﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2023-12-05</date>
    <parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>Senate</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>0</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Tuesday, 5 December 2023</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The PRESIDENT (Senator </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">the Hon. </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Sue Lines</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span> took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>6463</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tabling</title>
          <page.no>6463</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>6463</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Meeting</title>
          <page.no>6463</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>6463</page.no>
        <type>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>6463</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table a statement from the Attorney-General relating to the High Court decision on immigration detention.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>6463</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>6463</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to move a motion relating to the Albanese Labor government and its failure to keep Australians safe.</para>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent him moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to allow a motion relating to the Albanese Government's response to the decision to be moved and determined immediately.</para></quote>
<para>President, the first duty of any Australian government is to keep people safe, to keep Australians safe. The failure we are seeing from those opposite is a shameful failure. We have seen one of the greatest bungles with one of the most serious consequences. This government has mishandled the rulings of the High Court, the case when it was before the court and its responses to it with grievous consequences that have now endangered the lives of Australians, seeing the types of circumstances unfold that had been foreshadowed from the moment this matter became public. It has been a case of failure upon failure upon failure by the Albanese Labor government in its handling of this matter. Failure in the court case itself, where the government allowed government to speak out of both sides of its mouth. It had the Human Rights Commission saying one thing, sanctioned by the Attorney-General—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>while the government ran alternate case. Indeed, the government apparently telling the court that it could not repatriate the individual who was the subject of the case while potentially receiving advice that perhaps it could repatriate them—undermining the case that it could have run.</para>
<para>Then of course, on the day of judgement handed down by the court, we had the government release the one individual and say they would wait to receive the statement of reasons before doing anything else. But what did they do? They failed again. They failed to stick to what they said they would do.</para>
<para>An opposition senator: That's right.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They said they'd wait, but they started the release—and release and release and release—until more than 100 individuals had been released across Australia. And let's remember: these individuals—murderers, rapists, child sex offenders, paedophiles—these are individuals—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Contract killer!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat. I am very reluctant to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, but the constant disorder and disrespect and interjections from the left side of the chamber is unacceptable. If you wish to speak, seek the call otherwise listen in silence. Senator Birmingham.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Go Birmo!</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm perfectly relaxed, President. On the day of the judgement, the government said it would wait but, instead, it didn't take its own advice—it didn't do as it said it would do—it just went on and released individual, after individual, after individual, who it was known posed a threat to the Australian community. In this place, and in the other place, we saw the government face questions from Mr Dutton, from Senator Cash and from Senator Paterson about the risks that these individuals posed, but the government couldn't stick to its own decision; it couldn't detain them and await the statement of reasons. Instead, it proceeded to release them.</para>
<para>Then what did we see from this government, that had failed in its handling of the case and had failed on the day of, and on the days following, the statement of reasons? We saw them bring legislation to this parliament—legislation that, again, reflected calls the opposition had made for the government to look, where these individuals had been released, at how they could be tracked and followed, and what steps could be taken. What did the government do? It released the legislation at breakfast time. At 8 am the opposition were given briefings on that legislation. And what did we do in response to it? We went away and had a look to see whether we could make it tougher. The government went out publicly, and said, 'This is as tough as it gets!' That was at breakfast time. Guess what? By lunchtime they had accepted all the amendments from the opposition—all six amendments from the opposition to make the legislation tougher were accepted by lunchtime by the Albanese government.</para>
<para>So they failed in the case's handling, failed in the immediate response and failed in the first package of legislation. We're now having to work through further packages of legislation with this government. We are taking the diligence and time to try to ensure that it is done thoroughly. It is so critical for the opposition to keep a check on this government, because they're not up to it! And they've shown they're not up to it time and time again. Minister Giles and Minister O'Neil clearly demonstrated that they're not up to it, which is why Prime Minister Albanese should at last show some leadership and sack these hopeless ministers—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat. I expect silence. Senator Birmingham, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sack these hopeless ministers—Minister Giles and Minister O'Neil—because the consequences are now writ large. Go and ask the woman in South Australia who was sexually assaulted what she thinks of the way your government has handled this! Go and ask Australians who are dealing now with the consequences of having murderers, rapists, sexual assaulters and paedophiles—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order across the chamber! Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat. Senator Hughes?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hughes</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order, President. Senator Ayres should withdraw the slur he just made to Senator Birmingham across the chamber. This is about the sexual assault of a woman, and referring to Senator Birmingham in that way, you are a disgrace—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Hughes, resume your seat! May I remind senators that when you stand on a point of order it is not your opportunity to make a statement. You simply make your point of order and resume your seat. Senator Ayres I didn't hear if you made a slur but if you did I ask you to withdraw it.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ayres</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Amongst a blizzard of reflections, I'm happy for mine to be singled out—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ayres, resume your seat! Senator Ayres, I'm going to ask you—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You set the standard, you should follow it!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Cash, you have constantly interjected. Senator Ayres, please just withdraw it, if you made a slur.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ayres</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. Senator Urquhart?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Urquhart</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would also ask Senator Hughes to withdraw the comment she made towards the senator.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hughes</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Hughes. Senator Birmingham.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>So it has been fail, after fail, after fail by the Albanese government and the consequences are now home, that Australians have faced the reality of a sexual assault being undertaken and of other threats being posed. These ministers should be sacked and this government should go. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government will not support this suspension motion moved by Senator Birmingham. I'll come to the substance of the motion that he has moved, but this is primarily because we have agreed on a program for today. It is set out and, in fact, those opposite are eating into the time that they requested for the debate on infrastructure this morning, which they sought specifically. So, by all means, disrupt the time that you had argued for yourselves and for Senator McKenzie to have on the infrastructure bill debate.</para>
<para>On the substance of the argument that has been put by Senator Birmingham: I think it is important for those listening, and to get it on the record, that the government was required to release a cohort of detainees from immigration detention.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And, as Senator Cash knows, we have been seeking, for a couple of days, to brief them, on agreed terms, on the legal advice. Unfortunately, that briefing, because of Senator Cash's and Mr Tehan's program, isn't able to be done until later this afternoon. Now we have been trying since early yesterday morning to offer those briefings so that you can be provided—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>When's the House sitting, Katy?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>because of the assertion that you made, that people didn't have to be released, with the information the government has. The government has acted in accordance with the legal advice that has been provided to us, and perhaps those opposite—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hughes</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>How outstanding was that advice! You didn't even have the legislation prepared.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, I know Senator Hughes can keep shouting at me, but perhaps she should read the statement that's just been tabled by the Attorney-General, which provides some further information on that. But we have been trying to provide those briefings to the opposition. One may suspect that they don't want to be provided with that, because it would actually change their narrative.</para>
<para>We have acted in accordance with the law, with the advice that was given to the government, and, since that time, we have been working around the clock. There has been a taskforce established by ABF and the AFP.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Gallagher</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I hear Senator Hughes besmirching the taskforce that is being managed by the AFP and the ABF, who have operational responsibility for the implementation of the monitoring of this cohort.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Minister, please resume your seat. Order on my left. Senator Hughes, your constant interjections are disorderly and disrespectful. I'm asking you, I'm requesting you, I'm ordering you to listen in silence. Minister Gallagher, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>So I would urge those opposite to actually read the statement provided by the Attorney-General. We have a taskforce that was established; we've been working with state and territory police; and we have been working around the clock to put in place protections, including at the point of release into the community, and since then, whether it be legislation or further amendments to that legislation. We have been providing the option for briefings for the opposition. Unfortunately, Senator Paterson, with portfolio responsibility, isn't here. I don't believe—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Scarr?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order: reflection on the absence of a member.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll remind Senator Gallagher that we don't reflect in this chamber on whether shadows are, or anyone is, available or not available. Please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm happy to follow your ruling on that, but Senator Paterson isn't available to be briefed on this bill, and we are, again, engaging with the opposition to provide those briefings. Unfortunately, the legal briefing, which we have been seeking to provide to the opposition, isn't able to be done until after four o'clock today, but, once that has been done—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>When is the House next sitting, Katy?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, the House of Reps is sitting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Bring it on.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We are happy to bring it on. We have been ready. We have been waiting for the agreement from the opposition, and the opposition have not provided that and have sought further briefings, which are happening later this afternoon.</para>
<para>But this government has been working tirelessly. Those ministers have been working tirelessly. I have been working with them. They have been working around the clock. They have been thrown a complex and challenging situation, which we have responded to, with terms on visas, with legislation that has already passed and with further legislation that will pass this parliament this week. That has been done in a matter of weeks.</para>
<para>Many of these people, when you were in government for nine years, sat in immigration detention with no pathway out—not one attempt to relocate or negotiate an outcome for those. That is the situation we've inherited. The court has found that that law is wrong, and we have been responding to it.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Greens will not be supporting this motion. To say that the Senate has some particularly important matters to consider today would be absolutely understating the importance of the business that we all know is before the Senate today. With regard to what is actually happening here, let's be very clear about one thing: a race to the bottom on refugee policy—a race to the bottom on immigration detention policy—in Australia is something that we have seen time after time after time in this country over the last 25-odd years, since the <inline font-style="italic">Tampa</inline> arrived and that was politicised so utterly disgracefully by—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKim, please resume your seat. I should not have to constantly sit a senator down. They have the right to be heard in silence. If you wish to make a contribution, seek the call, otherwise sit in silence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I was saying, we've all seen this story before. We've seen it time after time after time since the <inline font-style="italic">Tampa</inline> arrived and that was so disgracefully politicised by then Prime Minister Mr Howard.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKim, please resume your seat. Senator Hughes, I have lost count of the number of times I have had to call you to order. The minute Senator McKim got on his feet, you started to interject again. It is disorderly.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hughes</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm defending the rights of the South Australian woman assaulted. Maybe they don't!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Don't argue. You're not in an argument with me, Senator Hughes.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hughes, you are not in an argument with me. You are to sit there quietly and not interject.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I was saying, we've all seen this story time after time. There is a dark thread that runs through the politics of both major parties in this country, and that dark thread has resulted in death and in refugees and people seeking asylum being brutalised and demonised in immigration detention, both on Manus Island and Nauru and here onshore in Australia. We know this story because we have seen it time after time and seen the rampant politicisation of the issue by the party that now sits in opposition. In Australia, the News Corp media is coming in behind that party, magnifying their fake, confected emergencies with regard to refugees and people seeking asylum and magnifying the demonisation of refugees and people seeking asylum. Then the Labor Party is rolling over and capitulating to the Liberals and to the Murdoch media.</para>
<para>That is exactly what has happened over the past few weeks with regard to the government's response to the recent High Court decision that effectively ruled that indefinite immigration detention is unlawful in Australia, and that is what we are seeing played out here today. I've got some advice for the government: stop letting Mr Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, write your policy on refugees, people seeking asylum and immigration detention, because we all know the dark path that that will lead this country down. It's about time that we collectively stood up for human rights, for proper process, for the rule of law and for the separation of powers in this country. It's about time that we legislated like grown-ups in this place, where we carefully consider our response to things like High Court decisions, not legislate in a shoddy, xenophobic, panicked way because the Labor Party is too weak and cowardly to stand up to Mr Dutton's agenda.</para>
<para>That is what is going on at the moment. That is what is going on in this debate. I predict that that's what's going to go on over the next 48 hours in this place. If there is one thing we know about Mr Dutton, it's that he has built a career on demonising refugees and people seeking asylum and he's not going to stop now. My last piece of advice to the Labor Party is this: when you appease someone like Mr Dutton, they will simply take everything you give them, take another giant step over to the Right and go again. That's what's going to happen, and it needs to stop.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Talk about excuses coming from the Leader of the Government in the Senate at the moment, Senator Gallagher, who is sitting there. Wow, what excuses. You have one responsibility as a government—to keep Australians safe—and you have failed miserably. You talk about legal briefings. Well, guess what? We were in negotiations for a legal briefing. The situation we are currently in is, for the record, a direct result of the draconian conditions around the provision of the advice in hard copy only. Guess where the shadow minister is? In his electorate. And guess what? They have said he's got to go to the CPO, which is a 3½ hour drive to actually access the advice. The Attorney-General of Australia will not leave the closeted conditions of his office or have someone drive out and give our shadow minister a copy of the advice.</para>
<para>We were conducting these negotiations, Senator Gallagher—through you, Chair—in good faith, but, with what you've put on the record today, clearly the government wants to only play political games and nothing more, and that is an absolute disgrace. The relevant shadow minister has been told that unless he drives 3½ hours—because apparently technology doesn't assist—the department can't actually get the advice to him in a confidential manner. We were negotiating with this government in good faith. We'd had one briefing yesterday morning on this, and we were negotiating with this government in good faith. But clearly that good faith has been thrown out the window this morning because you want to play political games.</para>
<para>Then, of course, we have the statement this morning from the Attorney-General of Australia. You have to be kidding me. Let's be clear on what this statement doesn't do. There is nothing in this statement that addresses the fundamental issue that the release of every single one of the 148 detainees was a government decision. Despite what they want to say, it was a decision based on an assessment made by the government of what the High Court had said in its NZYQ decision and a decision based on an assessment by the government in advance of the High Court's statement of reasons. The Attorney-General; the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs; and the Minister for Home Affairs have now resorted to this, and it really is pathetic—seriously. Honestly, someone doing work experience in the Attorney-General's office could have drafted this. It is that pathetic of a statement—to cover their own inadequacies in this regard. Instead of resorting to this kind of petulant rubbish, quite frankly they should be standing in front of the cameras today and apologising to the Australian people for the mess that they have now got Australians in.</para>
<para>Let's have a look at the front pages across Australia today.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, it's a prop—no holding it up.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Reynolds</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Read them!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll read them then. That's even better. The <inline font-style="italic">Daily Telegraph</inline> says 'Freed detainees in alleged assault, drugs charge', and 'asylum creepers'. Guess what? It gets worse when you read what the judge said in 2016, when sentencing one of the released detainees that this government—the Albanese government—has released into the community. The judge said, in 2016, during his sentencing, that this man was 'a danger to the Australian community' and, what is worse, 'an ongoing risk to women'. You have to be kidding me. They have now freed detainees on alleged assault and drugs charges. Then we have the front page of the <inline font-style="italic">Advertiser</inline> of 'Freed fiend on sex charge'. Then we have—let's go through it—the <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline>headline 'Human catastrophe: detainee sex charges'. We can keep going through today's papers. The front page of the <inline font-style="italic">Herald Sun</inline>is 'How could you let this happen?' I'll tell you that that is a very good question. It's sheer incompetence and nothing more. Then, of course, you have the <inline font-style="italic">West Australian</inline> newspaper today—Anthony DeCeglie is the editor—with the headline that says it all, 'Everything is f-"space"-c-k-e-d'. That's about the only thing you can say about this government at the moment. Anthony De Ceglie, editor of the <inline font-style="italic">West Australian</inline>, you've got it right.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The shadow Attorney-General says that they want to negotiate in good faith. The shadow Attorney-General says that the government should stop playing political games. Well, I say: look at what they have done and how they have behaved and reach your own assessment of whether this crowd is capable—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ayres—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>of seeing the national interest—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ayres, please resume your seat. I would like you to reflect, on the left, that, when Senator Cash stood up and made her contribution, you were heard in silence. Senator Ayres is now on his feet and—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Reynolds</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's because there's no-one over there.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Reynolds and Senator O'Sullivan—he is to be heard in silence. Senator Ayres.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>whether they are capable of putting the national interest first, whether they are capable of seeing any issue in any other way than what is in their narrow, immediate, partisan interests. And they are not capable. They are not capable of silence in this debate because they can't restrain themselves. They cannot restrain themselves.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hughes.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hughes, in particular—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ayres, please resume your seat. Senator O'Sullivan, you are being incredibly disorderly. You're not at a football match. I saw what you did. I'm asking you to listen in silence. Senator Ayres.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Each of them is incapable of seeing the national interest first. And that is what the government has done. The Leader of the Opposition says, and the shadow Attorney-General says, that these people should not have been released. What do they seriously say—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is what we said! The man who sexually assaulted a woman in South Australia should not have been released.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>that the government should not have followed the law?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ayres—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is precisely—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ayres! Resume your seat. Once again, I remind those on my left to listen in silence. Senator Ayres.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is precisely what the government has done, and urging the government—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It was sexual assault.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ayres, please resume your seat. I'm not sure who that was. I think it was Senator Reynolds—Senator McKenzie. Apologies, Senator Reynolds. I have just called the chamber to order. You are being disrespectful. Senator Ayres.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And that is precisely what the government has done. Urging the government to do anything else but follow the law, legislate carefully and use the two weeks that has been available to us, all the way up until Thursday, to make sure that the legislative framework is right—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator Reynolds.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>just shows that this lot is unfit for the job that they seek, unfit for even the offices that they hold in opposition, let alone any other aspiration that may cloud their entitled, smug minds, in terms of the way that they approach this question.</para>
<para>Now, on this cohort of people, the government's approach in the court was absolutely clear. It was not the government's view that the law should change. The government sought an approach, in the government's approach before the High Court, that would have seen not only NZYQ continue to be in detention but also the rest of this cohort.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I just have to respond—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We must, unlike some tin-pot dictatorship, follow the rulings of the High Court. That is fundamental to the Australian operation of law.</para>
<para>And I have to reflect for a moment on Senator McKim's contribution as well. It is not right to conflate broader issues of migration and of the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers with this issue. This is a cohort who have committed offences—some of them are very serious offences—and the approach of the government will be to ensure community safety. That's what we will do. It is a big mistake, in my view, for people on either side of this argument to try and conflate these. It serves the interests of some on the extremes of either side of Australian politics, but it is not in the national interest to conflate these issues.</para>
<para>As to Mr Dutton's history on this question and the opposition's history on this question—if only people we were made more secure by shouting! If only people were made more secure by tough talk.</para>
<para>You know what we need in this situation? We need precision. We need deliberation. We need cold calculations about what is in the national interest. We need to develop an approach to the law that is consistent with the national interest. None of that has been displayed by those opposite, who have just shouted and bellowed and talked tough and come up with nothing that is in the national interest. I look forward to seeing your conduct this week, when it really counts, as we legislate our way through this set of challenges. I look forward to seeing whether you're actually capable of acting in the national interest. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I agree with Senator Cash that we should be keeping Australians safe. We've heard Senator Birmingham say that as well. That should be a primary focus for us in this chamber. But the way we do that matters and the way we talk about it matters. Here we are, after agreeing to a program yesterday, now having a debate on the proposed suspension. Yes, this is incredibly important. What we've seen happen in these two cases shouldn't have happened, and we have an obligation to deal with this. But where's the suspension of standing orders for the 60 Australian women and children that have been murdered this year? We talk about keeping Australians safe. Where's the urgency around that? Yes, the new government has done work on coercive control, with the new plan to end violence against women and children, and I give them credit for that.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Reynolds</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're the one who got the cashless debit card out.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>But if we're serious—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just a moment. Senator Pocock, please resume your seat. Senator Reynolds, again, I've called your name a number of times today. When I call 'Order!' in the chamber, it does apply to you. I should not have to name you. Senator Pocock has the right to be heard in silence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para> I wasn't sure why talking about taking violence against women seriously should elicit interjections like that. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the suspension motion as moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [10:06]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>27</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Antic, A.</name>
                <name>Askew, W.</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>Birmingham, S. J.</name>
                <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>30</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>Lines, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>6470</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>6470</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6995" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>6470</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the coalition, I rise to speak on the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023. The coalition welcomes debate on this long-awaited bill. This was part of the government's election commitments. A review into Infrastructure Australia was conducted. The report landed on Minister King's desk in October last year and, like everything else that lands on Minister King's desk, it sat there for a very, very long time. The government talked a big game about transparency and accountability in the infrastructure pipeline, but we've seen the decisions this government made in its October budget last year: billions of dollars cut from road, rail and dam projects right throughout the country, and the 200-day 'short, sharp review' into the infrastructure pipeline, which again sees projects cut and delayed across the country in our congested suburbs and regional centres. Everything this government does when it comes to infrastructure means cuts or delays.</para>
<para>It is with great pleasure that I speak on this bill. The coalition has been wanting to debate this bill for months. The government tried to put this into part of the guillotine motion for the end of the week. Guess what! Catherine King doesn't want us to talk about her cuts and delays or how to be more accountable and transparent with the billions of dollars that Commonwealth taxpayers put into—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie, please resume your seat. Senator Urquhart?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Urquhart</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd ask that the senator opposite refer to those in the other place by their correct title.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pretty sure her name is Catherine King, but if you want me to say 'minister' as well—Minister Catherine King doesn't want us to be debating accountability and transparency and doesn't want us talking about this government's plan to bring in 1½ million additional arrivals while simultaneously cutting road and rail projects in our congested suburbs in our capital cities, making it harder for Australians to get home quickly and safely. If you want to know why we bother having an infrastructure pipeline, it is so that Australians have the roads they need to get home swiftly and safely, it is so that out in the regions we have a road network that allows us to get our fabulous product to ports, to capital cities and to markets around the world, and it is so that our truckies can travel on roads that are safe.</para>
<para>The government has long delayed debate in this chamber on this bill, dropping it down the bills list each and every week, ensuring it didn't get debated, and then it ended up being part of the guillotine. But I'd like to thank the Greens for supporting the debate this morning. What has the government got to hide? The purpose of this bill is to amend the Infrastructure Australia Act to give partial effect to the government's response to the independent review of Infrastructure Australia, which was released in December last year. I say 'partial' because the review actually recommended a whole raft of changes that the government has decided not to take up. Why? Why don't they want to take up those recommendations? I would suggest it's because the review sought to increase the transparency and accountability to government from Infrastructure Australia, and that's exactly what this minister and this government don't want to see happen.</para>
<para>The coalition will be supporting the passage of this legislation with key amendments. We want to help the government to improve Infrastructure Australia's ability to inform government on national infrastructure priorities and to help inform public debate. Without our amendments and those of other senators, the bill as proposed by the government doesn't go far enough to provide that transparency regarding the nation's infrastructure needs or government priorities. The coalition looks forward to debate on other amendments before the Senate that will enhance transparency and scrutiny.</para>
<para>I acknowledge the minister's assistance in facilitating a briefing with the department on the bill when it was first introduced to the parliament and for having respectful discussions about the coalition's proposed amendments. I look forward to the government's support for our amendments during the consideration in detail in the committee stage. I also acknowledge the constructive conversations with other senators and with the member for Ryan, the Greens spokesman on infrastructure. I'd also like to acknowledge the contributions to this debate during the debate in the other place.</para>
<para>The independent review was undertaken by Nicole Lockwood and Mike Mrdak, the former secretary of the department. Infrastructure Australia is a corporate Commonwealth entity established by the Rudd government in 2008. It is actually a creation of the current Prime Minister. Infrastructure Australia is the brainchild of Anthony Albanese, and he does not, it seems, want to take on all the recommendations from the independent review. I'm hoping the chamber today can assist the government to make this bill better.</para>
<para>Recommendation 6 of the review suggested Infrastructure Australia's remit be expanded to include social infrastructure. These recommendations were rejected by the government. These are significant recommendations given the infrastructure investment priorities of the Albanese government over the past year. The only significant announcements and commitments into infrastructure since the election have been music and sporting stadiums by the government, and yet, by not supporting the review's recommendations that social infrastructure be part of the remit of Infrastructure Australia, they've explicitly ruled out stadiums and music venues. Billions of dollars of spending in Queensland and in Tasmania for the commitments they've made in those areas won't be subject to examination by Infrastructure Australia. Labor's focus is on stadiums at a time when the national government should be focused on enhancing national productivity to strengthen the economy. The bill repeals almost all of the current functions of Infrastructure Australia provided in sections 5(a) to 5(gb) and in sections 5A to 5C of the current act. In place of Infrastructure Australia's current functions the bill proposes a series of new functions and products to conduct audits or assessments of nationally significant infrastructure determined adequacy and needs, conduct or endorse evaluations of infrastructure projects, develop targeted infrastructure lists and plans and provide advice on nationally significant infrastructure matters.</para>
<para>The review received 59 submissions, held 40 meetings and included approximately 140 participants across government and industry. In October, that review was provided to the government with 16 recommendations and, in particular, the government didn't support the key recommendations to provide enhanced transparency that they promised at the last election. For example, recommended in part 4 of the review was the proposal that Infrastructure Australia provide two new annual statements to the government, which would be publicly tabled, to inform the budget processes and report on the performance of outcomes being achieved by the infrastructure investment program so that the public could actually be assured that the infrastructure spend was being delivered in a way that they assumed was occurring and so that the government would be publicly accountable for the performance. The coalition will be moving an amendment to give effect to recommendation 4 of the review. If supported, the annual statements will provide valuable annual assessments of the effectiveness of the national infrastructure investment into enhancing national productivity as well as the effectiveness of the states and territories in delivering infrastructure projects.</para>
<para>The independent review also proposed that the Australian government must formally and publicly respond to Infrastructure Australia's advice, findings and recommendations within six months. This was not supported by the government. What have you got to hide? If Infrastructure Australia—as the brainchild of the current Prime Minister when he was infrastructure minister—isn't the place to give you advice and for you to publicly respond to that advice, to either accept it or reject it, why shouldn't the public know your views as the government? The Australian people can clearly see then that this administration has an aversion to being transparent.</para>
<para>The government didn't support the recommendation to form an infrastructure bodies council to enable better collaboration and cooperation between Infrastructure Australia and the states and territories, and that's exactly what the IMF recommended in their advice—that there needs to be greater collaboration and coordination between state and territories infrastructure priorities and builds and the Commonwealth's investment. The IMF never recommended that our infrastructure pipeline be cut and slashed, as Minister King has done over recent weeks, but rather that better collaboration be part of the solution. That also was a recommendation rejected by the government from their own independent review.</para>
<para>By replacing the 12-member Infrastructure Australia board with three commissioners, the government is automatically reducing the diversity of expertise at the head of this body. It reduces its independence from government; the views of the minister will hold significant influence within those three commissioners, as direct appointees, and this compares with the current governance arrangements whereby nine infrastructure board members are appointed by the government and three are appointed by recommendations from states and territories. When added to the redefined functions of Infrastructure Australia in this bill, which require the commissioners to have regard to government policies and require them to evaluate infrastructure proposals submitted by the government, it is clear that Infrastructure Australia will enjoy far less independence under Anthony Albanese than it did under the previous coalition government. There is concern that these changes will result in a loss of industry expertise as well as expertise and experience in actually delivering infrastructure projects, particularly in the regions.</para>
<para>The government made no provision to appoint commissioners who have expertise or experience in issues impacting on regional Australia. Given the importance of our infrastructure build to the regions, to our export task and to the safety of the nine million of us who don't live in capital cities, I think the fact that the government was prepared to accept that we could have diversity in the commissioners around gender but not around geography really shows the deficit approach from this government in ensuring that all Australians enjoy coverage in the type of legislation, the type of arrangements and the type of governance mechanisms it sets up. The Prime Minister promised to govern for all Australians, but those of us that live out in rural and regional Australia feel more and more left behind. The coalition will propose amendments to address this concern, and I encourage the government and all senators to consider supporting these.</para>
<para>In addition to making Infrastructure Australia less independent, the government's reforms will make Infrastructure Australia less authoritative—particularly when it comes to the evaluation of infrastructure projects. Firstly, the minister has made it clear that the government wants to shrink the number of projects on the infrastructure priority list; this is mentioned in the EM. Recently, we saw the government cancel $7.4 billion worth of critical infrastructure projects as a result of their review into the infrastructure pipeline. There were 50 projects axed right across Australia. Further, the government proposes that Infrastructure Australia merely endorses project assessments submitted by state and territory governments. This is the government walking away from providing independent oversight and assessment of the priorities of state governments. It's as if that's just a tick and flick by Labor's Infrastructure Australia body for the priorities of state governments.</para>
<para>The Commonwealth makes a substantial investment in public infrastructure, often investing 50 per cent—or, in regional areas, up to 80 per cent—of the cost of projects that are rolled out. That is a significant amount of money and it deserves a significant say. Australian taxpayers expect the Commonwealth parliament to exercise suitable oversight on that, so that infrastructure projects deliver material benefit and maximum value for investment is secured. This should be an important role for Infrastructure Australia, but will the organisation's ability to provide advice on this be diminished by the requirement in this bill that it endorse the state assessments instead of being required to run an independent ruler over the homework of state and territory governments? We can look at my home state of Victoria, at the pathetic proposal of the Suburban Rail Loop and the lack of rigour around that particular project. It will have the Commonwealth and state governments on the hook for in excess of $125 billion at current costings, and that seems a little remiss.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, the government has not demonstrated any urgency in progressing this legislation. The federal coalition aims to assist the government by passing this legislation with amendments, despite our concerns that this bill will result in an Infrastructure Australia having less independence and less authority. Working together, I'm confident that we will support sensible amendments which are designed to ensure that commissioners have experience in delivering infrastructure in the regions and in delivering improved transparency for nationally significant infrastructure investments, including social infrastructure. On this basis, the legislation should pass this week and Infrastructure Australia will commence in the new year with its new mandate.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023. I want to support what Senator McKenzie was saying, that we'll work constructively with the government to get, hopefully, some amendments through.</para>
<para>This bill represents, at a minimum, a partial repudiation of the organisation's functions and governance structures. Back in 2008, the now Prime Minister, when he was minister for infrastructure under the Rudd government—the failed Rudd government—established Infrastructure Australia. I want to quote from Mr Albanese, the Prime Minister of Australia, when he was infrastructure minister and setting up Infrastructure Australia:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… replacing neglect, buck-passing and pork-barrelling with long-term planning where governments predict and anticipate infrastructure needs and demands, not merely react to them.</para></quote>
<para>Under the changes proposed under this bill, Infrastructure Australia will be a less influential body under the Labor government than when the Prime Minister first envisaged it when he was the minister responsible for infrastructure 15 years ago.</para>
<para>This bill repeals most of the current functions of Infrastructure Australia and proposes a series of new functions. Irrespective of this review into Infrastructure Australia, it's crystal clear that infrastructure is not a priority of this government. In the May budget, there wasn't one mention of the word 'infrastructure' in the Treasurer's budget speech. The government appears to have problems in saying the word 'infrastructure'. They can't even say it! It's just like the other word that they can't bring themselves to say: productivity. There's no mention of infrastructure and there's certainly very little mention by this government of productivity. They aren't doing anything to aid productivity—in fact, this government's agenda is impinging upon productivity. This is ironic, given the fundamental importance of both in advancing the nation's prosperity.</para>
<para>On this side of the chamber, we know that infrastructure drives efficiency, supports our economy, improves productivity and delivers safety improvements for our community. When in opposition, Labor talked a big game on transparency—a big game! But, in government, it's been anything but transparent. Whether it's about the Mobile Black Spot Program or, more recently, about operating a protection racket for the airline industry or stifling aviation competition, it has been evident that this government is severely lacking in transparency. So it's hardly surprising that the reform in this bill will make Infrastructure Australia even less independent. Will the government seek to appoint union officials to Infrastructure Australia? Probably—that's what they do. We see it all over the place. That's what they do; they stack it out.</para>
<para>But why are infrastructure and productivity important? And why is it that the government can't bring themselves to say the 'I' word and the 'P' word? Why can't they? The recent <inline font-style="italic">Intergenerational report</inline> highlights the nexus between infrastructure and productivity. Those over there, the government, might want to listen to this because this is important. Even the <inline font-style="italic">Intergenerational report</inline> highlighted the importance of both. It said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Infrastructure is important for supporting socio-economic development as the population grows. It enables economic and productivity growth by reducing congestion and allowing goods and people to move quickly and efficiently around the country and internationally.</para></quote>
<para>So where does all this leave much-needed projects in my community—projects like the Nicholson Road and Garden Street upgrade in the seats of Tangney and Burt? It's right there on the border of those two very important electorates in Western Australia. I'll quote Infrastructure Australia's own website, which says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Perth is experiencing worsening road congestion. The 2019 Australian Infrastructure Audit estimated that congestion in Perth will cost $3.1 billion per annum in 2031.</para></quote>
<para>In March this year I spoke about this vital infrastructure project that's in my patron seats of Tangney and Burt and that's at serious risk of being cut or delayed by the Albanese Labor government. The roundabout on Nicholson Road and Garden Street is a significant bottleneck hotspot in Perth. The traffic congestion caused by the bottlenecks in and around this intersection significantly impacts on freight getting through and into Canning Vale and other parts of the electorate and on people getting to their job and then to their home every day. Quite simply, it negatively impacts on productivity, which, under this government, is at a seven-year low—and it's doing very little about it.</para>
<para>The former coalition government, in its final budget, secured the funding to get this project going. I pay tribute to the former member for Tangney Ben Morton, who championed this project for a long time and got it locked into the budget. It was committed in the budget, yet this government has dithered on this project for so long. The then Labor opposition thankfully matched this funding, and the Western Australian Labor government also matched it; they committed to a fifty-fifty arrangement to ensure that this vital project—that's what Infrastructure Australia identified it as—would go ahead for the total cost of $80 million. It was a win-win for the community because, irrespective of which party was going to go on to win government, this project would get done—it would happen. But, since then, this project has been wholly mishandled and bungled by the government from the time that they took office. This project, which has already been delayed since the October budget, is an example of the critical community infrastructure projects that are at risk of being further postponed by that ridiculous 90-day review that turned into a 200-plus-day review. Delays beget delays, and that's what we're seeing with this government.</para>
<para>Since I spoke about it March, I have visited this intersection—I travel through it all the time because my parents literally just live about 500 metres from there—in my capacity as a senator for Western Australia. I've gone there and met with people. I met with Senator McKenzie. We went down and had a look at this intersection, and Senator McKenzie saw firsthand the significant congestion and the danger that's caused as people get in and out of that intersection. It's a dangerous intersection. It's a Black Spot Program intersection in Perth, and people know it's dangerous. And families going through there are put at risk every time. Disappointingly, but unsurprisingly, zero progress has occurred. There's been absolutely nothing, except you just see some sand tumbling over the area from across the road, where you've got the future Nicholson Road train station that's getting built. Again, there are delays involved in that project, too. But that's a state government issue.</para>
<para>It was evident last year that this project would be delayed, as the Albanese government cut $3.5 million from the October budget. Planning works for this project should have begun in the second half of last year, but, in estimates just a few week ago, I asked the infrastructure department about this project. They had to shuffle through their books, and that's fair enough, as there are many projects going on around the place. But eventually they found the project in amongst their briefing papers, and they told me that nothing's occurred and there's been no planning. They just sought to blame Main Roads Western Australia. It's a good organisation, but, nonetheless, because no leadership has been provided by this government, this project's just sat idle for too long. There was the 90-day review, which ended up being 200-day review. It just further delays these things. It's absolutely disappointing because this is a vital project for this area.</para>
<para>The government is missing in action, just like the hapless state Labor government is missing in action. Their delivery of projects since they were elected eight or more years ago is dismal. The only significant project they've managed to open—a project that has been delivered and completed—is the Forrestfield link, which is the new train line that goes out to the Perth Airport. But guess what? That actually started under the previous government, so even the WA Labor government have got nothing to show when it comes to infrastructure. And it's a shame because Western Australians are missing out.</para>
<para>Now, where is the member for Tangney and the member for Burt? Where's their advocacy on this issue? This is right on their boundary, and they should be working together. There are two of them. You don't just have to rely on one of the members to advocate for this project; they've got the benefit of having two of them advocating for this project. Where is Mr Keogh? Where is the minister, no less? He's got the ear of the Prime Minister. He should be right in there. He should be advocating for this project to hurry up and get ahead. Why is there no planning? I've met with the local council. I thought maybe they would know what's going on. They said, 'No, there's nothing happening here.' Now the government has said they're going to continue with this project, but, because of their delays, because of their inability to lead, this project is delayed even further. They've got to get onto it. This is an important project for the community, and they're failing.</para>
<para>I could rattle off projects right across the metropolitan areas, right across the country areas. One project that I know you'll give credit to, Acting Deputy President Sterle—they've shown some leadership on this—is the building of the new bridge at Fitzroy Crossing. It shows that, when you're serious about something, when you get the right proponents behind it, you can make it happen; you can do stuff quickly. That bridge is phenomenal. I know you've been there, Acting Deputy President. That bridge is a big area, and they've been able to build that thing quickly. It demonstrates that, if you show leadership, if you put the effort in, if you work with the community, you can get the results. So it's possible to do it, but they've demonstrated time and again that they're not serious about infrastructure.</para>
<para>I spoke earlier about the importance of it—that, if you link infrastructure with a need to addresses congestion and safety, you improve productivity. And boy do we need that right now! We need a lift in productivity in this nation, otherwise we're going keep chasing inflation. Wage rises are just going to be trying to keep up with the rising costs of delivering, but, if we get a productivity dividend, then we can actually get real wages moving. We can actually provide for Australians in a meaningful way, and that's what needs to happen. But this government, sadly, is asleep at the wheel. They've got to get on with it, and the only way that they can do that is to show some leadership and some action.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BROCKMAN</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>First of all, I'd like to congratulate Senator O'Sullivan for his very fine words reflecting on our home state of Western Australia and the severe problems with infrastructure that we do have there. The fact is Western Australia is still a growing state, delivering not just for the economy of WA but for Australia. The fact is the Labor government, when it crows about its surplus, is really crowing about the impact of the revenues particularly from my home state of Western Australia when it comes to the iron ore and oil and gas industries that have delivered rivers of gold into both federal and state coffers for generations now.</para>
<para>We require a big and sustained infrastructure spend to allow for that growth to continue, to allow Western Australia to be its best. And what do we get from this federal government, when it came into power? It sits on the hose. Supposedly, it was going to be for 90 days. It ended up being for over six months, wasn't it, Senator McKenzie? They put these items under review for 200 days. That delay, in a high inflationary environment, when so many projects were effectively put on hold for six months, means those costs are never coming out of the pipeline now. Those costs are baked in. We're not going to see—well, hopefully we're not going to see; you never know with this government—a deflationary environment, so those extra costs that were baked into the infrastructure pipeline during that six months of delay are there forever. That means that not only will the projects that have seen cuts directly out of this infrastructure review suffer but all those other projects will suffer from increased costs due to delay. So we're going to see a pipeline shrunk over time as inflation eats up the capacity of Australia to build those projects, and we are going to see, particularly, my home state of Western Australia suffering.</para>
<para>Who is always the first cab off the rank to suffer under this Labor government? It's the bush; it's the regions. Let's look at the direct cuts that were made through this infrastructure review in WA. I've talked about these before and I'm only going to speak briefly, because we are under a guillotine here today. We are going to see this issue and many others chopped off at the knees without full debate. But I am going to go, very quickly, through those projects that were cut in my home state of WA and reflect on their locations: the Great Southern Secondary Freight Network, the Marble Bar Road upgrade, the Moorine Rock to Mount Holland road upgrades, and the Pinjarra Heavy Haulage Deviation, stage 1 and 2. I ask those in Western Australia listening: what do those projects all have in common? Guess what? They're not in Perth. Guess what? They're in the regions. Now is anyone at home listening along—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Brockman</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>  surprised by that, Senator Pratt? Of course they're not surprised by that, because they know that both the state and federal Labor governments hate regional Western Australia. There've been cuts to regional representation, cuts to regional infrastructure spending and so many attacks on the bush that I'm not going to list them all here today. It's sustained, it's real, people know it and are paying attention to it. And it's not just those in the bush that know, recognise and realise what Labor is doing to the regions; those in the city have started to pay attention as well, and they are starting to look at what's happening to the regions and reflect on the fact that those wealth-generating components of the West Australian economy—be it the mining sector in the north, the oil and gas sector in the north or the agricultural sector north-east and south-west of Perth—are the ones who are suffering under state and federal Labor governments who don't give a damn about the bush.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank senators for their contributions to the debate on the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023. Infrastructure Australia was created by Labor to provide expert advice to government regarding infrastructure priorities across the nation. Under the Liberals and Nationals, the organisation was left to drift, with partisan board appointments and a lack of clear direction. This is why, during the election campaign, Labor committed to an independent review of Infrastructure Australia.</para>
<para>On 22 July 2022, the government appointed Ms Lockwood and Mr Mike Mrdak AO to commence the review, and on 8 December that year the government released the report and the Australian government response. This bill will implement part of the government response to the independent review, to ensure IA is the independent adviser to the Australian government on nationally significant infrastructure investment. The bill provides Infrastructure Australia with a clear purpose and streamlined functions that align with the government's strategic infrastructure priorities. It will promote harmonisation of evaluation processes across jurisdictions and remove duplicative processes, acknowledging the existing assessment frameworks and capabilities of the states.</para>
<para>The bill will also implement a new streamlined governance structure for IA, comprising three expert commissioners in place of the board. An updated statement of expectations will also be issued, to provide IA with guidance on implementing most of the remaining recommendations of the independent review.</para>
<para>The bill introduces a new object to the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 that identifies Infrastructure Australia's mandate as the Commonwealth government's independent adviser on nationally significant infrastructure investment planning and project prioritisation. Infrastructure Australia's functions and product suite will be more focused, including developing a smaller, more targeted infrastructure priority list that prioritises nationally significant infrastructure proposals for consideration by the federal government.</para>
<para>The bill will help reduce duplication with the states and territories by requiring IA to develop a nationally consistent framework for evaluating infrastructure proposals and enabling Infrastructure Australia to endorse project evaluations conducted by state and territory governments. The bill will identify that Infrastructure Australia's functions are to be guided by the Australian government's infrastructure investment objectives and strategic priorities, which may be directed in a public statement.</para>
<para>Infrastructure Australia will be governed by three commissioners, including a chief commissioner and a chief executive officer. The commissioners will be the accountable authority and will be appointed by the responsible minister based on their expertise, skills, experience and knowledge; gender; and geographical representation. The CEO is appointed by the commissioners. Along with a new provision to undertake inquiries into matters relating to nationally significant infrastructure, the commissioners will be able to examine and report on the complex ecosystem for nationally significant infrastructure in an integrated way.</para>
<para>The bill will ensure that Infrastructure Australia is empowered to carry out its role as an independent and expert adviser to the Australian government on nationally significant infrastructure needs and priorities, including investment in transport, water, communications and energy. It will refocus IA to provide important and strategic advice to the Australian government. Infrastructure Australia will provide relevant and timely expert advice to the Australian government on infrastructure, planning and project prioritisation that has appropriate regard to the government's infrastructure investment policies and objectives. The new governance model will ensure that Infrastructure Australia has the eminence, authority and standing to be a national leader and coordinator among infrastructure advisory bodies.</para>
<para>When Infrastructure Australia was established by the now Prime Minister, it was created in an apolitical way and led by an expert board headed by Sir Rod Eddington. Infrastructure Australia was created to take politics out of major projects and to create clear guidance on what government and industry need to invest in and when those investments should be made. The former Labor government listened to Infrastructure Australia and invested in every one of its priority projects. All of this changed under the previous government. They destroyed Infrastructure Australia as a major economic body and instead used it as a vehicle to give jobs to their mates. They ignored Infrastructure Australia's priority list and instead invested in imaginary car parks rather than major projects that would lay the foundations for the nation's future economic growth.</para>
<para>Government infrastructure investment decisions will be informed by independent expert advice from Infrastructure Australia. It's advice that will be more targeted to the government's needs by aligning Infrastructure Australia's mandate and product suite with the government's policy objectives. The changes made to the bill will require Infrastructure Australia to develop a more targeted product suite that has regard to the government's infrastructure investment policies and objectives. Changes to IA's governance arrangements and candidate selection process, along with the establishment of an advisory council, will increase the expertise and standing of Infrastructure Australia. Giving Infrastructure Australia a more central role in informing government decisions, such as through the budget process, ensures that Infrastructure Australia's work is more closely embedded into government processes, which has not been the case in recent times.</para>
<para>In terms of what the bill will do, it introduces a new object into the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 that identifies Infrastructure Australia's mandate as the Commonwealth government's independent adviser on nationally significant infrastructure investment, planning and project prioritisation. It will be more focused and will include smaller, more targeted infrastructure priority lists that prioritise nationally significant infrastructure investment proposals from Australian state and territory governments. The bill will enable Infrastructure Australia to endorse the work of state and territory infrastructure bodies' project evaluations, thus reducing duplication and uplifting jurisdictions to a nationally consistent approach. The bill will also identify that Infrastructure Australia's functions are to be guided by the Australian government's infrastructure investment objectives. IA will be governed by three commissioners and a CEO. The commissioners will be the accountable authority and will be appointed by the responsible minister, as I mentioned before. The bill will ensure that Infrastructure Australia is empowered to carry out its role as an independent adviser.</para>
<para>In summary, these changes will remove unnecessary processes and build on the strong relationships with states and territories, which will harmonise processes, leading to better advice and recommendations. Importantly, Infrastructure Australia will maintain its independence, ensuring that it continues to provide impartial advice to the Australian government, particularly on infrastructure project selection and prioritisation for investment in projects needed the most. The new governance model will ensure Infrastructure Australia has the eminence, authority and standing to be a national leader and coordinator amongst infrastructure advisory bodies. The three commissioners will collectively have strong and relevant expertise and be responsible for the delivery of Infrastructure Australia's functions. Whilst this bill implements the recommendations of the independent review of Infrastructure Australia requiring legislative changes, a new statement of expectations will be issued to Infrastructure Australia to implement the remaining recommendations of the review. Together these changes will re-establish Infrastructure Australia as the Commonwealth expert adviser on infrastructure of national significance. I would again like to thank senators for their constructive contributions in consideration of this bill. I commend the bill to the chamber.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>6476</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before the 2022 election, the current Prime Minister said the Labor government would refer matters to Infrastructure Australia before making commitments to nationally significant infrastructure. He actually said that in his budget-in-reply speech prior to becoming Prime Minister. Then, at the election and in the October 2022 budget, the government committed $2.2 billion to the Melbourne Suburban Rail Loop project. This was without a business case or any oversight or advice from Infrastructure Australia. This was an attempt to prop up his Labor mate Daniel Andrews ahead of the November 2022 Victorian election.</para>
<para>The Suburban Rail Loop has been widely criticised, not just by the Victorian Auditor-General but even by economists, such as Chris Richardson, and by <inline font-style="italic">7.30</inline> on the ABC last night. It is a project where the first stage, costing $35 billion, is currently unfunded but works by the Victorian government have commenced. The Victorian Auditor-General has been very critical of the project and just last week issued a report critical of cost blowouts. The Victorian Parliamentary Budget Office has suggested that the cost of the Suburban Rail Loop could be in excess of $125 billion. Other estimates have it reaching up to $200 billion, such as the estimate by respected economist Chris Richardson, who also said that if the Commonwealth is cancelling projects, as we've seen in the last couple of weeks, this is the 'biggest and baddest' and that it is the project he would have started with. If you're going to be cancelling infrastructure projects in this country, this is the project that Chris Richardson would have started with. The government, however, committed $2.2 billion to this project to get it started, despite knowing that the Victorian government would have to come back cap in hand to acquire another $9 billion to at least make its completion possible. Last night, on the ABC's <inline font-style="italic">7.30</inline> report experts, including the Grattan Institute, called for the program to be scrapped.</para>
<para>Despite these calls from Richardson, from the Grattan Institute, from auditors-general, from the public and from Labor premiers up and down the east coast, who would rather that projects in their home states hadn't been cancelled than that billions of dollars were funnelled into this soon-to-be white elephant, the Victorian government is looking to sign another $3 billion to $4 billion contract for construction, when we know what the IMF said about collaboration with states and territories. The Victorian government, as of October estimates, has still been withholding information from Infrastructure Australia about the Suburban Rail Loop project. Minister, under the government's reform of Infrastructure Australia, is it the government's intention that, instead of doing its own assessment of the Suburban Rail Loop, the agency would merely be endorsing the business case undertaken by the Victorian government agency?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator McKenzie. As you know, our financial commitment to Suburban Rail Loop was an election commitment, and that's one that we've been clear on wanting to deliver. We've said we're committed to delivering on all our election commitments. The minister has been clear that she expects the Victorian government to take the business case for Suburban Rail Loop to Infrastructure Australia for assessment. No further Commonwealth investment in this project will happen, but we are committed to delivering on our election commitment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The bill before the Senate seeks for Infrastructure Australia, rather than doing its own assessment, to endorse the assessments done on projects by state and territory governments. I just need clarification around your answer, because, prior to this bill getting here, Infrastructure Australia was going to do its own assessment. I'm just wondering if that will change. Will you be endorsing Victoria's assessment or conducting your own assessment?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The endorsement would be relevant for where a state has done the business case. In this case, it hasn't been done, so it would go to Infrastructure Australia directly.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister, for that clarification. Does that mean, then, that the $2.2 billion allocated in the October budget for this project is on hold until Infrastructure Australia has done that assessment? If so, if it is a negative assessment by Infrastructure Australia, will that $2.2 billion be returned to general revenue?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We're committed to delivering on our election commitment with regard to the Suburban Rail Loop. In terms of the hypotheticals that you're putting forward, I can't really answer a hypothetical.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I take it, then, that the $2.2 billion stands, irrespective of what Infrastructure Australia's assessment is of the Suburban Rail Loop.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We're committed to delivering on our election commitment. No further financial commitments would be made by the federal government until Infrastructure Australia has done an assessment. The minister has been clear on that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The <inline font-style="italic">I</inline><inline font-style="italic">ndependent review of Infrastructure Australia</inline> recommended that the government expand Infrastructure Australia powers to include social and economic infrastructure, and that includes things like sporting arenas, hospitals and parks. The government rejected that recommendation of the independent review. However, since you were elected, you have made significant billion-dollar commitments—upwards of $400 million in stadia and $2.5 billion towards the Olympic stadium and venues—that won't be subject to Infrastructure Australia's assessment. Meanwhile, you're cancelling and delaying critical road and rail projects. Why is the government opposed to Infrastructure Australia investigating and reviewing the business cases of nationally significant social infrastructure projects?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Consistent with the government's response to the <inline font-style="italic">I</inline><inline font-style="italic">ndependent review of Infrastructure Australia</inline>, the government considers that Infrastructure Australia's focus should be on nationally significant projects relating to transport, water, communications and energy infrastructure. From time to time, it may be appropriate for Infrastructure Australia to consider social infrastructure implications where it is part of a broader network analysis or place-based project advice. The government can request this work through the statement of expectations. We believe this approach minimises any duplication of the functions of regional and urban policies and programs within the government.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  But that's despite committing, as I said earlier, $2.5 billion—this is not chump change—of other people's money to the Brisbane live music arena, with its drop-in, drop-out pool for the Olympics—what a legacy project that is. They can't even decide where to have it, if you can believe the <inline font-style="italic">Courier Mail</inline>. They're debating where it's actually going to be stationed. It doesn't have a cost-benefit analysis. If not through Infrastructure Australia, which is what you're telling me, where is the government doing its assessment to assure taxpayers that the $2.5 billion for the Brisbane live music arena is money well spent?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are robust processes in place around the Olympic infrastructure investment through the intergovernmental agreement we have with the Queensland state government. As part of that, there will also be a joint business case around the Brisbane Live arena, so that work is underway.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We're doing a Senate inquiry into the intergovernmental agreement, and my question was about the fact that the Prime Minister made a commitment to Australians prior to the election that significant licks of cash—of their cash—that were going into infrastructure would be assessed by an independent body as to need and cost benefit. What I'm hearing the government say today is that $2.5 billion for the Brisbane Live arena won't be subject to that, nor will the $240 million for Macquarie Point Stadium in Tasmania. I note Senator Duniam is in the chamber and may have some questions of his own. Why is the government opposed to Infrastructure Australia investigating and reviewing the business cases of nationally significant social infrastructure such as these projects?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator McKenzie. The other thing I should point out is that the Greens have an amendment regarding social infrastructure that we will support as well, in terms of the expansion of IA's remit in that regard.</para>
<para>As I mentioned before, we have robust processes in place for how the government is funding working with the Queensland state government in terms of the intergovernmental agreement in regard to Olympic infrastructure. That is robust in nature, and we are absolutely determined to ensure that we deliver good value for money for Australian taxpayers with our investment in Olympic infrastructure.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I do note the Greens amendment and I am foreshadowing an amendment to their amendment so that it does actually capture the commitments this government has made since coming to power, because it seems that the deal you have done with the Greens ensures that your government doesn't have to put the Brisbane Live arena or the Macquarie $240 million through Infrastructure Australia; it actually carves those commitments out of being considered by Infrastructure Australia, as social infrastructure. Isn't this the case, Minister?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My understanding is the amendments are broad and could potentially capture such projects.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like a response, because my understanding of the amendment is that Infrastructure Australia won't be obligated to look at these particular projects, the commitments made between the election and the passing of this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That'd be a matter for Infrastructure Australia.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government recently announced $7.4 billion in cancelled infrastructure projects as a result of the 90-day infrastructure review that took 200 days. Fifty projects across Australia were cancelled, but the review conducted by former secretary Mike Mrdak recommended that 82 projects be cancelled. Minister King has refused to release the list of projects recommended for cancellation by Mr Mrdak's review. This raises serious questions as to whether the 50 projects the government has cancelled are actually the same projects that were recommended to be cancelled and whether there wasn't a little swiftie done in the minister's office between the projects recommended for cancellation by Mike Mrdak and those that were actually cancelled by the government. The fact that projects cancelled by the government include projects that were already under construction, which were meant to be out of scope of the independent review—projects such as the M7-M12 interchange in Western Sydney—adds further weight to the concerns of politicisation of the independent review's findings. Why won't the government be transparent and release the full list of projects recommended to be delivered?</para>
<para>We know that Mr Mrdak, in that review, did a full assessment of the full pipeline of projects not yet under construction. He recommended a number be cancelled. I know Mike Mrdak and I'm pretty sure he would've been quite specific about which projects needed to be cancelled. He recommended some projects be delayed and further work be undertaken before fully committing to them. He also recommended that some projects receive additional funding. Why won't the government release the lists that Mike Mrdak handed the minister so it can be transparent around the decisions taken by Minister King?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government considered the review and then worked with states and territories to agree on which projects should be priorities. The states provided confidential information on the basis it wouldn't be published. That's the reasoning behind the government decision.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The request of the Senate to Minister King—and I know Minister Watt will be addressing this later today in his appearance before the chamber—wasn't for those confidential discussions. I fully appreciate that they should stay confidential between the Commonwealth and the state. The request of the Senate was for the original lists. Minister King has released publicly and in full a number of independent reviews she has undertaken. There's the maritime strategic fleet review, the independent review of Inland Rail, the independent review of national partnership agreements—I could go on and on. She's been very transparent and released the whole report and the government response, yet on this one she's refused. I'm not interested in the private negotiations between Commonwealth and state. I am interested in the full independent review and, in particular, the list of projects that the government was handed by the independent reviewers.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I can't really add to my previous answer, Senator McKenzie, which is that the states provided confidential information on the basis that it wouldn't be published. That's the reasoning for the government decision. The reviewers also recommended not releasing the full review that they undertook.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With regard to the Macquarie Point stadium that the Labor government have committed to, I just want to get clear, based on the interchange I've heard thus far, that that project is not going to be subject to any review by Infrastructure Australia; is that correct?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It would be a matter for Infrastructure Australia.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The legislation doesn't instruct or direct Infrastructure Australia to review these projects. It is at the discretion of Infrastructure Australia as to whether this project is caught up in their assessments and reviews.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a matter for Infrastructure Australia.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Is there any capacity for the government to direct Infrastructure Australia to review, assess or analyse the business case for that project?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The ability of the government would be through the statement of expectations.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What does the statement of expectations say in relation to the Macquarie Point precinct redevelopment?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There will be a new statement of expectations.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When will that statement of expectations be available?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As soon as practicable.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the minister able to give us a bit of a rough time line? And, in answering that question, perhaps the minister may be able to let the Senate know whether a business case has been received from the Tasmanian government around the proposed expenditure of the $240 million?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Duniam. As you would be aware, the Tasmanian government released a business case publicly. In terms of the statement of expectations, I will try to come back to you with something more precise.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, there are 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines as part of your energy transition. I assume, given the remit of this bill, that they're going to be within the remit of Infrastructure Australia. Can you confirm that the public aspect of the $328 billion of energy transition infrastructure will be assessed by Infrastructure Australia? Obviously, it's just the public aspect of that; there'll be private investment there as well. But can you assure the Senate that Infrastructure Australia will assess the energy transition infrastructure in coming years?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator McKenzie. That would be a matter if a business case were submitted to IA for assessment. It would be considered then.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry, Minister, my understanding was that if we're adding social infrastructure, that includes to the existing remit of Infrastructure Australia—which is transport, energy, water and communications infrastructure. Who would submit the business cases to Infrastructure Australia on behalf of the government when it comes to the energy transition and the hundreds of billions of dollars that's going to cost over the next eight years?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator McKenzie. Commonwealth entities or state government entities can submit business cases for Infrastructure Australia to assess.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, given the amount of taxpayer money that's going to be involved in the energy transition, and given that the remit of Infrastructure Australia is to assess that on behalf of taxpayers—seemingly independently—will the Commonwealth be required to submit to Infrastructure Australia or will this be a choice for Mr Bowen?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My understanding, Senator McKenzie, is that Infrastructure Australia couldn't compel someone to submit a business case with regard to this. Obviously, there are other processes that would be in place between the federal and state governments as well which would be relevant to some of the matters you've talked about.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Why doesn't the government want to ensure the Melbourne Suburban Rail Loop, the Brisbane Live arena and the 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines are actually captured by Infrastructure Australia? The deal you've done with the Greens on social infrastructure today means that those significant infrastructure projects—in the billions and billions of dollars of taxpayer money—will have no independent oversight, will not have the ruler run over them by Infrastructure Australia, as was promised by the Prime Minister when he was the Leader of the Opposition seeking to hold government. Why are you explicitly seeking to rule out looking at the Macquarie Harbour project, the Brisbane Live arena and the Melbourne Suburban Rail Loop? What have you got to hide?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I completely refute the assertions that you've made there. The government has robust processes in place. I know you're obsessed with the Suburban Rail Loop. I thought that, when Dan Andrews retired, it might have meant you'd find a new hobby horse. Infrastructure Australia have said that outer suburban transport in Melbourne is a priority. As we said, there would be no further investment from the federal government until that is done. We made an election commitment with regard to the Suburban Rail Loop. We're determined to deliver on it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move the opposition amendment on sheet 1981:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 7 (after line 29), after section 5D, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5D B Functions — annual statements</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Infrastructure Australia must, during each financial year, prepare and give to the Minister the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an annual budget statement to inform the annual Commonwealth budget process on infrastructure investment; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) an annual performance statement on the performance outcomes being achieved by States, Territories and local government authorities in relation to the infrastructure investment program and existing project initiatives funded by the Commonwealth.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Infrastructure Australia must cause each annual statement to be:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) tabled in both Houses of the Parliament no later than 14 days prior to the scheduled public release of the annual Commonwealth budget each year; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) published on Infrastructure Australia's website as soon as practicable after the annual statement is tabled in the Parliament.</para></quote>
<para>This amendment actually goes to ensuring that the government tables annual reports. It'll result in significant change and public accountability, which Infrastructure Australia needs to subject itself to. It was an actual recommendation from the review that the government has refused to adopt. And so, in the principle of us assisting Minister King to be the minister she should be, if an independent review recommends a certain pathway forward to increase transparency and accountability, we're going to help the government be their best selves when it comes to this.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I indicate that the government will be supporting this amendment.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move the opposition amendment on sheet 1980:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 22, page 12 (after line 25), after subsection 8(2), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2A) In appointing the Commissioners, the Minister must ensure that at least one of the Commissioners has a substantial connection to, or substantial experience in, a regional area through business, industry or community involvement.</para></quote>
<para>The bill before the Senate today gets rid of the 12-member board of Infrastructure Australia and reduces it to three government appointed commissioners. State and territory governments have no say in who is now running the place. Minister King will hand-pick three commissioners, and none of those commissioners, under the bill before us without this amendment, would be required to have experience in delivering infrastructure across rural and regional Australia. Some examples of nation-building projects already in the infrastructure pipeline include sealing the Tanami Road across Western Australia and the Northern Territory, building infrastructure resilience in the north-west of our nation, sealing the Outback Way from Queensland to Western Australia and the Inland Rail from Melbourne to Brisbane. All of these projects require significant consultation and engagement with local communities.</para>
<para>What we've seen from this government—this city-centric Labor-Greens government—is that they don't like to get out in the regions, sit down and speak to our communities. We saw it with the water bill last week. Minister Plibersek was found wanting. The Senate inquiries, run by the Labor Party, refused to go out into places like Griffith, Deniliquin, Echuca, Mildura and Dirranbandi—all those communities that are going to be significantly and negatively impacted by the legislation that the Labor Party and the Greens put on. The big thing about leadership is you make the decision but you've got to be accountable and responsible for your decision-making. You have to face up to the people that your decisions hurt and you have to explain to them why you're doing it, but this government ducks for cover each and every time. That's why, for the opposition, for the Liberal and the National parties, it's incredibly important that at least one of those commissioners has an understanding, appreciation and experience of rural and regional Australia.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Duniam</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I know, Senator Duniam; it's hard to believe. It's a humble ask on behalf of the nine million Australians who do not live in capital cities. If consultation with affected communities and landholders is inadequate or non-existent, projects can be delayed, potentially for years. We're seeing that now with the rollout of transmission lines and renewable projects in rural and regional communities, because you don't do the consultation. You assume you can just roll into town and everyone's going to bow down and say, 'Thank you, Ma'am; thank you, Sir. Thank you for your attention,' while you destroy their lives and their livelihoods.</para>
<para>Just last week, we saw 70 farmers and landholders from northern Victoria travel to Canberra, to Parliament House, seeking an inquiry into the renewable energy infrastructure, and we can't even find out today whether it's going to be assessed by Infrastructure Australia—significant taxpayer dollars and significant impact on regional communities, and yet we don't know whether it's going through Infrastructure Australia. If it does, I'd like to be assured and have comfort that someone around that table understands where I come from and what the impact of that will be on us.</para>
<para>You need genuine consultation. It's very important for Infrastructure Australia, including at the level of the commissioners, to have an understanding of the regions and how to engage with them. It's also important that Infrastructure Australia, from the commissioners down, understand business case assessments and that they will need to factor in different reasons for large regional projects when comparing investment priorities for projects in heavily congested areas like capital cities. How do you say a major project, like sealing the Tanami, stacks up against something in a suburb when you're only going to use population as your base variable? I'm looking forward to the support of the Senate to ensure that someone, amongst those commissioners, has experience in the regions.</para>
<para>The opposition does not seek to frustrate the government's decision to replace a board with commissioners, even though it's not clear this reform will make material improvements to the organisation. We recognise that the independent review proposed three alternative models for governance of Infrastructure Australia. One of those models was to retain a board model, although streamline it. The panel's preferred model was to adopt the commissioner model before the Senate today. What we seek to do is strengthen the bill to ensure regional perspectives are not lost to the peak governing forum of the body.</para>
<para>In this context, I note there will be an advisory council established to provide advice to the Infrastructure Australia commissioners. This advisory council has not been referenced in the bill, and therefore parliament will not have oversight as to how the members of the advisory council will be chosen. There is no guarantee anyone from the advisory council will be from a regional area or have connections to the regions. We're not allowed to comment on that, because it's not part of the bill. That's why we've chosen the amendment that I'm moving now.</para>
<para>We do know that at least three of the six to seven advisory council members will be senior officials from PM&C, the Treasury and Infrastructure. The government's priorities will be well represented. The government's going to have its fingers all over Infrastructure Australia—deep state, right down into the heart of Infrastructure Australia. You'll be lucky to have a regular person's perspective or expertise on how to deliver a project or how to consult with communities, because it's going to be filled with government bureaucrats. There's no guarantee the regions will have a voice, and so it's all the more important that at least one commissioner has substantial connection to the regions. The amendment doesn't tie the government's hands to require at least one commissioner to live in the regions. It understands you can take the girl out of the country but you can't take the country out of the girl. It is a world view. It is a perspective that is engrained in you from a very early age. It doesn't matter what side of the chamber you sit on. If you come from the regions, there is a recognition and an appreciation of certain things in life that I don't believe you can get through any other life experience.</para>
<para>The opposition want to be constructive contributors to help the government strengthen Infrastructure Australia. On that basis I have moved the opposition amendment on sheet 1980.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government will not be opposing this amendment. I would point out that Minister Catherine King represents a proud region in Ballarat and does a fantastic job advocating for regional Australia as a member of the cabinet. She is someone who is really proud of her history working in that area. So the government ensure that we have really strong voices from regional Australia. We're happy to support this amendment to ensure that there is someone with some regional heritage in the Infrastructure Australia commission. We're ensuring that, in many ways, we're delivering for regional Australia at the same time through other government priorities as well.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move One Nation's amendment (1) on sheet 2098:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 22, page 14 (after line 10), after section 11, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">11A Disclosure of interests</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A Commissioner must publicly disclose all interests, pecuniary or otherwise, that the Commissioner has or may acquire and that conflict or could conflict with the proper performance of the Commissioner's functions.</para></quote>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move amendment (1) on sheet 2015 revised:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (after line 8), after subsection 5B(8), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8A) In performing the function mentioned in subsection (6) in relation to a proposal, Infrastructure Australia must consider what impacts the proposal, if carried out, would have on:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Australia's net greenhouse gas emissions, as reported in national inventory reports in accordance with:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, done at New York on 9 May 1992, as amended and in force for Australia from time to time; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the Paris Agreement, done at Paris on 12 December 2015, as amended and in force for Australia from time to time; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the achievement of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) any policy issues arising from climate change that Infrastructure Australia considers relevant to the proposal.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is in Australian Treaty Series 1994 No. 2 ([1994] ATS 2) and the Paris Agreement is in Australian Treaty Series 2016 No. 24 ([2016] ATS 24). They could in 2023 be viewed in the Australian Treaty Series Library on the AustLII website (www.austlii.edu.au).</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government will be supporting this amendment. The Australian government is committed to reaching a 43 per cent reduction in emissions below 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero by 2050. The amendment is largely consistent with the amendments to Infrastructure Australia made last year as a result of the Climate Change Act, which passed through parliament on 8 September 2022. I would like to thank Senator Pocock and his office for their constructive engagement in relation to the bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The opposition will not be supporting this amendment. The proposed new section in clause 5A(1)(c) 'Conducting audits' empowers Infrastructure Australia to conduct audits into infrastructure projects to determine the adequacy, capacity and condition of infrastructure, taking into account Australia's greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Therefore, we consider this amendment is not required.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As foreshadowed in Senator Rice's speech on the second reading, the Greens have a number of amendments, on sheet 2001 revised 3, to improve transparency. We support the proposals that Labor has put forward to improve scrutiny and planning for infrastructure projects. Labor's independent review of Infrastructure Australia appears to be a step in the right direction for transparency, but this must include Labor's own commitments as well. We are in a cost-of-living crisis, and people are rightly sceptical about big, flashy infrastructure announcements—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time allotted for debate in committee has expired. In accordance with the order agreed to yesterday, the time for consideration of the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023 has expired. We will now put questions on the remaining stages of the bill. We will deal firstly with the amendments circulated by the Australian Greens on sheet 2001 revised 3.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">Australian </inline> <inline font-style="italic">Greens' circulated amendments—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 12), after item 2, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2A Section 3 (at the end of paragraph (d) of the definition of <inline font-style="italic">nationally significant infrastructure</inline> )</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add "and".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2B Section 3 (after paragraph (d) of the definition of <inline font-style="italic">nationally significant infrastructure</inline> )</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) social infrastructure;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2C Section 3</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">social infrastructure</inline> means facilities, spaces, services or networks that support quality of life and wellbeing of communities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (after line 22), after paragraph 5(c), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) to assess, and report on, projects relating to nationally significant infrastructure in accordance with section 5DA;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (after line 10), at the end of section 5A, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Infrastructure Australia must cause a copy of an audit prepared under this section to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 10 sitting days of that House after the audit is finalised.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (after line 14), at the end of section 5B, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Tabling requirement</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) Infrastructure Australia must cause a copy of the following documents to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 10 sitting days of that House after the document is finalised:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the national planning and assessment framework mentioned in subsection (1);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the summaries mentioned in subsection (9).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (after line 13), at the end of section 5C, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Tabling requirement</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Infrastructure Australia must cause a copy of an Infrastructure Priority List and an Infrastructure Plan to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 10 sitting days of that House after the document is finalised.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Schedule 1, item 4, page 7 (after line 29), after section 5D, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5DA Functions — assessments of certain nationally significant infrastructure projects without prior evaluation</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) For the purposes of paragraph 5(d), Infrastructure Australia has the function of assessing, and reporting on, projects covered by subsection (2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A project is covered by this subsection if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) it is a project for investment in, or enhancements to, nationally significant infrastructure; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the project involves expenditure by or on behalf of the Commonwealth; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Commonwealth Government's total expenditure involved in the project is more than $250 million; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Commonwealth Government has committed to the project without prior evaluation (or endorsement of evaluation) of a proposal for the project by Infrastructure Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Infrastructure Australia must ensure that assessments under this section are conducted at least once in each financial year beginning on or after the commencement of this section and prepare a report on the assessment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Infrastructure Australia must cause a copy of the report on the assessment under subsection (3) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 10 sitting days after it has been finalised.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other assessments</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Infrastructure Australia may conduct other assessments under this section, and prepare reports on those assessments, on its own initiative.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Infrastructure Australia must cause a copy of the report on the assessment mentioned in subsection (5) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 10 sitting days after it has been finalised.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Conduct of assessments</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) The regulations may prescribe matters relating to the conduct of assessments under this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Schedule 1, item 22, page 13 (line 1), at the end of subsection 8(3), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; and (c) the person is not an existing or former member of the governing body of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a company engaged in coal, oil or gas extraction; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an energy company based on the burning of coal, oil or gas.</para></quote>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The opposition has circulated an amendment to Australian Greens amendment (6). As these amendments were circulated after 9.30 am, they can only be considered by leave. Is someone seeking leave to move them?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 2319.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move the amendment standing in my name:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) After subsection 5DA(2), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Initial assessment</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2A) Infrastructure Australia must conduct an assessment under this section, and prepare a report on the assessment, in relation to projects covered by subsection (2) that are commitments of the Commonwealth Government first made on or after 22 May 2022.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2B) Infrastructure Australia must cause a copy of the report on the assessment under subsection (2A) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) within 3 months after the commencement of this section; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if no sitting day of the relevant House occurs within that period and after the report is finalised—on the next sitting day after the end of that period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Annual assessments</inline></para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that Senator McKenzie's amendment on sheet 2319 to the Australian Greens amendment (6) be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [11:35]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>25</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>30</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Van, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand senators have requested that the question be put separately on Australian Greens amendment (7). Therefore, the question is that amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 2001 revised 3 be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The next question is that amendment (7) on sheet 2001 revised 3 be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I ask that the Australian Greens' support for our own amendment be recorded.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I'd like my support recorded please.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—Could you add me to that list?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—That goes for me too.</para>
<para>Bill, as amended, agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>6485</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nature Repair Market Bill 2023, Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>6486</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7014" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Nature Repair Market Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7013" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>6486</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a delight to be able to speak in the Nature Repair Market Bill debate, which is something that has had a rather protracted examination through the Senate committee process. It has taken a few turns that I confess have surprised me, but let's take stock of where we're at with regard to this legislation: how we arrived at it, the perceived need for it and why the government is now apparently rushing this legislation through, despite only a few days ago having a further four months of consideration by a Senate committee to go.</para>
<para>Let's have a look at the history. The bill was referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee on 30 March this year with a reporting date at that point in time of 1 August. An extension was granted to extend examination of that bill, given the frankly near universal condemnation of this legislation, to the beginning of November this year. Again it was extended, at the request of the government. It was the committee chair, Senator Grogan, who is a terrific chair I might add, who suggested that the minister may be very interested indeed in having the committee report extended. The minister was very keen to extend that date based on the comments of the chair of the committee on 30 June, when that extension was granted, through to 18 April, which was when the bill was supposed to be reporting as at the end of last week.</para>
<para>Then, out of nowhere, with just a couple of days notice, we get this indication from the government that legislation needed to be brought on urgently and the committee reporting date be brought forward by four months. It was rather a stunning move, I've got to say, when, as I said before, there was near universal condemnation for the way the government had constructed this legislation, how they had consulted on it and how, frankly, they had ignored many of the pleas from stakeholders to look at how best they could structure the legislation. I gather the government could see the writing on the wall, hence the extension, but somehow something has happened in recent days which has precipitated this expedited bringing on of the legislation.</para>
<para>The concerns of the stakeholders were many and varied. The most common theme threaded through all of these submissions by people from the environmental movement, the ENGOs through to the business community, was in fact that we should be dealing with the reforms to the EPBC Act, the national environmental approvals legislation, which has been reviewed by former director of the ACCC Professor Graeme Samuel. Deal with that first. Get the overarching framework legislation in place before we progress to dealing with all of the other bits of legislation. That was a view shared by the Australian Greens and many of the other members of the Senate crossbench. It's something that the government completely ignored, so here we are today rushing this through.</para>
<para>It was clear from the contributions by many in the Senate committee hearings and based on indications made publicly that the bill would be opposed. The Senate committee report was provided to senators at the end of last week, with roughly a day to respond. Interestingly, there are two dissenting reports: one from coalition senators which clearly indicates we will be opposing this legislation because it is bad legislation, and one from the Australian Greens political party. I'll be interested to see whether the Australian Greens stick to their dissenting report, or whether it was just words at a point in time which can be easily expunged from the record. We will see though.</para>
<para>But here we are today having this legislation rushed through. Four months of scrutiny has been cut off completely with no notice. A deal has been done—a deal, clearly, that was done on the same day these committee reports were tabled, including the dissenting reports. A deal has been done of which we do not have the details. A deal has been done which will receive no scrutiny, because, of course, the Australian Labor Party in partnership with the Australian Greens political party have decided to end scrutiny: 'We don't need to see anymore. We don't need to ask any more questions. It's not your business. Good luck.' And here we are having the bill rushed through.</para>
<para>Of course, I think it's important for us to examine some of the elements that have raised concern by way of evidence provided to the committee, which I'm sure other senators paid attention to. Professor Helene Marsh, Chair of the Threatened Species Scientific Committee, argued:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… we would agree that trying to harmonise this bill and the reforms in the EPBC legislation—and particularly the standards associated with subordinate legislation associated with those reforms will be very important. We'd like to see the whole package harmonised.</para></quote>
<para>Again, it's about the EPBC Act coming through first and not rushing this. Kurt Winter, Director of Corporate Transition at the Carbon Market Institute, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… issues around how the market is used by the private sector and then demand driver really need to be clarified before this bill is progressed. We think that as a matter of priority clarity should be provided around reforms to the EPBC Act …</para></quote>
<para>He also said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the EPBC Act reforms and, indeed, some of those critical Chubb review recommendations should be a matter of priorities, given that much of this market is premised on some of those underpinning legislative instruments.</para></quote>
<para>Anna Vella, a committee member of the Australian environment and planning law group of the legal practice section at the Law Council of Australia, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Nature Repair Market Bill, if passed, must work seamlessly with the EPBC Act going forward, which means we need to understand reforms being proposed to the latter act—</para></quote>
<para>the latter act, I will point out to those listening, is something that will be sitting off in the never-never. This is legislation we were going to see by the end of the year. Well, here we are, with just a couple of sitting days left, and of course that legislation is nowhere to be seen. The consultation process took place with the Australian Labor Party's select group of supporters, who have been a part of this process all the way through. They were given something like 50 pages of a handful of high-level principles, which are supposed to replace the more than 1,000 pages of the EPBC Act. We're not going to see that legislation. Robyn Glindemann, Chair of the Australian Environment and Planning Law Group at the Law Council of Australia, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If there is a potential for projects that are created to be used as offsets under the EPBC Act, then I query how we can make the two pieces of legislation work when we haven't seen the second bit. … the sequencing is of concern when the fundamental piece of legislation that the Commonwealth has is the EPBC Act … the benchmark for the Commonwealth to achieve its international obligations—</para></quote>
<para>which, of course, everyone is supportive of—</para>
<quote><para class="block">but it needs to work in concert with other legislation, and other legislation needs to work in concert with it.</para></quote>
<para>The list goes on, right the way through to Lyndon Schneiders, Executive Director at the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation, which was reaffirmed in the content of their supplementary submission:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We recommend that the NRM (Nature Repair Market) Bill be delayed until Parliament has been presented with key EPBC reforms, including proposed National Environmental Standards—</para></quote>
<para>again, we haven't seen them—</para>
<quote><para class="block">for environmental offsets, regional planning, and threatened species protection, to demonstrate that a rigorous and high integrity regulatory system will support the operation of a Nature Repair Market.</para></quote>
<para>Well none of that has happened, but here we are actually debating this legislation.</para>
<para>I do want to turn to the Greens dissenting report. It's interesting to see what has been put on the table. At this point in time I'm not seeing any government or Greens amendments to this legislation. They may have been circulated while I've been on my feet, but as yet I'm not aware that they have been circulated. There was, of course, a motion moved yesterday, which I will come to in a moment, which is very nebulous in its construct. But the Greens talk about issues related to offsets. In fact, the dissenting report, signed by Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, the deputy chair of this committee—who, as I understood, was firmly opposed to this bill—goes on about: offsets being a major concern; nationwide offsets earlier this year; concerns around how offsets have not been working for years; 'these goals will not be met with a scheme that facilitates further destruction'; and 'to give any credibility to a potential biodiversity accreditation scheme, the use of offsets must be explicitly excluded'. Well, we will see whether there is an amendment to that effect, because that's what the Greens were calling for.</para>
<para>Indeed, I might just turn to some closing comments from Senator Hanson-Young in one of the hearings in the inquiry into this bill, where Senator Hanson-Young says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Every expert we've had today, and the exact report that the minister has used to promote this policy—by PwC of all people!—suggests otherwise.</para></quote>
<para>She goes on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">You can't point to any evidence that says this is going to be net positive. In fact, what does 'net positive' even mean when you're talking about biodiversity? It is clear that this bill is in absolute tatters. It has no friends. Even the people the minister had thought would back it have not backed it in. It's in tatters. I can see the looks on your faces—</para></quote>
<para>Senator Hanson-Young says, referring to the departmental officials who were sitting at the table during this hearing—</para>
<quote><para class="block">It must be totally demoralising to have put in all this effort and then to have it put up in lights, given some scrutiny and be shown to be an absolute sham.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Anyway, I'm finished—</para></quote>
<para>said Senator Hanson-Young.</para>
<para>Yet I have this sneaking suspicion that the Australian Greens are going to support this bill. For what? We don't know. What we have thus far is a motion relating to some further amendments to be made, extraneous to the bill, around the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the EPBC Act, which is under reform and under review at the moment, which we haven't seen. These amendments will expand the circumstances in which certain petroleum mining developments must be assessed and approved by the minister administering the act. They're very nebulous—certain projects, unspecified at this point in time—and give us no clarity as to what backroom deal has been done between the Australian Greens political party and the government.</para>
<para>So how have we got there? What does it mean? The Greens have been able to secure, clearly, something they didn't ask for or expressed concern about during the committee process, during interrogation of the legislation that was before us, but, as far as I can tell today, nothing relating to what they actually did express concern about with regard to offsets. Now, that may change. As I say, here we are debating the legislation and I've not seen any further amendments; they might be running around the chamber here somewhere, but I've not yet got them. I've got amendments from Senator Thorpe and Senator Pocock, which I look forward to debating at a point in time. They've clearly stuck to their guns and seen what needed to be fixed. But, as for the Greens, I can't actually see where they're going with this. It's an interesting arrangement, isn't it? In the last week of parliament, a bill that had absolutely no support in this place has been rushed in, on the basis that they somehow thought they were going to get it through. I was in disbelief at the government's attempts to do this. I thought the Australian Greens political party would—with their virtue always on display—stick to their guns. You heard yourself what Senator Hanson-Young, the deputy chair of the committee, said, in reflecting on this legislation as it stood.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I believed what they said. I believed it.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I believed it, too. So, when I saw the motion to bring this on, I thought, 'Oh, well, the government's being silly! Why would they be doing this?' But, clearly, a deal has been done. We don't know the price yet. We don't know what they've secured. We don't know what smoke-filled room they were sitting in when they hatched this plan. But we do know that it is going to be a terrible one, because every time the Australian Greens political party get their hands on the levers, on decision-making powers in this place, things go south. Businesses that need certainty—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Thorpe</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They sold out.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And I actually will take that interjection from Senator Thorpe. It was: 'They sold out.' Senator Thorpe and I may not agree on a range of issues; I will openly admit that here, and I don't think that would surprise many people. But, Senator Thorpe, on this occasion I stand shoulder to shoulder with you, because the Australian Greens political party have done what they do so often, and that is to sell out: 'Virtue, virtue, virtue, virtue;' sell out.</para>
<para>And there'll be good reason for it; don't worry. We'll hear the contributions soon, from the Australian Greens political party, about why they've sold out; why they spoke so strongly in the Senate committee hearing around this legislation; why it was bad; why the government was doing terrible things and was going to allow greenwashing. I wonder if those concerns around greenwashing exist today, or whether we are going to hear anything on them in the contributions from the Australian Greens political party. And I like saying 'Greens political party', because they are politicians who get elected to this place. They actually do things like hatch little deals with the Australian Labor Party to get legislation through, which, once upon a time—only less than a week ago—they were dead against. They are not beyond reproach. They are not the paragons of virtue they say they are. They are deal-makers. They'll do whatever they want, and they'll tell people out there in the community that they've done something good—something else. But if you go back and have a look at the history of this bill, if you go back and have a look at exactly what those opposite said was wrong with it—they had concerns about the lack of integrity in the process, concerns around greenwashing—no assurances have been given. As far as I can tell at this stage, debate already having commenced, there are no amendments from the government or the Greens, no assurances around integrity—probably not a concern to them—no assurances around offsets, some other nebulas deal we have no detail on at all and a committee process truncated by four months to rush this bill through. The Australian Greens political party—dealmakers extraordinaire—have done it again. As Senator Thorpe said, and I hope she says it several times in her contribution, they sold out. That is exactly what they have done and Australians need to know it. There will be less certainty than there was in the first draft of this bill. It is amendment city and it is going to be a disaster.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak to the Nature Repair Market Bill. The process for the consideration of this bill could not be more flawed. It was not supposed to take place until at least April next year when the committee report was to be tabled. However, in a last-minute move, the government yesterday brought forward the committee report tabling and then passed a motion to consider this bill at the 11th hour. This means this was surely an intended move to pass a deeply flawed bill without scrutiny. The Senate was not prepared for the consideration of this bill, and many of the senators here had to scramble to get amendments done to pursue drafting. The drafters were so overwhelmed that the drafters were actually coming back to us and said, 'We can't do your amendments in time; we just don't have the time.' In most cases, our requests were met with an answer from the drafters basically that they couldn't keep up with the load because of what the government has done to this place.</para>
<para>However, it is convenient for Labor to push through a bill which they, in the committee report, recommended should pass without amendments, managing to completely ignore the evidence provided in the process. There is absolutely no need to rush this bill regardless of what dirty deals you are doing. The government wants to pride itself on being the international frontrunner in establishing a nature repair market; however, there being no precedent for this at all, it should be approached in a very considered way. One of these considerations should be the nature repair market's interaction with other nature-positive reforms and the planned EPBC Act reforms.</para>
<para>A large number of submitters to the inquiry made it very clear that the government's sequencing is all wrong and that the EPBC reforms need to come first. Therefore, I foreshadow my second reading amendment to postpone consideration of the bill until the EPBC bills have been considered by parliament next year. The EPBC reforms include the setting of legally enforceable national standards for matters of national environmental significance, which would set an important framework for the nature repair market to operate in.</para>
<para>Further, they would establish a federal environmental protection authority which would be a more appropriate regulatory body with relevant expertise for compliance and enforcement of the nature repair market rather than the Clean Energy Regulator. The Chubb review, the independent review of Australian carbon credit units, found that the brief of the Clean Energy Regulator should be simplified and its role clarified yet this bill would add to the challenges and make the CER responsible for achieving both biodiversity outcomes and the creation and operation of a certificate trading market, which is different from the carbon trading market. While the CER has neither the expertise nor the resources to fulfil these obligations, we cannot pass this legislation without the EPA being established and, indeed, all of the EPBC reforms being in place first. Indeed, this bill should not be passed without removing the possibility of national biodiversity certificates being used for environmental offsetting.</para>
<para>This is a core concern raised by pretty much all environmental and other stakeholders in the process—including the Greens' mates and the people who are meant to provide advice to the Greens, such as the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Australian Marine Conservation Society, WWF, the Wilderness Society and the Law Council of Australia to name just a few—as well as in hundreds of campaign emails received by the committee. Unfortunately, as you know, my drafting request to remove the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme components of this bill could not be met by the drafters due to the time constraints they found themselves in and the many short notice requests coming from all sides of the political divide.</para>
<para>Other amendments I wanted to put to the Senate today centred around respecting First Peoples' knowledge—which the Greens obviously sold out on again—and ensuring that our rights as traditional custodians of the lands and waters are being respected. I could not propose the following amendments due to Labor's failure of accountability and the Greens' dirty deal that cut out First Nations, so I'll start with my amendments that the drafters didn't have time to do. First there is the inclusion of a requirement to consult with First Peoples on proposed methodology determinations or biodiversity assessment instruments. Next is the inclusion of a requirement for the Commonwealth to consider First Peoples' traditional knowledge, perspective and cultural practices—those things you all talked about in your 'yes' campaign.</para>
<para>Another amendment concerned managing diversity while ensuring that the intellectual property of this knowledge is respected—you don't want to know about that, do you, Labor or Greens? Then there is the inclusion of a requirement for the provisions of the nature repair market to be in accordance with international instruments: the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Well, thanks, Labor and the Greens coalition! Another related to a requirement to develop safeguards to protect against harm and destruction to First Peoples' cultural heritage, including following the process of free, prior and informed consent of affected traditional owners.</para>
<para>You spent $250 million on a referendum that you shouldn't have had—and you'd been flagging for 12 months how great you were going to be and how much First Nations needed justice and needed to determine their own destiny—but, when you come to the chamber to actually vote on this stuff, you've got your heads in the sand. You're behind the doors doing deals with the Greens to deny First Nations' rights in December 2023. Is it because you're still sad about the campaign? Seriously, when are you going to get over it?</para>
<para>This is another thing that Labor and the Greens sold us out on: the recognition of the interests of registered First Nations claimants under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 in the Northern Territory and the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 in New South Wales as eligible interests where their claim has not yet been determined. So you're just riding roughshod over First Nations' rights to get this bill done and dusted. Where's the self-determination in that? Once again, our rights as First Peoples have not been properly considered in a Labor bill that will significantly impact our people. Once again, we have not been properly consulted, despite this legislation concerning our land and despite First Peoples worldwide being at the forefront of biodiversity protection. The International Institute for Sustainable Development reported last year that lands inhabited by First Peoples contain 80 per cent of the world's remaining biodiversity and highlighted that first peoples' traditional knowledge—that you talked about in your Yes campaign—and knowledge systems are key to designing a sustainable future for everyone in this country. It's not for just us; it's for everybody.</para>
<para>Environmental organisations fear that biodiversity and climate outcomes might actually be worse if this bill is passed as it is. Shame! This bill is a stark example of the government rushing through ill-considered legislation and doing dirty deals, with significant impacts on country, people and the climate. This is why I cannot support the bill as it is before us today, and it's why I think the Labor and the Greens coalition is gammon. I move the second reading amendment standing in my name:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Omit all words after "That", substitute "further consideration of the bills be postponed until 1 July 2024 to enable them to be considered alongside the further bills the Government intends to introduce to implement its response to the second independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, led by Professor Graeme Samuel AC".</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  I also rise to speak on the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 and Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023. They aim to establish a world-first nature repair market in Australia. We'll just leave all the politics to one side for a minute and look at what we're trying to achieve here.</para>
<para>The bills provide a legislative framework for a voluntary national market in biodiversity certificates to enable private investment in high-integrity projects to protect, manage and restore nature. The market will be open to all landholders, including farmers, First Nations people, conservation groups and business. It will enable project proponents to undertake projects that protect or enhance biodiversity on a range of land tenures, including aquatic environments. Project proponents will be able to apply to the Clean Energy Regulator for a unique biodiversity certificate that could then be sold to an interested person or market. The market would be strictly regulated to prevent greenwashing and to monitor progress towards specified environmental outcomes. It is framework legislation, with significant elements of the scheme to be provided in a series of legislative instruments to be made by the minister, including rules, biodiversity assessment instruments and methodology determinations. Those legal instruments will be the subject of consultation. That process will be done in line with the review that is currently underway of our EPBC legislation so that they stand hand in hand. The Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 would make minor amendments to the Clean Energy Regulator Act 2011 and the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 to facilitate the establishment, operation and regulation of the nature repair market.</para>
<para>How did we get here? What was the catalyst for this? It was the fact that we've seen our environment decline significantly and the fact that we've seen the state of the environment reports show declines for a number of years now. The <inline font-style="italic">Australia </inline><inline font-style="italic">state of the environment </inline><inline font-style="italic">2021</inline> report was a serious wake-up call. The devastating results that came out of that report sent out shockwaves, but nothing was done. That report found that significant investment is needed to reverse the decline in the areas of conservation and restoration. Part of reversing that decline is to create a very clear and regulated pathway for all avenues to be explored to restore our natural environment. That means bringing in businesses, philanthropists, environmental groups, First Nations people. It's about bringing everyone into this space and creating an environment where we can work together to protect our nature. The Samuel review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act also suggested that attracting private sector investment would be crucial and that a regulated nature repair market would encourage voluntary investment from the private sector towards the task of restoring Australia's natural environment.</para>
<para>Senator Duniam has told us that this bill has no friends, so I'll give you a quote from the National Farmers Federation, friends of Senator Duniam's. They said that they were delighted. They said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Linking farmers with investors who will partner with them to invest in environmental protection is a significant step forward in how we protect and care for our country.</para></quote>
<para>That's a very wise comment. There are a range of people who support the idea of a nature repair market, and that is evidenced in the 105 submissions that are on the website for the committee's inquiry and in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> from those hearings.</para>
<para>Prior to these bills being introduced in the parliament, they were subject to two rounds of public consultation that further informed the development of the market framework. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water noted that as part of this public consultation they conducted over 60 engagement events, including sessions focused on Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders, public information sessions and targeted meetings with individuals, organisations and Commonwealth and state and territory representatives. A request for submissions resulted in over 180 written responses to the department. So there has been quite a lot of consultation and a lot of transparency and scrutiny, contrary to the claim of Senator Duniam, who says there has been none.</para>
<para>On 30 March 2023 the Senate referred the provisions of these bills to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry. As I've said, we received 105 submissions. We got responses from individuals, environmental organisations, peak bodies, businesses, various interested groups and associations. The committee held two public hearings in Canberra, on 30 June and 11 September 2023. Overall, there was strong support from submitters for the intent of these bills: to give effect to a market based mechanism to enable people to engage in improving our environment and to do so while being able to engage in a financial market and a biodiversity market. Key areas of interest for the people who submitted included offsets, market design, integrity, governance, broader environmental reform, market operations and the role of First Nations. Throughout the submissions, the general support for the market remained strong. Despite some concerns about particular elements, there was a general thrust that people thought this idea was a good one.</para>
<para>I seem to remember that, when the bills were first introduced into the lower house, there was a lot of positive commentary coming from the Nationals, particularly from Mr Littleproud. He said that the bill is 'basically verbatim our legislation'. So this is legislation that the Nationals had drafted and, in the words of the Nationals, it's very much the same. He went on to say that he was 'proud of the fact that it's stood the test of time—of a changing government'. That seems quite supportive, I think, at the point in time when this legislation was introduced, in March 2023. But I suppose it's more about playing politics, isn't it? It's not about sticking to the idea that we would protect our natural environment, that we would enable landholders to engage in this as another stream of income, that we would enable First Nations people to engage in this market or that we would enable people to go out and protect our environment and find some level of recompense for that work.</para>
<para>We also had the Nature Conservancy supporting the bills. They said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We welcome the creation of a Nature Repair Market and its applicability to all landholders. Overall, TNC is supportive of the need to incentivise and reward landholders for the protection, good management and restoration of native vegetation, threatened species habitat and other natural values. There is a role for governments in ensuring there is consistency, integrity and transparency and a baseload of demand, particularly in emerging market mechanisms …</para></quote>
<para>Just for fun, let me quote the National Farmers Federation again:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The NFF supports the proposed Nature Repair Market Bill and recognises the opportunities it will offer to farmers and landholders in contributing to ecosystem services and participating in a broader marketplace.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill provides a critical step towards achieving sustainable and resilient ecosystems in Australia.</para></quote>
<para>That sounds very supportive, too, I would say. Other supportive stakeholders included Climate Friendly, the Indigenous Desert Alliance, the Kimberley Land Council, Farmers for Climate Action, the Australian Sustainable Finance Institute, the Property Council of Australia, the Australian Business Council of Australia and the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation. That's quite a lot of support, really.</para>
<para>Importantly, throughout the inquiry, the recognition of the role of Australia's First Nations people in caring for country was well articulated through the evidence. The New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council highlighted that local Aboriginal land councils possess specific traditional ecological knowledge and land management expertise accumulated over millennia. Why would we not enable those people to not just continue to care for the country that they have presided over for 65,000 years but provide opportunities to extend that, where land has been taken from them? We know this. We could enable them not just to start building a means of continuing to protect that land but to do it with an economic base and have an economic benefit from that. I know from a lot of the hearings that we've had—we hear this a lot—that that is what First Nations people want. They want an opportunity for an economic benefit, and I believe we should provide that.</para>
<para>Who else have we got? Emeritus Professor Jon Altman pointed out that, due to the scale of First Nations landholdings across the country, the NRM bill would disproportionately impact First Nations people. Yes, it would. Wouldn't it be great if we could make that a positive impact? Professor Altman said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">First Nations people are not just another landowning interest group alongside governments and private landowners and leaseholders … First Nations people will be the dominant players in any real or imagined 'nature repair' or 'biodiversity' market in Australia today because of their rights and interests in a majority part of the continent, much in remote and very remote Australia, that is relatively environmentally intact and so has relatively high biodiversity 'value'.</para></quote>
<para>That also sounds positive to me, as well. The department's submission outlined how, indeed, First Nations Australians can participate in the market:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… by undertaking projects that deliver biodiversity improvements or protect biodiversity on land which they hold through different types of tenure. This includes exclusive and non-exclusive Native Title, land rights, leasehold and freehold. First Nations people could also provide on-ground management services or advice to support nature repair projects managed by others.</para></quote>
<para>That sounds like a good stream.</para>
<para>I would say that the claims on this bill that I've heard in this chamber so far don't seem to be supported by genuinely looking at the evidence and don't seem to be supported by looking at those 105 submissions or the 180 submissions that the department received when they did their consultation prior to the bills. It doesn't seem to stack up. Were there concerns raised about certain elements of the bills? Yes—but that's the point, isn't it? That's the whole point of having the inquiries. That's the whole point of having the committees: so you can refine, improve and identify where the challenges are and do something about them.</para>
<para>There were several crossbench initiated amendments agreed to by the House of Reps, and, as we've heard, there'll be other amendments being brought forward from various senators today. We will debate those in the committee stage of this process. It is in the view of the committee, in its printed report, that following the passage of the legislation there will be a lengthy period of design of methodologies that will underpin this repair market. We're confident that that will be a great process to develop what will be a world first and, I think, a fundamentally changed position for our country and for our natural environment: to protect nature.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very pleased to participate in this debate on this very important bill, the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. As Senator Grogan correctly identified, the intention of this bill was first proposed by the Liberals and Nationals in government. We were absolutely not opposed in principle to the creation of a biodiversity market, and we actually pioneered work in this very important area of policy in Australia. We undertook comprehensive work, including a significant level of stakeholder consultation and engagement, on creating a voluntary national market in biodiversity certificates. We worked extensively with the Australian National University to actually develop a world-first accreditation scheme for biodiversity credits. But this bill, the bill that is now before us today, and its related amendments are not as we proposed.</para>
<para>This bill has all the hallmarks of the pig-headed ignorance of this government that they continue to demonstrate through how they go forward and implement. Their lack of consultation and their ability to take a good idea and absolutely destroy it are becoming a standard mode of operation by this government. We saw it last week with the passage of the restoring our rivers amendments through this place, and we see it again today. Another key hallmark of the way they operate is their claims of consultation: 'We've put something online. The department accepts submissions. We got 180 submissions; look how well we've consulted. We've held a Senate inquiry. We took written submissions. We held two public hearings.' Where were those public hearings? This government is almost allergic to holding public hearings outside of Canberra, because where were the two public hearings for this bill that impacts rural and regional Australians more so than anyone else held? Here in Canberra; what a surprise!</para>
<para>Let me be clear: the original purpose of the bill that the coalition presented was to create the biodiversity credits along similar lines—robust and measurable credits through our work with the ANU—to the energy-generating credits which would allow a landholder to obtain tradeable certificates that could be used in a similar way to carbon offsets. The bill we are presented with today is far more complex, is less understood and creates unknown risks. Senator Grogan just said it herself: 'There is still so much work to be done on the design and methodologies.' It's typical of this government with their 'trust us' approach: 'Trust us; she'll be right. We'll work out the actual implementation phase later.'</para>
<para>One of the risks that this bill presents is the decision to extend the parameters of the market. The bill presented by the coalition was limited to agricultural land, but Labor's bill goes far wider and proposes to include all types of land tenure, including territorial waters, regardless of ownership or legal right. It includes all native title land, all Crown land and all Torrens system land titles. This means that the agriculture, mining, resources, forestry and fishing sectors could possibly all be forced for economic reasons to take up biodiversity credits which are of no overall benefit to the Australian economy.</para>
<para>The coalition did a considerable amount of work on our legislation, particularly with the ANU. It was based strictly on the application to potential projects and the specialised carbon and biodiversity and enhancing remnant vegetation assessment models. But Labor has veered away from that robust methodology. They're proposing to employ a very different way of legislating and regulating, by allowing potential participants in the market to define and apply their own idiosyncratic methodologies to the projects. This just adds to the confusion, the unknown implications and the limits of this legislation. 'But trust us.' they say. It's also not clear how Labor's work on new arrangements for offsets as part of the changes to the EPBC Act will interact with this legislation. There are a lot of unknowns here, which brings into question: what deal have they done with the Greens in order to bring forward this legislation and cut short their own request for an extension to the committee process?</para>
<para>I refer to what Greens spokeswoman, Senator Hanson-Young, said on Sunday. When asked about this legislation on <inline font-style="italic">Insiders</inline>, Senator Hanson-Young said: 'The idea of allowing the protection of one part of nature, a particular area of koala habitat, to be saved, in order to justify the destruction of nature somewhere else—I mean, that's bonkers. That's not environmental protection.' She went on to say: 'That's a red line for us. I want to see the offsets gone. If the offsets go, then I'm happy to sit down with the government and talk about where we go next.' If that was the position of the Greens on Sunday, given that we have not seen such amendments circulated as yet today, what deal has been done? What have the Greens traded off in order to bring forward this legislation?</para>
<para>There are grave concerns about offsets right through our communities. I have to quote my colleague from the other place, the member for Flynn, Colin Boyce, when he spoke on this bill. He had such a turn of phrase when talking about offsets:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The wealthy virtue-signalling elite want to invest billions of dollars in Australian agricultural land, lock it up and forget about it to appease their own self-loathing of their irresponsible lifestyles while they continue their jet-setting, latte-sipping affluence …</para></quote>
<para>That is such an accurate description of the approach to offsets that is taken by sections of corporate Australia. Given this government's track record in the environment space and the lack of understanding by the minister of so much of what she's been pushing through this place, I would have thought it better governance to wait and allow the Senate committee to complete its work, as per the government's own request for an extension until April. Then they could've taken the time to consider all the implications of what is being proposed and come back to this place for a sensible and informed debate, as recommended by my colleague Senator Thorpe, who supported the full completion of the Senate inquiry and the full and informed consideration of this bill. That responsible approach is clearly not one favoured by the Greens or Labor. It's not one they want to see, so they're pushing through the bills, which few understand and even they haven't finalised. They haven't worked out how the bill will apply. The similarities and potentially disastrous consequences of this bill remind me of last week's debate on water.</para>
<para>I really want to be clear here: it was the government that requested the extension of the reporting time lines of the Senate committee and proposed April next year. How disingenuous! We were happy to support it because we believed that this bill needed thorough investigation and needed to hear from all stakeholders. We would've supported the committee going out into regional areas to hear from stakeholders. But, no, the government only wanted to hear evidence here in Canberra. We would've supported that, but what we are now finding out is that the government just wanted more time to negotiate a dodgy deal with the Greens. We have no idea what the deal is or what it means and we are still waiting to see what it is. What 30 pieces of silver have been traded off today with this legislation? It's unfortunate that yet again in this place we find ourselves, as senators, unable to do our duty of scrutinising and testing the legislation comprehensively through the committee process. We are unable to listen to affected community groups and stakeholders, unable to go out on ground and talk to people on ground and hear their concerns and their evidence.</para>
<para>During the now curtailed work of the Senate legislation committee on this bill, there was frequent evidence from stakeholders about and frequent reference from stakeholders to concerns about this bill and its intended impacts, particularly concerns about offsets. There were concerns about putting this bill up before the proposed changes to the EPBC Act, and Senator Thorpe referenced that earlier. We've heard at length from this government of their desires and of their review of the EPBC Act and of the fact that they want to establish an environmental protection authority at a federal level, which raises all sorts of concerns. It flies in the face of less government and smaller government and creates concerns about duplication, but they want to put this bill up first. How is it going to interact with any proposed new authority? What will the governance arrangements be? But trust us; we'll get there!</para>
<para>I understand, and I take Senator Grogan's point, that the NFF has made some welcoming noises about the bill and about the intention of the bill. As I said, from the outset we supported the intention of the bill, but in the way this bill is drafted it has far too many red flags, far too many concerns and certainly not enough clarity about how it actually will be implemented, how it will operate and how robust the assessment and accreditation scheme will be. As I said before, despite the very good work the coalition did with the ANU and the robust, world-leading accreditation proposal that we had put forward, Labor have gone off on their own track: 'We know better. We just don't know how we know better, because we haven't got there yet. There's still work to be done on design and methodology, and we'll duck-shove that to delegated legislation. Trust us—it'll all be okay.' Well, I can tell you regional Australia doesn't trust this government, agricultural industries don't trust this government, the mining sector doesn't trust this government and I don't think the Senate should trust this government. I do not think we should be supporting this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A nature repair market sounds positive but, without the right settings and safeguards, I fear that at best it may do very little good and at worst it will facilitate greenwashing on a grand scale. The first object of the bill before us, the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023, is to promote the enhancement and protection of biodiversity and native species in Australia. This is clearly a very worthy goal. In the words of EO Wilson:</para>
<quote><para class="block">There can be no purpose more inspiriting than to begin the age of restoration, reweaving the wondrous diversity of life that still surrounds us.</para></quote>
<para>We are truly lucky to live on this continent, a megadiverse continent, but we know that we are failing nature. We have seen catastrophic declines in our lifetimes. In the last 40 years, there has been a decline in most bird species of 60-plus per cent.</para>
<para>To change this, to change the fact that one of the wealthiest countries in the world can't find a few billion dollars to implement what our ecologists and environmental scientists are saying, takes cultural change. It takes leadership. It takes making the case for why we can and should do things differently and talking about the fact that we are heading in the wrong direction by somehow believing that we exist outside the bounds of nature and that nature is something out there. We are part of nature, and if nature goes down we are going down with her. We're starting to see the impacts of a mindset, a way of making decisions, that treats nature as something out there, something that's a nice-to-have, rather than as critical to our very survival and to our physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing.</para>
<para>We are fortunate here to have some of the world's leading environmental scientists, and they've got solutions. They are putting forward a path to deal with this, to truly turn things around. Clearly, that starts with stopping the destruction of habitat—things like native forest logging which are now costing taxpayers money. We're paying to cut down native forests that are home to threatened species. We clearly need to preserve habitat. We also need funding for threatened species programs, and we're just so far off the mark. A group of Australia's leading environmental scientists calculated that we need to spend about $2 billion a year to do that. Two billion dollars is a sizeable amount of money but, for a country like Australia, it's very affordable. In the last few weeks we've seen Snowy Hydro get another $6 billion for costs blowing out and there was an extra $10 billion for the frigates project. If this mattered to us, if this truly mattered to us, we would be able to fund it.</para>
<para>We know that the government has committed to improving our nature laws, and this is long overdue—I welcome it. They need to be drafted and legislated in a way that actually protects nature and halts the catastrophic decline that we're witnessing. We also need to support better land management, including by this continent's First Peoples. We have commitments from the government to double the Indigenous Rangers Program this decade, but we also need to ensure that First Nations' knowledge is implemented and that First Nations people are actually allowed to manage the land. I hear too often from ranger groups, including here in the ACT, that they're sometimes viewed as a box-ticking exercise, 'Yes, we'll do cultural burning and all these sorts of things, but only if it fits in with our pre-existing approvals and bureaucratic way of managing land.'</para>
<para>This bill looks to create a market for biodiversity. There's clearly a range of issues here, starting with dealing with something that's not that fungible—it's hard to measure. But I'm also concerned whether this is something that shouldn't or couldn't happen until we're actually doing the fundamentals well—when we're taking care of nature and looking for additional money for the environment. That's not the case here in Australia. It's not the case; we've been underfunding it for decades. We have bold promises around no new extinctions, but we're not seeing those backed up.</para>
<para>Clearly, this is not a new issue which humans have been grappling with. Almost 100 years ago Aldo Leopold wrote what was later published in <inline font-style="italic">R</inline><inline font-style="italic">ound River</inline>:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Considering the prodigious achievements of the profit motive in wrecking land, one hesitates to reject it as a vehicle for restoring land. I incline to believe we have overestimated the scope of the profit motive. Is it profitable for the individual to build a beautiful home? To give his children a higher education? No, it is seldom profitable, yet we do both. These are, in fact, ethical and aesthetic premises which underlie the economic system. Once accepted, economic forces tend to align the smaller details of social organization into harmony with them.</para></quote>
<para>The task of developing a land ethic here in Australia is critical—having a government that's willing to go out on a limb and say: 'We need to change the way we think about our place in nature. We need to think of land not as something that belongs to us but of us belonging to the land.' I fear that this legislation is the other way round: we're simply trying to use the existing system rather than acknowledge that it hasn't been working.</para>
<para>What are some of my concerns with this bill? Firstly, it sets up the potential for future links to an offset market—to offset damage to the environment. We've seen the disastrous consequences of this; just look at the report on the scheme in New South Wales. It's not good! It seems to me that when you're left with a couple of per cent of temperate grasslands and box gum woodlands, it's incredibly hard to offset that. Where are you going to find that offset? There are just too many examples of offsetting gone bad. Take the Whitehaven Maules Creek coalmine. They ended up extending the offset period for a decade because they couldn't get the right offsets. Then they somehow managed to wangle their way to getting them accepted, but anyone who has seen some of those offsets will tell you that it's very hard to argue that they're like for like.</para>
<para>Secondly, I'm concerned about some of the integrity provisions. This is set up in a way that's parallel to the Emissions Reduction Fund. It's managed by the Clean Energy Regulator, who specialise in managing carbon projects. We've seen the issues around the application of methodologies. I'm sure this will be up for debate in this place, but clearly it seems to me that there are integrity issues, and yet we're just going to give them a whole other body of work. It's very hard to say that carbon is similar to biodiversity in terms of managing it, coming up with methodologies, enforcing those methodologies, issuing credits. I have real concerns around that. Based on those concerns, I will be putting forward an amendment that would add third-party open standing provisions. These are standard provisions in many modern acts, including the EPBC Act. These would allow third parties to initiate enforcement proceedings to uphold the law and seek judicial review of administrative decisions. If the government are comfortable that the CER will do the job well, then I'm very hopeful that they will have no problem with third-party standing.</para>
<para>Thirdly—and this goes back to my earlier point about the sequencing of this—there doesn't seem to be a clear pathway for government investment in biodiversity. We've seen $50 million here and $100 million there. It's very unclear if that's new money or if it's just coming from the trust.</para>
<para>Fourthly, the bill creates no role for First Nations peoples in the governance and integrity provisions of the nature repair market. This is a concern to me. I think there should be a requirement for a First Nations person on the committee, given that I'm hearing that a lot of this is aimed at Indigenous protected areas. Again, I will be putting forward an amendment on this.</para>
<para>Clearly, when we're talking about biodiversity, we can't not talk about climate change. Climate change is having a devastating impact on our biodiversity, from the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef to mass die-offs of spectacled flying foxes in Far North Queensland, to many of our very heat-sensitive species like gliders, which are in a lot of trouble when you look at habitat fragmentation and a warming climate. I would like the government to take that seriously. It's obviously not in this bill, but it very hard to talk about one without the other.</para>
<para>I'll be moving a second reading amendment highlighting some of my recommendations for actions to get better outcomes from this bill. These include creating a government investment strategy, which is something that came up a lot in the roundtables I held on this bill when it was in front of, I think, the first Senate committee that looked at it. I believe that the government should give a firm commitment to and time line for implementing the recommendations of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures. If you're going to set up a market, you've actually got to ensure that you're creating some demand there by ensuring companies are disclosing their nature risk. It's been something that we've done in Australia for decades, where we've just externalised the cost of production, of extraction, onto nature. Nature has picked up the tab for too long. With TNFD, we now have a structure to be able to put that in a report, put it on a balance sheet and show how exposed companies in Australia are, and drive some change that way. The third thing called for in my second reading amendment is a review of the governance of the nature repair market, once the EPA is legislated and up and running, as to whether or not that is a more suitable place for the governance of a biodiversity credit market.</para>
<para>I can see what the government is trying to do with this bill but, again, as such a wealthy country, we've got to start to fund biodiversity and threatened species, rather than not giving them funding but pointing to a market mechanism where there may be some demand but where, from all the consultation I've done, it's very unclear just how much demand there will be. On top of that, we don't have a firm commitment that the government will kickstart demand with funding for that, as they did with the carbon market.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As is often the case, it's always a good thing to sit in this chamber and listen to the contributions of other senators. In terms of Senator Pocock's last contribution, I think there is enormous scope for agreement on the fundamental questions that lie before us on the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 but also more broadly. He is right to point to all of the concerns that should mobilise this Senate, which are much broader than a narrowly constructed environmental one. They go to ethical, aesthetic, economic and legal questions that ought to mobilise our thinking. I want to come to those issues in substance. I also listened to the contributions by Senator Davey and Senator Grogan. They both pointed to the fact that the genesis of this framework lay in the three previous terms of coalition government, and Mr Littleproud was an early advocate for this kind of framework. In the previous nine years of coalition government, this was viewed as a good idea.</para>
<para>It's not the whole answer to the biodiversity challenge, and it's wrong to identify one measure and insist that that one measure cover the field of what is required in this area of policy. There are other things that must be attended to. It is just one of the tools. Reservation of marine and terrestrial environments is one of the tools that the government has. Getting the approvals process right so the EPBC Act meets the public policy grounds upon which it should properly be founded is one of the tools. Support for good practice from the Commonwealth, in cooperation with the states, is one of the tools that should be employed when protecting biodiversity. I single out Indigenous ranger programs and what might be contemplated in terms of extending that important work to country towns and, yes, to First Nations communities but also broadening the scope of that kind of caring for country work, which is of enormous benefit to protecting biodiversity. The range of programs that the Commonwealth funds, some of it in cooperation with the states, is another vector of activity, as is supporting our science and research communities and making sure that our science and research programs meet the biodiversity challenge as well as the other big challenges that they are required to meet. All of these are vectors for activity. This is just one program or one legislated measure that should assist. I want to come to the substance of that in a moment.</para>
<para>The position of the coalition is, of course, what's interesting here. They say this was their idea, but they didn't legislate it. It reminds me of Saint Augustine's prayer: 'Lord, make me pure, but just not quite yet.' They say, 'We were going to do it, but we just didn't.' They extend that incapacity for action to: 'We were going to do it. We didn't. Now you're doing it, we're bitterly opposed to it. ' That is why nothing happened over the course of the last nine years, not just in this important area of reform but also in others. They, in government, didn't want anything to happen then, and they don't want anything to happen now. If we followed Mr Dutton and the coalition's prescription, there would be no progress. Nothing would ever get done. That is the case of so many areas of public policy reforms that are necessary for the country and in the national interest: climate, housing, energy policy, industrial policy, Australia's place in the region, and our environmental objectives more broadly. The coalition were determined to achieve no progress then, and, even in areas where they talked a good game in government but delivered nothing, they are determined that their successes in government should not proceed with any reform at all. It's a confluence of ineptitude in government with a backward-looking culture-wars bigotry against reform and action, a bias for inaction, an easy recourse to saying no, a determination to plumb the depths of public debate on these questions, and a refusal to accept, whether it's founded on a sense of entitlement or not, that anybody but them could form a proper government.</para>
<para>Well, in this area of world-leading reform, we are determined to get on with it. We are a government that will work across the chamber to deliver this package of legislation. It is world-leading. It will, in my view, require administrative action and adjustment over time as we make sure that this works effectively. In the end, what will it do? It will provide, particularly for our agriculture sector, a set of incentives to encourage actions that support biodiversity on farms, on leaseholds and on native title land. We will do it collectively with the agriculture sector. We will work with farmers to deliver these kinds of projects. I know from my own background that, on almost every farm in the country, there is land that is productive and there is what we used to call scrub country that is unproductive. This legislation would give most farmers a more diverse income base and a capacity to use the land, which was not productive land before, in a way that's in the public interest and that will improve the quality of their property and, over time, improve the public good that their private holdings can support.</para>
<para>Will it achieve all of the objectives that we need to achieve in reform in terms of biodiversity? Absolutely not. It does not claim to do that. All of the issues that Senator Pocock went to require attention. But, in this area of reform, this will represent significant progress and a way of engaging the private sector and privately held land in a constructive way in biodiversity efforts. Consider the natural diversity of the Australian continent at colonisation. And consider what it was when the original occupants of this country had it in their hands. Consider the diversity of the continent at colonisation. Consider what it looked like then. Consider it a hundred or so years ago. Consider the impact that economic and agricultural development and industrial development have had on the landscape, on habitat and on species diversity. Think about biodiversity as we were growing up. For me, it was on farms and in country towns in northern New South Wales in the 1970s and 1980s. Think about the access to biodiversity that we had around our farms and our properties, and then have a look at what it is now. There is a retreat measured not just in terms of species extinction, the reduction of habitat and the reduction of infrastructure that is critical for nature—such as streams, creeks, rivers and billabongs that support species diversity—but also in terms of the access our kids have to experiences in nature.</para>
<para>It has more than an economic dimension. I think that's what Senator Pocock was talking about: the cultural and aesthetic issues that are fundamental. This government is determined to take action in the areas that I pointed to, including by means of this bill, because, if that trajectory just continues uninterrupted, the experience of our kids, our grandkids and our greatgrandchildren will continue to be constrained and to diminish. Aside from all of the economic, agricultural and environmental questions that the scientific community might point us to—where areas like the Murray-Darling system reach a tipping point and where the drivers of habitat reduction mean that you reach a tipping point in biodiversity terms—actually, there are national identity, cultural and aesthetic community questions in terms of maintaining species diversity that are critical. This bill is just another measure of us saying that strengthening the national estate here is government's core responsibility.</para>
<para>This does mean that, on private land, there will be stronger incentives for property owners to take action. I was recently on a relative's property near Hillston, with my son that was founded under the old Soldier Settlement Scheme. The family built a remarkable sheep and grain property. There are native grasses all over it. One of the things that that family has done—and it's often a thing that farmers do as they get a bit older and when they've been on that land for a long time and know that country really well—is identify areas for natural development. In that old cypress pine country that used to exist there, they have found some sections of that farm and, at their own expense, done a remarkable job of replanting the original vegetation. The species diversity that they have been able to re-establish in that bit of country is remarkable. In fact, it's very interesting. I could bore you for hours, but I only have a minute to go.</para>
<para>The First Nations artefacts that they have discovered there and worked with local land councils and others to make sure they are protected and maintained in that country—let's find a way of the whole country doing this work. Let's find a way of engaging and providing incentives so it's not just a matter of charity or a sense of what is in the interests of future generations that mobilises it but a set of economic incentives that support that kind of development.</para>
<para>That is part of the way forward here. I stress that it's not the only measure that the government is undertaking. Minister Plibersek, as Minister for the Environment and Water, and the other ministers in the government who are engaged in this work, will continue to outline and deliver areas of reform. I look forward to the amendments and to working across the chamber to make sure that this piece of legislation is passed. I hope that we will continue to watch its progress closely and make sure it delivers in the national interest in the way that it should.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CANAVAN</name>
    <name.id>245212</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm totally opposed to the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 because I'm against these artificial, corrupt, government-imposed markets which do nothing to help the real world but end up making a whole lot of people money. In effect, what we have in front of us here is a modern form of indulgence. We had these old indulgences in the old days, where if you sinned and you did the wrong thing, you could go the Pope or the Catholic Church and pay some money and you'd be absolved and could go to heaven. Now, we have a new form of indulgence where you commit some sin against the Green gods and you pay a price—an offset, it's called—and I suppose you go to wherever the Greens go when they pass from this world. You still get to heaven. That's what this is all about and that's what these bills do. It says that you can destroy the environment a little bit—that's okay, as long as you do something over here.</para>
<para>What inevitably happens is these markets tend to be totally corrupt. They don't work, and I'll go through some examples of that. They don't even generate anything for the real world. At least, as much as the Catholic Church has sinned over the years, at least the old form of indulgence has got us St Peter's. We got Saint Peter's Basilica out of it, and that's pretty impressive. I was lucky enough to go this year, and it's pretty impressive. There was at least some corresponding benefit of the corruption that involved the medieval form of indulgences. We'll get nothing from these bills. This will do nothing for the environment. It just sets a whole new level of bureaucracy, which is what this town loves. That's why the Labor Party are for it and that's why all the trade unions are for it. They love it—more jobs, more bureaucrats assessing artificial things that will never generate any real-world improvements.</para>
<para>What happens with the situations is a bunch of big companies decide that they want to burnish their green credentials—you've probably seen it yourselves if you've ever flown recently. You will see those little boxes that say you can tick here, pay a little extra money and you can be green. You can offset the evil thing you are doing by flying from one place to another by paying a little bit extra on these green offsets. That's what these bills try to encourage and grow. What do these offsets do? There was a recent big international study of these offsets, used around the world by companies like Shell and even Gucci—all of these companies that like to tell us all how moral and ethical they really are. This study found that 94 per cent of these carbon offsets—run by this company called Verra, and all this company does is environment offsets—did nothing. They did nothing for the environment. They didn't change any deforestation at all but they were still sold for money. You still paid for them when you ticked the boxes or decided to get green power or whatever you decided to do it. Fair enough, if you want to do that and spend money on that, that's fine. But it's not fine when that money you are spending does not go towards an actual benefit. That happened in 94 per cent of these cases. In fact, one of these offset programs is in the Brazilian Amazon, and an auditor who worked in a lot of projects in the Amazon was quoted in the study, saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I have worked as an auditor on these projects in the Brazilian Amazon and when I started this analysis, I wanted to know if we could trust their predictions about deforestation. The evidence from the analysis—not just the synthetic controls—suggests we cannot. I want this system to work to protect rainforests. For that to happen, we need to acknowledge the scale of problems with the current system.</para></quote>
<para>That is what is happening right now, and these bills do nothing to improve the auditing of practices that occur in this processes. In fact, I think these types of systems are fundamentally broken. You're never going to create an artificial environment that will work, because bureaucrats will never get this right. They will never do this right. There will always be this level of corruption. This is not the way things should go down.</para>
<para>The other aspect here that gets forgotten is that when these offsets do anything, if they do, it's not usually to protect the environment; it is to shut down economic production. That's what happens. We'll say we're going to protect this mulga country—this is a real example happening right now—in South-West Queensland. We'll say: 'Just take all the cattle off the property, and that will become a carbon offset, because cattle are terrible and woeful and do bad things. You take all the cattle off, and we'll designate that area now, without cattle, as being environmentally pure.' You can generate an offset and sell that through this carbon market, sometimes the biodiversity market, et cetera. That happens right now without these bills. It's happening.</para>
<para>I heard the previous speaker, Senator Ayres, saying it's great for farmers. Okay; the guy who sells it, the guy who owns the land, yes, gets some money. He gets paid some money for that. Good luck to him. Nothing much happens except that the cattle leave. Weeds grow, pests grow. No-one manages the property anymore. It's worse for the local environment. And the unspoken victims of that are economic—the small businesses, the people and the workers who live in that area. If there are no cattle anymore in that area in South-West Queensland, there are no fencing contractors, there are no mustering teams to muster the cattle and there's no longer any need for helicopter pilots to help muster. Truck drivers have less business. Fewer people are coming out to motels. A whole country town is then affected by this.</para>
<para>I spoke to the Cunnamulla mayor just a few months ago about this. There are now long roads in her council area where all cattle have been completely removed. In one part, eight of 13 cattle properties down one road have no cattle anymore because big rich investors from these big companies have come in and bought out all the cattle. They've bought out the economic base of these country towns and communities. As I say, it does nothing for the environment. You just get weeds and pests growing. It's great for all the wild dogs and pigs. They have a great old time because no-one is there managing the property anymore, but nothing is done for the real environment except real people are hurt.</para>
<para>There's another example, not a farming example. Some other people have come to me in recent years about a situation here, around the ACT. There's a large suburban community near the ACT called Jerrabomberra. It is growing rapidly, and there's a need for a new road out to this new suburb because the current roads are getting very congested. That road was set and designed to go through a certain area, a rural area. It wasn't going to impact anyone's homes or anything like that. But then, it turned out, the New South Wales government discovered that part of the road reserve that they had identified went through an area that had been offset against someone else's project. It was a mining or manufacturing project or something. Some other project had bought this area of land and said 'Nothing can ever happen on this land anymore,' for however many years—these bills say 25 to 100 years or something like that. So they couldn't build the road through this offset area. I've asked questions here at estimates, and apparently once something is offset like that it's done. It's set in stone. You can't offset the offset, and you're stuck. They've had to redesign where this road is going out to Jerrabomberra, and guess what? They've put the road through people's homes.</para>
<para>Now we have a situation with these stupid offsets where you're protecting some scrub outside of the ACT and saying it's wonderful for the environment. You can't cut down those trees. You could have cut down all the trees leading up to that offset area and the ones beyond that; that's fine. This little area, this little pocket, is inviolable now and can't be touched. So we'll just move the road and we'll knock out people's homes. We're going to displace human beings, who are living here, who have built their lives, some of whom would have built their forever homes here. Bang—don't worry about you; we're not going to worry about you anymore. This is ridiculous. These offset regimes cost people in real terms, and they do nothing to protect the environment.</para>
<para>I thought Senator Pocock made a very good point before, too, that if we want to protect the environment, why isn't the government paying for it, if it's a social good? I think we should have government funded environmental protection projects and biodiversity projects. We should do these things. The former coalition government established the Green Army, which did great, practical things at a local level to improve the environment—not these grand schemes but getting down into the environment, removing weeds, getting rid of pests and cleaning up rivers and bank channels to help your local environment. Those things are really important.</para>
<para>But the reason we've got this type of scheme coming before us is that the government is broke; they've got no money, and they want the rest of us to pay for it. That's what's happening here. This is a scheme that's being set up so companies can put more and more surcharges on your airfares and at your shops, to say that they're green without doing anything and cost you more money. That's what's going to happen here. It happens all the time.</para>
<para>You can see it at the shops right now; it's a little bit different from this, but it's scratching the same itch. Has anyone noticed how, when you go into Coles and Woolworths now, you pay 25c for these ridiculous paper bags? They say they're good for the environment. My mum was telling me the other day that when they introduced plastic bags a generation ago they made a big song and dance about how that was protecting the environment, because they were getting rid of paper bags, which meant chopping down the trees. Now they're making the same claims about these paper bags, which break and don't last. Do you know what it is? It's a money-making scheme, because they're 25c, they break every bloody time, and you've got to get another one when you go back. Coles and Woolworths are just making more money from this—saying that they're green and they're environmental. This is just a way of making you pay more, and they're hoping you'll feel good about it because it's green and environmental. That's what this is about.</para>
<para>We hear constantly from this government that their No. 1 priority is the cost of living. We hear that from the Prime Minister, and we've heard it from them this week in question time. Their No. 1 priority is the cost of living. Where are the bills this week that deal with the cost of living? Has anyone noticed any piece of legislation coming forward to this chamber this week that's actually going to lower the cost of living for Australians? I haven't. I haven't seen a single one. They say it's the No. 1 priority, but all we get are more and more bills that add costs onto people, that add red tape, that add regulation and that increase people's costs of basic life here, and that's what this bill will do. It's setting up a regime which will either force, make or pressure companies to buy these indulgences, these environmental offsets that will cost them money. And then they have to pass on those costs to all of you, in your shopping bills, in your power bills, in your mortgages—because the banks are big in this, too; the banks love all this stuff—in your interest rates. All these things will go up because of this legislation.</para>
<para>So why isn't a government that says they're in favour of doing something about the cost of living actually doing something to help? Why aren't they doing something to help our nation's farmers increase their productivity? They could still protect the environment but also increase food production. Why have they got a bill before us that shuts down agricultural production across our country, which reduces and makes it harder for farmers to produce goods and help to bring down the costs of food in your shops? We saw during the last week we were here the government forcing through legislation to rip water out of the Murray-Darling Basin, our nation's food bowl. There's now going to be much less water used in the Murray-Darling, because this government is obsessed. They did another deal with the Greens last week to take water off farmers. And if you have less water you grow less food, and that's going to increase the costs of food production—another bill that increased the cost of living for Australians. It's a constant theme here, from a government that seems committed to not doing anything without the support of the radical Greens political party, which has no interest in bringing down costs for consumers but simply wants to end intensive agriculture in this country, de-industrialise our nation and make us weaker and poorer because of that.</para>
<para>That's what this agenda is all about. We'll hear from other senators about how David Littleproud supported this. Well, I don't support it. Deal with the arguments. You're constantly wanting to resort to personal attacks and play politics with these sorts of things. Drop the politics. Tell us how this will actually help bring people's cost of living down, because that's what you say is your No. 1 priority. So, tell us, in very simple terms, how this bill is going to help Australians. That should be what we're here for. That should be why we decide to spend time away from our families and come to this place. How is this bill actually going to help the lives of real Australians? It's not. This is a bill that's all for big business. It's a bill for the big businesses of the world who want to assuage their moral guilt for other things and ways they might conduct themselves by buying these indulgences. That's what this bill is about. It's to help big business.</para>
<para>It's certainly not to help small businesses. Small businesses aren't there buying these environmental offsets. They don't care about these things. They're too busy running their own businesses, trying to keep their payroll in check, trying to deal with the red tape in the ATO and all the other things that oppress their lives. They don't care about this stuff. It's not for small businesses. It's certainly not for families who are struggling to pay their kids' school fees, to keep them in sports at ever-increasing costs, and right now to buy their kids' Christmas gifts. It's not for them. This bill is not about them. It's for a small group of people, elites in among our society, who talk a lot to the Labor Party. Labor are very close to big business now and the big banks. We've seen it in the last few months. Alan Joyce would have loved this bill. Qantas is one of the biggest buyers and consumers of these green offsets; they would love this. And the Labor Party these days seem constantly to be talking just to them. Everything that comes to this place seems to be driven by and the result of what big business needs and wants, not what small business needs and not what families need. It's certainly not to help Australians who are being crushed by the homegrown inflation and cost-of-living crisis created by this government's wanton spending and lack of ability to get anything under control.</para>
<para>I won't be supporting this bill, and I would hope that the Greens and others stay consistent to their principles against this. I actually share a lot of the Greens' criticisms of these systems. They are artificial, they are corrupt, they are for big business and they shouldn't be supported. Let's hope that common sense prevails and we don't end up with some dirty deals done cheaply here this evening that sell out the Australian people in favour of big business. Let's act to get the cost of living down for Australians, not make things harder for them.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very pleased to rise in support of the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 and the associated bill, particularly after the completely nonsensical contribution from a senator who claims to stand up for regional Queensland. I live in regional Queensland, and this is something that people there are calling for. We know how important it is, and we know that there are three things that will get lost in this debate when senators, particularly those of the Liberal and National parties, come into this chamber. These are three really important things that I need people to understand and consider while these post-fact contributions are happening.</para>
<para>Firstly, there is a crucial need to repair our natural environment right now. We can't wait. We've lost a decade to bickering, politics and negativity from the Liberal-National coalition. We've lost a decade. We have lost time and we need to make it up urgently. That is what everyone is telling us, particularly when it comes to the environment. The <inline font-style="italic">Australia state </inline><inline font-style="italic">of the </inline><inline font-style="italic">environment</inline> report, which I'll speak about shortly, confirms that.</para>
<para>Secondly, the things that are being lost in this debate are the very real and exciting opportunities that this scheme could unlock. They get lost by those opposite—they don't want to see those opportunities—but I see those opportunities firsthand in the work of nature repair happening in catchments around Queensland, all the way up the coast. I'm really proud see the work that's been going on. Just imagine the possibility if those small-scale projects that have had such a crucial environmental impact were given the ability to go full-scale. There would be so many jobs and so many partnerships supported. Those very real opportunities won't be spoken about by those opposite, but they are what we on this side of the chamber know will result from this bill.</para>
<para>The last thing that anyone in this chamber or outside this chamber should ever forget is that the Liberal and National parties will stand in the way of environmental reform every day of the week. It doesn't matter what type of reform it is. It wouldn't matter if they had actually drafted this bill themselves—which they did; they had a version of this bill and a version of this scheme. It doesn't matter what's in this bill; it's for the environment and it's for working alongside people to make sure we can repair our environment, so they're against it. Their arguments and the debate they want to have aren't about improving the environment or creating more jobs; they are just dead against any environmental reform. Anyone who lines up with them also lines up with their decades-long record on environmental destruction, vandalism and complete disregard for how important our environment actually is for our economy.</para>
<para>Labor today, in supporting this bill's passage through the Senate, is creating a world-first nature repair market. The Nature Repair Market Bill will see the introduction of a world-leading voluntary market framework to support landholders in protecting and restoring nature. This will make it easier for businesses, organisations, governments and individuals to invest in projects to protect and repair nature, because we don't want just to stop environmental decline; we want to repair it. We must. We need to right now.</para>
<para>It's about bringing people together on this journey. We talk about that a lot—not just in this chamber; I talk about it a lot in my work as this Special Envoy for the Great Barrier Reef. For so long when it came to these debates, and it continues today through this discussion, the Liberals and Nationals would have you believe that we need to fit people, particularly people from regional Australia, into boxes, into a binary situation where it's farmers versus scientists, landowners versus conservationists, agriculture versus traditional owners, environment versus the economy, or farming jobs versus jobs on the reef. Respectfully, I'd argue that sometimes those from the Greens Party fall into that trap as well. But that's not how you deliver reform, and it's not how you deliver outcomes in regional Australia. Actually getting farmers, scientists, landowners, conservationists and First Nations people to sit down, partner and find the way that we can work together is how you get results. That's what the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 identifies: that there's an opportunity here if we bring people together instead of saying that you must always be on opposite sides of this debate.</para>
<para>That's why Labor bring people together in this space. It's what we've continued to do in the work that we've done for the environment, and for very good reasons. You don't have to delve too far into the <inline font-style="italic">State </inline><inline font-style="italic">of the </inline><inline font-style="italic">environment</inline> report to understand the seriousness of the task that we have at hand: one of environmental degradation, loss and inaction. We want to see our environment protected. Australians love the outdoors. We're so lucky to have such a diverse range of incredible landscapes, waterways, and ecosystems around us in our country. Maybe this is something that people like me who live in regional Australia take for granted sometimes, that we can just drive 45 minutes up the tablelands and jump into a waterfall and that we've got these pristine environments that are so beautiful. But, if we lose them, we lose so much about what makes Australia special. A healthy environment is important to communities, economies and our First Nations culture—our way of life. It impacts everything that we do. Just last week we saw an intense debate in this place and right around the country about protecting the mighty Murray-Darling, another critical environment asset. It's so important to our country, our regions and the people that live there. It's a river system that we want to ensure becomes healthier and more sustainable and one that we want to protect from future droughts.</para>
<para>The Nature Repair Market Bill represents another important, pivotal moment for our environment. This is, despite what those opposite will have you believe, what the bill will do. The Nature Repair Market Bill, together with the Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill, aims to establish a world-first nature repair market. The bills provide the legislative framework for a voluntary national market in biodiversity certificates to enable private investment in high-integrity projects to protect, manage, and restore nature. The market will be open to landholders, farmers, First Nations people, conservation groups and businesses. The market will enable project proponents to undertake projects that protect the environment and protect and enhance biodiversity on a range of land tenures, including the aquatic environment and the ocean to the extent of Australia's territorial sea. Project proponents will be able to apply to the Clean Energy Regulator for a unique biodiversity certificate that could then be sold to interested persons in the market, very simply being rewarded for the hard work that you put into the environment. They will be able to monetise this really important work that's already happening and be able to lift the scale of these projects from small-scale and admirable projects to big-change projects that make a huge difference to our environment.</para>
<para>The bill is framework legislation, and there will be rules and biodiversity assessment instruments introduced so we can get the methodology right. These legal instruments will be subject to consultation. It's really significant, I think, that what we are talking about is a market that will include tradeable biodiversity certificates, insurance and compliance arrangements, a public register and a nationally consistent approach for measuring biodiversity outcomes, because we know around Australia there are different credit schemes in place. People are talking about the opportunity that this could capture—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! It being 1.30 pm, we will now proceed to two-minute statements.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</title>
        <page.no>6501</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>6501</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese Labor government has failed in its most fundamental duty, which is to protect the people of Australia. Over the last month the Albanese Labor government's incompetent handling of and its incompetent response to the High Court decision of NZYQ has led to over 140 hardened criminals being released into the Australian community, and now we are seeing the consequences. Now the people of Australia are reaping the consequences of the incompetence of and bungling by the Albanese Labor government. And you don't need to listen to the words of another politician to understand what's at stake here; all you need to do is have a look at the front pages of newspapers all over this country.</para>
<para>The Adelaide <inline font-style="italic">Advertiser</inline> has 'High farce: released asylum seeker arrested for indecent assault'. The <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> newspaper has 'Human catastrophe: detainee sex charges'. The <inline font-style="italic">Daily Telegraph</inline> has 'Freed detainees in alleged assault, drugs charge'. It's across the length and breadth of our country. This is what the Australian newspapers are reporting today. The <inline font-style="italic">Herald Sun</inline> in Victoria says, 'Freed to attack: sex predator charged with indecently assaulting woman after release from immigration detention as bungling federal government still in chaos over High Court ruling', with the headline 'How could you let this happen?' That's what the headline says: 'How could you let this happen?' How could the Albanese Labor government let this happen? That is what the people of Australia are asking themselves the length and breadth of this nation. How indeed?</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tasmania: Salmon Industry</title>
          <page.no>6501</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to speak this afternoon on the salmon industry in Tasmania and how important it is to our community and to our economy. Tasmania supplies over 90 per cent of salmon to the rest of Australia and is the largest exporter of salmon in the country. The annual total gross catch is worth over $1.075 billion, and the processed and packaged value is $1.408 billion. Furthermore, according to the salmon industry, it is due to grow to be worth more than a billion dollars annually by 2030.</para>
<para>The salmon industry in Tasmania is such an important part of our state, and it's part of our people. It supports over 5,000 direct and indirect jobs in mostly regional Tasmania, which is good for our communities and good for our economy. Generations have worked in this proud industry, which is why I stand shoulder to shoulder with everyone who works in the salmon industry. Every Labor senator in this place, particularly my colleagues from Tasmania, believes in a sustainable salmon industry, and we do this because we know how important it is to the people of Tasmania and for the Tasmanian economy.</para>
<para>I acknowledge the Australian Workers Union for jumping to the defence of the Tasmanian salmon industry after it faced relentless misinformation being spread by Tasmanian conservation group Environment Tasmania and other organisations which seek to do nothing other than destroy this proud, booming industry.</para>
<para>The salmon industry in Tasmania, as I said, is great for jobs and it's great for local economies. It's providing jobs and strengthening local economies in regional Tasmania. We will stand with the salmon industry every single day and combat the mistruths from those opposite. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Toondah Harbour</title>
          <page.no>6501</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My home state of Queensland is home to internationally significant wetlands, including Toondah Harbour, part of Moreton Bay. Toondah Harbour is the gateway to Minjerribah/Stradbroke Island and is home to one of Australia's most endangered birds, the eastern curlew. The fate of Toondah Harbour now rests solely with environment minister Tanya Plibersek, as she has now officially received the environmental impact statement for Walker Corporation's plans to build a private luxury apartment and retail complex in over 40 hectares of Ramsar listed wetlands. BirdLife Australia have highlighted how this project will not only destroy important feeding habitat for the critically endangered eastern curlew but also have global ramifications by undermining the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. You're not meant to build penthouses in internationally significant wetlands.</para>
<para>The critically endangered eastern curlew is also meant to be one of 20 priority birds identified in the federal government's new 10-year Threatened Species Action Plan, probably because its population has declined by 80 per cent in the last 30 years due to developments just like this one all along their coastal habitats. The federal environment department advised the former environment minister to reject an early iteration of this very proposal outright, noting that it was clearly unacceptable under the EPBC Act. Despite this advice, and perhaps due to the donation that was received by the Liberal Party from Walker Corporation at about the same time, then minister Frydenberg allowed it to progress. Dredging Ramsar listed wetlands for a canal estate, with luxury high-rise residences that no-one can actually afford, makes no sense except for the private profits of mega property developers like Walker Corporation.</para>
<para>With the EIS officially received, Minister Plibersek now has up to 40 business days to accept or reject this massive proposal by Walker Corporation. I'm calling on environment minister Plibersek to reject this proposal once and for all and save Toondah Harbour. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability</title>
          <page.no>6502</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUGHES</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to talk about one part of the disability royal commission and its findings. It's one that's got a lot of publicity and has also set off a lot of panic among the parents of children with significant disabilities. This is in regard to special schools. There were a lot of recommendations that were unanimous amongst the commissioners, but this was not one. This was one that was a fifty-fifty split among the commissioners and the chair. They did not all support this, but there is a group that is pushing for special schools to be disbanded—for them to no longer exist.</para>
<para>This is within an environment where we have high schools for academically gifted students, for athletically gifted students and for those that excel in the performing and creative arts, yet, somehow or other, children with a disability, particularly those with complex needs, are now meant to just be tumbled into the mainstream environment. This, quite frankly, does not work for a lot of students. There are students who have significant issues that require significant levels of support. Particularly when kids get to high school, there is no way that kids with significant intellectual and cognitive impairments have the executive functioning skills and capabilities to flourish within a mainstream environment.</para>
<para>What we need to remember is that it is all about choice and control. All the commissioners agreed that one of the big functions and fundamentals within disability policy should be choice and control, yet three of these commissioners have come out and said, 'But, you know, we're going to remove one of those choices.' I speak from experience. I've had a son in mainstream school. I've had him in mainstream school in an autism stream, and we now attend a special school. The changes, growth and development within my son have been extraordinary, and the fact that families may be deprived of this as an option is absolutely shameful.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>femLINKpacific</title>
          <page.no>6502</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PRATT</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With the rapid rise of technology around the world, we often hear cautionary negative tales. It can be easy to forget that social media, ICT and radio can be powerful forces for social change.</para>
<para>Today I want to share the remarkable work of an organisation in Fiji. FemLINKpacific is a feminist media platform fighting for gender equality and women's rights in the Pacific region. Their core media initiative is femTALK. It's a women-led community radio network amplifying the voices of women across the nation, especially those women generally overlooked in mainstream media, including rural women, women in remote communities, and disability and LGBTIQ+ networks. Through their Women's Weather Watcher program, they are also providing real-time weather pattern and disaster updates to women in rural communities and advocating for their inclusion in disaster preparedness, response and recovery.</para>
<para>I'm delighted to know that femLINKpacific is made possible by the We Rise Coalition, which is funded by the Australian government. As a member of the Australian government, I'd like to warmly thank and commend those at femLINKpacific for the tangible, positive change they are bringing about in the Pacific.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tasmania: Australian Labor Party</title>
          <page.no>6503</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Tasmanian Liberal government got a little bit of good news four days ago—a Newspoll showed a small lift in support. It was a tiny lift of one per cent for the Tasmanian Liberal government. On the other hand, support for the Tasmanian Labor Party dropped from 32 per cent to 29 per cent. This reverses what had been a steady rise for Tasmanian Labor since they put the federal Labor Party in charge.</para>
<para>After they were defeated in the 2022 state election, Tas Labor fell into a rather nasty heap, and the infighting reached a peak when a respected and newly elected Labor member of the upper house resigned, telling the media that he couldn't go on working in such a toxic environment. The state party hadn't won an election in eight years, so the big boys of federal Labor stepped in and put ex-senators Doug Cameron and Nick Sherry in charge. They told the media they would be calling the shots until the next election. The media release put out at the time says that this intervention—and I'm calling it a takeover—was about reinstating trust, respect and transparency. Really? How's that going for you guys down there?</para>
<para>There are lots of reasons Labor is going backwards in the polls. Here are just a couple of them. First they said they were against a stadium, then they said they weren't sure and then they voted to support it. The state Liberals had been promising donation reform for years and said they were going to set a disclosure cap at $5,000, but Labor stuck their chest out, promising they would be more transparent and pushed for a $1,000 limit. Then, when it came down to it, guess what? They caved in and voted with the government. Of course they would! That's why Tasmanian Labor are going backwards in the latest polls: because Tasmanians don't trust you, and when push comes to shove they get told how to vote.</para>
<para>It's the same with the Liberal Party. They put party before people. But I am feeling good, because Tasmanians know what's going on and you can see that in the latest poll. Support for the Independents is surging, and I can tell you what, Tasmanians, we're going to give you choice. Vote for the Independents. Vote for people like the micros and the Jacqui Lambie Network. If you want trust back in the system in Tasmania, you have no other choice other than to continue to let the big boys rule the parties.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nuclear Energy</title>
          <page.no>6503</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McDONALD</name>
    <name.id>123072</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Chris Bowen will be attending COP28 in Dubai, not as a king of energy innovation but as a court jester amongst countries with sensible and pragmatic approaches to energy production involving emissions-free nuclear energy. The World Nuclear Association estimates that uranium demand for nuclear energy in the year 2040 will double what it is today. About 60 reactors are under construction worldwide, and a further 110 are being planned.</para>
<para>On Saturday at COP28, more than 22 countries, including the US, Britain and France, pledged to triple nuclear capacity by 2050. French President Emmanuel Macron and America's climate change envoy, John Kerry, both say nuclear must be a part of any country's ambitions for nett zero. Canadian PM Justin Trudeau says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We're going to need a lot more energy… We're going to have to be doing much more nuclear.</para></quote>
<para>And Swedish PM Ulf Kristersson says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Sweden is going to build new nuclear power plants to produce more clean electricity and speed up the green transition.</para></quote>
<para>Finnish PM Petteri Orpo says they want nuclear power to become the cornerstone of the government's energy policy. Yet the energy minister for Sydney panders to Greens in his electorate by scoffing at nuclear energy and ridiculing its supporters.</para>
<para>If Minister Bowen thinks no-one will build nuclear in Australia because of cost, then why is he clinging to the ban so desperately? Even the current Australian Workers' Union National Secretary, Paul Farrow, has made clear that nuclear power is necessary and slammed Labor's position, saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If nuclear power doesn't stack up on cost today, that's one thing. But objecting because of outdated twentieth century ideology is another.</para></quote>
<para>Australians deserve a far more mature government than what is currently being offered. Labor has left us standing isolated on the world stage while other developed countries pursue a tripling of nuclear— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>6503</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEWART</name>
    <name.id>299352</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When the Albanese Labor government was elected in May last year, we had one simple objective: to create a better future for all Australians. As long as we have the privilege to hold government, Labor will work to achieve just that.</para>
<para>In this place, those opposite have been aptly named the 'no-alition', and I'll give you a few examples of how they've earned that name. Those opposite opposed our cheaper medicines policy which has saved Australians $100 million in the last nine months. They opposed our 'secure jobs, better pay' workplace relations legislation, which has delivered the fastest wage growth on record and secured a range of measures for workers across the country. They opposed the cheaper child care which is taking pressure off household budgets for 1.2 Australian families. They opposed our energy price relief grant which is saving households up to 18 per cent on retail energy costs. Now they are grumbling that a minister for agriculture is calling on Coles and Woolies to freeze the price of ham before Christmas.</para>
<para>Time and time again, the 'noalition' have shown they stand for nothing and oppose everything. It's no wonder Australians gave them the boot at the last election, especially in my home state of Victoria. You'd need a magnifying glass to find a Liberal in Victoria because they are almost extinct. We had nine years of a rotten Liberal-National government that did nothing but neglect, mismanage and cut what matters most to Australian families. They stood for nothing when they were in power and they stand for nothing now in opposition. In nine years they racked up $1 trillion of debt but couldn't deliver a budget surplus—not one. We did it in our first year of government. But they did manage to have some mugs, of course!</para>
<para>Australians know that Labor is here to help. The Albanese Labor government know that Australians are doing it tough right now and we will continue to stand up and deliver for them. Australian families know that we are on their side.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Sikh Community</title>
          <page.no>6504</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Sikh community are reeling because their leaders are being targeted for political assassination. Just a few short days ago the US Department of Justice announced that an Indian government official had directed the attempted assassination of a Sikh community leader on US soil. This followed the murder of Sikh leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar in British Columbia, again directed by an Indian government official. These actions show how far to the extreme the BJP government in India has lurched. If the BJP administration is actively plotting to kill political opponents in the US and Canada, just imagine what's happening in India itself.</para>
<para>All Australian politicians should now show solidarity with our Sikh community, who are the most visible targets of this extreme political violence. I know there's apprehension in the Sikh community about their safety here, and I can see why they are concerned. We have raised this directly with security agencies, including ASIO. ASIO has informed me that there is no current identifiable threat to the Sikh community here. The Sikh community is very visible in public places, especially when they are involved in politics. They deserve a clear and direct assurance from the Australian government that proactive measures are being taken to ensure their safety. There must be a public statement from our government to the government of India that these actions represent a gross breach of international law that offends Australian values. Our government needs to make it clear that if something like this occurs in Australia it will be taken as a hostile act that would fundamentally undermine our bilateral relationship. It is essential that this occurs now to prevent this violence from occurring in Australia. It's one thing to ride in a golden chariot and venerate a foreign political leader, but the hard politics is when you need to put principles and the collective good of Australians ahead of a media sugar hit or the promise of a lucrative trade deal. That's when politicians earn their keep.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples</title>
          <page.no>6504</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today an open letter was sent to all members of parliament calling for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the UNDRIP, to be legislated. This states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Following the failure—</para></quote>
<para>the shameful failure—</para>
<quote><para class="block">of this year's referendum for constitutional recognition—</para></quote>
<para>that no-one wanted—</para>
<quote><para class="block">and a Voice to Parliament—</para></quote>
<para>that no-one wanted—</para>
<quote><para class="block">many people are wondering what the pathway forward is for improving the lives of First Peoples.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Legislating UNDRIP is an immediate action the Australian Government can take to fulfil its promises to strengthen First Peoples' rights, including the right to self-determination and cultural rights … this will have tangible and lasting benefits for First Peoples in this country.</para></quote>
<para>This open letter is signed by a range of human rights experts, First Peoples and NGOs, with 80 signatories in total, including Les Malezer, who was the Chair of the Global Indigenous Caucus when the declaration was adopted by the UN General Assembly, and Dr Sheryl Lightfoot, Chair of the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The High Commissioner of India supported it. Professor Chelsea Watego and Amnesty International supported it. After today I will table a petition, with 2,323 signatures, calling on the parliament to legislate UNDRIP.</para>
<para>If the government wanted to legislate UNDRIP they could do it tomorrow, when my private senator's bill will be debated. Legislating the UNDRIP is not controversial. It sets a minimum standard for First Peoples' rights. If this government won't support my bill then it should at least have the decency to legislate UNDRIP in this term of government. Stop being so gammon, Labor; stop talking about black rights. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Domestic and Family Violence</title>
          <page.no>6505</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LIDDLE</name>
    <name.id>300644</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We'd all agree that every single domestic and family violence death is horrific. In my home state of South Australia, the number in the past month has been unprecedented, with the killing of five women. Tragically, the sector predicts we'll see further escalation of violence as the cost-of-living pressure in the home increases and there's the seasonal strain on relationships during the festive season.</para>
<para>We have the tools to help turn things around. We have two national action plans that inform the National Plan to End Violence against Women and their Children, which outlines the work of the Commonwealth, the states and the territories, and their commitment to delivering on the ambition of ending violence within a generation. So we have plans. But saying that you're doing something is one thing; what matters is that you are actually doing what you said you would do, and that what you are doing is being done with the urgency that's required. As shadow minister for child protection and the prevention of family violence, I know that we must get better at monitoring how this government, the states and the territories are turning words into action.</para>
<para>Prevention and early intervention are best for everybody—most importantly, though, for the children. A 39-year-old woman killed at Morphett Vale had five children. A woman fatally shot at Modbury North had a teenage daughter. An analysis of intimate partner homicides in Australia, highlighted in a newly released report by the University of Melbourne, indicates that 172 children have been bereaved through domestic violence in eight years. Imagine the heart-wrenching reality for these children. Trauma is compounded for children when they are the offspring of both the killer and the victim. Our response must be timely, responsive, and in sufficient measure in prevention, early intervention, response, recovery and healing, and it must be connected to those plans. It's 17 days of activism; we've got to do more. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration</title>
          <page.no>6505</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We've had another article today in the paper, by Judith Sloan, with regard to our high immigration figures. The recent arrivals are about 500,000 a year. The article reads:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In addition to natural population increase—which is only about 120,000 a year—what this means is that close to 600,000 have been added to the population in a year. This is almost half the population of Adelaide and over 100,000 more than the population of Canberra.</para></quote>
<para>On top of that we've got 726,000 international students.</para>
<para>Apart from all of that, the government has opened our country to Afghan refugees that are in Pakistan. Between 15 August and 10 November, there were 217,000 Afghan visa applications, 32,000 of them on P1 and P2. P1 priority is for Afghan women who are without men to protect them. These are women that have probably never had an education. They'll come to Australia, bring their children and will not assimilate. I can see them on welfare for most of their lives because they will not be able to assimilate into our culture. My big concern is that these people may be Islamic fundamentalists. Are they going to be looked at properly, and is it viable to bring them to Australia? The man that was released from the detention centre—he's out there—was originally from Afghanistan. We have someone who is a sex offender on our streets.</para>
<para>We cannot keep increasing the population entering Australia when the Australian people themselves can't find housing. It is wrong to keep increasing the numbers. If you're going to bring people into the country, make sure they will assimilate. Make sure they are in tune with our culture and way of life and will assimilate into our society, which is more important to this country than bringing in people. There are 217,000: 66,000 applications that have been processed and another 150,000 in the pipeline. When will it be enough? <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>6505</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Since the announcement of the Greens-led inquiry into price gouging by the supermarket duopoly, people have been flooding my office with examples of how they are being sucked dry by the likes of Coles and Woolworths while those same supermarkets are raking in billions of dollars in profit during a cost-of-living crisis. Examples include cabbages going from $4 to $9, coffee beans going from less than $24 a kilo to over $44 a kilo, a two-litre tub of ice cream going from $8 to $11, a large box of cereal going up from $5.50 to $10.80 and nappies going from $29 to $39 a packet in just 18 months. Another shopper got in touch and said that their local supermarket charged nearly $17 a kilo for simple sausages, which they calculated would equate to more than $10,000 for a single head of beef. I can assure folks our farmers are not being paid that amount of money. Despite supply-side challenges starting to reduce, prices are not coming 'down, down'; they are continuing to go 'up, up'. We will force the CEOs of the big supermarket corporations, Coles and Woolies, to come in, front the Greens-led inquiry into price gouging and explain, if they can, how they can justify prices going up. Millions of Australians are unable to afford to put a decent feed on the table during a cost-of-living crisis while rents are going through the roof, with a record series of interest rate rises, while their supermarkets are making billions of dollars in profit. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gender Equality</title>
          <page.no>6506</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We are told that the so-called gender pay gap has fallen for the second year in a row, hitting a record low of 13 per cent. But, by law, men and women must be paid the same wage for performing the same or comparable work. Why is there a gap? Is there a gap at all? The government's Workplace Gender Equality Agency claims that the gap is created by discrimination and bias, lower wages for female-dominated industries, a lack of workplace flexibility and higher rates of part-time work. But there is one glaring difference that they fail to mention: worker fatalities by gender. Every year, Safe Work Australia compiles the data, and the sad fact is that the rate of fatalities per 100,000 workers is 28 times higher for men than for women. Out of 194 people killed at work in 2020—which are the most recent statistics that we have—186 were men and eight were women. That's because the most dangerous occupations—machine operators, labourers et cetera—are dominated by men. Worker fatalities are also concentrated, obviously, in male-dominated industries. Agriculture, forestry and fishing had the highest rate of fatalities, followed by transport, postal and warehousing, with construction in third place. And it's not just deaths. The incidence rate for serious injuries was almost twice as high for men as for women. In reality—and this is the reality—a big part of the pay gap between men and women amounts to what I would call 'danger money'. Men do more dangerous work and often end up paying with their lives. There is no such thing as the gender pay gap. There are only differences and different choices, which is fine. There's nothing wrong with that.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mental Health</title>
          <page.no>6506</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak about Mental Health Australia's <inline font-style="italic">Report to the nation</inline> for 2023Starting on a positive note, the report highlights that, in 2023, more Australians reported feeling capable, happy, part of a community and able to seek support. In 2023, improvements were also made amongst Australians accessing varied support services, with more of us seeing a GP, using digital services, seeing a professional such as a psychologist and looking for online self-help information and support. Unfortunately, the report also underscores that 58 per cent of Australians reported the rising cost of living as having a big impact on their mental health. There are groups who are particularly vulnerable to the crisis, and the report suggests that First Nations people were most impacted, with a rate 16 per cent higher than the general population. These discrepancies are not new, but we must address them so that Australians can strive for good mental health and equal access to support.</para>
<para>I am confident, when I look at the decisions and policies of the Albanese government and the leadership of the mental health assistant minister, Emma McBride, that Labor will champion significant improvements in this space. Everyone has a role to play to ensure Australians have better mental health and can access support when they need it. I thank Mental Health Australia for their important work.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That concludes senators' statements. We will move to question time.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>6506</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>6506</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. It has now been reported that a further detainee, a former ringleader of a child exploitation gang, released by your government from immigration detention, has been arrested in Dandenong amid allegations he has breached his reporting obligations and made contact with minors. It is reported that this man is a registered sex offender, previously alleged by police to have headed a prostitution ring which preyed on children in state care. A court was told how he once traded a pack of cigarettes for sex with a 13-year-old girl. You had five months of warning that the NZYQ case might not go your way, but when the orders were handed down the only thing your government was ready to do was to release these detainees into the Australian community. Minister, why can't your government keep children safe?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Cash for the question. I think she would know that everyone in this chamber wants our children kept safe.</para>
<para>There were a number of assertions in the question from Senator Cash which were not correct. The first of those was a suggestion that, somehow, we wanted to release people into the community. She knows that we are not a government that can or will instruct public servants to act unlawfully. We argued against this case—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Order on my left! Senator Ruston and Senator Cash! I should not have to call your name to get order in this chamber. You've asked your question. The minister has the right to respond in silence. Minister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Unlike some, including the shadow Attorney-General, we know it is not open to a government—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Wong, please resume your seat. I think that was you, Senator O'Sullivan. I have just called the chamber to order. That applies to you. Minister Wong, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Unlike some, including the shadow Attorney-General, we know it is not open to a government to instruct public servants to act unlawfully.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash! Senator McGrath!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We do not instruct public servants to act unlawfully. We have responded to the High Court's decision by legislating tough visa conditions, and we are working to finalise a preventive detention model.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will make the point that those opposite have yet to tell us that they will support a tougher regime and have yet to tell us why they voted against the bill with the Greens to slow down the legislation to impose a tougher regime.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, when you stop yelling at everybody, maybe you can stand up and explain to the gallery why you voted with the Greens to slow down a stronger regime to protect the community. If you don't, we'll all understand why— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order across the chamber! That was incredibly disorderly and disrespectful! The minister is entitled to be heard in silence. I should not have to call senators repeatedly by their names. Senator Cash, please ask your first supplementary.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, your government also made the decision to release a convicted sexual predator once labelled by a judge as a danger to the Australian community and an ongoing risk to women. Yesterday he was arrested and charged with indecently assaulting a woman in South Australia. What does the Prime Minister have to say to the alleged victim, and can you assure Australians that no-one else will become a victim of crime perpetrated by any of the released detainees?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The first assertion in Senator Cash's question was that this was a decision of the government. The release was a decision of the High Court. The release was a decision of the High Court of Australia, a decision against which the government argued. But, as a government in this system, we are bound to observe the decisions of the High Court. I would have thought somebody who was a lawyer and the shadow Attorney-General might respect the separation of powers. Having said that, it is our first priority to work to keep Australians safe. And unlike those opposite, who are only interested in fighting about this, we are interested in working to fix it. We are working to fix it, and that is what we are doing.</para>
<para>I would remind those opposite about their inconsistency on this. First, they demanded tougher laws. Then they voted with the Greens to oppose laws to keep the community safe. First, they said to slow down, and now they say to speed up. We've done more in nine days than you've done in nine years. We know what you're doing in this— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, in light of these further revelations, will the Prime Minister show some strength and sack Ministers Giles and O'Neil who created this situation through their own incompetence?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I again say that we've done more in nine days than those opposite did in nine years. It's an inconvenient truth, Madam President.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Wong, please resume your seat.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McGrath, I've sat the minister down; I'm waiting for silence. Obviously, calling those senators on my left to order is having very little effect. I am the President. I am asking you to be silent, and that is what you should do.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Every single one of these 148 people arrived here before the election. Every single one of these people were still here because Mr Dutton failed to do his job. The government inherited laws that the High Court has ruled unconstitutional, and we have worked around the clock to fix the mess we've inherited. President—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Order, Senator Watt! Once again, order on my left. Minister Wong, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We've worked around the clock to fix the mess we've inherited. To ensure the opposition's support—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Cash, I'm really struggling here. I don't know which part of order you don't understand. You are being incredibly disrespectful and disorderly. You are sitting on the frontbench of your party, and I would expect you to set an example, not encourage others to be calling out and being disrespectful. Minister Wong, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>To ensure the opposition's support, we've offered them access to the relevant legal advice. You know what, they haven't made themselves available. Mr Tehan's been at the Jericho Cup races in Warrnambool. Senator Paterson is off visiting Harvard. Senator Cash is right here in the building. She's able to go up to Sky News, but she can't get to the minister's office!</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Order! Senator O'Sullivan, a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'Sullivan</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is out of order to reflect on the presence or not presence of a senator [inaudible].</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator O'Sullivan, it refers to a senator's attendance in the chamber. I don't believe Minister Wong referred to the senators—</para>
<para>Government senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order on my right! Order on my right! It refers to whether a senator is present in the chamber or not, and it's not appropriate to refer to—Senator O'Sullivan, you are not in a debate with me!</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Ballarat: Protests</title>
          <page.no>6508</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. In Ballarat, we've seen an abhorrent and deeply disturbing Nazi rally over the weekend. Can the minister please inform the Senate why these actions that seek to intimidate parts of the Australian community won't be tolerated?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the senator for her question. Australia is privileged to have a rich multicultural society, and values of tolerance and respect are at the core of who we are. Australians fought and died in the fight against fascist ideologies, including Nazism, that are built on antisemitism and on prejudice. Extremist views like Nazism must be met with uncompromising condemnation.</para>
<para>The Nazi rally at the weekend was appalling and unacceptable and has no place in Australia. Sadly, it comes at a time when we have seen an increase in antisemitism more broadly. Nazism and fascism cannot be normalised and they cannot be defended on grounds of freedom of speech because they inflict real and direct harm and they are in direct opposition to liberal democracy. They are ideologies that work by dehumanising—by singling out people as outsiders and second-class citizens who are not deserving of the protections and dignities afforded to full members of the community. This is what the Nazis did. Nazism and fascism dehumanised Jews, gays, people with disabilities, Slavs, Roma, people of colour as well as people of different political views, labelling whole groups of people as subhuman.</para>
<para>This reminds us again why hate speech is so dangerous. Hatred in speech led to hatred in deed, with six million Jews killed in the Holocaust, and millions more declared subhuman were also killed by the Nazis. History shows that genocides, mass atrocities, systemic forms of enslavement and ill-treatment have been fuelled by hate speech, which dehumanises and blames victims. Anyone who refuses to denounce Nazism or other extremist ideologies has not learned the lessons of history. All of us must always stand against those whose rhetoric undermines our diversity, our tolerance and our values.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Marielle Smith, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister explain to the Senate how the Albanese government is working to bring people together and make the community feel safe?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Smith. Everyone must be able to live their lives free from fear and intimidation. The Albanese government has developed a package of support for Australian communities affected by the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. This includes a $25 million grant to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry to immediately improve safety at Jewish schools and preschools across Australia and $25 million to Australian Palestinian, Muslim and other communities to support safety, security, mental health, cohesion and education objectives. We acted swiftly after the 7 October attacks to make these commitments because all Australians deserve to live in a country that is peaceful, accepting and respectful.</para>
<para>This is in addition to government investments that work to protect Australians from terrorist and violent extremist content online and targeted mental health and community support, including for students. The Albanese Labor government is working to protect and promote the safety and wellbeing of all Australians.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Marielle Smith, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What can leaders across Australian communities do to promote social cohesion at this difficult time, and why do all people in this place have a special responsibility to show leadership?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've said before in this place that words matter, and the lesson of history is that words matter. Feelings and attitudes in our country are affected not only by events but also by the words that leaders give them and that our politicians use. All of us in this place have a platform, and we must use our platforms to bring our community together and not to inflame tensions. We should all be deeply concerned by the rise of antisemitism in the Australian community. We should denounce it and reject it utterly, just as we should all forms of racism and prejudice.</para>
<para>I would again urge, as I have many times since the conflict began but also across many years, all in this place to articulate and defend the values and principles that underpin who we are and what we believe in—inclusion, acceptance, respect and equality. We must always choose unity, not division; respect, not prejudice; and hope, not fear, and in doing so make Australia more united at home and stronger in the world. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Security</title>
          <page.no>6509</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minster, Senator Wong. Minister, both Senator Paterson in this place and the Leader of the Opposition quickly called for a preventive detention regime to be put in place to protect the Australian community since your government decided to release detainees including paedophiles, rapists, murderers and a contract killer into the Australian community following the NZYQ case. Again, you had five months of warnings that this case might not go your way, but when the orders were handed down the only thing the Albanese government was ready to do was to release detainees into the Australian community.</para>
<para>It's now almost a month since the decision was handed down, and only this week is your government finally ready to introduce into the parliament the preventive detention regime called for by Mr Dutton. Why weren't you prepared earlier to take the most basic steps to protect the Australian community?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I again point out that the opposition, in their desperate attempt to make sure this is about them and the fight they want to win, asserts that the government decided. The government did not decide; the High Court decided. Words matter. I know that you wish to use words because you're trying to engage in a political attack, but the High Court decided and made a decision that was argued against by the government.</para>
<para>The second point I'd make on the assertion that Senator Birmingham makes and Senator Cash makes—that this was all predictable—is that this was a 20-year precedent. Even privately across the chamber, those opposite expressed a view about the High Court decision that was the overturning of a 20-year precedent. We all know that the opposition is only interested in fighting about this. The government is focused on working to fix it. That is the difference between the two parties.</para>
<para>I again remind those opposite that the High Court's reasons for decision, which enable us to properly draft a preventive detention regime, were handed down last week. We are still waiting for your support for that. We still note that you voted with the Greens against legislation to improve the stringency and to increase the safety that the legislation would provide to the Australian community, and you still haven't explained to the Australian people why you did that. We also know that this legislation will come in— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Birmingham, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The lack of preparation by the Albanese government and the decisions made by Albanese government ministers have now seen crimes alleged to have been committed in the Australian community, including an alleged indecent assault and a registered sex offender having made contact with minors. The Albanese government's failure to prepare for the High Court decision has turned a bad result into a catastrophic one. Why was there no preparation? Why were there no contingencies? Why couldn't your government make plans to keep Australians safe?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>First, in relation to an interjection made earlier, I note that we have tabled the amendments which set out the preventive detention regime. Of course, you may not have made yourselves available to be briefed on them, because Mr Tehan is too busy being at the Jericho Cup in Warrnambool and others are overseas. I would make the point that we have tabled amendments. We look forward to your support and we look forward to an explanation to all those here and beyond as to why you voted with the Greens against strengthening legislation to protect Australians. So, when you come in and talk to us about keeping Australians safe, let everyone remember that you are the group, you are the party, that voted against strengthening the visa conditions and the criminal penalties associated with them, because you are always about the political fight. You are never about fixing the problem.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, the government told the High Court that it was an agreed fact that, as at 30 May 2023, there was 'no real prospect of NZYQ being removed from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future'. Did a minister sign off on a statement of agreed facts that was submitted to the High Court on 30 May this year? Did the government present inaccurate or potentially unreliable evidence that weakened its case and helped to precipitate this disaster that has left Australians less safe than they were beforehand?</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm not going to call the minister until there's order across the chamber.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Of the 148 people who arrived here before the election, can I make this point: every single one of those people was still here because Mr Dutton failed to do his job. You had nine years to arrange resettlement and you didn't, and now you want to complain about the consequences of that.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Wong, please resume your seat.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Order!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Scarr, which part of 'Order' are you failing to understand?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And Senator McKenzie! Senator Shoebridge?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, President. My question is to the—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Shoebridge, I don't believe the minister has finished. I have sat her down because this chamber is disorderly. Minister Wong, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The opposition say they want a preventive detention regime. Well, we have—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes. Do you see? There's Senator Cash again. She's still trying to go the political fight. Why don't you have a look at the amendments for the preventive detention regime, which is actually about Australians—keeping Australians safe. And make sure that you support it, because what we know is that you're always more interested in a political fight than in fixing the problem. We are working to fix the problem. I'm looking forward to you coming aboard, Senator Cash.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Middle East, Australia: Defence Industry</title>
          <page.no>6511</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Minister, RUAG Australia is the sole manufacturer of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter's weapons bay door uplocks. Without that military equipment, the F-35 fighter currently being used by the Israeli military to bomb Gaza would be denied its lethal capability as a weapon. Can the minister please explain the government's position on providing this military equipment to Israel?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you to Senator Shoebridge for the question. The advice I have is what the government has already made clear—that Australia has not supplied weapons to Israel since the conflict began and for at least the past five years. Australia has a stringent export control framework which ensures military and dual-use items are used responsibly outside of Australia in ways which do not violate human rights. I'm advised that Defence undertakes a rigorous assessment of each export application.</para>
<para>I know, in relation to these issues, the senator has asked a number of questions. I'm advised that some of the reports deal with data that is collected by the Australian Border Force and compiled by the ABS. This data is based on information provided by companies about the type and estimated value of goods.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My point of order is on relevance. My question was very specific: about the manufacture of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter weapons bay door uplocks by RUAG Australia. The minister has not been relevant.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You've asked the minister for an explanation and the minister is giving—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Shoebridge, you're not in a debate with me. The minister is being relevant. Minister Wong.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I also wanted to indicate, in relation to the export control framework—which is relevant to the question which has been asked—my previous advice to Senator Shoebridge, which is: the government introduced into parliament, in this session, the Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2023, which is intended to strengthen Australia's export control framework, and is reviewing the Defence trade controls—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>President, it's on relevance: the minister is now talking about putative future legislation. My question was quite specific—about RUAG Australia's manufacture of the weapons bay door uplocks for the F-35 fighters—and I'd ask you to bring the minister back to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I believe the minister is being relevant, Senator Shoebridge, and I will continue to listen carefully to her answer.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, if I can add something else, I will. I would make the point that I am seeking to answer the question by looking to the legal framework which applies to the relevant export. I would have thought that's entirely relevant, Senator Shoebridge. I know you may not like it, but it is relevant. And, with respect, as to 'a putative future bill': this is a bill that has been introduced. It reflects the government's desire or intention to strengthen our export controls framework and ensure that the Defence Trade Controls Act 2012 remains effective, efficient and fit for purpose. I again reiterate the indication I have made earlier, as has the Deputy Prime Minister, in relation to the supply of these weapons.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister; the time for answering has expired. Senator Shoebridge, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, why won't you answer the question about the manufacture of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter's weapons bay door uplocks by Australia as the sole global manufacturer? Why won't you answer that question?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator—through you, President—I have answered the question and I've said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Australia has not supplied weapons to Israel since the conflict began and for at least the past five years.</para></quote>
<para>Then I have gone to the export control framework which is in existence and government plans to strengthen that framework. That is entirely relevant to the question the senator is asking. I know there's a lot of disinformation and misinformation circulating on social media and elsewhere about this issue, and I would encourage the senator to make sure that he does not contribute to that.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Shoebridge, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Speaking to information and/or disinformation, I will say that, according to DFAT's own website, between 2017 and 2022 Australia exported over $13 million worth of 'arms and ammunition' to Israel. Can you please explain how the government can export millions of dollars worth of arms and ammunition to Israel while you also claim to be sending no weapons to Israel?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is really very irresponsible of a senator to suggest that a government department is engaging in misinformation and disinformation at this time. It really is irresponsible of you in this place to do that.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You can disagree, but you know the way in which misinformation and disinformation is used in our society, particularly at this time, and you have a responsibility to use your platform in a more responsible way than you do, Senator Shoebridge. I know that politics is a hard game, but, really, you should use your platform a little more responsibly. I responded on that issue in my primary answer, where I explained—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Shoebridge, you've asked your question. I'm asking you to listen respectfully. Minister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I answered that question in my primary answer, where I referenced the fact that the advice I have is that the data to which the senator refers is collected by ABF and compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics based on information provided by companies and, in declaring the types of goods they are exporting, companies select from a list of broad categories. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wages</title>
          <page.no>6512</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. The Albanese government was elected on a platform of getting wages moving again after a decade of deliberately low wages under the Liberals and Nationals. What have been the results of the Albanese government's actions so far to get wages moving?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Walsh. As I've said before, she, like many in this chamber, has dedicated her life to working for working people, unlike those that we see in the opposition who have dedicated their careers to keeping wages low. The Albanese government's No. 1 priority is addressing inflation and cost-of-living pressures.</para>
<para>We know a lot of people are doing it tough in Australia right now, and that's why we're doing as much as we possibly can to assist. It's why we're delivering targeted relief while not adding to inflation. That includes delivering electricity bill relief, which was opposed by the opposition; making medicines cheaper, which was opposed by the opposition; delivering cheaper child care, which was opposed by the opposition; and, importantly, ensuring wages rise at the fastest rate in a decade, including for minimum-wage and aged-care workers.</para>
<para>Unlike those opposite, the Albanese Labor government is also committed to helping Australians deal with cost-of-living pressures through higher wages. As I've said, we know that a lot of people are doing it tough right now, and ensuring that people have higher wages is an important part of making sure that they can deal with cost-of-living pressures.</para>
<para>The facts don't suit the opposition, because the facts show that wages are moving again under the Albanese Labor government. We've had two consecutive quarters of real wage growth. The latest wage growth data is at four per cent. Under those opposite, it averaged just 2.1 per cent. Under the opposition there was half the wage growth that we are now seeing under the Albanese Labor government. That's because of things like aged-care workers receiving an historic 15 per cent wage rise from the Fair Work Commission, supported by the Albanese government. We've seen increases to award wages. Under the opposition, it was 4.6 per cent in 2022. Under Labor, it was 5.75 per cent in 2023. We've seen the gender pay gap reduced to the lowest it has ever been an Australian history. Meanwhile, we still see unemployment remain at an historic low of 3.7 per cent.</para>
<para>We know people are doing it tough. We need to do more, but we're delivering higher wages again.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister Watt. Senator Walsh, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My constituents are telling me that wage increases are front of mind as they grapple with cost-of-living challenges. What have been the barriers to getting wages moving, and how is the Albanese government working to overcome them?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Literally, the barriers to higher wage growth are looking us in the face. There they are, every single one of them, looking at us bemoaning the fact that Australians are getting higher wages again, including two consecutive quarters of real wage growth. We know that, for those opposite, keeping wages low was a deliberate design feature for the entire time they were in office. Compare the approaches that the respective governments took to the annual wage review for Australia's lowest-paid workers. Under the Albanese government, we said that the Fair Work Commission should ensure that the wages of our lowest-paid workers do not go backwards. What did we see under the coalition? Not only did they say that low wages were a deliberate design feature but there was a subheading in their submission on the minimum wage labelled 'The importance of low-paid work'. Do you know how important it was for low-paid workers? It was very important to make sure they could get wage rises to deal with cost-of-living pressures. And while we know there is more to be done, the Albanese government is delivering those higher wages.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Walsh, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Low wages were a deliberate design feature of the Liberal and Nationals economic architecture. Why is it important that working Australians have strong and secure wages?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para> (—) (): It is vital that Australians, like those sitting in the public gallery today, get the wages that they deserve, get the higher wages they deserve that enable them to deal with cost-of-living pressures. That is why we were so pleased to have seen two consecutive quarters of real wage growth—wages lifting above inflation. We know the job is not done. We know that Australians are dealing with cost-of-living pressures and more needs to be done but we also know on this side of the chamber that higher wages are part of dealing with that. But it would appear there are some members at least on the opposite side who still have yet to learn the lesson, because we all heard Senator Hume yesterday interject, saying that wage rises push up inflation too—talk about saying the quiet bit out loud! What we now know from Senator Hume, the shadow finance minister, and the entire opposition, is that, if they were ever re-elected to government, it would be back to low wages. They still oppose higher wages. They still think low wages are a deliberate design feature of their economic policy, and all those people in the gallery would be getting lower wages if they ever get back into government.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fuel Efficiency Standards</title>
          <page.no>6513</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>To those in the gallery, it is not always this bad but often it is. My question is to the Minister representing to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator Watt. In August the government said that you would complete an impact analysis and release details of your fuel efficiency standards before the end of this year. Given that we have fewer than three sitting days left and three weeks to Christmas, when can we expect to see the standards released?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie thinks it is such an excellent question that she never quite gets around to asking it herself. That's because the Nationals never get a question in question time in the Senate anymore, and maybe Thursday the last question might go to the Nationals—after Senator Lambie.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Watt! Please resume your seat. I will ask you to address Senator Pocock's question and to direct your comments to the chair. Minister Watt, please resume your seat, and no interjections from you, thank you, Senator McKenzie. Minister Watt.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pocock, you are right. The Albanese government is committed to delivering fuel efficiency standards, something that should have happened in Australia a very long time ago, and we have previously committed to delivering those standards as soon as possible. We did also say that we would take the time to get the design right. We hoped that it would be completed at the end of this year but the reality is it is a complex matter and it may stretch into the new year but we are firmly committed to getting this in place as quickly as we can. For anyone who is wondering about why it hasn't been done yet I, again, invite you to take a look at those opposite, because it was those opposite whose attitude to electric vehicles was that they would 'end the weekend', so for 10 years we had no action whatsoever under the coalition to do anything about electric vehicles, anything about fuel efficiency standards. What that has resulted in is Australia joining Russia as one of the only advanced economies without fuel efficiency standards. What an effort to congratulate yourselves on after 10 years of government, being right in line with Russia in delivering no fuel efficiency standards because you preferred to run around and run ridiculous campaigns about electric vehicles 'ending the weekend'.</para>
<para>Senator Pocock, I can assure you that this is something that the Albanese government takes seriously. We are committed to delivering those standards. In the meantime, what we've done is get electric vehicle sales up from two per cent of new car sales when we when came to office to almost nine per cent for the first three-quarters of this year. Now, more than two-thirds of the electric vehicles on Australia's roads today have been added under this government in only 18 months period of time. We've made electric vehicles cheaper. We've got more public chargers out in Australia. We're getting more choice into the market, and we'll be delivering fuel efficiency standards as well. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator David Pocock, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister Watt. You mentioned complexity. Why are they so complex that we have to wait so long? We've seen two tranches of IR legislation. We've seen other very complex legislation. Every other OECD country, bar Russia, who I think is currently suspended from the OECD, has these. Copying and pasting would be a good start. Why are we having to wait so long for these standards that were promised?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm just waiting, Minister, for Senator McKenzie once again to stop her interjections which are disorderly. Minister Watt.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I can understand why Senator McKenzie needs to interject so much, because she is so embarrassed about the fact that in 10 years of coalition government we didn't see any movement on these issues.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Watt, I am going to draw you to Senator Pocock's question. Thank you.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>President, I, of course, respect your ruling. The question was: why has it taken so long to deliver these fuel efficiency standards? The reality is that not only is this a complex matter but, as in so many areas affecting climate policy and right across the policy spectrum, we saw a complete blank slate on this picture when we came to office. We were run for 10 years by a group of people who thought that electric vehicles—actually, they didn't think that electric vehicles would end the weekend; they just went out and said that to try and scare people off. We've grabbed the ball, and we're running with it by doing the hard work that's necessary to deliver these fuel efficiency standards. That is why, in the meantime, as I say—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Lambie, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Lambie</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think part of that question was that he just wants to know whether it's coming before Christmas time.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Lambie, that's not helpful. Minister Watt, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Lambie. Actually, in my first answer, I made the point that it was going to stretch into the new year because it is a big job. It is something we want to get right, but in the meantime—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pocock, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  Minister, too many of the people who we represent are grappling with a cost-of-living crisis. Recent analysis from the Climate Council on electric vehicles shows that Australians could individually save up to $1,200 per year or $10,000 over the vehicle's lifetime on running costs with strong fuel efficiency standards. When will we actually get these standards? You are saying it will be in the new year now. You had said it would be in December. What do we say to Australians when they ask?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Pocock. As I've already indicated in an answer to a different question, we absolutely understand that cost-of-living pressures is the number one issue facing Australians right now. I also agree with your view that delivering lower emission vehicles, electric vehicles, is an important way of assisting Australians to deal with what are otherwise petrol price rises that we see all too regularly. We are working on the fuel efficiency standards, but I reiterate the point that that's not the only thing we're doing. We've already got electric vehicle sales up—I gave you the figures—from two per cent of new car sales when we came to office to almost nine per cent for the first three-quarters of this year. We've made electric vehicles cheaper by cutting taxes on electric vehicles. That can save up to $11,000 a year on a $50,000 electric vehicle, and leasing an electric vehicle like a Tesla model 3 can now cost less month-to-month than leasing a similar petrol vehicle like a Mazda 3. As well, we are delivering more public chargers. So after 10 years of doing nothing and rubbishing the idea, we're getting on with it. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Personnel</title>
          <page.no>6515</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Library research on the number of starred officers in the Australian Defence Force—that is, generals, admirals, air marshals and the like—demonstrates that the Australian Defence Force has been growing its senior command by an enormous amount over the last few decades. In the last decade, there has been an increase in starred officers despite a reduction in ships, aircraft and boots on the ground. Since 1983, the ratio of starred officers to enlisted personnel has increased by about eight times. Forty years ago, there was one general for every 1,800-odd serving people. Now there is one for every 250. Minister, what benefit does the Australian Defence Force get from having so many senior officers?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Lambie, and thank you, President, for the question. The general proposition is that—</para>
<para>An honourable senator interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Okay, that was not intended, actually. Sorry. The overarching proposition is that the military, over time, has had to adapt and modernise to a very different operating environment to the one that you might have been referring to when the ratio was one to 1,800. I am advised that over the last three years Defence has experienced some 13 per cent growth, representing an increase of 13 one-star, 15 two-star and two three-star officers in senior ADF appointments, driven by government outcomes and the need to maintain capability. Growth relating to government directed outcomes includes: support to the COVID-19 response, national bushfire recovery, Queensland floods, overseas operations, the nuclear powered submarines program and the Defence Strategic Review. Other growth has supported the Inspector-General of the ADF Afghanistan inquiry and the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, the enhancement of space, cyber and intelligence functions and the enhancement of operational cooperation and interoperability. The brief I have says that Defence will continue to review all aspects of the ADF to ensure it is able to deliver on government direction and be sustainable and fit for purpose. More broadly, obviously there remains an ongoing challenge and an imperative for recruitment—which the senator is well aware of—which the ADF is seeking to address.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Lambie, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, this morning we have seen further reports that the Australian Defence Force has stuffed up another ship procurement. The $45 billion—that's right, $45 billion—taxpayer funded Hunter class frigate program is under fire, yet again, from the ANAO for being 'poor value for money'. AUKUS is a multi-decade program set to cost 10 times what the frigates will cost. Minister, how can the Australian people possibly have any confidence that AUKUS won't be just another stuff-up?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In relation to the Hunter class procurement, this is something, as the senator knows, that when I was in opposition I asked a lot of questions about. It may well be that, with hindsight, Mr Pyne might have made a different decision than the one that he made. We came to government and we inherited this program. As you know, as a consequence of the Defence Strategic Review, the government commissioned a Navy surface fleet review which included the Hunter frigates. Obviously, the government will work methodically through the recommendations of that review, which was received in the last couple of months. I think the Deputy Prime Minister has made clear that the government will respond formally in the early part of next year. More broadly, the point about defence procurement and its capability in doing that, we are very conscious of the importance of trying to continue to reform— <inline font-style="italic">(T</inline><inline font-style="italic">ime expired</inline><inline font-style="italic">)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Lambie, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, despite the increased number of starred officers, the ADF continues to get no better at procurement and puts our national security at risk. There is a long list of failures from helicopters to submarines to ships and much more. Neither the Chief of the Defence Force nor the secretary—both lifelong bureaucrats in Defence—has owned up to any of its failings or taken responsibility. The only consistent 'general' these men have is general incompetence. Minister, why is the government swallowing everything the ADF gives it and not holding either the CDF or the secretary to account?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator, it is the case that there have, in the past, been procurement challenges. I don't agree with everything you've said, but they have been identified in a range of reports. Defence procurement is obviously a very complex process. I would say that what we are seeking to do is to try and ensure, particularly with AUKUS and the establishment of the Australian Submarine Agency, that there is a dedicated entity that is focused single-mindedly on this enterprise. In your first supplementary question, you correctly identified that the AUKUS undertaking is probably the largest procurement that a government has entered into. It is critical we get it right and that we learn from the mistakes that were made in the past so that they are not repeated. Certainly, the government is very focused on working to ensure that occurs. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>6516</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>No issue there at all. My question is for the minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Minister Wong. Your government recently lodged a defence in the Federal Court for a claim brought by some Australians from the Torres Strait that the government had breached its duty of care to protect them from that bogeyman, climate change. In your government's defence lodged with the court, government lawyers stated that Australia contributes only a very small proportion of global emissions and that it was not reasonably foreseeable that anyone would suffer loss or damage regardless of any action or inaction taken by Australia on climate change. Minister, do you agree with the government's defence that Australia cannot change the climate?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What I believe is that climate change is affecting us and that climate change is real. I don't disagree with your joke about it as a bogeyman, and I think that scientists have observed patterns of climate that demonstrate that we do have a serious problem. I also believe that no one country can solve it on its own. That has always been my position. That's why Australia has always argued, certainly in the governments in which I have been involved, we for an international agreement which covered all major emitters and in which all countries participated, because no single country can solve it on its own.</para>
<para>So yes, Australia cannot solve climate change by ourselves but, equally, that should not be a reason for us to do nothing. If you don't accept the science, and I understand you don't—I think you are wrong, but I understand you don't—we should do something if only for economic imperatives. We know 84 per cent of the global economy is moving to a 'net zero emissions by 2050' position. If we want our children and grandchildren to be able to thrive in a world where there is a premium for low-carbon goods and services and for clean energy then surely we want our country being able to export and produce those goods and services.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Babet, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, Net Zero Australia recently found that moving to net zero would cost us around $7 trillion to $9 trillion—a large amount of money. If we can't impact the climate of the globe, why are you supporting a policy that's going to cost the average Aussie around $270,000? Why support this policy? It's madness?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm not sure what the modelling is to which you refer. What is important to emphasise is that, as I recall, both parties of government have committed to net zero by 2050—at least, that's what those opposite did at some point. Secondly, this is about our economic prosperity as well as the need to do something about climate. I go back to the point I am making: if you accept that the world is moving to placing a premium on clean energy and on low-carbon goods and services then, as one of the most emissions-intensive economies in the world, it is sensible economic policy for us to be able to do better in that world. That is what we are intending to do. We are intending to make sure that we can use the enormous clean energy resources we have for the benefit of all Australians.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Babet, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, in your government's defence on the climate case it said that every 7,000 gigatons of emissions would increase the temperature of the globe by only 0.63 degrees Celsius. On your numbers, even if Australia were to emit zero emissions from now to 2050, the temperature of the globe would change by just 0.000000768 degrees Celsius. Why are we imposing $270,000 on every Australian for, in effect, no impact on climate change? What about China? They are much bigger emitters than we are. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll go back to my primary answer first. Climate change can only be addressed and dealt with by all countries of the world responding. You ask: what about China? Of course the new installed capacity of China, as well as in many other countries, is a concern. It is a concern. That is why we need an international agreement of which we are part. That is why Paris, Glasgow and the UN Conference of the Parties to drive action by all countries is needed. That's the first point.</para>
<para>The second point is, again, the economic imperative. We have done well as a country, and it has been a good thing that we have been able to utilise the fossil fuel resources that we have. But at some point we have to be able to make our way in the world, prosper in the world and export to the world clean energy and goods and services which are low carbon, because the world will pay high prices for them over the decades to come. So there is an economic imperative as well as a climate change imperative.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>6517</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The Albanese government is acutely aware of the cost-of-living challenges facing many Australians and has undertaken measures to relieve cost-of-living pressures while not adding to inflation. Can the minister inform the Senate of the independent Reserve Bank's decision on interest rates today and what this decision means for Australians?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Grogan for her question and her interest in the Australian economy and the impact that some of the inflation challenges are having on Australian households. Today, the independent Reserve Bank Board has decided to leave the cash rate unchanged at 4.35 per cent. This is a welcome reprieve for millions of Australians, especially in the lead-up to Christmas, when we know budgets are tight. This decision follows recent news that inflation fell further in the month of October to 4.9 per cent, substantially lower than the 6.1 per cent it was when we were elected.</para>
<para>While inflation is moderating, it is still too high and we understand that many Australians are doing it tough. Inflation and cost of living are the biggest challenges facing Australians right now. That's why it's been a real focus of the Albanese government and why we are rolling out the $23 billion in cost-of-living relief that has been carefully calibrated to make sure that it eases pressure on households but doesn't add to inflation. In fact, two of the measures, those in relation to child care and our energy bill relief, actually put downward pressure on inflation, something that has been acknowledged by the ABS. It confirmed that our cost-of-living policies are putting downward pressure on inflation.</para>
<para>Since coming to government our economic plan has been focused on providing targeted cost-of-living relief, fixing the budget and investing in skills, housing and energy to lay the foundations for future growth. Our economic and fiscal strategy has been welcomed by credible organisations and commentators, who have seen the decisions we have taken about showing spending restraint, returning significant revenue upgrades to the budget and delivering a surplus. I will come back to that. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Grogan, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is great to see inflation turn. The government, I know, is delivering significant investments in cost-of-living relief, including the $23 billion package that the minister mentioned previously. Minister, can you please provide an update on the government's recent initiatives to further support Australian households, particularly in health and housing?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have updated the chamber this week on the Medicare urgent care clinics. We are delivering on our cheaper medicines policy, which has seen the biggest price reduction in the 75-year history of the PBS. Australians have saved $200 million on more than 18 million cheaper medicines since the start of the year.</para>
<para>There is also the work that we have been doing in housing with the National Housing Accord, which will invest an additional $350 million in federal funding to deliver 10,000 affordable rental homes over five years from 2024, matched by the states and territories. There is the funding we have provided through the Social Housing Accelerator and $3 billion through the new homes bonus to address 10 years of complete failure from the former Commonwealth government in the housing space which has led to some of the pressures that we are seeing today. We have our electricity bill relief, cheaper child care and cheaper medicines. I know those opposite don't like talking about cost-of-living measures, because they voted against them. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Grogan, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The OECD last week recognised how the Albanese government's budget settings and cost-of-living measures are helping in the fight against inflation. While our economy is expected to slow over the coming year, the latest OECD report highlights that Australia faces challenging global circumstances from a position of strength, with a resilient labour market and good prices for our exports. Can the minister detail how other independent assessments have backed the government's responsible approach to cost-of-living pressures?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para> (—) (): Our strategy has been welcomed by a range of organisations, including the OECD, the IMF, Deloitte, Fitch and Westpac, as being an approach which does not add to the inflation challenge but, indeed, is putting downward pressure on it, as I outlined in my first answer. It's also important, of course, to know that we have created hundreds of thousands of new jobs. We've got an unemployment rate with a three in front of it, the gender pay gap at record lows, the participation rate at a record high, business investment up and industrial disputes down. We've got a surplus that we've delivered. We didn't just say we would do it; we actually delivered upon it. These are the decisions that we have taken that prove that inflation has peaked, and it is moderating. We are pleased to see this. There's more work to do, obviously, but we are absolutely determined to ensure that our decisions support putting downward pressure on inflation. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Jewish Community</title>
          <page.no>6518</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHANDLER</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Overnight, the Israeli government raised the travel warning for Jewish citizens travelling to a number of countries, including Australia, to level 2, 'Potential threat', referencing the increase in hostility to Israelis and Jewish citizens and recommending that those staying in this country exercise increased precaution—a point that I note the minister didn't reference in response to a previous question today. Will the Prime Minister now accept the opposition leader's recommendation that National Cabinet identify and commit to practical measures to ensure the safety of Jewish Australians? Will the Prime Minister commit to seeking to secure a statement from tomorrow's National Cabinet in which the leaders of the Commonwealth and all states and territories confirm their support for Australia's Jewish community and condemn antisemitism in all its forms?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd refer Senator Chandler to the first question I took from the government in this place, which was precisely about antisemitism. It might be well for us all to remember that this is not an issue of partisanship; this is an issue of making sure that, from this place, we send a very clear message that all forms of prejudice and discrimination are to be condemned, that we work always for acceptance, respect and unity, that we condemn prejudice wherever we see it and that we condemn antisemitism just as we condemn all forms of prejudice, including Islamophobia and prejudice against other groups in society—prejudice against people for who they are.</para>
<para>I would note that Israel has taken a decision to raise its warnings for a number of countries. Australia is one of them, but those countries also include the United Kingdom, Germany, France and others. I will check the others, but I certainly know of the UK, Germany and France. We obviously want Australia to be a welcoming place for visitors. I think you would have heard in my first answer, and in many other things we have said, that there is no place for antisemitism in Australia and we must make sure it does not find a foothold here. I can certainly say that we will always denounce it and reject it utterly, just as we do all forms of racism and prejudice. I would say to the senator: I know Mr Dutton has made certain comments. I also see Senator Birmingham has made comments. This is not a partisan issue. This is actually an issue on which we should stand united.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Chandler, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHANDLER</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, at a level 2 threat, the Israeli government is recommending Israelis in Australia take action, including shortening their stays to the bare minimum and avoiding openly displaying signs of their Israeli identity. When was the last time the Israeli government formally and officially advised Jews and Israelis to hide their identities whilst in Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What I would say is that I never want anyone to have to hide who they are. I don't want any person of Jewish faith to have to hide who they are. I don't want someone who's gay or trans to have to hide who they are. I don't want anyone who's Muslim to have to hide who they are. I don't want anyone in this country to have to hide who they are in order to be safe, and I would hope, Senator Chandler, that you would agree. I refer to my earlier answer.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Chandler, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHANDLER</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, does the Prime Minister accept any responsibility for the fact that, according to Israel's National Security Council, Jewish people are safer in Canada, the United States and New Zealand than they are in Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We have been very clear and utterly unequivocal in our condemnation of antisemitism, of all prejudice. You have heard me here in this place and elsewhere, over and over again, talk about the need for unity, the need to ensure that the distress in our community does not become anger, does not become hatred and does not become violence. And I would welcome you making the same sorts of comments, Senator Chandler, because there are views in this chamber that are very different. There are people in this chamber who have very strong views about the Palestinian communities. There are people in this chamber who have very strong views about Jewish communities. But we all need to stand against division. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Industry</title>
          <page.no>6519</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Science, Senator Farrell. Can the minister outline what actions the Albanese Labor government is taking, after a decade of failure to invest in Australian manufacturing and industry, to ensure a future made in Australia by supporting industry to create more Australian jobs and how the National Reconstruction Fund will be part of that effort?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Polley for her question and ongoing interest in Australian manufacturing. Australians have a proud history of manufacturing. We make things, and we do it well, and the Albanese government wants our nation to be a place that continues our great industrial heritage into the future. That's because, as all Australians know, Australian-made products means Australian-made jobs—Australian-made jobs in our suburbs and our regional areas and secure, well paid Australian made jobs in thriving new industries. The Albanese Labor government believes in Australian jobs, which is why we back a future made in Australia, and we're delivering one by leveraging our nation's strengths.</para>
<para>A key pillar of this approach has been establishing the National Reconstruction Fund, a $15 billion job creation platform which last week was officially opened for business. Last week the government signed off on the fund's investment mandate, and now the independent National Reconstruction Fund Corporation can invest billions of dollars in boosting our economic competitiveness and building up our industrial muscle. The investment mandate sets out clear expectations from government, including the treatment of priority areas for investment, expected outcomes and rate of return. The National Reconstruction Fund is about backing Australian industry and business to invest in expanding their capacity, driving innovation and creating more jobs in communities. Australia can be a nation that makes things again, and the Albanese government is backing Australian industry, business and communities to make that happen.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Polley, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. How will the Industry Growth Program, working alongside the National Reconstruction Fund, support Australian businesses to expand their businesses locally and create more Australian jobs, including through supporting commercialisation, innovation and growth?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Polley for her first supplementary question. Our government wants to work with small and medium businesses looking to grow, providing them with practical, concrete support. Last week, our $392 million Industry Growth Program officially opened. SMEs can now apply for expert advice on getting their good ideas to market and expanding their companies, creating more jobs across Australia. Future rounds of the program will also deliver matched grant funding ranging from $50,000 to $5 million. We want a clear pathway for Australians with great ideas to turn their ideas into thriving businesses in Australia instead of moving overseas, and our plan to back industry will do just that.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Polley, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister outline how the comprehensive industry policies of the Albanese government, which are supporting Australian jobs and communities, compare to the past approaches of the last decade from those opposite?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, I can, Senator Polley. A new report released just last week by Industry Innovation and Science Australia showed that this government inherited a shrinking proportion of mid-sized manufacturing businesses that are critical to the future of manufacturing in Australia. Those opposite had a decade to support Australian manufacturers, but they lacked any cohesive industry policy, producing some of the lowest manufacturing self-sufficiency levels in the OECD. But there's a better way forward. The Albanese government is backing Australian know-how, promoting Australian made jobs and supporting Australian manufacturing.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask that further questions be placed on notice.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>6520</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration of Legislation</title>
          <page.no>6520</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023 be called on immediately and, until the bill is finally determined, the routine of business be as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">i. consideration of the bill only;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">ii. the time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill be as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(A) second reading—60 minutes,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(B) the question be put on all remaining stages after a further 90 minutes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) following consideration of the bill, the Senate return to its routine of business.</para></quote>
<para>This motion has the effect of bringing on this bill, the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023, immediately. The government have said they're ready to debate the bill, so let's debate the bill. Of course, if the Albanese government had its house in order, this would have been done weeks ago.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Birmingham, I'm going to ask you to resume your seat. While Senator Birmingham is making his comments, I expect there to be silence, particularly on my left side but right across the chamber.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Indeed, I'm happy for those behind, who are very passionate about this, to be able to have their say too, because if the government—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Birmingham, resume your seat. I have asked for silence—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Order across the chamber! I have asked for silence, and there will be silence.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If the government had their house in order, this would have been done weeks ago. It would have been ready weeks ago, been done weeks ago and been able to pass this parliament. If they'd had the House sitting this week, it could have at least been done days ago in terms of passing through.</para>
<para>The government has stood in here today—Senator Wong is saying, 'Why isn't the opposition supporting this?' Well, when the government finally, belatedly, was dragged kicking and screaming to the point of proposing a preventive detention regime, it was already at the point where it couldn't pass the parliament before the House came back for its normal business on Thursday of this week. But if the government wants to come in here and taunt us and say, 'Bring it on,' we're ready. Bring it on. We are ready to do so.</para>
<para>Most importantly, if the government had competent ministers, this would have been done before detainees were released, because that is the real crime of the way the Albanese government has handled this matter. The real crime of the Albanese government's handling of this matter is that detainees—murderers, rapists, paedophiles—were released before preventive orders were put in place and before measures to protect Australians from harm were put in place. That is the real crime of what has occurred. In failure upon failure from the Albanese government, they have stumbled at every turn in relation to this matter. They stumbled, it seems, in relation to the case they put before the High Court. They talked out of both sides of their mouth before the court, with the Human Rights Commission arguing one thing, having been approved to enter the court by the Attorney-General, whilst the government put an alternative proposition to the High Court. They presented evidence to the court suggesting that the individual subject of the case could not be deported, yet it appears the government may have had contrary advice to that, therefore providing evidence, a statement of fact, that undermined their very own case.</para>
<para>So they mismanaged the case itself, but then they weren't even prepared for any of the consequences of the case. Where were the contingency plans from the Albanese government? There were none because, clearly, Minister Giles and Minister O'Neil are completely incapable of managing their portfolios or of thinking ahead. It is incompetence that does not warrant the holding of ministerial office. These ministers should go. They should go because not only have they let the government down and caused immense political pain for the government; more particularly, they have exposed the Australian people to danger, to harm. This is the exposure that is the real risk and danger for the Australian people as a result of the Albanese government's mismanagement.</para>
<para>Think through the different steps of mismanagement we have seen. Those of us who are in this chamber—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're wasting time!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, your government has been wasting time for weeks, wasting the opportunity for months to get this resolved. Senator Wong, we will get this done. The motion we have put forward gives a deadline. We're happy to get it done but we're not going to let you off the hook in terms of the way your government has mismanaged this from the first day.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Point of order on relevance: is the Senate opposition leader aware that his leader's office explicitly asked for this legislation to be slowed down? I just want to be clear: Mr Dutton's office explicitly asked for this legislation to be slowed down.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, that is not a point of order. Please continue, Senator Birmingham.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We were here when the decision was handed down, and ministers opposite were asked, 'What's going to happen to other individuals affected by this case, by this decision of the High Court?' Do you know what ministers said on that day? They said: 'Nothing is going to happen yet. We're going to wait to see the statement of reasons from the High Court.' That was what Minister Giles was telling the country, that was what Minister O'Neil was telling the country and that was what the Prime Minister and representing ministers in this chamber were telling the country: 'Be calm. You're safe because we're going to wait for the statement of reasons.' But what transpired? They changed their mind. They didn't wait for the statement of reasons. They panicked, they did whatever it was happening in the background, they felt pressure from the Left—whatever it was that caused the government to then open the floodgates in releasing the murderers, rapists, paedophiles, contract killers and others who had been detained back into the Australian community.</para>
<para>When they made that decision to release them in advance of the High Court's statement of reasons, had they put in place any safety measures in terms of how those individuals would be tracked or traced or how Australians would be protected? No, they hadn't. The opposition had to call for legislation. The government brought forward legislation which, on the day it brought it forward, at breakfast time, was the toughest it could be. But by lunchtime they'd accepted six amendments from the opposition leader, Mr Dutton, as ways to strengthen those measures. The government then released individuals who apparently managed to avoid having those ankle bracelets or other measures put in place. So we had a situation where the government said they wouldn't release people but then did, then made up protections after they'd released them and then failed to institute those protections on different individuals, and said the legislation was as tough as it could be—except, it turned out, when the opposition had suggestions it could be tougher. So, ultimately, we've got a situation where this government has been caught out flat-footed—and the ministers! There is the absolute failure of Minister Giles and Minister O'Neil to be in a position to actually manage this issue properly. If they'd been doing their job, the contingencies would have been in place. If they'd been doing their job, they would have had plans should the High Court case have gone against the government. If they'd been doing their job, those plans would have included a preventive detention regime, which, again, the government didn't move on until after the opposition had proposed it.</para>
<para>Indeed, the opposition's proposal was confirmed as valid when, finally, the statement of reasons was released by the High Court. Imagine if the government had either done the contingency and had the preventive detention regime in place or had the legislation ready to go and, alongside that, held its nerve and waited until the statement of reasons was released. Those two things could have had a profound difference. Why would they have made a profound difference? Because we wouldn't have what's occurring in the Australian community right now, which is to see crimes being committed by the very people released under this government. That is the most serious part of what has occurred here.</para>
<para>The reality that this government has proceeded to release individuals, because it was flat-footed, because it hadn't done the contingency work, and to release them in ways that have now seen Australians suffer harm. They have failed the most serious test of a government, which is to keep Australians safe. They've failed that test at a range of hurdles throughout this, and, as much as those opposite may sigh or moan, their sighing and moaning is nothing compared to the potential pain and anguish that is now being faced by those Australians.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We just want you to sit down so we can start the debate.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, we'll have the debate. We're proposing the debate: 60 minutes of debate and 90 minutes for good scrutiny of the legislation. So I will do that in a second, Senator Wong, but not without—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sit down and start the debate!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>See, the problem is you haven't learned any lessons. There's no contrition. There's no admission. There's no acceptance of responsibility. This government won't take responsibility for any of its failures. It's amazing. You'd think with ministers as hapless as Ministers Giles and O'Neill they would take responsibility for the failures. You'd think those ministers would be gone, now or at least over the summer period, and the government could reset itself off of that disaster. But, no, instead, the government is trying to act in a state of denial, pretend that it's being tough when ultimately it has been led every step of the way in its legislation, its amendments and its proposals—the preventive detention regime has been proposed by Mr Dutton and the opposition. The only leadership that has been shown since the High Court case was handed down has come from Mr Dutton, Senator Paterson, Senator Cash, Mr Tehan and others, who have sought to make sure that the government acts in ways that is necessary. And, even right now—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Watt</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The numbers in the gallery are falling by the minute!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There you go! They're caring and counting the numbers in the Press Gallery! How about caring about and counting the numbers of dangerous people released into the Australian community? How about caring about and counting the tragic number of incidents that are occurring in the Australian community as a result of that? They are the consequences of your actions. So, yes, bring it on. That is what we have proposed today. You taunted. You called for it. Bring it on. The reality is it should have been done earlier—this week if you had the House sitting. It should have been done weeks ago if you'd actually done your contingency work. It certainly should have been done before the detainees were released into the Australian community, putting Australians in danger.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McGrath!</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yet again, if you wanted an example of how the opposition are much more interested in fighting about this than fixing this, it is that tedious and repetitive contribution from the opposition leader in the Senate. Rather than get on with the debate, which he claims—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Order, Senator McGrath and Senator Ruston! Minister Wong, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Rather than getting on with the debate, yet again the opposition are more interested in playing politics and having a fight than in keeping people safe.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, you're focused on fighting. We want to make sure we fix this.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, you were so desperate to keep Australians—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator McGrath, I called you a few minutes ago, and then I called you twice in a row. I'm asking you to listen in respectful silence. Minister Wong, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would remind the chamber that the opposition, after that question time, has now asked to bring on the preventive detention regime—a bill that they voted against in the House with the Greens, which they have never explained.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I make the second point? We also know that the very clear message from the opposition leader's office in relation to the bill that they are now seeking to bring on was that there was a request for the government to slow down the legislation to make sure they had enough time to carefully consider the legislation. They said Wednesday was good. But do you know what's happened? The fact is that Mr Tehan went to the Jericho Cup in Warrnambool, rather than be briefed on the legal advice—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Wong.</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">An honourable senator interjecting</inline>—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Then you should be briefed, but instead you went to Warrnambool—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Wong! Please resume your seat.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Cash, I called you three times in a row. You do not have the call. You are there to listen in respectful silence. Minister Wong.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We're interested in fixing this. Those opposite are interested in having a fight, but we welcome their change of heart after what occurred—</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">An opposition senator interjecting</inline>—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is a change of heart, after what your leader required—which was to do it on Wednesday—to bring it on today. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the motion be now put.</para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Wong, that the motion be put, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [15:26] <br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>36</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Askew, W.</name>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                <name>Birmingham, S. J.</name>
                <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Lines, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                <name>Wong, P.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>9</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [15:29] <br />(The President—Senator Lines) </p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>41</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Askew, W.</name>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                <name>Birmingham, S. J.</name>
                <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>Lines, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                <name>Wong, P.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>9</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to. </p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>6524</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions and Other Measures) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>6524</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7128" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions and Other Measures) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>6524</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the bill proceed without formalities.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion as moved by the minister, that the bill be read a first time, be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a first time.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>6524</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The speech read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill proposes important amendments to the Migration Act that complement and reinforce amendments passed by the Parliament on 18 November 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">On the 8th of November, in the case of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, the High Court determined that NZYQ's detention was unlawful:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">'<inline font-style="italic">By reason of there having been, and continuing to be, no real prospect of the removal of the plaintiff from Australia </inline><inline font-style="italic">…</inline><inline font-style="italic"> in the reasonably foreseeable future</inline>'.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The High Court's decision has significant implications for the safety of vulnerable people in the community, and the mechanisms by which the Government can provide for their protection.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Let me be clear, the Australian Government made preparations ahead of the High Court ruling.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">State and Territory police counterparts were briefed on the potential implications of this case prior to the decision being handed down- because community safety has always been front of mind in our approach to this case.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Following the 8 November ruling, all released individuals have been subject to appropriate stringent visa conditions, including regular reporting obligations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Federal Police and Australian Border Force continue to work together with state and territory authorities and law enforcement to support community safety.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Shortly after, in response to the court's decision, on 16 November 2023 the Parliament passed amendments to the Migration Act and Migration Regulations to further support an enduring and robust framework for the management of this cohort in the community.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">While the legislation passed on 16 November provided a strong initial response to this decision—the Government is continuing to work through the implications of the High Court's judgment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The legislative amendments proposed today reinforce those initial amendments, by taking the next necessary steps towards ensuring the protection of the Australian community.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We will leave no stone unturned in our efforts to protect the Australian community.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is possible as we continue to work through the implications of this decision, further legislation may be required to ensure the community is further protected.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government remains committed to reinforcing Australia's laws to support the appropriate and proportionate management of the affected cohort of people while their immigration status is being resolved.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And therefore the Government will continue to review these arrangements, and develop any further amendments, as required- including when we have the High Court's reasons for its decision.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I believe the Australian community would rightly expect this of us.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Community safety remains the first priority of the Australian Government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And the amendments proposed today further strengthen the legislative framework available to manage this cohort, pending their removal from Australia, which we will continue to pursue.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Specifically, this legislation provides further clarity about the Government's expectations with regard to the conduct and the behaviour of this cohort, with a particular focus on those with a history of offences in relation to the most vulnerable in our society, including minors, and victims.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill also proposes measures to strengthen the authority for the appropriate collection and use of information gathered by electronic monitoring devices.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These amendments reinforce the critical collaboration between Commonwealth and State law enforcement agencies, specifically in regards to effective information sharing, to ensure the behaviour of non-citizens in our community complies with our expectations of visitors to this country.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government is putting the needs of victims and their families, and of minors and vulnerable people, first.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These amendments are in line with community expectations—and they are the right thing to do.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">New offences</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Under these laws, those who have been convicted of an offence that involves a minor, or another vulnerable person must not:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. Perform any work, or participate in any regular organised activity involving more than incidental contact with another person who is a minor or another vulnerable person, or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. Go within 200 meters of a school, childcare centre or day care centre.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3. The laws also stipulate that those previously convicted of an offence involving violence or sexual assault must not contact the victim of that offence, or any member of their family.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The sentences provided for in this Bill reflect the seriousness of the offending, and the Government's steadfast commitment to protecting the wellbeing of the most vulnerable members of Australian society.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Strong criminal offences are the most effective response to breaches of these visa conditions for the NZYQ-affected cohort. This is because—by reason of the High Court's decision—the normal consequences of breaching visa conditions do not apply.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The intent of the Government is clear—that certain behaviours are unacceptable, and that there strong, proportionate and immediate consequences for the breach of these visa conditions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Charges brought as a result of the new offences will be subject to existing criminal proceedings and judicial determination, and the courts will consider individual circumstances when determining the appropriate sentence.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The evidentiary burden for establishing a reasonable defence for failure to comply with the conditions will sit with the non-citizen. The standard defences available in the Criminal Code will also apply.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Again, I would like to stress that these changes are reasonable, necessary and proportionate to the Government's objectives of supporting the safety of the community, particularly those most vulnerable.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian community expects, and the Australian Government affirms, that these penalties should reflect the seriousness of the breach of conditions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Powers to collect and share information</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments proposed today will also strengthen the authority for the collection and use of information gathered by electronic monitoring devices.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This includes:</para></quote>
<list>the ability to fit, operate and monitor electronic monitoring devices; and</list>
<list>a list of purposes for which an authorised officer may collect, use and appropriately disclose information gained from the devices.</list>
<quote><para class="block">This includes monitoring the visa holder's compliance with the conditions of their visa, and responding rapidly to any indications of non-compliance.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The purposes of these conditions are to deter the individual from committing further offences whilst holding the removal pending visa.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This supports ongoing monitoring, which will help to keep the community safe.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As mentioned previously, the Government will continue to pursue the removal of these people from Australia at the first possible opportunity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The utilisation of electronic monitoring devices will therefore also enable the Government to locate the visa holder to facilitate their removal from Australia as soon as a real prospect of removal becomes apparent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Acknowledging our obligations to privacy under Australian law, appropriate protocols and processes will be implemented to ensure the information derived from these devices is protected exclusively within the bounds of the purpose for which it is being shared.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Closing remarks</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These amendments are reasonable and necessary, and will be further supported by a number of amendments to the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Regulations</inline><inline font-style="italic">1994</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">They make our laws more durable, by getting ahead of any potential future challenges.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We are making strict laws stricter.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Strong laws stronger.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Tough laws tougher.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">With these laws we are ensuring the safety of the Australian community.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We will continue to ensure the cohort of individuals released from immigration detention as a result of the High Court decision are managed appropriately under the relevant legal frameworks.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There is no greater priority for this government than the safety of Australians, and this Bill is a demonstration of that.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I commend this Bill to the chamber.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions and Other Measures) Bill 2023, which, I note, has been brought on after the agreement to a motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Birmingham, and I congratulate Senator Birmingham for doing that. Here we are, just after question time on a Tuesday but almost one month after the High Court handed down its ruling in the NZYQ case. The government, at the behest of the opposition, ironically, is finally doing what the Leader of the Opposition and Senator Paterson and the coalition have been asking them to do—in fact, saying to them, pleading with them: 'You need to introduce a protective detention regime. You need to.' We have been asking them to introduce legislation allowing law enforcement agencies to lock up high-risk individuals who have now been roaming free in communities in Australia. Tragically, as we now know, two of them have been charged with allegedly committing offences of sexual assault, and, what is worse, one of the offences was against a minor.</para>
<para>For the record, though, let me remind you of how we got here today. The High Court of Australia handed down its decision on 8 November. That is almost four weeks ago today. The next day, the government told us the individual in the High Court decision had been released, but, when asked about the potential release of other individuals in the cohort, Senator Watt actually said, 'We're not a government that acts on decisions that haven't had reasons released.' Guess what? On the Friday of that week we found out that, contrary to Senator Watt's evidence, the Albanese government was immediately releasing a large number of high-risk individuals. As we know, that cohort included rapists, murderers, paedophiles and even a contract killer. They were releasing them from immigration detention, following the High Court decision.</para>
<para>The following Monday the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Andrew Giles, told us that 80 individuals had been released 'subject to a range of strict, mandatory visa conditions'. Two days later, what did we have? Senator Wong admitted that the consequences of breaching these visa conditions were ultimately unenforceable—you've got to be kidding me—because breaching a visa requires that an individual be detained pending deportation, which the High Court had ruled was not applicable to this cohort.</para>
<para>After continued calls from the coalition to take action to keep Australians safe—because, I can tell you, Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, and the coalition understand that the fundamental responsibility of the Commonwealth government is the security and safety of all Australians—the government finally introduced a bill at the end of the last sitting period, on 16 November. The government gave us less than two hours notice before the bill was introduced. But, even in that ridiculous time frame, let me tell you one thing—I was at the briefing with the Leader of the Opposition, Minister Tehan and Senator Paterson. We were given the legislation and we were told by Minister O'Neil, 'This is as tough as it gets. We are pushing the boundaries of what the law will entitle us to do. We can't make it any stronger.'</para>
<para>Guess what? We identified weaknesses in Labor's legislation, and let me tell you what they were. Labor's legislation did not stop paedophiles going near schools. What an omission. It didn't stop violent criminals from contacting their victims. You've got to be kidding me. It didn't allow the most basic protective measures like electronic monitoring and curfews. This is the legislation about which, at the briefing, Minister O'Neil had kept on saying, 'It is as tough as it can be. The government has gone as far as it can.' The coalition stepped in and presented six amendments to the government, and, despite the government telling us how tough this legislation was and that they were pushing the limits of the law, they had to roll over and accept all six amendments. Thank goodness the coalition was able to step in and clean up Labor's mess.</para>
<para>Since then, what have we learnt? The Albanese Labor government has now released at least 147 high-risk individuals into the community, and each day we wake up and find out that another high-risk individual—remembering this cohort includes rapists, murderers, a contract killer and a paedophile—has been happily released by this government into the community.</para>
<para>To say that Labor's handling of this issue has been an absolute debacle from the start is, quite frankly, an understatement. Last week we heard reports that one of the detainees—who refused to wear an electronic ankle bracelet and who is, by definition, a risk to the Australian community—had absconded. In other words, the Albanese government lost one. You've got to be kidding me. They let them out and then they lost somebody who is a high risk to the Australian community. He absconded and he was unreachable by our law enforcement agencies for days before he was finally located. And guess what? When asked about the matter, Minister O'Neil, far from taking responsibility, washed her hands and said: 'Oh. Well, that's a police matter now.'</para>
<para>And now for this week: and I have to say, this week the greatest fears of the coalition were realised. Yesterday, Monday, we heard reports that a convicted sexual predator, released by the Albanese Labor government, had been arrested and charged with indecently assaulting a woman in South Australia. This is a man who was once labelled by a judge, in sentencing this man, 'a danger to the Australian community' and 'an ongoing risk to women'. Hands up from the Labor government, though. They were prepared to compromise the safety and the security of the Australian people. And then today—these are possibly our worst fears—we heard reports that a further detainee, again released by the Albanese Labor government, a former ringleader of a child exploitation gang, had been arrested in Dandenong amid allegations he had breached his reporting obligations and had made contact with minors. This is a man who is reportedly a registered sex offender, previously alleged by police to have headed a prostitution ring which preyed on children in state care. A court was told how he once traded a packet of cigarettes for sex with a 13-year-old girl.</para>
<para>These are the types of people that the Albanese Labor government have let out. Forget the safety and security of the Australian people! A man that a judge says was a danger to the Australian community and an ongoing risk to Australian women, and a man whom a court was told once traded a pack of cigarettes for sex with a 13-year-old child—the Albanese government was prepared to let them out.</para>
<para>Now, since day one, we—the Leader of the Opposition; Senator Paterson; I, myself; Mr Tehan; and the coalition—have been calling for a preventive detention regime, and you don't need to be Einstein, quite frankly, to figure out why. It was to prevent the exact two scenarios that have now occurred in the Australian community. But that was all too hard. It was all too hard for the incompetent Minister O'Neil and the hopeless Minister Giles.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, I'm going to ask you to withdraw both of those comments.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It was all too hard for Minister O'Neil and Minister Giles, who, by their actions, have shown themselves to be incompetent in their portfolios. They have dithered and they have dallied. They have made excuse after excuse. They make excuses today, in relation to the woman assaulted in South Australia. They make excuses today in relation to the minor who's been allegedly assaulted. And meanwhile, what happens every day? There comes release after release.</para>
<para>If the government had acted earlier and moved to introduce a preventive detention regime as soon as the High Court decision came down a month ago—as the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, called for—the outcome may have been different. Make no mistake: this is a tragedy, born of a catastrophic failure of the Albanese government, and the government alone must be held accountable.</para>
<para>It is also possible that many of the individuals who have now been released never needed to be released in the first place. The NZYQ case related to a single individual. The orders made on 8 November concerned a single person. But, for some baffling reason, without the reasons for the High Court's decision, they decided to get ahead of the High Court, and the Albanese Labor government started releasing rapists, murderers, paedophiles and a contract killer—detainees, in bulk, before the High Court had even had a chance to put pen to paper. They could have used the intervening time to get ready. They could have ordered an assessment and evaluation of every single detainee. They could have put in place arrangements for contingencies. But they did nothing. With every passing day now, as we learn more about how the government handled this case, the scale of their incompetence and mismanagement becomes clearer.</para>
<para>NZYQ was a serious child sex offender. He raped a 10-year-old boy. The coalition cancelled his visa, with the result that he was put in immigration detention following his sentence. This was the case that was before the court. But guess what? The reason we're standing here today is the path followed by the Albanese Labor government, because, when this case came before the court, the Labor government made concessions, and those concessions are the key to why we are standing here today.</para>
<para>The government made concessions in a 'special case'. That is a document that records the facts put before the court, and the special case contains what the High Court called two important facts. The court put significant weight on the two concessions that the Albanese Labor government made on 30 May. The first was that NZYQ could not then be removed from Australia. The second was that there was no real prospect of the plaintiff being removed from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future. They made those concessions on 30 May even though they hadn't actually finished making inquiries about whether he could be resettled. Why in God's name would this government make those concessions and set the High Court on a certain path if they were not true? Seriously, they were continuing to make inquiries with other countries. As has been revealed by the High Court reasons in August, when they realised the magnitude of their stuff-up, they started making inquiries with Five Eyes partners.</para>
<para>Let us make this clear. They conceded there was no way NZYQ was going to be removed from Australia because no-one would take him. Then, after making that concession which forced the court's hand, they decided to go and check. Maybe, if the responsible ministers had done their jobs, we would not have landed where we are. Maybe this case would have been unnecessary.</para>
<para>The Albanese government has proven time and time again that it cannot be trusted with matters of national security. It has shown utter contempt for Australian communities who, rightly, want the government to come clean on where these criminals are located and what they have been convicted of.</para>
<para>That is why we are going to be moving an additional amendment to strengthen the provisions of this bill. We will do this by moving an amendment requiring the minister to report to parliament any time one of these dangerous individuals is released into the community. This amendment will go some way to providing this much-needed transparency from this hopeless, hapless government, and I hope the government and the crossbench will see fit to support what is a modest but sensible amendment and to start cleaning up the mess the Albanese government has made.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Here we go again, heading down a dark but all too well trodden path in Australian politics: a race to the bottom on refugee policy and a race to the bottom on immigration detention policy. We all know how this is going to end and we all know that it's not going to end well because we've seen this story time after time in this country and we've seen the tragic ending to this story time after time, where innocent refugees are murdered, where innocent refugee children are subjected to sex abuse, where innocent refugee women are raped, where innocent refugees and people who sought asylum in this country are detained indefinitely and tortured because the Labor and Liberal parties have a dark vein running through their political circuitry. If there is one thing they can agree on, it is that refugees are there to be brutalised and dehumanised and to have their human rights trampled. The instinct to collude in order to brutalise and demonise refugees runs all too strongly through the veins of the Labor Party and the Liberal Party in this place.</para>
<para>The Australian Labor Party has not just handed over the drafter's pen to Mr Dutton, allowing him to draft anti-refugee legislation that the Labor Party will support, but is now handing over chamber management duties to the opposition. Mr Dutton is not just running the government's policy, he is running the business of the government in the Senate. The Labor Party has just voted for a Mr Dutton motion to manage their hours, a Mr Dutton motion to jam through a bill which has had attached to it 70 pages of amendments with an explanatory memorandum that is so big it needed to be bound into a book—and we got it three hours ago. This is a shameful way to legislate.</para>
<para>We are dealing with a fundamental human right here, the right to liberty. That is not an absolute right, but it is a critical right. It should not be overridden nor curtailed without the most careful consideration, but here we are with an explanatory memorandum of nearly 150 pages and with 70 pages of amendments, as well as the original bill that we are debating. This is legislation that severely curtails liberty in Australia for a small group of people in a way we would never dare to try on citizens—but we can do it because we are a bunch of xenophobes. That is what this legislation is. It is xenophobic by definition. It only applies to foreigners.</para>
<para>We have seen where this path ends, but it is worth noting how we take the steps down it. It is a pattern that has been repeated in recent Australian history over the 20-plus years since the <inline font-style="italic">Tampa</inline> appeared over the horizon. We all know what happened back then. Former prime minister John Howard saw a political opportunity available to him through demonising a group of desperate and innocent people who were seeking asylum in Australia, people who had been through the most horrendous experience on the high seas. The Murdoch media came in behind the LNP and magnified the confected emergency that Mr Howard and Mr Ruddock created at the time, and the Labor Party rolled over in craven capitulation. We saw it again in 2013, when the Labor Party was in government and the next iteration of offshore detention was created, another dark and bloody stain on our country's national story. We have seen it again over the last few weeks post the High Court's recent decision which, quite rightly, rendered indefinite immigration detention unlawful in Australia.</para>
<para>We've seen the confected emergency from Mr Dutton. We've seen News Corp and far too many other journalists from a range of media outlets in Australia credulously reporting the lies of the opposition, credulously reporting that, somehow, every person caught within the scope of that High Court decision was some kind of vicious criminal, when nothing could be further from the truth. I've sat through interview after interview by ABC journalists who enthusiastically and credulously ran Mr Dutton's speaking points at me. I expect that from Sky, but I don't expect it from the ABC. It's disgraceful. There have been honourable exceptions, but collectively the press gallery in this country needs to take a good, long look in the mirror and realise that they play a critical role in this dark and bloody path that this country walks down in regard to refugee policy and immigration detention policy.</para>
<para>Shame on every journalist who has failed to call out the lies of the opposition. Shame on every journalist who has bought the frame that somehow all of the people caught within the High Court decision are hardened criminals, when we know many of them have never been convicted of a crime in their lives. We know there are people who have been living in the community peacefully for a long time that are now caught under the scope of this legislation because it's shoddily drafted and has been rammed through in haste.</para>
<para>Colleagues, the way we treat refugees is instructive, so I'm telling you now—and I'm telling the Australian people now—that the way the Labor and Liberal parties treat refugees is the same as they would treat the rest of Australia if they thought they could get away with it. They would ride roughshod over your human rights if they thought they could get away with it. How do we know that? It's because they're prepared to do it to a group of people just because of their visa status or just because they are foreigners.</para>
<para>What we're facing here is rushed, shoddy, xenophobic legislation. This is a dark, dark day in the Senate's history, and you can add it to a range of dark, dark days in the Senate's history. Time after time in this place, the major parties have got together to do over refugees and do over people who are seeking asylum. We live in a settler colonial society in Australia, and we have had trouble with the concept of liberty in this country since the first convicts arrived over 200 years ago. We have never come to grips with the critical right to freedom and liberty. This place was founded as a carceral state, and it exists as a carceral state today. This debate is proof of that. It is clear and obvious proof that we're a prison state. When it all gets too hard, we just reflexively lock people up.</para>
<para>Let's be really clear about the group of people that this legislation deals with. It is a small group of people, some of whom—not all—have been convicted of crimes. In at least a small number of cases, they have been convicted of heinous crimes. That is absolutely true, just as, on a regular basis, Australian citizens are convicted of heinous crimes. The difference is that, if you're an Australian citizen, you get sentenced by the courts, you do the time and then you come back out into the community. You're given an opportunity to rebuild your life. Some people don't. They reoffend. They're dealt with again by the justice system, and back into prison they go. But, for this group of people, it's a different regime entirely because they're foreigners. You understand: we are a xenophobic Senate. We deal with foreigners differently than we deal with Australians. But, when this group of people are convicted and sentenced by the courts under our Constitution—which makes it clear that the power to punish is reserved only for the courts, and not for politicians—they are imprisoned, and then, when they come out of prison, they are thrown into indefinite immigration detention. They are punished twice for the same crime.</para>
<para>Indefinite immigration detention, we now know, was never lawful; the detainees were unlawfully detained by the government—punished twice, with the second punishment unlawful. Now, the Labor and Liberal parties want to punish them a third time, and the only reason they can be punished a third time is because they are not Australian citizens. If another country was doing this to Australian citizens abroad, the Labor and Liberal Parties would be up in arms about it. But because it is Australia doing it to a bunch of refugees and people who sought asylum in this country, that is okay by the Labor and Liberal parties.</para>
<para>So here we go again, as I've said, a range of offences is created by this legislation, some of which have mandatory sentencing attached to them. I'll remind all Labor members in this place that mandatory sentencing is starkly contrary to Labor Party policy. I mean, I have to ask: What is the point of being a member of the Labor Party? They go through all these conferences—these big events—they generate policy, and their senators and MPs just come into this place and ignore it. I tell you what, you wouldn't get away with that in our party, and rightly so. We would be held to account if Greens senators and MPs acted in this way, but the Labor Party is quite happy to give the finger to its members because it has no respect for its members and no respect for its own policy. The only thing it has respect for is Mr Dutton.</para>
<para>We have heard a lot about community safety in this debate. Make no mistake, Labor's position on the bill is not about keeping our communities safe; it is actually about keeping the Labor Party safe from Mr Dutton. That is what we are dealing with here—a confected emergency, spun out of thin air by Mr Dutton, the toadies in News Corp magnifying it, happily reporting the opposition's lies, and the Labor Party on script, on brand, cravenly capitulating at the first available opportunity. They've not only handed over the power to draft legislation to Mr Dutton; they have handed over chamber management responsibilities today to Mr Dutton. It beggars belief that the Labor Party would have so little pride and so little backbone that they would be prepared to allow Mr Dutton to run roughshod over them in this fashion. This is a dark, dark day for the Senate and, tragically, we know how this is going to end.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This Labor government is an omnishambles. It is an omnishambles on steroids because what we have seen under this Labor government is a government that is prepared to sit around the cabinet table but which is not prepared to take the tough decisions to keep Australians safe, because the Commonwealth government has one job. Its main job is to keep Australia safe and to keep Australians safe. But under this government, under this omnishambles-on-steroids government, we've seen released rapists, murderers, paedophiles and a contract killer. So the question you would put to Australia is: Do you feel safer today than you did a month ago or 18 months ago? Because this Labor government is continuing in the 'proud' tradition—and I use 'proud' in inverted commas—of previous Labor governments of being weak at protecting Australians when it comes to securing our borders. Remember that it was under the previous Labor that we had over 50,000 illegal arrivals come to this country by boat. We had thousands die at sea because of the previous Labor government, and now we have cabinet ministers whose arrogance is only exceeded by their incompetence. Their incompetence and their failure to understand how to run their departments and how to keep Australians safe has now put at risk Australians.</para>
<para>That High Court decision was telegraphed back in June of this year. Considering the importance of this particular case, any responsible minister on top of their brief would have prepared for all options, but not this arrogant government that believes it knows better than anyone else, not this incompetent government that failed to prepare to protect Australians, not this omnishambles of a government. It is a government that last week attacked Peter Dutton. It attacked him personally. Peter Dutton, a police officer—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! You need to use the correct titles for members in the other place.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This government attacked the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton. Mr Dutton is someone who has spent his life keeping Australians safe. He worked as a police officer in the sex offenders squad in Queensland. He is someone who worked for the National Crime Authority. He is someone who has come to Canberra to keep Australians safe, bringing the skills he learned as a Queensland police officer. And what did Labor ministers call Mr Dutton? They called him a protector of paedophiles. This is the modern Labor Party for you—this chaotic, catastrophic government that isn't keeping Australians safe. It is blaming Peter Dutton.</para>
<para>I'm not keen to agree with Senator McKim, but he is correct: Mr Dutton, as Leader of the Opposition, is perhaps the most powerful Leader of the Opposition this country has ever seen because of his ability to set the agenda and because of what is happening in this chamber at this particular moment in time. It is Mr Dutton, it is Senator Cash, it is Senator Paterson, it is Mr Tehan who are setting the agenda—</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">G</inline> <inline font-style="italic">overnment member</inline> <inline font-style="italic">s</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> interjecting</inline>—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator McGrath, resume your seat. Those on my right, you were heard in silence. I would ask you to respect the standing orders and not interrupt. Senator McGrath, you have the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is Mr Dutton, it is Senator Cash, it is Senator Paterson, it is Mr Tehan who are setting the agenda, because they understand that the No. 1 job of this government—of any government—is to keep Australians safe. But this government is not doing that. It is the opposition that is setting the agenda. It is the opposition that is toughening up the government's weak laws, because what we have been seeing this week and last week and the week before is a catastrophic failure when it comes to protecting Australians, and that is shameful.</para>
<para>It is a shameful reflection upon those who sit around the cabinet table. It is a shameful reflection upon this government that you aren't keeping Australians safe—that you aren't keeping Australia safe. So this opposition, this coalition of the Liberal and National parties, will proudly move the amendments to toughen up this legislation. We'll proudly, as we have done this afternoon, bring on this legislation for debate because we want Australia to be safe. We want Australians to be safe. I encourage those in this chamber to support the amendments being moved by Senator Cash because, under this Labor government, rapists, murderers, paedophiles and a contract killer are wandering the streets of Australia. The question I put to my fellow Australians is: do you feel safer today than you did a week ago, a month ago or under the previous coalition government? Australians aren't feeling safer.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is astounding the way Labor has just surrendered government and the political direction to Peter Dutton and his mates over there—just astounding!</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Shoebridge, remember to address members of the other chamber by their correct title.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry; it is astounding the way Labor has delivered government and political direction to Mr Peter Dutton and his mates over there. It is just an astounding national surrender, not only to surrender the direction of government to the coalition, led by Mr Peter Dutton, but to attach onto this noxious legislation two of the most appalling provisions that offend pretty much every legal principle in the book.</para>
<para>The first one is future crime, also called preventive detention. The second one is mandatory sentencing. They are two things that Labor, in opposition and even as recently as in their 2023 national platform, rejected and said are offensive to the legal system and have the impact of reducing the independence of the judiciary. They are two things that Labor said, in opposition and even as recently as in the 2023 national platform they adopted, they'd never do. And now, as they follow on meekly behind Mr Peter Dutton and the coalition, with their heads bowed in political surrender to the coalition, they're putting both those things in the one piece of legislation, which is targeted overwhelmingly at refugees. You couldn't make up a bigger political surrender, a bigger moral surrender, a bigger surrender of principles than what Labor is doing with this legislation, the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions and Other Measures) Bill 2023.</para>
<para>Did I mention that they gave the whip hand to the coalition throughout all this? We're only having this debate now because they just collapsed; they wilted in the face of the slightest pressure from the coalition in the chamber today. They wilted like a lettuce leaf on a hot lawn. That's Labor and its principles when the coalition and Mr Peter Dutton just press their buttons—utterly pathetic!</para>
<para>What is wrong with preventive detention, better known as future crime? One of the key problems is that that's not what our courts are designed to do. In our legal system, courts are designed to find out what happened in the past and determine matters of fact. Never, until Labor and the coalition started experimenting with it in the last two decades, did courts and our legal system engage in predicting future crime. It's just not what our courts do. It's not their fact-finding mission. They don't have skills and they don't have legal structures to enable them to work out future crime. You can hear this said by senior members of the judiciary both current and retired.</para>
<para>What is the tool that the Commonwealth has been using to predict future crime and handing up to judges as though it's actually credible? It's called VERA-2R. It is some kind of assessment matrix that was initially an international design. The VERA-2R model is partly funded by Home Affairs—that home of Pezzullo integrity! It is funded by Home Affairs, promulgated and handed out by Home Affairs and tended to courts by Home Affairs. VERA-2R is this assessment tool of our future crime.</para>
<para>What do we know about VERA-2R—the thing that, no doubt, is going to be relied upon by Home Affairs and the Commonwealth DPP when they're trying to keep people in jail under this new, preventive detention regime? The VERA-2R report has been found to be grossly wanting. There is a previously secret review of VERA-2R called the Corner report, commissioned by Home Affairs and done by Dr Emily Corner and Dr Helen Taylor. Home Affairs had the report for months and months and refused to give it to courts, because it was inconvenient for them—misleading courts. The Corner report, paid for by the Commonwealth government, reviewed VERA-2R and another even more flawed tool called Radar in detail and said this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The lack of evidence underpinning both instruments has potentially serious implications for their validity and reliability. Without a strong theoretical and empirical basis for factor inclusion, it is not reasonable to anticipate that the instruments are able to predict their specified risk with anything other than chance.</para></quote>
<para>It is no better than a guess as to whether anybody who is covered by this preventive detention regime is likely to commit a future offence. It's just pure guessing. The tool that's used by the Commonwealth in doing this is a joke. It's a joke, except it has real-life impacts, because they come up with this matrix, they go up through the VERA-2R assessment tool and—pop!—out pops a number. If it's over a certain level, they say, 'Oh, well then that person is at risk of future offending, and they should be kept in jail.' You may as well just roll a dice. If it's four, five or six, you stay in jail, and if it's one, two or three, you get out. That's what the VERA-2R assessment tool is. It's no better than rolling a dice.</para>
<para>Is it any wonder that the legal system says, 'Actually, this degrades us'? Making them guess based upon grossly flawed assessment tools about whether or not someone is going to commit a future offence degrades the judiciary. It brings into disrepute the legal system. But, because Labor is so spineless, it is just signing on to preventive detention. They're scared about a Ray Hadley rant or a <inline font-style="italic">Daily Telegraph </inline>rant. Whatever the coalition wants, Labor will deliver—and they will deliver it quickly and fast, because they just want to be done with this. If they have to put a couple of people in jail for the rest of their lives, even though there's no evidence about future offending, well, Labor are willing to pay that price. Labor will keep a couple of people in jail forever based on a flawed tool and broken legal reasoning because they want to get out of a political mess. They haven't got the spine to stare down the coalition's scare tactics. That's what's happening here.</para>
<para>And then we get to mandatory sentencing. If the future-crimes abuse of the legal system isn't enough—did I mention the use of the Pezzullo-credible VERA-2R assessment tool?—Labor has decided to go the coalition's extra beat-up-on-refugees step. That is to put in mandatory sentencing. Labor's own 2023 national platform said, 'Mandatory sentencing is wrong in principle and wrong in practice.' You said you wouldn't do it, because it removes judicial discretion, erodes the independence of the judiciary and provides unfair outcomes. That's what you say on the national platform, delivered, apparently, by Labor Party members across the country. It was signed off just a few months ago. But, of course, the parliamentary Labor Party don't feel constrained in any way by the principles of their party members, and they just come in here, sell their members, the national conference and the public down the river, and whack in mandatory sentencing. They are willing to put people in jail for a guaranteed year if they're late back home by 15 minutes one night. Those people will go to jail for a year, with no discretion. If you're home late by 15 minutes, you will be subject to mandatory sentencing and will go to jail for a year. This is brought to you by the Labor Party as the subcontractors of the coalition—the wholly owned subsidiary of the coalition.</para>
<para>Why not just open a sort of Liberal-light branch and have a quiet rule in the next Labor Party national conference, with a little asterisk at the top, saying, 'Whatever we say here, if Mr Peter Dutton puts the heat on us, we'll just junk it'? You should have that little asterisk and exemption on the next national platform: 'Whatever our principles and whatever we say in the election or in opposition, if Mr Peter Dutton puts a blowtorch on us, we'll just junk it.' Just be honest, because that's what's happening here. This is a gross surrender of principle, it's a gross surrender of political direction and it's one of the worst examples of government I've seen.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too stand to make a contribution on the really important Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 but, most particularly, to once again draw the attention of those listening in the Australian public to what an absolute shambles this government has made of the most important job that it has, and that is managing our national security and keeping Australians safe. What we've seen on complete, utter and full display over these last few weeks is the fact that this government is just not up to being a government, to keeping Australians safe or to managing our national security.</para>
<para>Given that Justice Gleeson belled the cat some months ago about the fact that it was highly likely that the prospects for the defendants in this case were not going to be very good, the government were caught completely flat-footed and surprised when all of a sudden they got the decision that they did. So, in a kneejerk reaction, without bothering to seek advice to understand what the actual decision of the High Court really meant and go through it to make sure that they didn't take any actions that potentially could be adverse, the government, as I said, completely wet the bed and let in excess of 100 serious criminals out into our community. A cohort that included murderers, paedophiles, rapists and even a contract killer were let free into our community.</para>
<para>Let's not forget that on 14 November, following the NZYQ case, Ministers O'Neil and Giles said in a joint statement that the released detainees 'have been subject to a range of strict, mandatory visa conditions'. We know that's simply not true, because all of those conditions had no means of being enforced. You can say what you like but, if you don't have the mechanism to make sure it actually happens, the conditions are not worth the paper that they're written on.</para>
<para>The government's incompetence continued well past this. First of all, the first duty of government is obviously to keep Australians safe. The government failed in its first attempt to put any legislation into this place, because it clearly didn't go far enough. They said that they'd never written laws that were this tough, yet within a matter of minutes, when it was drawn to their attention that there actually were a whole heap of other things that they could do that were tougher—boom, boom—those things got done. If the government had been prepared when it was told in June what was before it—that the prospects were that it would lose the High Court case—it could have taken action then. The people we're talking about now are in our community and already committing crimes, in breach of their release orders and visa conditions. They're already doing it, only a matter of minutes after they were let out of detention. The government could have prevented this happening by actually being prepared and putting in place the legislation for a preventive detention regime in the first place. This is something that the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Paterson, here in the chamber, Senator Cash and Mr Tehan, in the other place, have all been calling for—a preventive detention regime.</para>
<para>The other thing is that the government has been caught out not always telling the truth. We know that Minister O'Neil said that the reason they hadn't done any work in relation to being prepared for the decision when it came down was that they had advice that they would win. We know that that is absolutely not the case, because Justice Gleeson made it very clear some months ago that they should be preparing for the worst and that their prospects weren't good.</para>
<para>The government needs to explain, not to us in this place but to the general public, why it overreacted and released over 140 detainees, when clearly the decision applied only to the plaintiff NZYQ. The High Court's ruling—if you bother actually to analyse it—was quite narrow. We have an absolutely hopeless Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs and a hopeless Minister for Home Affairs, but they need to face up to the Australian public and tell them why they released these people into the community. So far it seems to have been: 'Nothing to see here. We take no responsibility. We haven't done anything wrong.' Somehow, it's all a decision of the High Court, when the advice states that the High Court decision could quite easily have been contained to the specific circumstances of NZYQ. If it had been, many of these other offenders would not be out in our community at the moment.</para>
<para>It's not just the federal government who've been asleep at the wheel. Yesterday in my home state of South Australia we saw the terrible situation where a woman was sexually assaulted by one of the detainees who had been released. We've seen the South Australian Premier and the South Australian minister for police not really take responsibility. They've just said it's all the federal government's problem. Can I commend the shadow minister for police in South Australia, Sam Telfer, who has time and time again called on the South Australian government to take responsibility for the detainees that have been released into our South Australian community. Mr Telfer said in a press release that we cannot have 'a situation where hardened criminals with potentially dangerous backgrounds' that have been freed from detention 'are "just on the loose" in South Australia and the community is not told'.</para>
<para>The sad thing is that the South Australia community was told about it by the <inline font-style="italic">Herald Sun</inline>, not by their government or police agencies. We saw the following today in the <inline font-style="italic">Herald Sun</inline>:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Two convicted child sex abuse offenders are loose in one state after their release from immigration detention, the police have confirmed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">South Australian Assistant Commissioner of Crime John Venditto said police officers were monitoring the two registered sex offenders from a total of six former detainees now free in the state following November's High Court decision striking down indefinite detention.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"We know where they are, we visit them," the assistant commissioner said.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"We give them the conditions. We make sure they don't go near children, we make sure children don't go near them."</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The revelation comes in the same week 65-year-old former detainee Aliyawar Yawari fronted Adelaide Magistrates Court facing charges he indecently assaulted a woman just three weeks after his release from detention in WA.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Mr Yawari was previously jailed for assaulting three elderly woman between 2013 and 2014.</para></quote>
<para>It is unbelievable. The interesting thing is that the assistant police commissioner went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… South Australian police were notified when Mr Yawari entered South Australia and they received alerts from the AFP and the ABF when detainees crossed borders.</para></quote>
<para>And here's what he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We in South Australia, visit all of them. We go face to face. We meet them. We verify their identity and welcome them to South Australia.</para></quote>
<para>So my question is to the Premier, Peter Malinauskas, and the police minister, Joe Szakacs: are you welcoming these sorts of people into my home state? I would like to know if that's what you consider your duty of responsibility, in looking after the citizens of South Australia—that you 'welcome' rapists, paedophiles, murderers and even, potentially, a contract killer, should they decide to visit South Australia? You are going to welcome them into South Australia? It is quite extraordinary.</para>
<para>We've seen the opposition leader in South Australia, the shadow minister in South Australia, asking questions about this, and yet all we have received so far from the government have been quite flippant responses. Only last week, on 28 November, Mr Telfer, the shadow police minister, asked a question of Mr Szakacs, as the Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services: 'Are there any community safety risks to South Australia due to the recent immigration detainee released by the federal government?' And guess what Mr Szakacs's response was? 'It's got nothing to do with us. It's not the fault of the federal government. It's all the High Court's decision.'</para>
<para>So we have a situation here where we have six detainees in South Australia—despite the fact that last Tuesday Mr Szakacs thought that there were only five—who've been released from federal detention as a result of the decision and are here in South Australia. But what Mr Szakacs went on to say—and I'll read it into <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>—in response to these questions was: 'In any case, no matter the individual, no matter the way they find themselves in South Australia'—et cetera, et cetera—'they are subject to the laws of this state. The laws of this state are applied by the South Australian police. They do so in a very profound way. They do so in a very good way. And I can give the member for Flinders and his question the assurance that the South Australian police force continues to keep our community safe, no matter who you are and which manner you find yourself in South Australia.'</para>
<para>Well, I'd say to you, Mr Szakacs: why don't you go and say that to the woman who was the victim of Mr Yawari's attack in South Australia? This attack has now required this detainee to be returned to detention. I would say to the South Australian government: you can't wash your hands of your responsibility for looking after Australian citizens. And, if the police minister actually thinks that it's okay to welcome these people into South Australia, and if the police minister thinks that everybody in South Australia is safe because of that, he clearly is very much mistaken, as we've seen by the terrible news reports of what happened in South Australia this week.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time for the debate has expired. We now come to Senator Roberts's second reading amendment which was circulated earlier.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry, Senator Hanson?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hanson</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It was my second reading amendment.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, we have two, Senator Hanson. You have not yet moved yours, which you would need to do by leave. And we have Senator Roberts's, which has met the two-hour threshold and so can be dealt with without leave. The question is that Senator Roberts's second reading amendment on sheet 2260 be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:38]<br />(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Fawcett)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>4</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I. (Teller)</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>30</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move the second reading amendment in my name on sheet 2277:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to introduce legislation to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) enable the immediate deportation, without right of appeal, of any bridging visa holder who attends a rally which advocates racism, violence or discrimination; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) increase the term of imprisonment to 25 years for bridging visa holders who commit serious criminal offences and enable the immediate deportation of those persons on their release from prison".</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that Senator Hanson's second reading amendment on sheet 2277 be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:42] <br />(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Fawcett) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>3</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I. (Teller)</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>32</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the bill be read a second time.</para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:46]<br />(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Fawcett)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>30</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>8</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Bill read a second time.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>6535</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. I seek leave to move government amendments to the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 on sheet SY101 together.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Title, page 1 (line 1), omit "the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act</inline><inline font-style="italic">1958</inline>", substitute "the law relating to migration, and to protect the Australian community from serious offenders".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 1, page 1 (line 5), omit "<inline font-style="italic">Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions</inline>", substitute "<inline font-style="italic">and Other Legislation Amendment </inline><inline font-style="italic">(Bridging Visas, Serious Offenders</inline>".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 1), after "Amendments", insert "relating to bridging visas etc.".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 4), before item 1, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1A After section 76A</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">76AA Effect of community safety order on visa held by non-citizen etc.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This section applies if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a community safety order is made in relation to a non-citizen; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the order comes into force at a particular time (the <inline font-style="italic">relevant time</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Non-citizen who holds a visa (other than a criminal justice visa) at the relevant time</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If the non-citizen holds a visa (other than a criminal justice visa) at the relevant time, then, despite any other provision of this Act or the regulations, the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) that visa ceases to be in effect at the relevant time;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the non-citizen is taken, immediately after the relevant time, to have been granted a Subclass 070 (Bridging (Removal Pending)) visa (the <inline font-style="italic">BVR visa</inline>);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the BVR visa is taken to come into effect as soon as it is taken to be granted under paragraph (b).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The visa period for the visa mentioned in paragraph (a) ends at the relevant time and the visa period for the BVR visa begins when it is taken to be granted.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Non-citizen who holds a criminal justice visa at the relevant time</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the non-citizen holds a criminal justice visa at the relevant time; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the criminal justice visa ceases to be in effect at a particular time (the <inline font-style="italic">cessation time</inline>) during the period in which the community safety order is in force in relation to the non-citizen;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">then, despite any other provision of this Act or the regulations, the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the non-citizen is taken, immediately after the cessation time, to have been granted a Subclass 070 (Bridging (Removal Pending)) visa (the <inline font-style="italic">BVR visa</inline>);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the BVR visa is taken to come into effect as soon as it is taken to be granted under paragraph (c).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The visa period for the BVR visa begins when it is taken to be granted.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Matters relating to the BVR visa taken to be granted to the non-citizen</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Subject to subsections (6) and (7), this Act and the regulations apply, after the commencement of this section, in relation to the BVR visa that is taken to be granted under paragraph (2)(b) or (3)(c) (as the case may be) in the same way as they would apply in relation to a Subclass 070 (Bridging (Removal Pending)) visa granted under the regulations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Without limiting subsection (4), the following provisions of the regulations, as in force at the time the BVR visa is taken to be granted under paragraph (2)(b) or (3)(c) (as the case may be), apply in relation to the BVR visa:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a provision specifying when a Subclass 070 (Bridging (Removal Pending)) visa is in effect;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a provision prescribing that a Subclass 070 (Bridging (Removal Pending)) visa permits the visa holder to remain in Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a provision specifying the conditions to which a Subclass 070 (Bridging (Removal Pending)) visa that is taken to be granted under paragraph (2)(b) or (3)(c) (as the case may be) is subject.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) The non-citizen's BVR visa must not be subject to either of the following conditions:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a condition requiring the non-citizen to remain, between certain times of a day, at a particular address for the non-citizen for the day;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a condition requiring the non-citizen to wear a monitoring device.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Minister must not do certain things while the community safety order is in force</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) The Minister must not do either of the following at any time while the community safety order made in relation to the non-citizen is in force:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) invite the non-citizen, for the purposes of the regulations, to apply for another Subclass 070 (Bridging (Removal Pending)) visa;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) grant (whether or not on application) the non-citizen another Subclass 070 (Bridging (Removal Pending)) visa under the regulations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Inconsistency between the community safety order and the BVR visa</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the community safety order that is in force in relation to the non-citizen is a community safety supervision order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) at a particular time, one or more conditions (the <inline font-style="italic">supervision order conditions</inline>) are imposed on the non-citizen by the community safety supervision order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) at that time, a condition to which the non-citizen's BVR visa is subject is inconsistent, in whole or in part, with any of the supervision order conditions;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">then, despite subsections (4) and (5), the BVR visa is to be taken, at that time, not to be subject to that condition to the extent of any such inconsistency.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the community safety order made in relation to the non-citizen is a community safety detention order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the non-citizen is unable, at a particular time, to comply with a condition to which the non-citizen's BVR visa is subject; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the non-citizen is unable to comply with the condition only because the community safety detention order is in force in relation to the non-citizen at that time;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">then, despite subsections (4) and (5), the BVR visa is to be taken, at that time, not to be subject to that condition.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) Subsections (8) and (9) do not apply at any time while the community safety order made in relation to the non-citizen is suspended.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Definitions</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) In this section:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">community safety detention order</inline> has the same meaning as in Division 395 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">community safety order</inline> means a community safety detention order or a community safety supervision order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">community safety supervision order</inline> has the same meaning as in Division 395 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">monitoring device</inline> means any electronic device capable of being used to determine or monitor the location of a person or an object or the status of an object.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Page 8 (after line 21), at the end of the bill, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 2 — Amendments relating to community safety orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 1 — Amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 After paragraph (dad) of Schedule 1</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(dada) decisions of the Immigration Minister under Division 395 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline>;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 At the end of subsection 35(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; (d) a condition imposed on a person by a community safety supervision order under Division 395 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline> (community safety orders);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) action covered by any of subsections 395.17(2) to (5) of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline> (actions relating to electronic monitoring).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Crimes Act 1914</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 Paragraphs 3ZQU(1)(e) and 3ZZEA(1)(d)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "or 105A", substitute ", 105A or 395".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 After Part IAAB</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part IAABA — Monitoring of compliance with community safety supervision orders etc.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3ZZUHA Simplified outline of this Part</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Part affects how Part IAAB operates, so that that Part (with some modifications set out in this Part) also applies in relation to community safety supervision orders made under Division 395 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3ZZUHB Definitions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In this Part:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">community safety supervision order</inline> has the same meaning as in Division 395 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Part 9.10 object</inline> means the protection of the community from serious harm by addressing the unacceptable risk of a serious offender committing a serious violent or sexual offence.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">serious offender</inline> has the same meaning as in Division 395 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">serious violent or sexual offence</inline> has the same meaning as in Division 395 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3ZZUHC Application of Part IAAB to community safety supervision orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Part IAAB (other than section 3ZZJA or 3ZZJB) applies as if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a reference to a Part 5.3 supervisory order included a reference to a community safety supervision order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a reference to a Part 5.3 object included a reference to a Part 9.10 object.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Subsection 3ZZOA(4) applies as if the following paragraph were inserted after paragraph (b) of that subsection:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) in relation to a community safety supervision order—the possibility that the person has committed, is committing, or will commit, a serious violent or sexual offence;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Paragraph 3ZZOA(5)(l) applies as if the following subparagraph were inserted before subparagraph (i) of that paragraph:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ia) a community safety supervision order; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Subsection 3ZZOA(5) applies as if the following paragraph were inserted after paragraph (q) of that subsection:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(qa) for a community safety supervision order:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) specify when the community safety supervision order comes into force; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) specify the end of the period during which the community safety supervision order is in force; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Subsection 3ZZOB(4) applies as if the following paragraph were inserted after paragraph (c) of that subsection:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) in relation to a community safety supervision order—the possibility that the person has committed, is committing, or will commit, a serious violent or sexual offence;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Paragraph 3ZZOB(5)(j) applies as if the following subparagraph were inserted before subparagraph (i) of that paragraph:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ia) a community safety supervision order; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Subsection 3ZZOB(5) applies as if the following paragraph were inserted after paragraph (o) of that subsection:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(oa) for a community safety supervision order:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) specify when the community safety supervision order comes into force; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) specify the end of the period during which the community safety supervision order is in force; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Paragraph 3ZZOD(1)(b) applies as if the following subparagraph were inserted after subparagraph (iii) of that paragraph:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iiia) the community safety supervision order is revoked and no further community safety supervision order is made in relation to the serious offender;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code Act 1995</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 At the end of Chapter 9 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 9.10 — Community safety orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 395 — Community safety orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision A — Preliminary</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.1 Object</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The object of this Division is to protect the community from serious harm by providing that non-citizens who:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) pose an unacceptable risk of committing serious violent or sexual offences; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) have no real prospect of their removal from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">are subject to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a community safety detention order; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a community safety supervision order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.2 Definitions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) In this Division:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">AFP member</inline> means:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a member of the Australian Federal Police (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Federal Police Act 1979</inline>); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a special member of the Australian Federal Police (within the meaning of that Act).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth law enforcement officer</inline> has the meaning given by Part 7.8.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">community safety detention order </inline>means an order made under subsection 395.12(1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">community safety order</inline> means a community safety detention order or a community safety supervision order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">community safety order decision</inline> means:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a decision on an application for a community safety order; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a decision on an application to vary a community safety supervision order; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a decision in a review of a community safety order to affirm, revoke or vary the order; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a decision made under section 395.34 (when a serious offender is unable to engage a legal representative).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: See also subsection (4).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">community safety order proceeding</inline> means a proceeding under Subdivision C, D or E.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">community safety supervision order</inline> means an order made under subsection 395.13(1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">detained in custody</inline> has the meaning given by subsection (2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">detained in custody in a prison</inline> has the meaning given by subsection (3).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">exemption condition</inline> has the meaning given by subsection 395.15(2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">immigration detention</inline> has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Immigration Minister</inline> means the Minister administering the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">lawyer</inline> means a person enrolled as a legal practitioner of a federal court or the Supreme Court of a State or Territory.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">monitoring device</inline> means any electronic device capable of being used to determine or monitor the location of a person or an object or the status of an object.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: See also the definition of <inline font-style="italic">related monitoring equipment</inline> in this subsection.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">non-citizen</inline> means a person who is not an Australian citizen.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">personal information</inline> has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Privacy Act 1988</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">police officer</inline> means:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an AFP member; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a member (however described) of a police force of a State or Territory.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">premises</inline> includes a place, an aircraft, a vehicle and a vessel.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">prison </inline>includes any gaol, lock-up or remand centre.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">related monitoring equipment</inline>, in relation to a monitoring device, means any electronic equipment necessary for operating the monitoring device.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">relevant expert</inline> means any of the following persons who is competent to assess the risk of a serious offender committing a serious violent or sexual offence:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a person who is:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) registered as a medical practitioner under a law of a State or Territory; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a fellow of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any other person registered as a medical practitioner under a law of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a person registered as a psychologist under a law of a State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) any other expert.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">reside</inline> includes reside temporarily.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">residence</inline> includes temporary residence.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">senior AFP member</inline> means:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a Deputy Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) an AFP member of, or above, the rank of Superintendent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">serious foreign violent or sexual offence</inline> means an offence against a law of a foreign country, or of part of a foreign country, where:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) it is an offence punishable by imprisonment for life or for a period, or maximum period, of at least 7 years; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) it is constituted by conduct that, if engaged in in Australia, would constitute an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the particular conduct constituting the offence involved, involves or would involve, as the case requires:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) loss of a person's life or serious risk of loss of a person's life; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) serious personal injury or serious risk of serious personal injury; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) sexual assault; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) sexual assault involving a person under 16; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) the production, publication, possession, supply or sale of, or other dealing in, child abuse material (within the meaning of Part 10.6); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vi) consenting to or procuring the employment of a child, or employing a child, in connection with material referred to in subparagraph (v); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vii) acts done in preparation for, or to facilitate, the commission of a sexual offence against a person under 16.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">serious offender</inline> has the meaning given by subsections 395.5(1) and (2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: This definition is affected by section 395.37.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">serious violent or sexual offence</inline> means an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory where:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) it is an offence punishable by imprisonment for life or for a period, or maximum period, of at least 7 years; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the particular conduct constituting the offence involved, involves or would involve, as the case requires:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) loss of a person's life or serious risk of loss of a person's life; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) serious personal injury or serious risk of serious personal injury; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) sexual assault; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) sexual assault involving a person under 16; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) the production, publication, possession, supply or sale of, or other dealing in, child abuse material (within the meaning of Part 10.6); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vi) consenting to or procuring the employment of a child, or employing a child, in connection with material referred to in subparagraph (v); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vii) acts done in preparation for, or to facilitate, the commission of a sexual offence against a person under 16.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">specified authority</inline>: a person, or person in a class of persons, is a <inline font-style="italic">specified authority</inline> for a requirement or condition in a community safety supervision order in relation to another person (the <inline font-style="italic">subject</inline>) if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person or class is any of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a police officer, or class of police officer;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) if the requirement or condition relates to electronic monitoring—a person, or class of person, who is involved in electronically monitoring the subject;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) for any requirement or condition in the order—any other person, or class of person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Court making the order is satisfied that the person or class is appropriate in relation to the requirement or condition; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the person or class is specified in the order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Definition of </inline> <inline font-style="italic">detained in custody </inline> <inline font-style="italic">etc.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A person is <inline font-style="italic">detained in custody</inline> if the person is detained in custody under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A person is <inline font-style="italic">detained in custody in a prison</inline> if the person is detained in custody in a gaol, lock-up or remand centre, including under a community safety detention order. However, a person is not <inline font-style="italic">detained in custody in a prison</inline> if the person is in immigration detention in a gaol, lock-up or remand centre.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">When a decision is made</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) To avoid doubt, a decision on an application to a Supreme Court of a State or Territory for a community safety order is not made until the Court determines the application in accordance with section 395.10.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.3 Concurrent operation intended</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Division is not intended to exclude or limit the concurrent operation of any law of a State or Territory.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.4 Regulations may modify operation of this Division to deal with interaction between this Division and State and Territory laws</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The regulations may modify the operation of this Division so that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) provisions of this Division do not apply to a matter that is dealt with by a law of a State or Territory specified in the regulations; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) no inconsistency arises between the operation of a provision of this Division and the operation of a State or Territory law specified in the regulations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Without limiting subsection (1), regulations made for the purposes of that subsection may provide that the provision of this Division does not apply to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a person specified in the regulations; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a body specified in the regulations; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) circumstances specified in the regulations; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a person or body specified in the regulations in the circumstances specified in the regulations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) In this section:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">matter</inline> includes act, omission, body, person or thing.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision B — Community safety orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.5 Who a community safety order may apply to and effect of community safety orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A community safety order may be made under section 395.12 or 395.13 in relation to a person (the <inline font-style="italic">serious offender</inline>) if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person has been convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the person is a non-citizen; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) there is no real prospect of removal of the person from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a subsection of section 395.6 provides that the order may be made in relation to the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the person is at least 18 years old.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Before making the order, a Court must be satisfied of certain matters under section 395.12 or 395.13.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A community safety order may be made under section 395.12 or 395.13 in relation to a person (the <inline font-style="italic">serious offender</inline>) if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person has been convicted of a serious foreign violent or sexual offence; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the person is a non-citizen; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) there is no real prospect of removal of the person from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a subsection of section 395.6 provides that the order may be made in relation to the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the person is at least 18 years old.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Before making the order, a Court must be satisfied of certain matters under section 395.12 or 395.13.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Effect of community safety detention order</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The effect of a community safety detention order is to commit the person to detention in a prison for the period the order is in force.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: The period must not be more than 3 years (see subsection 395.12(5)).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: See also:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) section 395.41 (detention under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline>); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) section 395.42 (effect of prison detention on community safety order); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) subsection 395.47(2) (arrangements with States and Territories); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) section 395.50 (effect of community safety detention orders on bail or parole laws).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Effect of a community safety supervision order</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The effect of a community safety supervision order is to impose on the person, for the period the order is in force, conditions contravention of which is an offence.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: The period must not be more than 3 years (see paragraph 395.13(5)(d)).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: See also sections 395.41 (detention under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline>) and 395.42 (effect of prison detention on community safety order).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.6 Preconditions for community safety orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Person is detained in custody in a prison</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A community safety order may be made in relation to a person if the person is detained in custody in a prison serving:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a sentence of imprisonment for a serious violent or sexual offence; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a sentence of imprisonment for any other offence.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Person is in the community</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A community safety order may be made in relation to a person if the person is in the community.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Community safety detention order is in force</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A community safety order may be made in relation to a person if a community safety detention order is in force in relation to the person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.7 Treatment of a serious offender in a prison under a community safety detention order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A serious offender who is detained in custody in a prison under a community safety detention order must be treated in a way that is appropriate to the offender's status as a person who is not serving a sentence of imprisonment, subject to any reasonable requirements necessary to maintain:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the management, security or good order of the prison; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the safe custody or welfare of the offender or any prisoners; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the safety and protection of the community.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The offender must not be accommodated or detained in the same area or unit of the prison as persons who are in prison for the purpose of serving sentences of imprisonment unless:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) it is reasonably necessary for the purposes of rehabilitation, treatment, work, education, general socialisation or other group activities; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) it is necessary for the security or good order of the prison or the safe custody or welfare of the offender or prisoners; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) it is necessary for the safety and protection of the community; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the offender elects to be so accommodated or detained.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) This section does not apply if the offender is serving a sentence of imprisonment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision C — Making community safety orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.8 Applying for a community safety order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Immigration Minister, or a legal representative of the Immigration Minister, (the <inline font-style="italic">applicant</inline>) may apply to a Supreme Court of a State or Territory for either of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a community safety detention order in relation to a serious offender;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a community safety supervision order in relation to a serious offender.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The court may make a community safety supervision order under section 395.13 even if a community safety detention order is applied for.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Immigration Minister must ensure that reasonable inquiries are made to ascertain any facts known to any Commonwealth law enforcement officer that would reasonably be regarded as supporting a finding that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the application is for a community safety detention order—neither a community safety detention order nor a community safety supervision order should be made in relation to the offender; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the application is for a community safety supervision order—the community safety supervision order should not be made in relation to the offender.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Content of application</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The application must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) include any report or other document that the applicant intends, at the time of the application, to rely on in relation to the application; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) include:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a copy of any material in the possession of the applicant; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a statement of any facts that the applicant is aware of;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">that would reasonably be regarded as supporting a finding that the order or orders mentioned in paragraph (2)(a) or (b) (as the case requires) should not be made, except any information, material or facts that are likely to be protected by public interest immunity (whether the claim for public interest immunity is to be made by the Immigration Minister or any other person); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) include information about the offender's age; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) if the offender is a holder under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline> of a visa that is subject to one or more conditions—specify the conditions; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) request that the order be in force for a specified period; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) if the application is for a community safety supervision order—include the following material:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a copy of the proposed conditions;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an explanation as to why each of the proposed conditions should be imposed on the offender;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) if the Immigration Minister is aware of any facts relating to why any of those conditions should not be imposed on the offender—a statement of those facts, except any facts that are likely to be protected by public interest immunity (whether the claim for public interest immunity is to be made by the Immigration Minister or any other person);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) if the offender is subject to an order under a law of a State or Territory that is equivalent to a community safety order—a copy of that order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) if a report was obtained under section 395.43 in relation to the offender—include a copy of the report.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: For paragraph (3)(e), the period must not be more than 3 years (see subsection 395.12(5) and paragraph 395.13(5)(d)).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: Evidence may also be adduced later under section 395.28.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 3: A copy of the application must be given to the serious offender under section 395.29.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.9 Appointment of and assessment by relevant expert</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If an application for a community safety order is made under section 395.8 to a Supreme Court of a State or Territory in relation to a serious offender, the Court must hold a preliminary hearing to determine whether to appoint one or more relevant experts.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The hearing must be held within 28 days after a copy of the application is given to the offender under subsection 395.29(2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Court may, either at the preliminary hearing or at any later time in the proceeding, appoint one or more relevant experts if the Court considers that doing so is likely to materially assist the Court in deciding whether to make a community safety order in relation to the offender.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The Immigration Minister or the offender, or a legal representative of the Immigration Minister or the offender, may nominate one or more relevant experts for the purposes of subsection (3).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The relevant expert who is appointed must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) conduct an assessment of the risk of the offender committing a serious violent or sexual offence; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) provide a report of the expert's assessment to the Court, the Immigration Minister and the offender.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For giving documents to a serious offender who is detained in custody, see section 395.33.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Attendance and participation at assessment</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) The offender must attend the assessment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The assessment may be conducted over a number of sessions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) The answer to a question or information given at the assessment, and answering a question or giving information at the assessment, are not admissible in evidence against the offender in:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) any criminal proceedings, except any proceedings relating to sentencing for an offence against this Division (including any appeal in relation to those proceedings); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any civil proceedings against the offender, except proceedings under this Division (including any appeal in relation to those proceedings).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) The Court must ensure that the effect of subsections (6), (7) and (11) is explained to the offender.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Contents of report</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) The expert's report may include any one or more of the following matters:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the expert's assessment of the risk of the offender committing a serious violent or sexual offence;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) reasons for that assessment;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the pattern or progression to date of behaviour on the part of the offender in relation to serious violent or sexual offences, and an indication of the nature of any likely future behaviour on the offender's part in relation to serious violent or sexual offences;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) efforts made to date by the offender to address the causes of the offender's behaviour in relation to serious violent or sexual offences, including whether the offender has actively participated in any rehabilitation or treatment programs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) if the offender has participated in any rehabilitation or treatment programs—whether or not this participation has had a positive effect on the offender;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) any relevant background of the offender, including developmental and social factors;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) factors that might increase or decrease any risks that have been identified of the offender committing a serious violent or sexual offence;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) any other matters the expert considers relevant.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other relevant experts</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) This section does not prevent the Immigration Minister or the offender, or a legal representative of the Immigration Minister or the offender, from calling their own relevant expert as a witness in the proceeding.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Assessments conducted for certain purposes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) Without limiting subsection (7), an assessment of an offender conducted under paragraph (5)(a), and the report of the assessment, may be taken into account in proceedings to make, vary or review any community safety order in relation to the offender.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.10 Determining an application for a community safety order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Determining applications for community safety detention orders</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If an application is made under section 395.8 to the Supreme Court of a State or Territory for a community safety detention order in relation to a serious offender, the Court may determine the application by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) making a community safety detention order under section 395.12; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) making a community safety supervision order under section 395.13; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) dismissing the application.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Determining applications for community safety supervision orders</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If an application is made under section 395.8 to the Supreme Court of a State or Territory for a community safety supervision order in relation to a serious offender, the Court may determine the application by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) making a community safety supervision order under section 395.13; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) dismissing the application.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.11 Matters a Court must have regard to in making a community safety order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) In deciding whether the Court is satisfied as referred to in paragraph 395.12(1)(b) or 395.13(1)(b) in relation to a serious offender, a Supreme Court of a State or Territory must have regard to the following matters:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the object of this Division;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any report of an assessment received from a relevant expert, and the level of the offender's participation in the assessment, under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) section 395.9; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) section 395.43;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the results of any other assessment conducted by a relevant expert of the risk of the offender committing a serious violent or sexual offence, and the level of the offender's participation in any such assessment;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) any report, relating to the extent to which the offender can reasonably and practicably be managed in the community, that has been prepared by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the relevant State or Territory corrective services; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) any other person or body who is competent to assess that extent;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) any treatment or rehabilitation programs in which the offender has had an opportunity to participate, and the level of the offender's participation in any such programs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) the level of the offender's compliance with any obligations to which the offender is or has been subject while:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) on release on parole for any serious violent or sexual offence; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) subject to a community safety order;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) the level of the offender's compliance with any conditions to which a visa that the offender is, or has been, a holder of under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline> is or has been subject;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) the offender's history of any prior convictions for, and findings of guilt made in relation to, any serious violent or sexual offence;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) if information is available about the offender's history of any prior convictions for, and findings of guilt made in relation to, any serious foreign violent or sexual offence—that information;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(j) the views of the sentencing court at the time any sentence for any serious violent or sexual offence was imposed on the offender;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(k) if information is available about the views of the sentencing court at the time any sentence for any serious foreign violent or sexual offence was imposed on the offender—that information;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(l) whether the offender is subject to any order under a law of a State or Territory that is equivalent to a community safety order, and if so, the conditions of the order;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(m) any other information as to the risk of the offender committing a serious violent or sexual offence.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Subsection (1) does not prevent the Court from having regard to any other matter the Court considers relevant.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) To avoid doubt, section 395.27 (civil evidence and procedure rules in relation to community safety order proceedings) applies to the Court's consideration of the matters referred to in subsections (1) and (2) of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.12 Making a community safety detention order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A Supreme Court of a State or Territory may make a written order under this subsection if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an application is made in accordance with section 395.8 for a community safety detention order in relation to a serious offender; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) after having regard to matters in accordance with section 395.11, the Court is satisfied to a high degree of probability, on the basis of admissible evidence, that the offender poses an unacceptable risk of seriously harming the community by committing a serious violent or sexual offence; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Court is satisfied that there is no less restrictive measure available under this Division that would be effective in protecting the community from serious harm by addressing the unacceptable risk; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) in a case where the offender is a holder under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline> of a visa that is subject to conditions—the Court is satisfied that the conditions would not be effective in protecting the community from serious harm by addressing the unacceptable risk.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: The rules of evidence and procedure for civil matters apply when the Court has regard to matters in accordance with section 395.11, as referred to in paragraph (1)(b) of this section (see subsection 395.11(3) and section 395.27).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: For paragraph (1)(c), an example of a less restrictive measure that is available under this Division is a community safety supervision order. A Court can make a community safety supervision order under section 395.13 even if a community safety detention order was applied for (see subsection 395.10(1)).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If the Court is not satisfied as mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) or (c) (or both), but is satisfied as mentioned in paragraph (1)(d), then the Court must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) seek the following material from the Immigration Minister:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a copy of the proposed conditions that would be sought for a community safety supervision order in relation to the offender;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an explanation as to why each of the proposed conditions should be imposed on the offender;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) if the Immigration Minister is aware of any facts relating to why any of those conditions should not be imposed on the offender—a statement of those facts, except any facts that are likely to be protected by public interest immunity (whether the claim for public interest immunity is to be made by the Immigration Minister or any other person); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) consider whether to make a community safety supervision order under section 395.13 in relation to the offender.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: A copy of the material must be given to the serious offender under section 395.29.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Onus of satisfying Court</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Immigration Minister bears the onus of satisfying the Court of the matters referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (c) and (d).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Period of order</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The order must specify the period during which it is in force.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The order may be suspended during the period that it is in force if the offender is detained under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline> (see section 395.41) or detained in custody in a prison other than as a result of the order (see section 395.42).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The period must be a period of no more than 3 years that the Court is satisfied is reasonably necessary to protect the community from serious harm by addressing the unacceptable risk.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Court may make successive community safety detention orders</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) To avoid doubt, subsection (5) does not prevent a Supreme Court of a State or Territory making a community safety detention order in relation to a serious offender that begins to be in force immediately after a previous community safety detention order in relation to the offender ceases to be in force.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.13 Making a community safety supervision order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A Supreme Court of a State or Territory may make a written order under this subsection, in accordance with sections 395.14 and 395.15, if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) any of the following applies:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) an application is made in accordance with section 395.8 for a community safety supervision order in relation to a serious offender;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an application is made in accordance with section 395.8 for a community safety detention order in relation to a serious offender, and the Court is not satisfied as mentioned in paragraph 395.12(1)(b) or (c) (or both), but is satisfied as mentioned in paragraph 395.12(1)(d);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the Court has reviewed under section 395.25 a community safety detention order in relation to a serious offender and the Court is not satisfied as mentioned in paragraph 395.25(6)(a); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) after having regard to matters in accordance with section 395.11, the Court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities, on the basis of admissible evidence, that the offender poses an unacceptable risk of seriously harming the community by committing a serious violent or sexual offence; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) in a case where the offender is a holder under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline> of a visa that is subject to conditions—the Court is satisfied that the conditions would not be effective in protecting the community from serious harm by addressing the unacceptable risk; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) each of the conditions; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the combined effect of all of the conditions;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">to be imposed on the offender by the order is reasonably necessary, and reasonably appropriate and adapted, for the purpose of protecting the community from serious harm by addressing the unacceptable risk.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Determining whether conditions are reasonably necessary, appropriate and adapted</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(d), in determining whether each of the conditions to be imposed on the offender by the order is reasonably necessary, and reasonably appropriate and adapted, the Court must take into account, as a paramount consideration in all cases, the object of this Division (see section 395.1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If the coming into effect of the order would result in the offender being taken to be granted a visa under section 76AA of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline>, then, for the purposes of paragraph (1)(d) of this section, in determining whether each of the conditions to be imposed on the offender by the order is reasonably necessary, and reasonably appropriate and adapted, the Court must take into account the conditions to which the visa would be subject.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Onus of satisfying Court</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The Immigration Minister bears the onus of satisfying the Court of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the matters referred to in paragraphs (1)(b) and (d); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if paragraph (1)(c) applies—the matters referred to in paragraph (1)(c).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Content of order</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The order must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) state that the Court is satisfied of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the matters mentioned in paragraphs (1)(b) and (d); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) if paragraph (1)(c) applies—the matters mentioned in paragraph (1)(c); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) specify the name of the offender to whom the order relates; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) specify all of the conditions, and any exemption conditions, that are to be imposed in accordance with section 395.14 or 395.15 on the offender by the order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) specify the period during which the order is to be in force, which must be a period of no more than 3 years that the Court is satisfied is reasonably necessary to protect the community from serious harm by addressing the unacceptable risk; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) state that the offender's lawyer may request a copy of the order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The order may be suspended during the period that it is in force if the offender is detained under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline> (see section 395.41) or detained in custody in a prison (see section 395.42).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Court may make successive community safety supervision orders</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) To avoid doubt, paragraph (5)(d) does not prevent a Supreme Court of a State or Territory making a community safety supervision order in relation to a serious offender that begins to be in force immediately after a previous community safety supervision order, or community safety detention order, in relation to the offender ceases to be in force.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Automatic revocation of community safety detention orders etc.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) A community safety detention order that is in force in relation to a serious offender is revoked by force of this subsection if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a Court makes a community safety supervision order in relation to the offender; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the community safety detention order is in force immediately before the community safety supervision order begins to be in force.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.14 Conditions of community safety supervision orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The conditions that a Court may impose on a serious offender by a community safety supervision order are:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) any conditions that the Court is satisfied; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) those conditions whose combined effect the Court is satisfied;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">on the balance of probabilities, are reasonably necessary, and reasonably appropriate and adapted, for the purpose of protecting the community from serious harm by addressing the unacceptable risk of the offender committing a serious violent or sexual offence.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The Court may, under section 395.15, specify conditions from which exemptions may be granted.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If the offender is subject to an order under a law of a State or Territory that is equivalent to a community safety order, the Court must consider the conditions under that State or Territory order in imposing conditions in accordance with subsection (1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">General rules about conditions</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) To avoid doubt, without limiting subsection 33(3A) of the <inline font-style="italic">Acts Interpretation Act 1901</inline>, a condition imposed under this section may:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) prohibit or restrict specified conduct of the offender, or impose obligations on the offender; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) impose restrictions and obligations on the offender in relation to classes of conduct, and prohibit other classes of that conduct; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) impose different restrictions, obligations and prohibitions in relation to different classes of conduct; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) for conduct that is prohibited by a condition described in a paragraph of subsection (5) of this section—impose restrictions and obligations on the offender in relation to that conduct instead of prohibiting that conduct; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) for conduct described in a paragraph of subsection (5) or (7) of this section—impose different restrictions, obligations and prohibitions in relation to that conduct.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) A condition imposed under this section must not require the offender to remain at specified premises for more than 12 hours within any 24 hours.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">General conditions</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Without limiting this section, the conditions that the Court may impose in accordance with subsection (1) include conditions relating to the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) that the offender not be present at one or more of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) specified areas or places;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) specified classes of areas or places;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) any area or place determined by a specified authority;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that the offender reside at specified premises, and not begin to reside at any other premises without the prior permission of a specified authority;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) that the offender remain at specified premises between specified times each day, or on specified days, subject to subsection (4);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) that the offender not leave the State or Territory in which the offender's residence is located;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) that the offender not change the offender's name, or use any name that is not specified in the order;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) that the offender not apply for any licence to operate equipment, machinery, a heavy vehicle or a weapon, or any licence to possess a weapon;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) that the offender not communicate or associate by any means (including through third parties) with one or more of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) specified individuals;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) specified classes of individuals;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) any individuals determined by a specified authority;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) that the offender not access or use specified forms of telecommunication or other technology (including the internet);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) that the offender not possess or use specified articles or substances;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(j) that the offender not carry out specified activities;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(k) that the offender not engage in one or more of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) specified work;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) specified classes of work;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) specified activities relating to specified work or classes of work;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(l) that the offender not in engage in any training or education without the prior permission of a specified authority;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(m) that the offender do any or all of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) attend and participate in treatment, rehabilitation or intervention programs or activities;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) undertake psychological or psychiatric assessment or counselling;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">as specified in the order or as directed by a specified authority;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(n) that the offender attend and participate in interviews and assessments (including for the purposes of paragraph (m)) as specified in the order or as directed by a specified authority;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(o) that the offender allow the results of the interviews and assessments referred to in paragraph (n), and any other specified information, to be disclosed to a specified authority;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(p) that the offender provide specifiedinformation to a specified authority within a specified period or before a specified event;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(q) that the offender comply with any reasonable direction given to the offender by a specified authority in relation to any specified condition (whether or not the condition is imposed in accordance with this subsection).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: See also subsection (10) and section 395.2 in relation to references to premises, reside or residence, and work.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) If a condition of the order authorises a specified authority to give a direction, the specified authority may give a direction only if the specified authority is satisfied that the direction is reasonable in all the circumstances to give effect to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the condition; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the object of this Division (see section 395.1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Conditions relating to monitoring and enforcement</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Without limiting this section, the conditions that the Court may impose in accordance with subsection (1) include conditions relating to the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) that the offender submit to testing by a specified authority in relation to the possession or use of specified articles or substances;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that the offender allow the offender to be photographed by a specified authority;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) that the offender allow impressions of the offender's fingerprints to be taken by a specified authority;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) that the offender be subject to electronic monitoring (for example, by wearing a monitoring device at all times), and comply with directions given by a specified authority in relation to electronic monitoring;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) a condition that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the person carry at all times a specified mobile phone; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the person be available to answer any call from a specified authority or, as soon as reasonably practicable, return a call that the person was unable to answer; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the person comply with specified directions, or any directions given by a specified authority, in relation to the condition in subparagraph (i) or (ii);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) that the offender attend at places, and report to persons, at times, specified:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) in the order; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) by a specified authority;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) that the offender allow visits at specified premises from, and entry to specified premises by, a specified authority at any time for the purpose of ensuring the offender's compliance with a condition imposed in accordance with paragraph (5)(c);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) that the offender provide a specified authority with a schedule setting out the offender's proposed movements for a specified period and comply with that schedule during the period;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) that the offender allow any police officer to enter specified premises and:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) search the offender; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) search the offender's residence or any premises which the offender intends to be the offender's residence; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) search any other premises under the offender's control; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) seize any item found during those searches, including to allow the item to be examined forensically;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(j) that the offender facilitate access (including by providing passwords or in any other way) to one or more of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) electronic equipment or technology;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) any data held within, or accessible from, any electronic equipment or technology;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">owned or controlled by the offender, for the purposes of a police officer searching and seizing any such equipment or accessing such data (or both).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: For paragraphs (b) and (c), restrictions apply to the use of photographs or impressions of fingerprints (see section 395.16).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: For paragraph (d), see also section 395.17 (obligations relating to monitoring devices).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) A power exercised under a condition imposed in accordance with subsection (7) (other than a power to give a direction) may be exercised only if the person exercising the power is satisfied that it is reasonably necessary to do so in order to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) give effect to the order; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) facilitate or monitor compliance with the order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Access to lawyers</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) This section does not affect the offender's right to contact, communicate or associate with the offender's lawyer unless the offender's lawyer is a specified individual, or an individual in a specified class of individuals, as mentioned in paragraph (5)(g). If the offender's lawyer is so specified, the offender may contact, communicate or associate with any other lawyer who is not so specified.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">References to work</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) In subsection (5), a reference to work includes a reference to voluntary work.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.15 Conditions where exemptions may be granted</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A Supreme Court of a State or Territory that makes a community safety supervision order in relation to a serious offender may specify conditions included in the order that are to be exemption conditions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) An <inline font-style="italic">exemption condition </inline>is a condition specified in the order from which the offender may apply for a temporary exemption.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Court may make provision in relation to applications for temporary exemptions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The offender may apply, in writing, to a specified authority for an exemption from an exemption condition. The application must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) include a reason for the exemption; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) comply with any other requirements provided for under subsection (3).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) If the offender so applies, the specified authority may:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) require further information to be provided by the offender before making a decision in relation to the application; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) either:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) grant or refuse the exemption; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) grant the exemption subject to any reasonable directions specified in writing by the specified authority.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.16 Treatment of photographs and impressions of fingerprints</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A photograph, or an impression of fingerprints, taken of or from a serious offender as mentioned in paragraph 395.14(7)(b) or (c) must be used only for the purpose of ensuring compliance with a community safety supervision order relating to the offender.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The photograph or the impression must be destroyed if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) no community safety supervision order has been in force in relation to the offender for 12 months; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) either:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) no proceedings relating to a community safety supervision order relating to the offender were on foot in that 12-month period; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) proceedings relating to a community safety supervision order relating to the offender were discontinued or completed within that 12-month period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A person commits an offence if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person engages in conduct; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the conduct contravenes subsection (1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.17 Obligations relating to monitoring devices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Additional obligations on serious offender</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If the Court imposes a condition under paragraph 395.14(7)(d) in a community safety supervision order that a serious offender wear a monitoring device, then:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the condition must require the offender to wear the monitoring device at all times; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the order must include the condition referred to in paragraph 395.14(7)(e); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the order must include a condition that the offender do all of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) allow a specified authority to enter the offender's residence at any reasonable time for any purpose relating to the electronic monitoring of the offender;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) allow a specified authority to install, repair or fit the monitoring device or any related monitoring equipment;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) take the steps specified in the order (if any) and any other reasonable steps to ensure that the monitoring device and any related monitoring equipment are or remain in good working order;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) if the offender becomes aware that the monitoring device and any related monitoring equipment are not in good working order—notify a specified authority as soon as reasonably practicable;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) allow a specified authority, police officer or corrective services officer to remove the monitoring device;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vi) allow a police officer to remove any related monitoring equipment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Powers of specified authorities and others</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) After including the condition under paragraph 395.14(7)(d) in the order, the Court must also include in the order an authorisation for:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) one or more specified authorities to enter the offender's residence as specified in the order at any reasonable time for any purpose relating to the electronic monitoring of the offender; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) one or more specified authorities to install, repair or fit the monitoring device and any related monitoring equipment; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) one or more specified authorities or police officersto take the steps specified in the order to ensure that the device and any related monitoring equipment are or remain in good working order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) one or more specified authorities, police officersor corrective services officers to remove the monitoring device; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) one or more police officers to remove any related monitoring equipment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a monitoring device is installed on the offender; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any of the following events occurs:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the condition under paragraph 395.14(7)(d) is removed from the order;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the order ceases to be in force;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the offender is detained in custody;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the device and any related monitoring equipment may be removed in accordance with paragraph (2)(d) or (e) even though:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) for subparagraph (b)(i) or (ii)—no authorisation under subsection (2) is in force; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) for subparagraph (b)(iii)—the offender is not required to comply with a condition of the order because of section 395.41 or 395.42.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For the definition of <inline font-style="italic">detained in custody</inline>, see section 395.2.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Powers relating to monitoring devices and related electronic equipment</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Before exercising a power referred to in paragraph (2)(a), (b), (d) or (e), or subsection (3), a specified authority, police officer or corrective services officer must inform the offender:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) that the device and equipment are to be installed, repaired, fitted or removed (as the case requires); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) of the proposed timing of the taking of the action; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) that the offender may consent to the taking of the action; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) that if consent is not given, reasonable force may be used to take the action, or to enter the offender's residence in order to take the action.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) If the offender does not give consent, reasonable force may be used by a police officer to take the action, or to enter the offender's residence in order to take the action.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.18 Copy of a community safety supervision order must be given to serious offender's lawyer</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A copy of a community safety supervision order that is made under section 395.13 in relation to a serious offender must be given to the offender's lawyer as soon as practicable after being requested by the lawyer.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) This section does not entitle the lawyer to request, or be given a copy of, a document other than the order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision D — Varying a community safety supervision order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.19 Application for variations of community safety supervision orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Requirement to apply for variation</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If the Immigration Minister is satisfied that a condition in a community safety supervision order in relation to a serious offender is no longer reasonably necessary, or reasonably appropriate and adapted, for the purpose of protecting the community from serious harm by addressing the unacceptable risk of the offender committing a serious violent or sexual offence, the Immigration Minister or a legal representative of the Immigration Minister must apply to a Supreme Court of a State or Territory to vary, under section 395.20, the order by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) removing the condition; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) varying the condition.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: The Immigration Minister or legal representative may also apply under subsection (2) for other variations of the order, including adding conditions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: A copy of the application must be given to the offender under section 395.29.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Who may otherwise apply</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Any of the following persons (the <inline font-style="italic">applicant</inline>) may (subject to subsection (1)) apply to a Supreme Court of a State or Territory to vary, under section 395.20, a community safety supervision order in relation to a serious offender, by adding, varying or removing one or more conditions mentioned in section 395.14:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Immigration Minister or a legal representative of the Immigration Minister;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the offender or a legal representative of the offender.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: If the application is made by or on behalf of the Immigration Minister, a copy of the application must be given to the offender under section 395.29.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) An application under subsection (1) or (2) must be made to the Supreme Court of the State or Territory where the offender resides.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: See subsection 395.2(1) for the definition of <inline font-style="italic">reside</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Contents of application</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) An application under subsection (1) or (2) must include:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a copy of the conditions as sought to be varied; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the applicant is the Immigration Minister or a legal representative of the Immigration Minister—the following material:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) an explanation as to why each condition that is sought to be added or varied should be added or varied;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) if the Immigration Minister is aware of any facts relating to why any of those conditions should not be added or varied—a statement of those facts, except any facts that are likely to be protected by public interest immunity (whether the claim for public interest immunity is to be made by the Immigration Minister or any other person);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the outcomes and particulars of all previous applications made under this section (whether by or on behalf of the Immigration Minister or the offender) for variations of the order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if the applicant is the offender or a legal representative of the offender—the outcomes and particulars of all previous applications made under this section by or on behalf of the offender for variations of the order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) if a report was obtained under section 395.43 in relation to the offender for the purposes of determining whether to apply for the variation—a copy of the report.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) If the applicant is the offender or a legal representative of the offender, the applicant:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) may also include in the application an explanation as to why each condition that is sought to be varied or removed should be varied or removed; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) must cause a copy of the application to be served on the Immigration Minister within 2 business days after the application is made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Adducing additional evidence</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) The following persons may adduce additional evidence (including by calling witnesses or producing material), or make additional submissions, to the Court in relation to the application to vary the order:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Immigration Minister;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) one or more AFP members;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the offender;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) one or more representatives of the offender.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Subsection (6) does not otherwise limit the power of the Court to control proceedings in relation to an application to vary a community safety supervision order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.20 Varying a community safety supervision order (other than by consent)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If an application is made in accordance with subsection 395.19(1) or (2), and subsection (2) of this section, to a Supreme Court of a State or Territory to vary a community safety supervision order in relation to a serious offender, the Court may vary the order, but only if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) for an application for the order to be varied by adding or varying conditions—the Court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that each of the conditions being added or varied is reasonably necessary, and reasonably appropriate and adapted, for the purpose of protecting the community from serious harm by addressing the unacceptable risk of the offender committing a serious violent or sexual offence; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) for an application for the order to be varied by removing conditions—the Court is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that each of the conditions being removed is reasonably necessary, and reasonably appropriate and adapted, for the purpose of protecting the community from serious harm by addressing the unacceptable risk of the offender committing a serious violent or sexual offence.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: See section 395.22 for the terms of a varied community safety supervision order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), in determining whether each of the conditions to be added, varied or removed by the order is reasonably necessary, and reasonably appropriate and adapted, the Court must take into account, as a paramount consideration in all cases, the object of this Division (see section 395.1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Immigration Minister bears the onus of satisfying the Court of the matters referred to in subsection (1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Relevant experts</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The Court may appoint one or more relevant experts for the purposes of the proceedings relating to the application. If the Court does so, subsections 395.9(5) to (9) apply in relation to the proceedings.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The Immigration Minister, the offender, or a legal representative of the Immigration Minister or offender, may nominate one or more relevant experts for the purposes of subsection (4).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Subsection (4) does not prevent the Immigration Minister, the offender, or a legal representative of the Immigration Minister or offender, from calling another relevant expert as a witness in the proceedings.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.21 Varying community safety supervision order by consent</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Any of the following persons (the <inline font-style="italic">applicant</inline>) may apply to a Supreme Court of a State or Territory to vary a community safety supervision order in relation to a serious offender by varying or removing one or more conditions mentioned in section 395.14:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Immigration Minister or a legal representative of the Immigration Minister;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the offender or a legal representative of the offender.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The application must be made to the Court of the State or Territory where the offender resides.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: See subsection 395.2(1) for the definition of <inline font-style="italic">reside</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Court may vary the order if the Court is satisfied that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) written consent to the variation has been given by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) if the applicant is the Immigration Minister or a legal representative of the Immigration Minister—the serious offender; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) if the applicant is the offender or a legal representative of the offender—the Immigration Minister; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the variation does not involve adding any conditions to the order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the variation is appropriate in the circumstances.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.22 Terms of a varied community safety supervision order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A community safety supervision order in relation to a person that is varied under section 395.20, 395.21 or 395.26 must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) state that the Court is satisfied:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) for a variation under subsection 395.20(1) or 395.21(3)—of the matters mentioned in that subsection; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) for a variation under section 395.26—of the matters mentioned in subsection 395.26(1), (3) or (4) (as the case requires); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) specify the variations to the conditions that are to be made; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) state the period during which the order, as varied, is in force; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) state that the offender's lawyer may request a copy of the order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision E — Review of community safety order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.23 Periodic review of community safety order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">When application for review must be made</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Immigration Minister, or a legal representative of the Immigration Minister, must, before the end of the period referred to in subsection (2), apply to a Supreme Court of a State or Territory for a review of a community safety order that is in force in relation to a serious offender.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: A copy of the application must be given to the offender under section 395.29.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The application must be made:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) before the end of 12 months after the order began to be in force (unless paragraph (b) or (c) applies); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the order has been reviewed under this Subdivision by a Supreme Court of a State or Territory—before the end of 12 months after the most recent review ended (unless paragraph (c) applies); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if paragraph (a) or (b) would otherwise apply and, at the time described in that paragraph, the community safety order is suspended under section 395.42 because the offender is detained in custody in a prison—on or before the day the offender's detention in a prison ends.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Despite subsection (1), an application for a review is not required if an application for a new community safety order in relation to the offender has been made and not withdrawn.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Review must be conducted before end of period</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) On receiving the application, the Court must begin the review of the order before the end of that period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For the process for reviewing a community safety order, see section 395.25.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Where application must be made</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The application must be made to the Court of the State or Territory where:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) for a community safety detention order—the prison in which the offender is detained is located; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) for a community safety supervision order—the offender resides.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: See subsection 395.2(1) for the definition of <inline font-style="italic">reside</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Order ceases to be in force if application not made</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) If an application is not made in accordance with this section, the order ceases to be in force at the end of the period referred to in subsection (2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.24 Review of community safety order on application</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The following persons may apply to a Supreme Court of a State or Territory for review of a community safety order:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Immigration Minister or a legal representative of the Immigration Minister;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a serious offender, or a legal representative of a serious offender, in relation to whom the community safety order is in force.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: For the process for reviewing a community safety order, see section 395.25.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: A copy of the application must be given to the serious offender under section 395.29.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The application must include a copy of any report obtained under section 395.43 for the purposes of determining whether an application for a review of the community safety supervision order should be made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Court may review the order if the Court is satisfied that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) there are new facts or circumstances which would justify reviewing the order; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) it would be in the interests of justice, having regard to the purposes of the order and the manner and effect of its implementation, to review the order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Otherwise, the Court must dismiss the application.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The application must be made to the Court of the State or Territory where:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) for a community safety detention order—the prison in which the offender is detained is located; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) for a community safety supervision order—the offender resides.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: See subsection 395.2(1) for the definition of <inline font-style="italic">reside</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.25 Process for reviewing a community safety order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This section applies if, under section 395.23 or 395.24, a Supreme Court of a State or Territory reviews a community safety order that is in force in relation to a serious offender.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Parties to the review</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The parties to the review are:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Immigration Minister; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the offender.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Relevant experts</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Court may appoint one or more relevant experts for the purposes of the review. If the Court does so, subsections 395.9(5) to (9) apply in relation to the review.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The Immigration Minister or the offender, or a legal representative of the Immigration Minister or the offender, may nominate one or more relevant experts for the purposes of subsection (3).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Subsection (3) does not prevent the Immigration Minister or the offender, or a legal representative of the Immigration Minister or the offender, from calling their own relevant expert as a witness in the review.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Affirming or revoking the order</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) The Court may affirm the order (including affirm the order with variations made under section 395.26) if, after having regard to the matters in section 395.11, the Court is satisfied that the Court:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) for a community safety detention order—could have made the order under section 395.12; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) for a community safety supervision order—could have made the order under section 395.13, or could have made the order disregarding paragraph 395.13(1)(d).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The rules of evidence and procedure for civil matters apply when the Court has regard to matters in accordance with section 395.11, as referred to in this subsection (see subsection 395.11(3) and section 395.27).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) If the review is of a community safety detention order, and the Court does not affirm the order under subsection (6), the Court must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) consider making a community safety supervision order in relation to the offender under section 395.13; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) seek the following material from the Immigration Minister:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a copy of the proposed conditions that would be sought for a community safety supervision order;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an explanation as to why each of the proposed conditions should be imposed on the offender;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) if the Immigration Minister is aware of any facts relating to why any of those conditions should not be imposed on the offender—a statement of those facts, except any facts that are likely to be protected by public interest immunity (whether the claim for public interest immunity is to be made by the Immigration Minister or any other person); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if the Court does not make a community safety supervision order in relation to the offender—revoke the community safety detention order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: If the Court makes a community safety supervision order in relation to the offender, the community safety detention order is revoked under subsection 395.13(7).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) If the Court does not affirm a community safety supervision order under subsection (6), the Court must revoke the order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Onus of satisfying Court</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) The Immigration Minister must ensure that reasonable inquiries are made to ascertain any facts known to any Commonwealth law enforcement officer that would reasonably be regarded as supporting a finding that the order should not be affirmed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) The Immigration Minister bears the onus of satisfying the Court of the matters referred to in section 395.12 or 395.13.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) The Immigration Minister, or the legal representative of the Immigration Minister, must present to the Court:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a copy of any material in the possession of the Immigration Minister or legal representative; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a statement of any facts that the Immigration Minister or legal representative is aware of;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">that would reasonably be regarded as supporting a finding that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the order should not be affirmed, or should not be affirmed in the terms in which the order is made; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) if the court is considering making a community safety supervision order under subsection (7)—a community safety supervision order should not be made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.26 Varying community safety orders after review</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Varying the period specified by a community safety order</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A Supreme Court of a State or Territory must vary a community safety order in relation to a serious offender to specify a shorter period for which the order will be in force if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Court affirms the order under subsection 395.25(6); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Court is not satisfied that the period currently specified is reasonably necessary to protect the community from serious harm by addressing the unacceptable risk of the offender committing a serious violent or sexual offence.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The shorter period must be a period that the Court is satisfied is reasonably necessary to address the unacceptable risk.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: See section 395.22 for the terms of a varied community safety supervision order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Varying or removing conditions</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A Supreme Court of a State or Territory must vary, or remove, a condition imposed by a community safety supervision order if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Court affirms the order under subsection 395.25(6); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Court is not satisfied that the condition is reasonably necessary, and reasonably appropriate and adapted, for the purpose of protecting the community from serious harm by addressing the unacceptable risk of the offender committing a serious violent or sexual offence.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Court must be satisfied that a condition that is varied under subsection (2) is (after the variation) reasonably necessary, and reasonably appropriate and adapted, for the purpose of protecting the community from serious harm by addressing the unacceptable risk of the offender committing a serious violent or sexual offence.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Varying to add conditions</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The Court may vary a community safety supervision order to add one or more conditions if the Court is satisfied that the conditions are reasonably necessary, and reasonably appropriate and adapted, for the purpose of protecting the community from serious harm by addressing the unacceptable risk of the offender committing a serious violent or sexual offence.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Object of this Division</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) For the purposes of subsections (3) and (4), in determining whether a condition to be varied or imposed on the offender by the order is reasonably necessary, and reasonably appropriate and adapted, the Court must take into account, as a paramount consideration in all cases, the object of this Division (see section 395.1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Onus of satisfying Court</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) The Immigration Minister bears the onus of satisfying the Court of the matters referred to in subsection (1), (3) or (4).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision F — Provisions relating to community safety order proceedings</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.27 Civil evidence and procedure rules in relation to community safety order proceedings</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A Supreme Court of a State or Territory must, subject to subsection (2), apply the rules of evidence and procedure for civil matters during a community safety order proceeding.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Despite anything in the rules of evidence and procedure, the Court may receive in evidence in the proceeding evidence of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the level of the serious offender's compliance with any conditions (however described) to which the offender is or has been subject while:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) on release on parole for any offence; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) subject to a community safety supervision order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the offender's history of any prior convictions for, and findings of guilt made in relation to, any offence; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the level of the offender's compliance with any conditions to which a visa that the offender is, or has been, a holder of under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline> is or has been subject.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.28 Adducing evidence and making submissions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A party to a community safety order proceeding in a Supreme Court of a State or Territory may adduce evidence (including by calling witnesses or producing material), or make submissions, to the Court in relation to the proceeding.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.29 Giving copies of applications etc. to serious offenders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This section applies if the Immigration Minister, or a legal representative of the Immigration Minister, (the <inline font-style="italic">applicant</inline>) applies to a Supreme Court of a State or Territory for:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a community safety order; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a variation of a community safety supervision order under section 395.19; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a review of a community safety order;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">in relation to a serious offender.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Within 2 business days after the application is made, the applicant must (subject to sections 395.30 to 395.32) give a copy of the application to the offender personally, and to the offender's legal representative.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For giving documents to a serious offender who is detained in custody, see section 395.33.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If the Court seeks material from the Immigration Minister under paragraph 395.12(2)(a) or 395.25(7)(b), within 2 business days after the material is provided to the Court, the applicant must (subject to sections 395.30 to 395.32) give a copy of the material to the offender personally, and to the offender's legal representative.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the community safety order is made or varied; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) neither the offender nor a legal representative of the offender is present during the proceedings in which the order is made or varied;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the applicant must (subject to sections 395.30 to 395.32), within 2 business days after the order is made or varied, give to the offender personally, and to the offender's legal representative, a copy of the order that is made, or of the order as varied.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.30 Information excluded from application or material — national security information</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This section applies if the Immigration Minister, or a legal representative of the Immigration Minister, (the <inline font-style="italic">applicant</inline>) gives a copy of an application or material to a serious offender, or a serious offender's legal representative, (the <inline font-style="italic">recipient</inline>) under subsection 395.29(2) or (3).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The applicant is not required to include any information in the application or material if a Minister (the <inline font-style="italic">decision-maker</inline>) is likely to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) take any actions in relation to the information under the <inline font-style="italic">National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004</inline>; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) seek an order of a court preventing or limiting disclosure of the information.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) However, the applicant must (subject to subsection (4)) give the recipient personally a complete copy of the application or material if any of the following events occurs:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the decision-maker decides not to take any of the actions referred to in paragraph (2)(a) or (b);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a Minister gives a certificate under Subdivision C of Division 2 of Part 3A of the <inline font-style="italic">National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004</inline>;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a court makes an order in relation to any action taken by the decision-maker under paragraph (2)(a) or (b).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Subsection (3) is subject to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the certificate referred to in paragraph (3)(b); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any order made by a court.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The copy of the application or material must be given under subsection (3):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) within 2 business days of the event referred to in subsection (3); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) within a reasonable period before:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) if the application is for a community safety order—the preliminary hearing referred to in section 395.9; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) if the application is for a variation or review of a community safety order—the hearing on the application.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.31 Information excluded from application or material — public interest immunity</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This section applies if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Immigration Minister, or a legal representative of the Immigration Minister, (the <inline font-style="italic">applicant</inline>) gives a copy of an application or material to a serious offender, or a serious offender's legal representative, under subsection 395.29(2) or (3); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) information (however described) is excluded from the application or material on the basis of public interest immunity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The applicant must give written notice to the offender, and the offender's legal representative, personally stating that the information has been excluded on the basis of public interest immunity. The notice must be given at the time that a copy of the application or material is given to the offender or legal representative.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) To avoid doubt, nothing in this section imposes an obligation on the offender to satisfy the Court that a claim of public interest immunity should not be upheld.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The offender may seek to access any information, material or facts that are likely to be protected by public interest immunity (for example, through a subpoena). Under the law of public interest immunity, the person claiming the immunity must make and substantiate the claim, and satisfy the Court that the claim should be upheld.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.32 Information excluded from application and material</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This section applies if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Immigration Minister, or a legal representative of the Immigration Minister, (the <inline font-style="italic">applicant</inline>) is required to give a copy of an application or material to a serious offender, or a serious offender's legal representative, under subsection 395.29(2) or (3); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the application or material contains any of the following material (<inline font-style="italic">relevant material</inline>):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) terrorism material within the meaning of paragraph 105A.14D(1)(b);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) child abuse material within the meaning of Part 10.6;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) abhorrent violent material within the meaning of Subdivision H of Division 474.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The applicant may apply to the Supreme Court of a State or Territory referred to in subsection 395.29(1) for an order in relation to the manner in which the relevant material is to be dealt with.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Court may make an order in relation to the manner in which the relevant material is to be dealt with, including that the relevant material:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) be provided to the offender's legal representative; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) be available for inspection by the offender at specified premises.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.33 Giving documents to serious offenders who are detained in custody</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A document that is required to be given under this Division to a serious offender who is detained in custody is taken to have been given to the offender at the time referred to in paragraph (3)(b) if the document is given to the following person (the <inline font-style="italic">recipient</inline>):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the legal representative of the offender;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the offender does not have a legal representative—the chief executive officer (however described) of the prison or other facility in which the offender is detained, or a delegate of the chief executive officer.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The recipient must, as soon as reasonably practicable, give the document to the offender personally.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Once the recipient has done so, the recipient must notify the Court and the person who gave the recipient the document, in writing:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) that the document has been given to the offender; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) of the day that document was so given.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.34 When a serious offender is unable to engage a legal representative</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This section applies if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a community safety order proceeding relating to a serious offender is before a Supreme Court of a State or Territory; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the offender, due to circumstances beyond the offender's control, is unable to engage a legal representative in relation to the proceeding.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Court may make either or both of the following orders:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an order staying the proceeding for such period and subject to such conditions as the Court thinks fit;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) an order requiring the Commonwealth to bear, in accordance with the regulations (if any), all or part of the reasonable costs and expenses of the offender's legal representation for the proceeding.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The regulations may prescribe matters that the Court may, must or must not take into account in determining either or both of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) whether circumstances are beyond the offender's control;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) reasonable costs and expenses of the offender's legal representation for the proceeding.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) This section does not limit any other power of the Court.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.35 Reasons for decisions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A Supreme Court of a State or Territory that makes a community safety order decision in a community safety order proceeding must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) state the reasons for its decision; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) cause those reasons to be entered in the records of the Court; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) cause a copy of any order it made to be provided to each party to the proceeding.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: See also subsection 395.2(4) for when a Court makes a community safety order decision.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.36 Right of appeal</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) An appeal lies to the court of appeal (however described) of a State or Territory if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Supreme Court of the State or Territory makes a community safety order decision; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the court of appeal has jurisdiction to hear appeals from the Supreme Court in relation to civil matters.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The appeal is to be by way of rehearing. In particular, in relation to the appeal, the court of appeal:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) subject to this subsection, has all the powers, functions and duties that the Supreme Court has in relation to the relevant community safety order proceedings; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) may receive further evidence as to questions of fact (orally in court, by affidavit or in any other way) if the court of appeal is satisfied that there are special grounds for doing so.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court may be made:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) as of right, within 28 days after the day on which the decision was made; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) by leave, within such further time as the court of appeal allows.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The making of the appeal does not stay the operation of the order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) This section does not limit any other right of appeal that exists apart from this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.37 Consequences of sentences ending or orders ceasing to be in force</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This section applies in relation to a community safety order proceeding if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the proceeding is any of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a proceeding on an application for a community safety order in relation to a serious offender;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) an appeal against a decision to dismiss such an application;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) an appeal against a decision to revoke a community safety order in relation to a serious offender;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) an appeal against a decision (including in a review of such an order) to specify a particular period for which such an order will be in force;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) an appeal against a decision under section 395.34 to stay a community safety order proceeding in relation to a serious offender (including a decision under that section to stay a proceeding for a specified period or to impose a specified condition); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) before the application or appeal is determined (whether before or after the appeal is made) one of the following events occurs:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a sentence of imprisonment referred to in subsection 395.6(1) ends;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a community safety order in relation to the offender ceases to be in force;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) a community safety order in force in relation to the offender was revoked as referred to in subparagraph (a)(iii) of this subsection.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) For the purposes of the community safety order proceeding, the offender is taken to remain a serious offender:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) who is serving a sentence of imprisonment; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in relation to whom a community safety order is in force;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">despite the event in subsection (1) occurring.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Power of police officer to detain serious offender</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If a community safety detention order is in force in relation to the offender at any time after the offender is released as mentioned in paragraph (1)(b):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) any police officer may take the offender into custody; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any police officer may detain the offender;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">for the purpose of giving effect to the order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) A police officer, in:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) taking the offender into custody; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) detaining the offender;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">under subsection (3) has the same powers and obligations as the police officer would have if the police officer were arresting the offender, or detaining the offender, for an offence.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) In subsection (4):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">offence</inline> means:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the police officer is an AFP member—an offence against a law of the Commonwealth; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the police officer is not an AFP member—an offence against a law of the State or Territory of whose police force the police officer is a member.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision G — Offences relating to community safety supervision orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.38 Offence for contravening a community safety supervision order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A person commits an offence if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a community safety supervision order is in force in relation to the person, and not suspended under section 395.41 or 395.42; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the person engages in conduct; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the conduct contravenes a condition the order imposes; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) if the condition is an exemption condition—there is no exemption in force at the time the conduct is engaged in that exempts the person from the application of the condition.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years or 300 penalty units, or both.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A person commits an offence if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a community safety supervision order is in force in relation to the person, and not suspended under section 395.41 or 395.42; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the order includes an exemption condition; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) an exemption is in force in relation to the condition; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a direction is specified in relation to the exemption condition under subparagraph 395.15(5)(b)(ii); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the person engages in conduct; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) the conduct contravenes the direction.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years or 300 penalty units, or both.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the person has a reasonable excuse.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in this subsection (see subsection 13.3(3)).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.39 Offence relating to monitoring devices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A person commits an offence if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a community safety supervision order is in force in relation to the person, and not suspended under section 395.41 or 395.42; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the order requires the person to wear a monitoring device; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the person engages in conduct; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the conduct results in interference with, or disruption or loss of, a function of the monitoring device or any related monitoring equipment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years or 300 penalty units, or both.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A person (the <inline font-style="italic">perpetrator</inline>) commits an offence if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the perpetrator knows that, or is reckless as to whether, a community safety supervision order is in force in relation to another person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the order is not suspended under section 395.41 or 395.42; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the perpetrator knows that, or is reckless as to whether, the order requires the other person to wear a monitoring device; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the perpetrator engages in conduct; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the conduct results in interference with, or disruption or loss of, a function of the monitoring device or any related monitoring equipment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years or 300 penalty units, or both.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Strict liability applies in relation to paragraph (2)(b).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the person has a reasonable excuse.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in this subsection (see subsection 13.3(3)).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.40 Mandatory 1 year imprisonment for offences</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If a person is convicted of an offence against section 395.38 or 395.39, the Court must impose a sentence of imprisonment of at least 1 year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subdivision H — Miscellaneous</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> 395.41 Detention under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The fact that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a community safety order is in force in relation to a serious offender; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a serious offender is detained in accordance with a community safety detention order;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">does not prevent the offender being detained under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For example, the offender may be detained under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline> if there is a real prospect of the removal of the offender from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Effect of detention on community safety orders</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A community safety detention order in relation to a serious offender is suspended during the period that the offender is detained under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A community safety supervision order in relation to a serious offender is suspended during the period that the offender is detained under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Effect of suspension</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) A community safety order continues to be in force during the period in which the order is suspended under this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) However, the offender is not required to comply with any condition in a community safety supervision order during the period that the order is suspended.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.42 Effect of prison detention on community safety order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Effect of prison detention on community safety orders</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A community safety detention order in relation to a serious offender is suspended during the period that the offender is detained in custody in a prison other than as a result of the order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For the definition of <inline font-style="italic">detained in custody in a prison</inline>, see section 395.2.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A community safety supervision order in relation to a serious offender is suspended during the period that the offender is detained in custody in a prison.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Effect of suspension</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A community safety order continues to be in force during the period in which the order is suspended under this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) However, the offender is not required to comply with any condition in a community safety supervision order during the period that the order is suspended.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.43 Immigration Minister may direct serious offenders to be assessed</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Immigration Minister may direct any of the following serious offenders to be subject to an assessment of the risk of the person committing a serious violent or sexual offence:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a serious offender in relation to whom an application for a community safety order could be made;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a serious offender in relation to whom a community safety order is in force.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Immigration Minister may appoint a relevant expert to conduct the assessment, and provide a report, for the purposes of determining whether:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an application for a community safety order in relation to the offender should be made; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) an application for a variation or review of a community safety order in relation to the offender should be made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The relevant expert who is appointed must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) conduct an assessment of the risk of the offender committing a serious violent or sexual offence; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) provide a report of the expert's assessment to the Immigration Minister.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For giving documents to a serious offender who is detained in custody, see section 395.33.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Attendance and participation at assessment</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The offender must attend the assessment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The assessment may be conducted over a number of sessions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The answer to a question or information given at the assessment, and answering a question or giving information at the assessment, are not admissible in evidence against the offender in:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) any criminal proceedings, except any proceedings relating to sentencing for an offence against this Division (including any appeal in relation to those proceedings); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any civil proceedings against the offender, except proceedings under this Division (including any appeal in relation to those proceedings).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) The Immigration Minister must ensure that the effect of subsections (4), (5) and (8) is explained to the offender.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Contents of report</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) The expert's report may include any one or more of the following matters:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the expert's assessment of the risk of the offender committing a serious violent or sexual offence;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) reasons for that assessment;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the pattern or progression to date of behaviour on the part of the offender in relation to serious violent or sexual offences, and an indication of the nature of any likely future behaviour on the offender's part in relation to serious violent or sexual offences;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) efforts made to date by the offender to address the causes of the offender's behaviour in relation to serious violent or sexual offences, including whether the offender has actively participated in any rehabilitation or treatment programs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) if the offender has participated in any rehabilitation or treatment programs—whether or not this participation has had a positive effect on the offender;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) any relevant background of the offender, including developmental and social factors;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) factors that might increase or decrease any risks that have been identified of the offender committing a serious violent or sexual offence;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) any other matters the expert considers relevant.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Assessments conducted for certain purposes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Without limiting subsection (5), an assessment of an offender conducted under paragraph (3)(a), and the report of the assessment, may be taken into account:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) by the Immigration Minister in determining whether to make any application for a community safety order, or any application for a variation or review of a community safety order, in relation to the offender; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) by the Court in proceedings to make, vary or review any community safety order in relation to the offender.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.44 Sharing information</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Requesting information</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Immigration Minister may request a person prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection to give the Immigration Minister information (including personal information) that the Immigration Minister reasonably believes to be relevant to the administration or execution of this Division.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The request need not be in writing.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Despite any law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory (whether written or unwritten), the person may provide the information to the Immigration Minister.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Disclosing information</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The Immigration Minister may disclose information to a person prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the information was acquired by any of the following in the exercise of a power under, or the performance of a function or duty in connection with, this Division:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Immigration Minister;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a legal representative of the Immigration Minister;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the Secretary of the Department administered by the Immigration Minister;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) an APS employee in the Department administered by the Immigration Minister; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Immigration Minister reasonably believes that the disclosure is necessary to enable the person to exercise the person's powers, or to perform the person's functions or duties; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if the regulations provide that information may be disclosed to the person only if specified circumstances are met—those circumstances are met.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Subsection (4) applies despite any other law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory (whether written or unwritten).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.45 Sharing information relating to community safety supervision orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) An AFP member may disclose information (including personal information), to a person employed or engaged by a body covered by an arrangement under subsection 395.48(1), for the purpose of facilitating the performance of any functions or the exercise of any powers in relation to community safety supervision orders.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A person (the <inline font-style="italic">first person</inline>) employed or engaged by a body covered by an arrangement under subsection 395.48(1) may disclose information (including personal information) to another person if the first person reasonably believes that the disclosure is authorised by the arrangement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) This section applies despite any other law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory (whether written or unwritten).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.46 Delegation by the Immigration Minister</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Immigration Minister may, in writing, delegate any of the Immigration Minister's powers or functions under section 395.44 to any of the following persons:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Secretary of the Department administered by the Immigration Minister;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any APS employee in that Department who performs duties in connection with the administration or execution of this Division.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.47 Arrangement with States and Territories</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Immigration Minister may arrange for a serious offender in relation to whom a community safety detention order is in force to be detained in a prison of a State or Territory.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If an arrangement is made under subsection (1), the community safety detention order is taken to authorise the chief executive officer (however described) of the prison to detain the offender in the prison while the order is in force.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.48 Arrangements by Australian Federal Police Commissioner for functions and powers relating to community safety supervision orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police may make an arrangement with a State or Territory, or any other body, for the performance of any functions or the exercise of any powers in relation to community safety supervision orders.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Without limiting subsection (1), for the purposes of section 395.45, the arrangement may authorise a person employed or engaged by a body covered by the arrangement to disclose information (including personal information).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police may, in writing, delegate to a senior AFP member the Commissioner's powers under subsection (1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.49 Annual report</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Immigration Minister must, as soon as practicable after each 30 June, cause a report to be prepared about the operation of this Division during the year ended on that 30 June.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Without limiting subsection (1), a report relating to a year must include the number of each of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) applications for each kind of community safety order made during the year;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) each kind of community safety order made during the year;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) applications for review of each kind of community safety order made by serious offenders during the year;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) applications for review of each kind of community safety order made by the Immigration Minister, or a legal representative of the Immigration Minister, during the year;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) each kind of community safety order affirmed during the year;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) each kind of community safety order varied during the year;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) community safety orders revoked (including by operation of this Act) during the year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Immigration Minister must cause copies of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is completed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">395.50 Effect of community safety detention orders on bail or parole laws</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A person in relation to whom a community safety detention order is in force is not eligible to be released on bail or parole until the order ceases to be in force.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Subsection (1) does not prevent the person from applying, before the order ceases to be in force, to be released on bail if the person is charged with an offence while the order is in force.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Although the person can apply to be released on bail, as a result of subsection (1), the person cannot be released on bail until the community safety detention order ceases to be in force.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) This section applies despite any law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Surveillance Devices Act 2004</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 After paragraph 3(aaf)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(aag) to establish procedures for law enforcement officers to obtain warrants for the installation and use of surveillance devices, or for access to data held in computers, in cases where a community safety supervision order is in force, and the use of the device or the access to the data would be likely to substantially assist in:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) achieving a Part 9.10 object; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) determining whether the community safety supervision order, or any succeeding community safety supervision order, has been, or is being, complied with; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(aah) to establish procedures for law enforcement officers to obtain tracking device authorisations for the use of tracking devices in cases where a community safety supervision order is in force in relation to a person, and the use of a tracking device is to obtain information relating to the person for either of the following purposes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) achieving a Part 9.10 object;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) determining whether the community safety supervision order, or any succeeding community safety supervision order, has been, or is being, complied with; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 At the end of section 4</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) To avoid doubt, it is intended that a warrant may be issued under this Act for the installation, use, maintenance or retrieval of a surveillance device, or for access to data held in a computer, if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) consideration is being given, will be given, or is likely to be given, as to whether to apply for a Part 9.10 order, and the use of the device or the access to the data would be likely to assist in determining whether to apply for the order; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a community safety supervision order is in force, and the use of the device or the access to the data would be likely to substantially assist in:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) achieving a Part 9.10 object; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) determining whether the community safety supervision order, or any succeeding community safety supervision order, has been, or is being, complied with.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) To avoid doubt, a tracking device authorisation may be given under this Act for the use of a tracking device to obtain information relating to a person if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a community safety supervision order is in force in relation to the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the use is for either of the following purposes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) achieving a Part 9.10 object;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) determining whether the community safety supervision order, or any succeeding community safety supervision order, has been, or is being, complied with.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 Subsection 6(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">community safety detention order </inline>has the same meaning as in Division 395 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">community safety supervision order</inline> has the same meaning as in Division 395 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Immigration Minister </inline>means the Minister administering the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Part 9.10 information </inline>has the meaning given by subsection 50A(6).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Part 9.10 object</inline> means the protection of the community from serious harm by addressing the unacceptable risk of a serious offender committing a serious violent or sexual offence.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Part 9.10 order</inline> means a community safety detention order or a community safety supervision order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Part 9.10 warrant</inline> means a surveillance device warrant or computer access warrant:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) issued to determine whether to apply for a Part 9.10 order; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) issued in relation to a community safety supervision order that is or was in force.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">9 Subsection 6(1) (paragraph (oa) of the definition of <inline font-style="italic">relevant proceeding</inline> )</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "orders)", insert "or Division 395 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code </inline>(community safety orders)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">10 Subsection 6(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">serious offender </inline>has the same meaning as in Division 395 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">serious violent or sexual offence</inline> has the same meaning as in Division 395 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">succeeding community safety supervision order </inline>has the meaning given by section 6F.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">11 Subsection 6(1) (definition of <inline font-style="italic">unsworn application</inline> )</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "27A(13)", insert ", (13A)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">12 After section 6D</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6E When a community safety supervision order is taken to be in force</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For the purposes of this Act, a community safety supervision order is taken to be in force in relation to a person if the order has been made but the period specified in the order under paragraph 395.13(5)(d) of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline> has not yet begun.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6F Succeeding community safety supervision order</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If a community safety supervision order is made in relation to a person, any later community safety supervision order in relation to the person is a <inline font-style="italic">succeeding community safety supervision order</inline> in relation to an earlier community safety supervision order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If 2 or more successive community safety supervision orders are made in relation to the same person, each later community safety supervision order is a <inline font-style="italic">succeeding community safety supervision order</inline> in relation to each earlier community safety supervision order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">13 After subsection 14(3C)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Warrants sought for Part 9.10 order applications</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3D) A law enforcement officer (or another person on the officer's behalf) may apply for the issue of a surveillance device warrant if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a person is a serious offender in relation to whom an application for a Part 9.10 order could be made; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that there is an appreciable risk of the person committing a serious violent or sexual offence; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) consideration is being given, will be given, or is likely to be given, by the Immigration Minister (or a person on behalf of the Immigration Minister), as to whether to apply for a Part 9.10 order in relation to the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the use of a surveillance device to obtain information would be likely to assist in determining whether to apply for the Part 9.10 order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Warrants sought for community safety supervision orders</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3E) A law enforcement officer (or another person on the officer's behalf) may apply for the issue of a surveillance device warrant if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a community safety supervision order is in force in relation to a person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the law enforcement officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the use of a surveillance device to obtain information relating to the person would be likely to substantially assist in:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) achieving a Part 9.10 object; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) determining whether the community safety supervision order, or any succeeding community safety supervision order, has been, or is being, complied with.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For community safety supervision orders that have been made but not come into force, see section 6E.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">14 Subsection 14(4)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "or (3C)", substitute ", (3C), (3D) or (3E)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">15 Paragraph 14(6)(a)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "paragraph (3C)(b)", insert "or (3E)(b)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">16 After paragraph 16(1)(bc)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(bd) in the case of a warrant sought to determine whether to apply for a Part 9.10 order—that the conditions in paragraphs 14(3D)(a) and (c) are met, and that there are reasonable grounds for the suspicions founding the application for the warrant (as mentioned in paragraphs 14(3D)(b) and (d)); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(be) in the case of a warrant sought in relation to a community safety supervision order that is in force in relation to a person—that the order is in force in relation to the person, and that there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion founding the application for the warrant (as mentioned in paragraph 14(3E)(b)); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">17 Subsection 16(1) (at the end of the note)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add "For community safety supervision orders that have been made but not come into force, see section 6E.".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">18 After subsection 16(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) In addition to the matters in subsection (2), in determining whether to issue a surveillance device warrant sought to determine whether to apply for a Part 9.10 order in relation to a person, the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member must have regard to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the likely value of the information sought to be obtained in determining whether to apply for the Part 9.10 order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any previous application for a surveillance device warrant sought or issued to determine whether to apply for a Part 9.10 order in relation to the person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">19 At the end of section 16</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) In addition to the matters in subsection (2), in determining whether to issue a surveillance device warrant sought in a case where a community safety supervision order is in force in relation to a person, the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member must have regard to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the likely value of the information sought to be obtained, in:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) achieving a Part 9.10 object; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) determining whether the community safety supervision order, or any succeeding community safety supervision order, has been, or is being, complied with; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) whether the use of the surveillance device in accordance with the warrant would be the means of obtaining the evidence or information sought to be obtained, that is likely to have the least interference with any person's privacy; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the possibility that the person has committed, is committing, or will commit, a serious violent or sexual offence; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the possibility that the person has contravened, is contravening, or will contravene, the community safety supervision order or a succeeding community safety supervision order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) any previous surveillance device warrant sought or issued on the basis of a community safety supervision order that is or was in force in relation to the person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">20 Paragraph 17(1)(a)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "and (4)", substitute ", (3A), (4) and (5)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">21 After subsection 17(1AB)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1AC) If a surveillance device warrant is issued to determine whether to apply for a Part 9.10 order in relation to a person, the warrant must also specify the name of the person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1AD) If a warrant is issued on the basis of a community safety supervision order that is in force in relation to a person, the warrant must also specify the following details in relation to the order:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the name of the person;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the date the order was made;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if (disregarding section 6E) the order is not already in force—when the order comes into force.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">22 After subsection 17(1B)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1C) To avoid doubt, a warrant issued on the basis that a community safety supervision order is in force remains in force for the period mentioned in paragraph (1A)(a) even if the order ceases to be in force, provided that the order is replaced by a succeeding community safety supervision order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: If there is no succeeding community safety supervision order, the warrant must be revoked (see section 21).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">23 Subsection 19(4)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "and (4)", substitute ", (3A), (4) and (5)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">24 Subsection 20(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "or (3)", substitute ", (3) or (3A)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">25 After paragraph 21(2)(c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">and (d) the warrant was not issued to determine whether to apply for a Part 9.10 order;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">26 Subsection 21(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "subsection (3)", substitute "subsections (3) and (3A)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">27 After subsection 21(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3A) The chief officer is required to take steps under subsection (2) in relation to a surveillance device warrant that is issued on the basis of a community safety supervision order that was in force in relation to a person only if neither the community safety supervision order, nor any succeeding community safety supervision order, is in force in relation to the person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">28 Subsection 21(5)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "subsection (6)", substitute "subsections (6) and (7)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">29 At the end of section 21</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) If the law enforcement officer to whom a warrant is issued, or who is primarily responsible for executing a warrant issued, on the basis that a community safety supervision order was in force in relation to a person believes that neither that order, nor any succeeding community safety supervision order, is in force in relation to the person, the officer must immediately inform the chief officer of the law enforcement agency to which the officer belongs or is seconded.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">30 After subsection 27A(5A)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Warrants sought for Part 9.10 order applications</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5B) A law enforcement officer (or another person on the officer's behalf) may apply for the issue of a computer access warrant if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a person is a serious offender in relation to whom an application for a Part 9.10 order could be made; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that there is an appreciable risk of the person committing a serious violent or sexual offence; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) consideration is being given, will be given, or is likely to be given, by the Immigration Minister (or a person on behalf of the Immigration Minister), as to whether to apply for a Part 9.10 order in relation to the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that access to data held in a computer (the <inline font-style="italic">target computer</inline>) would be likely to assist in determining whether to apply for the Part 9.10 order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">31 After subsection 27A(6)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Warrants sought for community safety supervision orders</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6A) A law enforcement officer (or another person on the officer's behalf) may apply for the issue of a computer access warrant if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a community safety supervision order is in force in relation to a person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that access to data held in a computer (the <inline font-style="italic">target computer</inline>) to obtain information relating to the person would be likely to substantially assist in:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) achieving a Part 9.10 object; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) determining whether the community safety supervision order, or any succeeding community safety supervision order, has been, or is being, complied with.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For community safety supervision orders that have been made but not come into force, see section 6E.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">32 Subsection 27A(7)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "or (6)", substitute ", (5B), (6) or (6A)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">33 After subsection 27A(13)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Unsworn applications</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">warrants sought for community safety supervision orders</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(13A) If a law enforcement officer believes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) immediate access to data held in the target computer referred to in subsection (6A) would be likely to substantially assist as described in paragraph (6A)(b); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) it is impracticable for an affidavit to be prepared or sworn before an application for a warrant is made;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">an application for a warrant under subsection (6A) may be made before an affidavit is prepared or sworn.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Applicant must provide information</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">34 Subsection 27A(14)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "(13)", insert "or (13A)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">35 Subsection 27A(15)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "or (6)", substitute ", (5B), (6) or (6A)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">36 After paragraph 27C(1)(da)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(db) in the case of a computer access warrant sought to determine whether to apply for a Part 9.10 order—that the conditions in paragraphs 27A(5B)(a) and (c) are met, and there are reasonable grounds for the suspicions founding the application for the warrant (as mentioned in paragraphs 27A(5B)(b) and (d)); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">37 After paragraph 27C(1)(e)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ea) in the case of a computer access warrant sought in relation to a community safety supervision order that is in force in relation to a person—that the order is in force in relation to the person, and there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion founding the application for the warrant (as mentioned in paragraph 27A(6A)(b)); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">38 Subsection 27C(1) (at the end of the note)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add "For community safety supervision orders that have been made but not come into force, see section 6E.".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">39 At the end of section 27C</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) In addition to the matters in subsection (2), in determining whether to issue a computer access warrant sought to determine whether to apply for a Part 9.10 order in relation to a person, the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member must have regard to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the likely value of the information sought to be obtained in determining whether to apply for the Part 9.10 order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any previous application for a computer access warrant sought or issued to determine whether to apply for a Part 9.10 order in relation to the person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) In addition to the matters in subsection (2), in determining whether to issue a computer access warrant sought in a case where a community safety supervision order is in force in relation to a person, the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member must have regard to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the likely value of the information sought to be obtained, in:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) achieving a Part 9.10 object; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) determining whether the community safety supervision order, or any succeeding community safety supervision order, has been, or is being, complied with; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) whether the access to the data in accordance with the warrant would be the means of obtaining the evidence or information sought to be obtained, that is likely to have the least interference with any person's privacy; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the possibility that the person has committed, is committing, or will commit, a serious violent or sexual offence; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the possibility that the person has contravened, is contravening, or will contravene, the community safety supervision order or a succeeding community safety supervision order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) any previous computer access warrant sought or issued on the basis of a community safety supervision order that is or was in force in relation to the person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">40 Paragraph 27D(1)(a)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "and (4)", substitute ", (4), (5) and (6)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">41 After subsection 27D(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2A) If a computer access warrant is issued to determine whether to apply for a Part 9.10 order in relation to a person, the warrant must also specify the name of the person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2B) If a computer access warrant is issued on the basis of a community safety supervision order that is in force in relation to a person, the warrant must also specify the following details:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the name of the person;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the date the community safety supervision order was made;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if (disregarding section 6E) the order is not already in force—when the order comes into force.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">42 After subsection 27D(3A)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3B) To avoid doubt, a warrant issued on the basis that a community safety supervision order is in force remains in force for the period mentioned in paragraph (3)(a) even if the order ceases to be in force, provided that the order is replaced by a succeeding community safety supervision order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: If there is no succeeding community safety supervision order, the warrant must be revoked (see section 27H).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">43 At the end of subsection 27E(4)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; or (f) in the case of a warrant sought to determine whether to apply for a Part 9.10 order—access to the data would be likely to assist as described in paragraph 27A(5B)(d); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) in the case of a warrant issued on the basis of a community safety supervision order that is in force in relation to a person—access to the data would be likely to substantially assist as described in paragraph 27A(6A)(b).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">44 Subsection 27F(4)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "and (4)", substitute ", (4), (5) and (6)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">45 Subsection 27G(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "or (3)", substitute ", (3) or (4)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">46 After paragraph 27H(2)(c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">and (d) the warrant was not issued to determine whether to apply for a Part 9.10 order;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">47 Subsection 27H(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "subsection (3)", substitute "subsections (3) and (4)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">48 Subsection 27H(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "surveillance device warrant", substitute "computer access warrant".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">49 After subsection 27H(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The chief officer is required to take steps under subsection (2) in relation to a computer access warrant that is issued on the basis of a community safety supervision order that was in force in relation to a person only if neither the community safety supervision order, nor any succeeding community safety supervision order, is in force in relation to the person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">50 At the end of section 27H</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) If the law enforcement officer to whom a warrant is issued, or who is primarily responsible for executing a warrant issued, on the basis that a community safety supervision order was in force in relation to a person believes that neither the community safety supervision order, nor any succeeding community safety supervision order, is in force in relation to the person, the officer must immediately inform the chief officer of the law enforcement agency to which the officer belongs or is seconded.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">51 At the end of section 37</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) If a community safety supervision order is in force in relation to a person, a State or Territory law enforcement officer acting in the course of the officer's duties may, without warrant, use an optical surveillance device to obtain information about the activities of the person for either of the following purposes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) achieving a Part 9.10 object;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) determining whether the community safety supervision order has been, or is being, complied with;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">if the use of that device does not involve:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) entry onto premises without permission; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) interference without permission with any vehicle or thing.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">52 After subsection 38(3A)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3B) If a community safety supervision order is in force in relation to a person, a State or Territory law enforcement officer acting in the course of the officer's duties may, without warrant, use a surveillance device to obtain information relating to the person for either of the following purposes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) achieving a Part 9.10 object;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) determining whether the community safety supervision order has been, or is being, complied with;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">if the use involves listening to, or recording, words spoken by a person, and the use is confined to circumstances where:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the State or Territory law enforcement officer is the speaker of the words or is a person, or is included in a class or group of persons, by whom the speaker of the words intends, or should reasonably expect, the words to be heard; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the State or Territory law enforcement officer listens to or records the words with the consent, express or implied, of a person who is permitted to listen to or record the words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) by paragraph (c); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) so far as subsection (7) applies in relation to the community safety supervision order—by that subsection.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">53 At the end of section 38</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a community safety supervision order is in force in relation to a person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a person (other than a State or Territory law enforcement officer) is assisting a State or Territory law enforcement officer who is acting in the course of the officer's duties in relation to either of the following purposes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) achieving a Part 9.10 object;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) determining whether the community safety supervision order has been, or is being, complied with;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the person assisting may, without warrant, use a surveillance device to obtain information relating to the person mentioned in paragraph (a) if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the use involves listening to, or recording, words spoken by a person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the person assisting is the speaker of the words or is a person, or is included in a class or group of persons, by whom the speaker of the words intends, or should reasonably expect, the words to be heard.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">54 After subsection 39(3B)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3C) If a community safety supervision order is in force in relation to a person, a law enforcement officer may, with the written permission of an appropriate authorising officer, use a tracking device without a warrant to obtain information relating to the person for either of the following purposes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) achieving a Part 9.10 object;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) determining whether the community safety supervision order, or any succeeding community safety supervision order, has been, or is being, complied with.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">55 Subsection 39(4)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "and (3B)", substitute ", (3B) and (3C)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">56 Subsections 39(5) and (7)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "or (3B)", substitute ", (3B) or (3C)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">57 After paragraph 40(1)(db)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(dc) if the authorisation is given on the basis of a community safety supervision order that is in force in relation to a person—the following details:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the name of the person;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the date the order was made;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) if (disregarding section 6E) the order is not already in force—when the order comes into force; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">58 Subparagraph 45(5)(ia)(i)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "or Division 105A (post-sentence orders)", substitute ", Division 105A (post-sentence orders) or Division 395 (community safety orders)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">59 After paragraph 45(5)(k)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ka) in the case of information:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) obtained under a warrant issued on the basis of a community safety supervision order that is or was in force; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) relating to an application for, the issue of, the existence of, or the expiration of, such a warrant; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) that is likely to enable the identification of a person, object or premises specified in such a warrant;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">determining whether the community safety supervision order, or any succeeding community safety supervision order, has been, or is being, complied with;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(kb) in the case of information:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) obtained under a tracking device authorisation given on the basis of a community safety supervision order; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) relating to an application for, the giving of, the existence of, or the expiration of, a tracking device authorisation given on the basis of a community safety supervision order; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) that is likely to enable the identification of a person, object or premises specified in a tracking device authorisation given on the basis of a community safety supervision order;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">determining whether the community safety supervision order, or any succeeding community safety supervision order, has been, or is being, complied with;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">60 Subsection 45(5A)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "and (j)", substitute ", (j) and (ka)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">61 Subsection 45(5A) (at the end of the note)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add "or a Part 9.10 order".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">62 Subsection 45(6)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "(k)", substitute "(kb)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">63 After section 46A</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">46B Destruction of records — information obtained before a community safety supervision order came into force</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a record or report is in the possession of a law enforcement agency; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the record or report comprises information obtained from the use of a surveillance device under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a surveillance device warrant; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a tracking device authorisation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">issued or given on the basis of a community safety supervision order made in relation to a person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) in the case of a surveillance device warrant issued on the basis that a community safety supervision order was in force—the warrant was issued for the purpose, or for purposes that include the purpose, of obtaining information that would be likely to substantially assist in connection with determining whether the order, or any succeeding community safety supervision order, has been, or is being, complied with; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) in the case of a tracking device authorisation—the authorisation was given to obtain information relating to the person for the purpose, or for purposes that include the purpose, of determining whether the community safety supervision order, or any succeeding community safety supervision order, has been, or is being, complied with; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the use of the surveillance device occurred when the community safety supervision order had been made, but had not come into force; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) the chief officer of the agency is satisfied that none of the information obtained from the use of the surveillance device is likely to assist in connection with achieving a Part 9.10 object;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the chief officer of the agency must cause the record or report to be destroyed as soon as practicable.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a record or report is in the possession of a law enforcement agency; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the record or report comprises information obtained from access to data under a computer access warrant issued on the basis of a community safety supervision order made in relation to a person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the warrant was issued for the purpose, or for purposes that include the purpose, of obtaining information that would be likely to substantially assist in connection with determining whether the community safety supervision order, or any succeeding community safety supervision order, has been, or is being, complied with; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) access to the data occurred when the community safety supervision order had been made, but had not come into force; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the chief officer of the agency is satisfied that none of the information obtained from accessing the data is likely to assist in connection with achieving a Part 9.10 object;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the chief officer of the agency must cause the record or report to be destroyed as soon as practicable.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Section 6E does not apply to subsection (1) or (2) of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">64 After subparagraph 49(2)(b)(xb)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(xc) if the warrant is a Part 9.10 warrant—give the details specified in subsection (2AA); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">65 After subsection 49(2A)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2AA) For the purposes of subparagraph (2)(b)(xc), the details are:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the warrant was issued to determine whether to apply for a Part 9.10 order—the benefit of the use of the device in determining whether to make the application; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the warrant was issued on the basis of a community safety supervision order that is or was in force in relation to a person—the benefit of the use of the device in:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) achieving a Part 9.10 object; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) determining whether the community safety supervision order has been, or is being, complied with; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the general use to be made of any evidence or information obtained by the use of the device.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">66 After subparagraph 49(2B)(b)(ix)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ixa) if the warrant is a Part 9.10 warrant—give the details specified in subsection (2CA); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">67 After subsection 49(2C)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2CA) For the purposes of subparagraph (2B)(b)(ixa), the details are:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the warrant was issued to determine whether to apply for a Part 9.10 order—the benefit of obtaining access to data held in the computer in determining whether to make the application; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the warrant was issued on the basis of a community safety supervision order that is or was in force in relation to a person—the benefit of obtaining access to data held in the computer in:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) achieving a Part 9.10 object; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) determining whether the community safety supervision order has been, or is being, complied with; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the general use to be made of any evidence or information obtained by access to data held in the computer.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">68 Section 49A (at the end of the heading)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add "or Part 9.10 warrants".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">69 Subsection 49A(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "Part 5.3 warrant", insert "or a Part 9.10 warrant".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">70 After paragraph 49A(2)(c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ca) section 46B;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">71 Subsection 49A(4)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "Part 5.3 supervisory order", insert ", or a community safety supervision order,".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">72 Subsections 50A(2) to (5)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "Part 5.3 information" (wherever occurring), insert "or Part 9.10 information".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">73 Subsection 50A(6)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Part 9.10 information</inline> means information that, if made public, could reasonably be expected to enable a reasonable person to conclude that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a surveillance device warrant issued in response to an application under subsection 14(3D) or (3E) authorising:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the use of a surveillance device on particular premises; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the use of a surveillance device in or on a particular object or class of object; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the use of a surveillance device in respect of the conversations, activities or location of a particular person;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">is likely to be, or is not likely to be, in force; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a computer access warrant issued in response to an application under subsection 27A(5B) or (6A) authorising:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) access to data held in a particular computer; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) access to data held in a computer on particular premises; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) access to data held in a computer associated with, used by or likely to be used by, a particular person;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">is likely to be, or is not likely to be, in force.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">74 Paragraph 52(1)(j)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "(1A)", insert "or 46B(1) or (2)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">75 Subparagraph 53(2)(c)(iiic)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "Part 5.3 supervisory order", insert ", or a community safety supervision order,".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">76 Subsection 55(2A)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "Part 5.3 warrants", insert "or Part 9.10 warrants".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">77 Subsection 61(4) (at the end of the heading)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add "<inline font-style="italic">or Part 9.10 information</inline>".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">78 At the end of subsection 61(4)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add "or Part 9.10 information".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">79 Paragraphs 61(6)(c) and (d)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "Part 5.3 information", insert "or Part 9.10 information".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">80 Section 61A (at the end of the heading)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add "or Part 9.10 warrants".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">81 Subsection 61A(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "Part 5.3 warrants", insert "or Part 9.10 warrants".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">82 After subsection 64A(6)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Part 9.10 warrants</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6AA) In the case of a computer that is subject to a Part 9.10 warrant that is a computer access warrant, the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member may grant the assistance order if the eligible Judge or nominated AAT member is satisfied that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that access to the data held in the computer would be likely to substantially assist in:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) if the computer access warrant was issued to determine whether to apply for a Part 9.10 order—determining whether to apply for the Part 9.10 order; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) if the computer access warrant was issued on the basis of a community safety supervision order that is in force—achieving a Part 9.10 object, or determining whether the community safety supervision order, or any succeeding community safety supervision order, has been, or is being, complied with; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the specified person is:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) if the warrant was issued to determine whether to apply for a Part 9.10 order—the person to whom the application relates; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) if the warrant was issued in relation to a community safety supervision order that is in force—the subject of the community safety supervision order; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the owner or lessee of the computer; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) an employee of the owner or lessee of the computer; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) a person engaged under a contract for services by the owner or lessee of the computer; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vi) a person who uses or has used the computer; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vii) a person who is or was a system administrator for the system including the computer; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the specified person has relevant knowledge of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the computer or a computer network of which the computer forms or formed a part; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) measures applied to protect data held in the computer.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">83 Subsection 5(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">community safety detention order</inline> has the same meaning as in Division 395 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">community safety supervision</inline> <inline font-style="italic">order </inline>has the same meaning as in Division 395 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Immigration Minister</inline> means the Minister administering the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Part 9.10 object</inline> means the protection of the community from serious harm by addressing the unacceptable risk of a serious offender committing serious violent or sexual offences.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Part 9.10 order</inline> means a community safety detention order or a community safety supervision order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Part 9.10 warrant </inline>means a warrant issued:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) under subsection 46(9) or (12) or 46A(2E) or (2G); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) under section 48 in the circumstances mentioned in subsection 46(9) or (12).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Part 9.10 warrant agency</inline> means:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a Commonwealth agency; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) an eligible authority of a State that a declaration in force under section 34 authorises to apply for Part 9.10 warrants.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">84 Subsection 5(1) (at the end of paragraph (b) of the definition of <inline font-style="italic">permitted purpose</inline> )</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(x) the performance of a function or duty, or the exercise of a power, by a person, court or other body under, or in relation to a matter arising under, Division 395 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code </inline>(community safety orders); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(xi) the making of a decision whether to apply for a Part 9.10 order, or for a variation or review of a Part 9.10 order, under Division 395 of the<inline font-style="italic"> Criminal Code </inline>in relation to a person; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">85 Subsection 5(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">serious offender</inline> has the same meaning as in Division 395 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">serious violent or sexual offence</inline> has the same meaning as in Division 395 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">succeeding community safety supervision order</inline> has the meaning given by section 6UB.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">86 After paragraph 5B(1)(bb)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(bba) a proceeding under, or a proceeding relating to a matter arising under, Division 395 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code </inline>(community safety orders); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">87 Paragraph 6H(a)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "or 46(7)(c) to (h)", substitute "46(7)(c) to (h), 46(9)(c), (d) and (e), or 46(12)(c) to (g)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">88 Paragraph 6H(b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "or 46A(2C)(c) to (h)", substitute ", 46A(2C)(c) to (h), 46A(2E)(c), (d) and (e), or 46A(2G)(a) to (g)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">89 After section 6U</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6UA When a community safety supervision order is taken to be in force</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For the purposes of this Act, a community safety supervision order is taken to be in force in relation to a person if the order has been made but the period specified in the order under paragraph 395.13(5)(d) of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline> has not yet begun.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6UB Succeeding community safety supervision orders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If a community safety supervision order is made in relation to a person, any later community safety supervision order in relation to the person is a <inline font-style="italic">succeeding community safety supervision order</inline> in relation to an earlier community safety supervision order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If 2 or more successive community safety supervision orders are made in relation to the same person, each later community safety supervision order is a <inline font-style="italic">succeeding community safety supervision order</inline> in relation to each earlier community safety supervision order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">90 Subsection 7(9) (at the end of the note)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; or (c) purposes relating to a community safety supervision order or an application for a Part 9.10 order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">91 Section 34 (note)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "Part 5.3 warrants", insert "or Part 9.10 warrants".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">92 Section 34 (note)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "section 38A", substitute "sections 38A and 38B".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">93 At the end of Division 2 of Part 2-5</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">38B Agencies authorised to apply for Part 9.10 warrants</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This section applies to a declaration made under section 34 in relation to an eligible authority of a State.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Authorisation</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) When the Minister makes the declaration, the Minister must, in the declaration, authorise the eligible authority to apply for Part 9.10 warrants if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Premier of the State requests that the eligible authority be so authorised; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Minister is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (4) of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Minister must amend the declaration to authorise the eligible authority to apply for Part 9.10 warrants if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the declaration does not already so authorise the eligible authority; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Premier of the State requests that the eligible authority be so authorised; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Minister is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (4).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Criteria to be authorised to apply for a Part 9.10 warrant</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(b) or (3)(c), the Minister must be satisfied that the law of the State makes satisfactory provision:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) imposing on the chief officer of the eligible authority requirements corresponding to the requirements that paragraphs 80(f) and (g) and 81(1)(h) and subsection 81(2), so far as that subsection relates to paragraph 81(1)(h), impose on the chief officer of a Commonwealth agency; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) imposing on the chief officer of the eligible authority requirements corresponding to the requirements that section 59C imposes on the chief officer of a Commonwealth agency; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) giving an authority of the State powers corresponding to those that subsections 83(3) and 84(2) and sections 85 and 85B give to the Ombudsman, if the authority of the State receives a notice from the eligible authority because of the requirements mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) requiring an authority of the State that has made an inspection of the eligible authority's records under the powers mentioned in paragraph (c) to report in writing to the responsible Minister about the results of the inspection; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) requiring the responsible Minister to give to the Minister, as soon as practicable, a copy of a report that an authority of the State gives to the responsible Minister under a power or requirement mentioned in paragraph (c) or (d).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Removal of authorisation</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The Minister must amend the declaration to remove the authorisation of the eligible authority to apply for Part 9.10 warrants if the Premier of the State requests the Minister to remove the authorisation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) The Minister may amend the declaration to remove the authorisation of the eligible authority to apply for Part 9.10 warrants if the Minister is satisfied that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the law of the State no longer makes satisfactory provision in relation to the eligible authority as mentioned in subsection (4); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the extent of compliance with a requirement of a law of that State, being a requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (4), has been unsatisfactory in so far as the requirement relates to the eligible authority; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the extent of compliance by the chief officer of the eligible authority, or by officers of the eligible authority, with this Act has been unsatisfactory, so far as this Act relates to Part 9.10 warrants.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) If the Minister amends the declaration under subsection (5) or (6), the amendment does not affect the validity of a Part 9.10 warrant issued before the amendment in response to an application by the eligible authority.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">94 Paragraph 44A(2)(a)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "or 46(8)(a) to (e)", substitute ", 46(8)(a) to (e), 46(10)(a) to (h) or 46(13)(a) to (e)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">95 Paragraph 44A(2)(b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "or 46A(2D)(a) to (e)", substitute ", 46A(2D)(a) to (e), 46A(2F)(a) to (h) or 46A(2H)(a) to (e)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">96 Paragraph 45(2)(a)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "or 46(8)(a) to (e)", substitute ", 46(8)(a) to (e), 46(10)(a) to (h) or 46(13)(a) to (e)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">97 Paragraph 45(2)(b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "or 46A(2D)(a) to (e)", substitute ", 46A(2D)(a) to (e), 46A(2F)(a) to (h) or 46A(2H)(a) to (e)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">98 At the end of section 46</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Warrant sought for community safety supervision order</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) If a Part 9.10 warrant agency applies to an eligible Judge or nominated AAT member for a warrant in respect of a telecommunications service and the Judge or nominated AAT member is satisfied, on the basis of the information given to the Judge or nominated AAT member under this Part in connection with the application, that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Division 3 has been complied with in relation to the application; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in the case of a telephone application—because of urgent circumstances, it was necessary to make the application by telephone; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a particular person is using, or is likely to use, the service; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) either:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a community safety supervision order is in force in relation to the particular person; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a community safety supervision order is in force in relation to another person, and the particular person is likely to communicate with the other person using the service; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) information that would be likely to be obtained by intercepting under a warrant communications made to or from the service would be likely to substantially assist in connection with:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) achieving a Part 9.10 object; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) determining whether the community safety supervision order, or any succeeding community safety supervision order, has been, or is being, complied with; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) having regard to the matters referred to in subsection (10), and to no other matters, the Judge or nominated AAT member should issue a warrant authorising such communications to be intercepted;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the Judge or nominated AAT member may, in the Judge or member's discretion, issue such a warrant.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: Subsection (11) restricts the issuing of warrants if subparagraph (d)(ii) applies.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: For community safety supervision orders that have been made but not come into force, see section 6UA.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) For the purposes of subsection (9), the matters to which the Judge or nominated AAT member must have regard are:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) how much the privacy of any person or persons would be likely to be interfered with by intercepting under a warrant communications made to or from the service referred to in subsection (9); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) how much the information referred to in paragraph (9)(e) would be likely to assist in connection with:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) achieving a Part 9.10 object; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) determining whether the community safety supervision order, or any succeeding community safety supervision order, has been, or is being, complied with; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) to what extent methods for:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) achieving a Part 9.10 object; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) determining whether the community safety supervision order, or any succeeding community safety supervision order, has been, or is being, complied with;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">that do not involve so intercepting communications have been used by, or are available to, the agency; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) how much the use of such methods would be likely to assist in connection with:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) achieving a Part 9.10 object; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) determining whether the community safety supervision order, or any succeeding community safety supervision order, has been, or is being, complied with; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) how much the use of such methods would be likely to prejudice:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) achieving a Part 9.10 object; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) determining whether the community safety supervision order, or any succeeding community safety supervision order, has been, or is being, complied with;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">whether because of delay or for any other reason; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) whether intercepting under a warrant communications made to or from the service referred to in subsection (9) would be the method that is likely to have the least interference with any person's privacy; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) the possibility that the person in relation to whom the order is in force has committed, is committing, or will commit a serious violent or sexual offence; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) the possibility that the person in relation to whom the order is in force:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) has contravened, is contravening or will contravene the community safety supervision order; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) will contravene a succeeding community safety supervision order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) in relation to an application by an interception agency of Victoria—any submissions made by the Victorian PIM under section 44A to the Judge or nominated AAT member; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(j) in relation to an application by an interception agency of Queensland—any submissions made by the Queensland PIM under section 45 to the Judge or nominated AAT member.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) The Judge or nominated AAT member must not issue a warrant in a case in which subparagraph (9)(d)(ii) applies unless the Judge or nominated AAT member is satisfied that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the agency has exhausted all other practicable methods of identifying the telecommunications services used, or likely to be used, by the person to whom the community safety supervision order referred to in subparagraph (9)(d)(ii) relates; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) interception of communications made to or from a telecommunications service used or likely to be used by that person would not otherwise be possible.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Warrant sought for Part 9.10 order application</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(12) If a Part 9.10 warrant agency applies to an eligible Judge or nominated AAT member for a warrant in respect of a telecommunications service and the Judge or nominated AAT member is satisfied, on the basis of the information given to the Judge or nominated AAT member under this Part in connection with the application, that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Division 3 has been complied with in relation to the application; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in the case of a telephone application—because of urgent circumstances, it was necessary to make the application by telephone; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a particular person is using, or is likely to use, the service; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the person is a serious offender in relation to whom an application for a Part 9.10 order could be made; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) there are reasonable grounds to suspect that there is an appreciable risk of the person committing a serious violent or sexual offence; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) consideration is being given, will be given, or is likely to be given, by the Immigration Minister (or a person on behalf of the Immigration Minister), as to whether to apply for a Part 9.10 order in relation to the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) information that would be likely to be obtained by intercepting under a warrant communications made to or from the service would be likely to assist in determining whether to apply for the Part 9.10 order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) having regard to the matters referred to in subsection (13), and to no other matters, the Judge or nominated AAT member should issue a warrant authorising such communications to be intercepted;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the Judge or nominated AAT member may, in the Judge's or member's discretion, issue such a warrant.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(13) For the purposes of subsection (12), the matters to which the Judge or nominated AAT member must have regard are:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) how much the privacy of any person or persons would be likely to be interfered with by intercepting under a warrant communications made to or from the service referred to in subsection (12); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) how much the information referred to in paragraph (12)(g) would be likely to assist in determining whether to apply for the Part 9.10 order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) to what extent methods of determining whether to apply for the Part 9.10 order that do not involve so intercepting communications have been used by, or are available to, the Immigration Minister (or a legal representative of the Immigration Minister); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) how much the use of such methods would be likely to assist in determining whether to apply for the Part 9.10 order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) how much the use of such methods would be likely to prejudice determining whether to apply for the Part 9.10 order, whether because of delay or for any other reason; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) in relation to an application by an interception agency of Victoria—any submissions made by the Victorian PIM under section 44A to the Judge or nominated AAT member; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) in relation to an application by an interception agency of Queensland—any submissions made by the Queensland PIM under section 45 to the Judge or nominated AAT member.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">99 After subsection 46A(2D)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Warrant for community safety supervision order</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2E) If a Part 9.10 warrant agency applies to an eligible Judge or nominated AAT member for a warrant in respect of a person and the Judge or nominated AAT member is satisfied, on the basis of the information given to the Judge or nominated AAT member under this Part in connection with the application, that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Division 3 has been complied with in relation to the application; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in the case of a telephone application—because of urgent circumstances, it was necessary to make the application by telephone; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a particular person is using, or is likely to use, more than one telecommunications service; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a community safety supervision order is in force in relation to the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) information that would be likely to be obtained by intercepting under a warrant:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) communications made to or from any telecommunications service that the person is using, or is likely to use; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) communications made by means of a particular telecommunications device or particular telecommunications devices that the person is using, or is likely to use;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">would be likely to substantially assist in connection with:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) achieving a Part 9.10 object; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) determining whether the community safety supervision order, or any succeeding community safety supervision order, has been, or is being, complied with; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) having regard to the matters referred to in subsection (2F), and to no other matters, the Judge or nominated AAT member should issue a warrant authorising such communications to be intercepted;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the Judge or nominated AAT member may, in the Judge or member's discretion, issue such a warrant.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 1: Subsection (3) restricts the issuing of a warrant authorising interception of communications made by means of a telecommunications device or telecommunications devices identified in the warrant.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: For community safety supervision orders that have been made but not come into force, see section 6UA.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2F) For the purposes of subsection (2E), the matters to which the Judge or nominated AAT member must have regard are:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) how much the privacy of any person or persons would be likely to be interfered with by intercepting under a warrant:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) communications made to or from any telecommunications service used, or likely to be used, by the person in respect of whom the warrant is sought; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) communications made by means of a particular telecommunications device or particular telecommunications devices used, or likely to be used, by the person in respect of whom the warrant is sought;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">as the case requires; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) how much the information referred to in paragraph (2E)(e) would be likely to assist in connection with:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) achieving a Part 9.10 object; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) determining whether the community safety supervision order, or any succeeding community safety supervision order, has been, or is being, complied with; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) to what extent methods (including the use of a warrant issued under section 46) for:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) achieving a Part 9.10 object; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) determining whether the community safety supervision order, or any succeeding community safety supervision order, has been, or is being, complied with;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">that do not involve the use of a warrant issued under this section in relation to the person have been used by, or are available to, the agency; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) how much the use of such methods would be likely to assist in connection with:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) achieving a Part 9.10 object; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) determining whether the community safety supervision order, or any succeeding community safety supervision order, has been, or is being, complied with; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) how much the use of such methods would be likely to prejudice:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) achieving a Part 9.10 object; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) determining whether the community safety supervision order, or any succeeding community safety supervision order, has been, or is being, complied with;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">whether because of delay or for any other reason; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) whether intercepting under a warrant communications referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection would be the method that is likely to have the least interference with any person's privacy; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) the possibility that the person in relation to whom the order is in force has committed, is committing, or will commit a serious violent or sexual offence; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) the possibility that the person in relation to whom the order is in force:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) has contravened, is contravening, or will contravene, the community safety supervision order; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) will contravene a succeeding community safety supervision order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) in relation to an application by an interception agency of Victoria—any submissions made by the Victorian PIM under section 44A to the Judge or nominated AAT member; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(j) in relation to an application by an interception agency of Queensland—any submissions made by the Queensland PIM under section 45 to the Judge or nominated AAT member.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Warrant sought for Part 9.10 order application</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2G) If a Part 9.10 warrant agency applies to an eligible Judge or nominated AAT member for a warrant in respect of a person and the Judge or nominated AAT member is satisfied, on the basis of the information given to the Judge or nominated AAT member under this Part in connection with the application, that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Division 3 has been complied with in relation to the application; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in the case of a telephone application—because of urgent circumstances, it was necessary to make the application by telephone; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a particular person is using, or is likely to use, more than one telecommunications service; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the person is a serious offender in relation to whom an application for a Part 9.10 order could be made; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) there are reasonable grounds to suspect that there is an appreciable risk of the person committing a serious violent or sexual offence; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) consideration is being given, will be given, or is likely to be given, by the Immigration Minister (or a person on behalf of the Immigration Minister), as to whether to apply for a Part 9.10 order in relation to the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) information that would be likely to be obtained by intercepting under a warrant:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) communications made to or from any telecommunications service that the person is using, or is likely to use; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) communications made by means of a particular telecommunications device or particular telecommunications devices that the person is using, or is likely to use;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">would be likely to assist in determining whether to apply for the Part 9.10 order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) having regard to the matters referred to in subsection (2H), and to no other matters, the Judge or nominated AAT member should issue a warrant authorising such communications to be intercepted;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the Judge or nominated AAT member may, in the Judge's or member's discretion, issue such a warrant.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2H) For the purposes of subsection (2G), the matters to which the Judge or nominated AAT member must have regard are:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) how much the privacy of any person or persons would be likely to be interfered with by intercepting under a warrant:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) communications made to or from any telecommunications service used, or likely to be used, by the person in respect of whom the warrant is sought; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) communications made by means of a particular telecommunications device or particular telecommunications devices used, or likely to be used, by the person in respect of whom the warrant is sought; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) how much the information referred to in paragraph (2G)(g) would be likely to assist in connection with determining whether to apply for the Part 9.10 order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) to what extent methods (including the use of a warrant issued under section 46) for determining whether to apply for a Part 9.10 order that do not involve so intercepting communications have been used by, or are available to, the Immigration Minister (or a legal representative of the Immigration Minister); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) how much the use of such methods would be likely to assist in determining whether to apply for the Part 9.10 order; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) how much the use of such methods would be likely to prejudice determining whether to apply for the Part 9.10 order, whether because of delay or for any other reasons; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) in relation to an application by an interception agency of Victoria—any submissions made by the Victorian PIM under section 44A to the Judge or nominated AAT member; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) in relation to an application by an interception agency of Queensland—any submissions made by the Queensland PIM under section 45 to the Judge or nominated AAT member.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">100 Subsection 48(1) (note)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "Note", substitute "Note 1".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">101 At the end of subsection 48(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note 2: Only a Part 9.10 warrant agency may apply for a warrant under section 46 in the circumstances mentioned in subsection 46(9) or (12).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">102 Subparagraph 48(3)(d)(ii)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "subsection 46(4)", insert "or (9)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">103 Paragraph 49(3)(a)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "or 46(4)(d)(ii)", substitute ", 46(4)(d)(ii) or 46(9)(d)(ii)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">104 After subsection 49(6A)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6B) To avoid doubt, a warrant issued on the basis that a community safety supervision order is in force remains in force for the period mentioned in subsection (3) even if the order ceases to be in force, provided that the order is replaced by a succeeding community safety supervision order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: If there is no succeeding community safety supervision order, the warrant must be revoked (see section 57).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">105 At the end of section 49</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Content of warrants issued for community safety supervision orders</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) A warrant issued for a community safety supervision order that is in force must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) state that the warrant is issued on the basis of a community safety supervision order made in relation to a person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) specify the name of the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) specify the date the community safety supervision order was made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Warrants issued for Part 9.10 order applications</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) A warrant issued to determine whether to make an application for a Part 9.10 order in relation to a person must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) state that the warrant is issued on that basis; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) specify the name of the person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">106 At the end of section 57</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) For the purposes of the application of subsection (1) to a community safety supervision order warrant issued on the ground that a community safety supervision order was in force, that ground is taken to have ceased to exist if, and only if, neither that community safety supervision order, nor any succeeding community safety supervision order, is in force.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">107 After section 59B</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">59C Notification to Ombudsman by Commonwealth agencies in relation to Part 9.10 warrants</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Within 6 months after a Part 9.10 warrant is issued in response to an application by a Commonwealth agency, the chief officer of the agency must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notify the Ombudsman that the warrant has been issued; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) give to the Ombudsman a copy of the warrant.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) As soon as practicable after an officer of a Commonwealth agency contravenes any of the following conditions, restrictions or provisions, the chief officer of the agency must notify the Ombudsman of the contravention:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a condition or restriction specified in the warrant under subsection 49(2);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the following provisions, to the extent that they apply to the warrant:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) paragraph 57(1)(b);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) subsection 63(1);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) subsection 63(2);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) section 79;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) section 79AB;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) subsection 103B(4).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A failure to comply with subsection (1) or (2) does not affect the validity of the warrant.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">108 At the end of subsection 65A(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; or (c) any of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) achieving a Part 9.10 object;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) determining whether a community safety supervision order has been, or is being, complied with;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the performance of a function or duty, or the exercise of a power, by a person, court or other body under, or in relation to a matter arising under, Division 395 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code </inline>(community safety orders).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">109 At the end of subsection 67(1C)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; or (d) if the information was obtained under a Part 9.10 warrant issued on the basis that a community safety supervision order was in force in relation to a person—any of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) achieving a Part 9.10 object;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) determining whether the community safety supervision order has been, or is being, complied with; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) if the information was obtained under any Part 9.10 warrant—the performance of a function or duty, or the exercise of a power, by a person, court or other body under, or in relation to a matter arising under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) Division 395 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code </inline>(community safety orders); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a Part 9.10 order.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">110 After section 79AA</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">79AB Destruction of restricted records — information obtained before a community safety supervision order came into force</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a restricted record is in the possession of an agency; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the restricted record relates to an interception authorised by a community safety supervision order warrant; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the warrant was issued for the purpose, or for purposes that include the purpose, of obtaining information that would be likely to assist in connection with determining whether the relevant community safety supervision order, or any succeeding community safety supervision order, has been, or is being, complied with; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the interception occurred when the community safety supervision order had been made but had not come into force; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the chief officer of the agency is satisfied that none of the information obtained by the interception is likely to assist in connection with achieving a Part 9.10 object;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the chief officer of the agency must cause the restricted record to be destroyed as soon as practicable.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Section 6UA does not apply to subsection (1) of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">111 At the end of subsection 81A(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; and (i) in the case of a Part 9.10 warrant—the name of the person to whom the relevant community safety supervision order or application relates.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">112 After paragraph 81C(2)(h)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; (i) in the case of a Part 9.10 warrant—the name of the person to whom the relevant community safety supervision order or application relates.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">113 Subsections 83(1) and (2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "79AA,", insert "79AB,".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">114 Subsection 83(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "(about Part 5.3 warrants)", insert "or subsection 59C(2) (about Part 9.10 warrants)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">115 Subsection 85(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "79AA,", insert "79AB,".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">116 After section 85A</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">85B Annual report may cover notified breaches in relation to Part 9.10 warrants</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) In a report under subsection 84(1) in relation to a financial year, the Ombudsman may include a report on a contravention of which the Ombudsman is notified under subsection 59C(2) (about Part 9.10 warrants), if the Ombudsman does not conduct an inspection under subsection 83(3) in relation to a period during which the contravention occurred.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: If the Ombudsman conducts an inspection under subsection 83(3), the relevant report under subsection 84(1):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) must include the matters mentioned in subsection 84(1A) in relation to the inspection; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) may include other information about contraventions of this Act (see section 85).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), it does not matter whether the Ombudsman is notified under subsection 59C(2) before, during or after the financial year to which the report relates.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Subsection (1) does not limit what the Ombudsman may include in a report under section 84 or 85.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">117 Subsection 103B(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "Part 5.3 information", insert "or Part 9.10 information".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">118 Subsection 103B(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "Part 5.3 information", insert "or Part 9.10 information (as the case may be)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">119 Paragraphs 103B(4)(a) and (b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "Part 5.3 information", insert "or Part 9.10 information (as the case may be)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">120 Subsection 103B(5)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "Part 5.3 information", insert "or Part 9.10 information (as the case may be)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">121 Subsection 103B(6)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Part 9.10 information</inline> means information that, if made public, could reasonably be expected to enable a reasonable person to conclude that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a Part 9.10 warrant is likely to be, or is not likely to be, in force in relation to a telecommunications service used, or likely to be used, by a particular person; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a Part 9.10 warrant is likely to be, or is not likely to be, in force in relation to a particular person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">122 At the end of the heading to section 139B</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add "or Part 9.10 orders".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">123 At the end of subsection 139B(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; or (c) Division 395 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code </inline>(community safety orders).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">124 After subparagraph 180D(2)(b)(ia)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ib) for the purposes of Division 395 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline> (community safety orders); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">125 After subparagraph 180D(2)(c)(ia)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ib) for the purposes of Division 395 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline> (community safety orders); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">126 After subparagraph 181B(3)(b)(iia)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iib) for the purposes of Division 395 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline> (community safety orders); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">127 After subparagraph 181B(6)(b)(iaa)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iab) for the purposes of Division 395 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline> (community safety orders); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">128 After subparagraph 182(2)(a)(iiia)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iiib) for the purposes of Division 395 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline> (community safety orders); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">129 After subparagraph 182(3)(a)(iia)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iib) for the purposes of Division 395 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline> (community safety orders); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">130 After subparagraph 182B(b)(iva)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ivb) for the purposes of Division 395 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline> (community safety orders); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 2 — Application provisions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">131 Application provisions — Division 395 and related amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Division 395 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline>, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to a conviction for a serious violent or sexual offence, or a serious foreign violent or sexual offence, that occurs before, on or after the commencement of this item.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The <inline font-style="italic">Surveillance Devices Act 2004</inline> and the <inline font-style="italic">Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979</inline>, as amended by this Schedule, apply in relation to a serious offender, whether the conviction concerned occurs before, on or after the commencement of this item.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">132 Application provision — declarations</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Subsections 38B(3), (5) and (6) of the <inline font-style="italic">Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979</inline>, as inserted by this Schedule, apply in relation to a declaration that is in force on or after the commencement of this item, whether the declaration was made before, on or after that commencement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">133 Application provision — information and documents</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments of the <inline font-style="italic">Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979</inline> made by this Schedule apply in relation to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the making of a record of, the disclosure of or the use of information on or after the commencement of this item; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the disclosure or use of a document on or after the commencement of this item;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">whether the information or document was obtained before, on or after that commencement.</para></quote>
<para>This legislation, which now includes amendments to both the Migration Act and the Criminal Code, complements and further strengthens the amendments previously introduced to parliament. It builds on and reinforces the measures passed by the parliament on 16 November. These measures are only necessary because of the mess the opposition leader, Mr Dutton, made of the home affairs portfolio while he had carriage of it in the former government.</para>
<para>It's important that we don't forget how we got to this place. We got here because the High Court found that a detention regime that was implemented by Mr Dutton as minister was unconstitutional and unlawful. We got here because Mr Dutton failed to resettle any of the former detainees, who have now been released in line with the High Court orders. We got here because Mr Dutton intervened to allow the plaintiff in the High Court case to apply for another visa. We got here after a month of politics from Mr Dutton—politics rather than protecting the community. We saw only last week Mr Dutton and the coalition vote against laws that we as the government introduced that sought to strengthen this regime. But, instead of backing that extra layer of protection, Mr Dutton and the coalition voted with the Greens against those amendments only last week. That is how we got here—after a series of failures by Mr Dutton and the coalition over Mr Dutton's period as the home affairs minister.</para>
<para>Now Mr Dutton tries to blame the Albanese government for his own failures. We all remember that person at school who you were listed to do a group assignment with and who tells you for years, for weeks or for months that they've contributed their bit of the assignment, and then you find out on the day that the assignment is due that they haven't done anything. That is the situation we found with Mr Dutton. There were years of claims made by Mr Dutton that he had done this and done that and that he was this tough and that tough. Now we find out—now that he is not the Minister for Home Affairs anymore—that his entire migration system and his entire detention system was an absolute ruse that didn't stand up in court. That is how we got here. Let's not buy any of this nonsense from the opposition that this is the Albanese government's fault. The responsibility for this mess lies firmly at the feet not just of the coalition but of Mr Dutton himself. We need to remember that, as we in the Albanese government fix this mess and make these laws go through—making strong laws stronger, making strict laws stricter and making tough laws tougher. That's what we are doing with the legislation to fix Mr Dutton's mess.</para>
<para>Specifically this package strengthens the already robust laws that have been introduced to ensure the protection of the community by introducing new powers for the courts to impose community safety orders where there is substantial admissible evidence of a high risk to the community from people who have previously committed a serious, violent or sexual offence. This judicially supervised scheme includes a mechanism to detain, or impose additional conditions on, noncitizens who pose an unacceptable risk to the community but who have no real prospect of being removed from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future.</para>
<para>On 8 November, the High Court determined that plaintiff NZYQ's detention was unlawful 'by reason of their having been, and continuing to be, no real prospect of the removal of the plaintiff from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future'. The government recognises and respects the constitutional jurisprudence of the High Court of Australia, which is reflected in this scheme. What we are proposing is modelled on the high-risk terrorist offenders scheme established under the former coalition government. Indeed it is precisely the sort of scheme that Liberal and National MPs and senators have been calling for. Above all, the proposed scheme reflects the expectations of the Australian community that all lawful mechanisms available to a government should be utilised to ensure community safety.</para>
<para>The government has already put in place a number of stringent visa conditions to manage risks to the community posed by certain noncitizens in response to the High Court's decision. These conditions underpin the ability to manage the NZYQ cohort in the community, and new powers support monitoring and compliance with the conditions. The government will continue to review these arrangements to ensure they remain fit for purpose, and we have committed to developing further amendments as required to ensure the ongoing safety of the community.</para>
<para>Australia is the greatest country in the world, and for decades we have welcomed waves of migrants who have made Australia home. Australians rightly expect to live in safety in the community, and the proposed package of amendments I am moving today focus on an assessment of the risk posed by a person who has been convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence, and on a determination to be made by the minister for immigration as to whether or not the strict conditions that can be imposed through our visa framework are sufficient to effectively manage that risk. Where the minister forms the view that the strict visa conditions available under the Migration Act may not effectively manage the risk to the community, the proposed amendments provide an option for the minister to approach the courts to seek the imposition of a community safety order. The application to the court must be supported by substantial admissible evidence of the high risk the noncitizen poses to the community.</para>
<para>Let me be clear. A community safety order would be made by a court, not the minister. Reflecting on the High Court's decision, the making of a community safety order would be—as it must be—a judicial decision, not an administrative decision. Under the amendments moved here today, a community safety order can be either a community safety detention order—that is, preventive detention—or a community safety supervision order. This would, in effect, allow for the making of an order that most effectively manages the risk to the community appropriately and proportionately to the circumstances. A community safety detention order will be used for the highest-risk individuals where the court determines that there are no viable conditions that could effectively manage the risk posed by the individual if they were in the community. Before making such an order, the court must be satisfied that the offender poses an unacceptable risk of seriously harming the community by committing a serious violent or sexual offence, and that there is no less restrictive measure that could effectively manage that risk. On the other hand, a community safety supervision order can be used to impose conditions on individuals where the court determines such conditions would effectively and appropriately manage the risk of the individual while they are in the community.</para>
<para>Before making a community safety supervision order, the court must be satisfied that each of the conditions, and the combined effect of all the conditions to be imposed on the offender by the order, are reasonably necessary, reasonably appropriate, and adapted for the purpose of protecting the community from serious harm by addressing the unacceptable risk of the offender committing a serious violent or sexual offence. The legislation must not specify or limit the conditions available to the court. Instead, it allows the court to tailor the order to the specific risk posed by the noncitizen to the community. Under this scheme, it is important to give the courts the flexibility to adapt the community safety supervision order conditions to the circumstances of each offender in order to support compliance, maintain proportionality and effectively protect the Australian community.</para>
<para>The amendments moved today also create offences for failing to comply with a community safety supervision order. Where a community safety supervision order is made, the order overrides all community protection related visa conditions previously imposed by the minister. In effect, those conditions are superseded by the decision of the courts. However, all national security and status-resolution related conditions would continue to remain valid and enforceable.</para>
<para>In the instance where the risk may not meet the threshold for applying to the courts for either of the community safety orders, the minister would have available the range of strict visa conditions, together with associated offences for breaching those conditions. These include, for example: conditions relating to monitoring and reporting; conditions related to contact with or proximity to minors; and conditions related to contact with a victim or their family. The bill retains criminal offences for breaching those conditions.</para>
<para>Under the amendments being moved today, a community safety order could be made for up to three years, and successive orders could be sought. Under the new community safety orders and ministerially imposed visa condition schemes, a requirement for an annual review of the risk posed by the noncitizen has been included. In addition, the noncitizen can appeal a decision by the court through judicial review mechanisms, or via a review of visa conditions through administrative appeal. In effect, the arrangements can endure for as long as the risk remains. Under these laws, all restrictions on the individual's liberty, whether they are in detention or in the community, must be proportionate to the level of risk the noncitizen poses to the community. The amendments also provide law enforcement with the necessary powers to monitor an individual, subject to a community safety supervision order, to ensure the individual is complying with the conditions imposed on them.</para>
<para>Let's not forget that, as I say, at all times over the last few weeks through this debate the safety of the community has been the utmost priority for the Albanese government. Not playing politics but protecting individuals—that's what we're doing through this strong legislation. It's about time the opposition stopped the politics.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have to say on those last comments that, unfortunately, the only thing this government has done is play politics. Let's start with some of the comments that the minister has made in relation to NZYQ. Let's talk about the truth of NZYQ, who is the plaintiff in this matter and the person to whom the High Court decision actually applies. The coalition inherited from Labor 30,000 people who were put into the community on bridging visas. Why did that happen? Because our detention centres were full. Fifty thousand illegal maritime arrivals had arrived under the former Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. We had a mess to clean up. We had to reintroduce temporary protection visas because—lo and behold!—the Labor government had abolished them.</para>
<para>In order to clean up this mess that we inherited from the former Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Labor government, it was a fact that, under migration law, assessments needed to be done on individual claims for protection. It was also a fact that you couldn't determine what to do with an individual until their status had been determined. In other words, you had to work out if they were found to be owed protection or not and whether they could be deported back to their country of origin. So, despite the rhetoric from the Labor Party today, at staged periods in time the minister did at law what he had to do and lifted the bar to allow a certain number of people to make this application to have their protection claims assessed. Just so everybody understands, this was not an issuing of a visa. Despite what the minister and Labor have been saying, there is a big difference. The bar was lifted, as we know, for large cohorts. We were dealing with 30,000 people who had been put into our community on bridging visitors because our detention centres were full. The minister did not deal with individual cases at this point in the process. It happens to be a fact that, without lifting the bar to enable people's claims to be assessed, we could not determine what to do with them. That is actually a legal fact. One of those potential options was deportation if they could be returned to their country of origin.</para>
<para>So it is false to suggest—the Labor Party know this, but it doesn't stop them—that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, intervened to grant NZYQ a visa. That is just not true. The facts do not sustain what the Labor Party are saying. The Prime Minister, Minister O'Neil and Minister Giles, quite frankly, should be ashamed of themselves for trying to mislead the Australian public.</para>
<para>Without a doubt, though, these types of comments were an embarrassing attempt to try and distract from the complete incompetence of the Albanese Labor government when it comes to the handling of detainees being released into the community. This also happens to be a fact: NZYQ would not be in Australia were it not for Labor's failed border protection policy which allowed 50,000 arrivals on more than 800 boats.</para>
<para>Let's put on the record what actually happened despite what the minister and the Australian Labor Party have been misleading the public with. What did Mr Dutton, as the relevant minister at the time, actually do? He allowed a process to take place for those who had arrived under Labor. Remember that there were 50,000 illegal maritime arrivals, more than 1,200 dead at sea and thousands of children placed into detention because of the failed border protection policies of the previous Labor government.</para>
<para>Mr Dutton allowed a process to take place, where those who arrived under Labor could apply to have their claims for protection assessed by the Department of Home Affairs, Immigration and Border Protection. Despite what Labor said, the fact remains there was no intervention and no visa was ever granted to this individual. Labor were either misleading the Australian public or, alternatively, perhaps they don't understand immigration law. NZYQ arrived, lo and behold, in September 2012 under the former Labor government. He arrived on a boat. He fell into the 13 August 2012 to 1 January 2014 fast-tracked cohort. We were cleaning up the mess left to us by the former Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments. That fast-tracked cohort consisted of 24,500 illegal maritime arrivals and they all had the bar lifted en masse because, under that law, that is what the minister had to do. You couldn't determine what to do with an individual until their status had been determined; hence the minister had to lift the bar.</para>
<para>Cleaning up the mess even further, though, in 2015-16, the minister exercised these power on, lo and behold, 24,120 occasions, covering 23,014 non-citizens. So under sections 46A and 46B of the Immigration Act, the minister may exercise his powers to lift the legislative bar which prevents certain non-citizens from making an application for a visa. Where the minister exercises these powers, the minister specifics a class a visa for which the person may apply. So, again, despite everything that the Labor Party has been saying—clearly, desperate, no two ways about that, but they know that; that's life with the Australian Labor Party—they are quite happy to spread mistruths, as long as the mistruth fits the facts and the narrative that they want to tell. Let's not worry about what the actual facts say. In fact, God forbid the Australian people ever know what the actual facts are under this government, good grief. It is false to suggest, as I said, that Mr Dutton intervened to grant NZYQ's visa. He was cleaning up a mess left by the former Labor government in relation to the in excess of 50,000 people who had arrived here by boat.</para>
<para>I also have comments that I will make the next time I'm given the call in relation to an amendment that I will be moving. But in the first instance, Minister, assuming this bill is passed—and the coalition, as we have indicated, will be supporting this bill through the Senate—does the government have an indication of how many individuals released from detention as a result of the High Court decision will meet the threshold to be redetained or to have a supervision order applied?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Rather than a question, this is a political attack that the opposition has been engaging in over the last few days. They seem to not appreciate the central point of the High Court judgement, which is that the decision as to the detention of one of these individuals is a matter that must be made by a court rather than by a minister, so it would be completely irresponsible to ignore the High Court ruling for me or any other minister to give the number of people who are expected to be covered by this regime, because we would then be getting back to exactly situation that existed under Mr Dutton as the minister, which was found to be unconstitutional and unlawful by the High Court.</para>
<para>The whole point of the decision of the High Court was that decisions as to the detention of these individuals must be made by a court rather than a minister. On a number of occasions over the last few days, in their desperate desire to score political points, the opposition have either wilfully ignored the High Court judgement or failed to understand it, and that is exactly the problem that got us where we are. The problem that we've had is either the former government's wilful ignorance of the law or their contempt for it and desire to override it.</para>
<para>As to the number of people who are expected to be captured by this new regime, I'm not in a position to give that number, because that would be flying completely in the face of the High Court reasoning. What I can say is that the Department of Home Affairs will engage with law enforcement authorities in relation to each NZYQ decision-affected noncitizen who has committed serious violent or sexual offences to determine the risks they pose to the Australian community and consider making applications to the court for orders based on the available evidence. I'm sure Senator Cash is aware of the eligibility requirements for someone to be issued with one of these orders. I wouldn't expect that it would be every single individual in the cohort, but these sorts of orders could be made in relation to people who have, for example, committed serious, violent or sexual offences, and there are other eligibility criteria that need to be fulfilled before one of these orders can be sought by the minister or granted by a court.</para>
<para>As I've said before, this regime that we are putting forward is modelled very closely on the high-risk terrorist offender regime that the former coalition brought in. Just as that regime did not allow for the preventive detention of every single convicted terrorist offender or other category of offender—it applied to particular types of people rather than an entire cohort—I would expect similarly that a regime that here is based on and modelled on the coalition's regime for high-risk terrorist offenders would apply to some but not all of the people who have been released into the community as a result of the High Court decision.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That is a complete misrepresentation in relation to what we're asking you about. The question I asked was: how many in the cohort have committed a serious, violent or sexual crime that has a sentence of seven years of more attached to it? In other words, how many of the 147 rapists, paedophiles and murderers and the contract killer that you have let out of detention have committed a serious violent or sexual crime that has had a sentence of seven or more years attached to it as a maximum? You see, if you don't fall within the first limb, you don't even make it to the second.</para>
<para>That now gives me an opportunity to talk about the amendment that we will be moving for this exact reason. The amendment that we are moving is a straightforward amendment. It is about being straight with the Australian people, because, quite frankly, that is what they deserve. But, based on that last decision from the minister, there's nothing to see here. We don't even know how many of the 147 fit within the first limb of our test. I hate to tell the Australian people this, but if you're not in the first limb of the test—guess what?—you're out; the preventive detention order does not apply.</para>
<para>The Australian people are entitled to know who is being released into their communities. The fact of the matter is: at this point in time, we only know the tip of the iceberg. We know that the government has released paedophiles, murderers, rapists and a contract killer. Who else? Who are the serious criminals the government has decided to release? Let's be clear: every one of those released from detention was released because of a decision by this government, and the overwhelming majority were released before we had even seen the High Court's reasons. It was a knee-jerk, panicked response, and for the vast majority we don't know what they've done or why the government released them.</para>
<para>What is worse is that, based on the answer to my question, the minister himself doesn't know—good grief! The government doesn't know, of the 147 they've released into the community, how many are going to even make it into the first limb. The first limb is very important. I would have thought the minister, perhaps at the instruction of the Prime Minister, would have already done an assessment of the 147. How many of those 147 even meet the first-step threshold the government is putting in place? Is the answer zero? I don't know; the minister hasn't told me. Maybe the answer is zero. Is it three? Is it four? We don't know. That is the basic question we would like the government to ask in the first place.</para>
<para>This is an amendment, in terms of what I will have to now move, that will require the government to tell us. It is very simple. It accords with the standard the government has set for itself. This government talks a lot about openness and transparency, but, I have to say, it doesn't talk the talk, unfortunately. If the government is prepared to live by the standard it set itself, it will support the amendment the coalition is putting forward. As I said, it's very simple. Our amendment will require the minister to prepare a statement of reasons for every detainee whom they decide to release as a result of the NZYQ case; that is currently at 147. It says the minister should prepare that statement and then table it within the parliament within seven days. It's pretty simple. When Minister Giles decides to release someone, he should tell Australians why. The only thing the government has said to date is, 'Oh, it's because of the High Court and the decision in the High Court.' Seriously? Tell us how the High Court decision applies to each of the 147 that you have released.</para>
<para>The minister should be clear about the visa that has been granted. He should explain to the Australian people what conditions have been imposed. He should reveal their visa history. He should be upfront about the character concerns of the person who, like the 147, is currently living in the Australian community. The Australian public are entitled to know about their past convictions both here in Australia and overseas, and the minister should set out in detail the basis on which he determined there was no real prospect that the person would be removed from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future—which is the NZYQ case. Under our amendment we're going to help the government help the Australian people understand why they are doing what they are doing. Under our amendment we would learn whether or not the incompetence displayed by the Albanese government in the NZYQ case is a pattern of behaviour.</para>
<para>Let's reflect on what happened in that case. The government, as I said, made two concessions. It conceded two important facts, and that terminology—'important facts'—is not mine; it is from the High Court itself. The court put significant weight on those two important facts the government conceded on 30 May. The first concession was that NZYQ could not be removed from Australia. The second concession made by the government was that there was no real prospect of the plaintiff being removed from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future. The government made those concessions in May, lo and behold, even though they hadn't actually finished making inquiries about whether or not he could be resettled. One might ask: why in God's name would the government have made those concessions? The Labor government made those concessions as at 30 May. But then we get the High Court reasons, and this is what they reveal. When they realised the magnitude of their stuff-up in August, they then started making inquiries with Five Eyes partners.</para>
<para>Let's be clear, for the record: this is what happened under this incompetent government. They conceded that there was no way NZYQ was ever going to be removed from Australia, because no-one would take him. After making that concession, which forced the court's hand, they decided to go back and check. Maybe this case would have been entirely unnecessary. Maybe the result could have been avoided. Was this a pattern of behaviour? Did they do this in other cases? I don't know. The Australian people don't know. But I can tell you from the feedback I've been getting into my office and from reading comments online across all the newspapers, the Australian people would like to know: how many people were released without even checking if other countries would take them?</para>
<para>Let's see if this government can meet the commitment to transparency and openness that it loves to trumpet—a commitment, I might say, that has only ever been honoured in the breach. Australians know that in the ordinary course they will struggle to get information out of this conniving, secretive, hypocritical government. Let's hope the events of the last four weeks have made them see the error of their ways. I hope they understand how badly they have lost the trust of the Australian people.</para>
<para>I say again to the Australian Labor Party: we are giving you an opportunity. Once again, we are here to help you, just like we were on your last piece of legislation. We proposed six amendments, even though you said it couldn't be done, which you accepted. We are once again cleaning up your mess. We are giving you the opportunity to work with us, to make sure the people who are being asked to bear this risk—the Australian people—actually understand what and who is coming down the line. They need to know who is being released. So the question is, will the government support our very simple amendment? Or are you basically saying 'stuff you' to the Australian people? Are you saying, 'We will not tell you what we have done'? Are you saying, 'We are prepared to expose you to a risk'? In fact, given the last 48 hours, I would think it's a pretty significant risk: allegations of a serious sexual assault and then allegations in relation to a minor. But they're not prepared to tell you about the risk.</para>
<para>Again, I ask the minister: how many in the cohort will fit into the first limb of the test the government has set out for itself?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I refer to my earlier answer, in which I made very clear a point Senator Cash continues to not seem to appreciate, which is that we got to this mess because Mr Dutton and the coalition implemented an unconstitutional and unlawful detention regime in which the then minister, Mr Dutton, decided who was detained and who was not. That is exactly what the High Court has found to be unconstitutional and unlawful. The regime that we're putting in place will leave it to the court to make that decision. Senator Cash can ask as many times as she likes how many people this will apply to, but I'm not going to give a number, because that is exactly the problem we are trying to fix—ministers dictating these terms rather than courts.</para>
<para>I know Senator Cash and the coalition have a long history of believing governments can operate outside the law. We saw that with robodebt, and we saw the consequences of that. But this government will follow the law and we will follow the High Court reasoning, whatever we might think of it, and we will deliver laws that do stand up in court. For that reason, I'm not going to be any more specific about this issue.</para>
<para>During that contribution Senator Cash moved some amendments, so I might just take the opportunity to put the government's position on the record. We will be opposing Senator Cash's amendments, because, simply put, they are unworkable. We appreciate that there is a desire for transparency around the operation of this regime. That is why I refer Senator Cash to clause 395.49 in the amendments, which requires the immigration minister to, as soon as practicable after each 30 June, cause a report to be prepared about the operation of this new division, which sets up the preventive detention regime and the community safety order regime, during the year ended on that 30 June. The clause in the amendments gives some level of detail about what that report must include. This is an annual report that will need to be tabled by the immigration minister to provide a level of transparency around the operation of this regime. Subsection 2 of the clause says that report must include the number of each of the following:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(a) applications for each kind of community safety order made during the year;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) each kind of community safety order made during the year;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) applications for review of each kind of community safety order made by serious offenders during the year;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) applications for review of each kind of community safety order made by the Immigration Minister, or a legal representative of the Immigration Minister, during the year;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) each kind of community safety order affirmed during the year;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) each kind of community safety order varied during the year;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) community safety orders revoked (including by operation of this Act) during the year.</para></quote>
<para>So the very amendments that we are moving require an appropriate level of transparency from the immigration minister each and every year about the operation of this regime, but they do so in a workable manner that won't jeopardise, for example, the potential resettlement of some of these individuals.</para>
<para>As I said in my earlier contribution, one of the reasons we are in this situation is that, the entire time he was the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Dutton failed to resettle any of these individuals. We know that the former government had a policy of not taking up the resettlement deal that was on offer from New Zealand, for example. That belligerence and that refusal to work with other countries around resettlement is one of the reasons some of these individuals remain in detention. We don't want to jeopardise that by providing some of the information that Senator Cash's amendments require.</para>
<para>I will take you through the Senator Cash's amendments. Proposed section 76G(1)(a) and (b) in her amendments would cover only those visas granted between 8 November, being the date of the High Court decision, and 18 November, which is the commencement date for the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Act 2023. Proposed section 76G(1)(c) would cover all grants under regulations 2.25AA and BB. I noted that regulation 2.25AA existed prior to NZYQ, and this provision could be interpreted so as to apply to any visa ever granted under regulation under 2.25AA, noting that that provision was inserted in 2013 and has been used for noncitizens outside the NZYQ cohort. Proposed section 76G(2)(f) requires the minister to table information about the basis on which there is no real prospect of removal. There are legitimate concerns that the minister being required to provide information about the potential refoulement of a noncitizen or the noncitizen's protection claims could further jeopardise removal efforts.</para>
<para>As I say, one of the problems that we're dealing with at the moment is the failure of Mr Dutton to resettle any of these individuals that we're talking about. The last thing we want to do is jeopardise the potential future resettlement of any of these individuals by requiring the minister to provide information which could jeopardise those removal efforts. Similarly, providing details of how and why a person cannot be removed would have potential adverse impacts on the relationship between Australia and relevant countries who have been approached and/or the noncitizen's home country. This could also prejudice future negotiations on issues, including on returns, and it could also affect Australia's international relations. Proposed section 76G(3) provides that the statement—that Senator Cash's amendments require—must not include personal details about the noncitizen. However, the breadth of information required to be given under 76G(2) would be so broad as to easily enable the identification of the noncitizen. For example, the person's immigration history would presumably include previous dates of entry and departure from Australia. These significant issues with releasing information that would potentially identify them may therefore constitute a breach of the Privacy Act requirements. Listing country of origin or citizenship is sensitive because some are from very small countries, but for some the nature of the crime and other elements being specified by the opposition would also potentially allow for the identification of the person being released.</para>
<para>It's for these reasons that we'll be opposing the amendments. We're trying to strike the right balance in terms of transparency by requiring the immigration minister to table that annual report that's required under clause 395.49, but we think it would be impracticable and unworkable and could jeopardise future removal efforts if we were to agree to the amendments being moved by Senator Cash.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll just make a few comments, and I know Senator Hanson also has some questions. In terms of what we are seeking, all we're asking the government to release is consistent with the types of details you would ordinarily expect to see from a court or the AAT. This government clearly has a perennial problem with detail.</para>
<para>Proposed clause 395.49 goes to the actions of the minister. It tells the Australian people nothing about the details of who the Albanese government has decided to release. It does not say the things that we are asking about. It does not say what offences have been committed here or overseas. It does not say what efforts the government has made to try and resettle these individuals. It does not tell the Australian community about the risks they will need to live with—because that is the fact: the Australian community are living with these risks. Quite frankly, if this is the best the government can do in terms of transparency, I don't believe it passes the pub test. But the government have said they will not be supporting our amendment, which was all about transparency with the Australian people.</para>
<para>In relation to the question that I asked the minister, the definition of 'serious violent or sexual offence' is added to this bill, and it provides:</para>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">serious violent or sexual offence</inline> means an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory where:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) it is an offence punishable by imprisonment for life or for a period, or maximum period, of at least 7 years; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the particular conduct constituting the offence involved, involves or would involve—</para></quote>
<para>and then it takes you through a series of offences—</para>
<quote><para class="block">(i) loss of a person's life or serious risk of loss of a person's life; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) serious personal injury or serious risk of serious personal injury; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) sexual assault; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) sexual assault involving a person under 16; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) … child abuse material—</para></quote>
<para>et cetera. I would have thought the government already would know how many of the 147 are going to make that first limb, but clearly they do not. So I will ask the minister: when were drafting instructions given in relation to this bill, and when did drafting on the bill actually commence?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd have to take on notice the precise date that drafting instructions were first issued—I think that was the question—or that a request was made for drafting. But I'm advised that policy design work on this matter began before the High Court decision was handed down and before the High Court reasons were handed down. I'd have to take on notice the precise date for drafting instructions, but it's also worth remembering that this bill has been prepared in stages. The bill that we're debating tonight contains the amendments that were passed in the House of Representatives last week despite the opposition of the opposition and the Greens, who voted together to stop us making those laws stronger. Now, of course, we are adding to that the community safety order regime. I suspect what we will find when I come back to you is that drafting instructions were issued at different periods of time because the bill has been prepared in stages. I think it would be reasonable to think that the drafting instructions that set up the strengthening of the laws that went through the House of Representatives last week probably were issued before the drafting instructions for the community safety order regime.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Shoebridge, I know you're jumping up, but Senator Hanson jumped previously, so, if you don't mind, I'll go to Senator Cash and Senator Hanson and then you. I'm just letting you know who I've seen as we've gone round. So, just for the order of the chamber, we'll go to Senator Cash, to Senator Hanson and then to you. That will save you jumping next go, because I know.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have a very specific question. Given the bill last week did not have the preventive detention scheme in it, when were drafting instructions given in relation to the amendments on sheet SY101, which would establish the preventive detention regime, and when did the drafting commence?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, I'll have to take the precise date on notice, but, as I said in my earlier answer, policy design work around the response to the High Court decision actually began before the High Court decision was handed down. I am happy to come back to you on notice about the date that the drafting instructions were issued for the community safety order regime, but it would be reasonable to expect that final drafting instructions were issued after the High Court reasons, because it was necessary to have those reasons in order to make sure that this regime was constitutional.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister please tell me: when was it brought to your attention that NZYQ was challenging the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson, I presume what you're really asking is when that was first brought to the attention of the minister rather than me personally—or are you talking about me personally?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The attention of the government.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, I suspect it would have been when the case was first filed in the court, and I'm happy to come back to you on notice as to when that was.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can you give me any indication? Was it this year? Was it last year? Was it prior to you coming into government?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand that the case was filed this year.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As to this whole case, what I have here is:</para>
<quote><para class="block">On 8 November 2023, the High Court answered questions of law reserved for its consideration in a special case to the effect that ss 189(1) and 196(1) of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline> … on their proper construction, authorised the plaintiff's detention as at 30 May 2023 and 8 November 2023, but the sections are beyond the legislative power of the Commonwealth Parliament insofar as they applied to the plaintiff as at those dates.</para></quote>
<para>What I would suggest to you is that, based on the fact that this was brought to the courts earlier this year, you would have been aware of it if you were right across it and knew what you were doing. As to this whole case and the determination that was brought down by the court, it states here:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Court held that ss 189(1) and 196(1), as applied to the plaintiff, contravened Ch III of the Constitution because the plaintiff's detention was not reasonably capable of being seen as necessary for a legitimate and non-punitive purpose in circumstances where there was no real prospect of the removal of the plaintiff from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future.</para></quote>
<para>This has, in a couple of other cases, been brought before the courts well before this. One was the Chu Kheng Lim case, and there was also a case in 2004 where the courts held that you can't keep people in detention for an unlimited period of time if they can't practicably and reasonably be relocated or sent back in the foreseeable future.</para>
<para>Basically, when this was brought to your attention, you'd been in government for nearly a year. The fact is that you didn't understand that in two previous judgements your case was not represented properly, and that's why the judgements were brought down. You were unprepared. Actually, you've been caught with your pants down. To sit here and listen to you accuse Peter Dutton, the previous Minister for Home Affairs, for what happened with this man is completely misleading the people and this parliament. You were caught with your pants down. You didn't know what was happening. You were forewarned of what to expect with this whole judgement.</para>
<para>What I want to ask you is: from your time of taking over government in May 2022, what process or steps did you take to have this man deported?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Hanson. We're just trying to get an answer to your specific question, but I have to disagree with your assessment of the situation. What I think you've just argued is that, because of an earlier judgement—I'm not sure which judgement or which year it was in—a judge apparently, according to you, cast some doubt on whether it was legal to indefinitely detain these people, and you're saying that because of those previous comments this government should have known that it wouldn't win this case. I can't really see how that puts Mr Dutton in a better position, because he and his government were in power for 10 years and followed the same practice that we followed for, as you put it, about a year before this case started. So, if you're saying that this government made the wrong call to comply with the earlier ruling of the High Court in the Al-Kateb decision—I think that's what it's called—back in 2004, then I would expect that you would be equally critical of Mr Dutton for having done exactly the same thing.</para>
<para>Be that as it may, we make no apologies for having opposed this case in the High Court. It was brought, as I say, this year. We argued that the individual involved should remain in detention. That had been the understanding of the Australian law for at least 20 years, through both Mr Dutton's period in office and our 12 months or so before the case started, and we continued to argue that it was lawful to hold this individual in detention. The High Court, obviously, found a different way and they overturned that judgement from about 20 years ago. So, given we're a government that complies with the law, we've now followed the law and released that individual and the other people who were caught up in it.</para>
<para>I'm not sure that it's wise for me to give you the names of countries that were approached about the potential resettlement of this plaintiff. What I can say is that there were about six different countries that, since we came into government, we approached to resettle this individual. I haven't been advised of this, but I take it that the answer in each case was no. I can't speak to what efforts were made by Mr Dutton or the coalition to resettle this individual when they were in power, but what we do know is that when they lost office these 147 people had not been resettled. What we also know is that the former government rejected the offer of resettlement that New Zealand had put on the table for a whole bunch of different people. Perhaps, if they hadn't been so belligerent about that, we wouldn't be in this situation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, you know that a lot of these people will not be taken back by countries if they have criminal offences against them. These people include paedophiles, sexual offenders, rapists and murderers. You know the other countries won't take them. You know that the coalition government actually did try to get these people resettled. You know that New Zealand wouldn't take criminals either. You know that to be the truth, and you keep passing the buck, because you've tried yourself, and it hasn't worked. You haven't been able to do it.</para>
<para>What I would like to ask you about now is the one case of NZYQ. The decision was made by the High Court regarding his case—one plaintiff. Why did you release the 80 immediately after the decision came down and then more since? Why did you release them?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The short answer is that this government complies with the law, whether it's law that's written by the parliament or law that's decided by courts. I know that is an unusual situation in Australia, because we did have a government that operated outside the boundaries of the law—for example, with robodebt—but this government takes the law seriously and complies with the law. The High Court made a decision that was about one individual and their case, but the decision that they made applied to other people in the same circumstance. If we hadn't released those people, we would be facing claims for compensation for unlawfully detaining those people. I know you've often got a lot to say about wasting taxpayers' money, and I don't think it would be a great idea to waste taxpayers' money paying compensation to people who are illegally detained. That's what we would have been doing if we had ignored the High Court ruling and continued to detain those people.</para>
<para>I will just respond to your comments earlier on. You seem to think that Mr Dutton and the coalition attempted to resettle these people. I don't think that has been said by anyone, so I don't know if that's right or not. Secondly, on your point about resettling people in New Zealand, you would find—and I'm happy to get you the numbers—that, since this government came to power, reached an agreement with the New Zealand government and took up the offer of the New Zealand government to resettle people who were in detention, we have successfully done that. New Zealand has accepted people who were previously detained in Australia but whose cases the former government wasn't prepared to take up.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The people that were resettled in New Zealand were probably not criminals—not to the same extent as those you have released. You never even waited. After the High Court decision was handed down, you never waited to see what the determination was and the full reasons for their decision. That came nearly two weeks later. You acted to release these people into our society, knowing that they were criminals. You have made it unsafe for a lot of people, and the Australian people are concerned about who is now living amongst them. We've seen the cases of the ones who have now been caught because they have committed crimes. Since you released these people from the detention centres, the parliament passed a law that they should wear ankle bracelets. But isn't it funny that a few of them said, 'We're not wearing them'? One actually absconded; he's gone. Another three refused to put them on. Yet what happened to them? Why weren't they held? Why weren't they detained? The law says that they should wear the ankle bracelets. You put that in there. That was an agreement between the government and the opposition, and I supported it. But no. You released them into society without the ankle bracelets. You're really worried about the Australian people, aren't you?</para>
<para>What I don't understand now is the decision by the High Court and your inaction in relation to making sure that society was safe after you released these people. Minister, where does this now leave us? Because of your inaction, we've now got numerous boats coming across to Australia. One has landed on our shores. I know that other boats are being turned back. One boat has landed with 12 people in it claiming refugee status in Australia. Will the High Court ruling now impact those people? How long will you be able to keep them in detention—until we rule whether they are really refugees or economic refugees, whether they are of good character, have jailable sentences or are criminals? What do you intend to do about this? If they are of the same character as the others, what is now going to happen to these illegal boat people who, under your government, are going to cost us billions of dollars? Are you in the same boat—pardon the pun—where you cannot contain them for an unreasonable amount of time?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, Senator Hanson, the short answer is no. First, our government remains absolutely committed to the policies underpinning Operation Sovereign Borders. Of the small number of people who have attempted to come to Australia by boat since we were elected, each of those people is either awaiting return in Nauru, has been taken to Nauru or has been taken back to their home country. To suggest otherwise is not true. In fact, this government has invested more in Operation Sovereign Borders than we saw under the coalition.</para>
<para>Your question really goes to whether this High Court decision will apply in some way to people who seek to come to Australia by boat. Again, they're completely different concepts. This High Court decision is about a relatively small group of detainees, people who had already come to Australia but, for one reason or another, were not able to be taken back to their home country in the reasonably foreseeable future. It was about the decision of governments to detain those people indefinitely. That's a particular category of people that is different to anyone who seeks to come to Australia by boat. As I say, this government's policy is that anyone who seeks to come to Australia by boat will be either turned back or taken to Nauru.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have a number of questions for the minister in relation to the assessment of unacceptable risk for the community safety order. Minister, you say that there was required to be substantial, admissible evidence for the grounding of a community safety order. Can you advise the House which terrorism risk assessment instruments will be used by the government in presenting that evidence?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Shoebridge, I will share the information I have with you, and hopefully, putting it together will answer your question. You're right; the scheme that's being proposed is limited to those who have been convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence and pose an unacceptable risk of harm to the community by committing such a crime again. An assessment of the risk that an individual poses under this regime is based on expert evidence from relevant officials such as psychologists and psychiatrists with experience dealing with serious sex and violent offenders.</para>
<para>There is a significant and well-developed body of research that has guided the development of assessment tools relating to violent and sexual conduct which have been utilised in similar regimes by the states and other countries. It's the intention of the Commonwealth to work with jurisdictions on the implementation of the proposed regime, including by identifying appropriate risk assessment tools. There are a number of state and territory regimes for the preventive detention of violent and sexual offenders, as well as a number of international examples. That's why the Commonwealth will work with states and territories and international partners to understand their experiences using risk assessment tools and expert evidence. There are existing tools for violent and sexual offenders which can be used to guide an expert assessment of their probability of reoffending and to determine what type of intervention approach would be most appropriate. The Commonwealth will closely engage with practitioners and experts to determine the most accurate and appropriate tools to use.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Is it seriously the case that you're rushing through this legislation and you're not able to identify what risk assessment tools you're going to be using for the purposes of bringing—no doubt, in the days that follow the legislation passing—applications to the courts for community safety orders? Having gone through this charade of rushing everything through, are you suggesting that, while it's still warm on the photocopier, you're then going to engage in some form of consultation process with the states and foreign jurisdictions to find out which risk assessment instrument you're going to use, or is the truth of the matter that you're going to be using the VERA-2R assessment tool and you just don't want to say it? Is that the actual truth? Surely you can't be saying that you're going to rush the legislation through and then sit down and consult with Albania about what tools they use. That can't seriously be the government's position. So are you going to be using the VERA-2R tool? If you're not going to be using the VERA-2R tool, tell us which tool you are going to use for risk assessments under this legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Shoebridge, I do reject your characterisation of what we're doing here. I know the Greens opposed the legislation that we initially introduced and passed here last time we sat. I made the point that, in opposing that legislation, the Greens seemed not to be concerned with community safety. I would have thought that the fact that we have now seen three of these individuals be either arrested or charged with new offences would have underlined the importance of passing this legislation as quickly as possible to keep the community safe. I don't know what other evidence the Greens party requires that would demonstrate the urgent need to introduce this legislation. Whether assessment tools have been finalised or whether they are days away from being finalised, that shouldn't get in the way of this parliament putting in place a legislative regime that is designed to keep the Australian community safe, especially since we are approaching the end of the parliamentary year. In this government's view, there is no time to waste, and that's why we've been keen to get this legislation passed as quickly as possible. But, if the Greens party want to see a situation go on where we don't have a preventive detention regime or community safety orders regime in place and if they're content to see more reoffending by these individuals, then that's something you're going to have to justify to the Australian community.</para>
<para>But your question relates specifically to the VERA-2R tool. Just before I come to that, there are tools that are used by states and territories overseas such as Static 99 and ARMS, and they have been proven to be valid and reliable in supporting professional assessments of reoffending potential. There's significantly more data in relation to violent and sexual offenders, compared with terrorist offenders, and that has supported the further development of these tools. In relation to the VERA-2R tool that you've asked about, as I'm sure you are aware, Senator Shoebridge, that is a structured professional judgement tool used in law enforcement, correctional and intervention program contexts in Australia and internationally to assess the likelihood of a person's risk of engaging in violent extremism. It's one of the tools that have been used and relied on by experts to assess individuals for division 105A proceedings under the existing high-risk terrorist offenders regime.</para>
<para>But VERA-2R is a tool adapted to assessing violent extremism and, whilst relevant in respect of terrorist related violence, it is not adapted to assessing the risk of the offender committing a serious violent or sexual offence. I think that you can read into that that it's not the intention to use that tool for this regime, given that tool is specifically designed for the assessment of risk of committing terrorist related violence. But, as I say, the Commonwealth will review all available tools and identify which are appropriate for use to support the community safety order regime. I really would have thought that recent days would have made the Greens party reconsider its position in saying that we don't need to get moving on this legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What do you say to the critique of the very recently former Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, Grant Donaldson SC, in relation to the current regime of preventive detention:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… these laws have made us a coarser and harsher society. I doubt that anyone knows whether they have made us safer.</para></quote>
<para>Do you accept Mr Donaldson's assessment of preventive detention?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I respectfully disagree with Mr Donaldson's assessment of this. He's obviously entitled to his view, but this government does believe that the regime that we're putting in place is necessary to protect the Australian public, just as we supported the implementation of a high-risk terrorist offender preventive detention regime. Community safety orders are designed to ensure the protection of the community from a small category of noncitizens—that's what it's being used for in this legislation—and that is a category of people who have been convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence. Similar regimes exist in the states and territories. The scheme is targeted at individuals who pose an unacceptable risk of harming the community by committing a serious violent or sexual offence and who are noncitizens in respect of whom there is no real prospect of their removal from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In the final moments, I just want to take the minister back to the answer that he gave Senator Hanson, because it's worth digging into what the minister said in response to her questions about the need to release the detainees. On 8 November, the High Court issued a writ of habeas corpus in NZYQ, and we've never disputed that you needed to comply with that order. That's clear. Of course you did. And, of course, the principles laid down by the High Court in the NZYQ case will apply more broadly. That is the nature of High Court reasons. The High Court will not grant special leave to appeal unless the case is significant across the board.</para>
<para>But the thing that the government is trying to hide is that it is dependent on a government assessment. I would put to you that the misleading part of the comment that you gave to Senator Hanson is this: the decision to release, in each case, is a government decision. Let's just assume for a minute—and I can't say that this is the case—that each of the 147 detainees was required to be released. If that were true, it should have involved 147 decisions, each of which involved the careful application of the principles laid down by the High Court over 74 paragraphs. It should have involved the facts, the history of the matter and the prospects of removal, in light of the principles articulated by the seven justices of the court. But the only thing we can say for sure is that in the vast majority of cases that didn't happen. We know that, because at the time the government released the vast majority of detainees it did not have the court's reasons. The Attorney-General can make all the statements that he wants and then table them in the Senate, saying, 'Oh dear, the High Court made me do it,' because that is literally what we have been hearing from the government day after day, excuse after excuse after excuse—the Attorney-General: 'It isn't my fault;' the Prime Minister: 'It isn't my fault.' Meanwhile, the Australian people will be living with paedophiles, murderers, rapists and a contract killer who have no right to remain in Australia. That is a fact. And they were released because the Albanese Labor government—the Prime Minister himself, Minister Giles and Minister O'Neil—bungled the case in the High Court and then panicked and botched the response. The record should be crystal clear that this is a debacle of your own making. The question before we finish is: what is the status of the 340 additional individuals who were referenced in the High Court hearing?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  Again, I am really surprised that the shadow Attorney-General, someone who aspires to be the Attorney-General of this country—the first law officer of this country—and, indeed, who has already been the Attorney-General continues to make an argument that the Australian government should not comply with a High Court ruling. It's an extraordinary proposition that Senator Cash has been advancing over the last few days. I can understand it, given that Senator Cash served in a government that delivered us robodebt, an illegal system. We know that Senator Cash has a history of not personally cooperating with law enforcement when it comes to police investigations. A deputy commissioner of the Australian Federal Police said as much in estimates a few years ago.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I know Senator Cash is defensive about that, but it's there for all to see. Senator Cash and the coalition have never followed the rule of law. I notice that a former Attorney-General, Mr Brandis, recently had something to say about the need for governments to follow the rule of law. Sadly, it would seem that Mr Brandis's view is not upheld within the current coalition.</para>
<para>Mr Dreyfus, an Attorney-General who does believe in complying with the law, issued a statement today. I might just read from it so as to clarify this situation once and for all. Mr Dreyfus said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is committed to protecting the safety of the community and acting in accordance with the law.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Our response to the High Court's decision in—</para></quote>
<para>the NZYQ case—</para>
<quote><para class="block">has at all times been guided by these fundamental principles.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The High Court determines the meaning of the Australian Constitution—not politicians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The High Court has held that, if a non-citizen has been refused permission to remain in Australia, and there is no real prospect of removing them from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future, the non-citizen cannot lawfully be held in immigration detention …</para></quote>
<para>That finding was in the NZYQ case. The statement continues:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In NZYQ, the High Court made a decision that did not only apply to the plaintiff in that matter. Rather, the Court set a new limit on the Parliament's power to make laws requiring or authorising the detention of any non-citizen who is relevantly in the same position as the plaintiff …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As a result of the High Court's decision, the continued detention of any NZYQ-affected person would be unlawful.</para></quote>
<para>That is what Senator Cash seems to be arguing that we should keep doing. Mr Dreyfus went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Department of Home Affairs undertakes expert assessment of whether a person is an "NZYQ-affected person". If and when it is clear that a person in immigration detention is an NZYQ-affected person, the Department must immediately take steps to secure the person's release from detention. There is no legal basis on which the Government can delay releasing the person until, for example, a court orders the person's release.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Moreover, whether a person is required to be released turns solely on whether they fall within the limit identified by the High Court's order in NZYQ—and not, for example, on their personal circumstances including any criminal history they may have.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is a fundamental principle of our system of law that the government cannot deprive a person of their liberty without positive authority conferred by law. Following the High Court's decision in NZYQ, there is no power to detain the affected non-citizens under the Migration Act. There is no power for a minister to direct an officer to detain the affected non-citizens.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For these reasons, any delay in releasing an NZYQ-affected person could expose the Commonwealth and individual officers to liability for (among other things) false imprisonment. Any officer who continues to detain a person who they know is an NZYQ-affected person may also be acting in breach of the APS Code of Conduct and be liable to disciplinary action as a result.</para></quote>
<para>So every time Senator Cash and her colleagues continue mounting this argument that the government was not required to release the people that we have released, what she and the coalition are effectively saying is that the Australian government should continue detaining people that we have no legal right to detain.</para>
<para>The High Court has made the law clear and governments, I would have thought, should follow the direction of the High Court. I think it is slightly concerning that the opposition are suggesting that the kind of government they would operate would be one that would ignore the High Court and would detain individuals without any legal power to do so. That is a very worrying suggestion, and I would urge Senator Cash to reconsider that position.</para>
<para>While I'm on my feet, I might just point out that Senator Cash, Mr Dutton and their colleagues have made a lot of hay over the last few weeks about the individuals we are talking about. You would think that their record in government around immigration detention has been without blemish and that they never exposed the Australian public to any risk. Well might I remind the opposition that their record was somewhat different to how they might like to remember it. The <inline font-style="italic">New Daily</inline> in April 2018 reported:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Detainees at immigration detention centres on Australian shores have successfully escaped more than 80 times since July 2013, government figures reveal.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">… the total number of detainees who escaped detention during the period would be higher because some reported incidents have involved more than one person.</para></quote>
<para>So even in 2018, five years into the coalition government, there had been more than 80 escapes from immigration detention centres. So for people who want to come in here and be holier than thou about saying that their record was blemish free and they never exposed the Australian public to any risk, well, the facts don't actually back that up.</para>
<para>In January 2018 it was reported that two men escaped from Melbourne immigration transit accommodation detention facility in Broadmeadows, north of Melbourne, on New Year's Eve. In 2014, in the early period of the coalition government, when Mr Morrison was still the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, it was reported that 'an underworld figure capable of extreme violence was on the run after escaping from the Victorian detention centre he was being held in as he awaited deportation from the country. The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Scott Morrison, confirmed the breakout.' He confirmed that two adult male detainees absconded from the Maribyrnong detention centre earlier today with outside assistance. So let's not pretend that the detention regime that was overseen by Dutton, Mr Morrison, Senator Cash, all of the coalition, was some perfect system that never exposed Australians to risk. Those are just three examples where we saw escapes—in some cases, we saw mass escapes—from immigration detention under the LNP. I think we should all recognise the kind of wild claims that have being made over the last few weeks by the coalition as base politics, because we know the thing they are best at is playing politics, dividing the Australian community, injecting fear into the Australian community rather than working constructively to keep the Australian community safe.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, constituents lack confidence in Labor when it comes to security, especially after the last few weeks. So I'm wondering whether or not you will be supporting my amendment to do a simple review of the legislation, especially the amendments. If not, what is the problem?</para>
<para>I remind the Senate that last week's highly significant Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 saw 31 amendments from the government to its own legislation in the House of Reps plus 20 amendments in the Senate. There was a total of 51 government amendments to its own bill, and those from the crossbenches and the Liberals brought them to 69. Minister Burke has been falsely creating the dishonest label 'closing loopholes' to hide the Hunter mining and energy union's complicity in aiding some labour hire firms in Australia's largest-ever wage theft worth billions of dollars. We're told that the Greens oppose the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. They said so themselves just last week. Yet the Greens now support it because Labor has apparently agreed to allow the Greens to move amendments to the EPBC Act. The Greens support Labor's disastrous Nature Repair Bill apparently in return for Labor's support for disastrous Greens amendments to an existing law not before the Senate.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKim, a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKim</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a point of order on relevance, Chair. The bill that Senator Roberts is referring to is actually not the bill that is currently before the Senate.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We do allow some latitude, although I do take the point. I think Senator Roberts is trying to underpin his arguments for a review. Senator Roberts, please keep it to the point.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased you could see that, Chair. That's exactly what I was doing. The government has a very shoddy reputation and is lacking credibility for its legislation that's been rushed and bullied and bulldozed into this place from the start of its term. So, Minister, I ask whether or not you'll be supporting our amendment for a simple review of the legislation.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks Senator Roberts. No, we won't be supporting the amendment putting forward a review. As I made it clear earlier in this debate, we are modelling this regime on the existing high-risk terrorist offenders regime. So we have some confidence in its ability to work, given it's been based on a regime that already exists. In addition—I don't know if you were here, Senator Roberts, when I mentioned this before—one of the amendments that we've tabled, clause 395.49, requires the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to deliver an annual report about the operation of this regime. That is intended to give a level of transparency going forward to how this regime is operating, and we think it is an adequate measure to ensure that there is transparency in the system.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I acknowledge that the legislation will have a ministerial report, but we are suggesting an independent review, not a government report.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Roberts. I can't really elaborate on my previous answer.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash. We have three minutes.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Absolutely. Let's just be clear that, despite the rhetoric coming out again from the minister's mouth, we have never disputed that the government needed to comply with the order of the High Court. That is a fact. We have never disputed that. Of course, you did. The issue we have is in relation to the other 147 detainees who have now been released. The government has refused to answer whether or not that involved 147 separate decisions and whether or not each of those cases involved the careful application of principles laid down by the court over 74 paragraphs. They have refused to tell us whether or not the assessments involved the facts, the history of the matter and the prospects of removal in light of the principles articulated by the seven justices of the court. One can only assume, therefore, that in the majority of cases this did not happen. We know that. Why do we know that? Because you did not have the principles articulated by the seven justices of the High Court when you released the vast majority of the detainees. The Albanese government did not have the court's reasons. So what we would like to see you do, as I've said, in relation to each of the 147 hardcore criminals—rapists, pedophiles, murderers and a contract killer—that you have released into the community, is provide the Australian people with a complete analysis of the assessment that was undertaken. I won't hold my breath.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with the order agreed to earlier today, the time for consideration of the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 has expired. I will first put the question before the chair and then put the questions on the remaining stages of the bill. The question before the chair is that government amendments (1) to (5) on sheet SY101 moved by Senator Watt be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [18:24]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>33</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>8</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator David Pocock. As these amendments were circulated after 4.20 pm, they can only be considered by leave. Is the senator seeking leave to move them?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am. I seek leave to move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2262 revised, amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2263 revised and (1) to (3) on sheet 2321 together.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move my amendments:</para>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 2262 REVISED</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The provisions of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Regulations 1994</inline> amended or inserted by this Act, and any other provisions of those regulations, may be amended or repealed by regulations made under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline> (see subsection 13(5) of the <inline font-style="italic">Legislation Act 2003</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 21), at the end of the Schedule, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8A Sunset of amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline> made by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) this Schedule, other than the amendments of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline>made by this Schedule to insert section 76AA; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Schedule 1 to the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Act 2023</inline>;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">cease to be in force at the start of the day after the end of the period of 6 months beginning on the day this Act receives the Royal Assent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 21), at the end of the Bill, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1A — Sunset of amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 1 — Amendment of the Migration Regulations 1994</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Migration Regulations 1994</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 At the end of Part 126 of Schedule 13</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">12602 Sunset of amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments of these Regulations made by Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Act 2023</inline> cease to be in force at the start of the day after the end of the period of 6 months beginning on the day the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions and Other Measures) Act 2023</inline> receives the Royal Assent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 2 — Other provisions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 Affirmative resolution</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This item applies to regulations made under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958 </inline>that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) are made on or after the commencement of this Schedule; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) have the effect of amending or repealing, or otherwise altering the effect or operation of, the amendments of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Regulations 1994</inline> made by this Schedule.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The regulations do not come into effect until they have been approved by a resolution of each House of the Parliament.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 2263 REVISED</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The provisions of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Regulations 1994</inline> amended or inserted by this Act, and any other provisions of those regulations, may be amended or repealed by regulations made under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline> (see subsection 13(5) of the <inline font-style="italic">Legislation Act 2003</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 21), at the end of the Schedule, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8A Sunset of amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline> made by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) this Schedule, other than the amendments of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline> made by this Schedule to insert section 76AA; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Schedule 1 to the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Act 2023</inline>;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">cease to be in force at the start of the day after the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day this Act receives the Royal Assent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 21), at the end of the bill, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1A — Sunset of amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 1 — Amendment of the Migration Regulations 1994</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Migration Regulations 1994</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 At the end of Part 126 of Schedule 13</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">12602 Sunset of amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments of these Regulations made by Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Act 2023</inline> cease to be in force at the start of the day after the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions and Other Measures) Act 2023</inline> receives the Royal Assent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 2 — Other provisions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 Affirmative resolution</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This item applies to regulations made under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958 </inline>that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) are made on or after the commencement of this Schedule; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) have the effect of amending or repealing, or otherwise altering the effect or operation of, the amendments of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Regulations 1994</inline> made by this Schedule.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The regulations do not come into effect until they have been approved by a resolution of each House of the Parliament.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 2321</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The provisions of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Regulations 1994</inline> amended or inserted by this Act, and any other provisions of those regulations, may be amended or repealed by regulations made under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline> (see subsection 13(5) of the <inline font-style="italic">Legislation Act 2003</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 21), at the end of the Schedule, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8A Sunset of amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline> made by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) this Schedule; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Schedule 2; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Schedule 1 to the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Act 2023</inline>;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">cease to be in force at the start of the day after the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day this Act receives the Royal Assent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 21), at the end of the bill, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1A — Sunset of amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 1 — Amendment of the Migration Regulations 1994</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Migration Regulations 1994</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 At the end of Part 126 of Schedule 13</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">12602 Sunset of amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments of these Regulations made by Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Act 2023</inline> cease to be in force at the start of the day after the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions and Other Measures) Act 2023</inline> receives the Royal Assent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 2 — Other provisions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 Affirmative resolution</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This item applies to regulations made under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958 </inline>that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) are made on or after the commencement of this Schedule; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) have the effect of amending or repealing, or otherwise altering the effect or operation of, the amendments of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Regulations 1994</inline> made by this Schedule.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The regulations do not come into effect until they have been approved by a resolution of each House of the Parliament.</para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the chair is that the amendments on sheets 2262 revised, 2263 revised and 2321 be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [18:28]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>9</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>33</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will now deal with the amendment circulated by Pauline Hanson's One Nation. The question before the chair is that the amendment on sheet 2255 be agreed to.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Pauline Hanson's One Nation's circulated amendment—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 Review of operation of amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) this Act; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Act 2023 .</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Without limiting the matters that may be considered when conducting the review, the review must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) consider whether the operation of the amendments referred to in subsection (1) is appropriate and effective; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) identify any unintended consequences of the amendments referred to in subsection (1); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) consider the constitutionality of the amendments referred to in subsection (1); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) consider whether any further amendments are necessary to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) improve the operation of the amendments referred to in subsection (1); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) rectify any unintended consequences identified under paragraph (b).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months of the commencement of this Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 5 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.</para></quote>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [18:32] <br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>7</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>35</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will now deal with the amendments circulated by the opposition. The question is that the amendments on sheet 2279 be agreed to.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Opposition's circulated amendments—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 7 (after line 28), after section 76F, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">76G Statement about grant of visas to certain non-citizens released from immigration detention</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Minister must prepare statement</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Minister must prepare a statement about the grant of any of the following visas to a non-citizen:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a Subclass 070 (Bridging (Removal Pending)) visa granted in the circumstances described in paragraphs 76A(1)(b), (c) and (d);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a Subclass 070 (Bridging (Removal Pending)) visa taken to have been granted under paragraph 76A(3)(a);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a visa granted under a provision of the regulations prescribed for the purposes of subsection 76E(4);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) if the non-citizen is released from immigration detention because, at the time of the release, there is no real prospect of the removal of the non-citizen from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future—a visa (other than a visa covered by any of the above paragraphs) granted to the non-citizen at any time after the release.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Information included in the statement</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The statement about the grant of a visa to a non-citizen must, subject to subsection (3), include the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) details of the visa to which the statement relates, including the conditions (if any) imposed on the visa;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) details of the non-citizen's immigration history, including details of any visas previously held by the non-citizen;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if the non-citizen is, or has been, of character concern—details of the character concern;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) if the non-citizen has been convicted, in Australia, of an offence—details of the offence;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) if the non-citizen has been convicted, in a foreign country, of an offence—details of the offence (to the extent that the details are held by the Minister or the Department);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) the basis on which there was no real prospect of the removal of the non-citizen from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future, at the following time:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) for a visa covered by paragraph (1)(a) or (c)—at the time non-citizen was granted the visa;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) for a visa covered by paragraph (1)(b)—at the time the non-citizen was granted a visa covered by paragraph (1)(a);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) for a visa covered by paragraph (1)(d)—at the time the non-citizen was most recently released from immigration detention, as described in that paragraph, before the grant of the visa;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) details of any attempts to remove or deport the non-citizen from Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The statement about the grant of a visa to a non-citizen must not include:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the non-citizen's name, date of birth or residential address; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) information that would reveal the identity of the non-citizen; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) information the disclosure of which would, or could reasonably be expected to, cause damage to the security, defence or international relations of the Commonwealth.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Preparation and tabling within 7 days</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The statement about the grant of a visa to a non-citizen must be prepared within the period (the <inline font-style="italic">relevant period</inline>) of 7 days starting:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) for a visa granted before this section commences—on the day this section commences; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) otherwise—on the day the visa is granted.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The Minister must, within the relevant period, cause a copy of the statement:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if a House of the Parliament is not sitting after the statement is prepared and before the end of relevant period—to be presented or tabled at the earliest opportunity in accordance with the practices of that House.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Natural justice hearing rule</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) The Minister is not required to observe any requirements of the natural justice hearing rule in exercising a power or performing a function under this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 21), at the end of the Schedule, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 Application of amendments — section 76G</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Section 76G of the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline>, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a visa covered by paragraph 76G(1)(a), (b) or (c) granted, or taken to have been granted, to a non-citizen before, on or after the commencement of this item;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a visa covered by paragraph 76G(1)(d) granted to a non-citizen on or after that commencement, whether the non-citizen was released from immigration detention before, on or after that commencement.</para></quote>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [18:39]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>24</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>30</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.<br />Bill reported with amendments and an amendment to the title.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>6601</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nature Repair Market Bill 2023, Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>6601</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7014" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Nature Repair Market Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7013" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>6601</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that to achieve the aims of the bill in enhancing and protecting biodiversity, the Government must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) create an investment strategy for biodiversity conservation programs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) implement the recommendations of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) undertake a review of the governance of the nature repair market and whether responsibility for the market should be transferred to the Environmental Protection Agency once that agency has been established".</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Original question, as amended, agreed to.</para>
<para>Bills read a second time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>6601</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration of Legislation</title>
          <page.no>6601</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Assistant Minister for Education, Senator Chisholm, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent a minister moving, in committee of the whole, amendments to the bill which amend the <inline font-style="italic">Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation</inline><inline font-style="italic">Act</inline><inline font-style="italic"> 1999</inline> to expand the circumstances in which certain petroleum mining developments must be assessed and approved by the minister administering that Act.</para></quote>
<para>Colleagues, for the avoidance of doubt, since the government has circulated amendments to the EPBC Act and since the EPBC Act is not otherwise amended by the Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill, the government is taking this step to enable the amendments to the Nature Repair Market Bill to be moved. It's a necessary procedural step. It enables the Senate to deliver important and commonsense environmental reform.</para>
<para>This is an important reform. Our government is seeking to establish the world's first national nature repair market, and this market will make it easier for businesses, philanthropists and others to invest in projects that restore and repair nature across Australia without greenwashing. Investment in the nature repair market means landholders, including farmers and First Nations groups, will get paid to improve the environment on their properties. For example, this may involve repairing damaged riverbeds, replanting critical habitat of threatened species or removing invasive species, such as feral cats and weeds. Tonight our government is also seeking to update the water trigger so that all new unconventional gas projects will be assessed for their impact on water resources. Before the election, Labor promised to do this, and we are delivering. We set this out in the Nature Positive Plan, which was released at the end of last year, after consulting with APPEA and the gas industry.</para>
<para>These are reforms which have been proposed by at least three reports: the Northern Territory government's Pepper scientific inquiry, the 2018 Senate inquiry into water use by the extractive industries and the 2021 interim report of the Senate inquiry into oil and gas exploration and production in the Beetaloo basin. All of these inquiries recommended that the EPBC water trigger be expanded to cover all forms of unconventional gas. It's a commonsense change, colleagues, providing business with certainty and the community with confidence that water resources and our environment are properly regulated and protected. The update will expand the water trigger which already applies to coal seam gas to include other types of unconventional gas developments, such as shale gas. Most new gas projects will be unaffected by the change, as coal seam gas production is already covered by the existing water trigger and the changes do not apply to conventional gas production. Existing gas projects that are in production and have already been approved are unaffected by this update. Projects regulated by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, NOPSEMA, will also be unaffected by this update. This will provide certainty for business and ensure continuity of gas supply.</para>
<para>We are grateful for the support of members of the crossbench to pursue these two important government initiatives together. We have agreed to support a number of amendments proposed by the Greens—namely, amendments to prevent biodiversity certificates from being used as environmental offsets and to remove references to offsets from the bill, and an amendment to change the name of the bill. The government has had many conversations with the crossbench about delivering our commitments, and that includes our nature repair market and expanding the water trigger. We are working with all members of the crossbench on this legislation. This is an important reform, colleagues. These are important initiatives, and I commend them to the chamber.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think this rather proves the point of what is exactly the definition of a shambolic government that is rushing towards the end of the year, doing dodgy deals with the Greens and perhaps others that we have no visibility of. Just yesterday, we had this motion that Senator McAllister has referred to. It had no detail, was nebulous in its construct and talked about provisions of the EPBC Act to be referred to in assessing and approving certain petroleum mining developments. 'Certain'—we didn't know what they were. Only at 5.52 this evening—less than an hour ago—have we seen the amendments relating to these particular issues. It is really starting to become a pattern of behaviour in this place that the government seems to think that scrutiny is not important.</para>
<para>I might remind the Senate that, of course, just yesterday we voted on a motion to end a further four months of scrutiny on the Nature Market Repair Bill and the associated bill—legislation which, up until yesterday, no-one other than the government supported. In relation to the Australian Greens, I read Senator Hanson-Young's comments in the committee hearings saying that the bill was in tatters, that it had no friends and that it was going to leave the environment worse off. Now here we are with an arrangement between the Australian Labor Party and the Greens political party rushing to have this bill voted on and passed before parliament rises. So urgent this is that we must get it done before the parliament rises! As a sign of disrespect to this chamber, the people we represent and the industries that keep our economy ticking over, we're going to rush these amendments in with no or little information or clarity around what they're actually about. I'm glad we have at least an hour and a half of committee stage to interrogate this flurry of amendments, including the amendments from the government that have been talked about here by Senator McAllister. She gave some clarity around what has been tabled just less than an hour ago, at 5.52 pm, this document here, which outlines what the government's new plan is—the one that wasn't contemplated in the committee inquiry, wasn't referred to in the government senators report and wasn't referred to in the Greens' dissenting report, a 'dissenting' report in a bill that they're now going to support. What an interesting change of events there!</para>
<para>I want to know exactly—and I'll be able to ask these questions—what consultation was had with industry about these amendments tabled less than an hour ago. I'm going to hazard a guess: none. I'd love to know which participants in the industry are caught up in this set of amendments. I don't think they know. I don't think they've actually gone out to figure it out. It's just about getting a deal before the end of the year because the government needs a win. It has been a terrible couple of weeks, and, in fact, it has been a terrible 18 months, if you really think about it—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Reynolds</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>For the nation.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>For the nation, as Senator Reynolds says. No one's better off. The cost of living is going through the roof. People feel less secure. And here we are, to get a win before the end of the year, doing deals with the Greens political party on things that were not contemplated at any point through the deliberations in the committee process.</para>
<para>We're seeking to suspend standing orders to be able to bring on these extraneous amendments relating to another act, which were referred to in a nebulous fashion yesterday, and we don't know what the extent of the consequences is going to be. But do you know what? I suspect the government have got the numbers. They've done a deal. We still don't know what price has been paid for these amendments to be supported by the government—this expanded water trigger that is going to have massive impacts—or whether any modelling has been done on the costs to people who may wish to get a project up, to create jobs, to provide energy to the market. We don't know. Has there been a regulatory impact statement, which is something good governments normally do? I'd be interested to know, to foreshadow that question. I'm sure Senator McDonald has similar questions as well. Again, I'll take a punt on that: I don't reckon any of this has been done, because it is the last week of the year, ladies and gentlemen, and it's all about getting a deal. It's all about getting a win. It's all about looking like we're in control and we know what we're doing.</para>
<para>Not only are the impacts of these amendments unknown and we've barely had an hour to read through the documents that have been dropped on our desks but, in fact, we don't know about a range of amendments that the minister has already said the government have agreed to and what impact they will have. We will consider our position on all of them, but, at the end of the day, I'd just say that this year ends as it has been all the way throughout—that is, shambolic. This is a government that lurches from one problem to the next and does dodgy deals to try and look like it's in control. This is not the bill they had on the table all the way through the committee process. They have cut off scrutiny because they are embarrassed about where they're going. It's all about getting a win. They don't care about the Australian people, and these amendments just prove that.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Greens will be supporting this contingency motion. The reason is that, if we are going to be voting and passing environmental legislation in this place, it should be environmental legislation that actually does something. Under the amendments that have been circulated by the Greens and the new set of amendments that has been circulated by the government to incorporate a water trigger into our nation's environmental laws, finally, this bill actually does something.</para>
<para>I will take Senator Duniam's point from his contribution just now that, when this bill was first tabled, it was a dog's breakfast. It didn't protect the environment, and all it did was provide offsets for corporations to destroy one piece of environment over here while pretending to protect something else over there. 'Destroy a koala habitat here, and, hopefully, look after some Tassie devil habitat there—I am offsetting the environment against itself.' That is what a dog of a bill this was. With the amendments that have been tabled and circulated today, this bill will now be a bill that protects the environment and puts in place environmental assessments particularly in relation to fracking projects. It is absolutely bonkers that in 2023 we have environmental laws in this country that do not require any type of environmental assessment for big gas corporations to frack. Zilch. Zero. It's time that was fixed. That is why this amendment is important. That is why this contingency motion is essential.</para>
<para>I spend a lot of time talking to traditional owners in the Northern Territory. I spend a lot of time talking to farmers in the Northern Territory. They tell me, over and over again, that they want proper process. They want due process for these projects. They want to know that there will be a proper assessment, that someone is looking at what is being proposed, that someone is looking at the facts, that someone is thinking about the consequences and that there is some national oversight of this. That is what this motion before us now will allow to happen. It will amend our environment laws to give a proper overview before any big fracking projects are just ticked off.</para>
<para>I will speak further in the committee stage in relation to the Greens amendments to remove and scrap all of the offsets in this Nature Repair Market Bill. I will also speak to amendments that change the name of the bill. That's because no longer is this the Nature Repair Market Bill this government brought forward; it is essentially a new bill that, if it gets through this place, passed by the Senate, will establish proper protection for the environment, establish proper protection for our precious water resources and ensure that big corporations can't continue to greenwash. That is what this amended bill will deliver if we can get it done. I urge every member of this place to take the opportunity to do it. We are about to leave parliament at the end of the week. Wouldn't it be good to give the environment a Christmas present it deserves?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Scrutiny or, rather, the avoidance of scrutiny is what drives the Greens and Labor coalition in the Senate. The Greens stated recently, just days ago, that they were strongly opposed to this bill, this 'nature repair' bill. What about the arrogance? The Greens now support it because Labor has agreed to allow the Greens to move amendments to the EPBC Act. The Greens will support Labor's disastrous Nature Repair Market Bill in return for Labor's support for the Greens' disastrous amendments to an existing law not before the Senate. This is preposterous. It's very dodgy. It's unheard of. And why? Because their arrogance says that the Labor-Greens-Teal coalition in the Senate can get away with it. They are saying to the people of Australia: 'To hell with you lot. We will give you the middle finger.' That's why they're doing it. They are hiding their political mates and bosses from scrutiny. They're not doing it properly.</para>
<para>Senator Hanson-Young talked about saving koala habitats. Their wind turbines and solar panels are killing koala habitats and they are actually talking about bludgeoning koalas. 'That's the way to do it,' they say. They want to avoid scrutiny and are killing the environment to save it!</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Notice that they can't handle an argument. They start getting into invective. Speaking of scrutiny, last week's water amendment bill revealed under scrutiny, because it was allowed just briefly, 31 amendments from the government in the House of Representatives, plus 20 amendments in the Senate, on its own bill. That's 51 government amendments in total to its own bill. This is typical of what we have seen for 18 months. Then, if you add the amendments of the crossbenchers and the Liberals, you get 69 amendments to a water amendment bill. Consultation? Ha!</para>
<para>Then there was the identity verification scheme rushed in here. Again, they are hiding from scrutiny. That's the theme of the Labor government and its Green and Teal coalition partners—protecting themselves from scrutiny. The Greens used to be in favour of orders for the production of documents, but not anymore. They protect Labor quite often. Then we see Minister Burke protecting their mates from scrutiny and falsely creating the dishonest label 'closing loopholes' to hide the Hunter region Mining and Energy Union's complicity in aiding some labour hire firms in Australia's largest ever wage theft, worth billions of dollars. They're doing nothing about the fact that the Fair Work Commission protects blatant breaches of law in approving the Mining and Energy Union's enterprise agreements, enabling systemic wage theft, hiding their mates from scrutiny and protecting the Fair Work Ombudsman for using a fraudulent document that covers up the Mining and Energy Union's enterprise agreements, enabling systemic wage theft. They're hiding their mates and donors, their agenda and their coalition partners. One Nation will be opposing this.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McDONALD</name>
    <name.id>123072</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What an absolute farce this is. I rise to speak against the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 and whatever dodgy deal has been done where Labor has capitulated to the Greens political party yet again. We are seeing the standard of Labor's parliamentary process, where they promise the world, then rush a backroom deal and try to ram through legislation without consultation. What was the promise to the Greens political party from this Labor government, a government that obviously struggles to keep its word?</para>
<para>On 15 May 2023, the Minister for the Environment and Water, Ms Plibersek, told RN Breakfast:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I'm proposing to release those exposure drafts in the second half of this year so people will be able to comment on the proposed changes that we're making.</para></quote>
<para>That was the environment minister. What a joke that is, because here we are with absolutely no consultation—in fact, the ink is not dry on the amendments that we're looking at now. Where were these exposure drafts? Where can people comment on these changes? Well, they miss out on that, thanks to yet another dodgy deal through the back room. I remember the days when the Greens believed in transparency and good government. What a happy memory that is. Has anyone had the chance to review this legislation? Or has Labor only bothered to consult the people who are the most out of touch with Australians—the Australian Greens political party?</para>
<para>This pattern should not be a revelation, though, to the Australian public as it's become apparent that the Albanese Labor government are desperate to protect their own political careers by trying to buy Greens votes in Melbourne and Sydney. Surely it is only a coincidence that there was a swing to the Greens at the last election in Minister Plibersek's electorate. What about the rest of her Labor colleagues? Have any Labor members from Western Australia or the Northern Territory faced up to their constituents and had to tell them that Minister Plibersek is trying to save her own political career by pandering to Greens votes in inner-city Sydney or that Labor are abandoning the gas and manufacturing industries to save their own necks? What about Labor Premier Roger Cook, who recently had to come out and try and defend the gas industry, saying, 'No-one will thank us if we don't have enough gas.' Is Premier Cook aware of the dirty, dodgy backroom deals being done between his federal colleagues and the Greens political party that put his state budget in the firing line? Any claim from the Labor government that they support the gas industry is undermined by their continual capitulation to the Greens political party. We have had the safeguards amendment, funding of the EDO and the anti-gas Middle Arm inquiry, not to mention housing deals and the Murray-Darling Basin. And now we have this rushed backroom deal to target gas supply. This Greens political party is pulling the strings of the Labor Party, as if they were already in government together.</para>
<para>But, even without this dodgy, rushed deal, this legislation is another example of Labor putting their inner-city Greens fantasies ahead of the realities of life for hardworking Australians, especially land managers like farmers and graziers. Labor has consistently attacked and undermined farmers, removing property rights, legislating away farmers' water rights, removing markets, stalling necessary road infrastructure and removing the ability to fish. Now this government sponsored carbon frenzy means projects are being waved through by local councils with just the bare minimum of regulatory scrutiny.</para>
<para>This is an absolute travesty, to have these amendments come into this place with no consultation—no consultation with industry, no consultation with members and elected representatives of those communities, and even no consultation with environment groups. I have flicked through the amendments, because I only recently got them, and there are questions that we will drive a truck through tonight. This is not the way we make legislation—with these kinds of rushed, poorly drafted amendments to get a deal done so that the Greens will support the Nature Market Repair Bill, which they've already said they didn't agree with; they said it was a dog of legislation. Are Australians going to live with the dog and the fleas that sit on its back, thanks to these terrible amendments to the EPBC Act?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Perhaps I can decode the LNP's concerns about lack of consultation. I think what the senator is saying is they haven't had a chance to talk to their fossil fuel donors about this yet! They haven't been on the phone to Santos, Woodside, Tamboran or maybe Origin Energy! It surprises me, Senator McDonald—through you, Deputy President—that you haven't talked to the other stakeholders you claim to represent, who are farmers.</para>
<para>Let's look at this. There are two consequential things we're doing here. The first thing is we're passing a strongly amended version of the Nature Market Repair Bill, which was a Liberal Party policy. This was brought to me by Mr Littleproud's office when I had the agriculture portfolio in the last parliament. This was put up to help farmers. I might remind the senator that Farmers for Climate Action—who have over 10½ thousand members now and are a big part of the NFF—recently surveyed their members, and over 5,000 members, two-thirds of them, supported an amendment version of the Nature Market Repair Bill passing the parliament. What they didn't support was using biodiversity credits to offset developers and environmental destruction. And they had some other sensible suggestions for amendments. So you claim to support farmers, Senator McDonald, but here you are trying to run interference on a bill that's actually going to help farmers if we get it right.</para>
<para>The second thing I want to point out—and I respect, Senator McDonald, that you come from a big grazier's dynasty up in Queensland—is this: what about the farmers and graziers in the Northern Territory or the Beetaloo basin, who have consistently raised concerns about the impact fracking is going to have on aquifers and water resources in the Northern Territory? Where are they being represented in this parliament? They're being represented here tonight by the Greens and the government, who are at least passing sensible checks and balances so that these things can be assessed. If you claim to represent farmers, at least get your facts straight—or don't try and sell only one part of the story to suit your political spin.</para>
<para>I want to say a few words in addition to that; I know we've got our Senate end-of-year party on soon, and I didn't get a chance to do a second reading speech! Like Senator Hanson-Young, I really hate the name of this legislation—the Nature Repair Market Bill. Markets can't repair nature. Governments can, and people can help—farmers want to help—but markets are probably responsible for all the problems we've got in nature and are the reason it needs repair in the first place. Any economic student will tell you the government's role is to solve externalities caused by business activities and markets. But, sadly, when you're in the pocket of fossil fuel donors, that's not going to happen.</para>
<para>Senator McDonald is saying there has been no consultation on this bill. This bill has gone to inquiries and there has been significant consultation. The Australia Institute told us that the use of markets to solve biodiversity problems is about six per cent of the estimation of what actually needs to be put in to solve the extinction crisis we have before us—things such as protecting land and water, more national parks, more marine parks, new environment laws that actually do their job and fully-funded threatened species recovery plans. There is so much we need to do if we are going to help nature and help restore nature.</para>
<para>I wanted to put on record here that I do not support the idea of markets repairing nature. Nevertheless, as Senator Hanson-Young has so eloquently pointed out, voluntary markets already exist. You can already get credits in biodiversity markets. You can already make donations to programs—some of them are very good. But this will actually help put some regulation around that, and I look forward to seeing the detail when it comes before the Senate.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion as moved by Senator McAllister be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [19:14]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>30</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                <name>Lines, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>23</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Antic, A.</name>
                <name>Askew, W.</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                <name>Scarr, P. M. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>6606</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nature Repair Market Bill 2023, Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>6606</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7014" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Nature Repair Market Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7013" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>6606</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to the Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023. Due to the routine of business today, I didn't, like others, have the opportunity to make a summing-up speech in the usual way. I want to take the opportunity now to place certain matters before the Senate and acknowledge the debate that has occurred so far, and I thank senators for their contributions.</para>
<para>This bill supports the operation of the nature repair market being established under the Nature Repair Market Bill. The bill will make it easier for businesses and philanthropic organisations to invest in reversing environmental decline and repairing and restoring nature. This bill will amend the Clean Energy Regulator Act to enable the Clean Energy Regulator to effectively regulate the nature repair market. This includes allowing for members of the regulator to have relevant experience in the market. This bill will also amend the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act to allow the nature repair market to utilise the expertise of qualified and experienced auditors, ensuring integrity in the delivery of biodiversity projects.</para>
<para>Minister Plibersek has worked closely with Minister Bowen, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, and they are committed to a nature repair market with integrity and transparency. This includes ensuring that the Clean Energy Regulator is resourced in operating to deliver its regulatory functions efficiently and effectively. The Clean Energy Regulator will be able to delegate its powers to staff within the environment department. This will ensure that the regular has access to the best expertise available for its regulatory powers and functions.</para>
<para>Earlier today, I circulated government amendments to the bill. These amendments will amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to expand the water trigger to cover unconventional gas developments. Before the election Labor promised to do this, and we are delivering. This is a commonsense change. It provides business with certainty, and it provides the community with confidence that water resources and our environment are properly regulated and protected. The update will expand the water trigger to include other types of unconventional gas projects, such as shale gas projects, which are emerging as a potential new use of fracking in Australia. Most new gas projects will be unaffected by the change as coal seam gas production is already covered by the existing water trigger, and the trigger does not apply to conventional gas production.</para>
<para>The transitional arrangements will provide certainty for business and ensure continuity of gas supply. Existing gas projects that are in commercial operation and already have a Commonwealth, state or territory approval are unaffected by the new laws. For clarity, a project is not in commercial operation merely because it is in the planning, exploration or appraisal phase, irrespective of any sale of gas from this precommercial activity. Projects regulated by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, NOPSEMA, will also be unaffected by this update. The water trigger will also not apply to projects that have already been through the EPBC Act approval process. The water trigger will apply to all unconventional gas production that has a significant impact on water resources. This includes all activities associated with the different phases of the production process, including exploration, appraisal, extraction, recovery or intentional release of gas, whether by drilling, hydraulic fracturing or other means.</para>
<para>The expansion of the water trigger has been an important issue for Northern Territory parliamentarians, particularly the member for Lingiari, Marion Scrymgour, and Senator McCarthy, and I acknowledge their work and advocacy. This issue, more broadly, is important for many First Nations communities. I acknowledge that their concerns are broader than proper environmental regulation of water. Water has important cultural value, and First Nations communities are rightly concerned to protect this value as well. We will keep working with First Nations on this as we implement these laws.</para>
<para>The Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications held an inquiry into the bill, which included public hearings and the receipt of written submissions. The committee's report was released on 4 December. The committee made one recommendation, which is that both the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 and the Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 be passed, and the government accepts this recommendation.</para>
<para>I conclude by indicating that we are delighted to have received support from many members of the crossbench for an update to the water trigger. We are grateful for their willingness to support the government pursuing this alongside this other important government initiative, the nature repair market. We have agreed to support a number of amendments proposed by the Greens—principally, amendments to prevent biodiversity certificates being used as environmental offsets and to remove references to offsets from the bill and an amendment to change the name of the bill. We, of course, appreciate the conversations we have with the crossbench every day on delivering our commitments, and that includes the conversations we've had about the nature repair market and expanding the water trigger. I thank senators again for their contributions. I commend the bills to the Senate.</para>
<para>With respect to the Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023, I seek leave to move government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet SF110 together.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table), omit the table (not including the note), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Page 8 (after line 22), at the end of the bill, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 2—Protecting water resources from additional kinds of unconventional gas developments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 1—Amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Subdivision FB of Division 1 of Part 3 (heading)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "coal seam gas development", substitute "unconventional gas development".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 Subparagraphs 24D(1)(a)(i), (2)(a)(i) and (3)(a)(i)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subparagraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) unconventional gas development; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 Subparagraphs 24E(1)(a)(i), (2)(a)(i) and (3)(a)(i)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subparagraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) unconventional gas development; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 Subsection 130(4A)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "Coal Seam Gas", substitute "Unconventional Gas Development".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 Section 131AB (heading)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "Coal Seam Gas", substitute "Unconventional Gas Development".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 Subparagraph 131AB(1)(a)(i)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subparagraph, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) unconventional gas development; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 Subsection 131AB(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "Coal Seam Gas", substitute "Unconventional Gas Development".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 Paragraph 136(2)(fa)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "Coal Seam Gas", substitute "Unconventional Gas Development".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">9 Subparagraph 304(1)(a)(viia)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "coal seam gas development", substitute "unconventional gas development".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">10 Paragraph 305(1)(ga)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "coal seam gas development", substitute "unconventional gas development".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">11 Subparagraphs 305(1A)(b)(via) and (c)(viia)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "coal seam gas development", substitute "unconventional gas development".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">12 Paragraph 305(2)(ea)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "coal seam gas development", substitute "unconventional gas development".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">13 Subparagraphs 306(1)(a)(viia) and (b)(viia) and (2)(a)(viia) and (b)(viia)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "coal seam gas development", substitute "unconventional gas development".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">14 Division 2B of Part 19 (heading)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "Coal Seam Gas", substitute "Unconventional Gas Development".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">15 Subsection 505C(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subsection, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The committee established by this section as previously in force is continued in existence with the new name of the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Unconventional Gas Development and Large Coal Mining Development.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: See also section 25B of the <inline font-style="italic">Acts Interpretation Act 1901</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">16 Paragraphs 505D(1)(a) and (b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "coal seam gas developments", substitute "unconventional gas developments".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">17 Subparagraphs 505D(1)(c)(i) and (d)(i) and (ii)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "coal seam gas", substitute "unconventional gas".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">18 Paragraphs 505D(1)(e), (f) and (g)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "coal seam gas", substitute "unconventional gas".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">19 Paragraph 506(d)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "Coal Seam Gas", substitute "Unconventional Gas Development".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">20 Section 528 (definition of <inline font-style="italic">bioregional assessment</inline> )</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "coal seam gas development", substitute "unconventional gas development".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">21 Section 528 (definition of <inline font-style="italic">coal seam gas development</inline> )</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the definition.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">22 Section 528 (definition of <inline font-style="italic">Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development</inline> )</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the definition.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">23 Section 528</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Unconventional Gas Development and Large Coal Mining Development </inline>means the Committee established by section 505C.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">unconventional gas development</inline> means any activity involving unconventional gas production that has, or is likely to have, a significant impact on water resources (including any impacts of associated salt production and/or salinity):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) in its own right; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) when considered with other developments, whether past, present or reasonably foreseeable developments.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">unconventional gas production</inline> means extraction, recovery, or intentional release, (whether by drilling, hydraulic fracturing or other means) of gas from:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) coal seams or beds; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) layers of shale rock; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) tight gas reservoirs; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) any other sources prescribed by the regulations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 2—Application and transitional provisions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">24 Definitions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In this Part:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">commencement day</inline> means the day this Schedule commences.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">main Act </inline>means the <inline font-style="italic">Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">transitional period</inline> means the period of 90 business days (measured in Canberra), beginning on the first such business day that is on or after the commencement day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">25 Amendments apply to actions taken after commencement</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The amendments made by Part 1 of this Schedule apply in relation to an action involving unconventional gas development that is taken on or after the commencement day, even if the action began before that time, unless item 26, 27 or 28 of this Schedule applies in relation to the action.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a proposal by a person to take the action was referred to the Minister under Division 1 of Part 7 of the main Act before the commencement day; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) immediately before the commencement day, the Minister has not decided whether the action is a controlled action; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Minister has given a notice under section 74 of the main Act in relation to the action;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the validity of the notice is not affected by the amendments and the Minister is not required to give another notice under that section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) However, if, after the commencement day, the Minister receives comments in response to the invitation in the notice (and within the period specified in the notice) that relate to whether the action is a controlled action for the purposes of a provision of section 24D or 24E of the main Act as amended by Part 1 of this Schedule, the Minister's duty under subsection 75(1A) of the main Act to consider comments includes a duty to consider any such comments.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">26 Amendments do not apply—certain referred proposals</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The amendments made by Part 1 of this Schedule do not apply in relation to an action taken on or after the commencement day if, immediately before the commencement day:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an approval of the taking of the action is in operation under Part 9 of the main Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) both:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a decision that the action is not a controlled action is in operation under section 75 of the main Act; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the decision was not made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a particular manner.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The amendments made by Part 1 of this Schedule do not apply in relation to an action taken on or after the commencement day if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) immediately before that day, a decision that the action is not a controlled action is in operation under section 75 of the main Act; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the decision was made because the Minister believed the action would be taken in a particular manner; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the action is being taken in that manner.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The amendments made by Part 1 of this Schedule do not apply in relation to an action taken on or after the commencement day if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a proposal by a person to take the action was referred to the Minister under Division 1 of Part 7 of the main Act before the commencement day; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) immediately before the commencement day, all of the following circumstances exist:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Minister has not decided whether or not to approve the taking of the action for the purposes of any controlling provisions;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the person has been informed under section 131AA of the main Act of the decision the Minister proposes to make in relation to the action;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) if section 131AB of the main Act applies—the Minister has obtained advice from the Independent Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development in accordance with subsection 131AB(2) of the main Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">27 Amendments do not apply—development currently in production</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The amendments made by Part 1 of this Schedule do not apply in relation to an action involving unconventional gas development taken on or after the commencement day if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the unconventional gas development does not involve the extraction of coal seam gas; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the unconventional gas development was in production (within the meaning of subitem (2)) before the commencement day; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) immediately before the commencement day:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the action was authorised by a petroleum production authorisation (within the meaning of subitem (3)); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the action was not contravening a provision of Part 3 of the main Act; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the action continues to be authorised by the petroleum production authorisation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) For the purposes of this item, a development is <inline font-style="italic">in production</inline> if the development is extracting or producing gas:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) commercially; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth and of any State or Territory that apply in relation to the development.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) For the purposes of this item, a <inline font-style="italic">petroleum production authorisation</inline> is a licence, permit, or other authority granted under a law of the Commonwealth or a State or Territory, that authorises the extraction of petroleum for commercial production. However, it does not include a lease or licence that is primarily for the purpose of reservation, retention or exploration.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">28 Amendments do not apply—development that has ceased operation</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments made by Part 1 of this Schedule do not apply in relation to an action involving unconventional gas development taken on or after the commencement day if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the unconventional gas development does not involve the extraction of coal seam gas; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) immediately before the commencement day, the action was not contravening a provision of Part 3 of the main Act; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) immediately before the commencement day, either or both of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) extraction and production of gas by the development had permanently ceased;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) post-production had permanently ceased.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">29 Minister to decide whether amended provisions are controlling provisions for certain controlled actions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This item applies in relation to an action if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a proposal by a person to take the action was referred to the Minister under Division 1 of Part 7 of the main Act before the commencement day; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the action involves unconventional gas development; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) item 26 does not apply in relation to the action; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) before the commencement day, the Minister decided under section 75 of the main Act that the action is a controlled action; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) immediately before the commencement day, the Minister has not decided whether or not to approve the taking of action under Part 9 of the main Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Minister must, before the end of the transitional period, decide in accordance with this item whether any provisions of section 24D or 24E of the main Act as amended by Part 1 of this Schedule are controlling provisions for the action.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Before making the decision, the Minister must give the person proposing to take the action a written notice:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) setting out the decision the Minister proposes to make; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) inviting the person to give the Minister written comments on the proposed decision within 10 business days (measured in Canberra) of the day the notice is given to the person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Before making the decision, the Minister (the <inline font-style="italic">Environment Minister</inline>) may:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notify any other Minister whom the Environment Minister considers has administrative responsibilities relating to the proposed decision; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) invite the relevant Minister to give the Environment Minister written comments on the proposed decision, within 10 business days (measured in Canberra).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) If the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that the Minister does not have enough information to make a decision under subitem (2), the Minister may request the person proposing to take the action to provide specified information relevant to making the decision.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) If the Minister requests further information under subitem (5), the period within which the Minister is required to make a decision under subitem (2) is extended by the number of business days in the period:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) starting on the day the Minister requests the information; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ending on the day the Minister receives the last of the information requested.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) In making a decision under subitem (2), the Minister must consider:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) any comments received within the period specified in an invitation given under paragraph (3)(b) or (4)(b); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any further information provided in response to a request made under subitem (5); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) any information included in the referral of the proposal to take the action relating to whether the action is a controlled action; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) any other information, or any comments, relating to whether the action is a controlled action received (whether before or after the commencement day) in response to an invitation made before the commencement day under section 74 of the main Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Subsections 75(2), (2A) and (2B) of the main Act apply in relation to the Minister's decision under this item:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) as if it were a decision under that section; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) as if references to matters protected by provisions of Part 3 were references to matters protected by provisions of sections 24D and 24E of the main Act as amended by Part 1 of this Schedule.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Within 10 business days after making a decision under subitem (2), the Minister must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) give written notice of the decision to the person proposing to take the action; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) publish notice of the decision in accordance with any regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 77(1)(b) of the main Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) The Minister must give reasons for the decision to the person proposing to take the action if the person makes a written request, within 28 days of being given the notice, that the Minister do so. The Minister must do so as soon as practicable, and in any case, within 28 days of receiving the request.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) The main Act has effect, after the Minister makes a decision under subitem (2) (the <inline font-style="italic">new controlling provisions decision</inline>), as if the decision mentioned in paragraph (1)(d) (the <inline font-style="italic">original controlling provisions decision</inline>) were varied to give effect to the new controlling provisions decision.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(12) The validity of the original controlling provisions decision, and any other decision made under Part 7, 8 or 9 of the main Act before the Minister made the new controlling provisions decision:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) is not affected by the making of the new controlling provisions decision; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) cannot be revoked, varied, suspended, challenged, reviewed, set aside or called in question because of, or for reasons relating to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the making of the new controlling provisions decision; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the variation of the original controlling provisions decision as described in subitem (11).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(13) Anything done by the Minister under this item is not invalid merely because it was not done within the period required by this item. However, this does not reduce or remove an obligation under this item to do a thing within a particular period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">30 Minister to consider whether assessment approach should be changed</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This item applies in relation to an action if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Minister has decided under subitem 29(2) that provisions of sections 24D and 24E of the main Act as amended by Part 1 of this Schedule are controlling provisions for the action (the <inline font-style="italic">new controlling provisions decision</inline>); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) before the commencement day, the Minister had made a decision under section 87 of the main Act as to the approach to be used for assessment of the relevant impacts of the action.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Minister may, before the end of the period within which the Minister is required to make the new controlling provisions decision, decide whether, as a result of the new controlling provisions decision, a different approach should be used for assessment of the relevant impacts of the action.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that the Minister does not have enough information to make a decision under subitem (2), the Minister may request the person proposing to take the action to provide specified information relevant to making the decision.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If the Minister requests further information under subitem (3), the period within which the Minister is required to make a decision under subitem (2) is extended by the number of business days in the period:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) starting on the day the Minister requests the information; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ending on the day the Minister receives the last of the information requested.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) In making a decision under subitem (2), the Minister must consider:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) any further information provided in response to a request made under subitem (3); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any comments or information received or provided as mentioned in paragraph 29(7)(a) and (b) relating to the approach to be used for assessment of the relevant impacts of the action; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) any information included in the referral of the proposal to take the action relating to the approach to be used for assessment of the relevant impacts of the action; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) any other information, or any comments, relating to the approach to be used for assessment of the relevant impacts of the action received (whether before or after the commencement day) in response to an invitation made before the commencement day under section 74 of the main Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Subsections 82(1) and (4) of the main Act apply in relation to the Minister's decision under subitem (2), as if references in those provisions to controlling provisions were references to provisions of sections 24D and 24E of the main Act as amended by Part 1 of this Schedule.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Within 10 business days after making a decision under subitem (2), the Minister must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) give written notice of the decision to the person proposing to take the action; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) publish notice of the decision in accordance with any regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 91(1)(b) of the main Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) The Minister must give reasons for the decision to the person proposing to take the action if the person makes a written request, within 28 days of being given the notice, that the Minister do so. The Minister must do so as soon as practicable, and in any case, within 28 days of receiving the request.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) The main Act has effect, after the Minister makes a decision under subitem (2) (the <inline font-style="italic">new assessment approach decision</inline>), as if the decision mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) (the <inline font-style="italic">original assessment approach decision</inline>) were varied to give effect to the new assessment approach decision.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) The validity of the original assessment approach decision, and any other decision made under Part 7, 8 or 9 of the main Act before the Minister made the new assessment approach decision:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) is not affected by the making of the new assessment approach decision; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) cannot be revoked, varied, suspended, challenged, reviewed, set aside or called in question because of, or for reasons relating to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the making of the new assessment approach decision; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the variation of the original assessment approach decision as described in subitem (9).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) Anything done by the Minister under this item is not invalid merely because it was not done within the period required by this item. However, this does not reduce or remove an obligation under this item to do a thing within a particular period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">31 Transitional rules</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules prescribing matters of a transitional nature (including prescribing any saving or application provisions) relating to the amendments or repeals made by Part 1 of this Schedule.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Rules made before the end of the period of 6 months starting on the commencement day may provide that provisions of this Part have effect with any modifications prescribed by the rules. The provisions then have effect as if they were so modified.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) To avoid doubt, the rules may not do the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) create an offence or civil penalty;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) provide powers of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) arrest or detention; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) entry, search or seizure;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) impose a tax;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) set an amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under an appropriation in this Schedule or the main Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) directly amend the text of this Schedule or the main Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) This Schedule (other than subitem (3)) does not limit the rules that may be made under this item.</para></quote>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I appreciate that outline from the minister about where we're at now. It sort of broadly lines up with the coalition's understanding of the rushed and botched process off the back of a fairly protracted committee process.</para>
<para>To that end, I'll go back to the supplementary explanatory memorandum that's been tabled by the government in relation to the consequential amendments. The minister talked about having worked closely with Minister Bowen and other entities. I presume the Australian Greens were in there. I'm trying to understand what has been proposed here. We have the backdrop of the cost-of-living crisis that this country is engulfed in at the moment. The people who frequent the public gallery to observe debate here are probably disappointed. Lack of supply has an impact on the price of gas. We talk about certainty about what will be provided as a result of this bill.</para>
<para>The water trigger that we are being asked to pass with an hour and five minutes of debate remaining was only tabled at 5.52, less than two hours ago. I'm wondering what consultation has occurred with industry. I know we get derided by the Australian Greens political party for talking about that—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>given, as Senator Scarr points out by way of interjections, the jobs they create and the resources they provide to the economy. As far as I can recall from the committee hearings I attended and the evidence I read, this was not actually contemplated by the Senate committee. What consultation was undertaken with industry about these consequential amendments that were moved by way of very vague motion? Which projects does the government know will be caught up and what modelling has been undertaken around the impact of the passage of these extraneous amendments?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I see that Senator Hanson-Young is on her feet, so, given the time, I will keep my remarks brief. The minister and her office have spoken with a range of affected and interested businesses and other organisations, as you'd expect with this kind of legislative reform. You ask about impacts on gas prices. This change will not impact existing gas projects whatsoever. What the changes do is keep pace with changing technology. Shale gas fracking was not on the cards when the water trigger was introduced in 2013. If it had been, it would logically have been included in the definition. The changes simply ensure that there is a level playing field for all unconventional gas projects that have the potential to have significant impacts on water. This was a change that we committed to at the election. Industry have had plenty of time to prepare for this change, and importantly, these changes will give the community confidence that the impacts of unconventional gas production and water resources will be properly regulated by the Commonwealth.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australians are sick of the greenwashing and the greed of big corporations wrecking our environment and fuelling climate change. That is why today the Greens have secured major reforms in this piece of legislation, to protect our waterways from fracking and our wildlife from big developers intent on destroying habitat. The Greens have secured an agreement from the government to drop dodgy offsets from their nature repair scheme. We have ensured the passage of an expanded water trigger in our environment laws before the end of the year, which we know is crucial, to force fracking projects to undergo environmental assessment for their impact on water, which is owned by all Australians. These significant environmental reforms will go a long way to protecting nature and climate from greenwashed destruction and dangerous fracking.</para>
<para>The inclusion of offsets in a scheme to protect nature was a red flag to begin with and was a key concern raised by the Greens, the environment sector and many others around the country. Allowing corporations to pay to destroy nature is not nature positive. An offset scheme would not save our wildlife but would greenwash the expansion of habitat destruction for fossil fuels, logging and big development, which harm our environment. Scrapping these controversial offsets is key to ensuring that this scheme will not allow greenwashing and will not supercharge the destruction of nature.</para>
<para>The Greens' amendment, agreed to by the government, will explicitly ensure that no biodiversity credits generated under the scheme can be used for offsetting. This will ensure that this nature repair scheme is truly a voluntary biodiversity accreditation scheme. This can facilitate private investment in nature to work alongside the much-needed government investment in biodiversity to help protect and restore nature. That is going to be a job still to do.</para>
<para>This scheme can help unlock private land to facilitate biodiversity restoration and allow groups like farmers or First Nations communities to undertake projects to restore wildlife biodiversity and habitat in their area. First Nations communities must be at the forefront of nature protection and restoration. It is critical that this scheme prioritise engagement with First Nations communities to cooperate on potential projects. Indigenous led land management is the most effective and efficient means by which to improve biodiversity outcomes, and this amended scheme can help facilitate that. Protection and restoration projects that work to ensure additional biodiversity outcomes are critical to targets like achieving zero extinctions and protecting 30 per cent of land and sea by 2030. By excluding offsets—banning offsets, dumping offsets—and stopping these projects from being used to justify disruption elsewhere, this scheme really could help work towards those targets.</para>
<para>This scheme does not and cannot replace government investment and leadership in biodiversity protection and restoration. Critically, the Greens have also received a commitment from the government to regularly publish investment strategies to guide this biodiversity accreditation scheme and any priority projects. By scrapping dodgy offsets, the Greens have successfully stopped this scheme from becoming greenwashing destruction. Instead, it will now facilitate private investment in real, accredited biodiversity restoration that is good for the environment. Dumping offsets was always an important part of winning Greens support for this legislation. We fought hard for it and tonight we will deliver it.</para>
<para>As part of this agreement, the Greens have also secured agreement that an expanded water trigger will pass into law by the end of this year. This will close the loophole which currently gives gas fracking corporations a licence to drill without there being any federal environmental water assessment. Currently, the Minister for the Environment and Water is required to assess only proposed coal seam gas projects for their water impact. Hydraulic fracturing projects remain exempt from this requirement despite their significant impact on water. Clearly, this is wrong and out-of-date and needs fixing. Today, after months of campaigning and negotiating, the Greens will ensure this is fixed. This water trigger will cover all phases of unconventional gas development, including exploration, appraisal and production. It will provide critical protection for Australia's rivers, aquifers and wetlands and the communities that rely on them. It will ensure that climate bombs like the Beetaloo basin must be assessed; that they can't just go ahead without any national oversight. It will throw a lifeline to water resources like the mighty Roper River in the Northern Territory.</para>
<para>Fracking uses enormous volumes of water and puts ground and surface water at risk of contamination. This extended water trigger will ensure the minister is required to undertake rigorous assessment of these projects and their impacts on critical water resources. The Greens, alongside many environmental and First Nations groups, have worked tirelessly to ensure this trigger is extended to cover destructive fracking projects. I want to thank in particular the delegation of traditional owners from the Northern Territory who visited parliament earlier this year to tell us about the impacts of fracking on their country. They said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We know this planned gas fracking will make climate change worse. We know if this fracking goes ahead we may not be able to live on country like we have for thousands and thousands of years. We need your help to keep our culture, our water, our climate and our children's futures safe.</para></quote>
<para>Our water, our land and our climate are all linked. These new environmental protections are critical in recognising this and protecting water resources into the future from the impacts of dangerous fracking. This is a hit on gas fracking corporations in places like the Beetaloo and the Kimberley. Closing the fracking loophole via the water trigger will mean gas companies will no longer be able to bypass Australia's environment laws, and fossil fuel companies will not be let off the hook for wrecking waterways and our climate.</para>
<para>After months of pressure and negotiation, the Albanese government has listened to the Greens' calls to deliver significant environmental reforms to protect nature and the climate from greenwashed habitat destruction and dangerous fracking—gas fracking. Scrapping the dodgy offsets that would facilitate the destruction of nature is critical to ensuring biodiversity investment that is additional and has integrity. Ensuring that damaging projects undergo environmental assessment is also critical for protecting biodiversity and our climate and communities. I want to thank the crossbenchers who will support these amendments that will be moved by the Greens and those we have negotiated with the government. I also want to thank Senator McCarthy in this place, who I know is very passionate about the water trigger in particular. I also want to thank Dr Sophie Scamps in the other place, who has fought hard to have this water trigger put in place as well.</para>
<para>Many, many Australians have long argued for an expanded water trigger—and tonight this is what they will get—to protect our environment and our waterways and to stop gas companies rigging the system, bypassing environment laws and thinking they can have whatever they want. Under these new laws, that will no longer be allowed.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased that at least we can now be honest—because there you have it. That contribution by the Greens' environment spokesperson actually laid out clearly exactly what has been going on here. It was a contribution given with a high degree of certainty which, to my mind, didn't exist until very recently. It sounds to me, as described by Senator Hanson-Young, that this has been in the making for quite some time. I commend the Greens for being the green tail that wags the Labor dog—again—and for being able to achieve these outcomes which, frankly, I feel are going to have a disastrous impact on the Australian economy and the cost of living. For all the things that have been said, this is not going to end well for Australians.</para>
<para>In the last answer that was given to me by the minister, it was put to me that a range of entities, individuals and organisations were consulted—no names. I'd appreciated it if there were names provided. I'd also be interested to know whether a regulatory impact statement was undertaken by the government in preparing these last-minute amendments. I'd also be interested to know exactly when these amendments were finalised—the date and time they were finalised—because, as I've already put on the record number of times in this debate, we received these amendments at 5.52, with the supplementary explanatory memorandum.</para>
<para>There are big changes afoot. They're going to have a significant impact. I think we're going to see a huge amount of duplication. These changes, I believe, will just pave another road for green lawfare to occur. That's great news for the environmental defenders office and bad news for gas consumers, bad news for the economy and bad news for the cost of living. But, I tell you what, that is exactly what certain people in this place proudly fight for, and good on them. That is something that they can stand up for. But I just have to reflect, in asking these questions, on the shambolic nature of where we are today. Just a day and a half away from this place rising for the summer break, from people going back to their electorates, we are rushing this legislation through as if it is going to change the world.</para>
<para>Just last Friday, contributions were sought from senators in relation to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill. There was the majority senators report, which of course told us the bill was amazing and needed no change whatsoever and recommended that the Senate pass the bill as drafted. There was the coalition dissenting report. Our position remains the same on this piece of legislation. We still think it's terrible. We still think it's bad. We still think it's unnecessary to go down this path for all of the reasons I've already outlined—all of the uncertainty it's going to bring about.</para>
<para>We can go through the various contributions to the committee inquiry. Lyndon Schneiders is the executive director of the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation. There was a big element of the debate that took place in relation to these bills during the committee process, and that was a fundamental principle that I thought everyone—or at least non-government senators—shared and stuck to. That was the need to deal with the EPBC Act first, to be able to get a framework legislation around national environmental approval laws in place, have the national environmental standards bedded down and have all of the other relevant elements put in place so we knew exactly what the landscape was going to be. That suddenly isn't a problem anymore. I will quote Lyndon Schneiders again, someone I probably won't quote too many times in this place. The executive director of the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We recommend that the NRM (Nature Repair Market) Bill be delayed until Parliament has been presented with key EPBC reforms, including proposed National Environmental Standards for environmental offsets, regional planning, and threatened species protection, to demonstrate that a rigorous and high integrity regulatory system will support the operation of the Nature Repair Market.</para></quote>
<para>Those concerns appear to have fallen on deaf ears tonight because we are wading into this area of legislative change, which is going to have significant impacts—and I do dispute what the minister said in the claim that this will have zero impact on the cost of gas because it won't affect existing projects. Sadly, supply is a key element to being able to meet demand and therefore has an impact on gas prices. So I don't buy that, and I think you will rue the day that you made those comments.</para>
<para>Given the concerns around that—and, in one of the hearings, Senator Hanson-Young herself made those very comments to departmental officials about this bill being in tatters and it being an absolute sham. But suddenly now it's okay to support it because of some amendments that appeared out of nowhere on the day we're debating this legislation. It just smacks of a Labor-Greens stitch-up, something we should have come to expect in this place. It's something that, sadly, is becoming a hallmark of this government in this term of parliament, where it looks like there's a proper fight on and that there's going to be some consistency and integrity shown by political parties, who go into a process saying, 'You know what? These are our red-line issues and we're not going to budge,' until they budge and they get a deal done behind closed doors, where there is no scrutiny and where there is no regulatory assessment of the impact that these new laws and regulations will have.</para>
<para>There is no modelling done on what cost implications there will be for individuals or entities seeking to commence a new project. We don't know how many organisations will be caught up in this, with projects that are planned. Surely the government, who work with entities out there, have some understanding of exactly what is in the offing. I haven't got an answer to that and I suspect we won't have one because there is no modelling and there is no concern for what this might mean for the economy, for the community and for the cost of living. It is, as I said before, simply about getting a deal done so that they can claim they have a win at the end of the year in order to try and cover over what has been one of the most shambolic fortnights in parliament, where we have seen terrible things happening and the government trying to pretend there are no issues at all.</para>
<para>More broadly, against the backdrop of a government that can't get its act together when it comes to environmental policy, we were promised that the national environmental law replacement, the replacement for the EPBC Act, would be in this place before the end of this year. We have a couple of days left, and there is nothing—not a thing to be seen with regard to that promise that was made by the government. And I wonder why. Why have they done the go-slow on that? Again, it points to the need for this government and this minister, Minister Plibersek, to get a win. And today she gets a win and the Australian Greens get a win. The people of Australia are the ones who are going to pay for the deal.</para>
<para>But, again, I'd love to know exactly who was consulted in the preparation of these additional consequential amendments that we're discussing right now. Was a regulatory impact statement done, and when, precisely, were these amendments finalised with the Greens given, as I said before, they were tabled at 5.52 this evening?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Duniam asked about particular organisations that have been consulted in relation to, I think, the water reforms. I think the senator would accept that the Nature Repair Market Bill has been the subject of consultation and discussion through the Senate inquiry, and, indeed, he referred to that in his earlier remarks.</para>
<para>But I'm advised that the minister has spoken with, amongst others, Santos, Beach Energy, Tamboran, Empire Energy, and Australian Energy Producers about the amendments that are proposed. But I do reiterate my earlier remarks, which are these. The government went to an election indicating our intention to introduce a water trigger that would cover unconventional gas projects. This is not a surprise. It shouldn't be a surprise to the opposition and will not be a surprise to industry either. In relation to regulatory impact statement requirements, the government has met its RIS requirements. A RIS was undertaken on the nature repair market, and the Samuel review into the EPBC Act satisfies the RIS requirement in relation to the water trigger generally.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, I'm interested to learn why the government hasn't included extended standing in this legislation in a similar way to section 487 of the EPBC Act. I understand that you believe that the market will function well. So, I'm interested as to why you don't then have extended standing as a precaution. And just to clarify: I mean for the nature repair market part of this; the water trigger's fine.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Are there any further questions while the minister seeks that advice?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McDONALD</name>
    <name.id>123072</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to continue with this theme of consultation. Previously I referred to Minister Plibersek's comments on 15 May telling ABC <inline font-style="italic">Radio National Breakfast</inline>:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I'm proposing to release those exposure drafts in the second half of this year so people will be able to comment on the proposed changes that we're making.</para></quote>
<para>Minister, we know that an exposure draft hadn't been released for this bill. You mentioned that it was no surprise that there was a water trigger coming. But surely the detail of these changes, these legislated black-letter law changes to the water trigger, matters. It matters how the legislation is written. So, my question to you is: when were relevant stakeholders advised that this bill would be debated this week? Were stakeholders consulted prior to the guillotine motion being passed by the government? And when did stakeholders—you named Tamboran and Empire, amongst others—see the black-letter legislation that we're now looking at?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In relation to the questions asked by Senator McDonald and by Senator Pocock, they're obviously questions where I need to seek advice from departmental staff. And I am the repping minister, so I apologise for not being able to provide the answer immediately, but I am seeking advice and will come back to the chamber when I'm able.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, you said in some of your previous remarks that you had taken a water trigger to the election. I'm just interested, in terms of timing, as to why the government hasn't brought that in the past 18 months, given that there are the numbers in the Senate to pass that swiftly. And now we've got this attached to an unrelated bill in these circumstances where I don't think we have adequate time to scrutinise the nature repair market.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator, you'll know, because we've talked about it at estimates and in other forums, that the government is seeking to progress an ambitious reform agenda around environment protection generally, of which nature repair one part. The amendment to create a water trigger that would cover all forms of unconventional gas is another. Further, there are the broader reforms around the EPBC Act that arose in part from the consideration of these questions undertaken by Professor Samuel under the previous government. This is a big legislative agenda. We have sought to progress it in the most efficient way possible. We know it requires consultation and discussion. We find ourselves in a position this week to progress two important parts of the government's agenda—the first being the establishment of the arrangements for the nature repair market and the second to put in place a water trigger. I think that you would support the latter. I'm uncertain about your views about the nature repair market as described in our legislation. But we look for opportunities to work with people within the parliament to progress our agenda and it's on that basis we are bringing forward the legislation this evening.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I assume we're still waiting for the previous answers. Thank you for that, Minister. It's disappointing that with a government that promises things like a water trigger and has a Senate urging it to get on with that and do it we have to wait 18 months and that it's been bundled into the NRM and pushed through like this when you could have brought it forward at any time. It took a crossbench deal to get you to come good on an environment election commitment, but we see the government very keen to put other election commitments through. Minister, my question is: will the government commit to no reduction in funding for nature and invasive species management after the market is created? The market cannot be a substitute for investment in public good.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pocock, I think you are asking whether the nature repair market and the arrangements that we are putting in place to allow the private sector to make investments in nature repair are the full extent of the government's plans in relation to protecting our environment, and the answer, of course, is no. We understand that there is an enormous amount of work to do in relation to restoring and protecting our environment.</para>
<para>Part of this arises from a very extended period of neglect. The government previously led by Mr Morrison and, before him, Mr Turnbull and, before him, Mr Abbott got report after report—including the <inline font-style="italic">State </inline><inline font-style="italic">of the </inline><inline font-style="italic">e</inline><inline font-style="italic">nvironment report</inline> and the review of the Water for the Environment Special Account—that showed them that nature was in serious strife, in serious trouble, and that the measures that they were supposed to be pursuing to protect assets like the Murray-Darling Basin were not on track. Instead of acting on those reports and on that information that was provided to them, they hid them. They got an independent review from Professor Samuel that showed that the environment laws were broken and they did nothing serious about that independent review to fix those laws. They refused to act on climate change, a question that we have addressed in other debates. They announced 22 different energy policies and didn't land any of them.</para>
<para>So we understand that there is a lot of work to do. Establishing a framework where we can harness private sector investment to support the repair of our natural assets is one part of that, but so is government funding for nature repair and so are better laws to protect our environment when we are contemplating development and so are arrangements to create additional protected areas so that there are parts of the terrestrial environment and the marine environment that are actually protected and the animals and plants that live in them are looked after. All of these things form part of a comprehensive package to tackle issues around the environment. This is not the beginning and the end of the things that our government considers important.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand your points about the previous government. I've got two questions. Given we're 18 months in, firstly, I’m interested in which of Graeme Samuel's recommendations the Albanese government have implemented. And, secondly, one of the things that kept coming up in the consultation I did on the nature repair market was that everyone said that there will need to be government investment to get this started. If you look at the carbon market, the ERF—a couple of billion dollars or $1.5 billion put into kickstarting that and actually getting a pipeline of projects. Every stakeholder seemed to say: 'Yes, it could potentially work. There are some integrity issues with the Clean Energy Regulator administering something like biodiversity,' which is not exactly fungible and a lot more complex than carbon. My question is how much money is the Albanese government committing to creating that demand and creating a pipeline of projects?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am able to come back to you now, Senator Pocock, in relation to the approach taken to both administrative review and merits review. The bill does define administrative decisions of the Clean Energy Regulator that can be reviewed, and they include refusal to register a project or refusal to issue a biodiversity certificate. Merits review of the decision can be initiated by a person aggrieved by the decision of the regulator, and this includes the person who made the application for the decision, and a decision of a delegate of the regulator would generally be reviewed internally before it can proceed by application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.</para>
<para>As you probably know, our government has initiated reforms to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the new model will apply to the nature repair market through relevant legislative amendments. The minister's decisions to make, vary or revoke a method or biodiversity assessment instrument or the advice of the independent advisory committee are not subject to merits review as they are not administrative decisions. The methods and biodiversity instrument are legislative instruments and subject to normal parliamentary process, including disallowance and sunsetting. Methods and biodiversity assessment instruments will be developed in consultation with stakeholders and must be reviewed by the independent advisory committee.</para>
<para>The committee's advice is not subject to merits review. However, the process for creating the advice involves a rigorous statutory process with many integrity elements, including public consultation. The final advice will be published along with submissions to public consultation and a statement of reasons by the minister, and this provides transparency about the advice and how elements such as the biodiversity integrity standards have been applied.</para>
<para>In addition, the independent statutory reviews of the bill conducted every five years will include a review of the operation of the committee and the kinds of advice provided to the committee. Decisions made under the bill may also be reviewed under relevant judicial review legislation in relation to errors of law.</para>
<para>For most matters that are the subject of merits or judicial review, the bill allows people directly affected by a decision to ask for a review or appeal the decision, and examples of people who can request a review would include a person who has been refused the issuance of a certificate and a person directly affected by the approval of a project being registered, such as a neighbour. However, the bill does not provide for open standing for such appeals, nor for injunctions to enforce compliance by proponents and others. We have not included this, because open-standing provisions could present a number of risks, including a disincentive for participation in what is a voluntary market, the potential for provisions to be used by one proponent against another with whom they are in competition and undermining the Clean Energy Regulator's approach of bringing a noncompliant proponent back into compliance.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McDONALD</name>
    <name.id>123072</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In the last estimate hearings, Minister Farrell committed that the government would not break any long-term LNG export contracts with our international allies. This amendment now jeopardises the development of future gas supplies in Australia for both export and domestic use. There remains considerable risk of gas shortfalls, as forecast by the ACCC and AEMO, and of course this flows on to considerable risk to the jobs of all those Australians employed on these projects. I want to understand whether or not Minister Farrell has told our international partners, like Japan and Korea, that the government is now actively targeting promising new gas suppliers in the Beetaloo with their water trigger. Or has Assistant Minister Ayres, who parades himself as a champion of the manufacturing industry, told Australian manufacturers that their gas supply may now be at risk because of yet another secret deal done with the Greens political party, who just want to shut down their gas?</para>
<para>I want to turn again to the amendments on sheet SF110, circulated at around 6 pm this evening. The sheet has a list of unconventional gas production definitions, which are markedly similar to the definitions introduced by the Greens in their proposed water trigger. Minister, in the amendment on sheet SF110, is it possible to vary the definition of 'unconventional gas' under section 528(d), which states 'any other sources prescribed by the regulations'?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McDonald, I'm advised that that is a regulation-making power, and it is there to allow the act to keep up with technology. But I think you will also see that the same part of the bill sets out the three primary areas where we are aware that there is a disparity between the way different forms of unconventional gas are treated under the current arrangements.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McDONALD</name>
    <name.id>123072</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With the catch-all of 'any other sources prescribed by the regulations', would it be possible for the regulations under this act to be varied to include gas from the seabed, much like in the definition that the Greens political party put forward in their own Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Expanding the Water Trigger) Bill 2023 [No. 2]? I want to clarify that this bill would not currently require but does enable regulations which would capture all offshore gas extraction, should the definition of 'unconventional' be changed. I want to understand: is the Minister for the Environment and Water the determining minister for these regulations? Does consultation with any other ministers or state jurisdictions have to occur prior to this change?</para>
<para>Section 528(b) on page 3 of sheet SF110 includes references to projects covered by the amendment 'when considered with other developments, whether past, present or reasonably foreseeable developments'. Minister, what is considered 'other developments' in this context? Will it include pipelines, transport infrastructure or storage facilities? I want to understand what consultation has occurred with regard to the wideranging scope of this caveat. Given that these amendments were only circulated at 6 pm this evening, I would imagine that saying 'we will be introducing a water trigger' is a very broad topic.</para>
<para>Minister, finally—this is my last block of questions—AEMO and the ACCC have warned of imminent gas supply shortfalls as early as this summer. They've recommended a range of solutions, which include the urgent need for upgraded pipeline capacity from Queensland to the southern states—suitable storage facilities. Without these upgrades and an urgent increase in gas supply, households and businesses may face blackouts and energy shortages this summer. Does the amendment to the EPBC water trigger in this bill increase or decrease the regulatory burden on gas companies? Is the government concerned that this capitulations to the Greens political party's demands to rush this amendment will impede the approval of other developments, which will risk gas supply? Finally, has the government done any consultation on the risk to future investments in gas projects in Australia that will affect future royalties, company taxes, PAYG taxes and employment of hardworking Australians?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McDonald, I appreciate you putting all those questions on the record in the way that you have. I hope that you will understand that I will take some time to assemble all the information you have requested. In the meantime, chair, perhaps I could respectfully suggest that other senators could make a contribution while I seek the information sought?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Certainly. Senator Roberts?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a servant of the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, it's my duty to ensure I deal with every bill that comes before the Senate fully and properly. All too often, this government does dodgy deals with the Teals, the crossbench and the Greens to get legislation through without scrutiny. This is legislation that's written for reasons of ideology, not human need, and that as a result makes things worse. This is legislation that must get through without debate, lest the electorate be informed about what the government is really doing to them in the name of the United Nations' sustainable development goals.</para>
<para>I'm speaking about the Nature Repair Bill 2023, only 30 minutes from when the vote will be taken, yet I'm speaking to an interim bill. The massive amendments to this bill, which I know now are substantial, had not been revealed to the Senate just an hour ago. It appears to be the government's plan to provide the amendments and then require an immediate vote. That was exactly what we saw. That's not how the house of review, our Senate, works.</para>
<para>Even more troubling is that the government now has a motion that would allow the Greens to amend the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act as part of this bill—news to us until an hour ago. What that means is the Greens, with Teal Senator Pocock's support, are being allowed to put a bill of their own making onto the end of the government's bill and then vote it all through—a bill we can't read, can't amend and can't debate.</para>
<para>There's a longstanding convention in the Senate that we do one bill at a time and amend only the bill at hand, a rule the government are happy to ignore when they get desperate enough numbers to do a deal with the Greens and Teals. This isn't parliamentary process; it is undemocratic dictatorship. What a joke, and the people will be paying for it. When we call the Greens watermelons—green on the outside and red on the inside—this is why. Soviet Russia would pull a stunt like this, not democratic Australia.</para>
<para>I've spoken on several occasions recently on how this Labor government is best friends with the world's predatory parasitic billionaires. This bill is a perfect example of that. Like the failed national electricity market, which is really a racket, this bill allows large corporations to greenwash their businesses. To explain, greenwashing allows a business—most likely a foreign multinational company—to make a claim such as being 'net zero friendly'. That's simply not true. They're deceiving investors and customers in the process. They get to net zero by purchasing green certificates or carbon dioxide credits to balance out the environmental costs supposedly incurred in their business operation. A European Union report found that 95 per cent of carbon dioxide credits came from projects that did not make a difference to the environment, and Europol just a few years ago said 95 per cent are crooked. In other words, it's all a con.</para>
<para>The mining industry have come out in favour of offsets, which they call 'avoided-loss offsets'. These offsets occur after purchasing and improving an area of land with the same habitat as that which is destroyed or damaged in the development. This may appear to be mining-friendly, yet it's really more expense and more green tape that would best be handled through the existing system of remediation—put it back the way you found it, or better, which is what is happening. Indeed, one could be concerned that these avoided loss offsets are an alternative to remediation. I certainly hope not.</para>
<para>The bill helps wind turbines with the horrible problem of clubbing koalas on the koalas' property—clubbing them to death! They could literally club 10 koalas to death and then buy a national biodiversity certificate for 10 new koalas bred somewhere else. As we speak, the Australian Carbon Credit Unit's review is underway. The review is looking at a thousand carbon dioxide credit generating projects to see if they were fair dinkum and have been kept up. The lessons from that review were going to be added to this bill to ensure the national biodiversity certificate system was legitimate. Bringing forward this bill actually ruins that process.</para>
<para>One Nation opposes greenwashing, although, in most cases, we would suggest that the better option would be for our mining and manufacturing industries to first use environmentally friendly techniques, as they usually do. Then, having done that, be proud of their role in developing the economy, providing jobs and supplying materials that people need for a life of abundance. Perhaps that's just we conservatives taking care of the natural environment and taking care of people. Some submissions to the Senate inquiry called on the government to purchase the certificates themselves to provide certainty that, should a project be completed, there would be someone to buy the resulting certificate. Minister Plibersek has ruled this out—the only decision in this whole process One Nation can support.</para>
<para>I was amused with the submission from champagne socialists in the Byron Shire Council, who submitted that—quote—'free market alone may not facilitate rapid uptake of this scheme,' and called on the federal government to kickstart the market by committing to purchasing certificates itself. It will never stop. I would think that the federal government would be better off spending money on tax cuts for working Australians and paying off our debt so that interest rates come down, but that's just conservative values again—human values; real environmental values.</para>
<para>Minister Plibersek has described this bill as creating a 'green Wall Street'. Wall Street provides a means for financing businesses to expand productive capacity. This bill provides a means to restrict productive capacity through taking productive farmland and returning it to Gaia. I don't see the comparison with a genuine financial product, unless the minister was making a comparison to Bernie Madoff. That would be accurate in that case. The product itself, biodiversity credits, is subjective and, over time, will require more and more personnel to conduct compliance on an ever-increasing number of projects, just like the National Electricity Market—the racket. This does not increase productive capacity. It does increase bureaucracy at the public's expense, of course.</para>
<para>Many submissions opposed the use of these certificates for environmental offsets, including the Greens', and I note their amendments remove the offsets for the purpose of these certificates. This would seem a significant conflict between the minister's intent and the Greens' intent. What a mess! The Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 is a solution to a problem that has not yet been defined and does not meet real needs, just like the failed National Electricity Market.</para>
<para>The government is working on an update on the entire Environmental Protection and Biosecurity Conservation Act—the EPBC—informed by the Samuels review into the legislation from three years ago. Those amendments will frame the problem this bill is supposedly solving. This is something that Senator Thorpe has correctly pointed out in the second reading amendment, which I will support. How do you pass a bill like this ahead of the implementation of the Samuels review? How do we know which projects should be supported and which are not needed, or, worse, which projects are a load of bollocks, like the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull, as most climate projects are—climate fraud?</para>
<para>In relation to ensuring integrity around the use of offsets, the Australian government is working to introduce a new national environmental standard for actions and restoration contributions. This new standard is expected to include a requirement that offsets must deliver net gain for impacted protected matters and that biodiversity projects certified under the Nature Repair Market Bill will only be able to be used as offsets if they meet the new standard. What new standard? Oh, wait, you haven't written it yet! Great. Minister Plibersek is trying to pass a bill that implements a standard that hasn't been written yet. Can someone please give the government's legislation chocolate wheel back to rotary and we'll go back to doing things properly—you know, in the correct order.</para>
<para>This legislation implements something called the <inline font-style="italic">Nature Positive Plan</inline>. That sounds good. This is the government's overarching environmental blueprint. I notice that, on page 32, this plan includes a provision that traditional owners will have more control over Commonwealth national parks. More control! Australians who are used to bushwalking, camping and generally enjoying the beautiful national parks Australia offers are flat out of luck under this Labor government. 'No nature for you. Get back to your 15-minute cities.' That's exactly what the United Nations sustainable development goals do—they reduce everyday Australians to the status of serfs, imprisoned in their 15-minute cities, locked in a digital identity prison, owning nothing and eating bugs instead of real food. I first said that in the Senate in 2016, and the sniggers were obvious. Well, nobody's sniggering now. Now you're all trying to justify the abomination your globalist masters are working to impose.</para>
<para>Over the remainder of the Albanese government, those in this chamber will be required to face the reality of this government's globalist agenda. It's not an agenda written for the benefit of everyday Australians or for the Labor heartland. It's an agenda that serves the self-interest of the world's predatory investment funds, delivered through lobby groups like the United Nations, the World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum and implemented repeatedly in legislation like this. It's an agenda that will make life a misery for everyday Australians, sending them back to serfdom. One Nation stands against everything this bill represents. It proudly stands against everything this bill represents.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've got no idea what that was—no idea. But what it does show is that One Nation are always slow to catch up, aren't they? Always slow to catch up. I know there was a lot of chuckling in the chamber as Senator Roberts was speaking. Through the chair: we weren't laughing with you, mate; we were laughing at you. That's what was going on.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No one actually—except, perhaps, Senator Canavan—thinks this is indeed funny. What we've seen here tonight is the defence of the gas industry from this side of the chamber doing the bidding of the big gas companies, the big gas cartel. They just can't help themselves, can they? They've come in here, scurried in here tonight. They've been given their marching orders to stand up for the big gas cartel and the big gas corporations. That's what they've done. And they can't handle it. They can't handle that, in this place, what we are trying to do is make sure that national environment laws are not bypassed, that there are no loopholes, that, if you want to frack in the Northern Territory or frack in the Beetaloo, you have to get an environmental approval before you go and poison people's water. That is what the amendment put forward in this bill will do today—make sure there is scrutiny of these big fracking projects and make sure that companies can't just have free reign over big areas of the Australian country and farmland.</para>
<para>Over and over and over again, I have heard from farmers in the Northern Territory that they are sick and tired of being rolled over and told to sit down and shut up by the big gas companies. Over and over again. They are worried about the quality of the water in their communities. They're worried about the impact that fracking is going to have on groundwater in their local area. They are worried that gas companies are allowed to just start fracking without any national environmental approval. It's 2023, people. We're in a climate crisis, and all we get right now is gas companies thinking they can call the shots. Well, no more. No more. Under these amendments, gas corporations are going to be held to account. There are going to be no more loopholes. Santos, I'm sure, are not happy, and I'm sure Tamboran are not happy. But, of course, over and over and over again, we see members of the National and Liberal parties come in here to do the bidding of the big gas cartel. They know who their mouthpieces are in this place, and it's this lot over there.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You just can't—this lot just can't handle it, can they? There is not an environmental protection that doesn't upset them. There is not a piece of environmental law that doesn't rile them up. There is not a piece of environmental protection or a piece of nature that these guys don't want to bulldoze. There is not a piece of nature in this country they don't want to frack. There is not a piece of nature or wilderness in this area that they don't want to log. They want to knock it down, dig it up, burn it—that's all they're good for, over and over again: 'Look, here's our big plan: we're just going to trash everything. Let's just trash everything. Let's burn it, let's dig it up, let's knock it down, let's bulldoze it.' It doesn't really matter what wildlife is left over, it doesn't matter what the condition of the habitat is, and the state of our climate doesn't matter to them; they're a bunch of shills for the gas industry and fossil fuel companies. They can't stand environmental protection in any form. They want to be able to log, dig and burn wherever they can, and it's a time we put a stop to it. That is why the Greens are standing here today—to amend this bill to put some standard of environmental protection in our law to make gas companies have to explain themselves to their local communities, to the landholders, to the farmers and to the traditional owners in areas like the Beetaloo.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Noting the range of senators who seek to make a contribution, I will be brief. Senator McDonald asked me a range of questions, and I have assembled some of the information she seeks. She asked whether the minister for the environment would be the determining minister for the regulations. The answer to that question is yes, noting that these regulations must be within the scope of the regulatory power that's provided in the act and that these regulations will be disallowable.</para>
<para>I have further information in relation to the RIS. The EPBC Act review was certified by the Office of Impact Analysis as meeting the requirements of a RIS to support actions in the government's Nature Positive Plan. The full impacts will be measured and published following the introduction of legislation where additional regulatory burdens are identified.</para>
<para>Senator McDonald asked about the capacity for the seabed to be brought within the scope of offshore activity, to be brought within the scope of the water trigger. I am advised that, because the trigger is defined in relation to unconventional gas, that is not likely, as the gas which is presently extracted offshore is conventional. However, should a minister seek to do so, as with the other regulatory arrangements, any such regulation would be disallowable, and the Senate would have an opportunity to consider those matters at that time.</para>
<para>Senator McDonald asked about the provisions which provide for the interaction with other developments. I am advised that this language mirrors the existing language in the bill as it relates to coal seam gas.</para>
<para>Finally, we understand the significance of regulatory certainty on the resource sector and we understand the significance of securing sufficient gas supply to meet our domestic requirements. The truth is that those on the other side of the chamber were warned on at least a dozen occasions when they were in government that Australia was hurtling towards a gas supply problem in the domestic east coast gas market, and their response was 22 failed energy policies that left Australian households and businesses overexposed and underprepared for a global energy crisis. We have taken a very different approach. We have reformed the ADGSM to carefully balance domestic energy needs with Australia's responsibility to meet international contractual obligations—and this is certainty; this is clarity. We've legislated a credible emissions reduction policy, through the strengthened safeguard mechanism, providing the certainty that business has been crying out for on climate policy. And the government's gas code of conduct is working to shield east coast gas consumers from volatile international gas prices and to reduce the risk of supply shortfalls forecast by the Australian Energy Market Operator.</para>
<para>I will leave it there, noting that others wish to make a contribution in the remaining time. The government understands the significance of this industry. We are taking the steps necessary to provide regulatory certainty, and that's important for business and for the community.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to make a contribution to this very important debate and draw out some very important key points—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat. Senator Pocock?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator David Pocock</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This probably isn't a proper point of order. We've got five minutes. Please, no dorothy dixers. We've got serious questions.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Okay. Senator Payman, can you make it extraordinarily short. Senator Canavan, do you have a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Canavan</name>
    <name.id>245212</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I do have a point of order, because the practice of the chamber is to rotate the call. It was with a Labor senator; it really should then have come across to this side.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: It was the minister answering the question of a Liberal—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Canavan</name>
    <name.id>245212</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's still a Labor senator. The practice is to rotate—</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: We're not debating this, Senator Canavan. It was the minister answering the questions of Liberal senators. That is what it was. Senator Payman.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Madam Temporary Chair. I just want to highlight the Albanese Labor government's commitment, because it's something that's really important for us, and reflect on what I've heard from my home state of Western Australia: the importance of protection and preservation of the environment being supercritical. It's very rich for those opposite to talk about transparency when this bill is doing exactly that. I'm glad that our minister is taking bold and decisive action to protect, restore and manage our unique environment. I'll leave my remarks there, Chair.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, I understand that, under environmental law reforms that have been flagged, the government plans to allow proponents under the EPBC Act to pay into a restoration fund rather than undertaking offsets themselves. I'm interested to know whether the ban on offsets also applies to the government's using money from that fund to buy certificates from the nature repair market.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The provisions in this bill prevent the use of certificates created under the provisions as environmental offsets in Commonwealth or state legislative arrangements.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>So can the Commonwealth government, under the new environmental laws, use money that is paid into the fund by proponents to then buy certificates? If so, that's clearly an offset, with the government as the middle person.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pocock, I'm advised that the fund you speak of doesn't exist, so the legislation before us doesn't address it or deal with it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The legislation before us doesn't preclude that happening should the environmental laws be set up in a way where proponents can pay into a fund.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Pocock, I don't think I can add to my previous answer. The bill doesn't deal with possible future policies that don't yet exist and are not themselves legislated or established.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In the one or two minutes left I will just reflect on the debate that has transpired tonight. We know there's a dodgy deal. We're seeing it play out here. We've had a bit of a confession from the Australian Greens about what's been going on over the last little while, when none of us knew what was happening. We should have known, and we'll know for next time exactly where we're going to end up.</para>
<para>Two words from Senator Hanson-Young ring in my ears: 'no more'. There'll be no more new gas to bring down prices, no more support for households struggling with the cost of living, no more jobs for people in the regional communities where many of these projects exist. Certainly, there'll be no more answers to the questions that have been asked. That's not because the minister can't answer them or doesn't want to. There are no answers to these questions. Senator McAllister is, I think, one of the finest ministers in this place, and I really do look forward to seeing her elevated to the cabinet, because I think there is some room for improvement there, but there are no answers to the questions we're asking. Consultation? Regulatory impact statement? Any impact on the cost of living? No answer, no answer, no answer. This is what happens when, behind closed doors, under the cover of darkness, in smoke-filled rooms—whatever analogy you want to come up with—you find Labor and the Greens doing dodgy deals. Their smiles get bigger the worse this is for Australian households and the economy. Senator McKim's smile couldn't be bigger.</para>
<para>So, Australia, watch out. It's going to be a dark, dark Christmas, with the cost of living going through the roof. They are as happy as they can be because they got their deal. It is a bad day for Australians. But this is what we have come to expect in this brave new world of Labor-Green government—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Duniam. In accordance with the order agreed to yesterday, the time for consideration of the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 and a related bill has expired.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the government amendments on sheet SF110 be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [20:34] <br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>29</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>23</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>():  I will now deal with the amendments to the Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020 circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 2301 be agreed to.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">Australian Greens</inline> <inline font-style="italic">'</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> circulated amendment—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Page 1 (line 1) to page 8 (line 22), omit "<inline font-style="italic">Market</inline>" (wherever occurring).</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will now deal with the amendments to the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023, starting with the amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that amendments (1) to (6) and (8) to (11) on sheet 2203 be agreed to.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">Australian Greens</inline> <inline font-style="italic">'</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> circulated amendments—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 1, page 1 (line 16), omit "Market".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Page 4 (line 21) to page 245 (line 16), omit "Nature Repair Market Committee" (wherever occurring), substitute "Nature Repair Committee".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Clause 7, page 11 (after line 8), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">engage in conduct</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">environmental offsetting measure</inline> includes, but is not limited to, a measure to offset or compensate for the impacts of an action or project (however described) on the environment that is:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) required as a condition of an approval, licence or permit (however described) under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) directly financed from a fund into which money is paid as a condition of an environmental approval, licence or permit (however described) under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) undertaken as required or agreed to under a penalty or enforceable undertaking imposed or accepted under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Clause 7, page 11 (lines 9 to 13), omit the definition of <inline font-style="italic">environmental offsetting purpose</inline>, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">environmental offsetting purpose</inline> means the purpose of meeting an environmental offsetting requirement (however described) under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory including through an environmental offsetting measure.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Clause 68, page 95 (lines 18 to 20), omit subclause (1A).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Clause 70, page 97 (lines 2 to 8), omit subclause (3), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A biodiversity certificate must set out such matters (if any) as are specified in the rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Clause 71, page 98 (line 20), omit "or 70B".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Clause 76A, page 100 (lines 16 to 22), omit the clause, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">76A Biodiversity certificates not to be used for environmental offsetting purpose</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A biodiversity certificate must not be used for an environmental offsetting purpose.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) This section has effect despite any other provision of this Act or any other law of the Commonwealth, or a State or Territory.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) To avoid doubt, section 225 (Concurrent operation of State and Territory laws) does not apply to this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) Clause 164, page 187 (lines 12 to 22), omit paragraphs (1)(da) and (db).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) Clause 212, page 234 (lines 20 and 21), omit paragraph (fa).</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that clause 70B of the Nature Repair Bill stand as printed.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">The Australian Greens</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> opposed clause 70B in the following terms—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Clause 70B, page 97 (line 25) to page 98 (line 13), to be opposed.</para></quote>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator David Pocock. The question is that the amendments on sheets 2310, 2311 and 2314 be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Roberts, do you wish the question split?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Roberts</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I intend now to put the question on sheets 2310 and 2311, and then I will put a subsequent question on sheet 2314. The question is that the amendments on sheets 2310 and 2311 be agreed to.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 2310</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 198, page 226 (lines 3 to 8), omit subclause (4), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The Minister must ensure that at all times at least one Nature Repair Market Committee member is a person who:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) belongs to an Australian First Nations community; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) is recognised in that community as a person with significant standing; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) has substantial experience or knowledge relevant to the functions of the Committee.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 2311</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 3, page 2 (before line 12), before paragraph (a), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(aa) to halt and reverse nature loss, and prevent extinctions, by increasing the health, abundance, diversity and resilience of species, populations and ecosystems; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ab) to contribute to the goal of protecting and conserving by 2030:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) 30% of land in Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) 30% of Australian waters; and</para></quote>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [20:40]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>11</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>35</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the chair is that the amendments on sheet 2314 be agreed to.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">Senator </inline> <inline font-style="italic">David Pocock's circulated amendment</inline> <inline font-style="italic">s</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 192, page 219 (lines 8 to 11), omit subclause (2), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Authorised person</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) For the purposes of Part 7 of the Regulatory Powers Act, each of the following persons is an authorised person in relation to the provisions mentioned in subsection (1):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Chair of the Regulator;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any other person, whether the rights or interests of the person are affected.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 192, page 219 (lines 12 to 14), omit "An authorised person may, in writing, delegate the authorised person's powers and functions under Part 7 of the Regulatory Powers Act", substitute "The Chair of the Regulator may, in writing, delegate the Chair's powers and functions under Part 7 of the Regulatory Powers Act as an authorised person".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Clause 211, page 233 (after line 8), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There is extended standing for judicial review under the <inline font-style="italic">Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977</inline> in relation to decisions made under this Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Page 237 (after line 29), at the end of Part 20, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 3 — Review of administrative decisions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">217A Extended standing for judicial review</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This section extends (and does not limit) the meaning of the term <inline font-style="italic">person aggrieved</inline> in the <inline font-style="italic">Administrative </inline><inline font-style="italic">Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977</inline> for the purposes of the application of that Act in relation to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a decision made under this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a failure to make a decision under this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) conduct engaged in for the purpose of making a decision under this Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Any individual is taken to be a person aggrieved by the decision, failure or conduct.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A term (except <inline font-style="italic">person aggrieved</inline>) used in this section and in the <inline font-style="italic">Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977</inline> has the same meaning in this section as it has in that Act.</para></quote>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [20:44]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>12</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>34</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:4</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator Thorpe. The question is that the amendments on sheets 2034, 2316 and 2320 be agreed to. Yes, Senator Roberts?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We need to vote separately on 2034.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Lambie?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Actually, could we please have them all split?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Alright. The question is that the amendments on sheet 2034, circulated by Senator Thorpe, be agreed to.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 55, page 77 (line 15), before "The Minister", insert: "(1)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 55, page 77 (lines 23 to 26), omit the note.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Clause 55, page 77 (after line 26), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Despite regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 44(2)(b) of the <inline font-style="italic">Legislation Act 2003</inline>, section 42 (disallowance) of that Act applies to a direction by the Minister under subsection (1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Part 4 of Chapter 3 (sunsetting) of the <inline font-style="italic">Legislation Act 2003</inline> does not apply to the direction (see regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 54(2)(b) of that Act).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Clause 65A, page 92 (line 18), before "The Minister", insert: "(1)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Clause 65A, page 92, (lines 26 to 29), omit the note.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Clause 65A, page 92 (after line 29), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Despite regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 44(2)(b) of the <inline font-style="italic">Legislation Act 2003</inline>, section 42 of that Act applies to a direction by the Minister under subsection (1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Part 4 of Chapter 3 (sunsetting) of the <inline font-style="italic">Legislation Act 2003</inline> does not apply to the direction (see regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 54(2)(b) of that Act).</para></quote>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the amendments on sheet 2316, as circulated by Senator Thorpe, be agreed to.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Heading to clause 56, page 78 (line 3), at the end of the heading, add "—general".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Page 79 (after line 7), at the end of Subdivision E, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">56A Consultation by the Nature Repair Market Committee — Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Nature Repair Market Committee must not advise the Minister whether the Minister should make or vary a methodology determination unless the Committee is satisfied that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) appropriate consultation has been undertaken with any relevant local community of Aboriginal persons, or Torres Strait Islanders, in relation to the proposed determination or variation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) relevant input received as part of that consultation has been taken into account adequately.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Heading to clause 65, page 91 (line 11), at the end of the heading, add "—general".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Page 92 (after line 15), after clause 65, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">65AA Consultation by the Nature Repair Market Committee — Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Nature Repair Market Committee must not advise the Minister whether the Minister should make or vary a biodiversity assessment instrument unless the Committee is satisfied that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) appropriate consultation has been undertaken with any relevant local community of Aboriginal persons, or Torres Strait Islanders, in relation to the proposed instrument or variation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) relevant input received as part of that consultation has been taken into account adequately.</para></quote>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [20:48] <br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>11</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>35</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendment on sheet 2320, circulated by Senator Thorpe, be agreed to.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Senator Thorpe's circulated amendment—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 3, page 3 (lines 3 and 4), omit "the owners of that knowledge", substitute ", and with the consent of, the owners of that knowledge to ensure the intellectual property rights of those owners are respected".</para></quote>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [20:52]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>9</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>38</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I ask that One Nation be recorded as supporting the amendment on sheet 2034.</para>
<para>Bills reported with amendments and an amendment to the title.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>6628</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and the bills be now passed.</para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [20:59] <br />(The President—Senator Lines) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>28</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>25</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Bills read a third time.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>6629</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7094" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>6629</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The time allotted for consideration of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill 2023 has expired. I will now put the question required to conclude consideration of the bill. I will first deal with the second reading amendment circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that the amendment on sheet 2293 be agreed to.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Australian Greens' circulated amendment—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to ensure that membership of the permanent Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee must include people with direct contemporary experience of poverty and sufficient representation of people most impacted by economic disadvantage including First Nations people, disabled people, women, and carers".</para></quote>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [21:03] <br />(The President—Senator Lines) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>11</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>33</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the bill be read a second time.</para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [21:09]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>29</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>22</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Bill read a second time.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments, starting with the amendments circulated jointly by the Australian Greens and Senator David Pocock. I understand senators have requested that the questions be put separately on each sheet. The question is that the amendments on sheet 2153 be agreed to.</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">Australian Greens' and Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments</inline>—</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 6, page 4 (line 14), omit "and an economist", substitute ", an economist and a person with direct contemporary experience of living with a low income and economic exclusion".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 11, page 8 (line 27), at the end of subclause (2), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; (g) a person who has direct contemporary experience of living with a low income and economic exclusion.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Clause 11, page 8 (after line 30), after paragraph (3)(a), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(aa) ensure that at least one of those members is a person with disability; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ab) have regard to the desirability of the membership of the Committee being persons who are actively involved in policy, advocacy and peer support work related to economic exclusion; and</para></quote>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [21:13] <br />(The President—Senator Lines) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>11</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>32</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the amendments on sheet 2303 be agreed to.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">Australian Greens</inline> <inline font-style="italic">'</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> and Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 3, page 2 (line 15), omit "function is to", substitute "functions are to develop national poverty measures and targets and".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 6, page 4 (line 5), omit "function is to", substitute "functions are to develop national poverty measures and targets and".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Clause 6, page 4 (line 21), omit "function", substitute "functions".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Heading to Division 2, page 5 (line 1), omit "function", substitute "functions".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Heading to clause 8, page 5 (lines 5 and 6), omit "function—reports ahead of Commonwealth Government budgets", substitute "functions".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Clause 8, page 5 (lines 7 and 8), omit subclause (1), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Committee's functions are to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) develop national poverty measures and national poverty targets; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) report to the Joint Ministers ahead of each Commonwealth Government budget.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Clause 8, page 6 (after line 14), after subclause (4), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4A) Without limiting subsection (2), the report must include advice about the national poverty measures and national poverty targets developed by the Committee under paragraph (1)(a).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Clause 9, page 7 (line 8), omit "function", substitute "functions".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Clause 11, page 8 (line 21), omit "function", substitute "functions".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) Clause 21, page 12 (line 4), omit "function", substitute "functions".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) Clause 24, page 13 (line 9), omit "function", substitute "functions".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(12) Clause 28, page 15 (line 2), omit "function", substitute "functions".</para></quote>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [21:16] <br />(The President—Senator Lines) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>9</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>33</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will now deal with the amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. I understand senators have requested that the question be put separately on sheet 2164. The question is that the amendment on sheet 2164 be agreed to.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">Australian Greens</inline> <inline font-style="italic">'</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> circulated amendment—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 8, page 6 (lines 20 to 27), omit subclause 8(6), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Direction by Joint Ministers</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) The Joint Ministers may, by written notice to the Chair, direct the Committee to ensure that a particular report under this section at least addresses specified matters mentioned in subsection (2).</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—Could I have the coalition's opposition to this motion recorded?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—One Nation would like our opposition to sheets 2164 and 2303 recorded.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the amendments on sheets 2162, 2163, 2165 and 2304 be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Could we split out sheet 2163?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes. The question now is that the amendments on sheet 2162, 2165 and 2304 be agreed to.</para>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 2162</para></quote>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">Australian </inline> <inline font-style="italic">Greens' circulated amendment</inline> <inline font-style="italic">s</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 5), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">Committee</inline> , insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Community Affairs References Committee</inline> means the Senate Community Affairs References Committee, or such other committee constituted under a resolution of the Senate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 11, page 8 (after line 11), after subclause (1), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1A) Before the Minister appoints the Chair and other members of the Committee:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Minister must have referred the proposed appointment to the Community Affairs References Committee under section 26A; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) one of the following must have occurred:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Community Affairs References Committee was taken to have approved the proposed appointment under subsection (4) of that section;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the Community Affairs References Committee has notified the Minister that it has decided to approve the proposed appointment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Page 14 (after line 13), after clause 26, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">26A Community Affairs References Committee—approval or rejection of proposed appointment</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Community Affairs References Committee must approve or reject a proposed appointment for the Chair and other members of the Committee referred to the Community Affairs References Committee by the Minister.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Community Affairs References Committee must make the decision on a proposed appointment within :</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) 14 days after the referral; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if, within the first 14 days after the referral, the Community Affairs References Committee notifies the Minister that it requires additional time to consider the referral—44 days after the referral.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) As soon as practicable after making the decision, the Community Affairs References Committee must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) give the Minister written notice of the decision; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) report the decision to the Senate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The Community Affairs References Committee is taken to have approved the proposed appointment if the Community Affairs References Committee does not give notice under subsection (3) within the period specified in paragraph (2)(a) or (b) as the case requires.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 2165</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 8, page 5 (lines 19 and 20), omit "including options to boost economic inclusion and tackle disadvantage", substitute "with a specific focus on the reduction of poverty".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 8, page 6 (after line 5), after subclause (2), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2B) Without limiting subsection (2), the report must include, in relation to the period since the last Commonwealth Government budget was delivered in the House of Representatives, the following information about access and eligibility for income support payments:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) data and analysis on the suspension and cancellation of income support payments resulting from a recipient's failure to meet mutual obligation requirements;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) for each kind of income support payment:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the number of debts raised; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the number of debts repealed;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) data and analysis on key points of disengagement from the social security system;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the adequacy of income support payments, including whether income support payments ensure that recipients are above the poverty line.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Clause 8, page 6 (line 5), at the end of subclause (2), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; (h) the eradication of poverty.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 2304</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 17, page 11 (after line 14), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The Chair must give written notice to the Joint Ministers setting out the interests that have been disclosed to the Committee under subsection (1) as soon as practicable after the end of the meeting in which the disclosure was made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Page 11 (after line 14), after clause 17, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">17A Minister must establish register of interests</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Minister must establish and maintain a register of interests setting out:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the interests that have been included in a written notice given to the Joint Ministers under section 16 or subsection 17(5); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any other information prescribed by the regulations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Minister must cause the register of interests to be:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) published on the Department's website; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) updated as soon as practicable following written notice being given to the Joint Ministers under section 16 or subsection 17(5).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If a person ceases to be a member of the Committee the Minister must remove information about the person from the register as soon as practicable after the Minister becomes aware that the person is no longer a member.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The regulations must make provision for, or in relation to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the correction of information that is included in the register, including how a person may seek the correction of information that is about the person; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any other matter relating to the administration or operation of the register.</para></quote>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [21:20]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>8</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>33</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—President, could you note my support for 2304.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes. The question now is that the amendment on sheet 2163 be agreed to.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">Australian </inline> <inline font-style="italic">Greens' circulated amendment—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 14, page 10 (after line 6), after subclause (2), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2A) If a member of the Committee is a person who has direct contemporary experience of living with a low income and economic exclusion, that member is to be paid allowances appropriate to the circumstances of the member and having regard to the time and expertise the member contributes to the work of the Committee, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) any preparation undertaken by the member for a meeting of the Committee; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any other activity undertaken by the member relevant to the Committee's function.</para></quote>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [21:24]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>10</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>32</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator David Pocock. I understand that senators have requested that the question be put separately on sheet 2300. The question is that the amendments on sheet 2300 be agreed to.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 8, page 7 (after line 4), at the end of the clause, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Government response to report</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) Within 3 months after the report is published on the Department's website under subsection (9):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Joint Ministers must cause a written statement to be prepared setting out the Commonwealth Government's response to the Committee's report, including its response to each recommendation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Minister must cause the statement to be published on the Department's website.</para></quote>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I ask that the Greens' support for the amendment be noted.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator McKim.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I ask that my support for the amendment be noted.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator David Pocock. Senator Lambie?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—Could I also ask that our support be recorded.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes. Thank you.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I also ask for my support to be recorded.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Thorpe. The question now is that the amendments on sheets 2296, 2297, 2298 and 2299 be agreed to. Senator Roberts?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Could I request that I vote separately on the amendments on sheet 2299 please.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I shall put the question again. The question is that the amendments on sheets 2296, 2297 and 2298 be agreed to.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 2296</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 19, page 11 (lines 21 to 23), omit the clause, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">19 Termination of appointment</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Minister may terminate the appointment of a member of the Committee:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) for misbehaviour; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the member is unable to perform the duties of the member's office because of physical or mental incapacity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Minister may terminate the appointment of a member of the Committee if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the member:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) becomes bankrupt; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) compounds with the member's creditors; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the member is absent, except on leave of absence, from 3 consecutive meetings of the Committee; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the member fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with section 16 (disclosure of interests to Joint Ministers) or section 17 (disclosure of interests to Committee).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Minister may terminate the appointment of a member of the Committee if the Minister is satisfied that, because of a change of circumstances occurring after the member's appointment, the member is no longer a representative of the kind covered by subsection 11(2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 2297</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1)—Clause 8, page 7 (line 4), after "website", insert "at least 14 days before the Commonwealth Government budget is delivered in the House of Representatives".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">_____</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 2298</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Page 13 (after line 12), at the end of Part 2, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">24A Joint Ministers to attend meetings and provide advice or assistance</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Minister is to attend 1 meeting of the Committee each financial year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Treasurer is to attend 1 meeting of the Committee each financial year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Joint Ministers:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) may provide any reasonable advice or assistance requested by the Chair for the purposes of the performance of the Committee's function; but</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) must not take part in any decision of the Committee about matters or advice to be included by the Committee in a report under section 8.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—Could we have the opposition's opposition to those amendments recorded please.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Are there any other views? Senator Roberts?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—Yes, I oppose. Thanks.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the amendment on sheet 2299 be agreed to.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Senator David Pocock's circulated amendment—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 28, page 15 (lines 4 and 5), omit "5 years", substitute "3 years".</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I ask that the opposition's opposition to that amendment be recorded please.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will now deal with the amendment circulated by the Jacqui Lambie Network. As this amendment was circulated after 6.30 pm, it can only be considered by leave. Is a senator seeking leave to move it? Senator Tyrrell?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to move my amendment.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move the Jacqui Lambie Network amendment on sheet 2322:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1)—Clause 8, page 6 (after line 9), after paragraph (3)(a), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(aa) the eradication of poverty;</para></quote>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>6636</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—Could I have the opposition's opposition to the bill recorded please.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Ruston.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I ask for One Nation's opposition to the bill to be recorded.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Roberts.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2023, Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>6636</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <p>
              <a href="r7083" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7084" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [21:30]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>3</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>Canavan, M. J. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>38</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Askew, W.</name>
                <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                <name>Lines, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>6637</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and the bills be now passed.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bills read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>6637</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r7057" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>6637</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The time allotted for the consideration of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023 has expired. I will first deal with the second reading amendments circulated by the opposition. The question is that the opposition's second reading amendment on sheet 2249 be agreed to.</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">Opposition's circulated amendment</inline>—</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the former Coalition Government implemented more than a dozen measures to combat multinational tax avoidance including by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(A) playing a leading role in the original OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project, and committing to the OECD two-pillar solution to multinational tax, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(B) introducing the Multinational Tax Avoidance Law; the Diverted Profits Tax; strengthening the thin capitalisation and transfer pricing rules; doubling penalties for multinational tax avoidance; and establishing the Tax Avoidance Taskforce,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) despite promising to only raise taxes on multinationals at the election, the Labor Government have broken promises to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(A) raise taxes on superannuation, unrealised capital gains and franking credits, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(B) end small business tax incentives,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) this bill introduces major tax changes that have not been subject to an appropriate public consultation, demonstrating yet again that Labor does not understand business and refuses to implement regulations and policies to support business, which then grow the economy and employ Australians,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) the Senate Economics Legislation Committee heard evidence that the bill—far from being limited to multinationals and tax avoidance—will increase taxes on Australian companies, harm investment in Australian industries, and negatively affect housing affordability in Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Government to withdraw Schedule 2 to the bill and undertake an appropriate consultation with industry and tax bodies to ensure the bill does not hurt Australians jobs, industries and businesses".</para></quote>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—Can I ask that the opposition's support for this amendment be recorded please.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Ruston—and Senator Roberts? Thank you. I'll go to the second one. The question is that the opposition's second reading amendment on sheet 2274 be agreed to.</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">Opposition's circulated amendment</inline>—</para>
<quote><para class="block">Omit all words after "That", substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Senate notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the bill, as currently drafted, is not suitable for an industry like plantation forestry because the harvesting period for structural timbers used for buildings is between 30 to 50 years, and if passed this bill would damage the plantation forestry industry and prevent expansion significantly at time when a strong forestry industry is critical to relieving supply chain issues within the domestic construction industry and to our competitiveness internationally,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the third party debt test in the bill does not accommodate non-consolidated tax structures such as trusts, which are a common commercial vehicle, particularly in the property and infrastructure sector, and that in its current form the bill will impede the delivery of 150,000 new homes that could reduce rental costs for Australians, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the bill, as currently drafted, favours industry superannuation funds over managed investment trusts, attribution managed investment trusts and corporate collective investment vehicles by exempting superannuation funds from the associate entity test, which is designed to determine whether an entity is subject to the thin capitalisation rules; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) further consideration of the bill be postponed until the day after the Senate passes a resolution that it is of the opinion that each of the following conditions has been met:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Treasury has consulted with industry on the bill for a period of no less than three months and that consultation has appropriately considered:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(A) how the bill can be amended to account for the unique long-term nature of the plantation forestry sector, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(B) how the third party debt test be amended to accommodate non-consolidated tax structures such as trusts to deliver more housing supply into the market, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the Government has circulated amendments to the bill that either exempt similar funds from the associate entity test or removes the exemption for superannuation funds.</para></quote>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—Could I have the opposition's support for the amendment recorded, please.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I record my support.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>21:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I also put our support down for 2274. Thank you.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the opposition's amendment on sheet 2292 be agreed to.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Opposition's circulated amendment—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Omit all words after "That", substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government amendments to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023 on sheet RU100 be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 5 February 2024; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) further consideration of the bill be made an order of the day for the first sitting day after the committee has presented its report.</para></quote>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [21:39] <br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>37</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Kovacic, M.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sharma, D. N.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>17</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J. N. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Original question, as amended, agreed to.<br />Bill read a second time.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Committee</title>
            <page.no>6639</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>6639</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>6639</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
</hansard>