ASIC and MSIC cards and get serious and organised criminals out of our secure areas in our ports, airports and seaports.

Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (10:18): I want to go to a couple of things the minister has just stated in answering a series of questions, including those ones there. They don't want maritime crew visas to be at the same level as Australian crew visa checks. They have said clearly, as I've already stated to Senator Seselja and Senator Cash yesterday, that both of them recognise the fact that the MCV is a dud scheme. It's a scheme that does not give the same virility that we require for ASICs and MSICs, and specifically on our ports. One of the reasons they keep pressing, and the minister keeps pressing now, is that we have surveillance. People don't turn around and walk onto a wharf because they have criminal activity in mind. They go and get an MSIC or an ASIC.

Now, quite clearly, when we're dealing with security on our ports, we have to look at the serious nature of those people who are on the ships. It is a serious issue. I remind the minister that on 12 March 2021 exceptionally good work was done, as I recognised yesterday, by the Australian Federal Police, the ABF and New South Wales State Crime Command when they intercepted 200 kilos of cocaine. How did they intercept it? They intercepted it in a number of ways. What became clear is that those drugs were being dropped off the back of the ship—that's what the report says—to a daughter ship. That is the language they used. That boat then brought in the drugs. The crew members who handed over the drugs and were part of the arrangement were people who did not have a requirement to have appropriate and proper security checks done and would not have a capacity to have this done if the government were to pass the amendment.

This is about actually making sure that our ports are secure and that there are proper assessments—not an assessment, but proper assessments—ones that actually make sure that our borders are appropriately and properly protected. We've seen a series of questions that were raised by the Border Force, and I take the minister on face value. I have a lot of time for Border Force, but I have to say this: one of two things happened in Geelong. Either Border Force has been failing on the job or the government has interfered in the notification regarding this incident at this particular port, because they still have not turned around and answered a series of important questions raised by their community. A series of critical issues raised the things that need to be known in the Geelong community to make a difference.

It's incredibly important that people in Geelong have confidence that we have a proper system, as we have in the rest of Australia—a system that actually can make sure that those crew members have been checked and that, when something's dropped off the back of a ship, we have a chance to turn around and find the potential culprits before any culprits are involved. It's important that we turn around and have those unescorted crew members from foreign crews properly checked. It is a bit of a no-brainer. If you're a criminal, you don't get an ASIC or an MSIC; you don't apply for one. They're saying, 'Let's leave to it the criminals to decide whether they should have a higher degree of security check.' Can you believe it? We're going to ask the criminals whether they want to have a higher security check. Guess what the answer will be? No. It's obvious. It's what happens. It's practical. I don't even have to watch crime shows to know that. It's just common sense.

The government have to turn around and have a proper approach and a proper understanding of how they're dealing with these issues. They need to make sure, whether it be with Rio Tinto last year off the coast of Queensland, where four ships turned around and had MSIC security checks, because Australian crewed ships, including the companies they work for, are very mindful of the necessity for and the capacity of crew members to move around areas unescorted. They're also very mindful that there will be a higher level of scrutiny of the people who are on their ships. But what do we do when it comes to foreign ships? We say, 'We don't care. Rip it and burn.' No, sorry, we don't quite say that. We say, 'If you're a criminal, you can apply for one and be more highly security checked.' It is ludicrous!

From answers from questions yesterday, we quite clearly have the situation in our ports now where dozens of people can be not security checked up to the standard that's required. They can be on an MCV. They can be moving on and off our ports. But don't worry, as the minister said in the answer to one of questions earlier from Senator Keneally, not only do we close off all entry points—it didn't happen in Geelong; it didn't actually happen off the coast of Queensland last year either; it didn't happen in Port Botany. We haven't closed off all the points. In actual fact, you've got a ripping hole in the security of our country because you're not turning around and taking an appropriate stance on what is a very practical and sensible proposition from Labor. Why aren't they doing it? Are they covering up for cocaine dealers? I don't think that's correct. Are they not doing it because they don't care about terrorists coming into the country? I hope that's not correct. Are they not doing it because they want gun runners to be able to come into the country and run guns? I hope that's not correct. But I tell you what: as a consequence of what you're doing, it is correct. You've left our borders open. You've left the opportunities for turnaround and for these criminal gangs to operate in a fashion appropriate for them. Case after case after case proves the weaknesses within the border security arrangements that you have. The intention of this amendment is to make sure that those weaknesses are dealt with.

I want to ask this question of the minister: are the security arrangements adequate at Geelong port when it was said some days later to the Advertiser, 'We saw in security footage that the pair had crept at pace down a gangway and set of stairs before disappearing into the night'?

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:25): Senator Sheldon, I understand that you have asked several questions in relation to this matter that have been responded to by Minister Reynolds. I will reiterate what previous ministers have said, because obviously now we're in the filibuster to end all filibusters on what is an incredibly important bill, which I understand your caucus has agreed should pass this place. We'll wait and see if that actually does occur.

As previous ministers have responded to you in relation to questions of this nature that you have continually put this morning, the Australian Border Force are working with the Victoria Police, otherwise known as VicPol. You are continuing to conflate the issues, and that's fine. You and I had this discussion yesterday in terms of the conflation of the issues. I understand you may have had a similar discussion with Senator Seselja last night. I was sitting outside for a short period of time. You had a similar discussion with Minister Reynolds this morning, as is your right.

I can also advise, as Minister Reynolds has already advised, that, in relation to the questions that are being put, Australian Border Force officers conduct regular visits to any vessel of interest. Australian Border Force officers conduct regular wharf patrols and provide a high-visibility presence, maintaining a periodical or permanent Australian Border Force marked vehicle presence at the gangway. They seek continuous CCTV monitoring by the national monitoring centre of vessel gangways. If a crew member leaves a vessel in contravention of the restriction on board then local police authorities and/or port security will be contacted to effect the relevant state government health response. After that, the only thing I can add is to reiterate what Minister Reynolds has said several times today: the Australian Border Force are working with the Victoria Police, otherwise known as VicPol.

Senator SHELDON (New South Wales) (10:27): I will be brief. I want to turn the minister to answering a question which I raised with her just then. There have been questions raised about security lapses, particularly in the last 24 hours but also over the last five years in a series of inquiries. The particular lapse that I'm asking you about is the Geelong port lapse. I'm asking specifically about Geelong port: is the security adequate at Geelong port?

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:28): I will repeat my answer for the benefit of Hansard. As previous ministers have stated, as Minister Reynolds has read into the Hansard record and as I have already responded to you, Senator Sheldon, my answer does not change. I am advised as follows: the Australian Border Force are working with the Victoria Police. As I said, they are often referred to as VicPol.

In terms of the further information that I can provide to you, I can also advise as follows: Australian Border Force officers conduct regular visits to any vessel of interest. Australian Border Force officers conduct regular wharf patrols and provide a high-visibility presence, maintaining a periodical or permanent Australian Border Force marked vehicle presence at the gangway. They seek continuous CCTV monitoring by the national monitoring centre of vessel gangways. If a crew member leaves a vessel in contravention of the restriction on board, noting that they can leave the vessel to conduct essential tasks as long as they are wearing PPE, then local police authorities and/or port security will be contacted to effect the relevant state government health response. But, again, I understand Minister Reynolds has already advised this on several occasions, in responding to your questions, and I will again reiterate for the Hansard record: I am advised in response to your question that the Australian Border Force are working with the Victorian police.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:30): I thank Minister Cash for coming into the chamber and providing some advice. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree with the government. I just want to say, for the record—it still stands, throughout this debate—that it seems clear that the government has not taken on board the advice provided by the former Department of Immigration and Border Protection to this Senate in 2017 that flag-of-convenience vessels and foreign crew pose risks and that there are arrangements, in terms of regulation and practice, that make those vessels and those crew attractive for use in illegal activity, including by organised crime and terrorist groups. The government hasn't taken that advice, and there's nothing in this legislation that addresses that risk. It's clear the government has no intention of putting anything in place, either in this legislation or anywhere else, to address that risk. The purpose of this amendment is to try and give the government an opportunity to address that risk. They already fixed up this legislation once, when they introduced it into the parliament. They could have amended it again. They could have come up with their own scheme. They haven't done that.

Let's be clear what the vote we are about to have on this amendment is. It is this Liberal-National government, Mr Morrison's government, that is refusing to put in place any measures, either in this bill or indeed where it should appropriately lie, in other legislation that deals with visas, to ensure that we are addressing the risk that was highlighted to this Senate by the then Department of Immigration and Border Protection. We have had example after example presented in this debate. There is Captain Salas, who the then Department of Immigration and Border Protection—now the Australian Border Force—have had holdings about since 1994, who's been wanted by the New South Wales coroner since 2012 for questioning, who gave evidence on the record and yet somehow was allowed to come back into Australia, to the ports of Weipa and Gladstone in 2016, despite the fact he gave evidence about his illegal and illicit activities, despite the fact he was wanted by the coroner for some years before he gave that evidence, and despite the fact the department of immigration had information about him, which they stated in evidence, since 1994. We know that the North Korean government were using flag-of-convenience vessels to smuggle weapons, including 30,000 rocket grenades. That was revealed in August 2017. We know the Tongan government was recently forced to shutter their own flag-of-convenience vessels because it was shown that al-Qaeda owned the vessels and were using the lax arrangements at maritime ports to transport weapons, ammunition and crew to Europe.

Labor has sought a sensible solution here—to amend schedule 1 of this bill, to allow the entire regime to go ahead for aviation card holders, for the ASIC holders, and to allow schedule 2 to proceed for maritime, to allow for the intelligence assessments to proceed, to simply allow the government to have the ability to strengthen this bill, to deal with these very risks that have been highlighted now. When this vote occurs on this amendment, let's be clear what we're voting on, and, for those who vote against the amendment, let's be clear what they're saying: they're disregarding the risks posed by flag-of-convenience vessels and foreign crew.

The CHAIR: The question is that opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1117, as revised and moved by Senator Keneally, be agreed to.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:42): by leave—I move revised opposition amendments (1) to (8) on sheet 1022:

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 10), after item 2, insert:

2A Section 9

Insert:

serious crime has the meaning given by section 38AC.

(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (after line 17), at the end of Division 4A, add:

38AC Definition of serious crime

(1) For the purposes of this Division, serious crime means conduct that, if engaged in within, or in connection with, Australia, would constitute an offence prescribed by the regulations.

(2) Regulations made for the purposes of the definition of serious crime must not prescribe an offence unless the offence is an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory punishable by imprisonment for a period of 3 years or more.

(3) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 17), after item 4, insert:

4A Before Division 5 of Part 3

Insert:

Division 4B—Renewal of security passes

38AD Renewal of security passes for access to certain areas and zones

(1) If the regulations provide for a process to issue a security pass (an ASIC) to a person for the purposes of accessing certain areas and zones (whether the security pass is known as an aviation security identification card or otherwise), the regulations must comply with the requirements in subsections (2) and (3).

(2) The regulations must provide that a person who has been issued an ASIC may apply for the renewal of the person's ASIC before it expires.

(3) The regulations, in providing for the renewal of an ASIC, must provide:

(a) that a decision to renew or refuse to renew an ASIC must be made within 60 days of the decision maker receiving the application for renewal; and

(b) that if the decision maker does not make a decision to renew or refuse to renew within 60 days of receiving the application, then the decision maker is taken to have renewed the ASIC at the end of that period.

(4) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 20), after item 5, insert:

5A At the end of subsection 126(2)

Add:

Note: For a person's notification and review rights in relation to an adverse or qualified security assessment, see section 38 and Division 4 of Part IV of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.

5B After section 126

Insert:

126A Review of decisions relating to security checking under the regulations

(1) This section applies if regulations are made, for the purposes of any of the following sections, dealing with the security checking (including background checking) of persons who have access to an area or zone:

(a) section 35 (requirements for airside areas);

(b) section 36 (requirements for airside security zones);

(c) section 36A (requirements for airside event zones);

(d) section 37 (requirements for landside areas);

(e) section 38 (requirements for landside security zones);

(f) section 38A (requirements for landside event zones);

(g) section 38AB (requirements relating to access to areas and zones).

(2) The regulations must include provisions allowing a person in relation to whom a security check is carried out to seek:

(a) reconsideration by the relevant Secretary of a decision in relation to a security identification card; and

(b) review by the relevant Secretary of a decision in relation to a security identification card; and

(c) review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a decision by the relevant Secretary on review of a decision in relation to a security identification card.

(3) To avoid doubt, nothing in this section permits:

(a) the relevant Secretary to review an adverse security assessment or a qualified security assessment; or

(b) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to review an adverse security assessment or a qualified security assessment other than in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

(4) In this section:

adverse security assessment has the same meanings as in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.

qualified security assessment has the same meanings as in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.

relevant Secretary means:

(a) the Secretary of the Department; or

(b) the Secretary who is responsible for administering the scheme prescribed for the purposes of section 8 of the AusCheck Act 2007.

126B Regulations may provide for review or reconsideration of additional matters

To avoid doubt, the regulations may provide for the review or reconsideration of matters not provided for in this Part.

(5) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 31), after item 7, insert:

7A Section 10

Insert:

serious crime has the meaning given by section 113G.

(6) Schedule 1, item 17, page 7 (after line 12), at the end of Division 6, add:

113G Definition of serious crime

(1) For the purposes of this Division, serious crime means conduct that, if engaged in within, or in connection with, Australia, would constitute an offence prescribed by the regulations.

(2) Regulations made for the purposes of the definition of serious crime must not prescribe an offence unless the offence is an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory punishable by imprisonment for a period of 3 years or more.

(7) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 12), after item 17, insert:

17A At the end of Part 6

Add:

Division 7—Renewal of security passes

113H Renewal of security passes for access to certain zones

(1) If the regulations provide for a process to issue a security pass (an MSIC) to a person for the purposes of accessing certain areas and zones (whether the security pass is known as a maritime security identification card or otherwise), the regulations must comply with the requirements in subsections (2) and (3).

(2) The regulations must provide that a person who has been issued an MSIC may apply for the renewal of the person's MSIC before it expires.

(3) The regulations, in providing for the renewal of an MSIC, must provide:

(a) that a decision to renew or refuse to renew a MSIC must be made within 60 days of the decision maker receiving the application for renewal; and

(b) that if the decision maker does not make a decision to renew or refuse to renew within 60 days of receiving the application, then the decision maker is taken to have renewed the MSIC at the end of that period.

(8) Schedule 1, page 7, after proposed item 17A, insert:

17B At the end of Part 12

Add:

201A Review of decisions relating to security checking under the regulations

(1) This section applies if regulations are made, for the purposes of any of the following sections, dealing with the security checking (including background checking) of persons who have access to a zone:

(a) section 105 (requirements for port security zones);

(b) section 109 (requirements for ship security zones);

(c) section 113 (requirements for on‑board security zones);

(d) section 113D (requirements for offshore security zones);

(e) section 113F (requirements relating to access to zones).

(2) The regulations must include provisions allowing a person in relation to whom a security check is carried out to seek:

(a) reconsideration by the relevant Secretary of a decision in relation to a security identification card; and

(b) review by the relevant Secretary of a decision in relation to a security identification card; and

(c) review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a decision by the relevant Secretary on review of a decision in relation to a security identification card.

(3) To avoid doubt, nothing in this section permits:

(a) the relevant Secretary to review an adverse security assessment or a qualified security assessment; or

(b) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to review an adverse security assessment or a qualified security assessment other than in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

(4) In this section:

adverse security assessment has the same meanings as in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.

qualified security assessment has the same meanings as in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.

relevant Secretary means:

(a) the Secretary of the Department; or

(b) the Secretary who is responsible for administering the scheme prescribed for the purposes of section 8 of the AusCheck Act 2007.

201B Regulations may provide for review or reconsideration of additional matters

To avoid doubt, the regulations may provide for the review or reconsideration of matters not provided for in this Part.

I advise the chamber that the reason for this amendment is, despite the fact that this bill has in its definition that it is about serious crime, it actually lacks a definition of what serious crime is. Here we have a bill about transport security that's supposed to deal with serious crime, and it's not clear what serious crime is under this legislation. It's fair enough to raise this, because there are 12 different definitions of serious crime across different Commonwealth acts and regulations. While we accept that the government intends to propose a tiered scheme for this legislation, Labor's amendment proposes that minor crimes not be included in the regulations by the government. We think a bill that purports to deal with serious crime should deal with serious crime. Therefore, this amendment defines serious crime as a crime that is punishable by imprisonment for a maximum of at least three years. This is consistent with the definition of serious crime in the citizenship cessation bill currently before the parliament. Labor does believe, and we invite members of this chamber to agree, that it's reasonable to include a definition in the legislation of serious crime. We note the government have not provided a definition, and we seek to insert one. We look forward to support from the chamber for this amendment.

Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (10:44): We have an indication from Senator Griff that he wishes to vote differently on different parts of these amendments. Could we, for Senator Griff's sake, vote on (1), (2), (4), (5), (6) and (8) as one block and then (3) and (7) as another block?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator McLachlan ) (11:24): Are you seeking leave?

Senator BROCKMAN: I am seeking leave. I didn't think I had to, but—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I understand that you don't need leave, but leave appears to be granted! Minister?

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (10:44): I'll make a brief response in the interests of time, because I understand we can start moving through the bill. The government will not be supporting the amendments proposed in sheet 1022, on the basis that they are unnecessary and would create loopholes in the ASIC and MSIC scheme that criminal entities could seek to exploit.

The CHAIR: The amendments moved by Senator Keneally on 1022 revised have been split into two groups. I'm putting the question first on amendments (1), (2), (4), (5), (6) and (8).

The CHAIR (10:58): The question is that items (3) to (7) on sheet 1022, revised and as moved by Senator Keneally, be agreed to.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (11:00): I advise the chamber that I had intended to move the amendments on sheets 1097 and 1099 standing in my name jointly for the efficiency of the chamber, but I am now advised that Senator Griff seeks to vote differently on those two amendments, so I advise the chamber that we will move them separately in order to accommodate Senator Griff.

I will first move the amendment on sheet 1097. For the clarity of the chamber, this is to institute a statutory independent review of the legislation within the first two years of its operation, followed by further independent reviews every five years. I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1097:

(1) Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review of this Act

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act as soon as practicable after the end of two years after this Act commences.

(2) Further independent reviews of the operation of the amendments made by this Act must be made as soon as practicable after the fifth anniversary of the commencement of this Act and at five yearly intervals thereafter.

(3) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of each review mentioned in subsections (1) and (2).

(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of each review mentioned in subsections (1) and (2) to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

Question agreed to.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (11:01): I thank the chamber for its support for that amendment. I would also like to notify the chamber that I do not intend to move opposition amendments on sheets 1067 and 1098.

I now seek to move the amendment on sheet 1099. For the clarity of the chamber, this is an amendment that seeks to expand the role of IGIS, the independent inspector, to include oversight of the ACIC. This was recommended by the 2017 intelligence review. Despite the government claiming to accept that recommendation, it's taken over three years to finally introduce legislation to implement it. But they have continued to give the ACIC new functions and new powers. Given the nature of the ACIC's work and the potential impact it can have on fundamental rights and freedoms, this amendment seeks to ensure the ACIC's intelligence related work is subject to the same degree of rigorous oversight as that of other intelligence agencies. I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1099:

(1) Schedule 2, page 28 (after line 21), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986

11 Subsection 3(1)

Insert:

ACC means the Australian Crime Commission established by section 7 of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002.

Note: Subsection 7(1A) of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 provides that the ACC may be known by one or more names or acronyms specified in regulations made under that Act. In July 2016, the ACC became known as the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission or ACIC.

12 Subsection 3(1) (after paragraph (f) of the definition of head )

Insert:

(fa) in relation to ACC—the Chief Executive Officer of ACC; or

13 Subsection 3(1) (definition of intelligence agency )

Omit "or ONI", substitute ", ONI or ACC".

14 After subsection 8(3)

Insert:

(3A) Subject to this section, the functions of the Inspector‑General in relation to ACC are:

(a) at the request of the Attorney‑General or the responsible Minister, of the Inspector‑General's own motion or in response to a complaint made to the Inspector‑General by a person who is an Australian citizen or a permanent resident, to inquire into any matter that relates to:

   (i) the compliance by ACC with the laws of the Commonwealth and of the States and Territories; or

   (ii) the compliance by ACC with directions or guidelines given to ACC by the responsible Minister; or

   (iii) the propriety of particular activities of that agency; or

   (iv) an act or practice of ACC that is or may be inconsistent with or contrary to any human right, that constitutes or may constitute discrimination, or that is or may be unlawful under the Age Discrimination Act 2004, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 or the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, being an act or practice referred to the Inspector‑General by the Australian Human Rights Commission; and

(b) at the request of the Attorney‑General or the responsible Minister or of the Inspector‑General's own motion, to inquire into the procedures of ACC relating to redress of grievances of employees of ACC; and

(c) at the request of the Attorney‑General or the responsible Minister or of the Inspector‑General's own motion, to inquire into the effectiveness and appropriateness of the procedures of that agency relating to the legality or propriety of the activities of that agency.

(3B) The Inspector‑General's functions under subsection (3A) do not extend to inquiring into anything done by ACC to the extent that thing does not relate to its intelligence role or function.

15 Subsection 8(5)

Omit "and (3)", substitute ", (3) and (3A)".

16 Subsection 8(5)

Omit "AGO, DIO or ONI", substitute "ACC, AGO, DIO or ONI".

17 Paragraph 8A(4 ) ( a)

Omit "or ASD", substitute ", ASD or ACC".

18 Paragraph 15(3 ) ( a)

Omit "or ONI" (wherever occurring), substitute ", ONI or ACC".

19 Paragraph 21(1B ) ( a)

Omit "or ONI" (wherever occurring), substitute ", ONI or ACC".

20 Paragraph 32A(5 ) ( a)

Omit "and ONI", substitute ", ONI and ACC".

21 Subsection 32B(1)

Omit "or ONI", substitute ", ONI or ACC".

Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013

22 Section 8 (at the end of the definition of intelligence agency )

Add:

; or (g) the Australian Crime Commission.

The CHAIR: The question is that opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1099, as moved by Senator Keneally, be agreed to.

The CHAIR (11:10): The question is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) (11:13): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (11:14): I rise today to speak to the Online Safety Bill 2021 and the Online Safety Bill (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021, which, as we know, seek to create a new online safety framework for Australians, an updated regulatory framework that consolidates and builds on the existing legislative scheme in our nation for online safety. In the Labor Party, we have a strong track record of supporting online safety for Australians and we support these bills. We support measures to consolidate, update and enhance online safety laws for Australians. For many years, Australians have been protected by laws to support online safety, and it is important that these laws be kept up to date.

The Online Safety Bill responds to the independent review of online safety laws conducted by Lynelle Briggs, which was reported to government in October of 2018. It's clear that Australia's online safety laws should be brought together in one modernised act and that industry and government should be less reactive and more responsive when it comes to online safety in our nation. So we support this principle of consolidating existing safety database online safety laws into this new framework. For example, the Online Safety Bill retains and replicates provisions in the Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015, which protects Australians from online harms such as the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, a scheme that Labor is proud to have led calls for. It also reflects a modernised online content scheme to replace schemes in schedules 5 and 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, in order to address harmful online content such as refused-classification material, and it updates various elements, including by setting new industry benchmarks. We support new elements of the Online Safety Bill, including the creation of a novel complaints based removal notice scheme for cyberabuse perpetrated against an adult and the articulation of a core set of basic online safety expectations to improve and promote online safety for Australians.

However, that said, we very much acknowledge that there are some significant concerns with the Online Safety Bill as drafted, and we indeed share some of these concerns. There are concerns around the process and the government's handling of the development of this bill. There was a long delay—years, in fact—in releasing the exposure draft of the legislation, only to be followed by the rushed introduction of this bill into the parliament only eight business days after consultation on the exposure draft concluded. This has significantly undermined confidence in relation to the consultation process. A number of stakeholders were concerned that submissions had not been considered properly and are unsure as to the operation of this bill.

There are also significant concerns as to the substance of this legislation. These are points that have been well made by stakeholders, including concerns about consultation, transparency and review mechanisms among other things. We note there are some concerns with provisions in the Online Safety Bill which are, in fact, already the law of the land here in our nation, and it's disappointing that the government was unable to foster a clear, shared understanding of the elements of this bill that consolidate existing longstanding law.

We in Labor have sought to have constructive good-faith negotiations in addressing concerns with the Online Safety Bill. We did not oppose these bills in the House, on the basis that the government amendments would be forthcoming. Since then, we are have engaged with the government in a constructive good-faith way in order to gain an understanding and address concerns with these bills. Overall, we report that this engagement with government has been productive. We have appreciated the attention of the minister and his staff, as well as officials of the department and the commissioner and her staff, to Labor's concerns and suggestions. Some of the concerns have been addressed with proposed government amendments to the bill, as well as the supplementary EM. We welcome these amendments and understand a further addendum to the EM will be forthcoming, which we also welcome.

In conjunction with government amendments, some of Labor's concerns have been addressed with clarification from the government as to the operation of the bill. This has been useful. Hopefully it has served to clarify the government's understanding of the regime as well. However, some of our concerns have not been taken up and addressed by government and, therefore, we will be moving amendments in this place to strengthen transparency and review oversight of the commissioner in administering the online safety framework. In the spirit of this bipartisanship, in which online safety has historically been approached in this place, we encourage the government to support or at least not oppose these amendments.

We acknowledge the various bill scrutiny processes that have run and note the report of the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee, as well as the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, both of which made constructive suggestions. We accept the need for the commissioner to have flexibility in administering the framework. In return, however, it is important the government accept the commensurate need for greater transparency, oversight and review. There is an important balance to be found here between free speech and the protections against certain kinds of speech, and this can be complex. We are concerned that this bill represents a significant increase in the eSafety Commissioner's discretion to remove material without commensurate checks and balances.

The government is correct to expect digital platforms to offer more in terms of transparency but, indeed, so must the government be prepared to provide transparency around decision-making, particularly on matters that engage with human rights in our country. So while supportive of a scheme for adult cyberabuse, Labor finds it curious that a government that has made repeated attempts to repeal Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act on the grounds it unduly restricts free speech, despite the availability of defences in 18D, is now seeking to pass a bill that empowers the eSafety Commissioner with discretion to determine matters of speech in relation to adult cyberbullying without greater checks or balances or operational clarity. Labor is concerned that the adult cyberabuse scheme could, in the wrong hands, be used to stifle legitimate debate and freedom of expression, given the test for adult cyberabuse is material that is menacing, harassing or offensive.

I draw attention now to Dr Anne Aly's—the member for Cowan—remarks during the debate in the House. She said:

Imagine a scenario where somebody is trolling with racist remarks and gets called out for it, gets called a racist, and the person, the troll, takes offence to that and reports it and instead of the racist remark being removed, the remarks that are calling out racism get removed instead … It's a very likely scenario that somebody who is trolling another individual with racist commentary and gets called out for that racist commentary can claim that they are being bullied and harassed and take action against the person who has called them out.

Also consider the case of John Barilaro, the New South Wales Deputy Premier, who is reported to have pursued YouTube comedian Friendlyjeordies with charges of stalking and intimidation. According to reports, detectives from New South Wales police fixated persons unit, acting on a complaint by Barilaro, arrested Kristo Langker at his family home in Dulwich Hill on 4 June and charged him with two offences. He was charged with two counts of stalking and intimidating with an intent to cause fear or physical or mental harm. Here we see that, given the provisions in the adult cyberabuse scheme go to related concepts of menace, harass or offend, it is simply not beyond the realm of contemplation to imagine a politician asserting that a journalist, a satirist or a comedian might fall foul of these provisions in the adult cyberabuse scheme, even with clause 233 on the implied freedom of political communication. So we believe there can and must be greater transparency for review and oversight to ensure that this scheme is working to get the balance of human rights and freedom of expression right.

We put these concerns to the government during the Senate inquiry and during the debate in the House as part of good-faith negotiations and we welcome the government amendments that have been circulated which strengthen transparency and review, with greater detail in annual reporting as well as an internal review process. But we believe these need to go further, and that's why we are moving amendments, including for an ACMA review. We'll move an amendment to provide a pathway for independent review by ACMA where, with full discretion, ACMA may review decisions of the commissioner and report to the minister, with the report tabled in parliament. The commissioner is an officer of ACMA, and ACMA provides such a review pathway for decisions of the ABC and SBS, so this would be an important oversight mechanism. We'll move an amendment to provide greater detail in the commissioner's annual reporting to include information referrals—including to industry and end users, which account for much of the commissioner's approach—as well as categories of harm, dealt with in complaints, formal notices and informal referrals akin to the categories supplied by the Human Rights Commission in the reporting of complaints and investigations.

We'll move amendments to formalise the advisory committee arrangements for the commissioner. Currently, the commission has an advisory committee constituted on an informal basis, with representatives from academia, industry and civil society. As with ACMA, we believe that these should be formal in law to provide multistakeholder engagement and oversight. We appreciate that the make-up of the current committee could be improved with expertise to inform matters that engage with human rights and freedom of expression, such as the Human Rights Commission, ethnic and religious groups, disability groups, consumer groups, public-interest media and communications law experts. We think there needs to be independent review of the novel adult cyberabuse scheme in and after its first year of operation, with the whole bill subject to review in three years. We will also seek to move amendments to formalise consultation requirements around restricted access systems under the Online Content Scheme, as well as consumer representation in the development of industry codes and standards. This aligns with other provisions of the bill.

We note concerns about the regulation of private messaging services. We canvassed the concerns with government and interrogated their operation as well as the review process for industry around these provisions. We understand that the government will clarify the operation of this provision in an addendum to the EM, and this is an important clarification. We note that the current law regulates private messaging services and that a significant proportion of cyberbullying occurs in these services. On balance, given the flexibility that platforms have in warning end users or suspending accounts of end users who fail to accord with the platform's terms of use, and given the clarification from government around the intended operation of this element, we're satisfied that there are appropriate checks and balances on this power. I will go into these amendments in more detail during the committee stage.

In conclusion, we support steps to improve the online safety of Australians. I'm going to jump to the moving of my second reading amendment, and to that end I move the second reading amendment as circulated in my name:

At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) it has been almost three years since the October 2018 Report of the Statutory Review of the Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015 and the Review of Schedules 5 and 7 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Online Content Scheme) by Lynelle Briggs AO recommended a new Online Safety Act,

(ii) since then, the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts has repeatedly spruiked the non-existent Online Safety Act in response to concerns about online harms, including online hate speech and racism in Australia following the Christchurch terrorist atrocity and graphic online content in the wake of a self-harm video circulating on social media,

(iii) the Minister was slow in releasing the exposure draft of legislation for consultation then rushed the introduction of the bill into Parliament, eight business days after consultation on the exposure draft concluded, which undermined stakeholder confidence in the consultation process,

(iv) the Review of Australian classification regulation is delayed and has fallen out of step with the bill, and

(v) the Government still has not released the report of an expert working group, convened by the eSafety Commissioner and participated in by industry; and

(b) calls on the Government to release the report of the expert working group convened by the eSafety Commissioner so that the broad range of stakeholders supportive of online safety may have the benefit of the work".

Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (11:29): The bills before us today, the Online Safety Bill 2021 and the Online Safety (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021, establish a framework to regulate harmful online content in Australia. This is an extremely important issue that the Australian Greens acknowledge needs to be addressed. But it should be addressed carefully and in a considered fashion, and our submission is that the government is not addressing it in a careful enough way or in a considered enough fashion.

I want to be clear that the Australian Greens do support the establishment of a framework that provides for the quick take-down of inappropriate online content in Australia. I also want to be clear that the Australian Greens condemn the online bullying and the online abuse of Australians, including child abuse and the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. These are important issues. It is necessary that we reform the law in these areas but it is equally necessary that we get it right.

Before I speak about the details of the bills themselves, I want to speak about the process the bills have gone through to get to where they are today. Unfortunately, I have to say that the government is ramming these bills through this parliament without adequate consideration and adequate scrutiny. For example, the government flagged its intention to table the bills before consultation on the exposure draft had closed. The bills were then introduced into the House with just a few technical amendments to the exposure draft before the around 400 submissions to the exposure draft were made public. The bills were referred to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee the next day, to report just two short weeks later. Then the government sought to have the bills listed as non-contro so that they could be quickly and quietly waved through the Senate. Then the government moved to exempt the bills from the usual requirements that regulate how quickly bills can be brought on for debate in the Senate. As an example of the indecent haste with which the government has operated, these bills were so rushed that the government is needing to use amendments to fix typos in the original bill. These bills, which are intended to protect people from cyberbullies, from cyberabuse, from the non-consensual sharing of intimate images and from violent and extremist materials—commendable objectives—are being rushed through this place. We want the parliament to get these bills right, and we believe we represent in that case most Australians, who want this parliament to get these bills right.

The Australian Greens do not support the bills in the current form in which they are presented to the Senate. We are aware of the amendments that have been circulated by the government that, if passed, would address some of the concerns the Greens have raised in regard to this legislation. We still have concerns about the huge regulatory and discretionary powers these bills confer on the eSafety Commissioner, a single person who is not elected by the Australian people to that position. We are concerned about the lack of oversight, in some cases, of the eSafety Commissioner.

These bills, I think everyone would agree, provide significant powers to the eSafety Commissioner, but, as drafted, provide for limited appeals against decisions of the commissioner. No internal review process was established in the bills as originally drafted and presented, and the risk there was that people or businesses who were acting lawfully and were adversely affected by decisions of the commissioner could have been left with no business or no income while potentially costly appeals slowly worked their way through the AAT and, ultimately, the court system.

Again, we acknowledge that the government has cobbled together an amendment to provide for an internal review process, but we note that this amendment doesn't actually create, of itself, an internal review process. What it does is require the commissioner to create such a process. So, in a way, the parliament is being asked to sign a blank cheque in regard to the creation of that process, because we have no possibility of knowing what kind of process the eSafety Commissioner will establish as we stand here and debate this bill today.

The problem for the government, of course, is that, because of its self-imposed deadlines and the fact that those were so short, it hasn't actually had the time to come up with such a review mechanism to include the provisions of that mechanism in this legislation. Effectively, it has handballed it off into the never-never. As well as lacking a quick and practical review and appeal process with appropriate remedies, the bills, as tabled, also lack robust transparency reporting. Again, the Greens acknowledge that this has been addressed to some extent by the government's amendments. As I said, there's the use of amendments to correct typos in the original legislation—and, for folks playing along at home, the amendment that the government has tabled changes 'cyber-bulling' to 'cyber-bullying'. Of course that needs to be fixed up, but the fact that we needed an amendment to fix up a typo is symptomatic of the rush to legislate in an extremely important but also extremely complex policy area.

These bills test the intention of a person posting online material by inquiring whether an ordinary, reasonable person would think it likely that the material was intended to cause harm. But this test considers no evidence other than the material itself. This is potentially problematic, because the context around violent imagery and content is crucial to understanding the purpose of disseminating that content and the level of any harm caused.

The Australian Greens also have significant concerns about the bills' powers being used, despite some limited protections, to block and take down public-interest news or campaigns that involve violent imagery—for example, campaigns against police brutality. The eSafety Commissioner has made public comment with regard to some of these issues, and we acknowledge those comments and thank her for them. But the person who is currently the eSafety Commissioner will not be the eSafety Commissioner forever, and it should be incumbent on parliaments to make sure that we legislate not just with one particular person in one particular position in mind but with a clear-eyed focus on the need to make sure that protections will exist past the incumbency of any one person in any particular position.

Under this legislation, the commissioner will be guided by the National Classification Code. That code is currently being reviewed and it doesn't provide appropriate classifications for online media. Therefore, in the view of the Greens, it is not fit for the purposes of this legislation. Classifications based on the code may capture non-violent sexual activity, including nudity and implied or simulated sexual activity, as well as materials considered unsuitable for a minor to see. The concern that the Greens have in this area is that the bills fail to differentiate between actual harm and subjective, moralistic constructions of harm. This would allow the commissioner to act as a moral censor and the commissioner's powers to be weaponised by people and organisations with moral or political agendas. Again I acknowledge comments made by the commissioner with regard to these issues, and again I point out that the person who is currently the eSafety Commissioner will not be the eSafety Commissioner forever.

The bills will also, inevitably, lead to online platforms resorting to automated processes based on algorithms and artificial intelligence to identify and remove content that could attract penalties. The use of AI and algorithms in similar circumstances in places like the US has been extremely controversial, to say the least, and we are concerned that the use of those technologies could lead to disproportionate outcomes, like blanket bans, even if that is not the intent of the commissioner. The use of algorithms and AI will also risk importing racial bias into the regulation of Australia's online content ecosystem. We know that that is a risk because that is exactly what has happened in the US under similar controversial laws, such as the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act, the FOSTA, and the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, the SESTA.

While a complaint based framework for the non-consensual sharing of intimate images is very important and absolutely supported in principle by the Australian Greens, we want to make sure, again, that this complex area is legislated with full care and full consideration. The definition of an intimate image provided by these bills does not clearly state whether it applies at the moment an image is taken, which could have serious implications for the utility of the scheme for transgender folk in Australia.

Of particular concern to the Greens and many submitters to the Senate inquiry is the potentially devastating effect the bills will have on sex workers and adult content creators operating lawful businesses that provide lawful products and services, many of whom have migrated online as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. We are worried about the potential for this framework to be used to drive people from the internet back into the streets or ultimately into insolvency. We are concerned about the unintended consequences that could be harmful to sex workers and adult businesses and to the broader community. Under the bills, as argued by Scarlet Alliance, sex workers will become more vulnerable as they potentially lose access to income, safety tools and strategies and vital peer connections. We are also concerned that the bills fail to promote the maximum safety and privacy protections that they could.

I say again: the Greens absolutely commend the stated objectives of these bills, to keep women, children and the broader Australian community safe in online environments. We absolutely support women's and children's rights, and we have staunchly opposed extremism and radicalisation, particularly right-wing extremism and radicalisation. But we need to make sure that we don't protect one set of rights by trampling over other rights. Bills this significant, targeted at problems this complex, should receive full and proper scrutiny in this place. That is what the government, unfortunately, is seeking to deny. That is why the Greens will be moving a second reading amendment, calling for the bills to be withdrawn and redrafted to take account of the many and significant concerns raised by submitters. I now move the second reading amendment standing in my name:

Omit all words after "That", substitute "the bills be withdrawn and the Senate:

(a) notes the Government's rush to legislate; and

(b) calls on the Government to redraft the bills to take account of concerns raised by submitters to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee inquiry into the bill, including:

   (i) use of the National Classification Code, which is currently under review,

   (ii) the potential for elements of the bill to be used against lawful online content and content creators,

   (iii) inadequate rights of review for businesses and individuals whose content is wrongly blocked or removed, either by the Commissioner or online platforms,

   (iv) inadequate transparency and accountability regarding discretionary decisions made by a single, unelected officer,

   (v) powers covering restricted access/encryption services, and

   (vi) potential significant and detrimental effects on sex workers".

We will also move other substantive amendments in committee, including for a statutory review of the bill's powers in two years. I will speak more to those amendments when the time comes.

In conclusion, I say again: these bills are incredibly important and incredibly significant, but they deal with an extremely complex area of policy. This chamber should have taken the time to make sure that we get it right and that we avoid, to the greatest extent possible, any unintended consequences flowing from this legislation. The Australian Greens are disappointed that this chamber has not been given that opportunity.

Senator BRAGG (New South Wales) (11:44): In rising to make some comments about the Online Safety Bill 2021 I think it is important to note that the trend in this area of regulation and big tech, as it's widely become known, is only going to increase. Big tech has changed our lives for the better and it has also brought new risks which need to be managed by policymakers. That is what this bill is an attempt to do. It is an attempt to intervene into the market and into the way that these schemes operate to protect people. That is an important starting point because the philosophy that you bring to these debates is important.

Our view has always been that it is important to inject policy and regulation wherever there is consumer detriment. This is not a capital and labour thing; this is a consumer protection thing. The government has built up a decent record here of being prepared to intervene where there is consumer detriment or where there is broader community detriment in relation to technology companies. It's been widely said that tech companies are the railroads or oil companies of the 21st century. These companies have so much power. They have done much good, but they have the potential to do much bad.

Over the last few months we've seen world-leading media bargaining code legislation. We have led the world in trying to ensure that publishers and public interest journalists are paid for their work. We have also been prepared to intervene to ensure that consumers are protected. Social media really is the wild west. I am not in favour of regulation for regulation's sake, but there is so much content on social media which already contravenes our laws—many of them state laws, I should say. But I don't think we should be reluctant about moving into this territory of ensuring that big tech organisations have an appropriate level of regulation.

The conduct of the engagement of the big tech organisations during the media bargaining code legislation debate was probably the worst lobbying I have ever seen in my life. People would be aware that large companies threatened to leave Australia and threatened to do all sorts of things. I think once you have a global company threatening a democracy, threatening a country, the country has to win, because we can't get into a situation where companies are so large that they are effectively able to boss a democracy around. We have been here before. People can go back and look at what Theodore Roosevelt said about all these things. We borrowed much of the antitrust principles in Australia as well through our own competition law.

So this is a very welcome initiative. What it really does is bring to bear a simple, single framework for online safety. I think setting out the basic online safety expectations and arming the eSafety Commissioner with the power to effectively ensure that people are protected will be broadly welcomed. The concerns that I have here would be widely shared across this parliament—that there is bullying and abuse that goes on online. It is rampant at times. It is leading to people doing all sorts of dreadful things. I think that the commitments we made back in the election campaign to increase penalties for the use of a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence from three to five years is really important. I think it's one of the most important commitments that we took to the last election. People are being bullied. People are being abused. Often it occurs under the cover of anonymity. There's nowhere else in our world, in our society, where you can, under the cover of darkness, pretend to be someone else and basically attack people—you can use all manner of things to attack people, and to try to destroy their lives—and it's just not good enough. You can't do it in broad daylight. You can't do it in any other theatre in life. The policy here, to effectively reign in carriage services, is a very important one.

I won't bore you with the talking points, but the point really is that this will be a clear framework. It is important that we respect the system of parliamentary oversight, and it is very welcome that the basic online safety expectations will be set by the minister and be disallowable by either chamber of the parliament. In this place, in this debate, just as you see in any other similar debate, we don't want to pass down to regulators rule-making capacity. These are important rules. We're balancing civil liberties against the desire to protect people, and these are judgements that should be exercised by a minister and they should be disallowable, and that is the intention. The eSafety Commissioner will do a great job here—I have a lot of confidence in the incumbent—but the framework of having the minister setting the regulation is an important one.

Ultimately, we want to have a system where Australia is not a backwater. And while we want to see technology used—technology is good—we also want to make sure people are protected. What we don't want to see is people being bullied and harassed online. We don't want to see people attacking people under the cover of anonymity, because they're too gutless to say who they really are. That's not the sort of debate we want to have. That's not the sort of country we want to have. I, personally, want to see that sort of behaviour reigned in. Social media is the Wild West. Anything goes, and it is not good enough for people to use social media platforms to break the laws of Australia.

We have laws in New South Wales against anti-incitement and defamation, and social media should not provide a back door to breaking the law. It's very important that this scheme is ultimately going to protect people from cyberbullying, from image abuse, and is done in a way which balances out the privacy concerns that are going to be legitimately held and that the rules are made by the minister in that way. This is a very important piece of legislation. It is utterly consistent with our Liberal philosophy to intervene where it's in the public interest, and it builds on the media bargaining code, which was a very important win for Australia. It was so important that we prevailed once the big tech companies started to threaten our country. We cannot have a situation where large tech companies, which have more power than almost any other non-state actor in the world today, can bully and defeat a country. Australia has led the world again. This is a very important bill, and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (11:53): I rise to speak on the Online Safety Bill 2021 and the Online Safety (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021. These bills are important if we're able to tackle the sharing of illegal images and to address head-on the prevalence of revenge porn within our communities. Governments are almost always starting from behind when we're talking about technology. Technology advances travel so quickly, and governments are trying to catch their breath and keep ahead of the curve. Ideally, these bills continue to build on existing legislation schemes for online safety.

Labor welcomes funding to support online safety, with a particular focus on women and children. However, it is disappointing that this government cites the introduction of the Online Safety Bill 2021 that is now before parliament as evidence of its commitment to women's safety while it also permits the member for Bowman, Andrew Laming MP, to remain as a member of the LNP. He sits in the Liberal Party room, he sits on the government benches and he remains the chair of a parliamentary committee with the support of the Liberal and National parties.

As stated in a number of media reports recently, Mr Laming has a long history of trolling and abusing his own constituents on Facebook, which has undermined the safety and mental health of at least one woman. Mr Laming's conduct online is precisely what the proposed new adult cyberabuse scheme contained in this bill is designed to address—menacing, harassing or offensive material online. I think it's important that this is on the record and that those opposite are silent as to the actions of Mr Laming.

I recently read an article about a study by anthropologists about the use of smartphones and technology and how our phones are changing the human experience at a personal level and a group level. The anthropologists argue that our devices have become an extension of ourselves. Smartphones are now a transportable home. We use them to organise our schedules, find entertainment and communicate with family and friends. They are where we anchor our sense of identity and self. 'We have become human snails carrying our homes in our pockets,' they write, and:

The smartphone is perhaps the first object to challenge the house itself (and possibly also the workplace) in terms of the amount of time we dwell in it while awake …

It's an interesting argument. Smartphones have become such a pervasive part of our lives. And let's be honest: who can compete with a smartphone? The interactive capabilities of a smartphone on an intellectual level are superior to any human, in terms of the sheer amount and variety of information that is accessible from this device. The article goes on to argue that there needs to be a new etiquette to manage the digital age, because balancing a physical reality with a digital life causes frustration, disappointment or even offence, for those left staring at someone sitting hunched over their device.

We know that, while there is a prevalence of young Australians doing so, Australians of all ages are using their smartphones to transmit inappropriate images—images that can ruin people's lives. The Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015 operates to protect Australians from online harms such as non-consensual sharing of intimate images, but laws must also improve and ensure that the eSafety Commissioner has the ability to ensure that images are removed as quickly as possible—an advancement that all should applaud.

Labor supports measures to consolidate, update and enhance online safety laws for Australians. Online safety is an area of bipartisanship, and Labor is looking for bipartisanship regarding this policy area. It is too important not to get it right.

There are some concerns around due process, appeals, oversight and transparency requirements in relation to the novel adult cyberabuse scheme, given the important free-speech implications, and as to whether the powers given to the eSafety Commissioner could subvert the framework of safeguards put in place under the telecommunications assistance and access regime, including its warrant processes and the prohibitions it includes on actions that would introduce systemic weaknesses in the communications scheme.

Labor notes that it has been almost 2½ years since the Briggs review of October 2018 recommended a single, up-to-date online safety act. Given the significant passage of time, it is disappointing that the Morrison government has proved incapable of conducting a process that satisfies stakeholders in terms of process and substance.

The government has been spruiking this new online safety act for almost two years. In the lead-up to the May 2019 federal election, the Morrison government promised to introduce a new online safety act. In September 2019, the minister for communications spruiked the new online safety act in answer to questions about what the government was doing to keep Australians safe online, including in relation to the rise of right-wing extremists, online hate speech and racism in Australia following the Christchurch terrorist atrocity.

A year later, in September 2020, the minister again spruiked the non-existent online safety act in response to questions about what the government was doing to curb graphic content on social media platforms in the wake of a self-harm video on Facebook and TikTok. The minister's October 2020 op-ed kept the promise of a new online safety act alive, while his department at Senate estimates put the delay down to 'pressures on drafting resources'.

A number of stakeholders are concerned that the Morrison government introduced the bill into parliament on 24 February 2021, only eight days after consultation on the exposure draft of legislation concluded on 14 February 2021. The short time frame at the end of this drawn-out process has undermined confidence in the government's exposure draft consultation process, with a number of stakeholders concerned that submissions have not been considered properly. At the time the bill was referred to this inquiry on 25 February 2021, Labor senators had no visibility of either the number of submissions that had been made on the exposure draft or the range or nature of concerns raised in those submissions. In evidence to the inquiry, the department confirmed that 376 submissions on the exposure draft were received, uploaded and made available publicly only the day prior to the inquiry hearings. The department further advised that it had assessed the submissions and identified 56 issues that warranted further consideration by the minister, and that seven amendments of a technical nature were made to the bill as a result of that consideration. We note that the review of Australia's classification regulations—for which public consultation closed over a year ago, on 19 February 2020—is delayed and has fallen out of step with this reform process as a result.

On the major issue of free speech, Labor understands that the balance between free speech and protection against certain kinds of speech is a complex endeavour. We are concerned that this bill represents a significant increase in the eSafety Commissioner's discretion to remove material, without commensurate requirements for due process, appeals or transparency over and above Senate estimates annual reporting and AAT appeals. While supportive of a scheme relating to adult cyberabuse, we on this side find it curious that a government that has made repeated attempts to repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act on the grounds that it unduly restricts free speech, despite the availability of defences in section 18D, is now seeking to rush through a bill that empowers the eSafety Commissioner with discretion to determine matters of speech in relation to adult cyberbullying without greater checks and balances.

The Morrison government talks a big game about its expectations of social media platforms, yet, to date, it has failed to do its job by updating Australia's online safety laws. While the government is right to expect digital platforms to offer more in terms of transparency, so too must the government be prepared to provide transparency around decision-making, particularly on matters that engage with human rights. For this reason, we on this side recommended that the government consider further amendments to clarify the bill in terms of its scope and to strengthen due process, appeals, oversights and transparency requirements, given the important free-speech and digital-rights considerations it engages.

I would encourage those opposite to stop slouching over their smartphones and have a good, intent, face-to-face conversation with those in this chamber, so that we can protect more Australians from the misuse of smartphones. If they do that, we can make this a truly bipartisan improvement to the lives of all Australians, to ensure technology enriches our lives instead of determining our lives. We have all read on social media or heard through other forms of media about the devastating effect that these faceless people have and the anonymity that they use to bully, harass and embarrass people through social media. As with all new interventions—and we know, as I said, how quickly technology moves—we have to always ensure that people are protected from bullies, from people who want to try and intimidate them, from people who want to embarrass them, and from people who want to use this technology for illegal activities and for abusing people.

I urge people in this chamber, and in particular the government, to support our amendment. I therefore support the bill.

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (12:05): I rise to speak on the Online Safety Bill 2021 and the Online Safety (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021. The Australian Greens agree that online safety is a significant issue and an important concern for Australian internet users. You don't have to be a parent to share concerns about children having access to graphic online content, the prevalence of sharing of intimate photos, exposure to cyberbullying—all without the respectful relationships and consent education that children need to navigate it.

I'm also keenly aware of the misogynistic abuse that people experience online. As the Greens spokesperson for women, I understand the national crisis of violence against women and their children and the growing scourge of online and technology facilitated abuse. I hear story after story of coercive and violent ex-partners continuing their abuse online: sending violent images, sharing intimate images without consent, bombarding social media with threatening messages and harassing their victims via email. Any abuse of women and children is completely unacceptable. The reported trebling of cyberabuse and image based abuse during COVID is a salutary warning that abusers will use all tools at their disposal to perpetuate their control over others.

The Australian Greens believe that we must protect vulnerable internet users and stamp out abuse and violence, online and offline. I also acknowledge the work being done by the eSafety Commissioner on these issues and the recognition in the budget of the need to tackle the rise in technology facilitated abuse. However, this bill, as it is currently drafted, is not the right solution to this very real problem. This bill has been rushed, and it gives far too much unfettered discretion to the unelected eSafety Commissioner. The bill as it stands has largely ignored the concerns raised in the over 350 submissions received in response to rushed consultation that happened over the Christmas break. Many of those submissions highlight that what is proposed goes beyond what is needed to address core concerns, while still failing to adequately address the more insidious forms of online and technology facilitated abuse that are emerging. It represents a missed opportunity to find a path through this complex area that will achieve appropriate protections.

For example, the submission from the Women's Services Network, also known as WESNET, notes that the bill will go some way towards improving online safety:

… but in our view underestimates the ways in which perpetrators of domestic and family violence can misuse technology to harm and abuse their victims using online mechanisms.

WESNET is concerned that the Online Safety Bill may be presented as an institution to technology-facilitated abuse by surveyors of domestic and domestic violence. In reality, the misuse of technology is far broader than the coverage of this bill. The dynamics of domestic and family violence are often also more complex and multi-faceted and require a much larger and coordinated response.

The amendments that my colleague Senator McKim will move aim to correct that balance, preserving the parts of the bill that provide additional protections for vulnerable internet users, strengthening the protection for digital rights, and removing the provisions likely to be weaponised against women and undermine the overall objectives of the bill.

Submissions from WESNET and Domestic Violence Victoria raise concerns that the bill as drafted will be easily circumvented by perpetrators and could be used against survivors by making false complaints, coercing children to make unsubstantiated complaints, reporting dating profile information from a former partner or by impersonating the survivor online. This is not the stuff of fantasy. The eSafety Commissioner has reported that, in more than a quarter of family violence cases, perpetrators pretend to be the adult victim-survivor online. The bill introduces wide powers for the eSafety Commissioner but does not balance these with adequate rights of appeal or ways to prevent vexatious abuse of the complaints process.

WESNET and DV Victoria also caution that 'ordinary person' and 'serious harm' tests set up in the bill fail to recognise the unseen harm done by perpetrators who are controlling and are skilled at using victims-survivors' personal experiences and fears against them. In a recent national survey undertaken by WESNET and Curtin University, many frontline experts working with victims-survivors observed that threats are often covert. They're targeted and they're harmful and they have meaning for the victim that doesn't seem abusive to another person. What might seem to an outsider like a benign message can in fact be a targeted threat. A request to pack the kids' Medicare card for their weekend with their dad 'in case they get hurt' might be seen as a responsible reminder if you ignore the family violence context in which this is a coded threat to harm the children. It is these complexities that are not adequately addressed by the current bill as it's currently drafted. This bill may be an attempt to improve online safety for victims-survivors of abuse, but, without amendment and redrafting, it does not create the measures needed to stamp out this abuse, and it has harmful unintended consequences on digital rights and online work.

Senator HENDERSON (Victoria) (12:11): It's my great pleasure to rise and speak on the Online Safety Bill 2021 and the Online Safety Bill (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021. As of this year there are 22.82 million internet users in Australia, which is 89 per cent of the population. More than 20 million of those people are active social media users. On average, Australians spend six hours and 13 minutes per day on the internet. That's almost 40 per cent of their waking hours. A full third of that time is spent on social media. The online world is an incredible place. It is an ineradicable part of the everyday lives of millions of Australians. It is a world where we can find everything from obscure mathematical theorems to the latest in fashion. It is a world in which we can engage in conversations with others thousands of kilometres away in forgotten parts of the world in forgotten cities. It is a world of over 30 trillion unique webpages.

In such a dizzying labyrinth of texts, images and videos, it is easy to be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information and opinion thrown at us every time we enter it. For an increasing number of Australians, the experience is harrowing and destructive. Over 20 per cent of young people experience abuse online, and the statistics for the population more generally are no better. Let me just say that again: over 20 per cent of all young people going online experience some form of abuse. Alarmingly, some 87 per cent of young people have witnessed cyberbullying online. Again I say that number: 87 per cent. Unlike abuse on the street, cyberabuse and harassment can happen at any time and be broadcast to thousands, if not millions, of strangers. Cyberbullying also shows human beings at their most petty and their most shallow and, at times, their most destructive. Seventy-two per cent of victims of cyberbullying are targeted because of the way they look. Given these statistics, it has never been more important to ensure that Australians stay safe online. We should enjoy the same standards online as we do in the town square, and the online safety bill guarantees exactly that.

I note with some concern the criticism of other senators opposite, from the Greens and the Labor Party. While they are supporting this bill, I note their criticisms. But I say very strongly today that I'm incredibly proud that the Morrison government is the government fixing this issue. We did not see this sort of action from Labor when it was in power. We did not see the Labor Party combating these issues. Along with all the other work we've done to protect the safety of women, in particular, and children and to combat domestic violence, these bills are a very important part of the suite of measures that our government has taken to protect people in our community.

The bills establish a set of basic online safety expectations for industry, and include mandatory transparent reporting requirements which allow the eSafety Commissioner to require online services to provide specific information about online harms. These include responses to material depicting abhorrent, violent conduct and volumetric attacks in which organised digital lynch mobs can overwhelm a victim with abuse. The bills also include a strengthened cyberbullying scheme for Australian children, building on the government's existing scheme for protecting children online. The bills set out a new cyberabuse scheme to remove serious forms of online abuse from the internet and, very importantly, this is backed up by strong civil penalties. Similarly, internet content hosts face new requirements to take down image based abuse within 24 hours, on pain of penalty.

The eSafety Commissioner's powers—and let me say that the eSafety Commissioner is doing an extraordinary job in our community in protecting people, particularly children, online—have been expanded. The commissioner can now use a rapid website-blocking power to block material depicting abhorrent, violent conduct during an online crisis, such as what occurred during the Christchurch massacre when, disgracefully and disgustingly, Facebook failed to remove that abhorrent content in any reasonable time frame. The commissioner's information-gathering powers have also been expanded so that the commissioner can unmask the identities of anonymous online accounts being used to bully, abuse and humiliate innocent people.

Statistics tell one kind of story, but it is a remote and abstract one. The concrete reality is that most of us know someone who has been affected by online cyberbullying, cyberabuse or humiliation. This is an issue particularly close to my heart as well, and I have stood in this chamber previously and spoken about the trolling to which I have been subjected by my political opponents. In my particular experience, which happened over a period of some four years, I was subjected to shocking abuse, humiliation and false claims by people running a number of anonymous Twitter accounts. They made some really distressing claims, including attaching my face—my head shot—to the photo of a woman who has the name Sarah Henderson. She is a woman from Texas who had been charged and has now been convicted of killing her two children. I can say that my local political opponents on these anonymous Twitter accounts thought it was okay to compare me with a woman by the same name who had killed her two children. How revolting and disgusting is that?

I'm very pleased that Geelong police took this on. They investigated this conduct and sought a warrant from Twitter. Equally disgustingly, Twitter refused to comply with that warrant to provide Geelong police with any information about the cowardly people behind those anonymous accounts. I will not give up on this issue; I will not give up on continuing to hold the people behind these anonymous Twitter accounts to account for what they thought was okay to do. As I say, it was absolutely disgraceful that Twitter refused to comply with a police warrant, despite the head of government relations telling me that Twitter would have no issue in doing so once they had a police warrant or a court order.

So I am very, very pleased with the government's work in relation to these bills. We must do everything we can to arrest this abhorrent and corrosive phenomenon. I am a very, very proud supporter of this legislation. It is necessary. It is effective. It provides immediate response powers. It holds many people to account for their conduct online, and it obviously supports the government's determination to protect Australians from the tsunami of horrific material which can occur online. I commend these bills to the Senate.

Senator GREEN (Queensland) (12:20): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Online Safety Bill 2021 and the transitional provisions that go with it. I was one of the members of the Senate committee that performed an inquiry into this bill and I have taken a keen interest in the development of this legislation. The bill will establish a complaints system for cyberbullying material targeted at Australian children, the non-consensual sharing of intimate images and cyberabuse material targeted at Australian adults, and it will establish the Online Content Scheme. It will also provide for the minister to determine basic online safety expectations for social media services, relevant electronic services and designated internet services.

It also creates a new complaints based system which allows for a removal notice scheme for cyberabuse targeted at an adult. It creates a specific and targeted power for the eSafety Commission to request or require an internet service provider to block access to materials that promote, incite, instruct in or depict abhorrent, violent conduct. These notices would be for time limited periods.

Labor strongly support the objective of this bill. We can't be clearer than that. But we do have genuine concerns about how long it took for this bill to be drafted after the minister was out there championing this bill for so long without it actually being drafted or introduced into this parliament. The consultation period, as we've heard, was lacking. The fact that the government didn't take into account many of the recommendations from the department or stakeholders continues to be a concern. Many stakeholders have raised multiple concerns about this bill, including: the functions and the powers of the oversight of the eSafety Commissioner, who is an unelected official; the clarity and breadth of the basic online safety expectations; the services in the scope of the online content regulation schemes; the clarity and proportionality of the blocking scheme; and the appropriateness of the Online Content Scheme. There have also been concerns about the response time required to remove notices if there is an objection.

The safety of Australians online is of paramount importance. I don't think any senator in this chamber would disagree with that. For many years Australians have been protected by laws to support online safety, and it is crucial that these laws are kept up to date and improved to keep up with technological changes. Labor support the consolidation of online safety laws into a new framework and we also support the new elements of the bill, which are the elements that attracted so much attention through the inquiry phase.

We live in an era that is increasingly spent online, which demands measures to mitigate online harm be kept up to date. Fundamentally, I understand the importance of the need to balance the right protecting against harmful speech and the right protecting free speech. That's not always a black-and-white thing for legislators to do. So I want to thank all of the people who contributed to the Senate inquiry and the senators who came along to that inquiry and asked a lot of detailed questions of the commissioner and of stakeholders about how this bill would impact on people, how it would impact on free speech and how it would be delivered. As senators, we seek to protect Australians from any harm, but we must also be aware of the impact that these provisions could have on freedom of expression. That is why you will see senators around the chamber today raising these questions in good faith whilst also supporting the objectives of this bill.

One of the issues raised with me during the Senate inquiry into this bill was the lack of transparency around the use of unprecedented powers by the commissioner. I understand that the government has now circulated, or will be circulating, amendments requiring the commissioner to report in their annual report the frequency of the use of these powers. This is a real win for the Senate inquiry process and for the submitters that contributed to the Senate inquiry, because that was a gaping hole in this legislation in relation to transparency and accountability to this parliament. Labor supports a holistic, multifaceted, layered approach, including safety by design, adult supervision, technological measures and education of both adults and children. While Labor will be supporting this bill, we're certainly not happy with how it has been delivered.

As I said, we acknowledge the concerns raised by stakeholders. As usual, the government has been big on announcement and slow on delivery. You won't be surprised to hear that it was almost 2½ years ago that the Briggs review recommended a single up-to-date online safety act, and here we are. The government was spruiking an online safety act the entire time, but we're only now getting to the point where we're able to debate this legislation in the parliament. In the lead-up to the May 2019 federal election, the Morrison government promised to introduce a bill, but we've had to wait two years before they could achieve that. It's interesting because, in an extraordinary move, the minister was actually taking credit for the act without having actually passed it through parliament first. In 2019, when faced with the rise of right-wing extremism, online hate speech and racism in Australia, an online safety act was the answer, but it hadn't actually been passed through parliament yet. The minister also used the bill in response to questions about what the government was going to do to curb graphic online social media content. In October 2020, when the minister published an op-ed about the new online safety act, the department was in budget estimates, admitting further delays to the bill because of pressures on drafting resources. So, while the government are congratulating themselves today, it has taken a long time to get here—too long, Labor would say.

During the consultation period, the department confirmed that there were 376 submissions on the exposure draft, but there were 56 issues with the bill identified by the department itself. Only seven amendments, of a technical nature, were made as a result. I note that one of those amendments presented to this chamber is actually to correct a spelling mistake in the word 'bullying'. When asked about the key operational aspects of the bill, the eSafety Commissioner called it 'a sausage still being made'. There's still a lot we don't know about how this bill will be implemented. Some 2½ years later, the government has proved incapable of conducting a process that satisfies stakeholders in terms of both process and substance.

What is even more disappointing is how the government cannot seem to hold its own party room to the same standards set out by the legislation we are voting on today. Those opposite have pointed out the government's so-called commitment to women's safety online. Even the minister himself was quoted as saying:

"The Morrison Government wants Australians to engage online confidently -- to work, communicate and be entertained, without fear of being viciously trolled or exposed to harmful content," …

But, when it comes to turning those words into action, to taking real action, well, the government is completely silent. Just recently, in my home state of Queensland, the very proud member for Redlands, Kim Richards, stood in the state parliament and tabled evidence of harassment of her and other women online by the government's very own member for Bowman, Mr Laming. She called on the LNP to do the right thing with regard to Mr Laming—to turn their words into action. Mr Laming has a long and proven track record of trolling and abusing his constituents online—

Senator Scarr: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: my friend, the senator from Queensland, is making personal reflections upon a member in the other place, the honourable member for Bowman, and I would ask her to withdraw those reflections, which I note are the subject of action being taken by the member for Bowman in order to protect his reputation.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McGrath ): Senator Green, if you could withdraw—or are you on the point of order?

Senator GREEN: On the point of order. I'm actually referencing comments that Mr Laming himself made on Facebook. He said on Facebook, 'I control them.' So I'm actually referring to comments that he made and which are publicly available. I am being very careful about what I'm saying. If Mr Laming has called himself a 'Facebook troll', my submission to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, is that I should be able to refer to those comments.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: On that basis, there is no point of order.

Senator GREEN: Mr Laming himself has stated that he is a Facebook troll. He freely admits to running over 37 Facebook pages. Mr Laming has made social media posts inciting stalking behaviour, offering cash prizes to get the member for Redlands to answer questions and in one instance actually followed the member for Redlands into a public park and took pictures of her. On Valentine's Day, Mr Laming incited more stalking behaviour via a Facebook post, once again offering a cash prize for details on the location of the member for Redlands, a female politician, and the people in her company. The member for Redlands even sought advice—this is what Kim Richards, the member for Redlands, was forced to do because of Mr Laming's behaviour—about the invasive and personal behaviour of Mr Laming and, as a result, had to install CCTV cameras and an electronic security gate. She was also advised, because of the detriment that she was receiving, because of the behaviour of Mr Laming, that she should speak with a psychologist. That is how severe Mr Laming's harassment has been of this woman.

Mr Laming's inappropriate online content is exactly what the government's cyberabuse scheme is aiming to stamp out. In fact, I put this question to the department in estimates. The department secretary told me that the scheme would provide a pathway for people to make complaints about exactly this kind of behaviour, saying:

… it is fair to say that absolutely the intention behind this new bill, when it's passed, is to provide an avenue for people experiencing that kind of activity—to have a pathway to make complaints and have someone able to take some action.

So we have this curious situation where the government are here talking about how important online safety is and particularly how important it is for women's safety online for this bill to be passed, yet they will not take any action against Mr Laming, despite the evidence, despite the public comments by Mr Laming himself that he is a Facebook troll. The hypocrisy of this government on the one hand championing this bill but also, on the other hand, championing Mr Laming is absolutely galling. It should not be happening and the government know it. But they're too afraid to step up and do something to make sure that Mr Laming isn't able to harass any more women online. He continues to be a committee chair. He continues to get the support of the government members in the House of Representatives. Every single day when something is put to them, where they have the choice to support Mr Laming or to support a motion calling out his behaviour, they want to support Mr Laming.

I can tell you that there are many more women like Kim Richards. I am very proud of the member for Redlands for stepping up and talking about this in the Queensland parliament. I will talk about this every single time the government seek to talk about online safety, because, until they take action against Mr Laming—until they see that the behaviour that he has contributed to Kim Richards, the member for Redlands, a female politician, who deserves so much better from this government—then all of the things that they say about this bill and about this issue are completely hollow.

Labor supports this bill and its various elements designed to strengthen protections for Australians online. However, the bills have been delayed, and here we are again talking about how this government can believe that such important bills for Australian women should be passed today when they haven't taken action against the member for Bowman. He's still on the government backbench. He's still a chair of a parliamentary committee. He's still earning an extra $20,000 a year for that role. Senators opposite should hang their heads in shame, because they have failed to step up and do the right thing. The standard that you walk past is the standard that you accept, and you are telling the many women in Redlands who have suffered online abuse from this member that you accept that abuse.

Labor support these bills, but we do not support the behaviour of Mr Laming and we in this place are not afraid to say so. I also want to foreshadow that, because of this very curious hypocrisy, I will be moving a second reading amendment to the bills requiring the government to lead by example when it comes to keeping women safe online and to ensure that the member for Bowman is discharged from the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training immediately.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (12:36): The Greens oppose the legislation, the Online Safety Bill 2021 and the Online Safety (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021, as it has been put before the Senate today, and I would like to outline for the Senate and for those following at home exactly why. In doing so, I would first like to thank my colleague Senator McKim, for his outstanding and detailed work on this legislation, and also his office, led by Andrew Perry in the policy area. I would also like to thank Noelle Martin of Western Australia, who has, for a very long time, been a great source of information and advice to me in relation to these often complex and deeply important issues.

Let's start from a place where I think everybody should be able to agree—that every person should be able to live their lives free of violence, exploitation, abuse and neglect. When we are talking about the need to safeguard this right and this expectation in relation to abuse that somebody might experience in the digital space, we often talk about a broad terminology called cyberbullying, or online abuse. What is often lost in that terminology is some of the deep complexities and different forms that abuse takes when an online environment is also involved. I'm somebody who has been aware of these issues in a personal capacity, and I have experienced some of them myself.

As a newly-elected senator, one of the first inquiries I was part of explored some of these very complicated issues. I think it's useful to break them down broadly into three categories. We have the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, then we have what we might call bullying that takes place in a cyberrealm as well as in personal interaction between individuals, and then, finally, we have online facilitated abuse. These are very distinct forms of abuse that have distinct characteristics, all of which require, funnily enough, a bespoke policy response from legislators at both the state and federal level.

The non-consensual sharing of intimate images is a disgusting and disgraceful phenomenon in our society today. Its roots are deeply set in the disrespectful and dehumanising ways in which women, people of colour and people who are queer are treated, and what standards of behaviour are accepted and expected. To deal with those issues, we need policy responses that deal with both the outcome and the root cause.

In relation to cyberbullying, it is often denoted by different social contexts and relationships between those that are the subject of the form of abuse or bullying and those that are the perpetrators. It was put very clearly to me during one of these inquiry processes that what is critical to understand when analysing cyberbullying that it is the social phenomenon of bullying moving into a digital realm. Those who are victims and perpetrators of it often know each other, and there's a high likelihood that the victim of a cyberbullying incident may well also be the perpetrator of a subsequent incident and vice versa. Often, cyberbullying takes place in a close-knit social environment, like a school, and will involve somebody below the age of 18. So, again, the policy response required is specific, bespoke and balancing the reality that we may well be legislating in an area where people below the age of 18 are involved and where there's a need, ultimately, to solve these problems both at the end and at the root cause—often by involving an entire school, entire community approach to solve that problem.

And all the while we must recognise that the vast majority of kids and children at school do not engage in cyberbullying behaviour. The best estimate is that around 40 per cent of kids experience or perpetrate these types of abuses. While that's a large percentage, we shouldn't build a picture of an entire generation behaving in this way. And we should also ground it in the reality that before there was a digital space for this to occur it just happened interpersonally. It's been a factor in school life and adolescence for a very long time.

The third and final category, online facilitated abuse, is denoted and often marked out by the absence of a relationship between the perpetrator and the victim—the perpetrator is not known to the victim and vice versa. The victim is selected at random and is often part of a broader cohort which the perpetrator is targeting, and they're often above the age of 18. Again, they utilise multiple platforms, multiple identities and therefore require—you guessed it!—bespoke, nuanced and well-thought-through legislative responses that address this and hold people to account for their actions while also dealing with the deep-rooted causes for why people behave in this way, particularly to groups such as women, queer folk or people of colour. These are the groups which overwhelmingly experience this online facilitated abuse.

People who work in this area understand these social complexities and the bespoke policy responses needed. If you speak to them, they're really willing to give you this information. I have learnt so much from working in this area over this period of time. There are folk who are absolutely committed and who deeply and genuinely want to see action in all three of these areas to make sure that people are not subjected to violence, abuse or exploitation in any context or setting. Those people and their genuinely held beliefs are often driven by a lived experience with this type of phenomenon, and they should be honoured, respected and appropriately engaged with. We—well, I say 'we', but the major parties as the parties of power in this place—should do them the honour and respect always of engaging thoroughly and in detail with them.

This is not what has occurred in relation to the creation of these bills. The government have cited a response to a piece of evidence that was given to them as the result of an inquiry report in 2018, and there have been many years intervening since then. The reality of this legislation before this chamber right now is that it's totally and utterly undercooked; it has been rammed through in the smallest possible time. First, the government published an exposure draft of the legislation, and they allowed merely a number of weeks for submitters to give their evidence in relation to what the final piece of legislation should look like. Then the government introduced the legislation and attempted to pass it through during a section of this chamber's time when it would be open to no amendment nor to a vote of opposition. When they figured out they couldn't do that—

Debate interrupted.

Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:01): I sought leave earlier in the proceedings to table the document that demonstrates the 84 per cent figure, and I think that is now agreed.

Leave granted.

The PRESIDENT (15:36): I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposals at the request of any senator. There being none, we will proceed.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (15:37): I move:

That the following bills be introduced: a bill for an act to amend the law relating to sport and for related purposes and a bill for an act to amend the National Health Act 1953 and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

Senator DUNIAM: I present the bills and move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities, and may be taken together, and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries and Assistant Minister for Industry Development) (15:37): I table the explanatory memoranda relating to the bills 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—

MAJOR SPORTING EVENTS (INDICIA AND IMAGES) PROTECTION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2021

The purpose of the Bill is to protect sponsorship and licensing revenue from the FIFA Women's World Cup Australia New Zealand 2023 and International Cricket Council T20 World Cup 2022 from being undermined by ambush marketing. Ambush marketing is the unauthorised commercial use of event indicia (or expressions) and images. This will be achieved by including the FIFA Women's World Cup and T20 World Cup as recognised major sporting events under the Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 2014 (the Act).

The Bill also removes a schedule relating to a historical sporting event that will no longer provide protections under the Act, being the Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games.

In addition, the Bill makes a minor and technical amendment to the Sport Integrity Australia Act 2020 to correct an erroneous reference to an article of the World Anti-Doping Code (Code). The Code's article numbering changed due to revisions that commenced from 1 January 2021.

The Bill is consistent with the approach the Australian Government took when it legislated to protect the indicia and images for the ICC T20 Women's Cricket World Cup 2020, Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games, AFC Asian Cup 2015 and ICC Cricket World Cup 2015.

It also meets a commitment by the Australian Government to provide such intellectual property rights protection for both the FIFA Women's World Cup and T20 World Cup.

The hosting of these two events in Australia provides a unique opportunity to showcase our country to the world from a tourism, trade and event delivery perspective. It will further strengthen Australia's reputation as a world-class host of major international sporting events, with the Australian Government playing a critical role in facilitating the appropriate environment that makes such success possible.

The FIFA Women's World Cup will see 32 teams compete across Australia and New Zealand. It will be the first FIFA Women's World Cup to be held in the Asia-Pacific region, and the first ever to be held in the southern hemisphere. The FIFA Women's World Cup teams will include many of the world's most talented female footballers and showcase international football to diverse audiences in Australia and around the world. The FIFA Women's World Cup tournament is scheduled for July – August 2023, with five Australian cities to host match content.

The T20 World Cup will see 16 of the world's best men's teams come to Australia to play T20 cricket, with potential broadcast and digital audiences reaching in excess of 1.5 billion people from more than 200 countries worldwide. These T20 World Cup teams will represent the pinnacle of international sporting competition and include some of the world's most talented male cricketers. The T20 World Cup tournament is scheduled for October-November 2022.

For the owners and organisers of these events, this international profile provides the opportunity to showcase the sports of football and cricket to existing and new audiences, build a legacy and attract commercial partners that will invest in the event and the sports of football and cricket into the future. Event owners and organisers rely heavily on revenue generated by television rights, ticket sales, sponsorship and licensing to ensure their event can be delivered and continues to be an attractive and a viable financial proposition to future host countries. It is this profile and the commercial realities that necessitate the sorts of protections for the FIFA Women's World Cup and T20 World Cup that are in the Bill.

Major events have long been targets of those that would seek to create an impression of association with the event in order to achieve commercial gain without having purchased the rights and therefore invested in the sport, to claim that association. This act, known as 'ambush marketing by association', has the capacity to diminish the value of sponsorship, reduce the incentive for organisations to enter into commercial arrangements with events, and reduce the overall event revenue. In turn, this has the ability to increase the financial impact on government to support such events.

The Bill will protect the use of a range of expressions associated with the FIFA Women's World Cup and T20 World Cup from ambush marketing and unlicensed commercial use in the lead up to, during and in the immediate aftermath of each tournament.

In addition to protecting specific event-related terminology, the Bill also provides protection to certain images that in the circumstances of their presentation suggest, or are likely to suggest, a connection with the FIFA Women's World Cup and T20 World Cup. These images may be either visual or aural representations.

While it is important to protect tournament sponsors from ambush marketing, the rights of the community to freedom of expression must also be respected, particularly in relation to words that have passed into common usage. A pragmatic approach has been taken with generic words and references excluded from the list of protected expressions. It must also be emphasised that restrictions on the usage of FIFA Women's World Cup and T20 World Cup indicia and images will apply only to their unlicensed commercial use.

A number of exceptions will exist in relation to the FIFA Women's World Cup and T20 World Cup allowing for:

the continued operation of rights and liabilities under the Trade Marks Act 1995, Design Act 2003 and the Copyright Act 1968;

the provision of information, criticism and review of the FIFA Women's World Cup and T20 World Cup, such as in newspapers, magazines and broadcasts;

use of the protected indicia and images for the reasonable needs of sporting bodies in relation to fundraising and promotion; and

communities and businesses to engage in city dressing and festival promotions supporting the FIFA Women's World Cup and T20 World Cup in non-commercial ways.

In line with the Australian Government's deregulation agenda, the Bill is not intended to increase the burden on business or affect their everyday operations. The Bill fully protects the rights of the existing holders to use FIFA Women's World Cup and T20 World Cup indicia and images to carry out their business functions.

The new protections will cease to have effect after 31 December 2024 for the FIFA Women's World Cup and after 13 November 2023 for the T20 World Cup, approximately one year after the completion of each event. This is consistent with other major sporting events protected by the Act.

NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT (DECISIONS UNDER THE CONTINENCE AIDS PAYMENT SCHEME) BILL 2021

The National Health Amendment (Decisions under the Continence Aids Payment Scheme) Bill 2021(the Bill)makes minor amendments to the National Health Act 1953 (the Act) to expressly provide for the Continence Aids Payment Scheme Instrument 2020 (the CAPS Instrument) to confer review functions on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

On 16 January 2021, the CAPS Instrument was amended by the Continence Aids Payment Scheme Amendment (Merits Review) Instrument 2020 (Merits Review Instrument 2020), to provide for internal review of decisions by the Secretary of the Department of Health (the Department) under the CAPS Instrument. The Secretary delegates power and functions to the executive in the Department with responsibility for the CAPS Instrument.

The Merits Review Instrument 2020 also enables CAPS participants or their nominated organisation affected by the Secretary's internal review decision to apply for an independent merits review by the AAT of the initial review decision made by the Secretary.

The Bill amendments to the ACT will validate AAT review decisions made under the CAPS Instrument.

CAPS participants are unlikely to seek an independent merits review by the AAT, as Services Australia who administers the program works with CAPS applicants to resolve issues relating to their eligibility.

Debate adjourned.

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

Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:38): I move:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee on Temporary Migration be extended to 2 September 2021.

Question agreed to.

Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (15:39): I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to require reporting on electric vehicles, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

Senator RICE: 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 RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (15:39): by leave—I table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and 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—

In introducing this bill, I want to talk about the work of the Senate Select Committee on Electric Vehicles, of which I was a member. That inquiry received 137 submissions. It held five public hearings across four states, between August and October of 2018. In January of 2019, the Select Committee's report, when it was finalised, was almost two hundred pages long. So far, we have not received a response to that report.

One of the key recommendations from that report - in fact, the first recommendation - was that:

… the Australian Government develop a national EV strategy to facilitate and accelerate EV uptake and ensure Australia takes advantage of the opportunities, and manages the risks and challenges, of the transition to EVs. Addressing these risks and challenges will require effective national standards and regulation in regards to charging infrastructure and electricity grid integration, building and construction, public safety, consumer protection, processes for disposal and/or re-use of batteries, and skills training.

In April 2019, the Liberal party promised a National Electric Vehicle Strategy, although they only allocated a measly $400,000 towards developing it. But it was only a month or two later, in the 2019 election, that for short-term political gain, the Prime Minister decided to attack electric vehicles, making the ludicrous claim that they would 'end the weekend'. Of course, once the election was over, the Department was forced to admit they couldn't substantiate those claims.

But it's now 2021, and despite the time passing, we still have no national electric vehicle strategy. In the exceptionally weak consultation paper released in February of this year, there was no commitment to consumer incentives, a crucial part of the puzzle.

The complete failure by the Commonwealth Government has left a massive policy gap. In that gap, we've seen a range of state government approaches, often tragically misguided. The Australian Capital Territory, commendably, is one of the few with a clear strategy and incentives, and we welcome the steps the ACT Greens have achieved in that government, including free registration for electric vehicles, to encourage their uptake.

Sadly, many of the other state and territory governments are going in the wrong direction. The Victorian Government has introduced an unfair tax on electric vehicles, that will not apply to vehicles with internal combustion engines. That tax will directly reduce the uptake of electric vehicles, at exactly the moment when we need more of them. As we noted in our dissenting report on the COAG Reform Fund Amendment (No Electric Vehicle Taxes) Bill 2020:

Despite subsequently committing to a national EV strategy, the Commonwealth Liberal government has comprehensively undermined action on EVs, including attacks during the 2019 election that were subsequently shown to be unsupported.

In the absence of the needed Commonwealth leadership, state governments have taken steps to introduce additional taxes on EV, that would further hinder the uptake of EVs, and slow the urgent action we need on emissions to address the climate crisis.

The simple reality is that Australia is being left behind by other countries. Many countries have introduced clear, urgent phase out dates for new internal combustion engines.

Manufacturers around the world are shifting rapidly to electric vehicle production. Without urgent action, led by the Federal Government, we risk becoming a dumping ground for the cars that other governments will not accept. As economist John Quiggin summarised:

Unless the government takes action soon, Australian motorists will be faced with the choice between a limited range of second-rate petrol and diesel vehicles, or electric vehicles for which key infrastructure is missing.

At the same time as we see this complete failure by the Liberal party at a national level, they are desperate to prop up dying fossil fuel sectors. That includes providing a $2 billion subsidy to fuel refineries, ostensibly for fuel security, whilst they comprehensively ignore the value for fuel security that electric vehicles have. Sadly, that pattern is all too reflective of the approach of the Liberal party. As Australian Greens Leader Adam Bandt said in relation to the 2020-21 Budget:

One in three big corporations in this country pays no tax, and billionaires increased their wealth by a third during the pandemic, but this budget fails to make billionaires and big corporations pay their fair share, grows inequality and fast-tracks the climate crisis.

In the middle of a climate crisis, this budget finds $11.4 billion for fossil fuels this year alone and another $1.1 billion for new coal and gas projects, but nothing, for example, for electrifying transport, a sector responsible for 16 per cent of our emissions. This budget is champagne for the billionaires and real pain for everybody else. In fact, this budget is based on real wages going backwards for two years. It's tax cuts for the billionaires and handouts for big corporations but wage cuts for workers and poverty for the unemployed.

In the midst of this inaction by the Liberal Party on electric vehicles, and subsidies for fossil fuel refineries, this Bill is a very reasonable, measured approach. It simply requires the Government to provide a regular statement, outlining their approach to electric vehicles. It would also require a report by the Productivity Commission on how Australia's approach compares with the rest of the world.

We know Australia has been left behind, due to the Liberal party's inaction. But rather than obfuscation, ducking and weaving, and avoiding accountability, this Bill would simply require them to be upfront with Australians about what they're doing - or failing to - and how far we're lagging behind the rest of the world.

Debate adjourned.

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (15:55): I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to establish an inquiry into whether Christian Porter is a fit and proper person to be a Minister of State, and for related purposes. Ministerial Suitability Commission of Inquiry Bill 2021.

Question agreed to.

Senator WATERS: I present the bill and move:

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

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the bill being introduced by Senator Waters be read a first time.

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (16:15): I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum and the second reading speech as accompanying documents to the bill of which notice of introduction was accepted.

Leave not granted.