Senator SCARR (Queensland—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (09:02): I was making a point to people in the gallery yesterday when I began my speech on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023, but they've left! It was that this is a proposed incremental change which, I believe, will improve the regulatory environment with respect to advertising and gambling. We can have a debate in terms of who did what and when, and what people should do in the future et cetera—maybe the coalition should have done that and maybe Labor should do this. But the point is that this is a positive, incremental change moving in the right direction, and it could be done now. It's a very simple bill; it could be passed now and introduced now. I'm hopeful that the comments I make during this speech may well convince my good friend Senator Bilyk, who is speaking after me, that there's merit in the argument that there should be some incremental change and that change could occur now.

We do accept that people like to gamble. People like to bet, that is the fact of the matter. We also accept that there needs to be regulation of those activities. I think that many of us across the chamber are concerned. Hopefully, this is something I say that Senator Bilyk would agree with: it causes me unease when I drive past hotels and pubs during the week and see pokies are open until 4 am. We have to ask ourselves how that can be in the best interest of anyone—gambling at four in the morning? And we can gamble on the internet now, 24/27.

The particular concern that this bill seeks to address is the conflation of gambling with major sporting events. When I was growing up I watched State of Origin as a young boy with my family—and yesterday was State of Origin day, with another absolutely fantastic win by the maroons! I stayed up way past my bedtime at 8.30, because that's how late the game went, but there were none of these gambling advertisements and there wasn't this conflation of a major sporting event with gambling—or 'gaming', which is the synonym now used. So there was a demarcation between gambling and major sporting events such as State of Origin, the Ashes and so many other major sporting events. Horseracing was always in a different category.

But, in terms of the football, cricket, tennis and Aussie Rules, there was a demarcation between the sporting event and gambling, and that demarcation has broken down. The concern is that the 10-year-olds who were watching State of Origin last night will see gambling as being part of enjoying a sporting event. Not only do you watch the sporting event but you can have a punt at the same time. And you can bet on so many different things—first try scorer, highest point scorer, the ultimate victor and the margin et cetera. You can see how people who have a proclivity towards being susceptible to the addictive nature of gambling can fall into that trap, especially as young people. That's the primary concern that we have. I'm sure that that primary concern is shared by everyone across the chamber.

This is an incremental change which, from our perspective, could improve things. The specific proposal is that gambling advertising be banned from one hour before the start of a live sporting event until one hour after. So that's a reasonably modest proposal. That means footy is family time—family time is footy. So we all gather around the TV and watch the match, and there are no gambling advertisements in the course of that match. The ban would apply to TV and radio broadcasts. Existing exemptions for gambling advertising during horse, harness and greyhound racing would be retained. Exemptions for advertisements for lotto, Keno and similar government run lotteries are also retained, where the evidence is that they are less likely to contribute to that gambling addiction.

The ban would be achieved through minor amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. The changes to the act would require industry codes of practice to be updated to incorporate the ban, and the bill allows for a transition period for the change. So these are small, incremental improvements, and I genuinely ask those opposite: why would you stand in the way of these incremental improvements? No doubt, when the government finishes its review or the parliamentary reviews are completed, there could be larger reform moving through the system, but I can't see any reason why such a positive, incremental improvement—taking it at face value and accepting that it's proposed in good faith—wouldn't be accepted. What's the harm of accepting it in good faith and sending a message that everyone across this chamber cares about this issue?

I say to those opposite: I understand the arguments which are being put, but I think we can rise above those arguments and simply focus on the issue before us. This is a very positive, incremental change, and I think those on the other side of the chamber should in good faith accept it at face value, and, if there are proposed amendments, put the proposed amendments forward. But I can't see why such a positive, incremental change such as this would not be accepted. On that basis, I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (09:08): I too rise to speak on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023. As Senator Scarr said, this bill places a ban on gambling advertisements during television and radio broadcasting and live streaming of sporting events, and, as Senator Scarr also said, the ban would commence one hour before the scheduled start of the match and end one hour after its conclusion. But the government will not be supporting this bill.

Our position on this bill should not be misconstrued as a lack of will to seriously address the harms of online gambling. In fact, between us and the opposition, we are the only party that is serious about addressing these harms, and the bill we are debating today is further evidence of this. It's nothing more than a thought bubble, and, if I were Senator Henderson, I might be a bit embarrassed to table it. Of course, if the opposition were truly serious about reducing gambling harm, they wouldn't have had this sudden interest. Let's not forget that those opposite, who were in government for almost a decade, were the architects of the current arrangements. But now, all of a sudden, the Leader of the Opposition and the coalition he leads have taken an interest in the harms presented by gambling advertising and are seeking to change these arrangements. So forgive me for being cynical if I don't take this sudden interest seriously, after years of inaction by those opposite.

Senator Scarr: Rise above it!

Senator BILYK: Deputy President, could you please call that side to order?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: They are being a little bit rowdy. Please restrain yourselves.

Senator BILYK: Thank you, Deputy President. I sat very quietly through all of Senator Scarr's speech.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Please proceed.

Senator BILYK: The only reason we have any restrictions on gambling ads during live sport is that Labor acted when we were last in government, and we called for further restrictions while we were in opposition. If the opposition believe that this is such a great policy, it begs the question: where were they on this during their almost 10 years in government? To me, this seems less like a serious policy proposal and more like a bit of a headline-grabbing move from an opposition that is directionless and struggling for relevance. If those opposite are going to get serious about gambling advertising and the harm it's causing, then it's high time they reflected on their own record in government.

The current gambling advertising rules and the commercial broadcasting tax were both part of a broader deal struck with media companies, and it had very little to do with harm minimisation. In fact, figures from the Australian Communications and Media Authority showed there was a 50 per cent increase in the total volume of gambling spots on television and radio following the introduction of the last set of gambling ad restrictions in 2018. After seeing these figures, what did those opposite do to rectify this situation? Not a thing—absolutely nothing. Four years after the National Consumer Protection Framework was established, the pace they have acted at could best be described as glacial. Only six of the 10 measures had actually been implemented, and they took far too long to implement the framework, but we've moved quickly where they failed to do so. They have also failed to respond to the 2020 Stevens review, which recommended addressing the regulation of gambling in computer games, and the 2019 parliamentary joint committee inquiry which recommended banning credit cards for online gambling. We've acted on both measures, where those opposite failed.

We've acted quickly on a range of initiatives in our first year of government to address gambling harm, and we have committed to strengthening the classification of gambling-like features in video games, to protect children from exposure to harms. There are a variety of different kinds of gambling-like features in video games. Some are simulated casino-style games, such as poker machines, but these features also include intermittent and chance based rewards that players spend real money on, such as loot boxes, which are not explicitly presented as gambling but still bear the essential features of gambling activities. We have also committed to legislate to ban credit cards for online gambling. The ban on credit cards brings online gambling into line with land based gambling, where credit cards cannot be used, and, importantly, it ensures that people cannot bet with money they do not have.

For the first time since 2017, we've brought together state and territory ministers to discuss actions we can take together to address gambling harms. We're also acting on the final elements of the National Consumer Protection Framework, having delivered, in March this year, on consistent gambling messaging and wagering staff training. To deliver the final element of the framework, we will launch BetStop, the National Self-Exclusion Register. When implemented, BetStop will allow consumers to exclude themselves from all Australian licensed wagering services. In addition to all these actions, we've established a House of Representatives inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harms, which is being very ably chaired by the member for Dunkley, Peta Murphy. Our decision to establish this inquiry demonstrates the strength and seriousness of our commitment to addressing gambling harm.

While we oppose this bill—and I'll get to the reasons why soon—we share the strong concerns Australians have about the extent of gambling advertising and its impact. This is why we've already taken the actions I outlined earlier and established the House of Representatives inquiry. It's also why we are committed to strengthening the legislative framework and consumer protections that govern online gambling and the promotion of online gambling. As we saw in a recent ABC Four Corners program, and as we have seen from submissions to the House of Representatives inquiry, online gambling has become far too pervasive. The Four Corners program, entitled 'Game, bet, match: gambling with Australian sport', revealed that peak national sport bodies were receiving a cut of gambling revenues. It also revealed that live betting odds were being offered for amateur community sports, and that this was leading to an increase in match fixing. While Australia accounts for around 0.3 per cent of the world's population, we account for an incredible five per cent of the global online gambling market. Australians have the largest per capita gambling losses in the world, and around double the losses of other Western countries. Gambling is growing at an alarming rate. Gambling revenue in Australia was $5.4 billion in 2019, $6.9 billion in 2020 and $7.9 billion in 2022.

To illustrate the harm this is causing, Financial Counselling Australia indicated in their submission to the inquiry I mentioned that 80 per cent of specialist gambling financial counsellors reported that they had clients presenting who were talking about suicide and that 48 per cent had clients who had attempted to take their own lives. According to 2020 figures from the Australian Institute of Family Studies, online betting accounted for 78 per cent of betting, up from 62 per cent prior to the start of the COVID pandemic.

The dangers and harms associated with online gambling are potentially greater than those related to other forms of gambling. This was noted in the Salvation Army's submission to the inquiry, which pointed out that research has consistently identified high rates of gambling harm and at-risk gambling among online gamblers compared with on-site gamblers. Ease of access, relative anonymity, the frictionless nature of financial transfers—that is, e-cash—text based promotional messaging and the use of player analytical data are all features of online gambling products that make it harder for regulations to keep pace with the speed at which gambling products are introduced into the online community.

As a longstanding advocate for the protection of children and co-chair of the Australian Parliamentarians for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect group, the exposure of children to gambling advertising is of particular concern to me. A submission to the inquiry by the Alliance for Gambling Reform refers to studies about children's exposure to gambling ads. One study found that 91 per cent of children between the ages of eight and 16 could recall seeing a promotion for sports gambling. Concerningly, around 40 per cent of young people over the age of 16 had engaged in formal or informal gambling. If there is at least one thing we should all be agreed on in this place, surely it's the need to minimise to the extent possible the exposure of children to gambling advertising and the harms it causes to children?

And when it comes to the harms experienced by children, it isn't just children taking up gambling themselves but also the secondary harms to children caused by gambling addiction in adults. A study released just last month found that parental gambling was related to significant levels of harm in children, including financial harm, abuse and neglect, as well as relational and psychological problems. It also found there was a pattern of intergenerational transmission of problem gambling in children of regular or heavy gamblers.

In response to these issues, what we do not intend to do, like those opposite, is to rush in half cocked. We will be taking a comprehensive and considered approach to our policy, informed by the inquiry and not scribbling our policy on the back of a napkin, as the opposition seems to have done. The Minister for Communications, Michelle Rowland, who will have carriage of the government's bill, has been working assiduously with her department to prepare for and respond to the inquiry report. Any legislation to address this issue needs to consider the multiple channels over which advertising is delivered. These include television, radio, live streaming, social media and outdoor advertising and branding.

Legislation also needs to be evidence based, which this bill is not. The Independent member for Goldstein, Zoe Daniel, has co-authored a private members bill on this issue, together with the members for Mayo and Clarke. In her second reading speech on the co-authored bill, she had this to say about the opposition's move on this issue:

Aware of the latest crossbench push on this, the opposition has recently suggested banning gambling ads during sporting events and one hour either side. The evidence shows that this will not fix the problem. In fact, recent policy interventions to restrict the timing and proximity of gambling ads around broadcast sport has only pushed gambling into other programming—including programming that appeals to children like comedy shows and Marvel movies.

This is why I stress that anything we do needs to be considered, comprehensive and evidence-based and needs to avoid any unintended consequences.

I do accept the urgency of tackling gambling harm. I absolutely do. We on this side all do. But it is also important that with anything we do in the area we take advice from experts and get it right. That's the approach we have taken with our actions so far, whether it be the ban on credit cards for online gambling, the strengthened classification of computer games with gambling-like features or the implementation of the national consumer protection framework. We on this side have ensured that any action we have taken to address gambling harm has been based on expertise and evidence.

There is currently an inquiry, as I said, before the House of Representatives. This will report soon. This inquiry has already held 13 public hearings and received over 161 submissions. It will gather all the evidence from experts and stakeholders, consider it carefully and deliver well reasoned recommendations. This stands in stark contrast to the half-baked proposal that Senator Henderson has tabled in this chamber. Senator Henderson's suggestion in her second reading speech on this bill that the government has been wrongfooted by this proposal gives herself and her party far too much credit. I'm not sure what's more embarrassing: the bill itself or the fact that Senator Henderson regards it as some political masterstroke. In any case, we can see from the opposition's actions that they were never serious about addressing gambling harm during almost a decade in government.

Senator Henderson: We are.

Senator BILYK: They did nothing for almost a decade and they're not really serious now. I urge the Senate to reject this bill because those of us who are genuine about protecting Australians from gambling harm will have the opportunity to support a serious, evidence based and comprehensive government bill.

Senator BILYK: Perhaps if you hadn't been so busy chitchatting through my speech you would have heard what I said about children. If you are so interested in your bill, it might pay you to listen and learn what the concerns are.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Bilyk, please refrain from those types of comments.

Senator Henderson: Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. To reflect on a senator—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I have dealt with the point of order, Senator Henderson.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Henderson, I have dealt with the point of order. It's not a debate. We have a long day ahead. Let's just calm the farm. Make me happy.

Senator COX (Western Australia) (09:23): I rise to speak on this private senator's bill, the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023, as the Australian Greens spokesperson for sport. Sport is the fabric of our nation. It's the adrenaline from watching live sport in particular that Australians across this country love. There are 30-plus different types of live sport that you can watch at the tap of your phone. You can get live scores. You can watch the action. It's available to you all at the press of a button.

Gambling has become such an integral part of sport now. In fact, you can't even watch a game, participate in tipping competitions or even speak to people about a match or a race without them talking about the odds or 'multi' and the language that the industry uses now coming up in the conversation. It's horrendous because they have their own type of language that they use. Every ad break there is a gambling ad, unfortunately, in sport. Sports teams at every level are sponsored by gambling companies. At sporting venues, logos for gambling companies are plastered absolutely everywhere. They have just taken over the atmosphere. It was once quite pleasant to go and watch a live match. It's becoming more and more difficult to watch sport without being immersed in those ads, which come thick and fast at you. I agree that this bill goes some way to addressing that, but in fact it doesn't go far enough.

The Greens want an outright ban of gambling ads—at all times and on all platforms. This bill tinkers around the edges and it fails to take the action that's actually needed. The Greens support what the coalition are trying to do, the concept behind this bill and gambling reform, but we know that more reform is needed. It needs to be much broader than what's contained in this bill. Concerns have been raised—across the chamber by both sides and by Senator Hanson-Young, who has previously spoken—that simply banning gambling ads on broadcasts will push those ads onto radio, apps, websites and other avenues. In fact, we saw this the last time gambling ad reform happened, and this has already been highlighted.

People who mostly profit from this gambling advertising say that restricting the involvement of gambling companies will kill local sport, as gambling companies have so many partnerships with local sporting clubs and that gambling advertising revenue helps broadcasters air their local sports. It's ridiculous to say that, if we cut out gambling ads, the broadcasters can't do their job and broadcast local sports. I don't know how they're making that connection. The same was said when similar bans were put in train for tobacco. I'm happy to say that I'm a little bit young to have seen the whole spectrum of that, but it seemed ridiculous at the time that people were saying that tobacco companies aren't even allowed to sponsor or be involved in sport in the first place, and then we saw an amazing amount of reform happen.

The horrible and horrific thing that is ever present in the minds of parents—and this has been researched—is that children can now identify some of these betting companies based on their colours and their logos. The marketing strategy of these gambling companies is amazing. We didn't think it was acceptable when tobacco companies were doing this, so why do we think it's okay for gambling companies to do this?

I will give an example. A couple of years ago, in 2022, the live Brownlow Medal count was in Perth. I was in the room that night, but a whole lot of ads from Sportsbet were thrown up and there were odds for who was going to win the Brownlow that night. People were horrified and they reported it to the media. This is the one night in the AFL when all eyes are on the TV. People were watching the live medal count. In particular children were watching live their AFL star in the medal count. They were admiring them and hoping that they would win the Brownlow, which is such a prestigious award. What they saw, in fact, was Sportsbet ads being churned out at every opportunity and they were bombarded with the harmful messaging that they brought around gambling.

Senator Bilyk just mentioned that there's an inquiry report on this issue coming soon and that the government have flagged wider reform as a result of that report. I also want to be clear that this is in fact a huge opportunity. The community want to see us create change in this place and they want change. A recent survey of 3,000 AFL fans found that gambling ads was the most common concern. That was the most common thread across the survey results.

A majority of them supported an outright ban, and this again supports what the Australian Greens are calling for. We are calling for a complete ban, so I hope, when this report from the inquiry comes back—and the government have signalled that there will be wider reform—they start listening to the fans of the sports as well, and don't just think they know what they are all thinking. Governments at the state and territory level also want change. We know that the ACT Attorney-General has stated he would support a near complete ban on gambling ads. The South Australian government also called for a ban, while the New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmanian governments believe the current rules are in fact too weak. They have signalled that there needs to be change and there needs to be reform not just to their communities but also to us here in the federal parliament.

Several of my colleagues, in particular Senator Rice, who chairs the community services committee, have talked at length about the harm gambling causes—the real harm—and how addictive it is. This is a vicious industry that preys off the vulnerability of people in our communities. People have gone into debt, used their super and drained their savings because of gambling. Gambling has ruined relationships and some people have lost their homes because of their addiction to gambling. We also have the self-exclusion registers that operate across the country, and people place themselves on those as a measure of trying to end their addiction. But they have reported being targeted with matched bet offers to try and get them back into gambling, which is just horrendous. In fact, it is shameful that this is happening to Australians, where they are targeted after doing all of the work and putting themselves onto a self-exclusion register.

These gambling companies, sporting codes and broadcasters are all concerned about maintaining their profits, which is no surprise, right? They are facilitating and operating within this framework, and they actually believe the current rules are fine. It's like a 'nothing to see here, move on' type of process. We see a similar type of modus operandi from fossil fuel companies, for which I have the pleasure of being the spokesperson for the Australian Greens. It has been revealed that Australian soccer's governing body is taking cuts from bets being placed at competitions at all levels in the country, from international to local and suburban. We know there are similar deals between gambling companies and the NRL, the AFL and Cricket Australia, and some of these bodies are earning commissions of up to 17.5 per cent, totalling millions of dollars of revenue for these bodies. This means that of course they don't want reform. They don't want anything to change because they are profiting from it. It just shows how out of touch some people who directly benefit from gambling are.

The Racing NSW chief executive and ARL Commission chair has said that gambling is about entertainment, right? He said:

Just like you go to a restaurant and you buy a meal—that's entertainment. As long as you're responsible with what you're spending with that entertainment, it's no different to anything else.

I mean, seriously, how out of touch is this guy? Frankly, that statement is very offensive, and it fails to acknowledge the real harm that gambling poses to people. You don't hear about people who are addicted to gambling going to restaurants at all. They don't have any money to do that. It is an entirely different thing to compare going to a restaurant, having a meal and being responsible with someone who has an addiction to gambling. It is a real thing. The gambling industry has intentionally embedded itself deeply into sport, and it has made it difficult for people to escape and break the cycle of addiction. As I said, for someone to suggest that it's like buying a meal is disgraceful. It's absolutely disgraceful, and it's downright cruel, as far as I'm concerned, that you would prey on the vulnerability of people who have an addiction to gambling. Professor Samantha Thomas, who's a gambling and public health expert said:

Sporting organisations have such an important role to play in promoting the health and social wellbeing of our community, but they continue to have a complete blind spot when it comes to gambling, which is linked to some of our most pressing health and social problems.

I think of First Nations communities in my home state of Western Australia, and in the Northern Territory, Queensland and other places. We talk a lot about closing the gap in this place and we talk a lot about what that means in our communities. But when we think about the intergenerational trauma and vulnerability in those communities, I can tell you now that people also have those Sportsbet live-gambling apps on their phones. So it's time for this blind spot to actually be addressed and it's time for sporting codes, broadcasters and gambling companies to stop making such huge profits off the vulnerabilities of people who are just trying to enjoy sport. They're just trying to participate in it—they're trying to watch it. They're trying to engage in a social way and we're allowing that harm to creep in there.

It's time for a complete ban, in fact, on all gambling advertising. I did say that although I agree with the premise of what's in this bill, I don't think it goes far enough. We absolutely cannot afford to continue to tinker around the edges with this. We are in this place as elected members to look at these issues, to create change and to create reform. We have an opportunity to do that. We, as federal leaders, need to take that responsibility. We've already heard that the states and territories are on board. They actually want more reform; they're seeing the harm, and they're responsible for some of that harm, in their own states. But we need to do the work at this level first.

Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (09:37): I totally support this Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023 today. Gambling is a scourge on this country. It always has been and it always will be. I don't necessarily disagree with Senator Cox that it doesn't go far enough, but it is a start and for that reason we should at least support it. I have to say that I was completely shocked at Senator Bilyk's comments, where she wanted to take longer to look at this bill because there might be unintended consequences from passing this bill. I'm not quite sure what the unintended consequences would be.

We have a very good case study in this country called Western Australia. They don't have poker machines. I know we're not talking about poker machines in this specific bill, but they don't have gambling at all and they seem to survive without the poker machines. Do you have online gambling?

Senator Cox: They do.

Senator RENNICK: I guess you do—online advertising. Still, the point is that we don't need gambling at all. Let's face it, to me this is about the whole point of gambling. I've just hated the creep of online gambling. It's not just the fact that it influences our children from a very young age—it brings gambling into their lives when they should just be watching sport and being motivated to go outside with a cricket bat and a ball, or with a footy and kick the footy around. Obviously, that influence is extremely bad, but there are also tax consequences to this.

Probably one of the easiest examples I can talk about is in regard to withholding tax. A lot of the online gambling companies aren't even based in Australia. When you park your $1,000 deposit into the account for future gambling, that money could go into an offshore account and it becomes very difficult to actually trace how much income is derived here in Australia. So it becomes another form of tax evasion that should be dealt with.

I'm not sure really how I'm going to fill up the full time to talk about this, because it's such a no-brainer. I can't see why we just can't support it. If Labor and the Greens want to add more to it later on then so be it—do it. But don't stop this from going ahead just because you don't think it goes far enough; it is a step in the right direction and every step counts. I'll leave it at that, other than to say that I'd probably support some of these motions that the Greens and Labor think should happen.

I do take umbrage at the idea that the states and territories are on board when it comes to cracking down on gambling, because they have been ripping off low-income and vulnerable people for years. I've seen that in my own state of Queensland. I grew up in Queensland quite happily and innocently in the seventies and eighties when we didn't have poker machines at all. We had our first casino, Jupiters Casino, in 1982. But most of Australia, or at least Queensland, survived for the best part of 150 years without having poker machines or any sort of formal online gambling. It pretty much stayed on the track. By all means, if you want to have a bit of punt, go down to the track on a Saturday afternoon, pull out your form guide and have a couple of brewskis, but not this idea of sitting in a pub 24 hours a day with access to a gambling machine. And it's only worse with online gambling. You don't even need to go to the pub to access that; you can access that on your iPhone at home.

It's interesting to talk about online entertainment. I think these iPhones are a bit of a scourge. There was a time, for example, 50 years ago, you might have had a radio and one TV channel that might have started at three o'clock in the afternoon. So you'd get pretty bored pretty quickly if you hung around the home. Today it's all too easy to get tied up with social media, online gambling, Netflix and whatever else. It's not doing society a lot of favours by allowing people to stay in their little ruts, in their little online worlds, and not get out to talk to people face to face.

I totally support this bill; I think it's a great bill. There should be more of it. I'm happy to say to Labor and the Greens, in good faith: if you want to go further with this bill, by all means, do so. I would happily look at supporting that. This is a step in the right direction. I don't see why you wouldn't support it in good faith.

Senator CICCONE (Victoria—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (09:42): I also rise to speak on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill. I think it's fair to say that everyone in this place wants to see some level of reform, Senator Rennick. The contribution that you just made reminds me of a family member of mine, who is no longer with me now, but who certainly did listen a lot to a particular radio station that had the trots and racing and who ultimately did have an issue with gambling. He wasn't of the generation that had these things. You can only imagine the impact that gambling has on family and friends and many people in our community.

It is fair to say that everyone in this place genuinely wants to see serious reform. It is a process whereby we need to look at every piece of legislation as it comes into parliament for consideration. That's not to say that this government isn't doing anything about gambling generally. As you and others would know, through you, Chair, the government has set up an inquiry in the other place, in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. I would say the hope is that reforms will come out of that inquiry. I'm not sure exactly when that report is due. My understanding is that, at some stage this year, there will be some serious reforms that come out of that process.

It is important that, as a government and as a parliament, we respect the processes of our committees in this place. If we are to jump the gun, so to speak, what is the point of our committee structures? We should allow the members of parliament to do the work they're doing now, to go through the reports, the analysis and the evidence that's currently before them, and then sit down and actually work together about how we can best put forward reforms that tackle a scourge that is on our society, Senator Rennick. It's important that we listen to every member of this place. It's also important that we respect the processes. I would hope that everyone in the Senate would at least wait for the report that comes out of the House of Representatives before making their final position.

I wanted to add that the general feeling in the community is that we do need to do more and we do need to act in this policy area. Research from the Institute of Family Studies suggests that when people are exposed to wagering in advertising 21 per cent are prompted to start betting for the first time, 28 per cent tried a new form of betting, 29 per cent said that they placed bets on impulse, and a third of people increased their betting. This research also found that three in four Australians gambled at least once during the past 12 months and, of those, almost half were classified as being at some risk of harm from wagering.

These are some pretty confronting statistics and they suggest that most recent government action, in this space, implemented by the coalition government in 2018 had failed. It is also worth noting that this sudden interest in gambling harm reduction, on the other side, has also developed almost half a decade of inaction and inadequate policies. Now those opposite are attempting to reform this important and very complex area with a piecemeal private senator's bill today here in the Senate. Ultimately, the bill reforms some areas but ignores the totality of advertising.

I think the contribution from Senator Cox summed it up quite well too. We need to look at the whole package when it comes to advertising. In contrast to the coalition, the government is committed to getting this reform right, which is why there is a significant body of work being done to engage with stakeholders and community groups and develop a well-considered serious bill.

Part of this work is the inquiry, as I mentioned earlier, being conducted by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. We are waiting on the report and its recommendations to come back to the parliament. As senators we should have a particular appreciation for respecting the work of a committee rather than jumping ahead and proposing a reform without regard for the recommendations that will come through the committee processes.

For those listening today in the gallery, it is important to note the work of this inquiry. The inquiry has particular regard to a number of areas:

the effectiveness of existing consumer protections aimed at reducing online gambling harm

how to better target programs to address online gambling harm to reduce the potential exploitation of at-risk people, and protect individuals, families and communities

the effectiveness of current counselling and support services to address online gambling harm

the quality of and access to protective online gambling education programs

the impact of current regulatory and licensing regimes for online gambling on the effectiveness of harm minimisation and consumer protection efforts

the appropriateness of the definition of 'gambling service' in the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth), and whether it should be amended to capture additional gambling-like activities such as simulated gambling in video games (e.g. 'loot boxes' and social casino games)

the appropriateness of current gambling regulations in light of emerging technologies, payment options and products

the effectiveness of protections against illegal online gambling services, including casino style gambling such as online blackjack and slot machines

the effectiveness of current gambling advertising restrictions on limiting children's exposure to gambling products and services (e.g. promotion of betting odds during live sport broadcasts), including consideration of the impact of advertising through social media, sponsorship or branding from online licenced gambling operators, and

any other related matters.

As you can see, that's quite a comprehensive terms of reference currently before the other place, in terms of the impacts of online gambling on social media. These are all significant areas of interest and concern, and as a senator I'd like to see the outcomes and recommendations of this inquiry before we vote on reform in this place.

That's why the bill that is currently before us is somewhat premature. I would urge the coalition to come back to this place when we get the final report from that inquiry. Senator Henderson, I think it would be in your interest and the interest of the whole parliament that we consider the report of that House of Representatives committee stage before we make final consideration. As a former member of the other place I'm sure you would appreciate their committee processes as much as we appreciate ours. I think there needs to be that level of respect, on the committee processes, in the parliament. But I must say that it's obvious to me, from my reading, that the bill before us is somewhat half-baked and incomplete, Senator Henderson. As Senator Cox and others have mentioned, it is only focused on certain parts of the media spectrum—radio, TV and live streaming. We really need to look at the whole package, the whole suite, that is impacting a number of people, particularly those who are impacted by problem gambling. I think the contribution of those things should be looked at with some level of detail. A harm-minimisation approach needs to consider multichannels and situations.

Senator Henderson: Why don't you start with this, Senator Ciccone? It's a very good start!

Senator CICCONE: I don't know if that's something you've considered, Senator Henderson. But it would help also if the coalition actually spoke to the industry, spoke to community groups and spoke to the range of organisations that have written to the House of Representatives inquiry, asking to give their input—

Senator CICCONE: We're actually sitting this week, Senator Ruston. It would be important to look at the evidence that's being put by the industry, who actually do want to work with the government of the day in terms of making serious reforms. There are also a number of community groups who want to work with the government. I'm not sure if the coalition did consult those groups or not. I don't think that they did. Any reform in this area should be evidence based and, as parliamentarians, we should make use of the committee process to inform the development of the bills. The broad range of issues that need to be considered when reforming gambling advertising are being looked at by the committee. That's why the government will await the House of Representatives inquiry's final report and the full suite of evidence before proposing any changes.

I acknowledge the work being done by that committee and, particularly, the chair. It is a difficult policy, with many stakeholders seeking many different outcomes. I look forward to reviewing the report when it's complete.

Senator Henderson: We don't want review, we want action! You can support this!

Senator CICCONE: This is the process that we have to go through, Senator Henderson, as you did when you were last in government. I'm quite shocked to see that you are completely disregarding the processes of the parliament, particularly with those members in the other place who are doing a very good job in looking at this issue.

Senator Henderson: Well, get on with it and support this bill. Show you're serious!

Senator CICCONE: I think it's fair to say there's a lot of common ground here, but we really want to get to a point, once the evidence and the reporting are actually finalised—

Senator Henderson: I'm very passionate about this issue—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marielle Smith ): Senator Henderson! You—

Senator CICCONE: Thank you for your protection, Acting Deputy President Smith. Not that I need it, but thank you again—

Senator Henderson: You shouldn't reflect on the President.

Senator CICCONE: I won't be reflecting on the President, don't worry.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senators! Senator Ciccone, please continue your remarks. Senate Henderson, please refrain from interjections.

Senator CICCONE: The chair of that committee, and the committee, have undertaken that inquiry in a comprehensive way. Everyone in this place knows that reform is needed, but it's also difficult. If we do get it wrong there will be consequences—as the coalition did back in 2018. There were some reforms passed through this parliament but, to be honest, they didn't really have the impact and the effect that I guess you'd hoped for when you were last in government. That's probably why you're coming back to this place now with this piece of legislation, to try and get it through the parliament very quickly without any proper review or proper scrutiny.

Just because we're waiting on the recommendations from this committee doesn't mean that this government has also been sitting still. There have been a number of reforms that make sense; they've already had broad support and the government has committed to them. This includes banning credit cards for online gambling. This is very much a commonsense policy which means people aren't gambling with money that they don't have. I think most Australians would agree that if you're gambling with a credit card then you probably shouldn't be gambling at all. As I said earlier—

Senator Ruston: That's a bit judgemental!

Senator CICCONE: You weren't here earlier, Senator Ruston, but, having seen a family member go through that, I think it's a good, sensible reform. It's not the only reform that this government will probably undertake, but some reform is better. It's good to see that at least when we consult with industry and consult with community groups we do get better outcomes.

We're also strengthening the classification of gambling-like features in video games to help protect children from exposure to harmful gambling practices and then developing concerning gambling habits. The government will also launch a self-exclusion register known as BetStop. BetStop will allow Australians to actively exclude themselves from online wagering and betting services in a single step for a minimum of three months and up to a lifetime. This is a significant reform which will allow Australians who recognise that they have a problem with online gambling to take positive and tangible steps to protect themselves from further gambling harm.

If this chamber is going to politicise this issue instead of waiting for the recommendations—that's all we're saying: be patient and wait for the recommendations from the inquiry in the House of Representatives, as would be appropriate—then let's take a look at the history of policy in this space. The only reason we have restrictions on gambling ads during live sport is that Labor acted on this when we were last in government. That's right. After a decade of coalition government, what did you actually do? It was a Labor government that implemented those reforms and called for further restrictions while in opposition. The fact is that the Liberals and Nationals are the architects of the current arrangements, which they now claim they want to change, and the architects of restrictions that have now proven to be inadequate.

Senator Ruston: You can't revise history just because you're flapping your lips!

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marielle Smith ): Senator Ruston!

Senator CICCONE: Research by the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, found that there was a 50 per cent increase in the total volume of gambling spots on television and radio, following the introduction of the last set of gambling ad restrictions in 2018. Despite the fact that these figures from ACMA were released in 2019 and showed a 50 per cent increase in the volume of gambling spots on TV and radio, the coalition made no attempt to rectify the situation. They brought in the current gambling advertising rules and the commercial broadcasting tax, both of which were part of a broader deal struck with some media companies, which had little to do with harm minimisation. They took far too long to implement the National Consumer Protection Framework, and, four years after the framework was established, only six out of 10 important measures had actually been implemented.

In summary, I think it's fair to say that we should be waiting for the inquiry from the other place. I look forward to the coalition supporting the government's reforms, which, unlike this bill before us today, will be well considered and informed by a committee process.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (09:57): I move:

That the question be now put.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Ruston that the question be put be agreed to.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (10:04): As my colleague Senator Hanson-Young has said previously, the gambling industry feeds of addiction and profits from wrecking families' lives and sport. We have heard the government's contribution on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023, and it is hard to know quite how to characterise the government's contribution other than maybe they are riffing off Saint Augustine.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator McGrath ): Excuse me, Senator Shoebridge. Senators, if you can please leave the chamber if you want to talk or sit down and be quiet, so we can listen to Senator Shoebridge.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: The government's contribution on this bill and on gambling reform generally seems to be a kind of riff on Saint Augustine—you know, their position on the bill is, 'Oh Lord, give me gambling reform, but don't give it to me yet.' That is their basic position, but I think they have read more into Saint Augustine's writings because, if you look, you can also see another core part of Labor policy on gambling. It's another quote from Sanit Augustine: 'Faith is to believe in what you do not see.' Those are the two things that summarise Labor's position on gambling reforms. Faith is to believe in what we do not yet see from Labor.

There is a reason for that. It is because they are in part purchased by the gambling industry. They keep making donations to the Labor Party, and they are getting the kind of snail-paced pretend reform, faux reform, that they're paying for. It's a pretty simple analysis: you give a political party a bunch of money to prevent effective reform and then you see it play out here. You see it play out in an endless, slow-moving parliamentary committee. We all know this is urgent. We all know there is a pressing need, particularly to stop these gambling ads saturating the feeds of young people and working people. We know it is an urgent matter for reform, but where is the urgency from the government?

The response from the government is the kind of response the gambling industry has paid for. They are getting a really solid return on their donations to the Labor Party, and that is pretty, bloody clear. It is really depressing to see the way in which the gambling industry is degrading sports in this country—in fact, degrading sports across the planet because sport has always represented human excellence. Through teamwork, mental and physical skill and endurance, sports bring out the best in us, which is why, at no matter what age, Australians love our sport. From childhood to adulthood, Australians have always found sports to be an integral part of our social and cultural life. We wear the jersey with pride, whether playing for our club or cheering on our favourite team. It is part of who we are, and it taps into our core emotions from excitement, to anxiety, to elation, and, as we saw last night as New South Wales supporters, heartbreak. Sports always have and always will be a beautiful representation of human excellence—except at Suncorp Stadium and Lang Park!

It is something we enjoy with our friends and our family and something that actually brings us all together, but over the last several decades sports, like so much else under this dollar-driven market capitalist economy that dominates our social, our economic, our personal lives, sports have become severely commodified in the form of sports betting. In this country you can't escape sports betting advertising. When we catch public transport, we see it up there on buses, trains and trams. When we're online, we see it in the videos rolling in, suggesting the videos we watch, link after link to bet on the latest game or the upcoming match. And when we watch television or listen to radio, listen to podcasts, we are literally being bombarded with ads for sports betting. It has become almost inescapable in this country. The Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation's recent report found that children and young adults now intrinsically associate betting with sports as a result of being bombarded with sports betting ads. That is so deeply wrong, but that is the link that the gambling industry are willing to pay millions and millions for. They're willing to pay for the ads to saturate our social media feeds, to bombard us when we're on the train, to grab our attention in the middle of the match and before the match. They're paying to make that addictive link. They pay millions to make billions. That's what the gambling industry does with advertising. They pay millions for advertising to make billions in profits off some of the most vulnerable in this country.

In my home state of New South Wales, gambling is a massive problem. In many ways New South Wales is a society which has one of the worst gambling problems on the planet. It is estimated that gambling losses in the last several years have exceeded $9.5 billion a year. That's just losses. That's not the total amount that's gambled; that's just the amount that's been lost by ordinary people all across my home state of New South Wales—$9.5 billion a year, and probably more than that. While pokies are still the biggest problem in New South Wales, with losses of more than $7 billion per year just on poker machines, or $21½ million a day every day in my home state—

Debate interrupted.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Government Whip in the Senate) (11:15): I present the seventh report of 2023 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 7 OF 2023

22 June 2023

MEMBERS OF THE COMM ITTEE

Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair)

Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)

Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip)

Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip)

Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator Ralph Babet

Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm

Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher

Senator Matt O'Sullivan

Senator David Pocock

Senator Paul Scarr

Senator Lidia Thorpe

Senator Tammy Tyrrell

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 21 June 2023 at 7.16 pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the provisions of the Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 27 July 2023 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 July 2023 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(c) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 27 July 2023 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(d) the Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Amendment (Administrative Changes) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 27 July 2023 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(e) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Employer Compliance) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 August 2023 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(f) the provisions of the Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 August 2023 (see appendix 6 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(g) the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 July 2023 (see appendix 7 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(h) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 July 2023 (see appendix 8 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(i) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share— Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 August 2023 (see appendix 9 for a statement of reasons for referral).

3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:

Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Bill 2022.

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

Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023

Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Criminal Code Amendment (Inciting Illegal Disruptive Activities) Bill 2023

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Lowering the Voting Age) Bill 2023

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020

Fair Work Amendment (Right to Disconnect) Bill 2023 [No. 2]

Freeze on Rent and Rate Increases Bill 2023

Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023

Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Regulator Performance) Bill 2023

Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2023

International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2023

National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Bill 2023

National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023.

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

Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Amendment Bill 2023.

(Anne Urquhart)

Chair

22 June 2023

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Biosecurity Amendment (Advanced Compliance Measures) Bill 2023

Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:

Unclear as to degree of consultation (awaiting response from Government) Although sold as being administrative, EM is 90 pages long

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Biosecurity stakeholders (e.g. Invasive Species Council, trade stakeholders, farmers groups)

Committee to whi ch bill is to be referred:

RRAT

Possible hearing date(s):

On papers?

Possible reporting date:

31 July

(signed)

Nik McKim

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Complicated issue

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Sector, Groups Individuals that are affected.

Committee to which bill is to be referred.

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

June-July

Possible reporting date:

26 July 2023

( signed)

Wendy Askew

Appendix 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023

Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:

We know nothing about this bill prior to be tabled tomorrow

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Ocean stakeholders (e.g. AMCS, Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd)

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment and Communications

Possible hearing date(s):

August

Possible reporting date:

1 September

(signed)

Nick McKim

Appendix 4

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

P roposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Amendment (Administrative Changes) Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Complicated issue

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Sector, Groups Individuals that are affected.

Committee to which bill is to be referred.

Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

June -August

Possible reporting date:

27 July 2023

(signed)

Wendy Askew

Appendix 5

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Migration Amendment (Strengthening Employer Compliance) Bill 2023

Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:

provisions of the Bill will provide additional powers to the ABF, and without proper protections, will have the potential to further victimise vulnerable, exploited migrants.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

migration, human rights, and workplace relations experts, academics, and advocates.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Possible hearing date(s):

on the papers

Possible reporting date: 31 August 2023

(signed)

Nick McKim

Appendix 6

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Public Service Amendment Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Complicated issue

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Sector, Groups Individuals that are affected.

Committee to which bill is to be re ferred.

Finance and Public Administration Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

June -August

Possible reporting date:

30 August 2023

(signed)

Wendy Askew

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Public Service Amendment Bill

Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:

This is an issue of significant public importance and interest.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Unions, academics and any other relevant stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

4 August

Possible reporting date:

30 August

(signed)

Nick McKim

Appendix 7

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023

Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:

Parliamentary scrutiny of a bill combining several Budget measures

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Australian Council of Social Services

Antipoverty Centre

Council of Single Mothers and their Children

Other social services organisations

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Week commencing 10th July (or before/ after)

Possible reporting date:

24 July 2023

(signed)

Nick McKim

Appendix 8

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a commjttee

Name of bill:

Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Complicated issue

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Sector, Groups Individuals that are affected.

Committee to which bill is to be referred.

Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

June -July

Possible reporting date:

24 July 2023

(signed)

Wendy Askew

Appendix 9

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share) Bill 2023

Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:

To understand the revenue and economic implications.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Academics

Civil society

Business

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

July/ August 2023

Possible reporting date:

31 August 2023

(signed)

Senator McKim

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay their Fair Share: Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023

Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:

The Bill implements elements of the government's Multinational Tax Integrity package, announced in the October 2022-23 Budget, comprising measures to improve tax transparency of corporates, and tax integrity measures to strengthen the thin capitalisation rules to address the use of excessive debt deductions. This will ensure multinationals pay their fair share of tax.

The measures in the Bill reflect several rounds of public consultation to balance this policy intent while continuing to support genuine commercial activity and being mindful of compliance costs. It will ensure that debt deductions are linked to genuine economic activity.

The amendments to the thin capitalisation rules are significant, introducing earnings-based interest limitation rules for general class investors to replace the existing asset-based rules.

The amendments are in line with the OECD's best practice framework and similar amendments have already been adopted by most OECD countries including the United Kingdom, United States, and most of the EU.

The amendments also introduce a new third-party debt test which is expected to be used by the property and infrastructure sectors, as they generally have low earnings in the construction phase of a project. The test means that these entities can continue to deduct genuine third-party debt, without an earnings limitation, subject to eligibility rules.

Treasury has worked constructively with affected stakeholders to address unintended consequences identified through two separate rounds of consultation on the policy design and the exposure draft legislation.

However, the changes are highly complex, and as a tax integrity measure, there are sensitivities, and questions of interpretation that will benefit from the scrutiny and explication possible in the committee process.

A committee process will ensure that the Bill considered in parliament has had the benefit of an open and thorough conversation on the full text of the Bill.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

ASX, Corporate Tax Association, The Tax Institute, Law Council of Australia, Dr Kerrie Sadiq, Tax Justice Network, CICTAR, Property Council of Australia, Business Council of Australia, Australian Shareholders Association, Chartered Accountants, Department of the Treasury, ATO.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

throughout July/ mid August

Possible reporting date:

before August 31

(signed)

Anne Urquhart

Senator URQUHART: I move:

That the report be adopted.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (11:15): I move the following amendment:

At the end of the motion, add "and the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Amendment Bill 2023 not be referred to a committee".

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Gallagher to the motion for adoption of the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (11:23): I move the following amendment to the motion:

At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government)Amendment Bill 2023 the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 9 August 2023".

Honourable senators inte rjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Order!

Senator Ayres: This is terrific!

The PRESIDENT: Senator Ayres, order! I am putting the question on a motion. I expect there to be silence. The question is the amendment motion, as moved by Senator Ruston, be agreed to.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (11:33): I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report, with an interim report to be presented by

23 September 2023 to aid in the deliberations of the National Cabinet on renters'

rights, and a final report to be presented by 28 November 2023:

The worsening rental crisis in Australia, with particular reference to:

(a) the experience of renters and people seeking rental housing,

(b) rising rents and rental affordability;

(c) actions that can be taken by governments to reduce rents or limit rent rises;

(d) improvements to renters' rights, including rent stabilisation, length of leases

and no grounds evictions;

(e) factors impacting supply and demand of affordable rentals;

(f) international experience of policies that effectively support renters;

(g) the impact of government programs on the rental sector; and

(h) any other related matters.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (11:33): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator GALLAGHER: The government will not be supporting this motion, as it is clearly another attempt to distract, delay and defer real action on housing. The Greens want to ask the community affairs committee to investigate factors impacting supply and demand of affordable rentals. One factor is their teaming up with the coalition to reject a debate on a new social and affordable rental housing fund. The answer to the rental stress is a sustained boost to the supply of affordable homes to rent. That's what the government is trying to do through the HAFF, and exactly what these people walked into this place and rejected. We are committed to delivering real action for Australia's renters through delivering more homes, and we will not play into another Greens attempt to distract, delay and defer real action on the housing needs of Australians.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that business of the Senate motion No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Rice, be agreed to.

Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia) (11:41): I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Migration Act 1958, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

Senator DEAN SMITH: 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 DEAN SMITH (Western Australia) (11:42): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

Senator DEAN SMITH: I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Introduction

I rise to commend this Bill to the Senate.

The amendments proposed in the Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and Other Measures) Bill 2023 are sensible and non-controversial, but they are also meaningful improvements that will advance Australia's mission to uphold and enhance human rights -both here and around the world.

Organ trafficking is a uniquely appalling violation of the dignity of the individual, defined by the unethical removal, transfer, or commercialisation of human organs for transplantation outside legal frameworks.

The matter of organ harvesting and trafficking has been the subject of discussion and inquiry over many years.

Features of this Bill derive primarily from inquiry and recommendations made by the Human Rights sub-committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report Compassion, Not Commerce: An inquiry into Human Organ Trafficking and Organ Transplant Tourism, which wastabled in November 2018.

This report recommended a mandatory reporting scheme, where medical professionals would carry an obligation to report any knowledge or suspicion of a commercial transplant taking place.

Balancing the need to report data that can be used to counter organ trafficking practices internationally with the need to preserve an individual's right to reasonable medical privacy, this Bill instead proposes the mandatory reporting of overseas transplants mechanism be undertaken via the incoming passenger card.

What the Bill does

The amendments provided for in this Bill:

add a requirement to Australia's migration framework that persons entering Australia must disclose if they have received an organ transplant outside Australia within the last five years.

If this is the case, the individual will be required to disclose the name of the medical facility where that transplant occurred, and the town and/or city and country of the facility.

This information is to be disclosed by persons entering Australia via the incoming passenger card.

The resulting data will then be made available to the responsible Minister, who will be required to table an annual report in the Parliament detailing:

the number of times persons entering Australia have answered that they received an organ transplant outside Australia within the last five years; and

the town and/or city and country where the organ transplant took place.

amend the Migration Act 1958 to provide that a person does not pass the character test if the responsible Minister reasonably suspects that the person has been, or is involved in, an offence involving trafficking in human organs.

These measures are purposefully designed to assist in global efforts to prevent organ trafficking.

Australia's approach thus far

In 2005, the Australian Government criminalised organ trafficking under the Criminal Code Act 1995 and, in 2013, strengthened the Commonwealth Criminal Code by introducing four stand-alone organ trafficking offences.

Australia's organ trafficking offences criminalise the movement of people to, from, or within Australia for the unlawful removal of their organs. An organ does not have to be removed for an organ trafficking offence to be committed.

In addition, Australia has several non-legislative measures in place to complement the legal framework and ensure a holistic approach to address organ trafficking.

The Australian Government is set to conduct training programs for officials in law enforcement, immigration compliance, the Fair Work Ombudsman, and diplomatic and consular position, to increase awareness of the indicators of organ trafficking.

The Commonwealth Criminal Code also stipulates that organ transplant tourism constitutes an organ trafficking offence if a person organised or facilitated the transport, or proposed transport, of the donor to, from or within Australia.

The incidence of organ harvesting and trafficking

When organs are provided to recipients through illicit means of coercion or compulsion, the result is a tragedy in which one human life is prized more than another.

This represents an egregious attack on the foundations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the commitment contained within it that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights".

Every time a person is pressured to sell an organ to another, or when a prisoner of conscience is executed and their organs harvested, this principle of universal human equality and dignity is transgressed.

Importantly, the clandestine nature of both harvesting and trafficking makes the trade in human organs difficult to quantify.

However, concerns about the occurrence and scale of organ trafficking are justified given the significant imbalance between the number of patients globally who are awaiting an organ transplant and the limited availability of consensual, legal organs for transplantation.

Several recent events have made the need for remedies to this international crime more urgent.

In September 2021, the Australian Government responded to the Compassion, Not Commerce: An inquiry into Human Organ Trafficking or Organ Transplant Tourism report, describing the issue of organ trafficking and related crimes as "a complex, evolving problem, encompassing many countries".

This evidence—procured from a variety of global bodies, governments, and NGOs—coincides with increasing reports and examples of organ trafficking and harvesting across the world, with concern the scale of the activity is more widespread that previously imagined.

Importantly, the Bill fulfils a number of recommendations of the Compassion, Not Commerce: An inquiry into Human Organ Trafficking or Organ Transplant Tourism report, including:

Recommendation 2; the need to monitor transplantation practices of other countries with regard to consistency with human rights obligations, including with regard to the use of the organs of executed prisoners; and

Recommendation 4; the need for suitably anonymised data regarding the participation by Australians in overseas commercial transplants.

Of relevance here is recent evidence provided to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade by the Australian Government in response to questions raised about the Government's position on revelations regarding organ harvesting in our region.

The Australian Government's evidence cited the June 2021 report of the 12 UN Special Procedures experts, which identified "credible evidence" that ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities may be subject to organ harvesting in our region.

In addition, Deakin University has reported that the number of people waiting for an organ transplant globally outweighs the number of organs available for ethical and legal transplantations. This deficit is estimated to have resulted in a black market of more than 10,000 unethical transplants a year, or more than one every hour.

Consistency with international efforts

The amendments contained in the Bill compliment efforts taken internationally to respond to the growing prevalence of organ trafficking.

In May 2021, the United Kingdom House of Lords amended the Human Tissue Act 2004 following passage of the Organ Tourism and Cadavers on Display Bill [HL] and it awaits debate in the House of Commons.

The Bill prohibits citizens and residents of the United Kingdom from travelling internationally to receive material for a transplant that was obtained without the consent of a donor and a donor's next of kin.

The Organ Tourism and Cadavers on Display Bill [HL] is aimed at preventing the rising prevalence of organ tourism, characterised as the practice by which citizens of a country that has a rigorous legal framework preventing unethical transplant travel to countries with weaker legal frameworks to receive an illicitly purchased organ.

In December 2022, the Canadian Parliament amended the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to create new offences in relation to trafficking in human organs and to provide that a permanent resident or foreign national is inadmissible to Canada if the appropriate Minister is of the opinion that they have engaged in certain activities relating to trafficking in human organs.

The penalty for breach of the Canadian organ trafficking offences is 14 years in prison.

I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly. While there are limitations regarding the extent to which we, as Australians, can prevent human rights violations abroad, Australia maintains a responsibility to do everything within our Parliamentary mechanisms to uphold the inviolability of universal human dignity.

It is not enough to be a signatory to international conventions such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the Genocide Convention, without doing what we can to ensure the tenets of these conventions are upheld globally. This amendment is a step forward toward that eternal and noble goal.

Conclusion

The amendments contained in this Bill are designed to be a practical and least intrusive tool to support global efforts in combatting organ trafficking.

They should be seen as sensible and timely initiatives that add to the suite of other measures that have already been incorporated in the law and support other non-legislative measures being used by Australian authorities.

I commend this Bill to the Senate.

Senator DEAN SMITH: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia) (11:43): I move:

(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on the Perth Mint and Commonwealth regulatory compliance, be established to inquire into and report on the corporate and regulatory compliance of Gold Corporation and its trading entity, the Perth Mint, with Commonwealth legislation, with particular reference to:

(a) current and historical compliance with Australian anti-money laundering regulatory requirements, specifically:

(i) the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006,

(ii) the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Rules Instrument 2007 (No. 1),

(iii) the Privacy Act 1988,

(iv) the National Measurement Act 1960,

(v) the National Trade Measurement Regulations 2009, and

(vi) any other associated Commonwealth laws and regulations or instruments;

(b) events that led to the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre ordering the appointment of an external auditor to Gold Corporation under subsection 162(2) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006;

(c) events that led to the London Bullion Market Association initiating an

'Incident Review Process';

(d) matters concerning the corporate and statutory governance of Gold Corporation;

(e) the extent to which Australia's reputation as a precious metals producer, refiner and exporter may have been damaged by Gold Corporation's failure to comply with all necessary corporate and regulatory requirements; and

(f) any other related matters.

(2) That the committee present its final report by 13 December 2023.

(3) That the committee consist of 7 senators, as follows:

(a) three nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;

(b) two nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;

(c) one nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate; and

(d) one nominated by minority party or independent senators.

(4) That:

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

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

(c) a participating member shall be taken to be a member of a committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if a majority of members of the committee is not present.

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

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

(7) That the committee elect as chair a member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and, as deputy chair, a member nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate.

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

(9) That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, may appoint another member of the committee to act as chair during the temporary absence of both the chair and deputy chair at a meeting of the committee.

(10) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.

(11) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 2 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider.

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

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

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

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (11:43): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator GALLAGHER: The government will be opposing this motion. We take matters of corporate and regulatory compliance very seriously, which is why AUSTRAC and a leading expert are doing an independent audit of the Perth Mint's compliance with anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism finance laws. It's also why the WA government is investing $34 million to overhaul the Perth Mint's internal systems and procedures and has commissioned a comprehensive strategic review into the Perth Mint's future. AUSTRAC and the WA government are taking these matters seriously, as we are. The senator knows this motion will not only duplicate this effort but also risks compromising these independent investigations. We do not support a motion that is driven by state politics that would disrespect and undermine due process.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 262, standing in the name of Senator Dean Smith, be agreed to.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (11:50): I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, by no later than midday on 7 August 2023, for each question on notice from the 2022-23 supplementary Budget estimates that was unanswered, as at 1 April 2023:

(a) the date the responsible minister or their office first received a draft answer in relation to the question; and

(b) the date when the final answer was provided to the relevant legislation committee.

Question agreed to.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (11:51): by leave—I move:

(1) That the Senate notes that:

(a) order for production of documents no. 200 agreed by the Senate on 27 March 2023, relating to the 22 March 2023 Jervis Bay incident involving an MRH-90 helicopter, has not been complied with; and

(b) the order included that information identifying personnel and information in relation to training techniques may be appropriately redacted.

(2) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by no later than midday on 1 November 2023, all documents required by the order of 27 March 2023 and information in relation to tactics, techniques and procedures may be redacted.

Question agreed to.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (11:52): I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) order for the production of documents no. 253 relating to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Financial Sustainability Framework, made on 19 June 2023, has not been complied with, and

(ii) the Treasurer, in his response to the order, made a claim of public interest immunity on the basis that it would be detrimental to relations between the Commonwealth and the states and territories;

(b) rejects the public interest immunity claim made by the Treasurer, noting that the public interest in disclosing the document outweighs any potential prejudice to relations between the Commonwealth and the states and territories; and

(c) requires the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply with the order by no later than 4.30 pm on 22 June 2023.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (11:52): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator GALLAGHER: The government does not support this motion. The government has complied with the Senate order. The public interest immunity claim made in respect of the materials sought was made in accordance with longstanding and accepted Senate practice.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Steele-John be agreed to.

Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (12:00): I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, by no later than 9.30 am on Thursday, 29 June 2023, any memorandums of understanding, protocols or other agreements between the Australian Government and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia entered into between 1 January 2012 and 21 June 2023 which include reference to the trade in livestock by sea.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (12:01): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator GALLAGHER: The government is not supporting this OPD. MOUs are documents developed between governments and typically agreed at ministerial level. Making government-to-government agreements public has the potential to cause damage to the international relations of the Commonwealth. This is about trust, and releasing such documents has the potential to undermine the government's relationship with other countries. Moreover, it would potentially prejudice the flow of confidential information between the Commonwealth and other countries because other countries would not have the confidence that the arrangements entered into with the Commonwealth would remain confidential.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 265, standing in the name of Senator Faruqi, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:06]

(The President—Senator Lines)

Senator ASKEW (Tasmania—Chief Opposition Whip in the Senate) (12:09): At the request of Senator Cash, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) order for production of documents no. 247 agreed by the Senate on 15 June 2023, requiring the Minister representing the Attorney- General to table briefing notes, file notes and any written communication in relation to the resignation of the President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), and

(ii) the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in his response to the order, made a claim of public interest immunity on the basis that frankness of future communications between statutory office holders and ministers would be impacted by the disclosure;

(b) rejects the public interest immunity claim made by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, noting that frankness of future communications between statutory office holders and ministers is not an area for public interest immunity claims that is accepted by the Senate;

(c) requires the Minister representing the Attorney-General to comply with the order by no later than midday on 28 June 2023; and

(d) requires the Minister representing the Attorney-General to attend the chamber at the conclusion of formal business on Thursday, 22 June 2023 to provide an explanation of no more than 10 minutes concerning the resignation of the President of the AAT, the Honourable Fiona Meagher, and the knowledge of the Attorney-General, or his office, of the circumstances leading up to her resignation, and:

(i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (d), and

(ii) any motion under paragraph (d)(i) may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (12:09): by leave—I move the amendment to this motion that has been circulated in the chamber:

Paragraph (d), omit "on Thursday, 22 June 2023", substitute "on the next day of sitting".

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

The PRESIDENT (12:10): I have received a letter requesting changes in the membership of a committee.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (12:10): by leave—I move:

That Senator Shoebridge replace Senator Steele-John on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for the committee's inquiry into the performance of the Department of Defence, and that Senator Steele-John be appointed as a participating member.

Question agreed to.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Australian Greens Whip) (12:11): I am in continuation on this motion. Last night, I was sharing with the Senate some of the thoughts of my stepson, Jasper Lees, who is a young trans man—a fantastic young man. What I actually want to say—and I'm glad that Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts are here—is that I found their contributions vile and disgusting. The reason I found their contributions vile and disgusting is that they are deliberately trying to set up a situation where people can come in under parliamentary privilege and have their submissions, which would actively harm trans people, published. What trans people in this country don't need is for bigots and fascists who are attempting to erase them from the face of the earth to be able to make submissions to this inquiry and have their hatred and bile covered by parliamentary privilege. So, of course, the Greens won't be supporting this motion.

I also want to make it clear that my journey over a number of years with my stepson, Jasper, has allowed me to understand the very human and personal impact on a group of people who are not all the same and who have the full range of human feelings and human emotions as any other group of people but who are impacted so negatively and so profoundly because they are being used as political footballs by the far right in this country, who have decided that they are going to open up this front in their never-ending culture wars and that it doesn't matter how much they harm people or hurt people or how many people they drive to death and misery as a result. That's what we are dealing with here, and that is why the Greens are so staunchly opposed to this motion.

We will stand with trans folk. We will stand with trans men. We will stand with trans women. We will stand with all non-binary folk because trans rights are human rights. It is as simple as that. We will not stand for the fascism that is emerging around this issue, and we will not stand for them being erased off the face of this earth, as many people want. You only have to go into the cesspit that is some parts of various social media platforms to see the hatred and the bile that are being posted by far-right bigots and transphobes. We stand proudly with trans folk. We always have and we always will, and that is why we are so absolutely determined that this motion not be supported.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Allman-Payne ): We have now hit a hard marker. It's 12.15, so I'm going to move to government business.

Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Nationals and Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (12:15): I rise to formally put on record the position of the coalition on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023. I personally have particular affection for the defence forces, having been a reservist, and I know the high and the lows and the disappointment and the pride that comes with wearing the uniform. I also know and understand the difficulties that some of our veterans have had in managing their way through veterans' affairs and the Department of Veterans' Affairs.

The veterans community is a highly valued but often forgotten group in this nation. In recent years, we've seen an increasing impact on those who have served our country and face ever more new traumas in doing their duty. That's why when we were in government the Liberals and Nationals invested more than $11 billion each year to support around 340,000 veterans and their families, and I am pleased that the current government is continuing this investment.

This bill makes technical amendments to four sections of the veterans' affairs legislation to clarify, improve or streamline its delivery. While the amendments are minor and, in effect, tidy up several piece of legislation, they will make our veterans' interactions with the department a more transparent and hopefully a more positive experience. That's why the coalition will be supporting this legislation.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (12:17): I'd like to acknowledge and recognise Senator Davey's contribution to the debate on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023 and acknowledge the continued tradition of bipartisan support for Australian veterans. I thank any other senators who have spoken in this debate, and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Allman-Payne ) (12:18): No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (12:18): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator DAVEY (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Nationals and Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (12:19): Like the previous amendment bill, the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2023 is supported by the coalition. It covers issues in four schedules, all very important in their impact on our veterans communities.

The first section aligns the entitlements for firefighters employed by the Australian Defence Force with those for civil firefighters in relation to oesophageal cancer and other cancers, and it moves the qualifying period for entitlements from 25 years down to 15 years. We know that civilian firefighters have had health complications often related to the use of firefighting foam and other chemicals, and this will ensure that the same protections they get are available to ADF firefighters.

Secondly, the payments from the specified Commonwealth, state and territory employment programs will be exempt from a veteran's income in respect of means testing. This brings veterans in line with other social security requirements and makes sure that, if a veteran chooses to seek employment after their service, it doesn't unduly impact them.

Thirdly, the bill gives discretion to provide rent assistance beyond 26 weeks for veterans who are overseas and who, for unforeseen circumstances, cannot return home when they intended to. Fourthly, and very importantly, the bill allows grandparents to work in loco parentis to support a child of a Defence Force member.

While some of these amendments seem minor, they will have very important benefits for our veterans. We in the coalition support this bill.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (12:20): The Greens support the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2023. I will just deal briefly with the four schedules. Schedule 1 is the firefighter's alignment provision. It will amend the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act to reduce the qualifying period of employment for Australian Defence Force firefighters in relation to compensation for primary site oesophageal cancer from 25 years to 15 years. It will also change the requirement for firefighting to have been a 'substantial proportion' of their duties to a 'not insubstantial proportion of their duties'. This aligns the entitlements of defence firefighters with the entitlements of other firefighters under Commonwealth legislation. I want to note the consistent work of my colleague Adam Bandt for Victorian firefighters that led to this presumption, which I'm glad to see has also found its way into the Commonwealth more broadly. This, the Greens hope, will finally bring that last tranche of Commonwealth firefighters—being ADF firefighters—within the presumption and provide them the protection they deserve for the work they've done for the people of Australia.

Schedule 2 is the employment program. That amends the VEA to allow for a determination to be made so that amounts received from specified Commonwealth, state and territory programs are not considered as income for income support means-testing purposes. There are some technical amendments to the Social Security Act to enable that to happen. This is an important provision which will allow for veterans not to have their Commonwealth payments docked because they are receiving often very modest payments at a state level. We support that amendment.

Schedule 3 of the bill amends the VEA to include a permanent discretion to provide Commonwealth rental assistance beyond 26 weeks for eligible recipients who are temporarily absent from Australia and unable to return due to what's called a prescribed event occurring. This is one of those provisions that will stop veterans returning and potentially being homeless. We support the amendment, and we appreciate the minister bringing it forward.

Schedule 4 amends the VEA, DRCA and the MRCA to extend eligibility for the defence, veterans and families acute support package to grandparents who are full-time carers of the children of a veteran. Existing provisions within these acts can be utilised for some grandparents, and this bill adds additional provisions to ensure that further grandparents may be eligible and have access to the acute support package. I note that this is implementing a commitment made in the budget where the government committed to providing half a million dollars over four years, commencing next financial year, and then $0.2 million per year ongoing to expand the support under the defence, veterans and families acute support package to grandparents who are full-time carers of grandchildren who are children of a veteran. This extension of benefits is a matter that my office advocated to the minister on. We heard from a number of veterans that often the only real care they can get is from their parents looking after their kids, picking them up after school and being there when they can't be there, often because the veterans are attending medical appointments or otherwise are unable to attend. Without these amendments there would be no way of fairly compensating those grandparents for often quite substantial travel costs and other out-of-pocket expenses. I want to put on record our gratitude to the minister for listening to calls from veterans and those submissions from our office, and actually responding. While we think that the numbers could be bigger, and we hope that, as the benefits of this small extension become apparent, those numbers can grow over time, it is an example of the minister listening and responding to calls from veterans and their supporters in this place.

Finally, while it is not specifically attached to this bill, I do want to note the good work of Wounded Heroes Australia and the positive engagement they have had with the minister. We made two separate submissions to the minister for that really important organisation to be funded, and the good news is that it is in the early stages of moving through a positive funding result with the department. Again, I commend the minister for good-faith engagement. For those who don't know, Wounded Heroes Australia provides essential short-term cash payments for veterans who are homeless or facing homelessness, the $500 that means that they can keep their rental rather than losing their home, the $300 or $400 that means they and their families can stay in a motel for a couple of nights so that they're not thrown out on the streets. Wounded Heroes Australia has been self-funded and doing all of this work up to now. It is an extraordinary performance, and, with a bit of additional government support to get them security going forward, we really hope that the grant process comes through, and that Wounded Heroes Australia get the support to do the work they do for veterans.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (12:26): First, I would like to thank Senator Davey and Senator Shoebridge for their contributions to the debate on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2023. I again acknowledge the continuing tradition of bipartisan support for veterans, and I thank the Senate for this important amendment bill. This legislation will enhance the support and services available to veterans and their families. Supporting veterans and their families is one of our key priorities, and that is why the recent budget had such a significant focus on rebuilding the Department of Veterans' Affairs in order to ensure the foundations are laid to improve access to services and support for veterans and their families. This bill also enhances support for ADF firefighters who served prior to 2004. It also extends the treatment of certain income from specified employment programs as exempt income for income support means testing, and it extends the availability of rent assistance for veterans and their partners who are overseas but unable to return to Australia due to exceptional circumstances, such as those experienced in recent years with COVID-19. Additionally, this bill expands eligibility for access to services under the Defence, Veterans' and Families' Acute Support Package, which is available to families in crisis. We expanded this package through legislation last year to a much wider cohort of veterans and families. Now it will also pick up grandcarer families, a gap we identified and funded in the May budget.

The Albanese Labor government is committed to establishing the strongest foundations to support our service personnel, veterans and their families, and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTI NG DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Allman-Payne ) (12:29): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania—Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (12:29): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator AYRES (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Trade and Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) (12:29): As I was desperately trying to do before the last hard marker, I'll continue the second reading summing up speech. Senator Thorpe's dissenting report also recommended a substantive investment in social services and wraparound supports in communities. In last year's budget a significant investment of $158 million was committed for support services in former cashless debit card and income management communities, including for the Northern Territory, where the majority of income management participants are located. That included $7½ million over 2022-23 to 2023-24 to deliver mobile and internet services and digital literacy support in regional and remote Northern Territory communities, including wi-fi connectivity for four Alice Springs town camps. It also included $10 million provided in 2023-24 for other support services in the Northern Territory.

We're working in genuine partnership with communities to co-design a range of targeted services that benefit individuals, families and the broader community. This includes initiatives supporting financial literacy and money management, programs that support pathways to greater economic independence and targeted support to address addiction to alcohol and other drugs.

I also note the recommendation of the dissenting report by the coalition senators, which called for the government to publish key metrics of social harm in relation to communities where the cashless debit card formerly operated. I remind those senators that this bill doesn't deal in any way, shape or form with the cashless debit card or the communities in which it used to operate. However, in response to that recommendation the government does not support it. It is a waste of Commonwealth government resources and a shameful attempt to force the government's attention away from doing what actually works and funding the services which communities have actually said they wanted to see on the ground.

I remind senators that it has been the Albanese government which has extended the existing support services in former cashless debit card communities and has indeed funded new ones. The government is investing over $26.3 million in 2022-23 and 2023-24 for more than 40 established and trusted support services to continue, providing certainty for providers and the community in these locations after the former government failed to fund these services past 30 June this year. There is $23 million to support the creation of economic and employment pathways in the Cape York, Goldfields, East Kimberley and Ceduna regions; $3 million in local brokerage funds for Ceduna, East Kimberley and the Goldfields; and $1.8 million to expand support initiatives in the Goldfields. On top of this funding, the government is also investing an additional $16 million to support priorities identified in the local services plans for each former CDC site to ensure that support services are provided efficiently and are responsive to the unique needs of each of the target community.

It was the Albanese government that actually listened to communities and delivered the support that they wanted to see, and that is something that we remain absolutely committed to. As the minister has said, our focus and our objective as a government remain clear: to empower people in communities and provide individuals and communities with a range of supports that they can choose to use when and how it suits them best. I look forward to further addressing the matters raised in the report and various dissenting reports in the Committee of the Whole. In line with the second of the committee's recommendations I recommend the bill be passed.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Ruston be agreed to.

The PRESIDENT (12:44): The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, it's incredibly disorderly to call out when you're not even in your seat. I ask you not to call out.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, I called you to order.

Senator Thorpe: Kids go starving because they can't use the cashless debit card.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, I have called you to order three times. I am the President of the Senate. When I call you to order, I expect order. There are ample opportunities for you throughout the week to make whatever contributions you want on any matter. This is not the time.

Senator Thorpe: I've got to fight to the end, don't I, because you're oppressing us?

The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe!

The PRESIDENT (12:51): Order, Senator Thorpe! Senator Lambie.

Senator Lambie: I would like Senator Thorpe to withdraw her comment. I will not be called a racist in here, and I'm quite sure these people over here are offended. Quite frankly, I've had a gutful of it. I will not be labelled with that, and they should not be labelled with it either. I'd like her to come back and withdraw her comments. It is enough today—it is enough!

The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe was disorderly and disrespectful. I will review the tape and, if necessary, will ask her to come in and withdraw.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (12:53): I move the amendment on sheet 1972 revised:

(1) Page 66 (after line 14), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 3 — Obligations of Minister: reporting

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

1 At the end of Part 7

Insert:

243B Tabling of report relating to effect of cessation of cashless welfare arrangements

(1) As soon as practicable after the end of each reporting period, the Minister must prepare a report on the social effect of the cessation of cashless welfare arrangements in each of the program areas.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the report must outline, in respect of each of the program areas, rates of, and trends in:

(a) violent crimes reported to police;

(b) presentations to hospital emergency departments, as follows:

(i) overall presentations;

(ii) drug or alcohol-related presentations;

(c) ambulance call-outs, as follows;

(i) overall call-outs;

(ii) drug or alcohol-related call-outs;

(d) reportable incidents of domestic violence;

(e) referrals from Services Australia to:

(i) social workers; and

(ii) alcohol counselling services; and

(iii) domestic violence counselling services; and

(iv) gambling counselling services.

Note: Examples of violent crime include, but are not limited to, the offence categories of homicide, assault, sexual assault and robbery (both armed and unarmed).

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be:

(a) published on the Department's website as soon as practicable after the completion of the report; and

(b) tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is published under paragraph (a).

(4) In this section:

cashless welfare arrangements has the same meaning as set out in Part 3D of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 as in force immediately before the day on which Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Act 2022 commenced.

program area has the same meaning as set out in section 124PD of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 as in force immediately before the day on which Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Act 2022 commenced.

reporting period means the following:

(a) the period of 6 months beginning on the day this section commences;

(b) each subsequent 6-month period ending 3 years after this section commences.

The reason the coalition is moving this substantive amendment is so that for a period of three years from royal assent the government must publish details of key metrics of social harm within all the former cashless debit card sites, including, but not limited to, rates of violent crime, presentations to emergency departments and ambulance call-outs reported with incidents of domestic violence. In the absence of having these sorts of measures, how on earth can the government measure the success or otherwise of their decisions? We think that, as soon as practicable after the end of each reporting period, the minister must prepare a report on the social effects of the cessation of the cashless welfare arrangements in each of the program areas.

If they don't do this, this is just another action of the government in not being transparent. This is an opaque government, unless, of course, they are prepared to support this reasonable amendment. These are the very issues that we were seeking to avoid by the introduction of the cashless debit card. The removal of the cashless debit card has already seen a significant increase in these kinds of harmful behaviours, and we call on the government to support us not only in the interest of transparency but also, most importantly, in the interest of people in the communities that this impacts.

Senator AYRES (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Trade and Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) (12:54): I outlined in the second reading debate the government's reasons for opposing this amendment. I know that the opposition will continue to pursue this amendment. To operationalise it would mean a waste of Commonwealth government resources and an attempt to turn the government's attention away from what really works, and I urge the Senate to oppose the amendment.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (12:55): The Greens will not be supporting this amendment. We are absolutely in support of having really good evaluation and really good data, and the data that is available so far on compulsory income management shows that it doesn't work. The data that has been proposed in this amendment was a very biased set of data. It totally ignores any of the value of removing compulsory income management—removing the cashless debit card. There is research that is underway, looking at the evaluation of the cashless debit card. I would absolutely like to see more data, but this amendment doesn't capture what is needed in terms of evaluation of compulsory income management.

Senator BROCKMAN (Western Australia) (12:56): I will speak very briefly to this amendment. It was an amendment I circulated. I think it's absolutely shocking and disgraceful that Senator Rice would say that and the Greens would vote against this amendment, when the government has promised services in these communities. They've put money aside, they've promised wraparound services, and this amendment would hold the government to account and make sure those services are actually doing what the government promised it would do for those communities. Quite frankly, it's too late now to judge the failure of removing the cashless debit card. It's too late to judge that, because we've already heard, on the ground, the negative impacts of removing the cashless debit card. But, at the very least, surely the Greens could hold the government to account.

The CHAIR: I put the question that the amendment on sheet 1972 revised be agreed to.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (13:05): I move amendment (1) on sheet 1966 revised 2:

(1) Page 66 (after line 14), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 3 — Sunsetting of compulsory enhanced income management and compulsory income management

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

1 After section 123SW

Insert:

123SX Sunsetting of compulsory enhanced income management

(1) The following provisions cease to be in force at the start of 24 March 2025:

(a) Subdivisions A to F and H of Division 2 of this Part;

(b) Subdivisions A to B of Division 3 of this Part.

(2) At any time before 24 March 2026, the Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules prescribing matters of a transitional nature (including prescribing any saving or application provisions) arising out of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1) ceasing to be in force.

(3) To avoid doubt, the rules may not do the following:

(a) create an offence or civil penalty;

(b) provide powers of:

(i) arrest or detention; or

(ii) entry, search or seizure;

(c) impose a tax;

(d) set an amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under an appropriation in this Act;

(e) directly amend the text of the Act.

2 After section 123ZO

Insert:

123ZP Sunsetting of compulsory income management

(1) The following provisions cease to be in force at the start of 24 March 2025:

(a) sections 123UC, 123UCA, 123UCB, 123UCC, 123UD, 123UE, 123UF and 123UFAA;

(b) Subdivisions BA, BB and C of Division 2 of this Part;

(c) Subdivisions B to DAA of Division 5 of this Part.

(2) At any time before 24 March 2025, the Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules prescribing matters of a transitional nature (including prescribing any saving or application provisions) arising out of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1) 6ceasing to be in force.

(3) To avoid doubt, the rules may not do the following:

(a) create an offence or civil penalty;

(b) provide powers of:

(i) arrest or detention; or

(ii) entry, search or seizure;

(c) impose a tax;

(d) set an amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under an appropriation in this Act;

(e) directly amend the text of the Act.

This amendment would insert a sunset clause into this legislation, which would fulfil the Labor Party's policy of ending compulsory income management. Labor went to the election saying that they were committed to an end to compulsory income management. As I noted in my second reading speech, we had just before the election the opposition spokesperson and now the Minister for Indigenous Australians, the Hon. Linda Burney, saying:

Our fundamental principle on the basics card and the cashless debit card, it should be on a voluntary basis.

Ms Burney then said:

Labor's fundamental position is that we do not believe in mandatory income management.

When the government came to power, and they said they were doing consultation on compulsory income management, they actually set up a time line as to how long that consultation period would be. It was 18 months, which led us initially to put the sunset clause at the end of the 18-month period, giving you plenty of time to do your consultation, which would have put it at 24 March next year, 2024.

I have since amended this amendment to actually add an extra year just to give you that extra time, and I understand that Senator Pocock is going to be in a position to support this amendment just to give you an extra year to fulfil that commitment of ending the dangerous racist policy of compulsory income management. It is the least you can do. I do not buy that, because you are doing consultation, you can't commit to a sunset clause. I was willing to engage on whatever type of sunset clause you might be interested in, given that we know that compulsory income management is a failed policy. It needs to end, but unfortunately the government was not willing to engage. They have not been willing to tell me, if 2024 or 2025 isn't an appropriate time for a sunset clause, when is an appropriate time. We need to have an end to compulsory income management. This amendment would put a very reasonable time frame on allowing that to occur.

Senator AYRES (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Trade and Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) (13:08): The government won't be supporting this amendment. The future of income management is and will be the subject of genuine and ongoing consultation with affected communities, individuals and experts in the field. Adoption of the amendment would undermine that process. Decisions will not be made until they can be informed by the outcomes of that consultation. Introducing a sunset date creates a series of additional risks. Arrangements to cease mandatory income management need to be measured and tailored to support communities and ensure no-one is left behind.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Fawcett ): The question is that Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1966 revised 2 be agreed to.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (13:16): by leave—I move amendments (2), (3) and (4) on sheet 1966 revised 2 together:

(2) Page 66 (after line 14), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 4 — Obligations of Minister

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

1 After section 123SV

Insert:

123SVA Periodic estimates of cost of enhanced income management regime

(1) As soon as practicable after the end of each reporting period, the Minister must prepare a written estimate of the full cost to the Commonwealth (as at the end of the period) of the operation of the enhanced income management regime established by this Part.

(2) The Minister must cause the estimate for a reporting period to be:

(a) published on the Department's website as soon as practicable after it is prepared; and

(b) tabled in each House of the Parliament within 7 sitting days of that House after the estimate is published under paragraph (a).

(3) In this section:

reporting period means the following:

(a) the period of 6 months beginning on the day this section commences;

(b) the period of 12 months beginning on the day after the end of the period mentioned in paragraph (a);

(c) each subsequent 12-month period.

(3) Page 66 (after line 14), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 5 — Review by Parliamentary Joint Committee on Hum an Rights

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

1 After section 243

Insert:

243AA Review by Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights

(1) The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights must conduct reviews under this section and report the Committee's findings of each review to both Houses of the Parliament.

Requirements for review

(2) A review under this section must examine Part 3AA and Part 3B, so far as they relate to compulsory enhanced income management or compulsory income management, for compatibility with human rights.

First review

(3) The first review under this section must be completed within 12 months after this section commences.

Subsequent reviews

(4) Each subsequent review under this section must be completed within 3 years after the completion of the previous review.

When review is completed

(5) For the purposes of this section, a review is completed when the Committee's findings of the review have been tabled in both Houses of the Parliament.

(6) In this section:

compulsory enhanced income management means the enhanced income management regime set out in Subdivisions A to F and H of Division 2, and Subdivisions A to B of Division 3, of Part 3AA.

compulsory income management means the income management regime set out in sections 123UC, 123UCA, 123UCB, 123UCC, 123UD, 123UE, 123UF and 123UFAA, and Subdivisions BA, BB and C of Division 2, and Subdivisions B to DAA of Division 5, of Part 3B.

human rights has the same meaning as in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.

(4) Page 66 (after line 14), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 6 — Review by Senate Committee

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

1 At the end of Part 7

Add:

243B Review by Senate Committee

The Senate Community Affairs References Committee, or such other committee constituted under a resolution of the Senate, must:

(a) begin a review of each legislative instrument made by the Minister for the purposes of Part 3AA or Part 3B within 3 months after the day the instrument is tabled in the Senate; and

(b) report the Committee's findings to the Senate as soon as practicable after completing each review.

These amendments will improve a bad bill. They won't make it good enough for us to vote for it, but they will improve it.

Item (2) introduces a requirement to report on the costs of the SmartCard scheme. Item (3) requires a review by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights—the first one within a year and, subsequently, a review every three years. We know that this won't stop the worst harms of the bill, and we would absolutely seek to do that if we could, but at least this review process will provide some accountability. Item (4) requires a review by the Senate community affairs committee if and when the minister makes a legislative instrument expanding either the BasicsCard or the SmartCard. One of the key concerns that we have with this legislation is that it expands the minister's power in a dangerous way, so I hope that all of these amendments will be supported by the Senate.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Fawcett ): Senators, those of you who are not participating in this debate are required to either sit and listen in silence or, if you wish to hold a discussion, please leave the chamber and show some courtesy to your colleagues.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (13:17): The coalition will be supporting the amendments that are being put forward by the Australian Greens because they provide greater transparency. We note that both the Greens and the Labor Party sought to vote against the transparency measures we sought agreement on; however, in the interests of at least some level of transparency we'll be supporting these amendments.

Senator AYRES (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Trade and Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) (13:17): The government will be supporting these amendments. I note details of the SmartCard contracts, including their total value, are already available through AusTender, but we welcome the opportunity to provide more clarity. The other amendment would provide for regular mandatory review and report by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. The committee regularly engages with this matter and I note that its Human rights scrutiny report 4 of 2023 included scrutiny of the income management reform bill and sought the minister's advice on a number of the provisions. The minister provided a response to the committee on 18 April 2023. Further, the instruments made under this bill are disallowable by both chambers of this parliament, which will provide plenty of opportunity for scrutiny and debate.

Question agreed to.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (13:19): I move amendment (5) on sheet 1966 revised 2:

(5) Page 66 (after line 14), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 7 — Exiting compulsory enhanced income management and compulsory income management

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

1 After section 123SH

Insert:

Subdivision GA — When persons not subject to the enhanced income management regime

123SHA Person's mental, physical or emotional wellbeing at risk

(1) A person, other than a person in relation to whom a voluntary enhanced income management agreement is in force, may apply to the Secretary for a determination that the person no longer be subject to the enhanced income management regime under this Part.

(2) The application must:

(a) be made in writing using a form approved by the Secretary; and

(b) be accompanied by the documents and other information required by the form.

(3) The Secretary must determine that a person is no longer subject to the enhanced income management regime under this Part if the Secretary is satisfied that being subject to the regime would pose a risk to the person's mental, physical or emotional wellbeing.

(4) A determination under subsection (3) has effect accordingly.

(5) A determination under subsection (3) is not a legislative instrument.

2 In the appropriate position in Division 2 of Part 3B

Insert:

Subdivision DA — When persons not subject to the income management regime

123UOA Person's mental, physical or emotional wellbeing at risk

(1) A person, other than a person in relation to whom a voluntary income management agreement is in force, may apply to the Secretary for a determination that the person no longer be subject to the income management regime under this Part.

(2) The application must:

(a) be made in writing using a form approved by the Secretary; and

(b) be accompanied by the documents and other information required by the form.

(3) The Secretary must determine that a person is no longer subject to the income management regime under this Part if the Secretary is satisfied that being subject to the regime would pose a risk to the person's mental, physical or emotional wellbeing.

(4) A determination under subsection (3) has effect accordingly.

(5) A determination under subsection (3) is not a legislative instrument.

My final amendment inserts an exit clause. For people who are caught up in compulsory income management that's been forced upon them against their will, this exit clause would allow them to make a case that their mental, physical or emotional wellbeing is at risk by being subject to compulsory income management and so they are able to exit the framework. Under the old cashless debit card, there was an exit clause. It was very hard to do, but at least, if you could show that your physical, mental or emotional wellbeing was at risk, you were able to exit. Under this legislation, that clause doesn't exist. There is not even an exit clause for people who are being harmed by compulsory income management. Again, this is a very reasonable measure that I think should have the support of everybody in this place.

Senator AYRES (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Trade and Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) (13:20): The government will not be supporting this amendment. However, I want to be very clear and considered on the reasons why. The provisions that Senator Rice referred to in the current legislation continue to operate. I note that the drafting of this amendment mirrors the legislation previously in place under the cashless debit card, which I believe was an exit process that was criticised for lengthy delays at the time by the Australian Greens.

The current consultation underway on the future of income management is listening to individuals and communities about the broader questions around income management but also about this very issue. Decisions we take about this matter will be informed by those consultations. The government will not support amendments that would see vulnerable people transitioned off this program in droves without much-needed support, or experiencing lengthy delays while these matters are dealt with.

Implementing this amendment would also require advice on the achievable time frames from Services Australia, development of relative ICT functionality, business processes, communications products and staff training.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Fawcett ): The question is that Australian Greens amendment (5) on sheet 1966, revision 2, be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Senator AYRES (New South Wales—Assistant Minister for Trade and Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) (13:22): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Fawcett ): The question is that the bill be read a third time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Fawcett ) (13:30): It being 1.30 pm, we will move to two-minute statements.