PRESIDENT (): I table a memorandum of understanding between the National Anti-Corruption Commission and the Attorney-General, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The Speaker, the Attorney-General, the Commissioner of the National Anti-Corruption Commission and I have signed a memorandum of understanding regarding the exercise of the commission's investigative powers where parliamentary privilege may be involved. The purpose of this MOU is to agree to processes that will be followed when the commission exercises its statutory powers in circumstances where issues of parliamentary privilege could arise. These agreed processes are designed to ensure that parliamentary privilege is respected while permissible action by the commission to detect and investigate corrupt conduct is not inhibited.
I'd like to acknowledge the work of the Speaker and members of our MOU working party, including Senator Brockman and Senator Ghosh, the Commissioner of the National Anti-Corruption Commission and Mr Rae and Mr Leeser in the other place, in negotiating this agreement. I thank the clerks in this house and in the other place for working hard to get an agreement. I can indicate to senators that the Speaker and I will be writing to all parliamentarians and providing you with copies of the MOU.
I seek leave to move a motion relating to the government's routine of business variation.
Leave not granted.
Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the Government's legislative program.
I gave a speech in this place just a few days ago on guillotines. I wanted to explain to Australians how this government likes to pack a lot of legislation together to avoid scrutiny and debate in this place—to avoid what the Senate is here to do. This government has had more guillotines in its first three years than what the coalition did in nine. Absolutely shameful! Last night at 8.30 pm, Labor sent all of us senators the mother of all guillotines. That's right—around 40 bills! So much for the right to switch off for our employees! You say, 'Don't answer your phone.' Ask them how they're going this morning because they haven't slept. Ask them how their health and safety are going!
You know it's a problem when the guillotine is four pages long. These aren't small bills. They aren't tweaks to legislation that we can call non-controversial. They are massive, and they include bills that are so undercooked and, putting it politely, raw to the bone. There's a bill that bans those under 16 years of age from social media. I thought this was a good idea. I think a lot of people out there thought it was a good idea until we looked at the detail, and, let's be honest, there's no detail. There are bills on privacy, migration, money laundering, and surveillance. There's the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024 for veterans out there, and, of course, there is the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024. That's the one where the major parties want to spend more taxpayers' money on their own political slush fund, and they've got their snouts in the trough.
To say that I am disappointed in this government is an understatement. It doesn't even cut it. The Albanese government came to this office promising transparency, promising a gentler parliament and promising that the Australian people would respect what we do in here. But, instead of that, they have refused a record number of requests for documents. The Attorney-General has spent $400,000 of taxpayers' money fighting for the right to shred documents. That's right—to shred documents.
When it comes to transparency and integrity in this government, it has been an epic failure. They have asked stakeholders to sign non-disclosure agreements before they discuss and show them the legislation. They refuse to tell Australians who the Prime Minister is meeting, even when the US President releases his own diary. That is shameful. They won't release the flight manifests to tell Australians when ministers are flying around on private jets on taxpayers' money. They promised lobbying and political donation reforms but then delivered a bill that asks Australians to fund their political slush funds.
They promised veterans that they would harmonise the legislation on compensation for their injuries, but they don't want to consult. They don't want to do amendments, and they want to give us 15 minutes to speak about you. That's after you've come out of a royal commission, which you are still hurting from. They want to ram this down your throat. They want to ram this harmonisation bill down your throat and amend three pieces of legislation without putting the national commissioner back in charge before it moves anything, which was a recommendation from the royal commission. Instead of delivering whistleblower reforms, they keep using hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars to prosecute whistleblowers and lock them up.
Now we have this mother of all guillotines. Last night Minister Wong said all people in this place deserve a safe workplace, and, just an hour later, they sent a guillotine through like that. How is it safe for the employees in my office to go through 41 bills in a matter of about 12 hours? How is that safe? How bloody hypocritical. What about the right to disconnect? Do you hear that—through the chair—Senator Cash? Do you hear those in the ACTU, Sally McManus and Michele O'Neil, standing up for our staff? Absolutely not. They're not up there. They've got gaffer tape all over them this morning.
It's not what the Australian people voted for. We were voted in to make legislation better. We have the right to put amendments up. We have the right to debate this, and you are shutting us up. The Australian people want you to get this right. This is not safe; it is dangerous. It is dangerous to shove bills down our throats. It is dangerous to shove bills down Australians' throats without us properly going through and actually having a good look at them and putting them under the microscope.
I was not voted into this place to give you a free pass to put through 40 bills in one day, and I sure as hell know that the Tasmanian people do not want me to do that. I'll remind you of something, and I'll table the document. In 2013, Rudd tried to put through nearly 50 bills on 26 June. Guess what happened in September? Guess who became the Prime Minister? It was not Rudd; it was Tony Abbott. So why don't you keep playing your games in here?
Well, I could summarise my remarks simply as 'what Jacqui said'.
Let's now elaborate on it!
Honestly, let's just understand the point that Senator Lambie made.
Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat. Senator Cash, you are out-yelling your leader. I'm asking you to either—
No, Senator Cash, you will listen in silence, or you can leave the chamber. That is the choice you have.
Senator Lambie has made the point that the Albanese Labor government has guillotined more bills through this Senate in three years than the previous coalition government did in the previous nine years. This was the government of transparency. This was the government of accountability. This was the government of proper process. 'To hell with it,' they say. As soon as they got their hands on the keys to the Lodge and as soon as they moved into the blue carpet, away went all the promises about transparency, accountability or proper process. Instead, it's just whatever it takes, whenever it takes, however they can. That's the approach this government has taken.
In nearly 18 years in this Senate, I've never seen an ambit claim like this. I've never seen a motion that seeks to ram 41 bills through the Senate in a single day in this manner. It is unprecedented, it is extraordinary and it is shameful. The government should just withdraw this motion. They should have the good courtesy and common sense to withdraw it. The tactics behind it are clear. They're trying to wedge the Greens a little bit over here, wedge the opposition a little bit over there, wedge the crossbenchers a little bit elsewhere and see what they can kind of do from it all. We'll oppose the motion in its entirety. The opposition will not support this tactic. This tactic is something the government should be ashamed of. The government should withdraw it.
I want to be clear that we will be constructive with the government today, as we actually have been through this fortnight. The government has twice asked for extra hours and time to pass bills this fortnight. They asked in relation to the Aged Care Bill 2024 on Thursday last week. We agreed and we cooperated. They asked in relation to the education bills on Tuesday night this week. We agreed. We cooperated. We even indicated they could add an extra motion in relation to land rights onto that time management bill. Have they asked for extra hours any other day this fortnight? No. They've had all the time in the world where they could have said, 'These things are important. The Senate could sit longer,' but they haven't even come to us and asked. Instead, we're just given this motion, which is so counterproductive to the effective operation of the Senate.
We are still wanting to be constructive. Whilst we will oppose this motion, I draw the Senate's attention—particular the government's attention—to the government business orders of the day. Up first is the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024. The coalition will work with the government to pass that bill today. You can ditch your motion. It'll be the first item of business, and we will work with you consistent with Mr Peter Dutton's promise to pass that bill. We will actually work with you constructively through the other bills that are listed in the Order of Business today. We understand the urgency and sensitivity of the aged care ones in relation to continuing our cooperation with the government on that and the sensitivity in relation to payment surcharges, and we would be willing to work in relation to the migration bills too. We're willing to work with the government—and we'll be cooperative—but we're not going to be taken on a ride. We're not going to be taken on a ride with this motion.
I can only assume it's the former trade union types on the bench opposite who've thought: 'What's worked for us in negotiations previously? I know, the old ambit claim. Let's go in and ask for the world, and then we'll work back from there.' We're not falling for it. We're not buying into it. I urge the crossbench to listen to Senator Lambie and hear those words. Yes, I know the crossbench won't agree with everything that the coalition is proposing to do with the government today either, but we're trying to strike the responsible balance. We're trying to be true to our word in working on the issues that we've said we will progress. Peter Dutton is being true to his word on working through the issues he said he would progress with the government. Senator Gallagher, reconsider the madness. Ditch your motion, and let's get on with the business of the day that we actually can do constructively together, as the opposition has offered to you.
We won't be supporting this suspension of standing orders this morning. It is good to see that the opposition in particular have come and confirmed that they will be constructive today, because that is not our experience in this chamber. It is not. When you raise concerns about the number of guillotines in this parliament, the number of guillotines directly relates to the lack of constructivity from those opposite.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. I remind those on my left that your leader was heard in silence, and, equally, the minister will be heard in silence. If you can't be silent, I invite you leave the chamber. Minister Gallagher.
The difference in approach that we took in opposition was to fight where we needed to but to work constructively as a major party in this place to keep the routine of business flowing. We have had some weeks in this parliament where not one bill passes—not one bill!
It's your job. You're the government!
No, it is not our fault. It is not our fault.
Minister, please resume your seat. I have just asked that the minister be heard in silence. Within two seconds, Senator Ruston, you were interjecting; Senator O'Sullivan, you were interjecting. Which bit of my order did you not understand? Seriously! The minister has the right to be heard in silence, just like your leader was respected. Respect is missing in this place. Let's see some of it in this debate. Minister Gallagher, please continue.
It is because of that approach—the obstructionist nature and the blockers of those opposite—under the leadership of Mr Dutton and, presumably, the instruction of Mr Dutton not to allow business to flow smoothly through the Senate, particularly on non-controversial bills, that we have a range of bills as we reach the end of this sitting year that we would like to pass. I don't think it is any surprise that, because of the way you approach the legislation program in this chamber, we do have a range of bills.
The way we have tried to set this up is that we order for the day a list of bills that are the government's priority and then people are able to talk on them and we progress through that motion. We think that is a sensible way—vote as you may on each bill, but don't just block. Say yes or no. Many of these bills have been on the Notice Paper for over a year. They have not been last-minute bills that have been dropped in to everybody's surprise. We won't be proceeding with electoral reform today, but some of the other bills have 2023 in the name of the bill.
You probably haven't even listed them for debate.
Order!
They have been listed, Senator Birmingham, and you have blocked. You don't want to see the government progress with its agenda. That's fine; that's politics, but we also have a right to put a list of our priorities before the chamber and say, 'We would like to get these done. Vote yes or no, but vote. Don't block; don't be a barrier to our agenda.' That is what we are asking the Senate to do. We will sit as late as the Senate likes. We will work across the chamber to make sure people have enough time.
I have sat in this place on long marathon sittings of the Senate under arrangements you brought in. They are not ideal, but sometimes they are necessary in order to progress important legislation, whether it be Future Made in Australia, the migration bills or some of the important Treasury bills that have been blocked and stuck in this chamber for more than a year, and many of them have. So we have put before the chamber—
Minister, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie, I've called you more than any other senators this morning. It is 9.20. If you can't be quiet, I've asked you to leave the chamber or stand and seek the call. You are incredibly rude and disruptive. I'm asking you to sit in silence for one minute and 16 seconds. Minister Gallagher, please continue.
I don't agree with the motion moved by Senator Lambie. We are not fast-tracking legislation. This legislation has been in this chamber, and it has been blocked in this chamber, for months and months. There have been Senate inquiry reports on most of them. There have been lots of negotiations with people. I don't accept that we are trying to circumvent scrutiny or accountability. These bills have been dealt with in this chamber for months, if not years. We have argued the case. We have argued the case. We just want to deal with them—yes or no. That is the position that we are bringing. These are important bills. They're important bills from an economic point of view and from a social point of view. They're important bills for the Australian community.
At the end of the year it is not abnormal for the Senate to have to deal with a large number of bills. That is not unusual. I have been in this place for a number of years where that has been the case. So we are putting them forward. We're putting them forward in a way that people can speak about them. They can vote separately on them. But we wanted to indicate to the chamber that these are our priorities, and we want to work with the chamber to get it done.
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the question be now put on Senator Lambie's motion, as moved by Senator Wong.
Records are tumbling on the number of guillotines—Robespierre's guillotine would've needed sharpening by now—and the number of bills in the guillotine, except for, as Senator Lambie pointed out, Kevin Rudd's fiasco. There's the deceit with which this has been done. Records on costs of living, high; standards of living, down; and energy prices, high. There is record immigration, and increasing housing prices and rental prices. Confusion, deceit—what a mess.
This crisis that the government now portrays has been manufactured. When they first proposed the sitting schedule, we told them: 'It's not enough. Add some more.' They said, 'No, no, we'll be fine.' Labor ignored us, and we said, 'Don't come to us.' Now they're coming to us. The government hasn't come to the Senate on this issue. Plus, the government has been bill hopping—starting one day with one bill, not finishing it, and then starting the next day with another bill. This has been a manufactured crisis, a deliberate crisis, to purposely run down the clock so that they could come up with this guillotine yet again, all to hide poor legislation—to whistle through as many as you can without any scrutiny. This is to avoid scrutiny.
This is a disgrace for the people of Australia. We are supposed to represent the people of Australia. How can we represent them without doing proper scrutiny of the bills? We can't. It's been deliberate. They've been purposely running down the clock. And it's devious. It is to hide their incompetence. So we say: ditch your motion, Senator Gallagher.
It's really quite interesting that we're in here having a debate about transparency or the lack of transparency. I want to put on the record that the Manager of Government Business in the Senate; I, as Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate; and the Manager of Greens Business often communicate about what needs to be done to try and assure the smooth transition of legislation through this place because we know the transition of that legislation is really important for the running of this country. At the beginning of this sitting period, I reached out to the managers of the respective parties and said, 'What is it that you want to have put through this week?' In response to that, I got a list of legislation from the manager of government business that the government was hoping to put through this place.
Constructively, I have worked to make sure we've passed a number of those bills, which have been brought forward over preceding days—last week and this week—most particularly the Aged Care Bill, which demonstrated the bipartisan support that we had offered to the government to make sure that the care of older Australians was embedded in the act. That got passed. We also had a series of bills in relation to higher education for which we sat through Monday night, I think it was, to make sure that those bills were passed. A number of the bills that were put on the list by Senator Gallagher have been passed by this place in good faith because they were the bills that the government told us it was essential to pass in this final sitting fortnight of the year.
At no time did the government ever indicate that it wanted to push through 37 bills. I draw the attention of this place and those listening to the kind of bill that they want to shove through here. One of the bills, the Crown References Amendment Bill, is to change references to 'His Majesty' or 'Her Majesty' in bills in which this has been the case to now 'the sovereign'. What we've seen today being shoved through this place is a bill that is so inconsequential in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. All it does is turn terms in relation to the sovereign to a gender-neutral term. This is a solution looking for a problem. There was no problem. We didn't need this bill to go through this place today. It just demonstrates the lack of concern or consideration that this government has for the real issues that are facing the Australian public. They're more concerned about the gender neutrality of 'the sovereign' than solving issues that relate to the cost of living.
Obviously, the opposition are really concerned about the fact that the government are trying to stuff through these bills, most of which we have not seen before. And we commend the crossbench for standing firm on this, because, whilst we as the opposition have a level of resources to enable us to go through all of these bills and to try and work out what the consequences of them are, the crossbench, in the space of less than 24 hours—in fact, not much better than 12 hours—have been asked to consider all these bills, consider their positions and understand what the amendments are when amendments are flowing in in front of us, as we speak.
This is an absolute disgrace. It shows complete contempt and disrespect for this chamber, the Australian public and the crossbench.
The time for this debate has expired. The question is that the suspension motion moved by Senator Lambie be agreed to.
I seek leave to move a motion to suspend private senators' bills.
Leave granted.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Dispense, sorry.
I'm going to put the motion again. I have asked those people not participating in this debate to either leave the chamber or take their seats.
Speak up!
Senator Waters, no wonder people can't hear. Stop interjecting! I ask the minister to put the request again.
I seek leave to dispense with private senators' bills.
Leave not granted.
Pursuant to contingent notice—
Please resume your seat, Senator Chisholm. I advise the chamber that, as the bill has been called on, the minister can move a motion that the debate be adjourned. Senator Chisholm—just a moment. I think Senator Hanson-Young is seeking the call.
Senator Faruqi was seeking the call before Senator Chisholm stood up and asked for something different than he should have, in terms of suspension versus adjournment. I seek the indulgence of the chamber to allow Senator Faruqi to seek leave to table Senator Thorpe's speech on this matter, and then we can move on, if that is the will of the chamber.
Senator Hanson-Young, I saw—sit down please, Senator Faruqi—a lot of people standing down at your end of the chamber in particular. I saw Senator McKim pointing. I could not see anything other than that. I then saw Senator Chisholm and Senator Faruqi standing. The precedence, as you know, is to give the call to a minister, and that's what I did. Senator Faruqi.
In the absence of Senator Thorpe, who was prevented from giving—
Senator Faruqi, I need to understand what it is you're seeking.
I seek leave for Senator Thorpe's speech to her bill, the Criminal Code Amendment (Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes) Bill 2024, to be incorporated in Hansard.
Leave not granted.
Debate adjourned.
I will be moving the rearrangement motion in the Notice Paper. We will be seeking some slight amendments to that motion to allow for further time, considering the time we lost this morning to the earlier debate, to push out the times for the first votes on the bills listed in the notice of motion; I think they're being circulated now.
The bills we had listed to be considered at 11 am will now be considered at 1 pm because of the time we lost this morning to that earlier debate. The bills that would have been put at 1.30 pm will be moved to 4.30 pm to allow for more time and debate. The tranche of bills outlined at subsection (8), instead of being put at 5.30 pm, will be put at 7 pm. This responds to the concerns of those opposite and the crossbench, to have time to speak to those bills. The amended motion also seeks to remove the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024, as we haven't been able to reach the agreement on electoral reform we had been seeking with the coalition—no surprises there that we weren't able to do that at the last moment. So we are removing that and inserting a couple of other Treasury bills, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023, to be considered in their place.
As I said in the earlier debate on Senator Lambie's motion to suspend, we have moved this motion because these bills need to get done and we have been frustrated this year in a minority chamber where we accept we do not have the votes to bring things to a conclusion and to deal with things in a timely way. This is, at the end of the year, our stocktake of important bills we would like to get done. We think there is a lot of agreement across this list and these bills can be dealt with pretty promptly. I think there is agreement on a number of bills, and where there isn't agreement with one part of the Senate there may be agreement with the other. We have support from the opposition for the social media reform and the migration bills, and we believe we have support for bills like Future Made in Australia from another grouping in the chamber.
It is a shame that we have got to this point. It's not unusual for an end-of-year motion to be moved. When we were in opposition, we tried to work constructively to get a whole range of bills through where we could. Sometimes it requires longer sittings of the Senate. This is our request to the Senate, acknowledging that we will have to win each piece of legislation on its merits, to deal with as much of this as possible. If there are bills here that don't get up, if we put them to the Senate and the Senate votes them down, then that's the view of the Senate. I'm hoping that a range of bills in this motion today will be supported by the Senate and that, hopefully, some common sense will prevail—that we will be able to progress a number of important pieces of legislation through today.
We would have preferred this to have been more evenly spread through the year, but we have seen weeks where the opposition have refused to pass anything, where there have been long filibusters—
That's not true.
Yes, it is true. It is absolutely true. We have sat here and have not been able to progress one piece of legislation, and that has built up a bank of bills that we would like to deal with before the Senate gets up for the year. There are still a whole range of bills that we will come back to in February. Most of them should be dealt with very quickly so we can progress them through the Senate today.
The amendments to the motion are minor in nature. They remove a bill and insert another one, and there's a longer period of time to allow for debate throughout the day on different tranches of legislation. This is the government's view. These are our priority bills. We would like as many of them as possible to be done. We've already had a good week in the sense that we've got Help to Buy through, we've got wages for early childhood educators through and we've got funding for schools through. All of these things were important. We got that done in the first part of this week, but we believe the Senate should have the opportunity to deal with the remaining bills throughout the course of today.
Obviously we are happy to continue to talk to people throughout the day as that motion progresses, but we do believe that putting some order and process around these bills so that everyone knows what we are hoping to deal with is the best way forward. I commend the motion to the Senate.
Is leave granted to have the motion considered in the revised format as outlined by the minister?
Leave granted.
I move the motion as amended:
That—
(1) The order of the Senate of 27 June 2024 dividing the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 into two bills no longer apply and the orders of the day for the consideration of the resulting bills be discharged from the Notice Paper.
(2) Consideration of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 resume with consideration of the bill as read a first time.
(3) The following bills may be taken together for their remaining stages:
Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024
Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024.
(4) The hours of meeting today be 9 am till adjournment and the routine of business be as follows:
(a) consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (5);
(b) at 11.15 am, notices of motion;
(c) consideration of a report from the Selection of Bills Committee;
(d) postponement and rearrangement of business;
(e) formal motions;
(f) not later than one hour after the giving of notices, consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (6);
(g) at 2 pm, questions;
(h) consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (7);
(i) consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (8); and
(j) consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (9).
(5) Bills be considered in the following order and the questions on all remaining stages of the bills be put at 1 pm:
(a) Treasury Laws Amendment (2024 Tax and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2024;
(b) Treasury Laws Amendment (Reserve Bank Reforms) Bill 2023;
(c) Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2023;
(d) Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Bill 2024;
(e) Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) Bill 2024
Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) Tax (Imposition) Bill 2024
Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) (Consequential Provisions and Other Matters) Bill 2024;
(f) Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024;
Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024.
(6) Bills be considered in the following order and the questions on all remaining stages being put at 4.30 pm:
(a) Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024;
(b) Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024;
(c) Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024;
(d) Family Law Amendment Bill 2024;
(e) Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024;
(f) Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024;
(g) Surveillance Legislation (Confirmation of Application) Bill 2024; and
(h) Migration Amendment Bill 2024
Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024
Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2024.
(7) The following bills be considered and the questions on all remaining stages be put at 5.30 pm:
Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023
Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023
(8) The following bills be considered and the questions on all remaining stages be put at 7 pm:
Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill 2024
Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024
Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Charges) Bill 2024
Future Made in Australia Bill 2024
Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024.
(9) Bills be considered in the following order and the questions on all remaining stages be put after 15 minutes of consideration on each bill:
(a) Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional Broadcasting Continuity) Bill 2024;
(b) Crown References Amendment Bill 2023;
(c) Customs Amendment (ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Second Protocol Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024;
(d) Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals and Other Measures) Bill 2024;
(e) Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Amendment Bill 2024;
(f) Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024;
(g) Navigation Amendment Bill 2024;
(h) Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill 2024;
(i) Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024;
(j) Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024; and
(k) Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024.
(10) Paragraphs (5) to (9) operate as limitations of debate under standing order 142;
(11) Speaking times relating to any questions proposed in the Senate or in the committee of the whole in relation to any bill listed in this motion be 5 minutes;
(12) Divisions may take place between 1.30 pm and 2 pm, and after 4.30 pm, until consideration of the bills to which this order applies has concluded.
(13) The Senate adjourn without debate on the motion of a minister.
I move:
After paragraph (4)(g), add:
(ga) tabling (only) of committee reports;
In moving this amendment I draw the attention of the chamber to what happens when you rush things. What happens when you rush things is you forget things. We've got a number of really important reports that need to be tabled, but in their rush to put through this guillotine motion—and, despite what the minister says, the number of bills on this is unprecedented—they forgot to put in the tabling of reports, some of which are very important. I also draw attention to the really important committee work that happens in this place. Part of that importance is the fact that the reports of those committees need to be tabled. But apparently, in the rush to get through this legislative agenda that no-one had seen until last night at eight o'clock, we forgot to put the committee reports in.
I'd also draw the chamber's attention to the fact that, despite the minister's protestations about the significant importance of all of these bills, as I said in my previous contribution, I cannot think of anything that would be less important in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, on the last day of sitting, than changing the gender definition of His Majesty the King, who is apparently now going to be gender neutral, going forward. According to the minister's previous contribution in moving this motion, that's apparently really, really important to the good governance of this country and the welfare of the people who we in this place are privileged to be the parliament for.
Can I just say, in moving my amendment, it is tremendously disappointing that today, despite the fact that we have 38 bills on here, there will be no opportunity—no opportunity at all—for proper scrutiny. I have to say, having experienced putting bills through this place over the last three years, if there is one thing that has been a hallmark of the government it is the fact that they don't deal with the detail and there were always unintended consequences because of the shabby drafting of things because their drafting instructions are obviously inadequate. Right now I am standing here moving an amendment to fix up a mistake because of their shabby instructions when they had this motion drafted. They completely omitted putting in something as important as the tabling of reports.
I think the Australian public know that, unless the scrutiny of this parliament is put over the legislation that's brought into this place by those opposite, they will get substandard legislation. How many times, when we've turned up in here to scrutinise bills that they've wanted to rush through—without the committee process, without due scrutiny—have we had to make amendments? I'll draw your attention to one that happened last week. We put through the Aged Care Bill last week, and there were 91 amendments by the government itself as a result of a committee inquiry—a committee inquiry that this government didn't even want to have. I think the Australian public have every right to be pretty disappointed at the disrespect that this chamber, through the motion by this government, is showing to them with this lack of scrutiny.
We know that scrutiny invariably improves the situation. It calls out unintended consequences, often ones that are likely to negatively impact on Australians. I will absolutely guarantee you that, in this whole list of bills here, there will be many, many bills that would have benefited from the scrutiny of this chamber. That is the reason we get paid to come here every day. Our job is to scrutinise legislation. That is our job, and this government is today forcing through this place a motion to prevent us from doing our job—preventing us from doing the job of the Senate. The sole reason that we exist is for scrutiny, and you are circumventing that by refusing to allow the Senate to scrutinise these bills. I hope for your sake that there aren't unintended consequences in these bills that are going to negatively affect Australians, because so far you've done very little to consider the concerns of Australians in the legislation you've put through in this place. The cost of living is the most important thing that we should be dealing with in this place, not worrying about the gender pronouns of the sovereign.
I won't hold up the chamber for very long. I just want to indicate that the Australian Greens are comfortable with the amendments that have been proposed to the substantive motion by the government, and we also accept the arguments that have just been put by Senator Ruston in relation to the amendment, which I understand will be an amendment to the government's amendment. I would invite you to clarify that, President, when you're able, in terms of the process that the Senate will go through. I'm just flagging that, on the assumption that an amended motion will be put to the Senate, we will be asking that certain questions be put separately, because we intend to vote a different way on different matters in that motion. That's just a heads-up for the chamber, and for you, President.
Thank you, Senator McKim. Yes, we will put Senator Ruston's amendment first and then we will go to the amendment moved by the minister. Minister Wong.
I was going to propose closing debate so we could get on with debating the bills that you don't want to debate and some of the ones that you do want to debate.
No. We do want to debate them.
Senator Ruston—
Order, Senator Ruston! You've made your point.
This is Senator Ruston this morning, everybody. Senator Ruston is being so helpful in getting so many bills through, as Manager of Opposition Business!
Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston, you've just taken 12 minutes to put your point of view. You need to be silent now. Minister Wong, please continue.
I move:
That the question be now put.
Senator Ruston, shall I just give you the chair? The question is that the question be now put.
A division having been called and the bells being rung—
Senator Wong, are you seeking the call?
Rather than having a fight, we are supporting your amendment. I'm proposing that we close this debate so we can vote on the amendment that we are supporting.
I have moved the question be put, and a division was called by the opposition.
I'm seeking clarification that the division we're currently in is on the motion by Senator Wong to put the question and not a division on the question before the chair.
That's right. That division is cancelled.
Question agreed to.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! There are way too many people interjecting. The question is now that the amendment as moved by Senator Ruston be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The question now is that the motion, as amended, moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to. Minister Wong?
I appreciate that there has been a bit of confusion on that side. As I understand it, the chamber gave Senator Gallagher leave to move the hours motion in amended form.
Yes, that's correct.
So that is what is before the chair?
Yes.
Senator McKim has asked that that be voted on separately. You are now putting that. I don't know if there are other speakers on the hours motion. I assume there will be a set of separate votes, given that different senators are voting different ways on different provisions. That's my understanding. I was just clarifying.
Thanks to Senator Wong for clarifying where we find ourselves. President, is it appropriate now to indicate which parts of this motion the Greens would like to be put separately?
Yes, because the motion is before the chair.
We are requesting that you separate and put together paragraphs (6)(f), which is the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024; (6)(h), which is the Migration Amendment Bill 2024, the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 and the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2024; and (9)(j), which is the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024. That is so we can vote a different way to our position on the rest of the motion.
The question is that the motion be agreed to in respect of those three paragraphs as outlined by Senator McKim, which are (6)(f), (6)(h) and (9)(j). Senator Birmingham.
I just want to make sure we've got clarity and check in relation to one other aspect of this, because it's a very chaotic process being imposed upon the Senate by the government, which is that the result of Senator McKim's request is that the question on those three bills will be put separately but together. The intent of the Greens in making that request, given what's required in the standing orders, is presumably that they are voting one way on all of the rest of the motion in its totality and a different way on those three particular bills.
I have put the question. I'm happy to put it again. The question is that 6(f), 6(h) and 9(j) be taken together and voted on. I will say it again. The question I'm asking for agreement on is that the motion as moved by Senator McKim, which is that 6(f), 6(h) and 9(j) be taken together and moved as one, which is exactly as you described, Senator Birmingham.
President, I propose that you put the rest of the motion first because those clauses on their own are meaningless without the enabling clauses in the rest of the motion. It would make more sense to put the rest of the motion first, excluding those three bills, and then to put those three clauses.
The question is that the amended motion standing in the name of Senator Gallagher, without (6)(f), (6)(h) and (9)(j), be agreed to.
I am advised that as (6)(f), (6)(h) and (9)(j) don't have operative clauses to them they are now redundant.
I rise today in support of the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024. I want to make one thing abundantly clear from the outset: the coalition has always been firmly opposed to the implementation of a mandatory digital ID. There is rightfully widespread concern in the community about the security of personal data. With data breaches and leaks from major corporations dominating the news, it's entirely understandable that Australians are worried about the safety of their private information. Beyond the issues of data security, there is a much bigger concern at the heart of this debate—the growing danger that social media poses for our children. When it comes to the tech giants, platforms like Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram and TikTok, it's clear these megacorporations have shown time and time again that they have not prioritised our children's safety.
I echo the very real concerns of many who reached out to me on this matter, and I want to be clear that I don't support any system, including a digital ID, that compromises the privacy and security of Australians. Such things should always be voluntary. Thanks to the efforts of the coalition, the bill includes crucial safeguards that prevent social media companies from forcing anyone to hand over sensitive personal information or documentation. This bill is not about restricting individual freedoms or lecturing parents on how to raise their children. It's about giving parents the tools and support they need to protect their kids from the very real dangers that are online.
The core focus of this legislation is simple. It demands that social media companies take reasonable steps to identify and remove under-age users from their platforms. This is a responsibility these companies should have been fulfilling long ago, but, for too long, they have shirked these responsibilities in favour of profit. This is not a radical concept. It's a necessary one. Similar provisions are already in place in places like Florida, Utah and Louisiana, where social media companies are required to take reasonable steps to verify the ages of their users. These steps are overseen by regulators, ensuring that companies are held accountable for their actions. Under this legislation, failure to comply could result in fines of up to $50 million.
Let's be clear that these companies have the capability to act. They can deploy their vast resources when they choose to do so. Take TikTok, for example. In 2023, TikTok removed 76 million under-age accounts globally, including one million right here in Australia. They did that of their own accord, and it wasn't too difficult, too complex, too hard or anything like that. They just did it. They did this also without requiring digital IDs or any sensitive personal documentation. Instead, they used technology they already had. They used technology that they already used—the same technology that they can use to customise feeds and algorithms, which they do every single day. They use it to identify under-age users. If TikTok can do this, so can other tech giants, like Meta, which is valued at some $2 trillion.
Imagine if there were a financial incentive to identify under-age accounts. I expect we wouldn't have to wait too long to see some outcomes in that regard. Mark Zuckerberg and his billionaire peers have repeatedly demonstrated that they care more about money than they do about the safety and the mental health of our children. They have the ability to do this without compromising or changing any mechanisms of privacy that people do not already hand over voluntarily when they open their own accounts. This bill takes a big-stick approach. It's the only way to get their attention and force them to make the changes that are so desperately needed. We must hold them to account, and this legislation does just that.
Social media and the digital world are an ever-evolving tech behemoth, and it's long overdue for our laws to evolve with it. Ask any millennial what their online experiences were like 10 years ago and, compared to now, you'll see a massive shift. And it's not a good shift; it's not a positive one. Social media platforms for young people were once dominated by dedicated safe spaces for children—sites like Club Penguin—where families felt confident that their kids were protected, but today that landscape has changed dramatically. Studies show that just a single exposure to extremist, racist, misogynistic or violent content can trigger algorithms that push even more harmful content to the viewer. With just one view, it can become part of your standard feed. A child just needs to happen upon it once and it will keep coming. We aren't talking about websites on the dark web. We aren't talking about obscure blogs in the depths of the internet. We are talking about content that is littered across TikTok, Instagram and Facebook. TikTok was deliberately designed to be addictive. Think about that for a moment. Do we really want 13-year-old children being exposed to this kind of platform and content, where its purpose is to be addictive to our children? This should be unfathomable, yet here we are.
The protection of children from the toxic elements of social media and the online space is one of the most urgent issues of our time. This is not about telling parents how to care for their children. Parents are already doing everything they can, but social media is one of the biggest problems discussed among parents across our country. I've spoken to countless parents who are literally crying out for help, telling me they need action to protect their children from the risks online. Polling from YouGov shows that 77 per cent of parents support measures to safeguard children from the harmful effects of social media. Parents know the dangers these platforms pose for their children, and they want us to help them take action. They want us to help them protect their children.
The data tells a harrowing story. The mental health of Australian children, especially girls, has deteriorated at an alarming rate over the past decade. Hospitalisations for self-harm among girls aged 10 to 14 have increased by over 300 per cent in that time. Young boys are targeted by sexual predators, with the AFP reporting hundreds of incidents this year alone, and those are the incidents that are reported. What about those that go unreported, where the parents are unaware of the grooming and attempted grooming of their children? There need to be mechanisms in place to minimise this as much as humanly possible.
We had a hearing on Monday, albeit it a brief one, in relation to this matter, and I was deeply disturbed by some of the comments from one of the witnesses, who suggested that there was an exaggeration as to harms found online. I don't think there's an exaggeration. I think it's very real, and I think it's incredibly problematic. If we continue to pretend that it's not happening, it will continue to get worse and worse unchecked. We have a responsibility and an accountability to protect these children. I read an article recently which talked about the challenge of putting this genie back into the bottle. We can't walk away from this just because it's hard. We can't walk away from it just because it's uncomfortable, and we can't walk away from it just because some of the kids won't like it. That's a reality. It's a shift and it's a change in what we have said is acceptable. But what we are saying here today is that we do not think it's acceptable for our children to be exposed to harms and predators online or for that to continue to occur under our watch.
These statistics should be a wake-up call for all of us. Social media, which we look to to connect us, is instead contributing to a growing crisis in our children's mental health. We cannot point to the issue of a loss of some of that connection as the reason to cling onto it in the face of the damage being done to our children. It is not a zero-sum game.
This is not just about the harmful content. Kids face pressure, bullying and unrealistic beauty standards. They think that everything that they see there is how things should be. We all know, as adults, that what we see on social media is not necessarily real. Most of us had the opportunity to grow up without it forming our opinions. We owe that same ability to have a childhood to our own children, and we need to stop the toxic culture of comparison that these platforms offer and foster.
This bill seeks to address these issues head on and protect our children from the negative effects of social media. This legislation represents a major step forward in protecting the privacy and wellbeing of Australian families. The coalition has worked to ensure that this bill includes critical privacy protections to ensure that no platform can force users to provide sensitive personal information, such as digital IDs, drivers licences or passports. This is not about surveillance. It's about protecting our children in a world that is increasingly digital.
I also want to highlight that, while this legislation shapes an important step forward, it should be just the beginning. We must take further action to address another critical issue that is damaging the wellbeing of young people: the toxic prevalence and normalisation of pornography and its continued availability in the lives of children and adolescents. A study conducted this year by the Queensland University of Technology revealed a stark and disturbing reality. Pornography is playing a significant role in shaping young people's sexual understandings, expectations and experiences. Even more troubling is the finding that children as young as eight, nine and 10 are being exposed to this harmful content online. We cannot hide from this and pretend it's somebody else's problem. It's our problem. This is insidious and damaging and cannot be ignored. The impact of early exposure to pornography is profound, distorting young minds and contributing to unrealistic and unhealthy views of relationships. We must extend our efforts to help parents protect their children from this dangerous content that they are too often exposed to and take steps to limit the availability and accessibility of pornography to children.
We need stronger laws and more comprehensive measures to tackle all of these issues head on and to ensure that we are doing everything in our power to safeguard the mental and emotional wellbeing of the next generation. This is a fight that we cannot walk away from. This is a necessary and meaningful step towards ensuring the safety of our children online. This bill will force big tech companies to take responsibility for the products and the services that they provide and make a lot of money out of, prioritising the wellbeing of young Australians over their commercial agendas and their profits. With this legislation, we can make a real, lasting difference in protecting the next generation. This is a pivotal moment in our country. We have drawn a line in the sand. The enormous power of big tech can no longer remain unchecked in Australia.
Senator Henderson is next on my list, but we'll rotate the call as per standing order 186. Senator Hanson-Young.
I'm glad for standing order 186! I rise in relation to this piece of legislation, the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024. Firstly, let me say what a disgrace it is that this bill, only tabled in the House of Representatives last Thursday, has been railroaded and rushed through the process here across the parliament. It was tabled in the House Thursday, sent to a Senate inquiry that sat for only three hours on Monday. Submissions from stakeholders and interested parties were open for less than 24 hours on Friday—talk about putting out the bins, taking out the rubbish! That's exactly how this whole bill has been treated by the major parties. The reason that this bill is being rushed without scrutiny and without appropriate review is both the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, and the Prime Minister are worried that if people really knew about what the consequences of this piece of legislation meant, they wouldn't support it.
Mr Dutton is desperate. Despite all the hoo-hah and the flurry we've had in here this morning about rushing pieces through and guillotining bills through this place, this is the one piece of legislation that the Liberals and the National Party want rammed through this place this week. This is the one thing, and every Australian voter and every Liberal Party and National Party voter should hear this: the one priority the Liberal Party have this week is to smash this piece of legislation through without review. Why? Because Mr Dutton doesn't want people to notice. Mr Dutton does not want people to notice, despite the huge concern, the wheels falling off on his own side, and the fact he can't keep his own people in the tent. He wants it rammed through at a minute to midnight, Christmas Eve, the last day of the parliamentary year because he doesn't want people to notice. This is the bloke who talks tough. This is the bloke who says, 'I will be tough on this and I will be tough on this and I will say what's needs to be said.' He is hiding. He is hiding on this bill and he is rushing it through and he doesn't want people to notice. What a load of gutlessness from the Leader of the Opposition.
Of course, this suits the government of the day as well because, despite expert after expert after expert, this bill will not keep children or young people safe—it won't. I understand the best endeavours and intentions of people in this place and around the country who want to make social media safer for our children and our young people. We need to make social media safer for everybody—for women, for people of colour, for those who are isolated, for older Australians who feel totally unable to engage and understand how quickly this technology has happened. We know it's senior Australians who are continually duped and tricked and targeted by scammers on social media. They need protection, too. Young and old Australians need to be able to know—have the right to know—that when they log on to Facebook or open up YouTube or participate in sharing their playlist on Spotify that the platform is safe. We wouldn't expect that the rules of safety, respect or civil discourse are out the window in the car park at Coles. We don't think that just because something happens in the car park at Coles rather than the car park at Woolworths there is a different set of rules and standards and laws to be enforced, but here we have a situation where online and in social media it's a free-for-all. We do need to do something about making these platforms safer. For far too long, the big tech companies have hoodwinked governments and bureaucrats, have set their own rules and have made massive profits off self-regulating or not regulating themselves, and it's time that that was reined in. But that's not what this bill does.
This bill is a false sense of security. It gives the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition a fig leaf to say that they understand and care about parents' concerns about children and young people online, but they're trying to fool Australian parents. They're trying to look like they're doing something while actually doing not much at all. I think this is really dangerous. I think giving Australian parents a false sense of security is actually going to make things more harmful for our young people online, more harmful for women on social media and more dangerous for our young people and teenagers, who are already dealing with so many issues in this world. This is a bill that is an example of the emperor with no clothes. Peter Dutton and Anthony Albanese, as the leaders of the two major parties, who want to rush this through without scrutiny, are standing there, side by side, naked. They are emperors with no clothes, and they want people to be fooled.
We actually need a serious debate about what we need to do to make these platforms genuinely safer so that young people aren't exploited, targeted and harassed and that they're not in danger of harassment or distress. That's not what this bill does. If this government really cared about making these platforms safer, you wouldn't be rushing this. You would be putting a duty of care on these platforms to make them responsible for ensuring they have a legal requirement and responsibility to protect their customers, the users and everyday people. Instead, this bill lets the big tech companies off the hook by pretending that young people can just be banned from the internet. It's fool's gold and it's dangerous.
Tech experts, mental health experts and youth advocates are all saying that, if we do this, the result will be twofold. Firstly, young people will get around it, or they will find their way onto platforms on the dark web which are far more insidious, much more dangerous and much harder for parents and, frankly, legal enforcement to keep an eye on what is going on. Secondly, for those that have been able to circumvent the rules and get themselves online, the tech companies have no obligation and no requirement to make sure that, if you get through the cracks, if you get online as a young person, you'll be kept safe. They'll be pushed into the darkest parts of the web and they won't want to tell their parents what's going on because they'll be worried their phone will be taken away, so they will spiral further and further into isolation from their friends, their family, medical experts who may be able to help them, school counsellors and teachers. They'll become even more isolated and vulnerable. Or, if they're smart enough, like most kids around the age of 14 or 15, they'll work out a way to crack the code to get onto Instagram or TikTok to set themselves up on a social media platform with the false premise that it's only for adults—so they're going to be swimming around on a platform that has no obligation to keep, or concern for keeping, children and young people safe.
This is a disaster unfolding before our eyes. You couldn't make this stuff up. The Prime Minister says he's worried about social media. The Leader of the Opposition says, 'Let's ban it.' It's a race to the bottom to try and pretend who can be the toughest, and all they end up doing is pushing young people into further isolation and giving the platforms the opportunity to continue the free-for-all because there's no social responsibility required.
There have been some promises made around regulating the platforms to make them safer and more responsible, and to stop them from profiteering off harmful content—but none of that is in this bill. The social media ban is the emperor with no clothes. It is fool's gold. It's pretend. It's like going to The Reject Shop, purchasing the dodgy floaties, putting them on your kids and saying, 'There you go, kids; jump in the deep end and see how you float.' No parent would responsibly do that, and the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition shouldn't make them do it.
This bill is rubbish. I'm angry about it because it doesn't meet the very serious needs of the very real concerns parents have. It's pretend. The Prime Minister and Peter Dutton are pretending to deal with a very, very serious issue. There's a reason they didn't want this to go through a proper Senate inquiry. There is a reason they don't want people talking about it. There's a reason this is being done at the last minute in this parliamentary session, and it's that they know it's a bad piece of legislation and that it won't do what they say it will do, but they don't want people to know about it. Trying to fool the Australian population into thinking they are doing this in the interests of children is abhorrent. They're not; they're doing it in their own political interests. This is a political fix, not a social media fix. The ban is rubbish.
I move the Greens' second reading amendment:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that:
(a) the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society heard from experts that banning young people from social media will not make platforms safer for anyone, and instead recommended tougher action on platforms, including a legislated duty of care; and
(b) the attempt by Labor and the Liberals to ram this ban through without genuine scrutiny in under a week is rushed, reckless and ignores expert evidence".
The coalition will be supporting the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, following its passage through the House yesterday.
I'm pleased to say that the coalition has worked to strengthen the provisions of this bill. These are important changes which in our view have significantly strengthened the planned legislation in at least two areas—firstly, in relation to privacy. There will be new provisions stating that people cannot be compelled to provide digital ID or government issued identity documents such as drivers licences or passports, under this legislation. We are pleased to see this supported in the recommendations of the Senate inquiry. Secondly, following our negotiations with the government, changes will be made so that the communications minister will be able to make rules specifying information which, in order to comply with the legislation, social media platforms are not able to collect. This will enable the minister to make rules to ensure that guidelines issued under the legislation are appropriate and proportionate to the objectives of the law. These are both significant changes which materially strengthen the bill.
It is important to get this bill right and that we pass it into law because there are parents across Australia who are looking to us to take action now on the scourge that is social media, which is harming our young people. It deals with an issue on which the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, has once again led the national debate. In June, Mr Dutton committed to implementing an age limit of 16. He announced that a coalition government would raise the age of social media access to 16 and said it would be at the top of his priority list for his first 100 days in office. Five months later, the Prime Minister has come on board with legislation which the coalition has sought to strengthen, and I will have more to say on that shortly.
This debate is the latest policy lead from the coalition regarding online safety. We have been driving action on age verification, particularly in the last year, since the road map for age verification was made public. We announced plans for a trial of technologies in November last year, including $6.7 million in funding, a figure almost identical to the number the government are now using for their trial. It comes, of course, after the coalition, as I say, led this debate. In the same month, we introduced legislation for the trial to occur. This builds on the fact that it was a coalition government which established the world-leading Online Safety Act. And so, a year after we sought to legislate action to strengthen efforts for online safety, here we are, debating this bill.
We are glad the government is now on board, and we are genuinely supportive of this bill, which seeks to protect Australian teenagers from the harms and tragedies linked to social media. This is a totemic issue for Australian families, and it is well past time that action was taken. We are debating a bill which provides a vital reform designed to help young Australians and their families for generations to come.
We come to this parliament to help people in our communities across this nation. That is our task, and this bill seeks to achieve that. Not only will it provide protections for our young but, importantly, it will also arm parents with laws which will help them set rules at home with their kids. For the mums and dads of Australia, that's a really important principle here. It's helping them to set protective boundaries for their children, opening up family discussions about the importance of online safety and helping parents to get more involved in what is a really important issue for families. There is clear community support for these measures. Parents are telling us this, and that's reinforced by a new poll from YouGov which has shown that 77 per cent of Australians back the under-16 social media ban.
Let me speak to the bill. It is, of course, designed to set the age limit of 16 for young people to hold a social media account. This is aimed at reducing the harms that social media is causing to young people. The bill provides for a new, broader definition of social media companies: 'age-restricted social media platforms'. This will now capture Snapchat, as well as other major social media platforms such as TikTok, Facebook, Reddit, Instagram and X. There will be a rule-making power for the minister to exclude specific classes of services from the definition. This would carve out messaging services, online games and services which support the health and education of users, which would include YouTube, as well as WhatsApp, Messenger Kids, ReachOut's PeerChat and Google Classroom. It requires relevant social media companies to take reasonable steps to prevent age restricted users from having an account with the social media platform.
As I mentioned earlier, privacy issues are of the utmost importance to us in the coalition, and we have worked extremely hard to strengthen this legislation. The bill prohibits platforms from using information collected for age-assurance purposes for any other purpose unless explicitly agreed by the individual. Once information has been used for age assurance it must be destroyed unless the individual agrees to it being retained. Failure to delete information constitutes a breach of the Privacy Act and will attract significant penalties. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner will also provide oversight of the privacy provisions related to this bill.
Driving the need for these laws is the knowledge of widespread concern and evidence about the severe mental health impact of social media on children. We have seen disturbing global trends in youth mental health since the rise of social media, especially for girls. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, there was a more than three-fold increase in the rate of intentional self-harm hospitalisations for girls under 14 from 2008-09 through to 2022-23. In recent years there have been large increases in the rate of mental health issues amongst children and young people. A 2022 independent report on self-harm commissioned by Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration noted that there have been 'very large increases in all intentional self-poisonings in older children and adolescents, aged 10 to 19, worldwide over the recent decade'.
Leading psychologist Dr Simon Wilksch, a strong supporter of setting an age limit for social media, said:
… a 200% increase in 10 to 14-year-olds experiencing an eating disorder over the last 12 years strongly overlaps with the rapid growth in social media use by children …
Clinical psychologist Dr Danielle Einstein told the Senate inquiry into this bill that any benefits of social media to mental health are far outweighed by the disadvantages. She said:
I do not see any benefits for mental health in social media. I've looked really hard at the evidence. Even if there were to be some, I think they are far outweighed by the disadvantages. For mental health, I do not see any benefits.
We also recall that it was the US Surgeon General who made the important point:
The mental health crisis among young people is an emergency—and social media has emerged as an important contributor.
We simply cannot ignore such evidence.
The harm being caused to young Australians has also been demonstrated in the tragic cases which we have seen in News Corp's Let Them Be Kids coverage—families torn apart after their children fell foul to social media. I also pay credit to the work of the 36 Months group, which has secured nearly 128,000 signatures from people urging the age limit to be raised to 16. In recent weeks and months we have seen, here in this building, a number of the parents of children who have died after falling foul of social media. Some have been carrying the ashes of their dead daughters or sons. They have told terrible, tragic stories, their lives and families torn apart by social media. We must honour them and the memories of their children. We owe it to our communities to get this done and not to be distracted by those often well-meaning people who may say this is too hard or that the kid will get around this. We support the legislation and highlight the work of the coalition to strengthen this legislation, particularly in relation to privacy, which we have strongly argued is extremely important.
I support this bill because it is the right thing to do. We should not delay. We should get this important reform done right now.
Let me commence by saying that I share the concerns of some of my colleagues that the process for considering this bill, the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, has been suboptimal, to say the least, with the amount of time provided for experts and interested parties to make submissions, and the amount of time for the Senate committee to consider this legislation and, indeed, the lack of supporting evidence that we've been able to marshal. I would have to point the finger at the government. This is something that the opposition has been calling on for some time. The testing of age-verification technology and the trial is something that the eSafety Commissioner first proposed at least two years ago, and the opposition encouraged the government to move expeditiously with it. If that trial had commenced when it should have and had concluded by now, we would be having a more informed discussion about some of the technological solutions available.
In short, I would have liked more time, and I think the Senate and our processes deserved more time to consider this. At the same time, I'm not someone who likes to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and I recognise that, in the words of Bismark, the making of legislation is often like the making of sausages; it can be ugly and particularly indecorous at times, but it's how things get done. I recognise there is an opportunity in this parliament at this time to pass this legislation, even with the deficiencies of process, and I don't believe it is an opportunity we should let slip.
I approached this issue, as I do any issue of government regulation and intervention into the private lives of individuals—particularly households and parents—as a sceptic needing to be convinced of the argument for why government should be able to limit the freedom of children, in this instance, and in some respects remove or curtail the rights of parents and their own decisions about how they raise their children. I respect the views of my colleagues here and elsewhere who have made those points. To counter that, I would make two fundamental propositions. Firstly, in my reading of the evidence that is available, the evidence of harm is quite overwhelming and the evidence of benefit is quite limited. But I would also say that protecting children from harm is a conservative proposition. It's about helping preserve families and protecting people who are vulnerable, whose capacities and abilities have not reached the age of maturity. It's a different proposition than interfering in the lives, freedoms and choices of fully formed, consenting adults, and we recognise this in a number of ways. Children do not have the same rights as adults, and in this vertical I think the case is equally well made.
I believe that the evidence that unregulated access to social media is harming children is overwhelming. If you've read Jonathan Haidt's book The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness, the evidence is well marshalled in that book and I think it has a strong empirical basis. This harm seems to be especially pronounced amongst girls—not only amongst girls but predominantly amongst girls. This doesn't mean every child who uses social media is likely to encounter harm; in fact, overwhelmingly, they're not. This is about quite a small but significant enough minority. The harm can go to the more extreme ends: ostracisation leading to bullying leading to self-harm and, in the most tragic cases, suicide; the development of obsessive characteristics; and the development of eating disorders. Those individual instances have been well documented, including here in Australia. Doubtless social media wasn't the sole cause of that—it was only a contributing factor—but it was nonetheless an important contributing factor.
Even those children who do not suffer such harms—and I recognise that is the overwhelming majority of such users—still face some of the more benign consequences such as attention fragmentation, addiction, social deprivation, distraction, irritability, obsessive behaviour and often just the opportunity cost of spending a large amount of time on social media, which means you're not spending time with your family, you're not spending time with your friends, you're not doing exercise, you're not doing your homework, you're not reading a book and you're not getting proper sleep. This is because these social media platforms play on and lean into ingrained human characteristics and evolutionary habits we've developed over a number of years to, effectively, get us hooked. They play on our desire for new information and new input; that's a trait we developed as a species that has always had to concern itself with imminent threats to its survival and which meant we always prioritised new and incoming information and were hypersensitive to it because of our alertness to changes to our environment—that's the dopamine release cycle.
To social comparison: being social animals means that humans spend a lot of time managing relations and trying to navigate the hierarchy of social relations, and social media plays into our desire for affirmation, for friendship, for social status and for social competition in many respects. In some respects, social media exacerbates some of these traits. A well-known phenomenon of audience capture is where a social media persona leans into those characteristics in their digital life, which reflects, in their regular life, those characteristics that seem to generate the most attention or likes or affirmation, which can send people down quite a diverting trajectory. Prestige bias is where people look at who is successful in social media terms—who has the most followers and the most likes and seems to drive the most engagement? They model themselves on those sorts of behaviours. Often, as we all know, the people who seem to do well in social media are often provocateurs, are often outlandish and often embrace extreme attributes—and, indeed, they're encouraged to do so by the way people build an audience on social media.
There are some benefits to children using social media; I don't discount that. It's a way for them to stay in touch and stay connected. We all saw this during the COVID pandemic when our children weren't going to school and stayed in touch through messaging platforms and social media platforms. It allows them to build and maintain a social circle. I also appreciate that for people who are isolated, geographically or socially or otherwise, it provides them a way to build a community which might not be available to them in the real world. But I say the benefits of children using social media overwhelmingly accrue to the digital platforms. This is why they are so interested in maintaining the status quo—because they monetise the children's audience, and they're able to sell that to advertisers. The committee heard evidence that about US$11 billion was accruing to digital platforms in advertising revenue from that market alone from the under-18 audience alone. This is a valuable audience. We know this from children's television. Advertisers like capturing the attention of children. If a social media platform can say that it commands so many hours a day of a child's time, that is a valuable commodity they can then on sell. That is where I believe the benefits overwhelmingly accrue.
Lastly, parents need help with this. That is why I think there is a case for government intervention. That's partly because parents have to grapple with the ubiquity of phones and electronic devices and the crude measure of taking away their kids' phones or giving them a non-smart phone without any of these apps. I don't think that's particularly realistic. In today's era, we expect our children to be able to be contacted and contactable. That is especially true in many households today where both parents work and are not at home when the children are home or are coming home from school. There's also the sheer ingenuity and cleverness of children. Many parents would know this. Children are ingenious at getting around any technical blocks you might seek to fix. You hear stories of parents saying, 'Make sure you delete all these apps,' and the children download them again and label them as something else. The parents don't know, and they create new identities or user IDs.
Overwhelmingly, the main area in which parents need help is the problem of collective action. It has to be a brave parent or a particularly self-assured or confident parent that will say, 'All my children's friends and all of his or her social group are on a platform and using it to connect, but I'm going to take my child off.' They don't want to punish their child. They don't want to risk ostracisation. Indeed, there are documented cases of having their devices taken and then self-harming because they're so concerned about the catastrophic effect that will have on their social status. If there's a situation where it is normalised that children under 16 are not on social media all the time, and it is normalised that they socialise in more traditional ways, then parents will feel more comfortable in leaning into that legislative norm.
There are some legitimate concerns around this piece of legislation. Some of my colleagues across this chamber have expressed these concerns, and some of them will. Firstly, this will be imperfect. I don't doubt it will be. It's new legislation that hasn't been robustly tested. It is used in some jurisdictions around the world, but it has not been widely tried or used. Children will probably find workarounds to it. They will potentially use VPNs. They will find a way to fake their identity or fake their age. They will migrate to other platforms. I don't doubt that's true, but this is about introducing some friction into the process. We recognise this in lots of spheres of life where government seeks to regulate. Even as a homeowner, you'd never expect that your home wouldn't be broken into but you'd still put deadbolts and security grills on the windows and lock the doors. You know it won't be the perfect protection against burglary, but it will make that job a little bit harder. This legislation is about introducing some friction into the process and perhaps tipping the normal point, if you like, between children being overwhelmingly online and somewhat less overwhelmingly online.
There are also important concerns about privacy. I share those concerns. The amendments that the coalition will be introducing will seek to strengthen protections on privacy. It's important to emphasise this. We don't expect and, I think, would be opposed to any digital platforms seeking hard forms of identification from users of any age to verify their identity. It is not part of this legislation that people will be expected to hand over their driver's licence, their passport details or their Medicare card. We expect social media platforms to use their existing datasets and technology and other behavioural tells to make a reasonable estimate of someone's age and take reasonable steps, as the legislation says, to assure them of their age. This doesn't mean it will be perfect. This means that some people under 16 will be able to fool social media platforms. I anticipate there might be people over 16 who should be allowed to use a platform and won't be able to.
But I would say that this technology does exist. We've seen that. TikTok has used the technology. They told a Senate inquiry just earlier this year that they've removed about one million under-age users from their platforms, not by asking them their age but by detecting the patterns of their behaviour that most correlate with a particular age cohort. We have US jurisdictions that are already introducing and using this. Amongst them are Louisiana, Texas, Tennessee and Florida. They're not known as bastions of social progressivism. They're often quite Republican leaning and relatively conservative electorates, but they have introduced and embraced this legislation, and the digital platforms operating in those jurisdictions have had to find a way to comply with the legislation. So the technology does exist, and, with a nudge or a push from our government and this government, that technology will get better.
Importantly, it will be some time until this legislation comes into effect, and the parliament will have a regular opportunity to review it and review its operation. I think that will be important, because I recognise this is a new piece of legislation. I'm not going to stand here and pretend that this piece of legislation, if passed, will stop bullying or stop the development of eating disorders or stop social isolation. There are a range of contributing factors to that. But if we can provide some help to parents in the right direction to help lessen the potentiation, the super acceleration that social media platforms provide to some of these things, I think that's a step forward.
I firstly want to associate myself with the contribution from my colleague Senator Hanson-Young. I think she hit the nail on the head in her take-down of the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, an incredibly inappropriate and rushed piece of legislation. Let's call it out for what it is. This is a deeply flawed and dangerous proposal by people who appear to have never been on the internet or met a teenager. It's a bill to appease Rupert Murdoch and the news stable, and its implementation, if we ever get that far, will be a hot mess. This is the kind of legislation that's brought to the parliament by a prime minister and a bunch of people in Labor and the opposition who get their staff to print their emails out for them. That's the legislation we've got before us.
The evidence against it is literally overwhelming. We have child mental health experts who say that this could dangerously isolate many kids who use social media to find essential support at particular times when they need it. We have IT and government specialists who say that it cannot work. We have privacy advocates who are saying that this will reach into the privacy of everybody who engages in social media, not just kids but adults. We have human rights organisations who are pretty much all united in opposition to this law. We have government agencies, like the OAIC, who say, 'Don't do this.' It's an extraordinarily broad alliance of people. I can't really recall such a kind of united breadth of opposition to legislation that Labor and the coalition, Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton, both whose names start with Mr, are joining together to ram through with a sham inquiry in the last few hours of parliamentary sitting this year.
Why are those people—the mental health experts, IT and government specialists, privacy advocates and human rights organisations—all joining together to oppose this legislation? Because this policy will hurt vulnerable young people the most, especially in regional communities and especially in LGBTQI communities, by cutting them off from the support that they need and the support that they can sometimes only get on social media. To be clear: it has not worked anywhere in the world where these kinds of thought bubbles have grown and then popped. So why are we ramming it through with so little scrutiny here? Why does the Albanese Labor government suddenly want to work on absolutely everything with Mr Peter Dutton?
The time for this debate has concluded. Senator Shoebridge, you'll be in continuation.
O'NEILL () (): Pursuant to notice given yesterday on behalf of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1, for 12 sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Explosives Regulations 2024.
I present the 14th report of 2024 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The report read as follows—
Selection of Bills Committee
REPORT NO. 14 OF 2024
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair)
Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)
Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip)
Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip)
Senator Jacqui Lambie (Jacqui Lambie Network Whip)
Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)
Senator Ralph Babet
Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm
Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher
Senator Maria Kovacic
Senator Matt O'Sullivan
Senator Fatima Payman
Senator David Pocock
Senator Gerard Rennick
Senator Lidia Thorpe
Senator Tammy Tyrrell
Senator David Van
Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 27 November 2024 at 7.13 pm.
2. The committee recommends that—
(a) the provisions of the Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 January 2025 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the provisions of the Health Legislation Amendment (Modernising My Health Record—Sharing by Default) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 January 2025 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(c) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fairer for Families and Farmers and Other Measures) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 January 2025 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(d) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives and Integrity) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 January 2025 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:
Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) (Consequential Provisions and Other Matters) Bill 2024
Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) Tax (Imposition) Bill 2024.
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024
5. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement:
(Anne Urquhart)
Chair
28 November 2024
Appendix 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill
Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:
to examine the Bill in further detail and hear from relevant stakeholders
Possible submissions or evidence from:
relevant stakeholders
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Economics Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
January 2025
Possible reporting date:
30 January 2025
(signed)
Nick McKim
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To thoroughly examine this legislation and receive evidence from a range of stakeholders.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Interested parties and stakeholders.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Economics Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
January and February 2025
Possible reporting date:
6 March 2025
(signed)
Wendy Askew
Appendix 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Health Legislation Amendment (Modernising My Health Record—Sharing by Default) Bill
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To thoroughly examine this legislation and receive evidence from a range of stakeholders.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Interested parties and stakeholders.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
January and February 2025
Possible reporting date:
20 March 2025
(signed)
Wendy Askew
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Health Legislation Amendment (Modernising My Health Record—Sharing by Default) Bill 2024
Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Pathologists
Diagnostic Imaging providers
Health consumers/ consumer groups GPs
Nurse Practitioners
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
28th January
Possible reporting date:
3rd February or later
(signed)
Nick McKim
Appendix 3
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Treasury Laws Amendment (Fairer for Families and Farmers and Other Measures) Bill
Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:
To examine the Bill in detail and hear from relevant stakeholders
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Economics Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Week of 20 January 2025
Possible reporting date:
31 January 2025
(signed)
Nick McKim
Appendix 4
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives and Integrity) Bill
Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:
to examine the Bill in further detail and hear from relevant stakeholders
Possible submissions or evidence from:
relevant stakeholders
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Economics Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Week of 20 January 2025
Possible reporting date:
31 January 2025
(signed)
Nick McKim
I move:
That the report be adopted.
I move:
At the end of the motion, add: "and the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Energy Regulator Separation) Bill 2024 not be referred to committee".
I move an amendment to the government's amendment, circulated in my name:
At the end of the motion, add: "and:
(a) the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 and the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Communications) Bill 2024 [Provisions] be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 3 February 2025; and
(b) the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 February 2025".
I wish to speak to why we need to refer the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2024 to inquiry. This is legislation that Labor opposed when it was twice presented by the opposition under the name of then Minister Peter Dutton. In 2017 and 2020, Labor seemed to have at least some kind of moral compass when it came to migration and people seeking asylum. And why did Labor oppose it, together with the Greens? We had a progressive majority to oppose that legislation in 2017 and 2020, which is the same progressive majority that would be available if Labor still had progressive views, even slightly, on migration and people seeking asylum. But the reason it was opposed in 2017 and 2020 by the same Labor Party that are now presenting it in their own name is this is a vicious attack on the rights of people who are being held in immigration detention. These are people who are being held there not because they've committed any crime or as punishment but by increasingly draconian laws that are holding more and more people in detention.
Why Labor opposed it in 2017 and 2020 and why the Greens opposed it in 2017 and 2020 is for the same reason the Greens are opposing it in 2024, as we're consistent with our principles. The reason why we oppose taking away people's mobile phones while they're in immigration detention—an immigration detention run by some of the most loathsome international corporate bottom feeders you could imagine who globally profit off holding people in detention around the world, including the likes of Serco, who are notorious for human rights abuses—is sometimes mobile phones are the only accountability measure they have. They can take images of the abuse they're suffering. They can talk to journalists and politicians and people outside those hateful institutions that are run by private corporations and designed to be cruel. The mobile phone is their one chance to talk to the outside world and shine at least something of a light on the violence and the abuses of human rights. I think Labor want to take that away because they want to run a secretive immigration detention centre here.
Labor are taking away that accountability measure—that one lifeline that people with no other rights have in these private jails run by global jailing corporations which are notorious for human rights abuses, like Serco—and, in the same legislation, they want to empower those same private corporations to stripsearch detainees without warrants and to put dogs into the detention centres without warrants. They take away the accountability measure and then they add additional human rights abuses in the same legislation—legislation that Labor voted against twice when then minister Dutton and the coalition were in power.
The coalition must be looking at Minister Tony Burke and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. You only get one of these in your lifetime—this combination of people in high office who are willing to give these appalling powers to people in control of detention centres. They're willing to deliver more than the coalition could ever achieve in terms of cruelty and human rights abuses. The coalition are looking at the Labor Party in 2024 and saying, 'Actually, you are meaner, nastier, crueller and even less principled than the coalition.'
Do you want to know why we want to refer this off to an inquiry? It's because it stinks. It's vicious, it's mean and it's nasty. It's a betrayal of any sense of decency and principle, and it's cheap, grubby politics from Labor. If they think they can out-Dutton Dutton, they can think again. This is just the start of it. It should end here.
Senator Roberts has indicated that he wishes the question to be split. The question now is that part (a) of Senator McKim's amendment to Senator Chisholm's amendment to the motion on the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.
The question is that part (b) of Senator McKim's amendment to the motion on the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.
I move an amendment to Senator Chisholm's amendment:
Omit "not be referred to a committee", substitute "provisions be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 6 March 2025".
The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Ruston to Senator Chisholm's amendment to the motion on the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.
The question now is that the amendment, as moved by Senator Chisholm, to the motion on the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move:
At the end of the motion, add: "and the National Organic Standard Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 January 2025".
Question agreed to.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.
I move:
That general business notice of motion no. 730 standing in the name of Senator Tyrrell, relating to kinship carers, be considered during general business today.
Question agreed to.
If there is no objection, those committees' reporting dates are authorised.
It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 14 November 2024 of the Hon. John Charles Hodges, a former minister and member of the House of Representatives for the division of Petrie in Queensland from 1974 to 1983 and from 1984 to 1987. I understand that arrangements will be made to move a motion of condolence at a future date.
I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for today.
I table a letter from Senator Wong regarding estimates, and I move:
(1) That estimates hearings by legislation committees for 2025 be scheduled as follows:
2024-25 additional estimates:
Monday, 24 February and Tuesday, 25 February (Group A)
Wednesday, 26 February and Thursday, 27 February (Group B)
2025-26 Budget estimates:
Monday, 7 April to Thursday, 10 April and, if required, Friday, 11 April (Group A)
Monday, 14 April to Thursday, 17 April and, if required, Tuesday, 22 April (Group B)
Monday, 27 October and Tuesday, 28 October (supplementary hearingsGroup A)
Wednesday, 29 October and Thursday, 30 October (supplementary hearingsGroup B).
(2) That cross portfolio estimates hearings on Indigenous matters and on Murray-Darling Basin Plan matters be scheduled for Friday, 28 February, Friday, 11 April, and Friday, 31 October, but not be restricted to these days.
(3) That the committees consider the proposed expenditure in accordance with the allocation of departments and agencies to committees agreed to by the Senate.
(4) That committees meet in the following groups:
Group A:
Environment and Communications
Finance and Public Administration
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
Group B:
Community Affairs
Economics
Education and Employment
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.
(5) That the committees report to the Senate on the following dates:
(a) Tuesday, 25 March 2025, in respect of the 2024-25 additional estimates; and
(b) Tuesday, 27 May 2025, in respect of the 2025-26 Budget estimates.
Question agreed to.
I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 716.
At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:
That—
(a) the Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 be divided into two bills and amended in accordance with the amendments on sheet 3191, to create two bills as follows:
(i) Treasury Laws Amendment (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Bill 2023—containing Schedules 1 to 3, and
(ii) Treasury Laws Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024—containing Schedules 4 to 8;
(b) the bills be printed; and
(c) further consideration of each bill be an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
The question is that general business notice of motion No. 720, standing in the name of Senator Dean Smith and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) that on 19 November 2024 the Senate ordered that there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Education, by no later than 5 pm on 24 November 2024, documents relating to wage increases for early childhood educators and care workers (no. 661) and the government response to the Productivity Commission report on childhood education and care (no. 662), and
(ii) on 25 November 2024 a claim of public interest immunity was made on the grounds that release of the documents would 'compromise the ability to confidentially brief the Australian Government in its Cabinet deliberations and may materially impact the functioning of Government';
(b) rejects this claim of public interest immunity; and
(c) requires compliance with orders nos 661 and 662 by no later than midday on 28 November 2024.
The question is that general business notice of motion No. 721, standing in the name of Senator Hodgins-May, be agreed to.
At the request of Senator Henderson, I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Education, by no later than 5 pm on 28 November 2024, copies of all briefs to the Minister for Education and/or the Minister for Early Childhood Education detailing the funding formula to be used to calculate the payments that early childhood education service providers will receive in arrears as part of the Wage Retention Grant Program.
The question is that general business notice of motion No. 722, standing in the name of Senator Henderson and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.
I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by no later than 9 am on 9 December 2024, any file notes, meeting notes, meeting agendas or other records of interaction held by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (the minister), the minister's office or the department that refer to the National Capital Investment Framework (the framework), and additionally:
(a) any agreement, memorandum or other document that formally establishes the framework;
(b) any document showing the eligibility criteria by which applications for funding under the framework are assessed;
(c) any process documents related to the framework, including any document that shows how applications for funding are received and assessed; and
(d) any proposals that have been submitted for assessment under the framework since its establishment.
Question agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senator Thorpe, move:
That the following bill be introduced:
A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to the funding of illegal settlements, and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to this bill.
Leave granted.
I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
This Bill is being introduced alongside the Genocide Risk Reporting Bill 2024 and the Defence Trade Controls Amendment (Genocide, War Crimes, and Crimes Against Humanity) Bill 2024.
Together they represent a baseline measure to ensure Australia complies with its international legal obligations, including UN Security Council resolution 2334 (2016), the Fourth Geneva Convention, and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Passing these three Bills is an essential step in ensuring comprehensive action to uphold human rights, foster accountability, and bring about an end to the era of genocide.
This Bill implements Australia's international legal obligation to abstain from 'economic or trade dealings' with Israel with regards to illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Bill, and the amendments it proposes, ensure that investments by the Future Fund, and money from registered Australian charities do not support companies who are providing for, or profiting off, illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian land, as per Australia's international obligations.
In doing so, the Bill operationalises and gives effect to the policy position of the Australian Government regarding illegal Israeli settlements which deems Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories illegal, consistent with UN Security Council resolution 2334 (2016).
The world has watched in horror at the genocide, and as the horrific violence throughout the entire Palestinian Occupied Territories increases. Israel has continued to expand its illegal settlement enterprise across the West Bank and East Jerusalem-an enterprise which denies Palestinian peoples self-determination, and which guarantees further bloodshed and intractable conflict throughout the region.
Increased illegal settlements bring increased violence against Palestinians. This was the finding of a report from early 2023 by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which found that over the past decade, the United Nations verified 3,372 violent incidents by settlers, resulting in injuries to 1,222 Palestinians. Last year, incidents of settler violence reached record highs. In the last quarter of 2023, over 535 violent incidents involved settlers in the West Bank. According to the United Nations, in nearly half of all settler attacks documented in 2023, Israeli Defence Forces were either accompanying or actively supporting the settler perpetrators. On 4 June 2024, the United Nations reported that 505 Palestinians and 23 Israelis had been killed in the West Bank since 7 October 2023.
As of November 21, 2024, reports from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) indicate that over 34,560 Palestinians have been killed and 77,765 injured in Gaza since the marked escalation of conflict on October 7, 2023. These figures include thousands of civilians killed due to Israeli airstrikes and ground operations, with many still unaccounted for.
G iving Effect to A ustralia's Existing Policy Position
This Bill aligns with, and gives practical effect to, the existing Australian government policy position. Australia refers publicly to Israeli settlement activity as illegal under international law, as does the EU and UK on a regular basis. This is all consistent with UN Security Council resolution 2334 (2016). Indeed, in December 2023, Australia joined a joint statement calling on Israel to take immediate and concrete steps to tackle record high settler violence in the occupied West Bank. That statement reiterated the commonly held position that 'Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank are illegal under international law', and signatories 'remind Israel of its obligations under international law, in particular Article 49 of Geneva Convention IV'.
This Bill provides a set of practical measures which will give effect to this existing policy position and in doing so, will demonstrate Australia's commitment to the international rules-based order and opposition to actions that undermine lasting peace in the region. Because to date, Australia has failed to implement any concrete consequences for this illegal activity.
Clear Position of A ustralia's International Legal Obligations
This failure to address the illegal settlements has become even more problematic since July 2024, when Australia's international legal obligations were made abundantly clear by the International Court of Justice. The Court delivered its Advisory Opinion on the 'Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem'. In that Opinion, the Court affirmed that Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the regime associated with them, is a violation of international law. The Court noted the rapid and significant expansions in recent years. The Court determined that Israel has a legal obligation to put an end to its illegal acts, and 'immediately cease all new settlement activity'.
In this Advisory Opinion, the Court was very clear about the obligations of states such as Australia. The Court called on all states to, amongst other things, 'abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings with Israel concerning the Occupied Palestinian Territory or parts thereof which may entrench its unlawful presence in the territory'; and 'take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory'. Money coming into Israeli illegal settlements from states like Australia and charities registered here, entrenches these settlements.
This Bill will bring this into effect, by ensuring that assets from the Future Fund, are not invested in companies who are involved in illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory.
It also ensures that registered Australian charities are not inadvertently or purposely sending funds or resources to illegal Israeli settlements or any companies that are listed on the UN Database of companies operating in illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land.
The Future Fund and Australian charities will be instructed to divest themselves of current assets and will be prohibited from any investments in companies that operate in illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land.
No Funding Apartheid and Other Human Rights Abuses
Under article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), states parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature. It has been made very clear by the International Court of Justice that Israel's policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory—including the illegal settlement regime—amount to segregation or apartheid. In an earlier Advisory Opinion, the Court stated that third states like Australia have an obligation 'not to recognize the illegal situation … [nor] render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation'. The Bill ensures that Australia does not violate its obligations in not rendering 'aid or assistance' in maintaining the situation of apartheid that currently prevails in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, by preventing the support of illegal Israeli settlements by the Future Funds or through Australian registered charities.
Similarly, Palestinian people have the right to self-determination, namely the right to freely determine their political status and to pursue its economic, social and cultural development. However, these illegal Israeli settlements throughout the Occupied Palestinian territories violate that right for the Palestinian people. Israel illegally appropriates Palestinian lands and water for the sole benefit of its settlements and destroys Palestinian infrastructure to further expand their illegal settlement enterprise. The International Court of Justice found that the prolonged character of the unlawful settlement enterprise aggravates the violation of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination even further. Because Israel's policies and practices have spanned decades, this has deprived the Palestinian people the right to self-determination over a long time. The Court noted that any further prolonging of these policies would undermine the exercise of the right to self-determination into the future.
The Bill recognises Israel's illegal settlement activity as a key barrier to the Palestinian people's right to self-determination and ensures the Future Fund and charitable funds do not go to supressing self-determination.
Another core human right that these settlements impede is the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose their residence. Settlements restrict the freedom of movement of Palestinian people in many ways, including restrictions like checkpoints, settler-only roads and physical impediments created by walls and gates. In order to make way for settlement building, Israel continually evicts Palestinians from their homes and communities. For example, 500 Palestinian Bedouins in the Naqab region were forcibly evicted from lands where their families had lived for decades to permit expansion for the Jewish-majority city of Dimona. Forced evictions have rapidly increased in East Jerusalem, with approximately 150 Palestinian families at risk of forced eviction and displacement by Israeli authorities and settler organisations in 2023. The Bill ensures that companies who assist in the demolition of Palestinian houses and/or fund or support illegal Israeli settlement activity will not receive any support from public funds from the Australian government or from donations to Australian registered charities.
In line with International Practice
This Bill follows the lead of other states that have divested from Israeli companies or imposed sanctions on Israeli organisations linked to settlements. In April 2024, the Irish Government announced that it would divest the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund (ISIF) shareholdings of €2.95 million from six Israeli companies linked to activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In April 2024, the EU's European Council listed four Israeli settlers and two Israeli organisations on the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime, for their responsibility 'for serious human rights abuses against Palestinians' in the occupied West Bank. Canada, the United States, and Australia have placed sanctions on Israeli settlers. This shows that there is an emerging international practice to level sanctions as a key response to these illegal settlements.
But individualised sanctions do not go far enough when the issue is structural and systemic. Settlement violence is not an aberration of individual extremist settlers, but part of an Israeli policy of unlawful occupation, annexation and apartheid. We need financial measures that target the actual cause of the violence and illegal activity.
Conclusion
Despite overwhelming international condemnation, even from its 'closest friends', Israel has not stopped its illegal settlement activity—in fact, it has actively sought to both facilitate this violence and vastly, and rapidly, expand the illegal settlement program. In March 2024, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights noted that 'the international community has failed, both individually and collectively, to take adequate, feasible and effective measures to ensure the compliance of Israel with its international obligations'.
It is urgent and necessary to give proper and full effect to the existing Australian policy position, as well as our international legal obligations. The clearest way to do this is through ensuring Australia's financial assets cannot be used to perpetuate this illegal activity.
Australia has not only failed in its international obligations but chooses to do so on a continuing basis. The legal barriers to the prosecution of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are intentional and signify an acceptance of these crimes, an enabling and indeed complicity in them. This includes the Attorney-General's fiat, which grants sole discretion over prosecuting international crimes, functions as a significant barrier to accountability, undermining efforts to pursue justice under international law.
This is most prominently shown in the Genocide of the First Peoples of this land. Genocide has been perpetrated from the time of invasion, through massacres, forced displacement, land theft, the destruction of cultural heritage, the Stolen Generations and so much more. It continues to this very day. It is not as starkly obvious to the outside observer as the Genocide in Gaza, but it takes place in sophisticated, silent and effective ways.
This Bill goes towards ensuring that Australia complies with its obligations to the international community, global peace, and the international rules-based order, while ensuring that its financial assets are not further perpetuating a cycle of violence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I, and also on behalf of Senator Thorpe, move:
That the following bill be introduced:
A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to defence trade controls, and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.
Leave granted.
I table an explanatory memorandum, and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
This Bill is being introduced alongside the Genocide Risk Reporting Bill 2024 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Divesting from Illegal Israeli Settlements) Bill 2024.
Together they represent a baseline measure to further align Australia with its international legal obligations including the Fourth Geneva Convention, and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Passing these three Bills is an essential step in ensuring comprehensive action to uphold human rights and foster accountability and bringing about the end to the era of genocide.
The Defence Trade Controls Amendment (Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity) Bill 2024 amends the Defence Trade Controls Act 2012 (DTC Act) and the Customs Act 1901 to more closely align with its International Human Rights obligations.
This Bill aments the DTC Act to prevent the Minister for Defence from granting export permits for Australian-made weapons, military equipment, or technology that may be used in the commission of serious violations of international law, including genocide.
This Bill addresses Australia's failure to fully implement its obligations under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Convention), to which Australia is a state party. Australia's core obligations under the Convention are fourfold:
These obligations, as recognised by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), impose both negative (not to commit genocide) and positive duties (to prevent genocide). Australia's obligations are peremptory, meaning no derogation is allowed, and must take precedence over other domestic or international agreements, including trade or military cooperation treaties.
The Bill recognises that Australia must not aid or assist genocide, nor be complicit in it. It ensures that Australian defence goods, technology, or services are not exported to countries where they might be used to perpetrate genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity.
Australia's obligation to prevent genocide arises as soon as we become aware, or should reasonably be aware, of a serious risk that genocide is taking place. This includes situations where the ICJ issues a Provisional Measures Order warning of imminent genocide. The Bill ensures that, once such a risk is identified, Australia must act to prevent exports that might contribute to genocide or related crimes.
This Bill also complements Australia's obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty 2013, which entered into force for Australia in 2014. The Treaty requires Australia to halt the export of conventional arms if there is knowledge that they would be used in genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes.
Key Provisions of the Bill
The Bill makes several important amendments to the DTC Act to ensure compliance with both the Genocide Convention and the Arms Trade Treaty. It inserts provisions that:
Practically, this means the relevant Minister must:
Importantly, the Bill directs the Minister to act with due diligence when assessing risks of genocide in any export activity. This includes evaluating whether a foreign country's actions, as determined by international bodies like the ICJ, create a risk that Australian-made goods could be used in genocide or other serious violations.
The Bill also amends the Customs Act 1901 to ensure military goods and technology cannot be exported where there is a risk of violating Australia's obligations under the Genocide Convention or the Arms Trade Treaty. The Bill brings consistency to how key terms such as genocide, ICJ Orders, and related concepts are applied in both the DTC Act and the Customs Act 1901.
These amendments ensure that Australia's export controls align with international humanitarian law and uphold Australia's reputation as a responsible actor in the global fight against genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
Background and Case Example of Necessity of Legal Reform
We need this legislation because the current policies and practices of the Australian government place us in clear breach of international law. While Australia is complicit in genocides around the world, Palestine serves as a stark case example of this complicity, underscoring the urgent need for legislative reform.
Australia has not only failed in its international obligations but chooses to do so on a continuing basis. The legal barriers to the prosecution of Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are intentional and signify an acceptance of these crimes, an enabling and indeed complicity in them. This includes the Attorney-General's fiat, which grants sole discretion over prosecuting international crimes, functions as a significant barrier to accountability, undermining efforts to pursue justice under international law.
This is most prominently shown in the Genocide of the First Peoples of this land. Genocide has been perpetrated from the time of invasion, through Massacres, forced displacement, land theft, the destruction of cultural heritage, the Stolen Generations and so much more. It continues to this very day. It is not as starkly obvious to the outside observer as the Genocide in Gaza, but it takes place in sophisticated, silent and effective ways.
The circumstances in which this important reform has arisen, is the matter of South Africa v Israel where a Provisional Measures Decision[i] issued by the International Court of Justice (modifying its Orders of 28 March 2024 and 24 May 2024) determined, inter alia, that Israel:
a. 'must take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip',
b. 'must take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip', and
c. 'must also take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II and Article III of the Genocide Convention against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip'.[ii]
The ICJ provisional orders indicate that the Court accepted there is a plausible case that Palestinians in Gaza have a right to be protected from genocide.[iii]
However, since the ICJ provisional ruling, there appears to have been negligible change in the conduct of the State of Israel and the Israel military's campaign of destruction on Gaza and the occupied Palestine territories. Civilian casualty numbers remain extremely high, as demonstrated by multiple reliable sources.[iv]
Following the ICJ ruling on 26 January 2024, several human rights and legal organisations have called on the Australian government to 'act in accordance with Australia's legal responsibilities under the Genocide Convention, the Rome Statute, and the interim measures set out by the Court', by ceasing military exports to Israel, demanding an immediate ceasefire, stopping political and diplomatic support to Israel, supporting greater humanitarian aid to Gaza, and ensuring accountability for international crimes occurring across the Occupied Territories.[v]
As of November 21, 2024, reports from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) indicate that over 34,560 Palestinians have been killed and 77,765 injured in Gaza since the marked escalation of conflict on October 7, 2023. These figures include thousands of civilians killed due to Israeli airstrikes and ground operations, with many still unaccounted for.
To date, the Australian Government has not elected to invoke its sanctions framework or to impose an arms embargo of any sort with respect to Israel, despite the International Criminal Code issuing warrants for the arrest of Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on 21 November 2024.
The non-operation of the sanctions framework with respect to Israel has left the door open for continued business to support Israel's military supply chain, while Israel is facing accusations of genocide.
A UN statement dated June 20, 2024[vi] called for a halt to arms transfers to Israel by states and companies to prevent human rights violations.
At least the following companies, as cited in that UN statement, have been the subject of Australian Government announcements in the past year:
The public record shows that despite UN calls to cease support for companies supplying arms to Israel, the Australian Government has signed major contracts and investments with these companies in the past year. The details of such contracts include:
The Australian Government's refusal to impose sanctions seems driven by its significant financial ties to companies involved in serious human rights violations in Gaza.
The government is unwilling to punish companies it has invested billions in, even after the United Nations issued warnings.
By shielding these companies from sanctions, the government also exposes itself to potential state and criminal liability, creating an unacceptably high legal risk to both the government and the Australian public.
This Bill aims to set clear legal boundaries, ensuring that when political or self-preservation motives prevent the government from acting, the law steps in to enforce some form of embargo so Australia is not arming or funding serious human rights violations.
As the Australian Centre for International Justice's Executive Director, Rawan Arraf, has stated in relation to Israel,
"It's simply unacceptable that Australian-made parts and components could be involved in such atrocities. International law is clear, the Australian government must end the two-way arms trade with a state that is condemned by the ICJ as maintaining an unlawful occupation regime. Australia has international obligations to ensure it is not aiding Israel's violations of international law."
This is a sentiment felt widely across the community.
This Bill would create important measures to increase transparency and accountability. It's not merely the lack of sensitivity and respect for the rule of law regarding Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territories that stands out; it's the refusal of these politicians to engage with voters honestly on these crucial topics. On one hand, the Labor Government has said that it doesn't supply weapons to Israel, but then remains silent on the arms and ammunitions destined for Israel through the US, Germany and other countries. Such as the 3,000 155mm shells that are exported from the Rheinmetall factory in Maryborough every month to Germany, for its ammunition stockpile.
It also remains tight-lipped on the open permits to Israel and whether Australia is exporting goods other than weapons or weapons parts that are critical to Israel's ongoing killing of civilians—such as the mechanism that facilitates devastating bombs to be dropped from Lockheed Martin fighter jets. It appears this mechanism is being manufactured in Brisbane and it is critical to Israel's military capability.
The deeper issue lies in the hollow appearance of concern for our community. The Foreign Affairs Minister's rhetoric about international law and behind-the-scenes cooperation with perpetrators contrasts sharply with the past year's outcome: escalating violence with impunity. The stark disconnect between this doublespeak and the harrowing images of Palestinian women and children—many fleeing bombings or trapped under rubble—could not be more jarring. This Bill is about restoring trust and integrity in government. Anyone in this Senate or House who values the rule of law, transparency, and accountability must support this Bill and the broader package it forms part of.
In summary, the Defence Trade Controls Amendment (Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity) Bill 2024 strengthens Australia's commitment to preventing genocide and related atrocities. The Bill aligns Australia's defence export controls with its international obligations under the Genocide Convention and the Arms Trade Treaty. It ensures that Australian-made defence goods, technologies, and services are not used in ways that violate international law, specifically genocide and war crimes.
This country must lead by example, ensuring our military exports do not contribute to human rights abuses. This Bill is an important step towards upholding our obligations under the Genocide Convention and protecting vulnerable populations worldwide from the horrors of genocide and other crimes against humanity
————
[ i ] Available: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state, p. 6.
[ ii ] Ibid.
[ iii ] ICJ, 'Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v Israel)', ICJ, <https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf>, [54].
[ iv ] See, for example: Oxfam, 'Daily death rate in Gaza higher than any other major 21st Century conflict—Oxfam', Oxfam (online, 11 January 2024). Available: https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/daily-death-rate-gaza-higher-any-other-major-21st-century-conflict-oxfam; OCHA, 'Hostilities in the Gaza Strip and Israel | Flash Update #110', OCHA (online, 4 February 2024). Available: https://www.ochaopt.org/content/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-flash-update-110.
[ v ] For example, Human Rights Law Centre, 'ICJ South Africa v. Israel: Human Rights Law Centre statement', Human Rights Law Centre (online), <https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/2024/2/1/icj-south-africa-v-israel-human-rights-law-centre-statement>; Australian Centre for International Justice, 'Australia has a duty to prevent genocide in Gaza and act to implement ICJ ruling that Israel's actions in Gaza are a plausible genocide', Australian Centre for International Justice (online 27 January 2024), <https://acij.org.au/media-release-australia-has-a-duty-to-prevent-genocide-in-gaza-and-act-to-implement-icj-ruling-that-israels-actions-in-gaza-are-a-plausible-genocide/>; International Legal Scholars Against Genocide, 'Open Letter to the Australian government regarding the ICJ provisional measures ruling', The Overland (online 31 January 2024), <https://overland.org.au/2024/02/open-letter-to-the-australian-government-regarding-the-icj-provisional-measures-ruling/>.
[ vi ] https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/06/states-and-companies-must-end-arms-transfers-israel-immediately-or-risk#:~:text=GENEVA%20(20%20June%202024)%20%E2%80%93,demand%20to%20stop%20transfers%20immediately.
[ vii ] Contract worth $110 million https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/air/williamtown-f-35-facility-to-expand
Contract worth $160 million https://psnews.com.au/bae-systems-australia-wins-160-million-missile-seeker-contract/148982/ (From 6 days ago)
Contract worth $5.1 billion https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/australia-earmarks-billions-naval-infrastructure-bae-wins-aukus-submarine-work-2024-03-21/
https://www.baesystems.com/en/article/3-95bn-awarded-for-next-phase-of-aukus-submarine-programme (The $5.1bn deal is awarded to BAE systems by UK Ministry of Defence and Australia's funding of $3 billion mentioned is not specified towards BAE systems)
In this statement release by BAE Systems, the SSN-AUKUS deal's funding amount is only credited to UK Ministry of Defence https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/03/australia-selects-bae-systems-and-asc-to-build-ssn-aukus/
[ viii ] Australian Government, Aus Tender, Standing Offert Notice View—SON3945513, (Web page, 10 February 2023) https://www.tenders.gov.au/Son/Show/2f7f8e01-17cc-4c56-b657-d288fbda1bd2; Australian Government, Aus Tender, Standing Offert Notice View—SON3975594, (Web page, 19 June 2023) https://www.tenders.gov.au/Son/Show/8a4a5570-7fbb-4247-9177-b6b5b6a539af; Australian Government Defence, Australian industry and jobs front and centre of AUKUS submarines, (Web page, 22 March 2024) <https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/media-releases/2024-03-22/australian-industry-and-jobs-front-and-centre-aukus-submarines>.
[ ix ] SBS, What do we know about AUKUS?, (Web page, 14 March 2023) <https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/what-do-we-know-about-aukus/t6vndvinn>
[ x ] Australian Government, Aus Tender, Standing Offert Notice View—SON3945513, (Web page, 10 February 2023) https://www.tenders.gov.au/Son/Show/2f7f8e01-17cc-4c56-b657-d288fbda1bd2; Australian Government, Aus Tender, Standing Offert Notice View—SON3975594, (Web page, 19 June 2023) https://www.tenders.gov.au/Son/Show/8a4a5570-7fbb-4247-9177-b6b5b6a539af; Lockheed Martin, Lockheed Martin Australia Partners with Australian Army to Sustain UH-60M Black Hawks, (Web page, 2024)
https://lockheedmartinau.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=2429&item=122670; Pat Conroy MP, X Post, (Web page, 16 January 2024) <https://x.com/PatConroy1/status/1747072816367972576>; Pat Conroy MP, X Post, (Web page, 24 April 2024)<https://x.com/PatConroy1/status/1782958426609668587>; Jordy Silverstein, X, Web page, 19 August 2024) <https://x.com/jordana_s_/status/1825491290160857137>
[ xi ] Australian Government, Aus Tender, Contract Notice View—CN4005625, (Web page, 26 September 2023) https://www.tenders.gov.au/Cn/Show/49e87a0c-2d6e-446f-8ecd-cc9d50d0e586; Australian Government, Aus Tender, Contract Notice View—CN4005564, (Web page, 26 September 2023)
https://www.tenders.gov.au/Cn/Show/f0860ac0-d850-4a26-8c81-787fc092b7c8; Australian Government, Aus Tender, Contract Notice View—CN2024761-A3, (Web page, 26 March 2024)
https://www.tenders.gov.au/Cn/Show/abed2788-6b23-48b0-90c5-181508ef6ede; Australian Government, Aus Tender, Contract Notice View—CN4005625-A1, (Web page, 5 December 2024)
https://www.tenders.gov.au/Cn/Show/d1f87bf8-26ae-40fb-95f0-f9bb232267d8; Australian Government, Aus Tender, Contract Notice View—CN4042677, (Web page, 26 March 2024) https://www.tenders.gov.au/Cn/Show/2cd82e85-2810-4c09-977d-eb6fd4b42340; Australian Government, Aus Tender, Contract Notice View—CN4026575, (Web page, 4 January 2024)
https://www.tenders.gov.au/Cn/Show/8b441e25-88ab-496f-9277-0fe3aee01555; Australian Government, Aus Tender, Contract Notice View—CN4091117, (Web page, 28 August 2024) https://www.tenders.gov.au/Cn/Show/7127d12a-de2a-4b96-b82b-dd5dabde5db6.; Australian Government, Aus Tender, Contract Notice View—CN4083492-A1, (Web page, 10 September 2024) https://www.tenders.gov.au/Cn/Show/041a9093-aef9-4213-a0b0-bfa449e8439c.; Australian Government, Aus Tender, Contract Notice View—CN4091122, (Web page, 28 August 2024) https://www.tenders.gov.au/Cn/Show/456b8985-2060-4577-8447-b461c6f15e1a; Australian Government, Aus Tender, Contract Notice View—CN4091117, (Web page, 28 August 2024) https://www.tenders.gov.au/Cn/Show/7127d12a-de2a-4b96-b82b-dd5dabde5db6.; Australian Government, Aus Tender, Contract Notice View—CN4091091, (Web page, 28 August 2024)
https://www.tenders.gov.au/Cn/Show/65f824e7-5ecd-4f9d-9692-9c328f23a52a; Australian Government, Aus Tender, Contract Notice View—CN4094217, (Web page, 11 September 2024) https://www.tenders.gov.au/Cn/Show/586d923f-9d9c-4585-98df-fed121fefec8; Australian Government, Aus Tender, Contract Notice View—CN4094208, (Web page, 11 September 2024) https://www.tenders.gov.au/Cn/Show/7baefba0-9570-407f-b377-6b4886a45d84; Australian Government, Aus Tender, Contract Notice View—CN4095934, (Web page, 18 September 2024) https://www.tenders.gov.au/Cn/Show/1bf90108-8b7a-4f69-aa44-0376ae651154
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I, and also on behalf of Senator Thorpe, move:
That the following bill be introduced:
A Bill for an Act to require some entities to report on the risks of genocide in their operations and supply chains and actions to address those risks, to establish the Australian Anti-Genocide Commissioner, and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.
Leave granted.
I table an explanatory memorandum, and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
This Bill is being introduced alongside the Defence Trade Controls Amendment (Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity) Bill 2024 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Divesting from Illegal Israeli Settlements) Bill 2024.
Together they represent a baseline measure to further align Australia with its international legal obligations including the Fourth Geneva Convention, and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Passing these three Bills is an essential step in ensuring comprehensive action to uphold human rights and foster accountability and bringing about the end to the era of genocide.
The Genocide Risk Reporting Bill 2024 seeks to address an issue of profound importance: Australia's role in preventing genocide and ensuring our government and businesses uphold their obligations under international law. This Bill is essential to fostering respect, inclusion, and equity within our communities and ensuring protections for all workers into the future.
Genocide is defined under international law as the deliberate and systematic destruction of a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. This can be achieved through a range of horrific acts, including killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm, creating conditions intended to bring about its physical destruction, preventing births, or forcibly transferring children. These actions are not only crimes against humanity—they are the most severe violations of human rights.
As a global community, we must ensure that no one is complicit in the commission of genocide. Yet, as this Bill demonstrates, the risk of Australian businesses being connected—either directly or indirectly—to genocide remains a real and present danger. Without this legislation, Australian businesses and government entities may inadvertently or even deliberately become involved in supply chains that contribute to genocide, potentially using taxpayer funds to support such practices. This is a risk we cannot afford to ignore.
As the Australian Government forges ahead with its goal to make Australia one of the largest manufacturers of US weapons outside the US; and to be a top ten exporter of defence goods in the world, it is pouring public money into defence manufacturing industries without any human rights safeguards.
The House of Representatives has already passed the Future Made in Australia Act2024, yet we lack a framework to assess which defence companies should attract public investment, leaving future jobs at risk when such operations are tied to atrocity crimes.
This Bill creates a framework for Australian companies and government entities to identify and address genocide risks in both domestic and global operations.
This Bill is crucial to trust, integrity, and transparency in Government.
Meeting our legal obligations and protecting Australia's standing
Australia signed the Convention on 11 December 1948, and entered into force under international law in 1951. As a state party to the Convention, Australia has the following four core obligations:
Australia's Obligations under the Convention are both serious and binding.
As a matter of international law, Australia's core obligations under the Convention are of a peremptory character, from which no derogation is permitted, no matter the defence or foreign policy objectives that any particular government or Minister might have.
This Bill acknowledges that Australia must not aid or assist, or otherwise be complicit in, the commission of acts of genocide by allowing for genocide practices to occur in the supply chains of goods and services in the Australian market.
Australia's obligation to prevent genocide arises at the instant that Australia "learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed."
This Bill also takes steps toward implementing Australia's obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty 2013. The Treaty mandates that Australia must not authorise the transfer of arms or related material in certain circumstances, including where there is knowledge that the arms would be used in the commission of genocide.
Key features of this Bill
The Australian Government must not invest funds into businesses that engage in genocide or fail to disclose and mitigate genocide risk. This Bill provides the framework to assess our defence relationships and mitigate legal risk while also offering greater legal certainty for business.
The Bill spells out what companies reporting obligations are.
Similar to the Modern Slavery Act2018, the Genocide Risk Reporting Bill 2024 will establish a Genocide Reporting Requirement. This will compel certain businesses and other entities in Australia to make annual public reports, known as Genocide Statements, on their actions to address genocide risks in their operations and supply chains.
Under the Bill reporting entities include entities that supply, sell, or transfer arms or related material—whether directly or indirectly—or provide technical assistance, training, financial, or other assistance that relates to military activities or the provision, maintenance, or use of arms or related material.
Under this Bill, Australian entities and entities carrying on a business in Australia will be required to submit Genocide Statements for every twelve-month period. The Australian Government must also publish its own annual Genocide Statement. These statements must include, among other things:
'Genocide risk' refers to risks within a reporting entity's operations and supply chains that could lead to genocide; or cause Australia to fail to uphold its legal obligation to prevent genocide under the 1948 Convention.
The Bill ties together the obligations of companies with Australia's obligations. It says, by doing business on this country, and receiving taxpayer money, you will not involve Australia in atrocities.
The Bill also creates a new Anti-Genocide Commissioner.
The Commissioner's functions would allow the Commissioner to work with government, business, and civil society to support compliance with the Act, improve the transparency of supply chains, and help fight genocide in Australia and abroad. The Commissioner's role will involve supporting businesses to identify and assess genocide risks and processes for their elimination, minimisation, and avoidance.
No mandatory reporting framework is worthwhile without enforcement penalties and mechanisms. In line with recommendations from Professor John McMillan AO's review of the Modern Slavery Act 2018, this Bill includes enforcement mechanisms, such as criminal penalties for entities that fail to comply. Civil penalties are also introduced to enhance public accountability, and there will be judicial review of decisions made by the Minister and the Anti-Genocide Commissioner.
Background and Case Example of Necessity of Legal Reform
Australia has not only failed in its international obligations, but chooses to do so on a continuing basis. The legal barriers to the prosecution of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are intentional and signify an acceptance of these crimes, an enabling and indeed complicity in them. This includes the Attorney-General's fiat, which grants sole discretion over prosecuting genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes against the administration of the justice of the International Criminal Court, functions as a significant barrier to accountability, undermining efforts to pursue justice under international law.
This is most prominently shown in the Genocide of the First Peoples of this land. Genocide has been perpetrated from the time of invasion, through massacres, forced displacement, land theft, the destruction of cultural heritage, the Stolen Generations and so much more. It continues to this very day. It is not as starkly obvious to the outside observer as the Genocide in Gaza, but it takes place in sophisticated, silent and effective ways.
Australia's response to the Israeli military and government also serves as a litmus test for its commitment to upholding international law and fulfilling its obligations under human rights conventions.
In June 2024, the UN urgently called for a halt to all arms transfers to Israel, warning that continued transfers risk complicity in international crimes, including genocide. Yet, the Australian Government has failed to act on these calls, continuing to support these companies' supplying arms to Israel with billions of dollars in the past 12 months.
This inaction exposes the Australian Government to potential state and criminal liability, creating an unacceptably high legal risk to both the government, the Australian public and future jobs.
This Bill aims to set clear legal boundaries, ensuring that when political or self-preservation motives prevent the government from acting, the law steps in to enforce an embargo to prevent Australia from arming or funding serious human rights violations.
In the ICJ South Africa v Israel Provisional Measures Decision[ii]the International Court of Justice (and modified in its Orders of 28 March 2024 and 24 May 2024) determined that Israel among other things 'must take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip'.[i]
The ICJ provisional orders indicate that the Court accepted there is a plausible case that Palestinians in Gaza have a right to be protected from genocide.[iii]
However, since the ICJ provisional ruling, there appears to have been negligible change in the conduct of the State of Israel and the Israel military's campaign of destruction on Gaza. Civilian casualty numbers remain extremely high, as demonstrated by multiple reliable sources.[iv]
Following the ICJ ruling on 26 January 2024, several human rights and legal organisations have called on the Australian government to 'act in accordance with Australia's legal responsibilities under the Genocide Convention, the Rome Statute, and the interim measures set out by the Court', by ceasing military exports to Israel, demanding an immediate ceasefire, stopping political and diplomatic support to Israel, supporting greater humanitarian aid to Gaza, and ensuring accountability for international crimes occurring across the Occupied Territories.[v]
With the ICJ provisional orders and documented evidence, the Australian Government is now on notice of a possible genocide—and its duty to prevent is clearly animated.
Even though the clock is ticking on this duty, the Australian Government has not elected to apply sanctions on Israel's military or government.
This has left the door open for continued business to support Israel's military supply chain.
The public record shows that despite UN calls to cease support for companies listed as supplying arms to Israel, the Australian Government has signed major contracts and investments with these companies in the past year, including:
The details of such contracts include:
The Genocide Risk Reporting Bill 2024 is a crucial step towards fulfilling our international obligations and protecting the integrity of Australian businesses and government actions. But it is also about more than compliance—it is about ensuring that Australia remains a country that values equality before the law, and that provides a safe and welcoming home for people of all cultures and backgrounds.
No group, anywhere in the world, should ever be treated as expendable. No peoples should allow its economic future to be built on the expendability of others. This Bill is a moral test for our Parliament, as billions of dollars are directed into the defence industry and other sectors.
Will we be a nation with clear red lines on genocide, committed to human rights and ethical business practices? Or will we continue to be a nation that prioritises political expediency and corporate interests over the lives and dignity of people?
The choice is clear. I urge all members of this Parliament to rise to this challenge and support this Bill.
————
[ i ] Available: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state, p. 6.
[ ii ] Ibid.
[ iii ] ICJ, 'Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v Israel)', ICJ, <https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf>, [54].
[ iv ] See, for example: Oxfam, 'Daily death rate in Gaza higher than any other major 21st Century conflict—Oxfam', Oxfam (online, 11 January 2024). Available: https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/daily-death-rate-gaza-higher-any-other-major-21st-century-conflict-oxfam; OCHA, 'Hostilities in the Gaza Strip and Israel | Flash Update #110', OCHA (online, 4 February 2024). Available: https://www.ochaopt.org/content/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-flash-update-110.
[ v ] For example, Human Rights Law Centre, 'ICJ South Africa v. Israel: Human Rights Law Centre statement', Human Rights Law Centre (online), <https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/2024/2/1/icj-south-africa-v-israel-human-rights-law-centre-statement>; Australian Centre for International Justice, 'Australia has a duty to prevent genocide in Gaza and act to implement ICJ ruling that Israel's actions in Gaza are a plausible genocide', Australian Centre for International Justice (online 27 January 2024), <https://acij.org.au/media-release-australia-has-a-duty-to-prevent-genocide-in-gaza-and-act-to-implement-icj-ruling-that-israels-actions-in-gaza-are-a-plausible-genocide/>; International Legal Scholars Against Genocide, 'Open Letter to the Australian government regarding the ICJ provisional measures ruling', The Overland (online 31 January 2024), <https://overland.org.au/2024/02/open-letter-to-the-australian-government-regarding-the-icj-provisional-measures-ruling/>.
[ vi ] Contract worth $110 million https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/air/williamtown-f-35-facility-to-expand
Contract worth $160 million https://psnews.com.au/bae-systems-australia-wins-160-million-missile-seeker-contract/148982/ (From 6 days ago)
Contract worth $5.1 billion https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/australia-earmarks-billions-naval-infrastructure-bae-wins-aukus-submarine-work-2024-03-21/
https://www.baesystems.com/en/article/3-95bn-awarded-for-next-phase-of-aukus-submarine-programme (The $5.1bn deal is awarded to BAE systems by UK Ministry of Defence and Australia's funding of $3 billion mentioned is not specified towards BAE systems)
In this statement release by BAE Systems, the SSN-AUKUS deal's funding amount is only credited to UK Ministry of Defence https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/03/australia-selects-bae-systems-and-asc-to-build-ssn-aukus/
[ vii ] Australian Government, Aus Tender, Standing Offert Notice View—SON3945513, (Web page, 10 February 2023) https://www.tenders.gov.au/Son/Show/2f7f8e01-17cc-4c56-b657-d288fbda1bd2; Australian Government, Aus Tender, Standing Offert Notice View—SON3975594, (Web page, 19 June 2023) https://www.tenders.gov.au/Son/Show/8a4a5570-7fbb-4247-9177-b6b5b6a539af; Australian Government Defence, Australian industry and jobs front and centre of AUKUS submarines, (Web page, 22 March 2024) <https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/media-releases/2024-03-22/australian-industry-and-jobs-front-and-centre-aukus-submarines>.
[ viii ] SBS, What do we know about AUKUS?, (Web page, 14 March 2023) <https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/what-do-we-know-about-aukus/t6vndvinn>
[ ix ] Australian Government, Aus Tender, Standing Offert Notice View—SON3945513, (Web page, 10 February 2023) https://www.tenders.gov.au/Son/Show/2f7f8e01-17cc-4c56-b657-d288fbda1bd2; Australian Government, Aus Tender, Standing Offert Notice View—SON3975594, (Web page, 19 June 2023) https://www.tenders.gov.au/Son/Show/8a4a5570-7fbb-4247-9177-b6b5b6a539af; Lockheed Martin, Lockheed Martin Australia Partners with Australian Army to Sustain UH-60M Black Hawks, (Web page, 2024)
https://lockheedmartinau.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=2429&item=122670; Pat Conroy MP, X Post, (Web page, 16 January 2024) <https://x.com/PatConroy1/status/1747072816367972576>; Pat Conroy MP, X Post, (Web page, 24 April 2024)<https://x.com/PatConroy1/status/1782958426609668587>; Jordy Silverstein, X, Web page, 19 August 2024) <https://x.com/jordana_s_/status/1825491290160857137>
[ x ] Australian Government, Aus Tender, Contract Notice View—CN4005625, (Web page, 26 September 2023) https://www.tenders.gov.au/Cn/Show/49e87a0c-2d6e-446f-8ecd-cc9d50d0e586; Australian Government, Aus Tender, Contract Notice View—CN4005564, (Web page, 26 September 2023)
https://www.tenders.gov.au/Cn/Show/f0860ac0-d850-4a26-8c81-787fc092b7c8; Australian Government, Aus Tender, Contract Notice View—CN2024761-A3, (Web page, 26 March 2024)
https://www.tenders.gov.au/Cn/Show/abed2788-6b23-48b0-90c5-181508ef6ede; Australian Government, Aus Tender, Contract Notice View—CN4005625-A1, (Web page, 5 December 2024)
https://www.tenders.gov.au/Cn/Show/d1f87bf8-26ae-40fb-95f0-f9bb232267d8; Australian Government, Aus Tender, Contract Notice View—CN4042677, (Web page, 26 March 2024) https://www.tenders.gov.au/Cn/Show/2cd82e85-2810-4c09-977d-eb6fd4b42340; Australian Government, Aus Tender, Contract Notice View—CN4026575, (Web page, 4 January 2024)
https://www.tenders.gov.au/Cn/Show/8b441e25-88ab-496f-9277-0fe3aee01555; Australian Government, Aus Tender, Contract Notice View—CN4091117, (Web page, 28 August 2024) https://www.tenders.gov.au/Cn/Show/7127d12a-de2a-4b96-b82b-dd5dabde5db6.; Australian Government, Aus Tender, Contract Notice View—CN4083492-A1, (Web page, 10 September 2024) https://www.tenders.gov.au/Cn/Show/041a9093-aef9-4213-a0b0-bfa449e8439c.; Australian Government, Aus Tender, Contract Notice View—CN4091122, (Web page, 28 August 2024) https://www.tenders.gov.au/Cn/Show/456b8985-2060-4577-8447-b461c6f15e1a; Australian Government, Aus Tender, Contract Notice View—CN4091117, (Web page, 28 August 2024) https://www.tenders.gov.au/Cn/Show/7127d12a-de2a-4b96-b82b-dd5dabde5db6.; Australian Government, Aus Tender, Contract Notice View—CN4091091, (Web page, 28 August 2024)
https://www.tenders.gov.au/Cn/Show/65f824e7-5ecd-4f9d-9692-9c328f23a52a; Australian Government, Aus Tender, Contract Notice View—CN4094217, (Web page, 11 September 2024) https://www.tenders.gov.au/Cn/Show/586d923f-9d9c-4585-98df-fed121fefec8; Australian Government, Aus Tender, Contract Notice View—CN4094208, (Web page, 11 September 2024) https://www.tenders.gov.au/Cn/Show/7baefba0-9570-407f-b377-6b4886a45d84; Australian Government, Aus Tender, Contract Notice View—CN4095934, (Web page, 18 September 2024) https://www.tenders.gov.au/Cn/Show/1bf90108-8b7a-4f69-aa44-0376ae651154
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I move:
That—
(a) the Senate directs the Select Committee on Energy Planning and Regulation in Australia to hold a public hearing of no less than 5 hours in Canberra on 5 December 2024, and invite representatives of the following organisations to give evidence:
(i) the Australian Energy Market Operator,
(ii) the Australian Energy Regulator,
(iii) the Australian Energy Market Commission, and
(iv) the Energy Advisory Panel (including the relevant Australian Consumer and Competition Commission Commissioner); and
(b) in order to receive evidence in public session on 5 December 2024, and that for the purpose of holding the public hearing on this day, the committee appoint a subcommittee and quorum of the subcommittee is constituted by the chair of the committee and a member of the committee nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government will not be supporting this motion. The select committee has already heard from the market bodies. The market bodies have the opportunity to respond to questions on notice. The bodies, especially AEMO, should be focused on their responsibility to maintain security, secure electricity and gas systems.
The question is that general business notice of motion No. 727, standing in the name of Senator Canavan, be agreed to.
I seek leave to amend notice of motion No. 729 in the terms circulated in the chamber.
Leave granted.
I move the motion as amended:
(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Measuring Outcomes for First Nations Communities, be established to inquire into, document and report on the current regression of the Closing the Gap targets on the rates of suicide, the number of children in out-of-home care, adult incarceration and the number of children commencing school who are developmentally on track, with particular reference to:
(a) the ways in which the targets are funded;
(b) the ways in which the targets are measured and evaluated;
(c) the priority of the targets in the National Partnership Agreement and progress under the National Priority reforms;
(d) the degree to which current measurements and targets reflect the strengths of First Nations cultures, as opposed to an emphasis on deficit and lack;
(e) the possibility of incorporating broad ideas about wellness into measurements, with a view to promoting mental, physical and spiritual health and wellbeing;
(f) the incorporation of alternative measurements as a complement to existing measurements;
(g) opportunities for building on and expanding the current Closing the Gap framework; and
(h) any other related matters.
(2) That the committee present its final report by 30 May 2025.
(3) That the committee consist of 5 senators, as follows:
(a) two nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;
(b) two nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;
(c) one nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate.
(4) That:
(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator;
(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee and have all the rights of members of the committee but may not vote on any questions before the committee; and
(c) a participating member shall be taken to be a member of a committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if 3 members of the committee constituting a quorum are not present.
(5) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.
(6) That the committee elect as chair the member nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate and, as deputy chair, a member nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
(7) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.
(8) That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, may appoint another member of the committee to act as chair during the temporary absence of both the chair and deputy chair at a meeting of the committee.
(9) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.
(10) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider.
(11) That the committee and any subcommittee, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.
(12) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.
(13) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.
The question is that general business notice of motion No. 729, standing in the name of Senator McKim, as amended, be agreed to.
I seek leave to move a motion relating to the routine of business for today.
Leave not granted.
Pursuant to contingent notice of motion, I move:
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to allow a motion relating to the consideration of legislation to be moved immediately.
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the question be put.
PRESIDENT (): The question now is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.
I move:
That a motion relating to the consideration of legislation may be moved immediately.
The question is that the procedural motion moved by Minister Wong be agreed to.
I move:
That—
(a) the order of the Senate of 27 June 2024 dividing the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 into two bills no longer apply and the orders of the day for the consideration of the resulting bills be discharged from the Notice Paper;
(b) consideration of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 resume with consideration of the bill as read a first time;
(c) the following bills may be taken together for their remaining stages:
Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024
Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024;
(d) the hours of meeting today be 9 am till adjournment and the routine of business from 12.15 pm to 1.30 pm, and from the conclusion of question time, be consideration of the following bills:
(i) Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024,
(ii) Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024,
(iii) Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024,
(iv) Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) Bill 2024
Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) Tax (Imposition) Bill 2024
Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) (Consequential Provisions and Other Matters) Bill 2024
(v) Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024
Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024,
(vi) Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024,
(vii) Family Law Amendment Bill 2024,
(viii) Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill 2024
Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024
Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Charges) Bill 2024
Future Made in Australia Bill 2024
Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024,
(ix) Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill 2024,
(x) Treasury Laws Amendment (Fairer for Families and Farmers and Other Measures) Bill 2024,
(xi) Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2023,
(xii) Treasury Laws Amendment (Reserve Bank Reforms) Bill 2023,
(xiii) Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals and Other Measures) Bill 2024,
(xiv) Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional Broadcasting Continuity) Bill 2024,
(xv) Crown References Amendment Bill 2023,
(xvi) Customs Amendment (ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Second Protocol Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024,
(xvii) Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Amendment Bill 2024,
(xviii) Treasury Laws Amendment (2024 Tax and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2024,
(xix) Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, and
(xx) Surveillance Legislation (Confirmation of Application) Bill 2024,;
(e) the question on all remaining stages of the bills listed in paragraph (d) be put at 5 pm;
(f) paragraph (e) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142;
(g) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm; and
(h) the Senate adjourn without debate on the motion of a minister.
I note that I did not set up the procedure such that this would be moved without amendment or debate, so there is an ability to have both a debate and amendments now.
Here we have this government making yet another attempt, in terms of a chaotic approach, to try to ram through legislation, having been sent a pretty clear message by the crossbench this morning. Who knows what deals have been done and who knows what undertakings have been given to get the government to a position where they're now still going to ram through a record number of bills, adding to their record tally—and a remarkable tally it is too. A government that has already guillotined more bills in three years than the previous government did in nine years is just adding to that tally.
But the big question is: where is the online safety bill? Why has that not featured in the government's guillotine list? Where are the migration bills? Why have they not featured in the government's guillotine list? Is this because the Greens' tail is wagging the government dog? Is that entirely what's happening here? Are the Greens dictating the terms of what the government can or cannot legislate? It's a shocking sign of things to come if voters get it wrong at the next election and a shocking sign of what could occur if the Greens are left to drive the government's agenda in the future.
The opposition, as I said this morning, is clear about a willingness to constructively pass what would still be a significant amount of legislation today, even though we have limited time to debate it. Instead, the government has doubled down on this reckless approach—this contemptuous approach—towards the Senate and is piling through all these other bills.
I ask the government to give that clarity to the chamber. Where is the online safety bill? Where are the migration bills? What are your plans? You've sliced and diced what you tried to put through this morning to go and get something with the Greens, but we want to see important things done—things the Prime Minister said were important; things the Prime Minister said should happen this week. Where are they? Why is the government walking away from, allegedly, its own priorities to these bills, which, in many cases, are things that are a long way short of actual government priorities?
President, this is for Senator Chisholm or Senator Farrell, in the absence of Senator Wong, to make clear: what's the go? If the chamber signs up to this, what else is the chamber going to be asked to sign up to? The crossbenchers who have been lobbied and cajoled and dealt whatever it is to get their vote in relation to this ought to know what's going to come next, having said they're going to stand against a guillotine of such proportion this morning and having said they stand against a guillotine of some of the things the coalition thinks should happen. Is the government going to be honest with those crossbenchers, or are they just going to see this motion pass, and then, lo and behold, there will be another alternate approach that gives the government all that it wants? Where's the honesty? Where's the decency? Where's the proper process? Where's the transparency? We don't know what deals have been struck. We don't know what's about to come next from the government, and, of course, it's a government continuing to break all of the promises that it made to the Australian people.
The imputation lies on the government. Make it clear for the crossbench. Be upfront and honest to them about what's coming next. Is this it, and the online safety bill is dead and gone for this year, or do you actually have plans to get the other things done? If so, what are those plans? Let us all know.
I appreciate the courtesy of the chamber there. I also want to place on the record our appreciation of Senator Wong and the government for establishing this debate in such a way that senators could make contributions to it and that amendments may be moved to the government's legislation.
The Australian Greens would like to make a few points on the way through here. Firstly, I would like to foreshadow an amendment to this motion, and that will be an amendment that either just has been or shortly will be circulated in my name. That amendment is to include the Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions) Reform Bill 2024 in the tranche of bills which this motion establishes in section (d). The reason we will be doing that is that it is really critical, around the issue of the consolidation of corporate power in Australia, that the ACCC be given the powers that it has long been requesting and which the government has formulated in that bill to which I have just referred. It is critical for the reason that corporate power has been growing in Australia for decades now.
We are seeing in many sectors of our economy a situation where big corporations are consolidating their market power. That means that competition in a range of sectors in our economy is less than it should be, and the losers there, in terms of low levels of competition, are the consumers of Australia. And we see that nowhere more than in the supermarket sector, where the market dominance of Coles and Woolworths has crept ever higher over the last few decades to where we find ourselves now, where those two giant supermarket corporations, who each make a billion-plus dollars a year in annual profits, now together make up over two-thirds of the food and grocery sector in Australia. That's why the Greens moved to establish the Senate Select Committee on Supermarket Prices, and we were very pleased that, as a result of that political pressure and the power that the Greens embody in this place, that forced the government to ask the ACCC to do a similar inquiry into the power of the supermarket corporations and their pricing practices among other things.
The ACCC is moving through that process. We've had some updates from the ACCC. We've even had an interim report from the ACCC. The Australian Greens look forward—and I'm sure every Australian who ends up going through the check-out at Coles and Woolworths and getting a rude shock about their grocery bills on a regular basis also looks forward—to the final report and the final verdict of the ACCC on the pricing practices of supermarkets and, importantly, on the concentration of market power in the supermarket sector and the impacts of that concentration of market power on competition. The Australian Greens have been very clear that we believe that the supermarket sector is too concentrated and that we believe that divestiture powers should be introduced in this country to provide the ACCC with the power to go to the courts and apply for a divestiture order in the case that a corporation has misused market power and for the courts to make relevant orders that would result in an improvement in levels of competition, potentially in a particular geographic area or by other means.
We are very pleased that the coalition has announced that they do support divestiture laws in the supermarket sector, and I firmly believe that's because of the work of the select committee. I want to acknowledge my colleagues on that committee. I notice Senator Cadell is currently in the chamber, and there were others, including Senator Tyrrell, who is not currently in the chamber, and Senator Sterle. There were a range of people. But that committee worked really collaboratively to get to the bottom of a range of issues, not limited, I might add, to just consumer issues but about the way that the big supermarket corporations treat their suppliers, which are often Australian family farms. I'm sure Senator Cadell would agree with this: we heard some heart-rending testimony from farmers or from people who had formerly had a life on a farming business in the agriculture sector in our country of how the giant supermarket corporations treated them and misused their market power in terms of the way that they purchased products from farmers. This is based on evidence that we heard. It's also based on conversations that I've had with farmers in my home state of Tasmania, and I know other members of the committee had similar conversations with people on the land in their local areas. Many farmers were simply too scared of retribution to even activate complaints against the big supermarket corporations when they believed that they were being treated poorly in negotiations.
That's why we would be more than happy—in fact, that's why we will be moving—to include the Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Bill 2024. I hasten to add that is not because it will create divestiture powers—it won't—but because it will allow the ACCC to adequately assess proposals for mergers that come before them. Even though, in the area of competition, that bill won't itself deliver everything the Australian Greens think needs to happen—we believe that we should have divestiture powers—that mergers bill will in fact assist in preventing further concentration of competition in Australia, which will be a very good thing, given that we have seen far too much consolidation of market power in Australia in recent decades.
I move:
At the end of paragraph (d), add:
(xxi) Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Bill 2024
A lot of people this morning on the crossbench said we had far too many bills to consider. They said a lot of things very strongly about guillotines. The same people are now supporting a guillotine. Okay, it's not of 30 bills, but it's of 20 bills.
Twenty-seven.
XX is 20, Senator Canavan.
There are multiple bills in some of them.
Thank you, Senator Canavan. Some of these are highly significant bills. We had all the talk this morning about democracy, doing a proper job representing the people and staff workloads. That's all collapsed. We've now got 27 bills. That's a fraud in my view—presenting one thing this morning and coming back and agreeing to basically the same thing.
We have the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 left out. That was good news. But wait! We've got the Liberal and National parties moving an amendment to put the online safety bill back into the guillotine. It's one of the most far-reaching and consequential bills ever, and it's back in thanks to the Liberal and National parties. All that talk about democracy—what deals were done selling out the people again? We've got the crossbench moving to the government, and we've got the other cheek of the 'uniparty' moving to the government. Now we've got the Greens, who also opposed the guillotine this morning, wanting to add another bill to the guillotine this afternoon. This is just extraordinary. It'll leave only the United Australia Party and One Nation—and, perhaps, some of the stronger coalition senators with us.
But I can make a guarantee about one thing: this Senate will continue to sell out the Australian people. And I can make a guarantee about a second thing: One Nation will keep serving the people, keep ensuring scrutiny of these bills. Let's see who among the Liberals and Nationals will not support the amendment.
I rise to speak as well—on the amendment.
The amendment hasn't been moved.
I know. That's why I want to speak.
He hasn't moved it.
Yes, he has. Senator Wong, it hasn't been circulated but he's moved—
It's not up to me, Deputy President. Senator Birmingham has not moved it.
No, I'm not talking about Senator Birmingham.
You're dealing with the Greens amendment?
The only thing that has been moved is the substantive motion by Senator Wong, which is to change the order of business for the day, and Senator McKim's motion to include the Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions) Bill 2024. There have been no amendments moved by any other member of the chamber. Senator Wong, I give you the call.
Before I close this debate, can I clarify what we will be doing. I did explain it to Senator Birmingham, but this is for the benefit of other members of the Senate. As you would anticipate, obviously, we have a difference of views on online safety and migration. To respect that and to facilitate a more efficient way of dealing with those differences of views, I'm going to close this debate on Senator McKim's amendment, which I am advised we are supporting. I'm just waiting for a nod from the manager—thank you. Then we can resolve the substantive motion. I'm flagging with the chamber that I will then move a further variation to the business to include online safety and migration. I can flag to the opposition that we have received a request that that be allocated at least an hour of debating time, and I have asked that the motion be redrafted to facilitate that request. With that information, I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the question be put.
The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.
If I may, for the information of the Senate—I think the Deputy President may have been in the chair—I will move a further amendment after this substantive has been adopted. The opposition will be supportive, but it may be that Senator Roberts and others may wish to speak and vote on it because they have a different view. This is on the online safety bill being included at the end, Senator Roberts. I'm just conscious that there are no divisions from 1.30, so I'm flagging with the Senate that, at that point, we may need to move that there be divisions after 1.30 if Senator Roberts or others wish to vote differently on that bill.
We will be opposing. We will seek divisions after 1.30.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Wong in relation to the routine of business and amended by Senator McKim be agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That the order of the Senate agreed to earlier today, relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business, be varied as follows—
(1) At the end of paragraph (d), add:
(xxii) Migration Amendment Bill 2024
Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024
Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2024;
(2) After paragraph (e), insert:
(ea) once consideration of bills listed in paragraph (d) has concluded, the routine of business be:
(i) consideration of the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024;
(ii) tabling (only) of committee reports;
(eb) when called on, the question on the second reading of the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 be put immediately and the time allotted for all remaining stages be 60 minutes;
(3) omit paragraph (f), substitute:
(f) paragraphs (e) and (eb) operate as limitations of debate under standing order 142.
The motion is being circulated. It has the effect of including the bills that Senator Birmingham previously moved an amendment in relation to, which will commence at the conclusion of the debate on the bills in the motion we have just endorsed. I move:
That the question be now put.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I have to say that I'm shocked by the Liberal Party. Either you believe in guillotines or you don't. You can't pick and choose what sorts of guillotines you want. This online safety act requires greater scrutiny. The other really big thing that concerns me here are these RBA reforms, which aren't going to get the proper scrutiny that they deserve. I am shocked at the fact that an Australian Treasurer would want to give more powers to the RBA, which we know, through estimates, doesn't want to release the correspondence it has with the Bank for International Settlements. To give these guys more power and less accountability is a disgrace. Yesterday we saw a senator attacked here because she may have allegiance to another country. Let me tell you: the Bank for International Settlements has caused more wars and hardship than the Taliban have ever done, and it's an absolute disgrace that this bill is going to pass without proper scrutiny.
I seek leave to make a short statement of no longer than one minute.
Leave not granted.
The question is that the question be now put.
A division having been called and the bells being rung—
Madam President, under the clear rules of this chamber, this should be a four-minute division. We've had a number of statements since the last division. Why is it not for four minutes?
Senator Canavan, I have checked with the whips and they were comfortable with one minute. That is always my process. I check with the whips.
The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.
The bad news for all Australian small businesses—all 90,000 of them—when this bill, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024, goes through today, if the Greens support it, is that they are about to be whacked, courtesy of the Albanese Labor government, with $13.9 billion in regulatory costs. That's right—as if small businesses in Australia are not already doing it tough! The arrogance of this government and the contempt with which they treat small business is well and truly on display with this bill. They don't care about the fact that they are currently presiding over the highest number of business insolvencies on record. Governments like to create records, but I would have thought putting people out of business, which means putting Australians out of work, is not a record that a government should be proud of. And yet, as we stand here today, we are going to have all of about seven minutes to actually talk about how small businesses in Australia—as I said, 90,000 businesses—will be subject to a $13.9 billion regulatory cost.
Let's break that down. For a small business with a turnover of up to $2 million, if this bill passes, the Albanese government will have committed them to an additional annual cost of $33,000. That's right. If this bill passes, the Albanese government, in its arrogance, will impose on small businesses in Australia—and, as I said, there are about 90,000 of them that will come within the remit of this bill—as if they are not already doing it tough enough and as if enough of them have not already closed down, an annual additional cost of $33,000. Let's face it; who pays for these costs?
Let's just go through who is going to pay for these costs. It is the accountants who are going to be doing the tax for cafes. It's the accountants who are going to be doing the tax for bookshops. It is the mums and dads—that's right, mum and dad Australia! Welcome to the world of the Albanese government—who engage someone to help with their financial affairs. Courtesy of the Albanese government, if the Australian Greens decide to support this bill, you will be slugged with an additional cost of $33,000 per year.
Let's talk about real estate agents and the 90,000 businesses that are going to be roped into the arrogance of the Albanese government's bill. Guess what? You are also going to be slugged each year with an annual cost of $33,000. So to the real estate agents who manage your sales and manage your rentals, again, get out your chequebooks, because you will be writing a cheque to this government for $33,000 per year.
Let's talk about the country towns and the contempt that the Albanese government has for lawyers. Guess what? Lawyers are also going to be part of this tax grab by the Albanese government of $33,000 per year. They clearly haven't listened to the lawyers, the small lawyers, the country town lawyers. They run small practices in rural and regional areas. They gave very clear feedback. They can't afford it; it's as simple as that. As if at this point in time they have any spare cash! They are battling to keep their doors open. Despite all of this, Mr Albanese, in his arrogance, his contempt, in particular, for rural and regional Australia, says: 'I don't care. I will rush this bill through under a guillotine. My gift to small businesses, 90,000 of them, as we head towards Christmas is, courtesy of the Albanese government, a bill for $33,000.'
Do you know what the feedback has been from small businesses? 'If we don't have to close our doors'—and many of them have said: 'That is probably what we are going to do. If we close our doors, guess what? People lose their jobs.' They have made it very clear that they will pass on these costs to Australian families. That's right. They'll actually pass on the costs to Australian families.
Let me be clear. We're not opposed to this bill, as such, because it was actually the Howard government who introduced the anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing regime in Australia, but the arrogance of the Albanese Labor government to rush through as a Christmas present to around 90,000 small businesses in Australia, who are currently pleading with them: 'Get out of our lives. Stop the regulatory burden. Let us get on with doing what we want to do every single day. And that is to just wake up in the morning, go to work, open our doors, serve our communities, employ some Australians and do what governments should want businesses to do—prosper, grow and create more jobs for Australians.'
But, again, the Albanese government can say what it likes in relation to small business. They can say what they like. If this bill goes through, every small business should have their eyes wide open. The Albanese government's Christmas gift to you—this is not the coalition saying it; it is in the Albanese government's regulatory impact statement—is $13.9 billion in red tape, because, let's face it, small businesses out there love a bit more red tape from government. Small businesses, 90,000 of them, will be wrapped up in an additional $13.9 billion in red tape.
As I said, we've had it confirmed. We asked Senator Wong a question about this in the Senate: 'Can you confirm that with this bill the Albanese government is slugging small businesses in Australia, 90,000 of them, with an additional regulatory impact of about $33,000?' She said yes. Those on the other side have no shame. They have no understanding that they are presiding over a record number of insolvencies. As we've always said on this side, a business that has to close employs no-one. Merry Christmas from the Albanese government to small businesses, with $33,000 in red tape.
Debate interrupted.
I rise to speak on the impact of algorithm driven rostering practices on Australian workers and to emphasise the importance of the global Make Amazon Pay campaign and the work of the SDA in Australia. The Make Amazon Pay campaign calls for fairer practices that respect the balance between the operational needs of Amazon and the welfare and dignity of workers in Australia.
In the Australian retail and warehousing sectors, rostering is increasingly done by algorithms and apps. These platforms are used to improve efficiency and are also claimed to improve fairness and equity in staff rostering. Yet the reality for workers rostered on for work using these apps and algorithms is often far from ideal. The experience of workers is that the systems Amazon puts into place lead to inconsistent and unpredictable work schedules, underemployment and financial insecurity as well as increased stress levels. Automated rosters can also have a disruptive impact on the lives of employees, making it difficult for them to plan child care or balance work with family responsibilities and commitments.
In my first speech in this place, I spoke of the need to foster an Australia that allows people to play active and engaged roles in community life and family life. The predictability of hours of work is essential to that goal. There are economic and household impacts as well. According to a study cited by the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association in their submission to the Select Committee on Adopting Artificial Intelligence, 69 per cent of workers with children under 12 reported that work times affected when other family members could work.
The solution here is not to reject technology and innovation but to use it responsibly. Workers are directly affected by new technology and often have valuable insights into how best to deploy these technologies to achieve the desired goals without negatively affecting the workers themselves and their families.
As we are here today, David McBride, who told the truth about war crimes in Afghanistan, is in jail. He was attacked by this government because he called out the lack of accountability in the leadership of the ADF over the war crimes that happened in Afghanistan, and he has been utterly vindicated in the oversight report by Dr Vivienne Thom, who fundamentally disagreed with the Brereton report conclusion that the leadership of the ADF should get off scot-free on any responsibility for the war crimes in Afghanistan. When you go back and read that Brereton report, and realise that he held at the time a senior office in the reserves for the ADF and he decided to give all his senior mates a get-out-of-jail-free card in that report, it starts to make things fall in place. That's who the Labor government, with the support of the coalition, decided to put in charge of the National Anti-Corruption Commission.
Since then we have seen Dr Vivienne Thom's report land, and the oversight report come and smash the conclusion of Brereton and 100 per cent support what David McBride said. I quote from Vivienne Thom's report:
The Panel did not agree with the Brereton Inquiry's view that some accountability and responsibility could not fall on the most senior officers and it suggested that issue should be the subject of further consideration.
What has the government done? Bury the report.
When you read Vivienne Thom's report, she points out the failure of defence leadership to see the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance reports, the lack of ethical leadership and the fact there was no curiosity from the senior leadership. That senior leadership are covered with medals and retirement bonuses, and David McBride is in jail. It's a disgrace! (Time expired)
Under Labor, living standards for all Australians have fallen dramatically over the last 2½ years, and our economy is grinding to a halt. The only way to get Australia back on track is to elect a Dutton coalition government. Someone I'd like to see as part of that government is Nathan Conroy, our Liberal candidate for Dunkley and a true champion of his community. Nathan understands what matters most to the people of Dunkley and those that proudly call Dunkley their home because for three years he was elected by his peers to be mayor of Frankston. He knows the challenges faced by those local families, small business owners, traders and sports clubs because he's out there talking to them every single day as he's done for years.
From rising electricity bills to skyrocketing rents and the increasing cost of everyday items, the cost of living is hitting the people of Dunkley very hard indeed. The last thing they need right now—indeed, the last thing all Australians need or want—is for this crisis to go on any further. Nathan knows that the only way to deliver real and sustainable cost-of-living relief is to get inflation down and to get inflation down faster. He knows that only a Dutton coalition government will deliver the strong economic leadership needed to rein in spending, remove unnecessary red tape and tackle the cost-of-living crisis head on.
Nathan Conroy is all about supporting small business. He's all about focusing on local families, not just in the short term but in the long term too. He will be a strong advocate for every corner of the community, from Frankston to Seaford, Langwarrin and Carrum. Nathan has a bold vision for Dunkley, and he's working so hard to take the community with him and to share that vision with them. I'm looking forward to joining Nathan on the ground in his community to help him get elected to parliament so that he can advocate for his community right here. (Time expired)
On 10 November 2024, a dear friend of mine entered eternal life. Trish Moran was a Labor legend on the Central Coast. She understood working-class values and the importance of the trade union movement in improving the lives of all Australians. To the members of the Ourimbah Narara Valley branch, which she founded in 1984, Trish was described as the glue that brought people together. She was a natural leader who was the custodian and embodiment of Labor ideals.
Trish was an ardent supporter of the Australian Republic Movement, being a candidate to attend the 1998 Constitutional Convention after the recommendation of Malcolm Turnbull. Trish ran for the seat of Robertson in both 2001 and 2004, bravely putting herself into contention to represent our great community. While Trish proved unsuccessful in both of those attempts, she did run mighty campaigns, with the sitting member at the time of the first attempt, Jim Lloyd, describing her as a 'worthy opponent'. After her second attempt, New South Wales Premier Neville Wran described her as 'the best candidate New South Wales Labor had fielded in years'. Importantly, Trish allowed those that came after her in Robertson, such as me and the current member, Dr Gordon Reid, to stand on the shoulders of the incredible work that she did as a Labor titan.
To Trish's loved ones, especially Andy and their three children, please know that, beside you, we also miss Trish very deeply. We've lost a titan of the labour movement. A dear friend of hers has asked me to conclude with these remarks and a quote from her funeral: 'Trish Moran fought the good fight to the end, ran the good race until the finish, and she kept the faith.' I want to say she was also a fabulous teacher-librarian, and my own daughter Caitlin was happy to be her library monitor in year 4 at Holy Cross Catholic School, Kincumber.
Last week, Ukraine fired US-made long-range missiles into Russia for the first time after President Biden lifted restrictions on their use. In response, President Putin formally lowered the threshold for Russia's use of its nuclear weapons. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov appeared to suggest today that Russia might respond with nuclear weapons to make potential enemies understand what retaliation meant on an attack of Russia or its allies. In February 2022, Russia attacked Ukraine, not because they were being threatened by Ukraine but because Ukraine said that they would like to join NATO. Why? It probably had a lot to do with the fact that Russia invaded Ukraine's territory in 2014, annexing the Crimean peninsula. At the time, the world did nothing, giving Putin the green light. Eight years later, he started amassing troops on Ukraine's border. At the time, many observers thought this was just Putin flexing his muscles, but on 24 February Putin called the world's bluff and attacked Ukraine.
Nearly three years on, Russia is getting attack drones from Iran and troops from North Korea, and they are selling their oil at a low price to China. Trump says that he can finish the war in 24 hours. Statements from Trump's team have indicated that he expects Ukraine to give up parts of the country. Let's call this out for what it is. This is appeasement. If Putin isn't stopped, he will keep going.
The US Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, has said, 'Putin will not stop at Ukraine.' President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has warned that Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Moldova and others might be next. Poland is spending billions of dollars shoring up its defences and has taken 1.6 million Ukrainian refugees. On Tuesday, the Polish foreign minister, Radosław Sikorski, said that the biggest European Union countries are ready to assume the burden of military and financial aid to Ukraine in case the US reduces its support.
Responding to news that Biden's White House has given Ukraine the green light to use US supplied long-range missiles to strike targets inside Russia, Sikorski welcomed the move, calling it a response in 'a language that Putin understands'. He's spot on. Appeasement doesn't work with bullies. Look at what happened in the run-up to World War II. Any talk of peace that involves Ukraine giving up territory isn't peace; it's appeasement.
Merry Christmas, everyone. Each year my Christmas card features a country church from a small town in Queensland, and this year it is the Injune Churches Together, in Injune. On the back of the card is my message to everybody: 'Christmas is a time to give thanks, to rest and to reflect. Whether you pray to God or gods or to none, let us all give thanks that we live in Australia. As Ukraine fights for freedom and war grows in the Holy Land, we do pray for peace. We give thanks that in Injune the Anglican, Catholic and Uniting churches showed the way by coming together as Injune Churches Together. Originally known as St Peter's, it a simple church that was built of cypress pine in 1925. Inside it was unlined, with a simple altar and stools for seating. Injune Churches Together is proof that churches need not be grand for us to pray, to think and to give thanks. Let the story of this church and the uniting of different denominations in a small country town guide us, and may the new year bring better days.'
As Australians gear up for the Black Friday sales tomorrow and look forward to receiving packages over coming weeks, it's important to remember the shady track record of one major company that looks to benefit the most from tomorrow's sale—that company being Amazon. Amazon are staunchly anti-union and seek to constantly deny workers a collective voice wherever they can. Behind the cheap prices and ease of online shopping hides the reality of a multibillion dollar company's appalling record on worker safety, pay and working conditions in their operations around the world.
The company has form when it comes to worker exploitation, surveillance and a workplace culture that clearly values profits over people. They do this by hiring warehouse staff as casuals and through labour hire avenues. They then impose punishing productivity targets and workplace surveillance. Amazon's workers have voiced their concerns that almost every move they make, every union engagement they try to have and even every bathroom break they try to take is being monitored and noted by management.
Our government's recent reforms to protect gig workers, labour hire workers and casuals are crucial to preventing exploitation of those workers here in Australia. To no-one's surprise, the Liberals and Nationals voted against these reforms. From Black Friday tomorrow to Cyber Monday this coming week, workers, trade unions, antipoverty and garment worker rights groups and others across the world are uniting with one goal in mind: to make Amazon pay—to pay its workers fairly for the work they do and to respect their right to join a union. While it's clear that online retail giants like Amazon are reshaping how we shop, we can't allow them to reshape how we uphold workers' rights in this country.
As the parliamentary year—and potentially the parliamentary term—wraps up, I wanted to say what an incredible privilege it is to be in this place representing the community I love. As this could be the last sitting day of this term, it could also be my last speech, and I wanted to thank a bunch of people. All of us know that none of us could be in this place and do what we do without the support of our family and loved ones. I thank my wife, Emma, for her support. I want to thank my team. Again, I think most senators would agree that without your team you're not going to survive long in this place. You're an incredible team, and I loved working with you over the last three years.
To the volunteers who come into the office every day: thank you for your commitment and your support to help serve people in the ACT. To all the various stakeholders and experts who have contributed to decisions about amendments and policy over the last two years: thank you so much. And to Canberrans, who gave me this opportunity, putting their trust in me to represent them as one of their senators: thank you very much. It's something I do not take lightly, and it has been a privilege. Every time I come in here to vote, I'm very conscious of the fact that I'm voting on behalf of people in the ACT.
We're heading into an election. Elections should be about community priorities, and I look forward to continuing to consult with people in the ACT about what they want on the agenda, going into the election. It's great to see the parliament finally this week dealing with housing and the cost of living. This is what I'm hearing people want addressed, and no doubt that will be a big part of the election. Thank you very much.
Today is the last day of parliamentary sittings for this year. We had so many opportunities this week to get meaningful reforms through this place. We could have banned gambling advertising, which is destroying families and driving up suicide rates. It is the scourge on our society, but there's no legislation to be seen on it. We had an opportunity to act for renters and to cap rental increases, but, no, there's absolutely nothing from the government on this. We had a chance to fight for our environment. We have a progressive crossbench and a Labor government, who said they would act on climate and the environmental crisis, but there are no nature laws—nothing to see here. Instead, they are teaming up with the Liberal Party to ram through the most Trumpian, cruel, disgusting migration laws that this country has seen in decades. They should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. Instead of offering to work with the Greens to strengthen our forestry laws and to get strong climate legislation in place, Mr Albanese is completely beholden to the fossil fuel industry, who call the shots in this place.
People right across our communities are completely outraged by this betrayal from the Labor government. The Labor government was elected on lie after lie after lie. I sat next to the member for Macnamara when he promised that things would be better under Labor—for our environment, for refugees, for asylum seekers, for people seeking our protection. And here we are today, with draconian migration laws and no progress on climate and or the environment. It's a disgrace.
To the voters in my state of Victoria: please know that the Greens are with you. We know that you're struggling. We know that this cost-of-living crisis is causing significant angst, as is the climate crisis. Know that we stand with you, ready to fight for your rights in this place next term. (Time expired)
When the government announced their 2030 Paris target of 43 per cent, I stood up in this chamber and commended them on doing so, but I also said that I did not believe it was ambitious enough. Ambitious targets are one thing, but we also need concrete, pragmatic plans to get us there, as well as strong governance of our energy institutions to keep those plans on track. The nationally determined contributions, or NDCs, under the Paris Agreement are a country's climate commitment. They must be updated every five years to reflect growing ambition, technologies and plans to reach targets. The next update for the 2035 target is due in February 2025. This is our opportunity to demonstrate ambition and commitment.
Why, then, are there indications that the major parties might not reveal their revised targets until after next year's election? I believe it is important to Australians to be able to weigh up the alternatives when they decide how to vote at the upcoming election. I believe it is important that both the government and the coalition, who haven't updated their targets since 2019, assure us that they will share their targets ahead of the next election—and not just the targets, I might add. They should also detail how they plan to reach those targets. I believe it will be a complete disservice to the electorate if they do not.
Acting Deputy President Polley, may I say Merry Christmas. We are very close to the end of the year, and children around the country will be finding out from Santa Clause if they're on the naughty or nice list this Christmas. It's an opportunity to talk about the things that might land you on either of these lists. We know that the Albanese Labor government has given the opposition every opportunity to do the right thing, to back good reforms and to do things that would make lives better for Australians—reforms that would have landed them on the 'nice' list. But, every step of the way, every time they've had a collapse to support positive change, they've blocked, delayed or voted against it.
Let's take a quick look at their record—and trust me, I have checked this list twice. Remember when they wanted to take the country to an election over tax cuts for every single taxpayer? They dug in their heels against higher minimum wages for the lowest-paid in the country. They're against 'same job, same pay'. They're against pay rises for aged-care workers. The coalition are even against cheaper medicines. They voted six times in the Senate to stop Australians getting access to cheaper medicines. They are also against making sure that Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. That would have got them on the 'nice' list, for sure, but they didn't take that chance. They're against urgent care clinics and 24-hour nurses in aged care. They're against tripling the bulk-billing incentive. And while they're against that, we're delivering better health care for Australians across the country. They voted against energy bill relief and, of course, they voted against everything to do with housing ever. Maybe they thought that Santa or the Australian people weren't watching during those divisions. Finally, they're against fee-free TAFE. Believe it or not, the LNP candidate for Leichhardt even went as far as to say TAFE is a 'waste'. I wish those people in Far North Queensland a merry Christmas. (Time expired)
Today we have seen how unbelievably allergic this government is to transparency with their attempt to guillotine more bills today than they've passed using the proper processes in the entire year. But this is just one example of a pattern of behaviour. Another example of this government's complete opaqueness that I find particularly egregious is their approach to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee process, which dictates which new medicines are going to be made available on the PBS to Australian patients. In Senate estimates three weeks ago the department belled the cat and admitted that there's going to be an ongoing cap on the number of medicines that can be considered for listing on the PBS under the Albanese government. After deflections and denials by the department and the government, we have received confirmation that there could be ongoing delays in patient access to new essential medicines.
This is the first time in history the PBS has had a cap of this nature, and never under the former coalition government was there a limit on the number of medicines that would be considered for the PBS under the PBAC process. It's an unacceptable development in the PBS' history, especially when the government has just released its health technology assessment review, which acknowledges that Australia is falling behind the rest of the world when it comes to getting access to new treatments and medicines. This decision has also evoked concerning comparisons to 2011, when the Gillard Labor government deferred subsidised PBAC recommended medicines as a budgetary measure—and they admitted it at the time. But the government refuses to take responsibility, with Senator Gallagher continuing to agriculture that there is no cap. This is a cap; it literally says it on the PBS minutes. The government must own up to patients who are waiting for affordable access to potentially lifesaving medicines, and guarantee they will get access—as promised in the lead-up to the last election.
Not for the first time, the Senate yesterday heard the word 'racist' used improperly. The Oxford dictionary defines 'racism' as: 'Having the belief that some races of people are better than others, showing this through violent or unfair treatment of people of other races.' Racism exists as a word because of the need to protect people from violence. Throwing the world 'racist' around in an unedifying display of rudeness and intimidation devalues the word to the point where it no longer provides protection for those who genuinely need it.
The word 'racism' to the political Left now means any opinion they disagree with—and even worse, it's thrown at any human being whose views they disagree with. Shame on you for taking away the power the word 'racist' once had. Repetitive, incorrect use of the word does get in, which is why it's the No. 1 tactic of the Greens and the political Left. It's used as a strategy to stop people actually looking at our policies and realising they are in the best interests of the Australian community of which they're a part.
To any Australian who believes One Nation is actually a racist party, I issue you this invitation: come along to the next One Nation event in your area, and see for yourself. Did our members make you feel welcome? Did the topics we discussed make you feel uncomfortable by virtue of your race, religion or skin colour? When I end my speeches with 'We are one community; we are One Nation', that isn't an election slogan; we mean it. All those who call this beautiful country home, those who were here first and the many who've come since must be allowed to lift themselves up through their own hard work and endeavour and, in so doing, benefit all who are here. Creating a nation which genuinely protects the natural environment, which provides religious freedom, which respects parents' rights and primacy of the family and which limits government power to the bare necessities—these are One Nation's core values. I can describe why I am proud to be a member of One Nation in four words: flag, faith, family, freedom. (Time expired)
December the 1st, which is coming up in a couple of days time, of course marks World AIDS Day. More than 42 million people have died of AIDS related illnesses in the 40 years since the start of the epidemic. Too many people are without the medical support that they deserve and the treatment that they deserve. I want to pay tribute to Lady Roslyn Morauta, who is here as head of the global fund and chair of the board campaigning for the next replenishment round, because treatment can and does make a difference. Did you know, colleagues, that, if you are on HIV treatment, your viral load can go down to zero? Once you're down at zero, you cannot pass on HIV to another person. This is at the core of reaching in the next few years, according to the newly released strategy that Mark Butler launched today, the virtual elimination of HIV in Australia. 'U=U' means 'undetectable equals untransmissible'. This is why we need to test and treat Australians who may be vulnerable to acquiring HIV, destigmatise HIV and encourage testing throughout our community. We can reach an AIDS-free generation in Australia. I'm very glad to hear that the UK has also set itself an equivalent goal. We can create an AIDS-free agenda across the world.
Thank you, Senator. Your time has expired. Senator Ciccone—I'm very generous on the eve of Christmas!
Merry Christmas to you too, Acting Deputy President, and to everyone here. I hope you all have a lovely break over the summer with family and friends. While we break, I just wanted to remind everyone in this chamber of the fantastic approach that the Albanese Labor government has taken to our economy, particularly under the leadership of our Treasurer and our finance minister here, who's in the chamber, Senator Katy Gallagher. Our approach would be completely unrecognisable to those opposite. There are three things I want to mention: first, we've banked the majority of upward revisions to revenue, whereas those opposite would have actually spent most of them. We've also found almost $80 billion in savings, whereas those opposite had no savings measured in their last budget—none. And we've exercised spending restraint, with average real spending growth around a third of what they had averaged. Wow! What a Christmas gift. What a Christmas gift. This approach has enabled us to also support Australians during the cost-of-living crisis that they are experiencing at the moment. Under Labor, more people are in jobs, and they are earning more. With our tax plan, they get to keep more of what they earn. Real wages have grown more in the last 12 months alone than they did in the entire decade of the former coalition government. Prices are rising at the slowest pace in almost four years. Don't forget that inflation had a 6 in front, and what does it have now, colleagues? It has a 2 in front. Thanks to the work of Katy Gallagher and Jim Chalmers, we are much better as a nation.
It's time for question time.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Since being elected in 2022, the Albanese Labor government has announced more than $50 billion in off-budget spending, hidden away to contribute to a $49.3 billion deterioration to the budget bottom line—the worst in history that's now going to occur outside of a war or pandemic. The government's now promising to add billions more to off-budget spending. How can the government justify all of this off-budget spending while refusing also to rule out further election promises at a time when Australians are desperate to see inflationary pressures permanently fixed and interest rates come down in Australia like they are in the rest of the world?
I thank Senator Birmingham for that question. It gives me the opportunity to remind those opposite that, in fact, debt is lower under us than it was under you. Of course, off-budget spending is something that still has to be financed, and I just would make the point that, in fact, as Senator Gallagher said yesterday, we inherited a debt higher than we currently have, and debt was $149 billion lower in 2023-24 than what was forecast at the election. And that is saving the nation about $80 billion in interest costs over the decade.
We were asked a question about off-budget spending. I assume the issue is debt, but, actually, we are, as a result of the budget position that we have established, ensuring that Australians are paying less in interest costs over the decade than would have been the case under him. But what is also interesting, if I'm asked about off-budget spending, is that we see that there is some suggestion that those opposite are looking at financing their risky, costly nuclear announcement off budget, but we're not quite sure. Let's remember that this is $600 billion worth of spending on the most expensive power that you can imagine, which will only deliver less than four per cent of the grid and will add $1,000 a year to your energy bills and take up to 20 years before it even starts delivering. And now they're saying, 'Actually, we do want to find it off budget. Well, we think we do,' thereby adding to debt.
Senator Birmingham, if you're so concerned about the fiscal circumstances, I invite you to tell the gallery how you are funding your risky, expensive, slow nuclear scheme.
Senator Birmingham, first supplementary?
It's so kind of Minister Wong to wish to turn it into opposition question time and talk about opposition policies. But the Treasurer stated on Monday:
Despite the good progress we're making in the national numbers, we know that that doesn't always automatically translate to how people are faring or feeling in the economy.
Given that independent analysis shows real household incomes are unlikely to recover to even half of what they were before this crisis, can Australians ever expect to experience the good progress in their household incomes and personal finances that the Treasurer is boasting of?
I'm very happy to take the question, but I'm not sure how it relates to the primary, which was about off-budget spending. I guess they wanted to get out of the nuclear off-budget story—
Run away!
Run away from the story—the headline that says you're going to finance your risky, expensive, very slow nuclear scheme off budget. But I want to make this point about the cost of living and the Treasurer's response, particularly to the inflation figures. We know Australians are doing it tough. We know that there is a lot more work to do, which is why we are working to keep wages up, why we are working to provide tax cuts for all Australians and why we are working to deliver cheaper medicines and cheaper child care, and all of these things are priorities for the government. It is a good thing that we see monthly inflation is about a third of what we inherited at the election and around about a quarter of its peak. That is a good thing. And I would hope Senator Birmingham would say that is a good thing for Australians and their families.
Senator Birmingham, second supplementary?
As we leave 2024, Australians are now grappling with the longest household recession in Australia on record—a fact that the government doesn't want to own up to—and living standards that are unlikely to recover to where they were prior to the inflation crisis until at least 2026 or later, all while the government continues to make more spending promises. Minister, Australians are poorer under this Labor government. When will the government take responsibility and fix the crisis that has driven Australian household incomes down in our country?
What I'd say to Senator Birmingham is that this is a government that is working to bring down inflation, this is a government that is working to provide cheaper medicines, this is a government that is working to provide cheaper child care and, most importantly, unlike those opposite, this is a government that is working to lift wages. We do not think that the response to the cost-of-living crunch that Australians are experiencing is lower wages. That is always the Liberal way—a deliberate design feature of the Australian economy.
We want to keep real wages moving. We want to keep wages moving. What we have seen under this government is that wages are moving. I know that is not something those opposite support, but it is something that matters to wage earners around this country because a decent wage is the pathway to financial security.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. The Albanese Labor government came to government with a promise to reform and improve aged care in Australia. Since then, we've made important reforms and addressed 94 recommendations of the royal commission. These reforms include registered nurses on site 24/7, star ratings and mandatory care minutes. Why is the government so committed to reforming aged care, and how will the government's reforms support older Australians, their families and the workers who care for them?
I thank Senator Bilyk for the question, and I take this opportunity to acknowledge Senator Bilyk's outstanding service in this chamber. We're so pleased and proud to work with her.
I'm coming back!
We know you're coming back next year. I just thought I would acknowledge that and the work that you've done in aged care over your service in this chamber. It's work like yours that has helped shape the policy and priorities going forward. We did go to the election in 2022 promising to lift the standards of aged care in Australia, and I would acknowledge the work that Minister Butler and Minister Wells have done in implementing our policy commitments.
We are committed to continuing to reform aged care in Australia because older Australians deserve high-quality care. It's that simple. Since the tabling of the royal commission report in 2021, 94 of the 136 recommendations have been addressed by the Albanese government. There is now a registered nurse on site in aged care 99 per cent of the time across Australia. This is an incredible achievement and improves the quality of care for older Australians who live in residential aged care.
Under the Albanese government's reforms, older Australians are receiving an additional 3.9 million minutes of care every day. We know that one of the critical findings in the royal commission was that older Australians in residential aged care wanted additional support time and that that would improve the quality of care for them across the centre, so that has been delivered. The Aged Care Bill, passed by this chamber last week, is a landmark reform addressing 58 recommendations to the royal commission. We've done a lot, but there is more to do.
Senator Bilyk, first supplementary?
A key part of the new Aged Care Act is the new Support at Home program. How will Support at Home help older Australians remain independent in their home and their community?
Thanks, Senator Bilyk, for the question. This is one of those areas where we know that older Australians, given the choice, would like to continue to age at home, with the support and care that they need, within the communities that they have lived in and that they love.
Our $4.3 billion investment in Support at Home will help around 1.4 million Australians remain independent in their home and in their community for longer. Support at Home will cut wait times to receive in-home aged-care services. It will deliver support that is more tailored, with eight levels of ongoing care instead of four. It will ensure faster access to assistive technology, like walkers and wheelchairs, and increase the maximum level of support available from $61,000 to $78,000.
It's not an understatement to say that these reforms will change lives, including being able to provide palliative care support to ensure older Australians can spend their final weeks at home, and we are very proud of this reform.
Senator Bilyk, second supplementary?
Thank you for those answers, Minister. Aged-care workers across the country ensure that the lives of older Australians in care are safe, healthy and fulfilling. Why did the Albanese Labor government decide to increase the wages of aged-care workers, and what impact will this have on their lives?
Thank you, Senator Bilyk. I again acknowledge the work of Senator Bilyk in advocating for increased wages for the lowest paid workers in this country.
In 2023 we invested $11.3 billion to deliver a historic increase to the award wage for 250,000 workers. This had been a campaign that had been building from those workers themselves, through their union and into this parliament. We know the change that this has brought about. Not only are those workers getting better wages, fairer wages and having their work respected; we're now seeing that there's an increase in retaining workers and attracting workers to that sector. I have no doubt we'll see similar change when early childhood educators get their wage increase on 1 December. Registered nurses are now taking home an additional $196 a week, or more than $10,000 a year, and personal care workers are now taking home an additional $141 a week. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Australians are in a cost-of-living crisis where they're noticing that their money simply is not going as far as it once did, due to record-high interest rates, sticky homegrown inflation, declining real household incomes and rising bills. Can the minister confirm that, under the Albanese Labor government, the employee cost-of-living index, as reported by the ABS, has shown an increase of 18.9 per cent in the cost-of-living expenses households are facing?
As I said in response to her leader, I'd say to Senator McKenzie: Australians are doing it tough. We understand that, which is why working to lift wages, bring down costs, strengthen Medicare, increase bulk-billing, build more homes, deliver cheaper medicine and cheaper child care are all things that are our priorities.
I would make this point to the senator: we've seen wages growing for a number of consecutive quarters, and growth in, I think, the September quarter was the strongest in four years. That is a very important outcome for working people. It is a very important outcome for Australians trying to deal with cost of living, and it is an outcome that we have been working towards. We know that on this side we are supporters of higher wages for aged-care workers, for childcare workers, for workers on the minimum wage, and we understand that lifting wages is central to Australians who are struggling with the cost of living—just as we understood that making sure you can keep more of what you earn is central to meeting cost-of-living pressures. That is why it is this government that brought forward a revision to the tax cuts to ensure, instead of tax cuts which were unfairly skewed to those on very high incomes, we delivered a tax cut to every Australian taxpayer—every Australian taxpayer.
Senator McKenzie, I would remind you that you were so opposed to that for a period, when there was the rush of blood, you wanted to go to an election on it. Do you remember that, President? They were going to go to an election because they actually didn't want Australians to have a tax cut. So that does say something about the philosophical difference between our parties. We want higher wages and we want lower taxes for working people. You want lower wages and you want people to work more for less. (Time expired)
Senator McKenzie, first supplementary?
I'll take that as you can't or refuse to confirm the ABS employee cost-of-living increases. Can the minister please confirm for the Senate that the figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics that disposable income has collapsed to 8.7 per cent under your government is the largest fall since records began—a simple confirmation, Minister?
This is fundamentally a question about inflation, Senator and, you're right, inflation is higher than we would like it to be, but I make the point that it is around a third of we inherited at the election.
I'll take the interjection from Senator McKenzie, again. If I may say, Senator, it's not your finest interjection: 'Whose fault is that?' That's what she said. 'Whose fault is that?' So, when we inherited in monthly inflation nearly three times what it is now, whose fault was that? The reality is that inflation is about a third of what the Labor government inherited at the election and around a quarter of its peak. Let's remember that. This is encouraging. I know that you don't celebrate it, but we actually think it's a good thing for working people, for Australians, that inflation is lower.
We know there is more to do, Senator, and, unlike you, we are for higher wages and lower taxes for working people. That is not the position of the Liberal Party. (Time expired)
Senator McKenzie, second supplementary?
Minister, since the Albanese Labor government was elected, interest rates have increased 12 times, and mortgage interest repayments have tripled, resulting in an average family mortgage being $35,000 more under this government. The US, UK, Canada, eurozone and New Zealand have all seen cuts. In fact, the government-appointed RBA governor stated that there isn't an interest rate cut in sight. Why are Australians uniquely worse off under Labor than anywhere else in the world? (Time expired)
I again say two things: monthly inflation is around a third of what we inherited and a quarter of its peak. Those opposite who say inflation is too high, we would agree. We want inflation to be sustainably within the band. We want inflation to come down from where it was. It is a good thing that we see the last ABS figures with a reduction in inflation. It is also a good thing that real wages have grown, as I said, for four consecutive quarters. If annual wage growth had continued under us as under you, the average Australian worker would have been over 5½ grand worse off. That's what would have happened. Do you know what they are? They're the party that says, 'We want you to work more for less.' That's the Liberal Party's way of dealing with inflation and dealing with economic challenges. They say to workers, 'Work more for less.' (Time expired)
My question is to Minister Wong, representing the Prime Minister. Minister, the long-awaited National Anti-Racism Framework was released this week. It makes no bones about the roots, extent and depth of systemic, structural and institutional racism and white privilege in this country. The report notes that it is beyond clear that racism has been entrenched in the systems, structures and institutions of Australia since colonisation. It is pervasive and causes real harm to people every single day, including, I'll add, in this very chamber. The commission calls on the Australian government to lead a national response to eliminating racism that begins with truth-telling for First Nations and embeds their rights to self-determination. Minister, will you commit to fully funding and implementing the National Anti-Racism Framework that begins with truth-telling for First Nations people?
I have spoken before in this place and in my public life over many years about the effect of racism and the experience of racism, as I did also, Senator, in relation to the targeting of you by Senator Hanson, so I think my comments about the existence of racism and the damage that racism causes are well established.
In relation to the Human Rights Commission's national anti-racism report, I want to thank the Race Discrimination Commissioner for his work. This is important work, and we have a long way to go when it comes to eliminating racism in all sectors of Australian society. All of us have a role to play in ensuring that there is no racism in this country, where no-one should be targeted because of who they are or what they believe. It is a fundamental principle of our democracy that people should feel and be safe, regardless of who they are or which faith they adhere to.
Now, in terms of the recommendations, that report has been provided to government. I understand the Attorney-General is the responsible minister? I'm looking at Minister Watt. Yes, I think that's right. The government will carefully consider the 63 recommendations that related to work being progressed across government.
Senator Faruqi, first supplementary?
Minister, the only way to unwind entrenched racism is to accept that approaches to date have been ad hoc, disjointed and ineffective because governments have avoided the truth about racism and the whitewashed structures that persist at every level. Minister, one of the overarching recommendations is for the government to establish a national antiracism taskforce to oversee and advise on the implementation of the National Anti-Racism Framework. Given the urgency of the work, will you commit to the taskforce today?
As I said, Senator Faruqi, I think the report was handed to government this week, and we will work through those recommendations, as I indicated.
Senator Faruqi, second supplementary?
Minister, this workplace is one where the existence of racism is denied, while those calling it out are dismissed, vilified and even punished. The framework acknowledges that a person calling out racism often endures more negative repercussions than the perpetrator, and highlights the need to understand how systems, structures and institutions are racist and to build racial literacy. Minister, will you mandate antiracism training for senators and MPs so racial literacy can be built in here?
I'm advised by the Clerk that it isn't the government's responsibility to mandate the training, but I will invite the minister to respond to your question in her own way.
It is the case that often we do see or we do ourselves experience criticism for calling things out. And it is the case that people should be able to both be and feel safe in this workplace, as in all others. There are a number of propositions in the earlier part of your question which I don't agree with, but I do agree with the need for all of us to recognise what we can do to make our society more inclusive and to make this workplace more respectful, and part of that is to ensure that we are respectful in how we treat each other.
My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. The educational outcomes of First Nations students are still significantly lower than those of their peers. I understand that, for many First Nations students from remote areas, boarding schools are the only option to engage in education. What steps has the Albanese Labor government taken to support First Nations students in Central Australia?
I thank Senator Stewart for her question and her interest in Central Australia. The Albanese government's $18 million investment in boarding-school infrastructure in Central Australia is a game changer for First Nations students from remote communities. For many of these children, boarding school is not just an option; it's their only opportunity.
This initiative builds on a proud legacy of ensuring education for remote Indigenous students, one that began when Gough Whitlam established the boarding facilities at Yirara College, giving kids the chance to succeed in a supportive environment. And I speak from experience. As a child I made the journey of over 1,000 kilometres from Borroloola to boarding school in Alice Springs. It's why I was so incredibly proud to announce, on my recent trip to Alice Springs, funding to continue Labor's legacy of education for our remote kids. The funding offer included $10 million to upgrade the boarding facilities at Yirara College, alongside $1.7 million for St Philip's College and $6.3 million for Yipirinya School.
Senator Stewart, first supplementary?
Thank you, Minister, for that response. How will this funding support schools in Central Australia to improve their facilities, and what difference will this make for First Nations students?
The $18 million in funding is directly supporting schools like Yirara College and St Philip's College to create better environments for learning and for growth. At Yirara, the $10 million investment will upgrade and expand boarding facilities, ensuring students have access to comfortable and modern living spaces that support their educational journey. It was wonderful to be with the Yirara College students on that day, especially the senior students, who talked about what they would like to see happen. St Philip's College will use its $1.7 million allocation to improve its facilities and provide a better boarding experience for First Nations students. These upgrades will make a significant difference in ensuring students feel supported, safe and motivated to engage in their education. The Yipirinya School board met shortly after the funding offer was made and unanimously voted to withdraw their application.
Senator Stewart, second supplementary?
Thank you, Minister, for that response. Following the withdrawal of Yipirinya School's funding application, what steps are being taken to reallocate the unused funding to benefit students and young people in Central Australia?
The National Indigenous Australians Agency is currently exploring options to allocate the $6.3 million of the $18 million of funding to other important projects in Central Australia. The need in Central Australia is significant, and our government is committed to ensuring this opportunity is not wasted. My agency will shortly provide me with advice about how we can reallocate the remaining $6.3 million to benefit the people of Central Australia by expanding educational opportunities and increasing residential facilities for remote students. I welcome input from those senators opposite—and, in particular, the shadow Indigenous affairs minister—in regard to that as well.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister. I note the announcement this week of an expert panel looking at reviewing the national energy market. The terms of reference weren't very specific. Are you able to share with the chamber exactly what the panel has been tasked to review and make recommendations on?
Thank you very much for the question. I don't have the terms of reference with me, so I'm not able to share that with you. But I can make a broad observation, which is that the energy system, as you entirely understand, is undergoing a very significant transition. That transition is underway. Increasingly, a very significant amount of the capacity in the grid is renewable, and we are seeing greater and greater strain placed on the coal-fired power stations, which once formed the core of the electricity system but are increasingly coming to the end of their life. The way that the rules of the national electricity market and all of the infrastructure around that market are organised needs to be tailored to make sure that the investment conditions are suitable. We'll continue to encourage investment in the technologies that we know are the most affordable technologies for new generation, and, of course, that is firmed renewables.
We've had this conversation many times in this chamber. It remains the case, despite the assertions of those opposite, that the cheapest form of new generation is firmed renewables. It is considerably cheaper, by the widest margin, than nuclear energy. I note that the coalition have repeatedly made promises to reveal their costings. I think it was in September that Mr Littleproud told us that all the costings were, in fact, practically done for all purposes and that this would all be out in the public domain by November. The clock is ticking! We have a handful of days left in November. Where are these costings that Mr Littleproud said were ready back in September? It might even have been August. This morning Mr Taylor was asked about this, and Mr Taylor said, 'I never said you'd have them by Christmas; you might get them before the election.' Honestly! (Time expired)
Senator Van, first supplementary?
As you would also be aware—I bring to the chamber's attention—earlier this year, the Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council released a review of the ISP. This review recognised quite a few gaps. For those following along, it was apparent that these gaps not only need to be addressed but should have been addressed before now. Will the panel be making recommendations on those gaps?
As I indicated in my response to your primary question, I don't have the terms of reference for the panel here with me. I will say this: there is a power of work underway to deal with the many legacy issues that arise from a decade of neglect and dysfunction under the previous government. Some of that—I know this will be of interest to you, Senator Van—is the recently released information from the Australian Energy Market Commission about the approach to smart meter roll-outs. I think you have asked me on a number of occasions about how that is going to be handled. The new rule in particular includes some very important customer safeguards, including protecting customers from potential cost risks by prohibiting any upfront costs ahead of a smart-meter installation and, particularly importantly, introducing new explicit informed consent and notification requirements ahead of tariff changes. (Time expired)
Senator Van, second supplementary?
As you are no doubt aware, the Senate is currently conducting an inquiry into energy planning and regulation. Its report is due to be tabled before Christmas. Will the government refer its findings and recommendations to the panel to be formally considered?
I will leave a decision about that matter to Minister Bowen. I can't pre-empt his decision or indeed the findings of the committee that you are involved in, Senator. I can say to you that, of course, we want the panel to draw on the widest possible range of information in contemplating the issues that we've asked them to think about. At the core of this is a need to ensure that we understand how the grid and the market will operate together to secure the interests of energy users and consumers as we continue through this transition. We've got a lot of policy settings in place to 2030, but the transition will continue beyond that. We understand that policy reform is required to make sure that the investment that is required continues to flow into that sector.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Mr Albanese has totally humiliated his Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek, and his second preference allies in the Australian Greens by scuttling a deal on his so-called nature-positive laws which, in reality, are laws all about killing mining investment and mining jobs. Isn't it true, however, that Mr Albanese is planning to reintroduce these laws or similar laws after the next election and has not abandoned these disastrous laws at all?
In relation to the first part of the question, it seems that the deputy leader is arguing that there should be more bills added to the guillotine today, whereas before I thought she was waxing, quite outraged, about the fact that the bills—
So you're bringing them in after the election.
Do you want me to give an answer, or do you just want to keep talking?
Alright, you want to keep talking. That's fine. You keep talking.
Minister Wong, have you finished your contribution?
I appreciate the ability to respond. First, in relation to passing legislation, the Deputy Leader was waxing quite outraged this morning and is now suggesting that we should be adding a bill to the guillotine. In relation to the national environment laws—and I know that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is desperate to run a scare campaign in Western Australia, so desperate—obviously, we are very conscious of the importance of engagement with the states and territories about this. We are very conscious that delivering improvements to national environment laws will require common sense and cooperation, and that is the approach the government will be taking.
Senator Cash, first supplementary question?
Will the Prime Minister give the Australian people—and, in particular, the people of Western Australia—an ironclad guarantee that it's nature positive legislation, or any similar legislation, will not be reintroduced into the parliament?
I would make the point that my recollection—and I might be wrong, because there is a lot that has been happening—is this legislation was a response to the review which was commissioned by your now deputy leader, Ms Ley. I know that doesn't sit well with your scare campaign, but Professor Graeme Samuel made some very important observations and recommendations about the problem with Australia's environmental laws, including the fact that the laws were working not for business nor for the environment. Having said that, what you will continue to see from this government, and certainly from the Prime Minister, is a recognition that delivering improvements to legal frameworks around the country requires cooperation and common sense. That is the approach he has taken on all policy areas and that is the approach that will be taken on this one.
Senator Cash, second supplementary question?
Every Western Australian knows that mining is the backbone of our state's economy. Why is the Prime Minister creating uncertainty and confusion in the mining sector by his refusal to completely abandon laws which will destroy investment and jobs in this sector?
Can I remind the senator that, in part, the reforms ensure faster, clearer decision-making for business, something that business has been calling for since 2020, which was when the former minister for the environment and the now Deputy Leader of the Opposition commissioned Professor Samuel to review the act. The problem with your scare campaign, Senator Cash—
It's a truth-telling campaign.
No, it is not. It is another Senator Cash scare campaign, and she always wants them, whether it's the dark ages—do you remember how industrial law reform would take us back to the dark ages? This is a shadow minister who always goes too far, who always overexaggerates, who always goes too far, and who always says things will close down in Australia. We've heard it all before and it's simply untrue, Senator Cash.
My question is to minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The New South Wales government has just withdrawn and refunded more than 23,000 COVID fines for offences like walking outside in the sun. This is in addition to 36,000 fines withdrawn in 2022. People who chose to fight these had police charges hanging over their heads for years while the fines were illegal all along. Your voluntary COVID review didn't say one word about these fines because it was specifically instructed by your government to turn a blind eye to everything state governments did. Why is the Prime Minister so scared of calling a royal commission with the power to take evidence on oath, subpoena documents and look at all aspects of state and federal government responses to COVID? Why won't you commit to calling a royal commission now?
Thank you, Senator, thank you for the question. While I do not agree with the view you take of these issues, I will say you are very consistent in the views that you put on these issues. I would make a few points. The first is that the offences or the fines that you refer to are under state jurisdiction, and I can't comment on how the states are approaching the enforcement or non-enforcement of those penalties. That's a matter for the relevant state authorities.
I appreciate that you have been consistent in calling for a broader inquiry. I did take the time—and I'm sure you did too—to look at not every page but a fair bit of the inquiry that did come down. I thought it was a very thorough, very considered piece of work which focused much less on pointing the finger and allocating blame than on working out how Australia as a country, and particularly how the Commonwealth government, can learn from the experience of the pandemic. That is the approach that the government is taking to this. I appreciate you had a different view about the federal government's response. There were certainly mistakes made. There were certainly things we could do better. We were very critical, for example, of the failure to assist stranded Australians after the borders were closed and so forth. But the focus of the report was very much on what we learned from something that we have not experienced in our lifetimes before and how, in an age of pandemics, we can ensure that we are better prepared for the next pandemic.
Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Prime Minister Albanese was elected promising to govern with transparency. Within months of being elected the government called a royal commission into robodebt. It's now 30 months after you were elected to government, and there is still no royal commission into COVID. Will you govern with transparency and call a COVID royal commission that goes way beyond what your inquiry did, or does your government's transparency promise only apply when it's politically convenient to you?
I'd refer you to the answer to your primary question. We have taken the view that, rather than a process of allocating blame, the most important thing for us to do as a country was to be upfront and very honest about mistakes that were made or areas where we could have done better—state and federal—and focus on how we better prepare the country, in particular the Commonwealth government, for the risk of future pandemics. It is a very thorough report. It is a very thorough assessment of what we did well and what we didn't do well. It makes, I think, very good recommendations, including near-term and medium-term priority areas where we need to strengthen our capacity and our capability. That is a good thing for us to do. It's an important thing for us to do. Pandemics are likely to be, regrettably, more prevalent, so we need to be better prepared, and that's what we're focused on.
Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
We agree that accountability and justice are essential. We're not interested in blame. That's for future prevention. Throughout state and federal governments' COVID response, endless things were labelled misinformation that turned out to be true. The tens of thousands of vaccine injured and bereaved are owed massive compensation. Those are just the things we found out without a royal commission. Why is the government so scared of calling a proper COVID royal commission that would answer once and for all whether it was really the government who put out misinformation?
I think your last question really bells the cat, if I may say. This is not about engaging in an argument around vaccines and health information and the views that you and others have about what is correct and what is not. With respect, I know you have your views. They're not shared by the government. I don't think they were shared by the Morrison government, and they're not shared by many people in the public health space. You're entitled to those views, but we are not looking to have a royal commission which is about reprosecuting health policy and health facts. That is the subject of independent advice. What we are interested in is making sure that, in a pandemic where we saw so many people around the world die and which had such an effect on the global economy and on Australia's economy, we improve our response to such pandemics. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Minister Watt. Given that Australia had fee-free university education from 1974 to 1989 and that several comparable nations continue to provide free or low-cost tertiary education, why does this government continue to support a pay-to-learn model that burdens young Australians with lifelong debt instead of pursuing a return to fee-free education?
It's the Albanese government that is delivering some of the greatest savings to university students and graduates that we've seen in decades from any government in Australia. It is our policy that students in higher education should make a contribution towards the cost of their education in recognition of the significant benefits that they typically gain from that sort of higher education.
But I might borrow from my good friend Senator Farrell, from his answer to another question that you asked this week, Senator Payman, and point out that the platform that you were elected on, as a then Labor Party candidate for the Senate, was one that supported the notion that students should make contributions towards their education. But I'm pleased to say that in the time since then, since you decided to no longer be a member of the Labor Party, the Labor Party's platform has actually improved for students and for graduates of higher education to a point where we have now, in last couple of weeks, agreed and committed to reducing HELP debts, whether they be university or TAFE graduate debts, by 20 per cent. So there has actually been an improvement to our platform compared to the one that you stood on as a candidate for the Labor Party at the last federal election.
We've also made changes in that time to reduce the indexation for students' debts in recognition that inflation has been rising in a very big way and that students' debts should not be escalating to the same degree. So I'm very pleased that this government has made decisions to support students better than it had done at the time of the last election, or at any other time before—and we'll continue to support students in that way. (Time expired)
Senator Payman, first supplementary?
Minister, the proposed 20 per cent reduction to HECS-HELP is a step forward, but why can it not be delivered now? Why is the government holding it hostage and as a vote-buying exercise for students to have to wait until after the next election, when this is a much-needed cost-of-living measure that needs to happen now?
Thank you, Senator Payman. These are obviously issues that the government considered in framing the policy that we have decided to take to the next election, with every single member of this caucus still continuing to support those policies and continuing to deliver for students rather than simply asking questions about it.
The reality is that making changes of this kind do take time. They take legislative changes. They have impacts on the HECS and the HELP schemes more broadly, and it does take time to have that delivered. But what I can say is that I know that every single member who remains in the Labor caucus has the opportunity to put these views forward, and it is the collective action of this caucus that led our Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, to make the commitment for the greatest reduction in HELP debts that we have seen from any government in decades in Australia.
We understand that university students and TAFE graduates are doing it tough right now, and that's why we will use the power of government to deliver cheaper courses for those people. (Time expired)
Senator Payman, second supplementary?
Minister, the Job-ready Graduates Package has been widely criticised for increasing student fees for arts, law and business degrees by up to 113 per cent. Despite these criticisms and its clear negative impact on access to higher education, your government has yet to repeal this policy. Can you explain why the government continues to allow these inequitable fee structures to persist?
Thank you, Senator Payman. Again, what we're doing is—over time—making university degrees and TAFE qualifications cheaper for hundreds of thousands of Australians. As a result of the work that Minister Jason Clare has undertaken through the Universities Accord, that is also delivering more affordable education and more accessible education.
Senator Payman?
President, I was patient with the first two questions. The minister has taken half of the time, and he has not mentioned the Job-ready Graduates Package at all.
Senator Payman, the minister is being directly relevant to your question. Minister Watt, please continue.
Senator Payman, it's obviously your right as an Independent senator to now ask questions as an Independent senator about this, but every member of this Labor caucus uses their position as a member of the government to advocate for the benefit of university graduates and for TAFE graduates as well. It's as a result of the advocacy of every member of this Labor caucus that our government is now delivering cheaper TAFE qualifications, cheaper university degrees and reductions in the debts that those students own. That is a much more effective way of delivering change for university students than any question asked here in— (Time expired)
My question is to Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Can you confirm that Labor has added over $9.4 billion of off-budget spending over the next four years, totalling off-budget spending of $87.1 billion, up from Treasury's forecast of $78 billion, and, if so, how does this spending reflect the Albanese government's commitment to budget repair?
To have that question on a day—or is it the day after? I'm sorry, the days are merging together—when we see the Financial Review headline that you are going to add more money to off-budget spending by putting the multibillion-dollar, expensive, slow and risky nuclear scheme spend off budget is really quite extraordinary.
Your question to me is: 'We don't like off-budget spending, but don't mention the $600 billion for an expensive, slow-to-build, risky nuclear scheme.' Senator Ruston, I could answer your question by pointing out that debt was $149 billion lower in 2023-24 than was forecast at the election, and that has saved Australians around $80 billion in interest costs. I could point that out to you. But I'm also saying to you: don't come in here and ask a question about off-budget spending when you are proposing—should you win government—to add $600 billion to the off-budget spend for a nuclear scheme which will deliver four per cent of Australia's electricity at the most expensive cost to Australians. That's a genius question and a genius scheme.
Senator Ruston, first supplementary?
Is that it? Economist Chris Richardson stated that student debt should not be treated 'off budget', since it was a loss-making enterprise for government, and stated:
From the viewpoint of the Australian public, something should only go off budget if it's commercial. Student loans just aren't …
How do you justify using off-budget spending as a way to hide your spending splurge from the Australian public?
I'm a little confused by the question about student debt. Certainly, student debt features in the debt figures. I wasn't aware—and I might be wrong—that there had been a change in the accounting treatment of student debt. But what would I say to you is that I'm not sure that Mr Richardson's question—if you have correctly said that, it probably applies to both sides of politics. But what I would say to you is, if the test is commerciality, if the test is that it should be commercial spending, how do you propose to make sure that your nuclear spend could even be funded off budget? I mean, $600 billion—
Opposition senators interjecting—
This is the proposition, colleagues: that an uncommercial venture—and if there ever were a definition of an uncommercial venture, it's Peter Dutton's risky nuclear scheme—can't be funded off budget. How are you going to fund it? (Time expired)
Senator Ruston, second supplementary?
Clearly didn't do economics. Independent analysis indicates an estimated $54.8 billion headline deficit this financial year, some $21.3 billion worse than the underlying deficit of $33.5 billion, due to your excessive off-budget spending. Doesn't this prove that your self-congratulatory back-patting rhetoric is not only misleading but also false and that, as we leave 2024, the Albanese Labor government has now abandoned any attempt to really rein in the budget?
The short answer to that, Senator, is no, and we've sort of moved from off budget to the UCB and then back to debt figures in that question. And I note that Senator Hume didn't ask that question; you might ask why! I think she would have framed it perhaps in a way that was more reflective of the budget parameters. But what I would say to you, Senator Ruston, is that we saw the debt figures when we came to government. We saw the deficit figures when we came to government. We also saw the 'Back in black' mugs—remember them? What I would say to you is that we've seen a couple of surpluses, debt being paid down and less interest being paid by Australians.
It is the case that we are in a challenging economic environment. What we will not do is deal with that by cutting wages, by cutting Medicare and by funding an expensive nuclear gamble off-budget. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. From the inner suburbs of Brisbane to Devonport in Tasmania and across the country to Victoria Park in WA, Australian workers are doing their bit to ensure Australia continues to be the lucky country. Whether it's educating and caring for the next generation of Australians, building our homes and roads and hospitals or ensuring that food gets from the warehouse to the supermarket shelves in time for Christmas, Aussie workers are showing up for us. Given this, how is the Albanese Labor government helping Australian workers earn more and keep more of what they earn? Are there any examples of the government's policies delivering a fair go for Australian workers?
Thank you very much, Senator Pratt. Senator Pratt knows, as all of us know, that Australians are doing it tough right now, particularly as they face the additional costs of Christmas shopping. That's why the Albanese government has been working hard to deliver pay rises for millions of workers, including the 15 per cent wage increase for early childhood educators and teachers that we legislated this week.
Now, Christmas is a time of giving, and in that spirit of generosity I have penned this ode to the workers of Australia:
'Twas the sitting before Christmas, and all through the Senate
Every creature was stirring, especially Senator Rennick.
At work, Australians are in shops, schools and sheds,
While thoughts of Christmas leave dance in their heads.
All year Labor's worked hard to deliver a pay rise
For workers; the Libs have been noes, but Labor's been ayes.
Now, an outraged Senator Cash and a grinchy Mr Dutton
Have settled their IR plans which would leave workers with nothin'.
Cutting pay, cutting casuals—their cuts many pages—
But all with one aim: cutting Aussie workers' wages.
Then out from the House there arose such a clatter.
I sprang from my seat to see what's the matter.
When what to my shocked eyes did suddenly appear
But a shadowy cabinet, sucking up to billionaires near and dear.
Now Gina, now Tina, o what a lark.
On Clive, on Ray, on Sky after dark.
Down the chimney Peter Dutton came on foot,
And his clothes were all tarnished with coal and black soot—
Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator McGrath?
A point of order: this is cringe.
That isn't a point of order, Senator McGrath. Senator Watt, please continue.
Good to see the outrage from Senator Cash! It goes on:
A bundle of nuclear rods Mr Dutton had flung on his back
Straight from Chernobyl, just opening his pack.
Dreaming of post election when he gets to work
Raiding every worker's pockets—then he turned with a jerk.
He considered a sleigh, but said to his friends, 'Do not fret,'
And away they all flew on their billionaires' jets.
With his billionaire mates he flew out of sight,
Saying, 'Happy Grinchmas to all'— (Time expired)
Senator Pratt?
However true, your poetry is as bad as Gina Rinehart's, Senator Watt! The festive season, nevertheless, would not be the same without the hardworking people in our supermarkets, retail shops, restaurants and cafes, and thank you for acknowledging that. Mr Dutton believes that paying Australian workers fairly would 'undoubtedly damage the Australian economy'. So how are the Albanese Labor government's reforms helping Australians get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, and why is it so important that the value of Australian workers is reflected in this pay?
Minister Watt, before I get you to answer: if there are any more poetic references to people in the other place you do need to use their correct title, and if there is a normal response to the question that applies equally.
Unfortunately, we know the opposition don't like being told in prose that they're about cutting wages. It seems they don't like it in poetry either. I would sing, except I'm not allowed to! In any way, you don't like being told that you're going to cut workers' wages if you get half the chance, just like you've always done when you've been in government.
Now, of course, it's not just poetry that hardworking Australians get from this government. They also get help to achieve wage increases and tax cuts.
Seriously, they do get help, Senator Cash. I know that's a foreign notion to you—the idea that a government would help workers with pay rises. We know that that's what you think because you've voted against every single one of them. But do you know what workers like Sunitha, an early educator from Victoria Park in Western Australia, have to say about pay rises? She says that the news of the pay rise for early educators is amazing. She's had calls from co-workers who'd left early education who are now wanting to come back. Under Labor, workers will earn more and keep more of what they earn. Under you lot, they will work longer for less. (Time expired)
Senator Pratt, second supplementary?
Mr Dutton, the Liberals and the Nationals have proudly stated those on the coalition side of the chamber will always stand with employers of Australia. So, Minister, why is it so important to stand with Australian workers and families by putting more money in their pockets this Christmas, and what are the key barriers to achieving this?
Thanks, Senator Pratt. It is important that we have a Labor government working hard to deliver the wage rises that Australian workers need. What we also know is that, under Mr Dutton, the coalition has tried to block every single cost-of-living measure this year—and what's worse is they've been proud of it. Remember that Senator Hume said wage rises for workers would be the worst thing. Remember that Senator Cash said wage rises would close down Australia. Remember that Senator Cash said paid domestic and family violence leave would disincentivise employers from hiring women and said our workplace reforms would close down Australia. Remember, again, that Senator Hume said more rights for workers was unreasonable and that the Liberals would consider scrapping same job, same pay.
We know, as this year wraps up, that many Australians continue to do it very tough, and that is exactly why we need a government that will do everything possible to put more money in people's pockets with higher wages and cost-of-living relief. What they do not need is a Liberal opposition who wants to cut, cut, cut. (Time expired)
President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
The Australian Greens strongly support the implementation of tranche 2 of the anti-money-laundering reforms and the expansion of the scheme to financial services, real estate agents and lawyers. Having an effective anti-money-laundering scheme, we believe, is essential for the functioning of a democratic system and trust in decision-making.
In the course of the inquiry into the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024 held by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, there were a number of issues identified with the bill. They were raised by stakeholders, and they raised very real concerns about how this legislation would work in practice. They included the fact that barristers were initially being roped in, despite the primary obligation lying with their instructing solicitors, even in circumstances where barristers across the country indicated that their practices did not have the resources or the capacity to comply with the proposed AML and CTF obligations.
There remain concerns with the scheme as to how lawyers can meet their competing obligations, their principle or primary duty being to the court, as well as meet their statutory obligations under this legislation. The Greens will be moving an amendment to seek to address that. Of course, there are also risks created by laws, if this is going to require reporting on financial transactions—which goes back to undemocratic regimes that can often, by changing their opinion on a person engaged in business, turn somebody from a business person to an enemy of the state. The concerns about potentially reporting to those non-democratic regimes under this scheme, remain real to the Greens. I come back to the fact that, on balance, the Greens support this legislation, particularly with the amendments that will be moved by the government.
I also want to recognise Fraser Brindley. I know I won't be the only Greens senator to do this. I want to recognise Fraser for his efforts in pushing for these laws, within the Greens and in the parliament, over many years. I had the immense good fortune of getting Fraser's advice from his experience and his passion for this law reform, when I was initially made the justice spokesman and the responsibility moved to the Attorney-General's. I know Fraser was working for years on this. He's not here to share this win, but from our side, from the Greens, we see this as Fraser's win. We want his family to know that. Thanks, Fraser.
I also want to note that in relation to this bill there has been a positive and constructive approach to the bill from the Attorney's office. These concerns that were raised in the course of the inquiry and which have been the subject of ongoing discussion with the Attorney's office, have, in significant part, been addressed but not entirely addressed. I want to also thank the many legal organisations who've engaged with our office and engaged in the inquiry. This was a proper inquiry, where we had time to consider the evidence and then, having considered the evidence, had the chance to put forward considered amendments. I note that there is a whole series of legislation that has not had that benefit.
I want to thank the law societies in the various states and the Law Council. I want to thank the bar associations for their engagement. As I indicated in the inquiry, and indicate in this debate, as a member of the New South Wales Bar Association, I also want to acknowledge the work of the New South Wales Bar Association in bringing forward a constructive approach to this bill.
I know that amendments that will be moved to this bill today make a number of changes in how this legislation will work. One of the most important is actually carving out barristers from the reporting and due diligence obligations under the AML and CTF, where they are instructed by a solicitor. As the profession pointed out—to a person—where the obligation on reporting and due diligence is already being undertaken by an instructing solicitor, there is no utility to have that also replicated by a barrister who has been instructed through that firm of solicitors. It is just additional expense and red tape. When you look at the nature of a barrister's practice, requiring the quite onerous due diligence and reporting obligations to be mirrored by both the barrister and the instructing solicitor is contrary to the interests of justice. I am grateful that the Attorney has reviewed the evidence from the inquiry and considered the representations put almost to a person by the legal profession. We will be supporting those amendments that make it clear that, where a barrister has received instructions from a solicitor and that solicitor is covered by the scheme, we won't have pointless, unnecessary and damaging double reporting by the barrister as well.
I will also be moving, on behalf of the Greens, a further amendment to this bill, which seeks to address the circumstances where a lawyer's duty to the court comes into conflict with their statutory obligations under this bill. We had multiple submissions about this in the course of the inquiry. I'll briefly set out the circumstances where that conflict could occur. For example, it may be well into a trial—two or three weeks or multiple days into a trial. There may be subpoenaed evidence that comes in. There may be further instructions that are obtained which may raise concerns about whether or not the solicitor needs to make reporting under the scheme. The reporting under the scheme is confidential, and it's an offence to tell anybody that a report has been made, let alone the nature of the report. The legal profession were united in their position that, once a solicitor or a barrister formed the view that they needed to report their client under this scheme, that created an immediate conflict of interest with their client. Even if they couldn't tell their client that it had happened and even if they couldn't tell the court that it had happened, the conflict would be there, and there would be an ethical obligation on those lawyers to end their instructions because of that conflict.
The question is: if you're two weeks into a three-month trial, what on earth does an instructing solicitor or a barrister tell the court in those circumstances? It's a crime to inform the court that you've made the report and to disclose the nature of the report. It's an offence to tip your client off. So what on earth does a solicitor or a barrister do in those circumstances? There has been no credible answer given to us about that by the Attorney, despite requests. Indeed, the response we've got from the Attorney's office is that no such conflict exists. On the one hand the Attorney is saying that, and on the other hand the entire legal profession is saying the opposite. In those circumstances, we have proposed an amendment that would seek to address that conflict. We're grateful for the assistance of the profession in drafting that. I particularly want to note the engagement of the New South Wales Bar Association, again, in drafting that amendment—my office takes responsibility for the amendment entirely—and in helping us put forward an amendment which we think gets a balance in that. We do not want to undermine the reporting requirements, but we are deeply troubled that that overriding duty to the court might be lost and deeply troubled by the circumstances that would put lawyers in, if this bill were passed unamended.
I also want to note that, whilst we're debating this bill—and we have time to debate this bill—there are a bunch of bills we don't have time to debate, which are going to be guillotined this afternoon. One of those I want to raise is the privacy bill that will be coming. Again, I want to note that the Attorney's office has engaged with us on this bill and that some of the issues that we raised in relation to the potential breadth of the doxxing offence have been addressed in an amended explanatory memorandum. I'm pleased the government will also, following negotiations with the Greens, insert a two-year independent review of the doxxing clauses. There is very real concern on their face the doxxing provisions may silence legitimate political commentary. This review and the additions and the amendments in the explanatory memorandum will go some way to do that.
The Greens will also be moving amendments to address some of the most glaring oversights in what's called the tranche 1 privacy bill. The Greens' amendments will endeavour to update the definition of 'personal information' so that it's in the 21st century and includes things like 'IP addresses' and 'data tracking', which are essential for any modern privacy laws. We will move to have the consent provisions mirror those that the government puts forward in the social media ban, which will be real, effective, modern consent provisions. If they're good enough for the social media ban bill, we ask the government, 'Why wouldn't we include them as the standard in the privacy law?' We will also move amendments to introduce a fair and reasonable requirement on the treatment and the holding of data from those who take personal information.
Finally, I want to say this on the privacy bill. Once the bill is law, I want to be clear that the Greens and every informed stakeholder in this space expect to hear from the Attorney a firm timetable for when tranche 2 and the balance of privacy law reform is coming. Change is desperately needed. We've seen that in repeated data breaches and privacy breaches that keep happening to ordinary Australians while this government refuses to act. Every delay sees more online tracking and more data scraping and other exploitative practices continue.
In the course of the inquiry on the privacy bill, one of the most glaring responses we had was this candid response from the department. And I don't criticise them for their candidness and for telling us straight what was happening. When we asked the department why tranche 1 of the privacy reforms had almost zero effective content to improve our privacy laws and why it did everything but bring our privacy laws into the 21st century, the response we got from the department was that it was the government's intention that nothing in the tranche 1 of privacy reforms have a material impact on a regulated entity. That's bureaucratic code for not wanting to change the substantive privacy laws despite the calls from across society to do exactly that.
We need to change our substantive privacy laws. We need to have privacy laws that at least look like they've been written in the 21st century, not in the 20th century. We need to protect kids' data. We need to stop being tracked without our consent. We need to stop our data being weaponised and commercialised against us. We need our consent to be real and informed. And we look forward to the Attorney making it clear when that will happen.
I rise to speak on the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024. Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024 seeks to expand the scope of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act of 2006. This was a Howard government initiative. The AML/CTF legislation was defined to defend against money-laundering and terrorism-financing schemes. This bill before the Senate will expand the scope of the AML/CTF regime to include a small range of small businesses, including lawyers, real estate agents and accountants. This reform will impact approximately 90,000 businesses nationwide and should not be taken lightly, despite the process, sadly, we've seen by this government here today.
Let me make this clear: the coalition supports efforts to combat money laundering. We always have. It was the coalition government that criminalised terrorist financing as part of the Criminal Code and moved money- laundering offences into the Criminal Code in 2002. It was the coalition government that first passed the AML/CTF Act in 2006. It was the coalition government that led Australia through its last mutual evaluation process in 2015. It was the coalition government that upgraded the AML/CTF Act in 2017 to implement the first suite of changes from that process. And it was the coalition government that once again upgraded the regime in 2020.
We understand and support the fight against money laundering, and we understand the costs. On this bill, the costs are, frankly, too high; they are damaging. This bill really needs to go back to the drawing board. Let me explain why this is the case. The committee's process for this bill has once again—like we've seen right throughout this term of parliament with this Albanese led government, and like we're seeing here in the Senate today—been rushed and inappropriately abbreviated, undermining the essential role of the Senate as the very important house of review. The Senate's primary function is to provide thorough scrutiny of proposed legislation, and all curtailing committee timeframes does is compromise the critical responsibility that we as senators have and, indeed, this Senate has. Unfortunately, abbreviated processes have become a recurring hallmark of bills introduced by this Attorney-General. While urgency can sometimes justify expedited processes, this bill addresses issues that have been under discussion for a considerable period, making the rushed timeline unnecessary and unjustified.
The reforms proposed in this bill are of immense importance—as underscored by the Attorney-General's impact analysis, which estimates the regulatory costs at a staggering $13.9 billion. That is $13.9 billion of regulatory costs that is going to be upon businesses across this country—most of whom will be small businesses, who will disproportionately carry the burden of this cost. Such a substantial financial burden should have prompted extended consultation and careful deliberation rather than a truncated process.
The coalition is particularly concerned about the increased compliance costs this bill will impose on small businesses across the country, many of whom are grappling with the challenges of the cost-of-living crisis. We're seeing this in my home state of Western Australia. Small businesses who make up over 90 per cent of the business community in Western Australia, carrying the big burden of employment opportunities for Western Australians, will be the ones that will carry the cost of this burden.
Government modelling predicts that regulatory costs will total $13.9 billion over the next decade. These costs are likely to be passed on to consumers, at a time when we have the cost of living out of control. We're seeing inflation start to moderate but the problem is the increased costs are baked in; Australians are carrying those forward. It's going to be some time, as the RBA and other economists have said, before wages, incomes and the profitability of businesses get to a place where they overcome the costs of doing business and the costs of everything in this country that have been incurred under this government. People are hurting, people are feeling the pressure and small businesses, no less, particularly those in my home state of Western Australia, are feeling the pressure.
The bill's effect will be felt most acutely by accountants, small law firms, real estate agents and other community based service providers throughout Australia. Regional areas in particular will face disproportionate challenges. Sole practitioners and small firms, which make up 93 per cent of law firms in this country, will be especially vulnerable. These firms, often situated in outer suburban and regional communities, play a vital role in providing accessible services. Many will be forced to close due to the additional financial pressures imposed by the bill. This will not only increase the costs for families seeking legal assistance but also reduce access to legal representation in these outer suburban, regional and remote areas, further disadvantaging these communities.
Once again, a bill that will impact the lives of so many Australians is being rammed through the Senate by this Albanese Labor government. Time and again, the government has shown nothing but contempt for Middle Australia. This is a government that hands out flyers claiming to assist with cost-of-living relief while it heaps $13.9 billion of costs onto Australian businesses. This is a government that claims to value co-designed policies and comprehensive public consultation while it attempts to sweep almost 40 bills through the Senate on one single sitting day—like we're dealing with today.
When we say that we take money laundering and terrorism financing seriously, the evidence, as I illustrated earlier, is on our side. We can point to both the enforcement actions undertaken on our watch and the existence of AML/CTF Act itself. We understand the importance of strong legislative and enforcement frameworks to combat money laundering and we fully support this fight.
Small businesses in your electorate will pay additional costs as a result of this bill. This is not just the coalition's perspective; this is actually what the government's own modelling says. We're talking about $13.9 billion of regulatory costs over 10 years. For those in the real estate sector, the Prime Minister's 'Merry Christmas' to you will be a $33,000 bill over the next year. That's incredible. Legal service small-business owners, you, too, are going to receive as a Christmas bonus—or Christmas pain, a bit of coal in your stocking—a $33,000 deficit. This is incredible. For Australians in accounting services, there's $33,000 in costs for your hard work.
The recent addition of the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman Small Business Pulse reported:
High business expenses continue to put pressure on profit margins. These are widespread across supplies, labour and business essentials, particularly freight, insurance and finance.
Yet this government is again adding red tape and complexities for the small-business sector. How will this address declining productivity in this country? When you add on regulatory burden and red tape, does that do anything to assist with productivity? Of course it does not. This gets in the way of the profitability of businesses. It gets in the way of more people getting more jobs, and it gets in the way of people seeing even better pay rises.
Productivity has continued to be stagnant during the tenure of this government. The Business Council of Australia's recent report Australia's flagging competitiveness and productivity highlighted the threats posed by declining productivity and the damage it will do if it's not addressed:
Productivity is the primary factor which will define Australians' future quality of life. Simply put, there are 'no free lunches' and we must be able to produce more with what we have if we are to sustain growing wages and national prosperity
They went on to say:
If the opposite is true, however, higher wages can be afforded without fuelling inflated prices.
The Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, COSBOA, has criticised the Attorney-General for failing to follow best practice, stating that the bill 'leaves the door open to cost, confusion and compliance headaches for small businesses'. The Real Estate Institute of Australia highlighted concerns based on New Zealand's experience, where real estate agents faced additional costs ranging from $30,000 to $60,000 with no clear public benefit to justify these expenses. The Real Estate Institute of Queensland has expressed significant concerns that the legislation is overly complex, places a disproportionate burden on real estate agents and will increase transaction costs associated with buying a house.
The Law Council of Australia noted that the legal profession is already the most heavily regulated in the country. They warned that dual regulation of legal services continues to be a significant issue as increased regulatory costs inevitably drive up the costs of legal services. The Law Council also raised serious concerns about the impact on small law firms, which make up 92 to 93 per cent of all legal practices. Many of these firms are at risk of closure due to the increased regulatory costs, which will have a cascading effect on access to legal services, particularly in remote and regional areas of Australia.
This bill is more than just a revision for the AML/CTF regime. This is a message to small businesses in this country that the Albanese government is bad for small business and bad for all business. Heaping on $13.9 billion over the next decade while in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis—well, only this Labor government could do that. Rushing the consultation process and sweeping the bill through the Senate, along with 30 other bills, could only be done by this Labor government. They really ought to be thinking more about small businesses that need support in this country. Sadly, we're not seeing that from this government.
It feels a bit like the twilight zone in here this afternoon on the last day of parliament for the year. I'm hearing conservatives rally against laws that crack down on crime. I always thought that it was their mantra to be tough on crime. Here we finally have the Holy Grail for so many people before us today—what is commonly called the gatekeeper or tranche 2 laws to crack down on money laundering and terrorism financing in Australia.
I'd like to remind my colleagues across the chamber that it was actually Senator Brandis who had a red-hot go at bringing in these laws nearly 10 years ago. At the same time, in 2015, the Financial Action Task Force, the international world-standard-setting body for anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing, released a mutual evaluation report. It stated:
Australia is seen as an attractive destination for foreign proceeds, particularly corruption-related proceeds flowing into real estate, from the Asia-Pacific region.
Other international bodies have also highlighted the inadequacy of Australia's anti-money-laundering and CTF framework, including the OECD in 2017 and the IMF in 2019. The head of ASIC in the same time period said that Australia was a haven for white-collar crime.
These laws have been sitting there and waiting for this parliament to pass them. We're only one of six countries internationally that don't have these laws. Today is a really good day to ask why we haven't had these laws. I spent a good five years or more trying to get these laws, and I congratulate Senator Shoebridge for the great work that he's done on this bill today and on the inquiry into this bill, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024. On this point, I'd also like to acknowledge a previous leader of the Greens, Tasmanian Senator Christine Milne, who also campaigned on these laws; Senator O'Neill from the Labor Party, who's played an important role in getting this legislation before us today; and, of course, Senator McKim, who had the Treasury portfolio following me.
It's been a long road for the Greens to get these laws. We had a fantastic Senate inquiry in 2019 that reported in 2022. I'd recommend that senators read the report. It's called Greenfields, cash cows and the regulation of foreign investment in Australia. We had a fantastic case study of a Chinese crime syndicate who spent nearly $30 million of laundered money to buy real estate in Tasmania, including a resort and highly productive farmland. It was front-page news when this syndicate was busted. At the time there was a big spread, with Mr Peter Dutton saying, 'We're cracking down on the crooks. It's not fair that these foreign crime syndicates are competing with Australian mums and dads to buy real estate in Australia.'
We know money laundering is a significant issue in this country. We found out afterwards in the Senate inquiry that it wasn't to do with any of the work of the Federal Police or our agencies—AUSTRAC or anyone else. The Chinese government actually gave the Australian Federal Police the dossier with all the information on these crooks. They'd been tracking them and asked us to bust them. That's exactly how it happened. We looked at that. What are the inadequacies in our laws that we can't actually work out whether laundered money is going into Australian real estate? It's just one example. The evidence kept coming back to the gatekeepers. Either through the royal commission into banks and financial services and through other inquiries and reports, we know that the beneficial owners of the companies and the shady shell structures that were being used to channel this kind of money weren't being reported to AUSTRAC. Real estate agents, lawyers and accountants right around the country didn't have to report the beneficial ownership details to AUSTRAC.
The Greens wanted to see a beneficial ownership register. That's something we've campaigned on for nearly 10 years as well, to try and crack down on crime. Today's legislation has been a long time coming. As Senator Shoebridge said, it's not perfect. I certainly hope the Senate supports Senator Shoebridge's amendments to try and improve these.
Let's be really clear here. You can talk about $13.9 billion in regulatory costs, but real estate agents, accountants and lawyers have known this legislation has been coming for a long, long time. I can tell you from firsthand experience. I initiated the Senate inquiry that looked at money laundering. I was on the Four Corners report 'The secret riches of a parallel universe', talking about the impact of this on the Australian economy. These groups have campaigned and lobbied really hard—and I mean ferociously—to prevent this legislation from going ahead. There's $13.9 billion in regulatory costs. What about the opportunity costs and other costs associated with money laundering in this country, not to mention the financing of terrorism? Seriously, it hasn't even been mentioned once by the coalition. I never thought I'd see the day when they'd come in here and say, 'Listen to Senator Cash's contribution today,' which was so ferociously campaigning against laws to crack down on crime. Really? This is it. This is not perfect, but it's the best we've got.
I want to finish by also making a personal reflection about Fraser Brindley, who used to work in my office before he left to go and work in Senator McKim's and Adam Bandt's office. Fraser was always pushing me—and I know he pushed the other senators that he worked for—to take this issue seriously. It was because of Fraser that we had the Senate inquiry and that we got the Four Corners program up into this, amongst other things. I'd like to also acknowledge the book The Lucky Laundry, and Mr Lynch, who wrote that book. I contacted him afterwards and thanked him very much for all the quotes he'd put in there that I'd made in terms of this issue. I let him know that it was actually Fraser's work, and it really should have been Fraser in the book. That's when as a boss you feel a bit guilty that, although you're the one who's actually out doing the work, a lot of the hard work's being done behind the scenes by people like Fraser.
I hope the Senate supports these laws. They've been a long time coming. They're not perfect, but they're certainly a step in the right direction.
I acknowledge at the outset Senator Whish-Wilson's kind reflection about his former staff member. That's something we should perhaps do more often in this place.
I provided extensive additional comments in relation to the inquiry. I believe that there can be more done to combat money laundering and terrorism financing. However, this is not a simple matter. It was deeply disappointing that, notwithstanding the fact that, as Senator Whish-Wilson said, these issues have been ventilated in the public domain for so long, we had such an abbreviated Senate process. I want to quote to you from the comments which were provided by the Law Council of Australia. They said:
The Bill is lengthy and complex, substantially amending legislation which already fits this description. The Bill was presented without an exposure draft and with a limited timeframe in which to analyse its impact on affected persons. It contains proposals that were not foreshadowed in the May 2024 consultation papers, including the precise definitions of 'Designated Services' … and the compulsory notice and examination powers …
In the time available, it has not been possible to make a full assessment of the impact of the Bill. It is likely that matters will arise that have not been contemplated at this point. Nevertheless, the Law Council makes this Submission to facilitate ongoing constructive dialogue.
Why is it, as Senator Whish-Wilson said, that, despite this matter being ventilated in the public domain for so long, we have such an abbreviated process for interested stakeholders, those who have been most impacted by these changes, to actually make submissions and to digest what is an extremely complicated piece of legislation? This is a point which has arisen in relation to multiple pieces of legislation during this term. The Law Council of Australia has made a similar point with respect to Senate inquiries on no less than six occasions—six occasions on bills that have come before the committee that I serve on as deputy chair and which Senator Shoebridge serves on. On no less than six occasions, they've raised the same concern. It happens again and again, and it is completely unacceptable.
I want to take on board one of the comments Senator Whish-Wilson made in relation to real estate transactions. A key concern of stakeholders in relation to, for example, a real estate transaction is typically you have a vendor and you have a purchaser. The vendor in most circumstances will have a bank. The purchaser in most circumstances will have a bank. The vendor in most cases will have a firm of lawyers acting for them. The purchaser will have a firm of lawyers acting for them. The real estate agent is the agent, in most cases, of the vendor, but the real estate agent can also be a buyer's agent. In that situation you have six entities involved in the transaction—six advisers, some of them gatekeepers, some of them banks. The legitimate concern raised by so many stakeholders was: 'Please do not force bank 1 to do the same anti-money-laundering checks, bank 2 for the purchasers to do the same checks, solicitors for the vendor to do the same checks, solicitors for the purchaser to do the same checks, the vendor's real estate agent to do the same checks and for the buyer's agent to do the same checks. That would just be lunacy.'
There is an issue with respect to costs. It may well be, as Senator Whish-Wilson says, that the gatekeepers were aware of the cost implications for some time, but that doesn't address the issue of the cost implications. There are substantial cost implications. In my view, from interaction with a number of stakeholders, that there have been positive signs that AUSTRAC is looking at how to make this regime as user friendly as possible and to minimise duplication. It would be madness that, in a typical real estate transaction as I outlined that bank 1 acting for the vendor has to go through these processes, the solicitors acting for the vendors have to go through these processes, the real estate agent acting for the vendor has to go through these processes and the exact same occurs on the purchaser's side.
There were strong submissions made, including by the Real Estate Institute of Queensland, in relation to the technology platform which is mobilised by PEXA and which accommodates the vast majority of conveyances that occur in this country on an electronic basis. It's looking to increase the proportion of transactions covered from approximately 90 per cent to 95 per cent. We haven't seen the guidelines—we don't know what the guidelines are going to say—but there were strong submissions made that accommodation should be provided to leverage off technology to minimise the cost. It's not a question of all or nothing; it's a question of leveraging technology to manage the cost so you don't have a situation where a politically exposed individual, perhaps from our Pacific region—and they exist—who has gone through AML checks at their bank has to go through the same checks with their solicitor and the same checks with respect to their real estate agent—and that has to occur on both sides of the transaction. That would be madness.
I dearly hope that, when the guidelines are released, AUSTRAC demonstrates that it has listened to the stakeholders in terms of their positive recommendations and suggestions as to how to minimise duplication. We've seen that in New Zealand. At the moment there are 6,000 applications from small businesses to be exempted from the AML scheme in New Zealand. We should learn. One of the benefits—there is a benefit of the delay—is to learn from the experience of other jurisdictions. We can do that—we can learn from the experience in New Zealand and we can learn from the experience in the United Kingdom—and we should do that.
I proposed in my recommendations that there be more transparency around the creation of the AML rules. These are the key rules that will apply to the gatekeeper professions. I would like to see that as a very public process. I think we want to see that done in an open and transparent manner. It doesn't have to be in the legislation. AUSTRAC could decide to do this, and I suggest to them that they do—that they publish exposure drafts of the guidelines, that they publish submissions on the guidelines made by the gatekeepers and others impacted by these guidelines and that they then tell us how they get from those exposure drafts to the final guidelines. We will be watching.
There are small businesses—and, potentially, sole practitioners—who are out there trying to make ends meet and trying to provide a quality service to their clients, in particular in regional and country Australia. This will be an added burden. Again, that's indisputable. This will be an added burden, and we've got to make it as simple as possible for the relevant obligations to be met, especially by small business. That is one of my primary concerns.
The other issue I've got, to be frank, is in relation to the application of suspicious matter reporting upon the legal profession. I have material issues with respect to the legal profession—lawyers, as officers of the court—having to meet a suspicious matter reporting regime. In my view—and I say this as someone of the legal profession in a previous life—there is a real issue of lawyers managing their ethical obligations as officers of the court and also being subject to the regime under the legislation, and I haven't received any satisfactory answer to that. The Supreme Court of Canada was so concerned about it that they struck down the legislation in Canada, as it applied to lawyers generally. That's a common law jurisdiction with similar traditions to what we have in Australia with respect to the legal profession.
I note Senator Shoebridge's attempt to, with the benefit of the New South Wales Bar Association, try to address the issue, but there are real ethical concerns. It wouldn't surprise me at all if, ultimately, there is a High Court challenge to the application, in particular, of those provisions to lawyers. There was enough evidence received by the committee, including from former High Court justice Nettle, in relation to the issue to cause considerable concern that the suspicious matter reporting obligations being imposed upon the legal profession may well breach some constitutional provisions with respect to the separation of powers.
The last point I'll make in relation to this matter is that I would like to see more transparency in relation to the engagement between the government and the Financial Action Task Force. I would like to know whether or not representations are being made to the Financial Action Task Force, whether or not there's a discussion at the Financial Action Task Force with respect to these legitimate issues around the cost implications for sole practitioners and micro small businesses and whether or not the legitimate concerns, especially those of common law countries with respect to their traditions in relation to the fact that members of the legal profession are officers of the court, are being ventilated in those taskforce discussions.
I'm not satisfied that they are, because there seems to be a lack of understanding in terms of the material which is produced by the Financial Action Task Force of that concern with respect to the competition, the conflict between lawyers' ethical obligations and also their obligations under AML regimes, in particular with respect to suspicious matter reporting. From my perspective, there also doesn't seem to be sufficient acknowledgement in relation to the cost burden which is imposed upon not even small businesses but micro sole practitioner businesses, be they accountants, lawyers or real estate agents. With that, I will leave my comments there and simply note that, due to an estimates spillover, I unfortunately will not be able to be here for what comes next. I do wish I had the opportunity to be here.
I rise today to speak on the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024. Before I proceed, it is important to state on the record that the coalition supports efforts to combat money laundering. In fact, we always have. The AML/CTF Act is a Howard government initiative post September 11. This bill seeks to expand existing money-laundering and counterterrorism financing obligations to include tranche 2 employees, like accountants, real estate agents and lawyers. As my colleague Senator Scarr noted, these are primarily small businesses, family businesses, organisations that don't have vast and deep resourcing.
This bill is filled with inconsistencies and errors that need to be dealt with. There are legitimate concerns with respect to the regulatory cost burden of this bill, which falls squarely at the feet of Australia's small businesses. It is estimated to be some $13.9 billion over the next 10 years. There is no discussion of the details in the impact analysis released by the Attorney-General's Department. This cost burden is far too large for small businesses, which will subsequently need to pass their costs onto consumers. The government must seek to eliminate or reduce these costs.
There are various impacts on the legal, accounting and real estate professions. Senator Scarr has outlined some of those in quite significant detail. The Law Council has been clear in their position that legal practitioners owe a paramount duty of care to their client and to the court. This bill drastically impinges upon a fundamental component of the legal system, which is the power of privileged information between a lawyer and their client. This bill would undermine this trust by legally compelling lawyers to inform on their clients, eroding the foundational confidence clients place in their legal representatives. It is clear that legal practitioners should be excluded from the application of mandatory suspicious-matter-reporting requirements of this bill.
Further, in relation to the real estate and accounting professions, the Real Estate Institute of Queensland recommended that there should be a platform solution which enables tranche 2 entities to share and rely on information in the most effective way. Again, Senator Scarr spoke to this. There are multiple reporting obligations, based on the current structure of this bill, on one transaction. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever for an individual or a couple purchasing a home to have to meet the requirements three times in the purchase of a home—once to their lawyers, once to their bank and perhaps once to their accountants if they're having some assistance in relation to that matter. Finally, there should be amendments to the explanatory memorandum to erase ambiguity about conjunction agreements, and to exclude residential side agreements and land leases.
There a number of deficiencies which were identified in the Senate inquiry, and I will go through those briefly. Noting the considerable concern with respect to cost and regulatory burden, and how reforms would interact with professional responsibilities, it's disappointing that the processes for this have not been adequate. The Law Council of Australia has raised concerns with respect to the adequate time provided for it, as the peak body representing the Australian legal profession, to make submissions and engage in this process. While there are circumstances where bills are required to be introduced and passed as a matter of urgency for reasons outside of the control of the executive, this bill deals with matters which have been the subject of discussion for quite some time and which should have been open to broader consultation.
In its additional comments, the coalition have a number of recommendations, the first of which is that the Senate note the inappropriateness of the abbreviated timeline for consideration of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill, particularly given the importance of the legislation, the cost burden of that same legislation, the failure of the government to circulate an exposure draft of the bill, and the inclusion in the bill of matters which were not subject to prior consultation, including the schedule 9 powers.
Concerns were also noted with respect to the regulatory cost, and I've noted some of those already. I note that there are estimated regulatory costs of $13.9 billion over 10 years. There is no discussion of the qualifications contained in that report regarding that cost estimation. There is no discussion of the estimates of cost provided by the tranche 2 entities, legal professionals, real estate agents and accountants that were submitted as part of this committee inquiry process, and that in itself is quite a staggering omission. The AGD impact analysis estimated that the upfront cost for the provision of legal services to comply with the new regime would be $429 million, with ongoing costs of $2.454 million. Over a 10-year period, that cost, calculated on a net present value upon those providing legal services which are designated services, is estimated to be $2.833 billion, a significant impact on the industry and its many small-business owners.
There is also a cost impact on real estate agents, who are primarily small businesses. The analysis estimated that the upfront costs for the provision of real estate services to comply with the new regime would be just under $1 billion at $989 million, with ongoing costs of $4.903 million. Over a 10-year period, that total cost, calculated on a net present value basis upon those providing real estate services which are designated services, is estimated to be $5.892 billion. Again, this has a significant impact on the real estate industry and its many small business owners.
The impact analysis estimated that the upfront cost for provision of accounting services to comply with the new regime would be some $562 million, with ongoing costs of $3.12 million. Over a 10-year period, that total cost, calculated on a net present value basis upon those providing accountancy services which are designated services, is estimated to be $3.82 billion. Again, this has a significant impact on the accounting industry and its many small and family business owners. The second recommendation from the coalition on the inquiry was that, before the bill is passed, the government must address the cost burden imposed by the legislation on small business. The $13.9 billion cost is a burden far too large, and these costs, as we know, will be passed on to families and customers.
There are many issues relating to this, but, in conclusion, this bill does not have the support of small businesses, real estate agents or lawyers—the very people it will burden the most. COSBOA has criticised the lack of consultation and warned of the cost, confusion and compliance headaches it will create. Evidence from overseas paints an even grimmer picture. This bill is fundamentally flawed and needs to go back to the drawing board, and we must ensure any reforms are practical, effective and fair.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.
I move:
That:
(1) Valedictory statements may be made relating to Senator Birmingham until not later than 6.30 pm.
(2) The questions on the remaining stages of various bills be put at 6.30 pm instead of 5 pm.
Question agreed to.
'This too shall pass'—it's an ancient Persian proverb, the lesson being that, through times of despair or elation, neither shall last forever. It is a keeper of perspective that I've found useful through the highs and lows of political travails.
Now, it is time for my parliamentary service to also pass. Some will be kind enough to be disappointed to see me go—maybe only a rare few but some. To them, I am sorry, especially to those who feel that I'm letting them or the team down at this time. Others, as is the nature of this business, will be delighted to see the back of me. To them, I am also sorry. I'm sorry that I'm giving you this joy, but staying just to spite my opponents or to prove them wrong is no good reason to stay. In any event, it is always better to go when there are some wishing you to stay, and none of us is irreplaceable. Now is the right time for me, for my family and for new career pathways.
I am excited that next year I will step into a new commercially oriented direction. You can all be relieved to know that it has nothing to do with lobbying, government relations or commentary! This year I hit the big five zero. It provided cause for gratitude on the wonderful life I've been fortunate to craft and reflection on the priorities that lie ahead. There is so much in my life that I do have reason to be thankful for. Professionally, I will leave here just short of 18 remarkable years as a senator for the great state of South Australia. Perhaps it is best to get out before hitting 18 and reaching Senate adulthood—whatever that might look like.
When I entered this chamber in May 2007, I was its youngest member at the time. I will leave, thankfully, not as its oldest but as the longest continuously serving of my current coalition colleagues. I've been fortunate to spend more time on the government benches than in opposition, to have had a near decade as a minister and to have the vast majority of it as a cabinet minister. For more than four years, I've had the honour of leading my party here in this Senate serving as both leader of the government and leader of the opposition. I do know which one I preferred!
I've seen, during those near 18 years, too many prime ministers, and I acknowledge the political blood on my own hands during those more turbulent times. I've worked at sufficiently close quarters to PMs to see the real and constant stresses of that job. I acknowledge all of those who have held our nation's most important office during my time in this parliament, from Prime Minister Howard all the way through to Prime Minister Albanese.
I particularly thank the Liberal PMs in whose party room I served. John Howard was always generous with his time and advice, especially in my early years. Tony Abbott gave me the opportunity to serve on the frontbench and, through his win in 2013, in the ministry. Malcolm Turnbull promoted me to cabinet, backed me in the pursuit of difficult reforms and brought me into his leadership group. And Scott Morrison was to challenge me with roles in the Expenditure Review Committee, the National Security Committee, the leadership of this chamber and the joys of being a campaign spokesman through two elections. Politics, though, should never be about the titles you've held but what you do with them. I hope to be judged to have left a positive legacy.
As education minister, we cleaned up the rorted mess that was VET FEE-HELP and replaced it with student support, targeted to job-enabling skills with real limits on fees. In higher education, like many education ministers, parts of my agenda were foiled by this chamber. A key direction I sought to take, which I urge future ministers to revisit, was to create a performance element to university payments, linking some Commonwealth support to graduate employment outcomes. Supply-side decisions made by universities play a huge role in shaping the graduate mix across our country. It is in the interests of both students and the economy for universities to face both reputational and financial incentives to get the enrolment mix right.
I had more success in abolishing the historic maze of multiple childcare payments, replacing them with a single childcare subsidy and targeting support to those working the hardest but earning the least. Means testing and activity testing the CCS were critical to maximise workforce participation and choice for families without breaking the budget. It would be fiscally reckless and of limited genuine benefit to abandon these limits. Simultaneously, we backed safety nets for early education and, to get more kids into preschool, began shifting state payments from ineffective enrolment based payments to much more important attendance based payments.
My biggest fight as education minister was, of course, over school funding. I inherited a wicked dilemma. On one side were the reforms recommended to the Gillard government by the Gonski review, which had been compromised via a big-spending, no-losers approach that, instead of Gonski funding, maintained 28 different funding deals for schools. On the other side were budget repair initiatives of the Abbott government that sought to strip away the big spending but had no chance of passing the Senate and also maintained funding inequities. After many conversations with the ever-thoughtful David Gonski, and with the unwavering backing of Malcolm Turnbull, we determined that the only way out of the dilemma was a principled implementation of the Gonski recommendations.
Applying the principle of Gonski's funding formula meant having the courage to create losers as well as winners. Some of those who stood to lose fought hard; others played politics. That was their right, even if, at times, their positions betrayed their purported values. As I said at the time--to some controversy--an opponent or two sold out their values for a few pieces of silver. But many education leaders, faith leaders and experts put principles first, even if it required a difficult transition for a few. Ultimately, we were to prevail, securing 10 crossbench votes at the time. I notice Rebekah Sharkie in the chamber. Bek, you helped with getting those crossbench votes, too.
We did so to put school funding on a more needs based and more consistent footing, which enabled more choice for families of all means and greater support for those of most need. The Grattan Institute's Peter Goss wrote: 'This is a victory for the schoolchildren of Australia over politics.' I also acknowledge Michael Chaney, who took on the task of overseeing the technical efficacy of the funding formulas, including improving measures of income. I take some pride in the fact that our changes are enduring, with the current government's school funding changes based entirely on the model and formulas we legislated. But we didn't stop with funding.
Thanks to bipartisan support in my home state, we began the spread of an early-use phonic based reading check across Australia. I was pleasantly surprised when, at my 50th birthday bash in June, the musician turned up. He introduced himself as a teacher in his day job and told me that his principal had asked him to thank me for the phonics check. That was the last thing I was expecting at the start of my 50th. The Gonski 2.0 report, which looked at how record funding should be applied for better outcomes, laid the foundations for these and other practical reforms. Its recommendations on developing basic skills, more effectively measuring student progress and recognising our best teachers deserve to be fully implemented.
It was quite a change to move from the classrooms of the education portfolio to the entrepreneurs of the trade, tourism and investment portfolio, but I loved the transformative nature that each brings to our nation. Our government delivered the biggest ever expansion of preferential market access for Australian exporters, lifting the share of Australian exports with advantageous rights of entry into our export markets from 27 per cent when elected to more than 80 per cent.
I was proud to oversee the implementation of the CPTTP, to sign the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement and to finalise the Hong Kong FTA, the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations with our Pacific island family and the landmark digital economy agreement with Singapore as well as launch the negotiations for our eventual FTA with the United Kingdom. In particular, I take pride in having secured the 15-nation Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. RCEP created the world's largest trade bloc, encompassing around 30 per cent of both global population and global GDP and cemented Australia's place as an integrated economic partner with ASEAN and others major Asian economies. We also launched Australia's India economic strategy and led a delegation of more than 100 education, tourism, energy, resources and agribusiness leaders as part of the first Australia-India Business Exchange.
However, my time as trade minister coincided with the beginning of a great crisis, the COVID-19 global pandemic, and a big warning, China's attempt at coercive trade sanctions. I will never forget Saturday 1 February 2020. I was spending the morning at the Liberal preselection that brought Andrew McLachlan to this place, while the family prepared to host Tilly's 9th birthday party that afternoon. Then came the message of a special National Security Committee meeting being called. This was bad news. First, I had to tell Courtney I may not make the birthday party! But, more seriously, I also knew what was coming. That was the meeting at which we determined to close Australia's borders to China.
As trade and tourism minister, this was a decision of such consequence for the stakeholders I represented. I challenged the health advice but could ultimately see the wisdom in the precautions being taken. It was the first of so many monumental decisions to be taken—further border closures, the JobKeeper program, standing up a government run air-freight coordination mechanism, actions to save tourism businesses, and just so many more through COVID. Our actions weren't perfect, nor in such unprecedented times was the information we had available to us to base those decisions on perfect. But on the whole I am very confident that the Morrison government's decisions saved many Australian lives and livelihoods.
In the midst of this global crisis, the wolf warrior diplomacy being deployed at the time by the Chinese government suddenly struck numerous Australian export sectors. As I've said many times, Australians should be proud that our businesses, our economy and our nation withstood that attempted coercion. China's actions betrayed the commitments our countries had made to one another, and whatever differences our governments had there was no justification for those trade sanctions. Incidentally, the WTO's multiparty interim arbitration agreement that we had negotiated with China due to US blockages—and did so with China and other parties—actually became useful leverage for the ultimate resolution of those disputes. China is a great power, but this was an abuse of power, as we sadly see the Chinese government deploy too often in their military actions and in other conduct that is increasing risk and instability in our world. We all wish to preserve peace and stability. That requires genuine deterrence and effective diplomacy.
Shortly after I became finance minister, Scott Morrison brought me into the early discussions among a very small group of NSC ministers about the possible acquisition of nuclear powered submarine capabilities. As if the pandemic decisions hadn't been monumental enough, the birth of the AUKUS partnership involved the most consequential of national security decisions arguably since the signing of the ANZUS treaty.
Subsequently, when we lost the election, I was to take on the shadow foreign affairs portfolio and in doing so have seen the most challenging of times emerge across the world. I salute the courageous Ukrainians, the determined Israelis. I pay tribute and acknowledge the tragedy of lives lost in the Palestinian territories, in Lebanon and in so many other conflicts around the world but particularly those that are being fuelled by the axis of Iran, North Korea and Russia—all too much enabled by certain Chinese policies. At the time we embarked upon AUKUS, we also oversaw the unwinding of pandemic assistance, the beginning of post-pandemic budget repair and an economy that drove unemployment to its lowest levels in my lifetime.
I was also responsible, as finance minister, for working with former sex discrimination commissioner Kate Jenkins on delivery and initial implementation of the Set the standard report. This was important work, and I value the contribution that I was able to make alongside colleagues across the chamber, but I do want to press that I do not accept the perceptions peddled by some in this building of it being a universally toxic workplace. There are many staff and members of parliament of all political persuasions who not only work hard and achieve much but actually enjoy their time here too. They should be proud of their work and take pride in coming to work in this place, and, whilst we should never tolerate the types of behaviours that led to the Jenkins report, the whole should not have their experiences universally besmirched.
After all those experiences and, indeed, those even before I was trade minister, I was, and remain unashamedly, a free trader. I do fear the world is headed into an era where populism trumps good policy. Australia must protect our interests. As the two largest free trade blocs, RCEP and CPTPP must be protected and enhanced to ensure that a free and open Asia-Pacific region remains the world's economic growth engine. In doing so, that will be best for Australia's interests too.
In my new life, I look forward to advancing these interests and to helping to practically grow our trade and investment flows through our region. With that, we should also be clear that it's important to celebrate the profits of Australian companies, not undermine them. We should also acknowledge that Australia needs migration if we are to fund ambitions in sectors like defence and maintain essential services as our population ages. We should also be bold in the use of data to drive government efficiency and stare down the conspiracy theorists who jeopardise such productivity measures, and we should seek to unite Australians, not divide them.
I remain proud of my small role in securing marriage equality in Australia, having been the first coalition frontbencher to publicly back marriage reform. The ultimate strength of the 'yes' vote for marriage equality demonstrated that Australians overwhelmingly back concepts of equality and respect for each other, regardless of our differences. We must learn this lesson in all aspects of our work, including in the pursuit of reconciliation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. We should strive to make Australians proud of having the oldest continuously living culture in the world, not ashamed due to disadvantage nor resentful due to perceptions of special treatment. It's about achieving mutual respect and equality of opportunity for all.
Those on the harder edges of the left and the right who seek to divide our country only make us weaker in our division. Little is gained by culture wars, politicians obsessing over what happens in private bedrooms or anyone seeking to override evidence based medical practice. I am a proud liberal of the John Stuart Mill tradition, preferring less government intervention in both our economy and our personal lives. The global rise of populism and divisive tribalism, peddled by ideological extremes, troubles me. It risks social cohesion in countries like ours and jeopardises the economic wellbeing of countries like ours. I am confident that Australia is a country whose values sit toward the centre and that the parties of government forget that at their peril.
This won't be universally agreed across the chamber, but, in Peter Dutton, I believe the Liberal Party has a leader who understands that. Peter and I certainly don't agree on everything, but Peter is grounded and thoroughly decent and has a perspective in touch with many hardworking Australians. I am confident that he would be a strong and effective prime minister, and I wish Peter and the coalition team nothing but success.
Without pre-empting the decisions of our party room, I also note that my departure will likely see the first all-woman leadership across this Senate. Good luck to you, Michaelia. Thank you for being a loyal deputy and a good friend. And, I guess, good luck, Penny, in having Michaelia at the table with you!
I have been fortunate to have had it all in many ways: career, family and a great life. And I owe thanks to many—my staff, of course. I've been blessed with amazing electorate staff and policy, parliamentary and media advisers. I could never hope to repay what they have collectively done for me. I hope they never forget that my achievements and those of our government's are their achievements too, be they parliamentary staff, electorate staff or any who have made a contribution. While many have come and gone in my office, and, happily, often gone on to bigger and better things—a few prime ministers seem to like to poach my press secs—we have also had remarkable stability. Loretta Sist and Anthony 'Buck' Rogers, two of my first electorate staff, employed all the way back in May 2007, remain part of the team all these years later.
I could wax lyrical about the merits of so many staff past and present, but I do want to single out two in particular for their loyalty and leadership, both known to, I think, the bulk of my colleagues. Loretta, my office manager for the entire journey, has underpinned the standards, ethics and culture of our office. She has become family to us and will forever be so. Rachael Thompson—not game to look at me!—my one and only chief of staff ever since I first became a minister, is potentially the best networked person in this place. However, Rachael's vast network is genuinely one developed through diligence, professionalism, thoughtfulness, humility and generosity. Thank you to Marcus and Samantha for enabling Rachael to give so much of herself to me.
Truman was wrong when he quipped that, if you want a friend in politics, buy a dog. I take away treasured friendships with current and former parliamentary colleagues—far too many to name, and I will create offence by leaving some out. But I will single out John Gardner and Trudi, James Stevens and Alex, Marise Payne, Christopher Pyne and Carolyn, James McGrath, Scott Ryan and Helen, Jamie Briggs and Estee, Anne Ruston, Sean Edwards and, as I say, no doubt others.
Relations across the aisle are essential too, especially here, where the Senate is ungovernable without a degree of trust between the leaders. Penny, thank you for our trusting working relationship. It's come a long way from us sparring over the Murray-Darling Basin in my early years here. You are a formidable opponent, a warrior for your cause, and with an intellect that justifies your success. The Murray-Darling, too, incidentally, is a reform where achievements that have been made—world-leading in water recovery and reform—should not be undermined entirely by debate about what more may or may not need to be done. Holding the water portfolio, the Murray-Darling portfolio, in my earliest days is also where I got my first real taste of conflict with the Nats! Bridget, we have become near experts at managing such conflict, along with being good mates, and I thank our coalition partners.
That leaves family and friends. Today would have been my nan Madge Herde's birthday. She was a huge influence on my life; I spoke about her in my first speech. I know that Mum, who's here today, and her sister, Margaret, join in taking some added meaning that, on this anniversary, I take my next step. Mum and Jim, Gaye and Roger, Margaret and Neice have all in different ways given Courtney and me the support to juggle crazy professional lives while giving our girls every opportunity possible, along with support further afield from my cousin Lauren.
Fewer truer words have been written about raising children than the phrase 'it takes a village'. In addition to family, our village is blessed with many treasured friends who have kept us grounded while giving more help than could ever be expected. In particular, to Pricey, Don, Cooper and Ruby, along with Sash, Keano, Georgia and Harvey: thank you for being the best mates anyone could ask for. Many more fun times lie ahead.
I told the Senate in my first speech that my partner, Courtney Morcombe, could be just as capable of standing here as me. Perhaps she should have been, although 'Courts' has a typically direct answer when anyone has suggested it; she honestly replies, 'I don't like people that much.' At the time of that first speech, when I referenced Courtney, she was the chief of staff to Adelaide's lord mayor and I was a backbench senator. We quickly agreed that one of us in politics was enough, so Courtney returned to her professional services career. Somehow, that formula didn't last. One wedding, two children and 13 years later, we were to find ourselves in the position of me being Australia's finance minister and Courtney back in politics—not in local government but as chief of staff to the South Australian Premier—also in the midst of that same global pandemic. How we all survived the intensity and madness of it all may forever be one of life's mysteries. It's due, of course, to many of those family and friends I mentioned before. As we now enter a time when neither of us shall be in politics, words are insufficient to express my love and gratitude to you, Courtney, and my thanks. You've backed me through the toughest of times. You've always been my most important and forthright adviser.
Sitting either side of you are Tilly and Amelia. You guys are our world. We love you enormously—okay, stop crying because you're doing it to me! Tilly, your drive and determination will take you anywhere. Amelia, your care and consideration will ensure you are always surrounded by love.
As I farewell this place I have a few departing observations for the colleagues I leave behind—some of it informed, sadly, by the last couple of days. Colleagues, it is not necessary to target one another and personalise debates to advance the issues important to you. It is not necessary to undermine the principles and practices of this Senate to advance the issues important to you. Every senator is accorded with remarkable privileges and a platform like no other in this nation to advance those issues important to you. Use those privileges and make the most of your platform, and you will be amazed at what you can achieve in this place without crossing the line.
I acknowledge all the Senate staff and all across the Australian Public Service. Rosemary Huxtable, the former head of Finance, thank you for being here with me today. I also acknowledge Tony Cook and George Mina, across Education and Trade, as two amazing public servants among the many I had the privilege of working with.
Serving in the Senate is the honour of a lifetime. I was just the 89th South Australian to do so, and have served, if the maths is right, with 206 of the 647 Australians to have ever been a senator.
Wow!
We've seen a lot of turnover, Penny!
Those of you who have the honour of continuing in this place carry a great responsibility. I wish you well. Do good. Make a positive difference. Thank you, and farewell.
I rise on behalf of the government and myself to acknowledge and thank Senator Birmingham for his service to the Senate, his service to the great state of South Australia and, most importantly, his service to our nation.
As Simon said, he's been a member of this place for some 17 years. He has had quite an extraordinary career—there is the Murray-Darling Basin; anyone who serves in that portfolio bears certain scars!—and has had senior frontbench positions such as Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Trade et cetera and Minister for Finance, and, in this place, leadership roles across the board: Manager of Government Business, Deputy Leader of the Government, Leader of the Government and Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. It is quite a remarkable career.
Senator Birmingham's political activism probably dates about as far back as mine, and we've had a similar career—if on opposite sides—both cutting our political teeth in Adelaide at the uni. We've clearly got different political ideologies. He once confessed to me that he joined the Liberal Party at a time when John Hewson was promoting Fightback, so clearly we disagree often!
Simon Birmingham has always engaged respectfully. He has always engaged with integrity, and he has always engaged with a clear view for achieving something positive for our country. Senator Birmingham is a thoroughly decent person, and I want to thank him personally for his constructive engagement across the table in this place in these last years but also over the last 17 years.
Senator Birmingham has repeatedly demonstrated a commitment to rise above petty personal politics, and we saw that again today. He's shown me a great deal of kindness at times. He may not remember this, but he was actually very kind to me after our 2019 election loss. Our children were doing Mandarin at the same school, and he saw me outside. He was very, very kind to me, and I've never forgotten that. He could have just said, 'We won,' or something like that.
I was probably the last person you wanted to see.
Oh well, not at all. He has also shown grit. Some might say he's been optimistically valiant in advocating a moderate approach to key debates such as water, environment and climate. He was a key advocate, within his party, the community and this parliament, for achieving marriage equality. With his characteristic humility today he spoke about his small part, but I was there, and he played more than a small part.
I think in politics you see a lot of people who have a lot more spin than substance. Some might say in this building that's the norm. With Senator Birmingham there's a lot more substance than spin. Unlike many in this building, he never promotes how good he is or tells people how smart he is, but he is a man of enormous competence and high intellect. I think in politics you learn from the people with whom you work, but you also learn from the people with whom you contest. I can confess to the chamber that Simon Birmingham is much more patient than Penny Wong. He also is a man who keeps his perspective. I think that is the key to why Senator Birmingham remains calm. He keeps perspective in the moment, and it is one of the reasons he has been such a good leader in this place and one of the reasons he was such an effective minister.
We also have both learnt things in the Pacific. We learnt the difference between kava in Vanuatu and sakau in FSM. Oh, Micmac has left. I was really making that joke for him. Oh dear! I have to say that one of the things I learnt then about Senator Birmingham was this: despite having partaken much more than he should have—much more than was advisable—of the sakau, which is the kava of FSM, he nevertheless managed to deliver a competent, clear, coherent speech, albeit very, very slowly.
As Senator Birmingham said, serving in this place is an extraordinary privilege. Serving as a minister is an extraordinary privilege. Serving in the cabinet of the country and as leader in this place is the honour of a lifetime. I salute Senator Birmingham's career as a great contribution to the nation. Few Australians have the capacity and platform to contribute to public debate in the way all of us in here are able.
As Senator Birmingham described today, briefly, it also brings great costs, most of all to those who we love: a lot of time away from home, anniversaries, birthdays and celebrations missed. I know, Courtney, Tilly and Amelia, you are, I'm sure, looking forward to having a bit more time with your husband and dad, and I wish you all the best for that.
On behalf of Labor senators, and personally, I congratulate Senator Birmingham on his service in this place. I thank him for his friendship and I wish him all the very best for what's next.
Senator Birmingham. I first saw you as a member when I was a member of the Rudd government. It was my first estimates, and my colleagues warned me and said: 'Watch him. He's clever and quick and has a huge intellect.' Since then, most of my interactions with you have been in my role as President. I've found you to be a person of great integrity, trustworthy and honourable. Your contributions have often been sharp and witty. Sadly, in this role I've never really been able to laugh at them, but I have found them witty!
For me, I've seen you at your best—your absolute best, in my view—during condolence speeches, whether it be for the passing of a senator, a national disaster or something on a global scale. I've discovered in those moments that your compassion is deep, that it's heartfelt and it's obviously—and still is—very real.
May I wish you well and all the best in whatever you do next with your family and your daughters and in your new career. Thank you, Senator Birmingham.
I rise on behalf of many Liberal colleagues today who unfortunately, due to time, will not be able to make a contribution to you, Simon, but also on behalf of myself. I will start my speech—Courtney will understand this, and, Simon, you will, but I don't think anybody else in the chamber will—with, 'We'll always have the night markets in Taiwan.'
As I said, I rise to pay tribute to my friend and colleague and our leader in this place, Simon Birmingham. I do so, of course, with sadness, but more importantly, Simon, I do so with immense respect and admiration for what you have done and what you have achieved in this place. In fact, you'll recall that we came into this place at around the same time. You arrived here in a casual vacancy in 2007, and I was elected in the 2007 election. I have to say, it has been a journey for you and me over almost, now, 18 years. I think you and I have often remarked to each other that it still feels quite literally like we arrived yesterday—and, yes, you do still look as good as you did back then. You rose from the considered backbench senator you were back then to the top place in this job. As Senator Wong articulated, Leader of the Government in the Senate—what an honour it is to hold that position.
I was also reflecting earlier today that it would not have been an easy task to take over as Leader of the Government in the Senate, in 2020, from someone I think we all acknowledge was a formidable predecessor, in Mathias Cormann. But very quickly you brought your own personality and your own style to the role, and you were able very quickly to win the respect of your team. But, more than that—and again it was articulated by the President and Senator Wong—you in fact won the respect of everyone in this place. I have been honoured to serve as your deputy since you took over as our leader. Your collegiate attitude, intelligence and ability to negotiate successful outcomes both within our team and within this place has, quite frankly, been second to none.
Unlike myself, I've heard you sometimes described as quietly spoken, but that certainly does not mean that you have had any trouble getting people to listen to you. The intellect, thoughtfulness, decency and, more than that, good humour that you have always brought to the debate in this place will long be remembered. You have without a doubt a proud history of service that anyone who has served in this place would be proud, themselves, to hold. From a backbencher to a parliamentary secretary and then on to an assistant minister before becoming the Minister for Education and Training in 2015, you went on to serve as the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment and then, of course, a role you discharged so well, the Minister for Finance and Vice-President of the Executive Council.
As many of us in this place know, having had the honour of being a minister, as glamorous as the title may be, it is not easy. You always, however, appeared to be doing it effortlessly, always on top of the issue and of your brief. But I, along with others, know how much hard work, long hours and anguish you and, as you so rightly acknowledged, your team put in to make it look that way. It is a credit to you—and I quite frankly have no idea how you do it—that you are never flustered. It is something I will need to learn from you, seriously. You always remain calm—note to self!—and thoughtful, no matter what is thrown at you. I'm sure that will be one of the great strengths that you take into your new role in the private sector.
In your first speech, you said this:
I come to this place looking for us to think big for at least the next few moments, to lift up above the humdrum, the sledging and the cynicism of day-to-day retail politics, to instead recall what inspired all of us: a desire to make a difference, a positive contribution, one that improves the lives of those living today and those of the generations to come.
I think, on any analysis, you have continued to strive for all those ideals over your time in the Senate. You have been driven to make a difference and to improve the lives of your fellow Australians, and I think you have succeeded well and truly in doing that. Like all of us in this place, we are senators and we know ultimately what our role is—to be a fierce advocate for the people of our state; in your case, South Australia. I certainly know, as we sat around the cabinet table for, in fact, our entire time together, that you would always argue, as you should have, stridently and persuasively for South Australia and for South Australians. You will recall many a time that some of the things you argued in favour of were in direct competition with the interests of Western Australia, but we were always able to agree, to disagree and to remain friends afterwards. And that is why—or that is one of the reasons why—you will leave this place today with the best wishes of everyone in the chamber.
Simon, for anyone who has served in the parliament, as you said, the greatest thing you can do is leave at a time of your own choosing and on your own terms. As we know, for so many, that is a rare thing in politics. But, after almost 18 years in this place, you have absolutely earned the right to do that. As you have articulated, the service you have given to your nation did come at a cost, a cost that each one of us understands but each one of us is also prepared to bear. But it is our family who bear the greatest costs. As you said, you've spent large amounts of time away from your home and away from your family. No doubt, Courtney and your daughters, Tilly and Amelia, will be absolutely delighted to have you home on a slightly more permanent basis.
So, Simon, this is it. As you embark on the next chapter in your career and your life, on behalf of all of us, I really do wish you all the very best. I want to thank you for your service to the Liberal Party of Australia and to the Liberal Party of South Australia. You have been a loyal servant to each and have made your mark on this nation. You have a legacy and will be long remembered in this place. Good luck, my friend, with everything ahead of you. You are welcome back to visit us any time.
I will just give a short contribution because I'm sure Birmo's own colleagues really want to have an opportunity. I want to say, being a fellow South Australian, what a wonderful time it has been to work in this place alongside Senator Birmingham. From his work on the Murray-Darling, to marriage equality—and Penny is absolutely right; the role that Simon played in that debate very early on was pivotal, and I don't think we would have actually got what we needed without Birmo's dedication to that issue. Climate, of course, has always been something that Senator Birmingham has spoken passionately about, and I understand that it's probably more passionate internally than we ever hear on the outside. I also remember the tussle over the education policy when Senator Birmingham was education minister. We had some interesting conversations at that time. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to say this, but I think we both wanted to take the Catholics down a notch.
There's the respectful and considered approach that Simon has taken in this role—the integrity, the honesty and the ability to be a straight shooter. When he tells you what it is that's going to happen and what he thinks, he always follows through. You can take his word, with absolute trust that it will be kept.
I will miss our chats, Birmo, as we fly home at the end of the week, talking and debriefing about how things have gone. I appreciate your counsel on how to deal with some of your pesky Nationals friends, and often the counsel about how to try and manage this place at times when things are really heated and people are very passionate. As Michaelia said, you've always got a calm about you. That calm isn't just reflected back in how you behave with your team; I see it reflected back in how we all then engage across the chamber. I think that that will be sorely missed. You've done a very good job and I thank you for that. I will also miss our annual fun on the dance floor at the media ball. Thank you.
I rise today to pay tribute to my friend, colleague and Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Senator Birmingham, or, as everybody who actually knows him calls him, Birmo. As Leader of the Nationals, the second party of the coalition in the Senate, I want to express my warmest appreciation to Birmo and my genuine sadness about the prospect of his departure from this place. But I also want to express my admiration for your energy, your enthusiasm and the wisdom in choosing the time of your departure. Not many people get to do that, and that again, I think, goes to your intellect and your desire to continually want to make a difference for the people.
As two people from the opposite edges of the spectrum of the coalition—Birmo is the Liberal end and I'm absolutely on the National Party end of the coalition—we have, as he referenced in his opening remarks, often been at the two sides of the internal debates that have consumed the coalition in our time in politics.
When I arrived in 2011, you were almost a veteran of four years. You were the shadow minister for environment. We sat on the environment and comms committee together. I had to text Ben Bartlett to see which was the big fight we had, but we did have a couple. One was on the reach rule, about the ownership of media organisations, and the other was on the Murray-Darling Basin. We have sparred, as you've sparred with many of my colleagues over the years, about that particular issue. Whether it was the vexed position for the coalition on the Murray-Darling Basin or something else, our dealings leader to leader have always found you being a man of great honour and principle. Tough conversations have had to be had, leader to leader, requiring an understanding of each other's internal difficulties of having to manage principled, value driven senators on both of our sides to make sure that our two great political traditions are respected within the functioning of the Senate. The differences of the coalition internally are very easily exposed in the detail driven chamber of the Senate. Finding ways to get through that together—to make sure that every member of our team is able to express their values and to find a solution that allows them to bring their constituents along and to actually respect their role as a senator—I think shows you as a very considered and pragmatic leader.
I will miss you as the coalition campaign spokesperson. Everyone laughs, 'safe pair of hands'. That's not easy to do, particularly in the heat of a campaign. I will really miss that aspect. I was also your education chair during the tumultuous times of the Gonski review, and I'm forever bonded to many members of your team, some of whom I had the privilege to employ as my own chief of staff and senior advisers in government. I think what really drove that, Birmo—as a former teacher—was your desire to get the right outcome for Australian students for the long term. As difficult as that was, I think we eventually landed. I will miss your humour, your indulgence—which you do indulge, particularly Cashie and I in the leadership group, a lot—
You've got to try and control that!
That's right. I'll miss your curiosity as we ponder how to solve particular tricky vexed problems on a day-to-day. You have a real, curious, open minded way to try and solve problems, which I really love. I will absolutely miss you at Christmas time, when you are always the worst dressed with the best joke. It has been a great privilege to serve with you in the Senate, in the committees together where you were senior one—back then, backbench, you never got to ask a question in Senate estimates unless the shadow assistant minister indulged you—in ministry, in cabinet, on ERC, in prime ministers Morrison and Turnbull and now Peter Dutton's leadership team and obviously as Senate leaders. I think a testament to your strength as a minister is shown by Rosemary's attendance here today. That was a very difficult period, not just for government but for our nation, through COVID, and you absolutely steered the ship.
I think you display the very best qualities of a leader: patience, empathy. You're an amazing communicator, and you're a reformer. You understand that all of us only have this great opportunity for such a short period of time, and we've got to maximise the difference we can make in the roles we have. You've done it in every single role of your career. I'm absolutely confident that that commitment to making a difference and positive change won't change, despite you no longer being in this chamber. I wish you and the family all the very best for the next chapter.
I rise to make a contribution about my friend and my colleague Simon Birmingham, but, as Macca said, he's just Birmo to us in here. Entering here in 2007, replacing the late Jeannie Ferris, was the start of a 17-year career, which has been accomplished, distinguished and significant. Seven of those years was as a cabinet minister in a coalition government. There is no doubt that those seven years allowed you to make your mark on this country, and you should go and leave this place knowing that you have made a significant contribution to our country as an education minister—I think every education minister wears the scars of having held that role—the trade minister, the minister for finance, the shadow minister for foreign affairs of course and, most importantly for us, holding our team together over the last three years in opposition as our leader in this place. You've done a phenomenal job.
Behind the extensive resume that Birmo brings to this place, there is a man of real character. You're a true moderate. You are absolutely a true moderate and unwavering in your conviction for your beliefs. Moderate he may well be; he's also a team player. I can remember many occasions, as we all can—whether that was in leadership, whether it was sitting around the cabinet table or whether it was in the party room—where Birmo always put forward his views and his convictions in the strongest possible way. But, if he was outnumbered by the majority, he would always accept the majority view and he would then go out, front the cameras and fight the fight that wasn't necessarily the view that he put forward behind closed doors. Because he's such a team player, he would often go and fight the fight, but I know that inside he didn't necessarily want to fight at all.
As Bridget has said, there was no more obvious a place where the contests were robust on many occasions, but the relationship that is established through a respectful debate with differing opinions can actually lead to some of the greatest relationships that you can ever make in this place. There is nothing that I think demonstrates that more so than the relationship you have maintained with the National Party and how we have managed to get to a consensus position once we have had our robust debates behind closed doors.
One of the things I think everybody will remember Birmo for is that he is the safest pair of hands in the media—although, I have to say, his confidence has grown and grown in his time in this place, because I do remember a certain press conference, when he was first in this place, where he failed to work out where the exit was and then, after a fiery engagement with the press, found it a little difficult to get out of the room. The unflappable Birmo we see today was forged on the altar of a very embarrassing moment, and you will note that these days he advances every single one of his media outings!
Beyond his talents in this place as an amazing senator, he has also been an extraordinarily loyal friend to me and a reliable source of advice. In fact, Birmo and his then partner in crime, Sean Edwards, are the very reason I'm even here today. They managed to con me at a restaurant one night at dinner that they'd really love me to run for a casual vacancy. I wasn't going to win, they said to me. 'You're not going to win; we just need a really good field of candidates.' So I put my hand up, and 12 years later I'm still here, so clearly that wasn't true!
The reality is that there are many ways that you can judge the character of a person, and one of the ways that I think is a really good judge of character is the loyalty of their staff. There is nobody in this place that has staff that have been more loyal than Birmo. I acknowledge Loretta, who is here—a formidable force in her own right—Buck, RT and the many others of your staff. Their loyalty to you is a demonstration of your respect and loyalty that you give to them. It works both ways. I think that is probably the greatest demonstration of the character of the person that is sitting before us today.
Above all else, Birmo is a family man. To Courtney, a political operative all in your own right: I acknowledge you and the sacrifice that you have made over the last—well, not quite 17 years, but all the time that you guys have been together that Simon has been in this place. I'm not really sure that you've thought through having him home full time, but I wish you all the best with that! To Tilly and Amelia, who have not known your father to be anything else but a person who is in this place: it's going to be a really interesting time for you to have Dad home a bit more often so he can pick you up from school. To Amelia: I will never forget your birthday on 7 September, because Dad promised me faithfully that he would be my sponsor and bring me into the chamber when I was sworn into this place. At the very last minute he said he was terribly sorry, but you were about to be born. Instead of swearing me in, he went home for your birth. I think that probably shows it. I reckon he might just be the family man that we all know him to be.
To Diana: it's fantastic to see you here. There is always one face that you will always find in crowd when Birmo is doing anything, and that's yours. The support that you have given to Simon throughout his career is absolutely extraordinary, and I just wanted to acknowledge that as well. I'm sure much of your decision today has been on the basis that you have an amazing family, and you want to spend more time with them.
To us in here, but to me personally, you're not just a considered and steadfast politician. You're a great leader. You're a great orator. You're a deeply rational thinker. Above all else, you're somebody that cares about other people, and the care that you have shown your team since becoming the leader has been extraordinary. We will absolutely miss you. We'll miss your wise counsel. We'll miss your terrible Christmas jokes and your terrible Christmas outfits, as Macca just said, but I think everybody in this place, and certainly I on behalf of South Australia, wishes you all the best for whatever it is that you're going to choose to do in the future. I know, whatever it is, that they'll be lucky to have you. We'll sadly miss you.
I just want to take the opportunity to put a few comments on the record, too, and I don't want to take time from other colleagues who might want to speak. I want to associate myself with the other contributions made already. I think, Senator Birmingham, you can hear from the genuineness and some sadness in the contributions on seeing you go just how highly regarded you are in this Senate and across the chamber more broadly. I thought it was a wonderful valedictory speech, with lessons in there for all of us to think about—and the fact that we will all think about it is because we respect your views so much.
It's obviously been an incredible career here, but I've learnt, through painful reference to section 44, there is life outside this place, and it's a great life. It's hard when you're in the hustle and bustle of politics to understand that there are more normal jobs, at times less demanding and less public and just as rewarding. I know, from your service to the country, that you will keep contributing to the fabric of our nation; I have no doubt.
I took over from you as Minister for Finance at the change of government. I know the Public Service—I know Rosemary's here, or she was here earlier—never reflect on previous occupants of the job, but it was clear, through all my dealings, what a great department, in good leadership and in safe hands, it had been under your stewardship and how highly regarded you were by that department. I was the beneficiary of your hard work in that respect.
I associate myself with the contributions that have been made tonight. I think the words 'intelligence', 'integrity', 'confidence'—people can speak to you in confidence and have that confidence kept, and that isn't always the way. It's a highly undervalued part of the jobs that we do, and so when you find that with someone you treasure it.
The calmness—I must say that, at different estimates, I did try to ruffle that calmness, unsuccessfully! I thought, 'What do you have to do to get under this guy's skin?' I never, ever got there. Fundamentally, you are an incredibly decent person, and I think, if you can serve 17 years in this place in public life and have all those characteristics reflected in this chamber, you've done what many others haven't been able to achieve.
We won't miss you as campaign spokesperson; we do see the opportunities there, I have to say! But we know that you will be watching the campaign. I say all these nice things, and I know it won't reflect on you badly now because you're leaving, but you've never given up your liberal cause; you are a fighter and warrior for that. To balance that and your ability to be universally liked across this chamber is something that's hard to achieve as well.
Our dealings with your office, again, reflect so highly—I hear all the time in this parliament that the staff in your office are highly regarded, and that reflects on your leadership as well. We have a little thing in my office where if Birmo's on the floor so am I. We were always trying to stay one step ahead of you, so we'll have to change that now to 'Cash alert', I think, subject to those processes.
Simon, I was sad to hear the news, but I completely understand that this is a good decision for you, Courtney, Tilly and Amelia. I wish you all the best. It's been an honour and a privilege to serve alongside you, and I look forward to seeing what you achieve next.
I won't be very long. In my dealings with you, Senator Birmingham, as leader of our respective parties, I wanted to thank you for your decency. I'm pretty sure that you won't miss us and possibly this place, but the chamber will be the poorer for losing your calm expertise and your shrewd operation. I've always appreciated your honesty, your sense of humour and your work ethic. You've always been professional and courteous to me. I respect how you've conducted yourself in this place, and I think that's a strong compliment for anyone to leave this place with.
Particularly, I want to flag the sincerity with which you approached the beginning of the work on Set the standard in this place and our dealings at that early stage. You were always very clear and very detailed, and you clearly wanted to help fix things. I respect you for that, and I think that's been really valuable work.
Parliament needs more decent people, and I think your party will be the poorer for losing your leadership. I wish you and your lovely family all the very best in the future.
I am rising today in four capacities, Birmo. The first is as a housemate. This is the longest running house in the parliament at this point in time. It's had a fair bit of turnover. I think I'm actually the most recent addition to that house. There has been everyone from Christopher Pyne to Marise Payne, Michael Ronaldson and Robert Hill—my goodness, the list is going on—but, right now, I speak on behalf of James Stevens, Angie Bell and David Coleman to say, 'Thank you very much to both you and Loretta,' who has just walked out of the room. She is the silent housemate, who has looked after us all. It is always a stress in this place, but coming home to friends—even though you are always the last to get home and always the first to leave in the morning, which speaks to your work ethic—does make a difference to the way we approach the rest of our time here.
I also want to acknowledge the word that dare not speak its name, and that is your role as the leader of the Black Hand. The Black Hand is the ultimate secret society here, but it is not just about the parliamentarians; it's also about our staff and party members who believe, as do you, that the centre of politics is where the real gravitas and responsibilities lie. I thank you very much for the leadership that you've shown in that space. You are a leader here not just to colleagues but particularly to staff. I know that we've mentioned your staff before, but it's not just your staff, it is everyone else's staff around the building too—we look to your office for leadership and guidance. The example that you set in your office is one that we'd like to replicate in our own. Your team is so loyal. They are of an extraordinarily high calibre. They would walk through fire for you, and that's what we all want.
Other than that, I wanted to say thank you as a friend. You have been an extraordinary friend in this place and sometimes at a time when friends are hard to come by. What the future holds for you is so exciting. We couldn't be more pleased for you. What you leave behind is a legacy of service to your country and a nation that has changed because of what you have done here. But what lies behind you and what lies ahead of you pale in comparison to what lies inside you. You are a person, particularly in a profession like this where a good heart is just as important as a level head, who means so much to all. Thank you very much for the service that you have shown here to all of us.
Hi, Courtney. I'm quite grumpy at the moment—a real change of circumstances there! To begin with, Simon is leaving, and, secondly, he has made me cry. I don't cry, but he's leaving, and I'm very annoyed about that because I've known this guy for over 30 years. In the byzantine world of Liberal student politics, in the Adelaide conference of 1994, Simon was leader of the moderates—boo, hiss! Scott Ryan was there as leader of the Victorians—boo, hiss!—and I was there as a spear chucker with an unholy alliance between the Queenslanders and the New South Wales people—boo, hiss! It was a brilliant conference because no-one got on but three of us became really good friends. It was Simon, Scott and me. In later years, a fourth wheel joined our car, and that was Jamie Briggs. So, with Simon leaving today, it's the last of that group.
I want to say to Simon: thank you for being a good friend. Thank you for putting up with my grumpiness, my crankiness, my surliness and the fact that, like Courtney, I don't actually like people. Deep, deep down, though, I do like Simon, and I love Courtney. I don't think I've ever met Simon's mum, but Simon was also a flatmate of mine back in Adelaide, in the dying days of a previous Liberal administration in the 2000s. He broke my shaving mug, and I've never forgiven him for that, because I hold a grudge.
Simon: I'm so happy you're leaving this mad asylum and that you are going out into the real world. You're going to see the sun and the clouds and the birds and general happiness. Good on you. One day we will look to joining you in that happy, happy place—after we throw out Labor at the next election.
This bill, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024, is a disgrace, ladies and gentlemen. This is an attack on every small business in Australia, if you run a small business, if you work in a small business, if you buy from a small business, if you walk past a small business—shame on you, because you should go into the small business and buy off them! This bill, notwithstanding the fancy title, the nice big words and all the acronyms, is an attack on every small business in Australia, and this government should be ashamed of itself for the war that it has declared upon small business.
Why is small business important? It employs millions of Australians. Why is small business important? From every small business comes a medium business and a large business. From every small business comes the tax revenue that is so important for the public services that help make this country a great place but also for ensuring that Australians have the quality of life that we should have in such a rich country. But we have a Labor Party in power who have never seen a business that they don't want to tax into the ground, which is what this bill effectively is about. It is a de facto tax on every small business in Australia. It is a full-on attack on every small business in Australia.
COSBOA, one of the great representative bodies of small business, have expressly noted the Attorney-General's failure to follow best practice and said that the bill 'leaves the door open to cost confusion and compliance headaches for small businesses'. Why is that important? If you run a small business, if you own a small business, guess what—you're the director of finance, you're the director of HR, you're the director of maintenance, you're the director of operations and you're the director of governance, because it's just you running that small business. There is no bureaucracy of people, as you see in large businesses and in the public sector, to help you run your business.
When the Rhodes scholars who sit around the cabinet table of this country—those Mensa society members that are the Labor Party—come up with ideas like this, they fail to understand how small businesses operate. They have no experience in small business because they've come from the unions. In the UK there is the House of Lords, but here in Australia we've got the 'House of Union Barons' because every single Labor senator—
Thank you for laughing at that one, Senator Gallagher; I've used it before, but it's a good one and an old one!
They're all union officials, so they don't understand what makes small businesses run. Guess what makes small businesses run? It's the 'a' word—'aspiration'. It's the 'd' word—'dream'. It is the dream that that little business that you have, whether it's a cleaning business, a corner shop or a place that cuts keys, is your income and your world, and that that is how you can feed your family, pay your bills and get on with life. And one day you might be able to open up another branch of your business. Maybe one day you can get a bigger shop, maybe one day you can employ someone else and maybe one day you can grow your business so it earns more money—not because you want to go and live on a superyacht in the Mediterranean but because you want a quality of life that comes with living in Australia. That's what small business does for Australians. That's why it's the dream of so many Australians. And that's why this bill is a nightmare for small businesses. That's why this bill has the unintended consequence of once again making small-business life tough for those people who want to own a business, run a business or use such a business.
The Real Estate Institute of Australia has referred to experiences in New Zealand where real estate agents over there have been slugged with additional costs between $30,000 and $60,000 in exchange for an unquantified public benefit. These aren't just numbers someone has tapped into a calculator or put into their iPad; this is real money. This is going to hurt small businesses, it's going to hurt the owners of small businesses and it's going to hurt Australians. For the life of me, I do not understand why any political party or any political movement or particularly any government wishes to make it tougher for those Australians who run small businesses. The Real Estate Institute of Queensland, in my home state, has significant concerns that the legislation is too complex, poses a disproportionate burden on real estate agents and adds to the transactional costs of buying a house.
We've got a weird form of Santa Claus here at the moment. We've got a semi-retired Prime Minister who is heading off to his nice retirement home. He thinks he's Santa Claus because he'll get all these bills rushed through the Senate today. The Labor Party are a lot like those uni students who leave all their work till the last day and do an all-nighter. They will rush all these bills through, and we're going to have the unintended consequences of the costs to small businesses and also the red tape. We're going to have a weird form of the Labor Party—think of Prime Minister Albanese as Santa Claus, flying around Australia with reindeer, but instead of sprinkling presents he's sprinkling red tape everywhere on small businesses, red tape that is going to suffocate small businesses because of the burden it puts on them.
I refer to my earlier comments. A small-business owner is the director of operations, the director of governance, the director of finance, the director of taking out the rubbish in the mornings—they do everything. They open the door up, they close the door up and when they get home they then do more work. Who is going to have to deal with this? It is the small-business owners. Guess what? They've got enough on their hands at the moment. They've got a cost-of-living crisis. Have you seen how much power costs? I was crying before because Simon Birmingham is leaving the building. I sort of told a fib; I cried two weeks ago because of my power bill. If you don't cry when you get your power bill, you are not a human being. Quite frankly, they are just exorbitant at the moment because of this Labor government and what they're doing. They've got these poor small-business owners who are trying to earn a buck, trying to employ people, trying to live the great Australian dream, and we've got the Christmas grinches coming along trying to take it all away from them. The Law Council of Australia has noted:
The legal profession is already the most extensively regulated profession in Australia, and dual regulation of legal services remains an ongoing issue for the legal profession, not least because increases in regulatory costs inevitably put upward pressure on the cost of legal services.
I would file that quote under what bears get up to in forests and the religion of the bishop of Rome because, quite frankly, Sherlock, of course costs are going to go up when governments put more burdens on small businesses. What are these small businesses going to do? Are they going to be like a charity and say: 'I'll take on the burden of these costs. It means I won't have as much money to pay for my bills and for the mortgages.' Remember, interest rates have gone up 12 times since the Labor Party came to power. Insurance has gone up, I think, by 16 per cent since the Labor Party came to power. What they will have to do—they don't want to do this—is pass their costs on to the consumers. It is Australians who are going to lose out because of this piece of legislation. It is going to cost more for Australians.
In question time over the past few weeks it has become clear that the secretary of the Labor Party has briefed the Labor cabinet that there's cost-of-living crisis out there and they should do something about it. So we're hearing the words 'cost of living', 'cost of living', 'cost of living'. It's almost like one of those country auctions in terms of how many times 'cost of living' has been said. But this is going to make it worse. We've got the words of the Labor ministers saying, 'We're going to do something about the cost of living; it's terrible,' because the secretary of the Labor Party has briefed them on that, yet we have a bill before us in this chamber which is actually going to increase the cost of living for Australians. Merry Christmas, Australia! This is what you're getting from this Labor government. It's not the 12 days of Christmas; it's the 31 bills rammed through this Senate chamber a month before Christmas. This is the disrespect that the Labor government and their friends in the Greens have for the Australian people. I've said this before: friends do not let their friends vote for the Greens, and friends do not let their enemies preference the Greens, because you end up with legislation like this.
You may be thinking: 'This bill, with this very nice title, sounds like an eminently sensible bill, Senator McGrath. Why are you opposed to it?' Well, I'm opposed to it because of the red tape and the costs to small business. If you think this bad, you'll find this is just a foretaste of things to come should Labor and the Greens win the next election. This bill is an amuse-bouche. Is that the correct pronunciation, Senator Hughes, for when you go to fancy restaurants and they give you nice little bits of food—an amuse-bouche? This is what this bill is. It's not even the entree. It is an amuse-bouche in terms of what is coming towards Australians at the moment. It's just a little taster, and it is a bad taster. It is a gagger in terms of how bad the taste of this bill is going to be for the small-business owners across the country.
Next week I'm going to be travelling around Queensland, as is my wont. What the people of Queensland are going to be asking is: 'Why would the Senate do something like this? Why would the Labor Party do something like this?' I'm going to say to them, in all my coffee catch-ups and all the pubs I go to: 'It's because we've got a Labor government who do not understand what actually drives the economy. We've got a Labor government who are so detached from reality that it's not the Canberra bubble but 'Canberraworld' that they're in. It's a bad TV series. It's something that you might see on Netflix that was produced by a uni student or something like that. This is how bad this government is—Canberraworld. The mob in Queensland, the people who voted for David Crisafulli on 26 October in that landslide win, are going to say: 'What? We've got a government who are going to put more red tape on small business? We've got a government who are going to make small businesses hurt financially? This is some type of joke.' But the sad thing is that this is not a joke.
It is sad what this bill means for small businesses across Australia. It is sad—the other legislation that is being rammed through this parliament because of the preference deal between Labor and the Greens; the impact that it's going to have on small businesses. On this side of the chamber, we will always stand for the small businesses in Australia. We will always stand for those who work in small businesses, whether they're employees or those who run the businesses or whether they're shareholders of the family trusts or whatever it is, because this is going to hurt small business. When small business hurts, that means Australia hurts. When Australia hurts, that means that's just not a good place to be, because government is supposed to help Australians. It's not supposed to punish Australians. This bill, as Senator Cash has pointed out, punishes hardworking Australians. It punishes small businesses. So, regardless of all the nice language in the bill and all the other things that are in the bill, when it is distilled down to the essence, it is a bad bill because it hurts small business.
What we need to see in Australia is a government and a political movement, something that you see with the Liberal-National party coalition, that understands that bills like this are bad for small business. In fact, what we should be doing is bringing in bills to help small business, not hurt small business, not hinder small business, not punish people who want to get on with their lives. A rich small-business environment means more taxation revenue. More taxation revenue means we can help pay down Labor's billion-billion-billion-dollar debt that they've given to the Australian people. It's going to be a trillion-dollar debt under the Labor Party—a trillion dollars worth of debt under the Labor Party. We've got the Guinness book of records over there in terms of the debt they are giving to the Australian people. It's a trillion dollars. It's enough to make Santa Claus blush, and we know that he's not the type of fellow to blush. So I wish everybody a Merry Christmas. Vote down this bill. (Time expired)
Thank you for that, Senator McGrath. Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President—
It's like open mic night—
Sorry, Senator Ayres, if you wouldn't mind, it's Christmas. In the spirit of that, the other day, I went and bought some red ribbon. It cost me a couple of bucks a roll. I like to wrap my presents with red and white paper. I put red ribbon around them, and I've got the lovely red and white tags. I'm actually a bit OCD, and my lovely Christmas tree and all the wrapping underneath need to match, and everything looks pretty. I get very upset when everyone turns up with an unexpected present with paper that doesn't match. But little did I know of the bargain I was getting for $3 a role for this red ribbon. None of these small businesses across Australia—accounting businesses, real estate businesses, lawyers—are going to get a $3 lot of red ribbon. They're going to get a $33,000 bill of red tape—$33,000 a year. So Merry Christmas from the Albanese government to these small businesses! At a time when we are seeing the most insolvencies ever of Australian businesses, this government has absolutely no clue when it comes to running a business. They genuinely think that somehow their job creation, because they've employed more public servants, is growing the economy. It's not the public service that grows the economy, people; it's small business. It's medium businesses. It's companies that employ people that the economy grows from, not employing people on the public purse.
But we know no-one over on that side—I vaguely remember that, I think, Senator Chisholm once had a job outside of a union, but no-one else over there has ever had a job in the private sector. They've always worked as union reps, union officials and political staffers and have absolutely no concept of what it is like to run a small business and what costs every small business has when it goes to its accountant and every business has when it has to deal with its lawyers. A lot of these small businesses, family businesses, use accountants and lawyers who themselves are running small businesses. Whilst it's the lawyers and the accountants and the real estate agents who are going to see the $33,000 hit to their bottom line directly, those businesses that are managing to survive and can sustain through this are going to have to pass those costs on. So who's going to pay for it? It's going to be the small and family businesses who are the clients of these lawyers and accountants and real estate agents—$33,000.
If this wasn't sounding bad enough—now, I may get the pronunciation wrong, but I think the Macquarie word of the year is 'enshittification'. It's when things keep getting worse. Enshittification means that situations continue to decline. This government is subjecting our economy to enshittification every single day, because our economy is getting worse every single day. Conditions are 'enshittified'—I don't know if I can use that word. I may have made up a new word! These businesses are struggling more and more every single day to keep their doors open, to keep people employed and to keep operating. Now they're going to be hit with even further costs.
If we're surprised by the 31 bills they're jamming through today—some of them have been on the books for not only months but years. They've done no work on them. There's no detail, and they're once again guillotining bills through this place, so there'll be no proper review. Unintended consequences, here we come, yet again. But in order to get this guillotine, in order for them to ram through this number of bills, the cost to the Australian taxpayer today is half a billion dollars. They have done a dirty deal with their mates up at the end of the chamber, worth half a billion dollars, to get them to support a guillotine, to shut down debate and to stop there being reviews of legislation.
Mr Albanese, the Prime Minister, keeps saying that we're going to an election in May and that he's going to go full term. He says there'll be no early election; it's going to be a full term. So why do we need 31 bills rammed through today? Why do they need to be done today? We're back in February.
We could come back tomorrow.
We could come back tomorrow. We could have some process.
Or the weekend.
Do you know what? We could hang out all weekend. What a great time that would be! Love it! We're back in February. We don't need to ram these through if there's not going to be an early election. So Mr Albanese needs to come clean. Is he putting the Australian people at risk by ramming through these 31 pieces of legislation, like they have so many other pieces of legislation? They are in such total shambles and chaos that they never have time for a proper committee process and they never have time for proper review. This government that was going to be so transparent and was going to be about integrity and openness has been the most opaque government I think we've ever seen. The way that they're behaving is unbelievable.
This bill that we're now debating, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024—no-one is saying we want money laundering. No-one is saying that. Just because you come up with a sexy name that sounds like this is the problem you're solving—it was actually in the Howard years that movements were first made and things were introduced. The AML/CTF Act was introduced in the Howard years. It was a Howard government initiative, and it came about after September 11, in particular reference to money funnelling into terror organisations.
The coalition has a very strong record in this area. But what we don't have a strong record on—and it's a record we never, ever want and one I don't think anyone could ever match—is the volume of red tape that this government is continuing to layer on small and family businesses. They're constantly being bombarded. It doesn't matter whether it's, all of a sudden, climate reporting on how many cows you've got and how many times that cow broke wind in a paddock. You've got to account for that now, and, when you've got to go to the accountant, it's going to cost you more because they've now got to find an extra $33,000 a year to pay for their red tape burden.
This is a government who is clearly hell-bent on destroying business, on destroying jobs and on destroying the Australian way of life—the aspiration and the dreams that Australians have about owning their own business and working for themselves. But, as someone who has run a small family business, I can tell you that the work doesn't stop when the shop closes, We did haven't a shop; we had an agricultural contracting business. But I can tell you that it was 24/7, whether it was working on the accounts, chasing up clients, sorting out maintenance and repairs or moving around the state to where the different work was being done at the different times of harvest. It doesn't stop. But that's what having your own business is, and it's unfortunate that no-one in the government has that experience, because, if they did, they might not bring forward this ridiculous sort of legislation that will destroy businesses, will destroy jobs and will push further costs onto other small businesses that are utilising their services.
It's not only double-dipping; it's triple-dipping, when you go through all the different agencies and organisations that are going to have to do these checks. It's just insanity—absolute and utter insanity. But it's not only unsane; it's potentially unconstitutional. I know Senator Payman got very upset when Senator Hanson suggested she should refer herself to the High Court—something I fully support Senator Hanson on, having been through the High Court myself; there are a number of people in here who were subjected to section 44. But we could also be back to the High Court with this, because the Law Council of Australia and the Australian Bar Association have both said that this legislation puts at risk the relationship between a lawyer and a client. It means that a lawyer may have to refer their client on and report on their client without even letting the client know.
A fundamental tenet of legal representation and legal advice is the confidentiality between a lawyer and their client. The fact that this bill would impose a burden on those lawyers to potentially report clients outside of that relationship means that it could be unconstitutional. So we could put these businesses through all of this—all the cost of putting this legislation in place and all the imposts. Now, we don't have any funding going to businesses. There's no support going to business with regard to software updates to help them manage this process. There's no support there. It was only the other day that someone mentioned to me—I don't know if it was you, Senator Reynolds—the expenditure on updating of the software of one of the departments. It was hundreds of millions of dollars.
Yes.
There was hundreds of millions of dollars to set that up, but there's no assistance for small businesses and family businesses that are going to—
It was $1.2 billion.
$1.2 billion! These guys just throw it around—B's or M's, it doesn't matter.
And it won't even work.
And it won't work. The NDIS—well, God, we see how well they do there. It's just outstanding. But there's no assistance to businesses to update their IT systems. They could have that expense, set up IT systems, work towards it, know they've got $33,000 a year, just to end up in the High Court, and guess who'll pay for that? You lot at home.
Taxpayers.
Every taxpayer in the country, because the government will, of course, fund a defence to try to say it is constitutional.
This is just insanity, but this is a prime example of what this place is for. This place is to review legislation. This place is making sure that there aren't unintended consequences, that legislation is reviewed properly by stakeholders who understand the nuance of these particular industries, that understand the legality around these issues, that can give advice to senators so they can amend legislation as required, or even, as we saw this week when the government withdrew its own legislation, pull it off the Notice Paper. It was such a bad bill that they managed to unify everybody in Australia against it. Seriously, it is a big ask to unify the entire country on how bad a bill is. Thankfully, we can all now have a conversation with each other out in the hallways of Parliament House without worrying about some bureaucrat coming and hauling us off to jail because they don't agree with our opinion.
Thankfully, they withdrew that. But they won't withdraw this. They're not withdrawing so much of the other stuff. They're not putting it to committees. They're not putting it through a review process. They're not allowing time for the Senate to actually debate this, review this, inquire into it, hear from stakeholders and make sure that any unintended consequences can be revoked. It is just everywhere. It is mind-blowing.
I think Australians are really starting to see what this government is like, how incapable they are, how incompetent they are and how they clearly live in a different world to the rest of us when they stand in here answering questions. If you listen to them, Australians, what are you talking about? You've never had it so good. They're doing such a great job. They've got these fabulous talking points. My personal favourite is every time they chirp out 'cheaper child care'. When you actually see every study, childcare costs have gone up, because yet again they've stuffed up the way they've done the payment, so everyone has just put their fees up. So parents are actually more out of pocket than they were beforehand.
They clearly live in a different world to the rest of us. Australians are doing it tough. Australians are struggling to put groceries on the table. Australians are coming into this Christmas season not filled with joy or hope. They're filled with dread. They don't know how they're going to afford to put their presents, which in my house would be wrapped in beautiful red and white paper with a lovely red bow and beautiful red ribbon, under the tree. They don't know how they're going to buy those gifts. They don't know how they're going to have a Christmas holiday. They don't know what they're going to do. They are finding it harder and harder to put groceries on the table and harder and harder to pay their power bills.
Do you remember the $275 that was supposed to come off your power bill? Everyone's power bill has gone up about $1,000 instead. When you tell people 97 times that you're going to reduce their bills, the very least they expect is that they're not going to quadruple, but that's what they've seen under this government and its complete incompetence. Yet they will stand in here and say: 'Everything is great. We've done a great job with cost-of-living measures.' Their cost-of-living measures have done nothing but make the situation worse. This is another example of a bill that is going to completely destroy small and family businesses and everyone else who relies on them.
I too rise to speak on the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024. It is unbelievably bad legislation, even for those opposite. First of all, let me start by saying this. The coalition supports efforts to combat money laundering. We always have, and we always will. I know this because I was chief of staff to the Minister for Justice and Customs during September 11 and after. We learned the lesson again of the dangers and the evil of terrorism financing and serious and organised crime and how they use money laundering and the proceeds of crime to commit even more heinous crime and terrorist activities.
What I also learned during that time is what good governance and government looks like. That was during the course of many years working as a staffer in many different roles during the Howard government. It was there that I learned the importance of this place, working for a senator, working for a minister and really getting to see what good governance and good legislative processes are like. They work the best when those in this place are allowed to do our jobs. Our jobs are to conduct inquiries into legislation. They are to listen to people, to stakeholders who have points of view on the technical aspects of the bill and the unintended consequences of the bill and also have other great suggestions that the drafters or the minister's office didn't really think about at the time.
To do that in this place, we do need time. We need time for people to make submissions and for the Senate committee to contemplate those submissions and to make recommendations to improve the bill. Preferably, that would be through recommendations back to the minister's office so the bill is redrafted to adopt as many of those recommendations that that side of politics that is the government of the day can accept. Then the rest would be played out, in the best traditions of this place, in the committee stage of the bill.
That is what I've learnt from working in the Howard government as a staffer and then in this place as a senator since 2014, mostly in government. I got to see respect for this place, for the process and for ensuring that bills have a lot of scrutiny. We didn't do non-disclosure agreements for parties who were in the in-club and got to have exposure to government legislation of all types. We didn't compress legislation to the point of the ridiculousness that we've seen today or in recent times. We didn't make the Senate committees fight hard to have hearings and inquiries into legislation. The shame of it is that those opposite have demonstrated time and time again that they care about politics, about power, about being in government and about trade union ideology.
I cannot think of a single bill that they have treated with respect. They've had 2½ years, and this morning, in that farce of going backwards and forwards about how we could guillotine these bills today to ensure there was not enough scrutiny, the minister herself said that some of these bills go back to 2023. Why the heck did you not bring those bills forward in 2023? Why as a government didn't you have more sitting days this year? We could have sat tomorrow, we could have sat all weekend and we could have come back next week so that we could ensure these bills were as good as the limited time allowed us to make them. But those opposite did not. They were complicit in that by their dirty deals with the crossbench. We know what some of the dirty deals done today were, after their first failure to get the guillotine through. But we're waiting to hear what the other pieces of silver were that they paid to ram through these bills in this chamber.
In relation to this bill, as I've said, those on this side of the chamber, particularly since September 11, know the importance of anti-money-laundering and antiterrorism financing legislation, of FATF and of legislation for the proceeds of crime. But we also know it is important to get them right. Wherever there are new opportunities to move money around, as terrorists and criminals need to do, they will always find new and innovative ways to do that so they can receive these proceeds and use them either for personal gain or for terrorism, slavery, exploitation—all of the many ills that these people have no qualms about doing.
When we were in government, one of the most important things we did in refining legislation is that we always engaged the Senate. I recall the great advice we got from the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, under the great stewardship and chairmanship of Senator Marise Payne. It was considered, it was knowledgeable and it improved those series of bills—legislation for the proceeds of crime, anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing. But those opposite have let this nation down, because poor legislation leaves gaps that criminals and terrorists looking to finance their activities will drive a truck through.
The classic example of that is what this government is now seeking to do. Instead of making sure that we have closed every loophole that we can on a risk based process—those most likely to launder significant money for criminals and for terrorists are not local lawyers, local accountants or local real estate agents. They are organisations like Gold Corporation in WA. This government knew what Gold Corporation was doing in Western Australia under the nose and possibly with the tacit approval of the then premier Mark McGowan. But, instead of going after organisations like Gold Corp that introduced new products and did dodgy deals with banks that were known to be havens for narcoterrorists, people traffickers and gun runners, this government has done nothing. If anybody wants to go and have a look, you can see the Senate's report on Gold Corporation in WA. AUSTRAC put an enforceable undertaking on them because they were so bad, and it had a liability of billions of dollars for the Western Australian taxpayer. But, instead of going after things like that that are abused by serious and organised crime and terrorists, those opposite are putting a $14 billion impost on the mums and dads who are the local real estate agents, the local lawyers and the local accountants.
The ineptitude of those opposite knows no bounds. We've come to expect this from this Attorney-General, with this sloppy approach to legislation, law enforcement and antiterrorism- and counterterrorism-financing activities. I challenge those opposite. Where is your response to the Perth Mint inquiry? Where is your response to the reasons that AUSTRAC took an enforceable undertaking against the Perth Mint? It's absolute crickets! That is what you should be focusing on and that is genuine risk based legislation and deterrence, not going after mums and dads who are the local accountants and are working in the local legal offices. What were some of the things that you've overlooked with Perth Mint alone? It ventured into gold ETFs, cryptocurrency coins, dealings with the Bank of Cyprus and the Euro Pacific bank and even bikies.
And yet, what are you doing? You're going after the mums and dads who run small businesses and you're putting a $14 billion—that's not us making it up; that's your own figures saying: 'Merry Christmas. We've already put up the cost of living. We've already put up the cost of doing business. We've already put up the cost of your staff wages. We've put up the cost of your home loan and your business loans.' And guess what? Every single small business is now going to have to pay another $30,000 to $33,000 a year. Instead of going after Gold Corp, instead of going after those who really represent the major risks in this country, you're giving mums and dads who are struggling in their businesses another impost.
Senator Reynolds, I remind you to address your remarks through the chair.
Yes, Acting Deputy President. Let's have a look at what other businesses have said. The Real Estate Institute of Australia refers to experiences overseas. Even if those opposite and the Attorney-General think slugging mum-and-dad businesses in the local suburban shopping centres $33,000 a year in new compliance costs might be a good idea, don't you think it would have been a good idea to check what the overseas experience of this has been? But no. The Real Estate Institute of Australia referred to recent experiences in New Zealand, where businesses are being slugged with about the same cost, an extra $30,000 a year, and some up to $60,000, in implementation costs—in exchange for what? The government haven't identified what the benefit will be. The government haven't identified the risk to Mr Smith, the local lawyer in the local suburban business area. What is the benefit to him? What is the benefit to the community? There is none. What they've said in New Zealand is that it doesn't work. There are no realisable benefits in terms of preventing money laundering and terrorism financing.
The Queensland Law Society highlighted some interesting overseas references to cost and impacts. They reported that the regulations that this government is implementing are so complicated that only 18 to 50 per cent of entities will be able to fully comply with them anyway. So poor Mr Smith, who's trying to make his local accounting company work with all the other costs, will only be able to comply with 18 to 50 per cent of the paperwork. This is despite the UK spending the equivalent of 75 per cent of the annual UK Ministry of Defence budget on a futile attempt to do so. In the UK, they tried this, and they failed because it is too complicated. It is not risk based, and it will further cripple businesses.
In the UK, the experience was also that, despite the tens of thousands of hours spent on compliance in law firms and all of these companies doing all of this extra compliance, only 0.29 per cent of suspicious activity reports came from the UK legal profession. For all of that effort and for all of that crippling cost, there were almost zero extra suspicious activity reports. That was for lawyers. In the UK in 2019 to 2020, 64 per cent of law firms audited were found to be partially or fully noncompliant because they simply could not achieve what those opposite are now seeking to do on our own small businesses. Merry Christmas to small businesses here in Australia—$30,000 extra for no net benefit to this country and not stopping a single crime. (Time expired)
This piece of legislation is another attack by the Albanese Labor government on small business. It's the only way you can describe the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024. This is at a time when small business is already struggling. We heard in the chamber here earlier this week that the insolvency rate is now 5.04 per cent. That is one in 20 businesses in Australia failing in a given year. That's a rate that's 25 per cent higher than prior to the pandemic. We've heard from the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, COSBOA, the umbrella group, that small businesses are under colossal pressure. They're complaining, rightly so, about increasing costs in energy, about increasing costs of insurance, about higher interest rates, about complex industrial relations changes, about declining household disposable income and, now, about this—a growing regulatory burden.
The Attorney-General's Department, in its own analysis of this bill, assesses the regulatory burden, the compliance costs, of this piece of legislation to be $13.9 billion over the next 10 years, which works out to be $33,000 per year per small business, with a turnover of up to $2 million in compliance costs. The firms that are going to be hit by this are accountants, small law firms and real estate agents—some of the small businesses that collectively employ over five million Australians and also form the life blood of many communities and the heart of many small towns, cities and suburban shopping centres.
The impact of this bill is quite colossal and especially for the benefits, which are unclear and in many respects specious. There will be, on the department's own estimates, $84 million in extra costs for the financial services sector; $99 million in extra costs for the gambling services sector; $136 million in total in extra cost for bullion traders, digital currency exchanges, remitters and gemstone dealers; $1.36 billion in extra costs for providers of trust and company services; an extra $2.8 billion in costs for legal service providers, which includes small sole practitioners and small law firms; an extra $3.6 billion in costs for accountants; and, staggeringly, an extra $5.9 billion in costs for the real estate sector. This is a colossal impost to be putting on small business at a time when the economy is weak, when small business is already struggling with the burdens of complexity in industrial relations, higher input prices and weak consumer demand.
The purpose of anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing legislation is sound, and fundamentally the regime that we're talking about amending today was a response to the September 11 terrorist attacks of 2001. It was a Howard government initiative which has its roots in the international cooperative efforts to stem the flow of terrorist financing in the wake of that al-Qaeda terrorist attack. In every term of coalition government since those attacks, we've worked to improve our anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing architecture to make sure that we crack down on areas where this sort of financing can still be accessed and where loopholes can be exploited. It was the coalition government in 2002 that criminalised terrorist financing as part of the Criminal Code and moved money-laundering offences into the Criminal Code. It was the coalition government in 2006 that introduced and passed the AML/CTF Act, conferring on AUSTRAC, the regulatory agency, the significant and far-reaching powers that it enjoys today. It was the coalition government in 2015 that led Australia through our last mutual evaluation process. And it was the coalition government that last upgraded this particular piece of legislation, in 2017, to implement the first suite of changes to that process, the mutual evaluation process.
But here the case for urgency is not made, and the court process that has underpinned the consideration of this legislation needs to be revisited. The committee process was truncated; it was abbreviated. The Senate has not had time to properly consider the implications of these changes or to consult with stakeholders. This bill has been introduced and it's now being requested that it be passed as a matter of urgency, but the bill deals with matters that have been the subject of discussion for some time. It's hard to make the case that, in this last sitting day of this last sitting fortnight of the year, this bill should be making the guillotine.
Given the size of the imposition that is being proposed here and the significant compliance burden, uncertainty and impact it will have on many small businesses across Australia, you would have thought that a higher degree of consultation and stakeholder management was warranted, but we have not had that in this case. The stakeholder reactions we have heard, though, have been uniformly negative. COSBOA, the organisation I mentioned before, which represents small business and has said that small business is under colossal pressure, said that the Attorney-General's failure to follow best practice leaves the door open to cost confusion and compliance headaches for small business. The Real Estate Institute of Australia, whose members will be significantly impacted by this change, referred to the experience in New Zealand, where real estate agents have been hit with additional costs between $30,000 and $60,000 in exchange for a public benefit that is diffuse at best and unquantified at worst. The Real Estate Institute of Queensland have expressed significant concerns that the legislation is too complex, that it imposes a disproportionate burden on real estate agents and that ultimately it will add to the transaction costs of buying and selling a property. The Law Council of Australia, the peak law body of Australia, noted the legal profession is already the most extensively regulated profession in Australia and dual regulation of legal services remains an ongoing issue for the legal profession, not least because the increases in regulatory costs inevitably put upward pressure on the cost of legal services.
This will be an impost on small business, but ultimately who is going to pay? It will be the consumer of those services. It will be the family who are buying or selling a house. It will be the person who needs legal advice to deal with a civil matter, a commercial matter, a challenged will, a negligence case—whatever it may be. Ultimately, these costs are going to be passed on to them.
Small firms in particular are likely to bear the brunt of this. They are the ones that do not have large compliance departments, that usually have the sole proprietor or the family that owns them doing the books, accounting, compliance and whatnot. They are likely to feel the impost of this, and many of these small businesses are often owned by people who are at or approaching retirement age, like in the accounting professions and the legal services professions, and they are quite likely to think this is all becoming too hard.
In terms of the impact of this, and how to assess it, we have seen, and the government has argued, that this impost on businesses is necessary to avoid the risk of greylisting. 'Greylisting' is a term which means enhanced monitoring and scrutiny by the Financial Action Task Force, the FATF, the international body that monitors money-laundering and terrorism-financing standards. FATF puts a country under enhanced monitoring where it considers there are strategic deficiencies in its money-laundering and terrorist-financing framework. Greylisting is a serious concern, and Australia should take it seriously; I certainly take it seriously. But the government has not made the case for the risk, the imminence or the likelihood of greylisting. The government asserts greylisting may be the outcome if we don't regulate tranche 2 entities—those entities that are being proposed to be regulated under this bill. But how do we assess the risk of Australia being greylisted? The government has been clear in its own analysis that the likelihood of being greylisted cannot be determined on the available evidence—so it has no idea about the likelihood.
If greylisting happens, there are a whole number of different scenarios the government looked at—and that's provided it happens. They assess the costs of those different scenarios ranging from between $560 million, half a billion dollars, up to $10.7 billion—so there is a spread of $10 billion in variation, if greylisting happens at all. But we know the costs of this regulatory burden are going to be at least $14 billion; that's been assessed. The risks of greylisting are unknown, and the cost to us of greylisting is significantly less than the regulatory burden that's likely to be imposed.
When you've got a situation like this where the costs of regulation are clear and will be concentrated—
I wish I could understand the joke, Senator Ayres.
I wish I could understand the speech!
Would you be happy to bring me into it later?
Order! Interjections are disorderly. Continue with your remarks, Senator Sharma.
Sorry; I didn't want to miss out on whatever the humour was.
When you've got a situation where the costs of this new set of regulations are quite clear and quite concentrated, and they will hit small business especially hard, but the harm that this bill is intending to prevent is unclear, unquantified and even on the best estimates significantly less than the costs that will be imposed, you would think this would be a time to pause. As I said, this is especially the case when small business faces the toughest environment it has in several decades. We've got small businesses reeling under the costs of higher energy—up 20 per cent under this government—electricity and gas; higher insurance because of inflation pushing up the costs of inputs; higher interest rates, with 12 successive rate rises pushing them four percentage points higher; complex industrial relations changes, with some 700-odd pages added to the Fair Work Act; difficult definitions for small businesses to interpret and manage around casual employees and the right to disconnect; and declining household disposable income, meaning consumers have less to spend on many small-business services.
We heard again in the chamber this week that household disposable income in Australia has been the worst performer amongst any OECD or advanced economy since the end of the pandemic. From the first quarter of 2022 till now, household disposable income is down by about eight per cent. So, if you're an average full-time earner on about $95,000 a year, you're taking home around $8,000 less in pay, which means you have $8,000 less to spend. Small businesses are feeling that. That is why we are seeing insolvency rates so high—five per cent across the small-business sector, as high as eight per cent in the hospitality sector and close to six per cent in the construction sector. COSBOA, the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, has foreshadowed that those insolvency rates are likely to rise even higher.
Why are we rushing this piece of legislation through at this time when there is no urgency for action, when the costs of this piece of legislation are so large, when they're so concentrated, when it's small business that will be disproportionately impacted and feel the pinch of this, and when it's accounting practices, small law firms and real estate agents that will be hit? Many of them are already grappling with complex industrial relations changes. Accountants, for instance, only just avoided having a whole new set of requirements imposed upon them which would have added to the regulatory burden and which many on the coalition side fought against. When all this is happening and small businesses are facing the perfect storm in many respects, why are we rushing this piece of legislation through, when the case is not well made? Why are we putting this impost on small businesses which will ultimately feed through to their employees, the families they support and the communities they support—the sports teams they sponsor and the community organisations they invest in? Why are we doing that when the case for these changes has not been well made?
There has been stakeholder reaction not only from industry groups—of course, they would speak how you'd expect them to—but from groups like COSBOA that looks after small businesses across the country and like the Real Estate Institute. You can look at the overseas experience in New Zealand. You can hear the Law Council of Australia urging that this amendment to this legislation should be better designed, should have better consultation, should take into account the impost that it's likely to have and should provide businesses with some guidance about how they are potentially meant to meet these massive costs of compliance.
This is, at the worst possible time, another attack on small business by the Albanese Labor government. It's at a time when the economy is reeling, when small business is suffering, when households—many of whom are small-business owners—are under pressure and when businesses in hospitality are failing at a rate of about one in 12 and businesses in the construction sector are failing at a rate of about one in 16. When things are getting worse, why are we rushing this piece of legislation through, putting this impost upon them and making their lives and those of many Australians so much harder?
I will echo a lot of the comments of my colleague Senator Sharma there because he was right. Why are we rushing this through? I thought the priorities of the Albanese government this week were the social media ban and electoral reform, but we haven't got those. Instead, we've got this poorly drafted, ill-considered anti-money-laundering bill, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024, that has zero stakeholder support. It beggars belief that we're here.
In typical Labor fashion, we've got a bill that is poorly drafted, with high-level legislative rules that will require regulations that have not been drafted yet. So how can anyone be confident that the implementation will actually work? In fact, they can't be, because the Attorney-General's Department is on the record noting that there is a lack of evidence in the context of the likely impact of these reforms on the amount of money laundered in any year. If the Attorney-General's Department isn't even confident that these reforms will have an impact, what are we doing? Why aren't we taking the time to sit down with stakeholders, have the conversations, get the feedback, draft some regulations, understand how they will actually land on the ground and then come back?
As Senator Sharma rightly said, the coalition is not against anti-money-laundering laws or counterterrorism financing laws. In fact, it was the coalition that started this process, following September 11. It was the coalition that introduced the first tranche of the anti-money-laundering counterterrorism financing legislation, in 2006. It was the coalition that instigated a review of the AML/CTF Act in 2017. It was the coalition that, after that sensible, considered, constructive review, put through the first amendments to this act. Those amendments included civil penalties, with hundreds of millions of dollars imposed on Westpac, the Commonwealth Bank, Crown Melbourne and Crown Perth. So the coalition is clearly in favour of strong, robust anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing laws. What we're not in favour of is rushed and ill-conceived amendments that will, by and large, have a disproportionate impact on the suburbs and the regions and on small business.
The regulatory costs of these proposed reforms alone will force many small businesses to close—and it will overwhelmingly happen outside metropolitan areas—because it has been estimated that, for a small business with a turnover of up to $2 million, these reforms will impose an additional cost of over $33,000 per annum. That is staff they can't employ or bills that they can't pay. That $33,000, it is now estimated, will impose a $13.9 billion cost on businesses over 10 years—$13.9 billion in regulatory costs.
That is not productivity. In this cost-of-living crisis, with the pressures on inflation, you are putting additional costs on small businesses that will not deliver an ounce of increased productivity. And people wonder why we can't get away from this sticky inflation! It is because this government doesn't understand what productivity is. They don't understand that the implementation of their policies, like their IR policies, cost businesses and mean that businesses are paying for things that hamper their productivity. That is why we cannot shake this sticky inflation.
At the end of the day, what are the businesses that will pay these costs? It's the accountants—my financial adviser, my accountant. It's my real estate agent. It's the real estate agents who manage sales and rentals—Albo's real estate agent; sorry, the Prime Minister's real estate agent—who will have to pay these costs.
Not at all. It is the country-town lawyers who run small practices. Most country-town lawyers are sole traders. They run small practices in rural and regional Australia. These are the sorts of businesses that will be paying the bill, paying the price for this reform—and I use that term loosely. They will be paying for these amendments that have zero support—because, while every stakeholder absolutely supports efforts to combat money laundering, we've got the Law Council, the Real Estate Institute, COSBOA and others now all on the public record as criticising this bill. COSBOA expressly noted the Attorney-General's failure to follow best practice by releasing an exposure draft. They said that the bill as it stands leaves the door open to costs, confusion and compliance headaches for small businesses.
Yet again, the failure to adequate consult is why we have another bill before this chamber that is not fit for purpose. There is a reason why we consult on important reforms and legislation. There is a reason why we use exposure drafts. There is a reason why we shouldn't be using non-disclosure agreements, but that's clearly this government's preferred practice.
There are also concerns about the constitutionality of this bill. The former Justice of the High Court, Geoffrey Nettle AC KC, has said that the bill is potentially unconstitutional in relation to barristers, and similar concerns have been raised in relation to solicitors. The concern is that, essentially, lawyers may be forced to report on their clients, but will not be able to tell their clients, or even the court, what they've done. I thought we had lawyer-client confidentiality. This is another example of a poor bill drafted after poor consultation and without getting adequate feedback.
I guess the Attorney-General just thinks that small businesses, lawyers and solicitors are all aiding and abetting drug traffickers and cybercriminals. When the Real Estate Institute of Australia had a look, they referred to the experiences in New Zealand, where businesses have been slugged between $30,000 and $60,000 each in implementation costs in exchange for an unquantified public benefit. But maybe the Attorney-General thinks the Real Estate Institute also stands with terrorists and money launderers.
Clearly, this bill is a mess. This bill needs an awful lot more work. We did send it to a committee. The committee did review it, and the report and the views that were flushed out through that process helped firm up our position that this bill should not be supported in its current form. As I said at the outset, we are very much in support of strong anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism-financing laws. We are the fathers of it. But there is no excuse to rush through a bill that has so many concerns, has so many stakeholders worried about its actual impact and has—I'm going to say it again—a $13.9 billion cost to business without a single improvement in productivity.
I would have thought that, after 2½ years in government, the Albanese government would've learnt how to draft bills, how to have proper consultation and how to be able to get consensus, particularly on an issue such as this, which should have bipartisan support. But the fact is that we've got this error-laden bill that has legal and constitutional questions over it and has the potential to cost small business an exorbitant amount of money. Even the Queensland Law Society has spoken out against this bill and is looking at other examples of what's happened overseas and compared that to what we've got before us. Labor should actually be a bit embarrassed by the process it has undertaken and by where we are today.
Again, I ask the question: why are we talking about this bill? I thought you had other priorities this week. We're about to end this year of parliament. We're about to go on the Christmas recess—and I hope everyone has a very safe festive season as they go on their merry way and celebrate whatever festivals they want to celebrate. To think, this is the last bill we're going to be properly debating. Thanks to the guillotine motion, we can't have proper debate about a lot of the other bills that we'll be addressing tonight when there were other important priorities that Labor wanted us to be talking about. But clearly not.
It just goes to show that this Labor government is so disorganised it can't even get a bill drafted in a way that people are confident about. We've got a shambolic government that is not focused; it has been distracted. They were distracted for the first two years of government by the Voice, and that's why they haven't yet learnt how to have proper consultation. They should have learnt from the Voice that they need to talk to grassroots communities, talk to the people who will be impacted the most—and actually listen—and then give clear, concise drafting instructions. Think about the regulations and how they will be rolled out and how they will be impacted. Get it right and you might get support. But, as it stands, we can't support this bill. There are too many flaws in it, so I urge the Senate to vote against it.
It's been a day of highs and lows, I have to say. And it's very good to have the last remaining two and a bit minutes to reflect upon this debate, which, after some very strong contributions earlier this afternoon, has really had the coalition ending the week with not bang but a whimper. The last hour and a half that I've been in here has been like an open mic session at a Trotskyite funeral. Senator Shoebridge might have been to a few of those Trotskyite funerals. Maybe no others of us have, but it was very reminiscent of that.
It is good to see some members of the coalition following Senator McGrath's injunction to be early adopters of AI, because it's hard to understand some of the contributions without that. What we've seen from the coalition this afternoon is the anti anti-money-laundering proposition. The people who this piece of legislation will hurt are bikies, drug traffickers, arms smugglers, terrorists, sex traffickers, dark web crypto criminals, funders of Russian and North Korean bot factories. Who does money laundering hurt in the end? It hurts ordinary Australians. It hurts small businesses. It hurts families. The extravagant claims that have been made by the coalition in this place about the impact of regulation in this area cannot be believed.
But I just say this. The idea put forward by Senator Sharma—who was auditioning for a new role this afternoon, after we heard the unhappy news of Senator Birmingham's retirement—that a grey listing for Australia's economy would somehow be a preferential outcome than dealing with money laundering is an utterly scandalous position. It shows how reckless and arrogant Peter Dutton's coalition really is. The consequences of— (Time expired)
Pursuant to the order agreed to earlier today, the time for consideration of various bills has expired. After I put the question that is before the chair on the Anti-Money-Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024, I will then put the questions on the remaining stages of the bills. The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024. The addendum responds to matters raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. In addition, I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government's amendments to this bill.
The question is that the government amendments on sheet ZB355 be agreed to.
Government's circulated amendments—
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 3), insert:
(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4, column 1), after "Part 1", insert ", Division 2".
(3) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5, column 2), omit "table item 4", substitute "table item 3B".
(4) Clause 2, page 3 (table item 11, column 2), omit "table item 4", substitute "table item 3B".
(5) Schedule 1, item 19, page 9 (line 11), omit "or", substitute "and".
(6) Schedule 1, item 19, page 9 (after line 11), at the end of paragraph 10A(1)(a), add:
(iv) the conditions (if any) relating to changes in membership, dissolution, administration or operation of the group that are specified in the AML/CTF Rules are satisfied; or
(7) Schedule 1, item 19, page 9 (line 22), at the end of paragraph 10A(1)(b), add:
; and (vi) the conditions (if any) relating to changes in membership, dissolution, administration or operation of the group that are specified in the AML/CTF Rules are satisfied.
(8) Schedule 1, item 19, page 9 (after line 22), after subsection 10A(1), insert:
(1A) Subject to subsection (2A), a person may be a member of a group to which paragraph (1)(b) applies even if the person is a member of a group to which paragraph (1)(a) applies.
(1B) The requirement in subparagraph (1)(b)(i) to make a written election does not apply in relation to a member of a group in the circumstances specified in the AML/CTF Rules.
(9) Schedule 1, item 19, page 9 (after line 24), after subsection 10A(2), insert:
(2A) If a person is a member of more than one reporting group, the AML/CTF Rules may specify circumstances in which that person is taken, for the purposes of this Act, to be a member of only one of those reporting groups.
(10) Schedule 1, item 24, page 18 (lines 31 and 32), omit subsection 26F(8), substitute:
Reporting entities must develop and maintain AML/CTF policies before providing designated services
(8) A reporting entity must not commence to provide a designated service to a customer if the reporting entity does not comply with subsection (1).
Civil penalty
(8A) Subsection (8) is a civil penalty provision.
(11) Schedule 1, item 24, page 18 (line 33), omit "(1)", substitute "(8)".
(12) Schedule 1, item 24, page 19 (line 3), omit "(1)", substitute "(8)".
(13) Schedule 1, item 24, page 20 (lines 2 to 11), omit subsections 26G(4) and (5).
(14) Schedule 1, item 24, page 27 (line 29), omit paragraph 26T(3)(c), substitute:
(c) subsection 26P(2);
(d) Division 5.
(15) Schedule 1, page 31 (after line 7), after item 35, insert:
35A Paragraph 123(1)(a)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(a) the person is or has been:
(i) a reporting entity; or
(ii) an officer, employee or agent of a reporting entity; or
(iii) a member of a reporting group; or
(iv) an officer, employee or agent of a member of a reporting group; or
(v) required by a notice under subsection 49(1) to give information or produce documents; or
(vi) required by notice under subsection 49B(2) to give information or produce documents; and
(16) Schedule 2, item 5, page 38 (lines 1 and 2), omit ", in or for an Australian government body,", substitute "(whether or not in or for the Commonwealth)".
(17) Schedule 2, item 7, page 44 (line 29) to page 45 (line 3), omit subsections 28(9) and (10), substitute:
(9) A reporting entity that contravenes subsection (1) in relation to a customer commits a separate contravention of that subsection in respect of each designated service that the reporting entity provides to the customer at or through a permanent establishment of the reporting entity in Australia.
(10) A reporting entity that contravenes subsection (1) in relation to a customer commits a separate contravention of that subsection on each day that the reporting entity provides designated services to the customer at or through a permanent establishment of the reporting entity in a foreign country.
(18) Schedule 2, item 7, page 45 (line 5), omit "(1) Despite", substitute "Despite".
(19) Schedule 2, item 7, page 45 (line 30) to page 46 (line 3), omit subsections 29(2) and (3).
(20) Schedule 2, item 7, page 48 (lines 12 to 21), omit subsections 30(7) and (8), substitute:
(7) A reporting entity that contravenes subsection (1) in relation to a customer commits a separate contravention of that subsection in respect of each designated service that the reporting entity provides to the customer at or through a permanent establishment of the reporting entity in Australia.
(8) A reporting entity that contravenes subsection (1) in relation to a customer commits a separate contravention of that subsection on each day that the reporting entity provides designated services to the customer at or through a permanent establishment of the reporting entity in a foreign country.
(21) Schedule 3, item 1, page 58 (line 31), omit "20", substitute "30".
(22) Schedule 3, item 9, page 65 (starting at line 26), omit the item, substitute:
9 Subsection 6(2) (table item 46, column headed "Provision of a designated service", paragraph (b))
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(b) the service is not specified in the AML/CTF Rules
(23) Schedule 3, item 10, page 66 (table items 1 and 2), omit the table items, substitute:
(24) Schedule 3, Part 3, page 70 (after line 12), at the end of the Part, add:
10A Before subsection 6(7)
Insert:
Services provided by barristers on instructions of a solicitor
(6B) Despite anything in this section, a service is not a designated service if the service is provided by a person in the course of legal practice as a barrister on the instructions of a solicitor, if the instructions are given in connection with the provision of a designated service.
(25) Schedule 5, item 2, page 81 (line 24) to page 82 (line 6), omit paragraph 123(1)(a), substitute:
(a) the person is or has been:
(i) a reporting entity; or
(ii) an officer, employee or agent of a reporting entity; or
(iii) required by a notice under subsection 49(1) to give information or produce documents; or
(iv) required by notice under subsection 49B(2) to give information or produce documents; and
(26) Schedule 8, item 14, page 100 (line 17), omit "other".
(27) Schedule 8, item 22, page 102 (line 11), after "receives", insert "or otherwise obtains".
(28) Schedule 8, item 22, page 102 (line 19) to page 103 (line 14), omit subsections 63A(1) to (3), substitute:
(1) Whether a person is an ordering institution is to be determined in accordance with the AML/CTF Rules.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), AML/CTF Rules made for the purposes of that subsection may specify the following:
(a) criteria or other requirements that a person must satisfy to be an ordering institution;
(b) circumstances in which a person is an ordering institution.
(29) Schedule 8, item 22, page 103 (line 17), omit "incidentally", substitute "in circumstances where the transfer is reasonably incidental".
(30) Schedule 8, item 22, page 103 (line 28) to page 104 (line 18), omit subsections 63A(5) to (7), substitute:
(5) Whether a person is a beneficiary institution is to be determined in accordance with the AML/CTF Rules.
(6) Without limiting subsection (5), AML/CTF Rules made for the purposes of that subsection may specify the following:
(a) criteria or other requirements that a person must satisfy to be a beneficiary institution;
(b) circumstances in which a person is a beneficiary institution.
(31) Schedule 8, item 22, page 104 (line 21), omit "incidentally", substitute "in circumstances where the making available of the value is reasonably incidental".
(32) Schedule 8, item 22, page 106 (line 5), after "value,", insert "or otherwise gives effect to the transfer of value,".
(33) Schedule 8, item 22, page 107 (lines 12 to 21), omit subsection 65(3), substitute:
(3) If:
(a) the beneficiary institution:
(i) detects that it has not received all of the information mentioned in paragraph (2)(a); and
(ii) has not otherwise obtained the information; or
(b) the beneficiary institution detects that some or all of the information received or otherwise obtained about the payee is not accurate;
then the beneficiary institution must, in accordance with its AML/CTF program, do at least one of the following:
(c) refuse to make the transferred value available to the payee;
(d) take such other action as the beneficiary institution determines.
Note: See also section 26G (reporting entities must comply with AML/CTF policies).
(34) Schedule 8, item 22, page 108 (line 16), after "subsection (2),", insert "and the intermediary institution has not otherwise obtained the information,".
(35) Schedule 8, item 22, page 110 (line 3), omit "that", substitute "if the beneficiary institution".
(36) Schedule 8, item 22, page 110 (line 4), omit "a custodial wallet controlled by".
(37) Schedule 8, item 22, page 110 (line 7), omit "a custodial wallet controlled by".
(38) Schedule 8, item 22, page 110 (line 35), after "institution has", insert "received or otherwise".
(39) Schedule 8, item 22, page 111 (line 2), omit "64(3)", substitute "65(2)".
(40) Schedule 8, item 38, page 117 (line 23), omit "ownership or control of", substitute "person who controls".
(41) Schedule 9, page 140 (after line 13), after item 26, insert:
26A Section 5 (after paragraph (b) of the definition of qualified accountant )
Insert:
(ba) the Institute of Public Accountants; or
(42) Schedule 10, item 6, page 145 (lines 19 to 23), omit the item, substitute:
6 Subsection 6(2) (table item 47, column headed "Provision of a designated service", paragraph (b))
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(b) the service is not provided in the course of carrying on a business that provides short-term accommodation for travellers; and
(c) the service is not specified in the AML/CTF Rules
The question is that the amendment on sheet 3204, circulated by the Australian Greens, be agreed to.
Australian Greens' circulated amendment—
(1) Schedule 5, item 2, page 83 (after line 29), after subsection 123(4), insert:
Exception information sharing when person no longer able to supply professional legal services to customer
(4A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the disclosure of information covered by paragraphs (2)(a), (e), (f), (g) or (h) by a person if:
(a) the person is a reporting entity, or an officer, employee or agent of a reporting entity that is:
(i) a legal practitioner (however described); or
(ii) a partnership or company that carries on a business of using legal practitioners (however described) to supply professional legal services; and
(b) the person makes the disclosure to a customer of the person, a court or tribunal, or a regulatory body, for the purposes of stating the reasons why the person is no longer able to supply professional legal services to the customer; and
(c) the person does not disclose the content of any report, information or document given or produced, or required to be given or produced, under subsections 41(2), 49(1) or 49B(2).
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (4A) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code).
The question is that the amendment on sheet 3066, circulated by the Jacqui Lambie Network, be agreed to.
Jacqui Lambie Network's circulated amendment—
(1) Schedule 3, page 58 (before line 3), before Part 1, insert:
Part 1A — Small business exemption
Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006
1A Section 5
Insert:
small business employer has the same meaning as in the Fair Work Act 2009.
1B Subsection 6(1)
After "this Act", insert "and subject to subsection (1A)".
1C After subsection 6(1)
Insert:
(1A) A small business employer is taken not to provide a designated service covered by the tables in subsections (3), (5A) and (5B).
The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
The question is that Australian Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3169 be agreed to.
Australian Greens' circulated amendments—
(1) Schedule 1, page 27 (after line 16), after item 37, insert:
37A At the end of section 61
Add:
(4) The body corporate must not be one that is wholly or partly owned by an airline.
(5) In this section:
airline means a person or entity engaged in the business of providing air transport services for passengers.
(2) Schedule 1, page 49 (after line 17), after item 67, insert:
67A Application — appointment of Slot Manager
Subsections 61(4) and (5) of the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997, as inserted by this Schedule, apply to appointments of a Slot Manager made on or after the commencement of this Schedule.
The question is that Jacqui Lambie Network amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3020 be agreed to.
Jacqui Lambie Network's circulated amendments—
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (cell at table item 1, column 1), omit the cell, substitute:
(2) Page 2 (after line 12), after clause 3, insert:
4 Review of operation of Act
(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of amendments made by this Act.
(2) The review must start as soon as practicable after the end of 12 months after Schedule 1 to this Act commences.
(3) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 3 months of the commencement of the review.
(4) The Minister must table a copy of the report in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.
Question negatived.
by leave—I ask that my support be noted for that one.
The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I will now deal with the Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024. The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendment circulated by the opposition. The question is that the opposition amendment on sheet 3214 be agreed to.
Opposition's circulated amendment—
(1) Schedule 2, item 65, page 60 (line 3), omit "may", substitute "must".
The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
PRESIDENT (): I will now deal with the Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) Bill 2024 and two related bills. The question is that the bills be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a second time.
I will now deal with the committee of the whole amendments to the Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) Bill 2024 circulated by the government.
Government's circulated amendments to the Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) Bill 2024
(1) Clause 4, page 2 (before line 15), before the definition of Commonwealth entity, insert:
accountable authority:
(a) of a Commonwealth entity other than the High Court—has the meaning given by the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013; or
(b) of the High Court—means the Chief Executive and Principal Registrar of the High Court.
(2) Clause 7, page 3 (after line 30), at the end of the clause, add:
Non-compliance
(4) If the accountable authority of a Commonwealth entity becomes aware that the Commonwealth entity has failed to comply with subsection (1) of this section, the accountable authority must notify the Minister in writing of the non-compliance as soon as practicable.
(5) If the accountable authority notifies the Minister under subsection (4), the Minister may, by legislative instrument, direct the Commonwealth entity to do a specified act, or to refrain from doing a specified act, in relation to the non-compliance.
(6) The Commonwealth entity must comply with the direction.
(7) Subsection (6) has effect subject to any other law of the Commonwealth.
I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to the Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) Bill 2024. I'd like to thank Senator Hume for working with me on this.
Question agreed to.
The question now is that the remaining stages of these bills be agreed to and the bills be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.
I will now deal with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 and the Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024.
President, I ask for the bills to be voted on separately.
I'm advised that, because of the order we agreed to earlier, the minister needs to move the second reading.
I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
The question is that the opposition amendment on sheet 2756 be agreed to.
Opposition's circulated amendment
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to:
(a) align Australia's non-aggregated country by country reporting jurisdictions list with the European Union list of non-cooperative jurisdictions; and
(b) provide further detail on:
(i) how jurisdictions will be listed or delisted from the non-aggregated country by country reporting jurisdictions list, and
(ii) how the Commissioner of Taxation's discretionary power to exempt entities from the country by country reporting regime will operate".
I will now deal with the second reading amendment circulated by the Australian Greens.
I can confirm that the Greens will be proceeding with the amendment on sheet 3223, which is the Greens second reading amendment.
The question is that the second reading amendment in the name of Senator McKim, circulated by the Australian Greens, be agreed to.
Australian Greens ' circulated amendment—
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) rents have skyrocketed by 53% since 2020,
(ii) housing prices have increased by 46% since 2020,
(iii) the shortage of social and affordable housing is projected to increase under this Government from an already unacceptable high of 750,000 homes,
(iv) over the next 10 years the Federal Government will give $176 billion in tax handouts to property investors through negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount, and
(v) by comparison, this Labor Government has committed to zero dollars of new ongoing direct spending on public housing, and just $500 million a year for social housing through the Housing Australia Future Fund; and
(b) calls on the Government to
(i) implement a phase-out of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount,
(ii) coordinate through National Cabinet the introduction of a 2-year freeze on rent increases, followed by an ongoing cap on rent increases,
(iii) establish a government developer to directly build hundreds of thousands of good quality homes over the next 5 years to be rented and sold for low cost,
(iv) invest in a mass build of public housing to clear the waitlists, and
(v) ensure that no new tax concessions go to property developers unless 100% of the homes they build are genuinely affordable, based on tenant income".
I table two supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government amendments to be moved to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024.
The question is that schedule 1 and schedule 7 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 stand as printed.
The government opposed schedule 1 and schedule 7 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 in the following terms—
SHEET UD108
(2) Schedule 7, items 1 to 4, page 83 (lines 1 to 13), to be opposed.
_____
SHEET PC122
(15) Schedule 1, items 14 and 15, page 21 (line 15) to page 22 (line 17), to be opposed.
The question is that the remaining government amendment on sheet UD108 and the amendments on sheet PC122 be agreed to.
Government's circulated amendments to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024
SHEET UD108
(1) Clause 2, page 3 (table item 10), omit the table item.
_____
SHEET PC122
(1) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (line 18), omit "3 years", substitute "5 years".
(2) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (line 18), after "or more", insert "in accordance with any requirements determined under subsection (1A)".
(3) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (line 21), omit "3 years", substitute "5 years".
(4) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (line 21), after "or more", insert "in accordance with any requirements determined under subsection (1A)".
(5) Schedule 1, item 9, page 10 (line 2), omit "3 years", substitute "5 years".
(6) Schedule 1, item 9, page 10 (after line 3), after subsection 43-153(1), insert:
(1A) For the purposes of subparagraphs (1)(a)(i) and (ii), the Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine requirements relating to the terms of the lease.
(1B) For the purposes of subparagraphs (1)(a)(i) and (ii), disregard a requirement determined under subsection (1A) if complying with that requirement would contravene a law of a State or Territory.
(7) Schedule 1, item 9, page 10 (lines 5 to 12), omit subsections 43-153(2) and (3), substitute:
(2) A *dwelling is an affordable dwelling if the requirements determined under subsection (3) in relation to the dwelling are met.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the Minister must, by legislative instrument, determine requirements relating to a dwelling. Without limiting this subsection, the requirements may include requirements relating to:
(a) the rent payable under the lease for the dwelling; or
(b) the income of the tenant or prospective tenant.
(8) Schedule 1, item 9, page 12 (line 25), at the end of subsection 43-154(3), add:
; (c) if the event is the event mentioned in paragraph (1)(c) of this section—the entity that acquires the *ownership interest in the development.
(9) Schedule 1, item 11, page 14 (line 13), after "if a build to rent development", insert "you own".
(10) Schedule 1, item 11, page 14 (line 15), omit "your".
(11) Schedule 1, item 11, page 14 (line 16), after "withholding amounts", insert "(if any)".
(12) Schedule 1, item 11, page 15 (lines 13 to 21), omit subsection 44-20(2), substitute:
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the amount is the sum of:
(a) the amount that is the sum of your *build to rent capital works deduction amounts, worked out under section 44-25, for each *build to rent development to which subsection (3) of this section applies for the income year (if any); and
(b) the amount that is 10 times the sum of your *build to rent withholding amounts, worked out under section 44-30, for each build to rent development to which subsection (3) of this section applies for the income year (if any).
(3) For the purposes of paragraphs (2)(a) and (b), this subsection applies to a *build to rent development for an income year if:
(a) the build to rent development *ceases to be an *active build to rent development during the income year; and
(b) you owned the *dwellings of the build to rent development immediately before that cessation.
(13) Schedule 1, item 11, page 15 (line 26) to page 17 (line 27) (method statement), omit the method statement, substitute:
Method statement
Step 1. Identify each income year in which, at any time during the year, the *build to rent development was an *active build to rent development.
Step 2. For each of those years:
(a) identify each *construction expenditure area of capital works that are or include the *active build to rent development area of the *build to rent development at any time during the year; and
(b) calculate the amount worked out by the following formula for each construction expenditure area:
where:
active build to rent part, of the *construction expenditure area, is the part of the area that was the *active build to rent development area, or part of the active build to rent development area at any time during the year.
days used is the number of days in the income year that:
(a) any entity owned or was the lessee of the *active build to rent part and used it in the *4% build to rent manner; or
(b) any entity was the holder of the active build to rent part under a *quasi ownership right over land granted by an *exempt Australian government agency or an *exempt foreign government agency, and used it in the 4% build to rent manner.
portion of construction expenditure is the portion of *construction expenditure that is attributable to the *active build to rent part.
Step 3. Reduce the Step 2 amount for each *construction expenditure area, for each year, by the extent to which the *active build to rent part was used only partly for the *purpose of producing assessable income in the year.
Note: This step applies if:
(a) part of the income from the active build to rent part is exempt income; or
(b) part of the active build to rent part was not used for the purpose of producing assessable income or was not available for that use; or
(c) the active build to rent part was not used for such a purpose during a part of the days used period.
Step 4. For each year, add up the amounts worked out under Step 3 for each *construction expenditure area.
Step 5. Add up the Step 4 amounts for each year.
Step 6. Multiply the Step 5 amount by:
(a) if *you are a company (other than a company in the capacity of a trustee)—the *corporate tax rate for the income year in which the *build to rent development *ceases to be an *active build to rent development (the cessation year); or
(b) in any other case—the maximum rate specified in the table in Part I of Schedule 7 to the Income Tax Rates Act 1986 for the cessation year.
Step 7. Your build to rent capital works deduction amount is the Step 6 amount multiplied by 1.08.
Note: You can have more than one build to rent capital works deduction amount because there can be more than one build to rent development for which you have a build to rent capital works deduction amount.
(14) Schedule 1, item 11, page 18 (lines 1 to 24) (method statement), omit the method statement, substitute:
Method statement
Step 1. Identify each income year in which, at any time during the year, the *build to rent development was an *active build to rent development.
Step 2. For each of those years, identify each *fund payment made by the owner of the *active build to rent development, or each part of such a fund payment, (if any) that is referable to any of the following:
(a) a payment of rental income under a lease of a *dwelling of the active build to rent development;
(b) a *capital gain from a *CGT event in relation to a dwelling of the active build to rent development.
Note: For the purposes of this step, it does not matter whether an amount must be withheld from a fund payment under Part 2-5 in Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953.
Step 3. For each year add up the amounts of payments, or parts of payments, identified under Step 2.
Step 4. Add up the Step 3 amounts for each year.
Step 5. Your build to rent withholding amount is the Step 4 amount multiplied by 1.08.
(16) Schedule 1, item 25, page 25 (line 8), omit "Subject to subitem (2), the amendments", substitute "The amendments of section 43-145 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997".
_____
PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL
Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024
PC122
Statement of reasons: why certain amendments should be moved as requests
Section 53 of the Constitution is as follows:
Powers of the Houses in respect of legislation
53. Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate. But a proposed law shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or moneys, or to impose taxation, by reason only of its containing provisions for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment or appropriation of fees for licences, or fees for services under the proposed law.
The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government.
The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.
The Senate may at any stage return to the House of Representatives any proposed law which the Senate may not amend, requesting, by message, the omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein. And the House of Representatives may, if it thinks fit, make any of such omissions or amendments, with or without modifications.
Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws.
Amendment (13)
The effect of this amendment is to expand the definition of build to rent capital works deduction amount to include additional amounts. It is covered by section 53 because it will increase some entities' liability to build to rent development misuse tax.
Amendment (14)
The effect of this amendment is to expand the definition of build to rent withholding amount to include additional amounts. It is covered by section 53 because it will increase some entities' liability to build to rent development misuse tax.
Consequential amendments
The following amendment(s) are consequential on the amendments mentioned above: amendments (9), (10), (11), (12) and (15).
Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000
Amendments (13) and (14), and further consequential amendments
The bill deals with a number of taxes, including a 'misuse tax', which 'claws back' tax benefits where a 'build to rent operator' does not comply with eligibility requirements. The calculation of an entity's liability for the misuse tax is affected by the amounts deducted and consequently withheld under concessional arrangements provided for in the bill.
Amendment (13) would increase deductions available under the program, so that an operator that does not comply with eligibility requirements may be liable to repay an additional amount through the mechanism of the misuse tax. Amendment (14) has a similar effect in relation to withholding tax arrangements. In each case, additional benefits are made available that would have to be repaid by a non-compliant operator.
Although it appears that some entities may be liable for additional amounts of tax, this is not because the bill imposes tax, but because of changes to concessional arrangements.
The effect of section 53 of the Constitution is that any change proposed to a bill that imposes tax must be framed as a request. This requirement does not automatically extend to other bills dealing with taxation. In this regard, Odgers' Australian Senate Practice notes:
In relation to amendments which might increase tax payable, the constitutional provision refers to an amendment which would increase any proposed charge or burden, and the view taken in the Senate since 1903 is that a bill dealing with taxation does not contain a proposed charge or burden unless it is a bill imposing taxation. Amendments of this kind are therefore directed by the chair to be moved as amendments. [14th edition, p. 419]
The misuse tax, which may be affected by these amendments, is imposed by a separate bill, the Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024.
It is therefore not in accordance with the precedents of the Senate for amendments (13) and (14), and their consequential amendments, to be framed as requests.
Senators, with the concurrence of the Senate I shall incorporate in the Hansard a statement from the Chair of Committees, Senator McLachlan, on the framing of government amendments to the bill. If there is no objection, it is so ordered. The Chair of Committees has ruled the government amendments be dealt with as amendments rather than requests.
The statement read as follows
According to the statement of reasons for the government amendments on sheet PC122, amendments (13) and (14) are covered by section 53 of the Constitution because the amendments "will increase some entities' liability to build to rent development misuse tax". A number of other amendments are noted to be consequential on amendments (13) and (14) and it is suggested that they too be framed as requests. The statement of reasons reflects the advice to the government from Parliamentary Counsel but the Clerk's view is that this does not accord with the precedents of the Senate.
The effect of section 53 of the Constitution is that any change proposed to a bill that imposes tax must be framed as a request. This requirement does not automatically extend to other bills dealing with taxation.
In this regard, Odgers' Australian Senate Practice notes:
In relation to amendments which might increase tax payable, the constitutional provision refers to an amendment which would increase any proposed charge or burden, and the view taken in the Senate since 1903 is that a bill dealing with taxation does not contain a proposed charge or burden unless it is a bill imposing taxation. Amendments of this kind are therefore directed by the chair to be moved as amendments. [14th edition, p. 419]
I have considered the views of Parliamentary Counsel and the Clerk and consider that the Clerk's view is consistent with the precedents of the Senate. I therefore rule that amendments (13) and (14), and their consequential amendments, should be framed as amendments, not requests.
I will now deal with Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by the opposition. As these amendments were not circulated within the required timeframe, they can only be considered by leave.
I seek leave to have the amendments on sheets 2752 revised and 2753 considered.
Leave granted.
The question is that the amendments on sheet 2752 revised and sheet 2753 revised, circulated by the opposition, be agreed to.
Opposition's circulated amendments to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024
SHEET 2752 REVISED
(1) Schedule 4, item 1, page 66 (line 27), omit "Note", substitute "Note 1".
(2) Schedule 4, item 1, page 66 (after line 28), after the note, insert:
Note 2: Subsection (3) does not apply to commercially sensitive information (see subsection 3DB(9)). Section 3EB contains requirements for commercially sensitive information.
(3) Schedule 4, item 1, page 71 (line 1), omit "Note", substitute "Note 1".
(4) Schedule 4, item 1, page 71 (after line 3), after the note, insert:
Note 2: Paragraph (1)(a) and subsection (2) do not apply to commercially sensitive information (see subsection (10)). Section 3EB contains requirements for commercially sensitive information.
(5) Schedule 4, item 1, page 71 (line 7), at the end of the heading to subsection 3DB(4), add "general".
(6) Schedule 4, item 1, page 71 (after line 25), at the end of section 3DB, add:
Exemptions commercially sensitive information
(9) Subsection 3D(3) does not apply to information covered by subsection 3EA(1) (commercially sensitive information).
(10) Paragraph (1)(a) and subsection (2) of this section do not apply to information covered by subsection 3EA(1) (commercially sensitive information).
(11) Subsections (9) and (10) do not limit subsections (4) to (8).
(7) Schedule 4, page 71 (before line 26), before item 2, insert:
1A Before section 3E
Insert:
3EA Commercially sensitive information
(1) This subsection covers information if:
(a) either of the following apply:
(i) apart from the operation of subsection 3DB(9), an entity would be required to publish the information in compliance with subsection 3D(3);
(ii) apart from the operation of subsection 3DB(10), an entity would be required to publish the information in compliance with paragraph (1)(a) and subsection (2) of that section; and
(b) the entity reasonably believes that the publication of the information is likely to cause serious harm to the entity's commercial position.
(2) However, subsection (1) does not cover information that relates to a jurisdiction specified in a determination under subsection 3DA(4).
3EB Requirements for commercially sensitive information
(1) If an entity did not publish information because of the operation of subsection 3DB(9) or (10), the entity must:
(a) include a statement in the document mentioned in paragraph 3D(3)(b) or subsection 3DB(1) (as the case requires) to the effect that the entity has not published commercially sensitive information; and
(b) at the same time as the entity gives the Commissioner the document in paragraph (a), give the Commissioner a separate document that:
(i) contains a brief description of the information; and
(ii) sets out the reasons for the entity's belief that publishing the information is likely to cause serious harm to the entity's commercial position.
(2) The entity must publish the information by giving a document containing the information to the Commissioner in the approved form within 5 years after:
(a) if subsection 3DB(9) applies—the end of the reporting period mentioned in subsection 3D(3); or
(b) if subsection 3DB(10)—the entity becomes aware of the error mentioned in paragraph 3DB(1)(a).
(3) The Commissioner must, as soon as practicable after receiving the document given in accordance with subsection (2) of this section, make the information available on an Australian government website.
3EC Review of certain country by country reporting provisions
(1) After the end of the 2-year period beginning at the commencement of this section, the Minister must cause to be conducted a review of the operation of sections 3D, 3DA, 3DB, 3EA and 3EB.
Report
(2) A report of the review must be given to the Minister within 12 months after the end of the 2-year period mentioned in subsection (1).
(3) The Minister must cause copies of a report under subsection (2) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.
_____
SHEET 2753 REVISED
(1) Schedule 7, page 83 (lines 1 to 13), omit the Schedule, substitute:
Schedule 7 — $30,000 instant asset write-off for small business entities
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997
1 Subsection 328-175(10) (note 3)
Omit "on or after 12 May 2015", substitute "between 12 May 2015 and 30 June 2024".
2 Section 328-180 (heading)
Omit "$1,000", substitute "$30,000".
3 Paragraph 328-180(1)(b)
Omit "$1,000", substitute "$30,000".
4 Paragraph 328-180(2)(a)
Omit "$1,000", substitute "$30,000".
5 Paragraph 328-180(3)(a)
Omit "$1,000", substitute "$30,000".
6 Subsection 328-205(4) (example)
Repeal the example, substitute:
Example: When Hannah's van was allocated to her general small business pool for the 2023-24 income year, she estimated that it would be used 50% for her florist business. Due to increasing business, Hannah estimates the van's use to be 70% for the 2024-25 year, and 90% for the 2025-26 year. She makes an adjustment under section 328-225 for both those years.
Hannah sells the van for $30,000 at the start of the 2027-28 income year. She must now average the business use estimates for the van for the year it was allocated to the pool and the next 3 years to work out the taxable purpose proportion of its termination value. The average is worked out as follows:
The taxable purpose proportion of the van's termination value is, therefore:
75% of $30,000 = $22,500
7 Subsection 328-210(1)
Omit "$1,000", substitute "$30,000".
8 Subsection 328-210(3) (example)
Repeal the example, substitute:
Example: Alice's Landscaping is a small business entity for the 2024-25 income year and chooses to use this Subdivision for that year. The business has an opening pool balance of $35,000 for its general small business pool for that year.
During that year, Alice acquired a new car for $50,000. The taxable purpose proportion of its adjustable value is:
$50,000 x 80% business use estimate = $40,000
Alice also sold her business truck for $46,600 during that year. The truck was used 100% in the business.
To work out whether she can deduct an amount under this section, Alice uses this calculation:
$35,000 + $40,000—$46,600 = $28,400
Because the result is less than $30,000, Alice can deduct the $28,400 for the income year. The pool's closing balance for the year is zero.
9 Subsection 328-215(4)
Omit "$1,000", substitute "$30,000".
10 Subsection 328-250(1)
Omit "$1,000", substitute "$30,000".
11 Subsection 328-250(4) (heading)
Omit "$1,000", substitute "$30,000".
12 Subsection 328-250(4) (note)
Before "or 328-181", insert "in relation to income years ending on or before 30 June 2024".
13 Subsection 328-253(4) (heading)
Omit "$1,000", substitute "$30,000".
14 Subsection 328-253(4) (note)
Before "or 328-181", insert "in relation to income years ending on or before 30 June 2024".
by leave—I'd like to note my support for the amendment on sheet 2753.
by leave—I move the opposition's amendment on sheet 3233:
(1) Schedule 4, item 2, page 71 (lines 26 to 29), omit the item.
The question is that the amendment be agreed to..
by leave—I withdraw Australian Greens amendments on sheet 2727, 2730 revised and 2732 revised.
I will now deal with Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by Pauline Hanson's One Nation. As these amendments were not circulated in the required timeframe, they can only be considered by leave.
I seek leave to have the Pauline Hanson's One Nation amendments on sheet 2836 revised considered.
Leave granted.
The question is that the amendments on sheet 2836 revised be agreed to.
Pauline Hanson's One Nation's circulated amendments to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024
(1) Clause 2, page 3 (at the end of the table), add:
(2) Page 83 (after line 13), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 8 — Small amount credit contracts and consumer leases for household goods
National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009
1 Section 133CC (heading)
Omit "the prescribed requirements", substitute "certain requirements".
2 Subsection 133CC(1)
Repeal the subsection (including the note), substitute:
Requirement
(1) A licensee must not enter into, or offer to enter into, a small amount credit contract with a consumer who will be the debtor under the contract if the repayments that would be required under the contract would not meet the requirement in subsection (1A).
Civil penalty: 5,000 penalty units.
(1A) The requirement for a repayment that would be required during a contract repayment period under such a contract with a consumer is that the sum of:
(a) the amount of the repayment; and
(b) any other amounts the consumer is required to pay under:
(i) any other small amount credit contract during the contract repayment period; and
(ii) any consumer lease for household goods during the contract repayment period;
would be equal to or less than 20% of the available income the consumer is reasonably expected to receive during the contract repayment period.
3 At the end of section 133CC
Add:
Definitions
(4) In this section:
available income, for a consumer, means the consumer's income less any amount required to be withheld under Part 2-5 in Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Pay as you go (PAYG) withholding).
contract repayment period: each of the following is a contract repayment period in relation to a small amount credit contract:
(a) the period:
(i) starting on the day the contract is entered into; and
(ii) ending on the first repayment date in relation to the contract;
(b) a period:
(i) starting on the day after a repayment date in relation to the contract; and
(ii) ending on the subsequent repayment date in relation to the contract.
income means income within the ordinary meaning of that expression.
4 Subsection 133CD(6)
Repeal the subsection.
5 Section 156B (heading)
Omit "the prescribed requirements", substitute "certain requirements".
6 Subsection 156B(1)
Repeal the subsection (including the note), substitute:
Requirement
(1) A licensee must not enter into, or offer to enter into, a consumer lease for household goods with a consumer who will be the lessee under the lease if the amount that would be required to be paid under the lease by the lessee would not meet the requirement in subsection (1A).
Civil penalty: 5,000 penalty units.
(1A) The requirement for the amount is that, for any part of the amount that would be required to be paid during a lease repayment period under such a lease with a consumer, the sum of:
(a) that partof the amount; and
(b) any other amounts the consumer is required to pay under:
(i) any other consumer lease during the lease repayment period; and
(ii) any small amount credit contract during the lease repayment period;
would be equal to or less than 20% of the available income the consumer is reasonably expected to receive during the lease repayment period.
7 At the end of section 156B
Add:
Definitions
(4) In this section:
available income, for a consumer, means the consumer's income less any amount required to be withheld under Part 2-5 in Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Pay as you go (PAYG) withholding).
income means income within the ordinary meaning of that expression.
lease repayment day, in relation to a consumer lease for household goods, means the day on or by which a repayment is required to be made under the lease.
lease repayment period: each of the following is a lease repayment period in relation to a consumer lease for household goods:
(a) the period:
(i) starting on the day the lease is entered into; and
(ii) ending on the first lease repayment day in relation to the lease;
(b) a period:
(i) starting on the day after a lease repayment day in relation to the lease; and
(ii) ending on the subsequent lease repayment day in relation to the lease.
8 Application provisions
(1) The amendments of section 133CC of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 made by this Schedule apply in relation to a small amount credit contract entered into, or offered to be entered into, on or after the commencement of this Schedule.
(2) The amendments of section 156B of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 made by this Schedule apply in relation to a consumer lease for household goods entered into, or offered to be entered into, on or after the commencement of this Schedule.
The opposition asked a while ago for the bills to be split. The question is that the remaining stages of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The question now is that the remaining stages of the Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024 be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I will now deal with the Family Law Amendment Bill 2024. I will first deal with the second reading amendment circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that the Australian Greens amendment on sheet 3099 be agreed to.
Australian Greens' circulated amendment—
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) the court process is often re-traumatising for victim-survivors and all judges and legal professionals within the family law system must undertake ongoing comprehensive trauma-informed training,
(ii) community legal centres, and specifically women's legal services, need more funding to assist women to navigate the family law system; and
(b) calls on the Government to require trauma-informed training for legal professionals and increase funding for legal assistance services".
I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments, starting with the amendment circulated by the government. I understand the minister has documents to table.
I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Family Law Amendment Bill 2024. The addendum responds to matters raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill.
The first question is that schedule 3, section 102BG in item 31 and division 2 of part 5, stand as printed.
The government opposed schedule 3 in the following terms—
(26) Schedule 3, item 31, page 77 (line 30) to page 78 (line 5), section 102BG to be opposed.
(27) Schedule 3, Division 2, page 78 (lines 15 to 20), to be opposed.
Question negatived.
The question now is that government amendments (1) to (25) and (28) to (35) on sheet QL114 be agreed to.
Government's circulated amendments—
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 6), insert:
(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 8), omit the table item, substitute:
(3) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 10), omit the table item.
(4) Clause 2, page 3 (after table item 13), insert:
(5) Schedule 1, item 24, page 10 (line 14), omit "the court may order", substitute "the court may make an order (including a consent order or an interim order)".
(6) Schedule 1, item 24, page 10 (after line 17), after paragraph 79(6)(a), insert:
(ab) that the companion animal be transferred to another person who has consented to the transfer; or
(7) Schedule 1, item 26, page 12 (lines 26 and 27), omit ", on the current and future circumstances of the other party".
(8) Schedule 1, item 43, page 17 (line 31), omit "the court may order", substitute "the court may make an order (including a consent order or an interim order)".
(9) Schedule 1, item 43, page 17 (after line 34), after paragraph 90SM(6)(a), insert:
(ab) that the companion animal be transferred to another person who has consented to the transfer; or
(10) Schedule 1, page 18 (after line 31), after item 43, insert:
43A After paragraph 90YZD(4)(c)
Insert:
(ca) the effect of any family violence, to which one party to the de facto relationship has subjected or exposed the other party, on the ability of a party to the de facto relationship to make the kind of contributions referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c);
(11) Schedule 1, page 19 (after line 4), after item 44, insert:
44A Subparagraph 90YZD(4)(e)(xi)
Omit "and".
44B At the end of paragraph 90YZD(4)(e)
Add:
(xii) the effect of any family violence, to which one party to the subject de facto relationship has subjected or exposed the other party, on the current and future circumstances of the other party, including on any of the matters listed in this paragraph or any of paragraphs (f) to (n);
(xiii) the effect of any material wastage, caused intentionally or recklessly by a party to the subject de facto relationship, of property or financial resources of either of the parties to the subject de facto relationship or both of them;
(xiv) any liabilities incurred by either of the parties to the subject de facto relationship or both of them, including the nature of the liabilities and the circumstances relating to them; and
(12) Schedule 1, item 78, page 24 (line 12), omit "certain".
(13) Schedule 1, item 78, page 24 (line 18) to page 25 (line 12), omit subsections 102ND(2) and (3), substitute:
(2) This Division also applies to proceedings between parties that are partly under Part VII:
(a) to the extent the proceedings are under Part VII; and
(b) to the extent the proceedings are not under Part VII if:
(i) the parties consent to this Division applying to the proceedings to the extent the proceedings are not under Part VII; or
(ii) the court orders that this Division applies to the proceedings to the extent the proceedings are not under Part VII (whether or not the parties consent).
(3) This Division also applies to proceedings between parties that are not to any extent under Part VII if:
(a) the parties consent to this Division applying to the proceedings; or
(b) the court orders that this Division applies to the proceedings (whether or not the parties consent).
(14) Schedule 1, item 78, page 25 (line 17), omit "subparagraph (3)(c)(ii)", substitute "paragraph (3)(b)".
(15) Schedule 1, item 78, page 25 (line 25), omit "(3)(c)(i)", substitute "paragraph (3)(a)".
(16) Schedule 1, item 78, page 25 (line 31), omit "(3)(c)(i)", substitute "paragraph (3)(a)".
(17) Schedule 1, item 78, page 26 (line 2), omit "certain".
(18) Schedule 1, item 78, page 26 (line 5), omit "certain".
(19) Schedule 1, item 78, page 32 (line 7), omit "remaining".
(20) Schedule 1, item 83, page 36 (line 22), after "court", insert "in relation to that application".
(21) Schedule 1, item 84, page 39 (line 20), after "court", insert "in relation to that application".
(22) Schedule 1, item 86, page 42 (line 10), after "court", insert "in relation to that application".
(23) Schedule 3, page 61 (after line 2), before Part 1, insert:
Part 1A — Removing limitation on application for divorce
Family Law Act 1975
1A Subsections 44(1B) and 44(1C)
Repeal the subsections.
1B Application provision
The amendments of the Family Law Act 1975 made by this Part apply in relation to the following proceedings:
(a) proceedings instituted on or after the day this Part commences;
(b) proceedings instituted before, and not finally determined before, the day this Part commences.
(24) Schedule 3, item 31, page 72 (lines 16 to 26), omit section 102BA, substitute:
102BA Definition of protected confidence
A protected confidence is a communication made:
(a) in the course of, or in connection with, a relationship in which one person (the confidant) is acting in a professional capacity to provide a professional service (see section 102BB) to another person (the protected confider); and
(b) in circumstances in which the confidant is under an obligation not to disclose communications made to them by, or in relation to, the protected confider (whether the obligation is express or inferred from the nature of the relationship).
(25) Schedule 3, item 31, page 77 (line 26), after "document", insert "or part of the document".
(28) Schedule 4, item 2, page 81 (lines 3 to 5), omit subsection 114UB(5).
(29) Schedule 4, item 2, page 81 (line 6), omit "(6)", substitute "(5)".
(30) Schedule 4, item 2, page 81 (line 14), omit "(7)", substitute "(6)".
(31) Schedule 4, item 2, page 81 (line 17), omit "(8) The court", substitute "(7) Subject to subsection (3), the court".
(32) Schedule 4, item 2, page 81 (lines 20 to 28), omit subsection 114UB(9).
(33) Schedule 4, page 95 (before line 4), before item 33, insert:
32A Subsection 90XT(3)
Omit "paragraph (2)(a) may provide for the amount", substitute "subparagraph (1)(a)(i) or paragraph (2)(a) may provide for the amount concerned".
(34) Schedule 4, page 95 (after line 25), after item 34, insert:
34A Subsection 90YY(4)
Omit "paragraph (2)(a) may provide for the amount", substitute "subparagraph (1)(a)(i) or paragraph (2)(a) may provide for the amount concerned".
(35) Schedule 4, page 96 (after line 19), at the end of the Schedule, add:
Part 4 — Separation declaration requirements
Family Law Act 1975
37 Subsections 90XP(2A) to (12)
Repeal the subsections, substitute:
Spouses who are parties to a marriage
(3) If the spouses are parties to a marriage, the declaration must state:
(a) that the spouses are married, but are separated at the declaration time; or
(b) if either or both of the spouses have died—that the spouses were married, but separated at the most recent time when both spouses were alive.
(4) In subsection (3), separated has the same meaning as in section 48 (as affected by sections 49 and 50).
Spouses who are parties to a de facto relationship
(5) If the spouses are parties to a de facto relationship, the declaration must state:
(a) that the spouses lived in a de facto relationship, but are separated at the declaration time; or
(b) if either or both of the spouses have died—that the spouses lived in a de facto relationship, but were separated at the most recent time when both spouses were alive.
38 Section 90XQ
Repeal the section.
39 Subsections 90YU(3) to (7)
Repeal the subsections, substitute:
(3) The declaration must state:
(a) that the parties lived in a de facto relationship, but are separated, at the declaration time; or
(b) if either or both of the parties to the de facto relationship have died—that the parties lived in a de facto relationship, but were separated at the most recent time when both parties were alive.
40 Section 90YV
Repeal the section.
Question agreed to.
The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That these bills be now read a first time.
I table revised explanatory memoranda relating to the Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill 2024 and the Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024.
The question is that the bills be now read a first time.
The bills will now be taken together with the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024.
Prior to today, Senator David Pocock moved a second reading amendment relating to the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) the electrification of households and small businesses would result in thousands of dollars of savings a year and significantly reduce Australia's domestic emissions,
(ii) the United States' Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, to which this bill is partially a response, included significant measures to encourage household electrification and those measures are considered a success, and
(iii) the failure to include electrification in the Future Made in Australia framework is a significant missed opportunity; and
(b) calls on the Government to urgently provide an ambitious package to encourage the electrification of Australian households and small businesses with a focus on low-income households, rental properties and apartments".
The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator David Pocock on sheet 2870 be agreed to.
Question negatived.
The next question is that the second reading amendment circulated by Senator Van on sheet 2868 be agreed to.
Senator Van's circulated amendment in respect of the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to:
(a) provide for the Australian Defence Force (ADF) to enter into offtake agreements for low-carbon fuel sources to ensure that at least 30% of the ADF's fuel consumption by 2028 is sourced from biodiesel, sustainable aviation fuel, or other low-carbon alternatives, with priority given to domestic producers;
(b) establish Renewable Energy Industrial Precincts in areas with high renewable energy generation capacity which:
(i) give priority access to government grants and infrastructure subsidies to industries that group together near wind, solar and battery storage facilities in Renewable Energy Zones,
(ii) maximise renewable energy use by meeting 80% of energy needs through locally generated renewable energy and reduce the reliance on long-distance transmission, and
(iii) share energy, including re-use, storage and distribution infrastructure, to reduce the overall capital expenditures and increase energy efficiency; and
(c) ensure that eligibility for financial incentives under the Future Made in Australia program, as well as the National Reconstruction Fund, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, the Hydrogen HeadStart program, the Solar SunShot program and other programs to support companies in priority sectors, is contingent upon applicant companies meeting the following criteria:
(i) a minimum of 50% of materials and components used by applicant companies in the production of renewable energy technologies, such as solar panels and batteries, is sourced domestically,
(ii) applicant companies must demonstrate the creation of sustainable, full- and part-time permanent jobs, with priority given to regions transitioning from fossil fuel industries,
(iii) applicant companies must implement sustainable manufacturing processes, which minimise carbon footprints and promote recycling and waste reduction, and
(iv) applicant companies must prioritise the utilisation of new intellectual property or technological advancements within Australia, especially in cutting-edge renewable energy sectors such as next-generation photovoltaics and advanced energy storage solutions".
Question negatived.
The question now is that these bills be read a second time.
I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments to the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, starting with the amendments circulated by the government. I understand the minister has documents to table.
I table supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government amendments to the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024.
The question is that the government amendments on sheet SK126 be agreed to.
Government's circulated amendments to the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024
(1) Clause 4, page 5 (after line 21), after the paragraph beginning "A person or body deciding", insert:
Future Made in Australia support must not be provided for any of the following activities:
(a) the extraction of coal, crude oil or natural gas;
(b) the construction of infrastructure for the primary purpose of extracting coal, crude oil or natural gas;
(c) directly financing investments for the sole purpose of the use of coal, crude oil or natural gas.
(2) Clause 8, page 9 (after line 30), after subclause (1), insert:
(1A) Each sector assessment must also consider the following matters:
(a) the sector's impacts on demand for fossil fuels (such as coal, crude oil or natural gas), and how those impacts can be managed in a way that is consistent with an orderly path to net zero transformation;
(b) the decarbonisation potential in relevant global supply chains for the sector, including how those supply chains can contribute to the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions.
(3) Page 13 (after line 24), after clause 10, insert:
10A Future Made in Australia support not to be provided for coal, crude oil or natural gas etc.
Future Made in Australia support must not be provided by the Commonwealth, a Commonwealth entity or a Commonwealth company for any of the following activities:
(a) the extraction of coal, crude oil or natural gas;
(b) the construction of infrastructure for the primary purpose of extracting coal, crude oil or natural gas;
(c) directly financing investments for the sole purpose of the use of coal, crude oil or natural gas.
PRESIDENT (): I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator David Pocock. The first question is that clause 11A stand as printed.
Senator David Pocock opposed clause 11A of the Fut ur e Made in Australia Bill 2024 in the following terms—
SHEET 2872
(4) Clause 11A, page 14 (line 8) to page 15 (line 15), to be opposed.
Question agreed to.
The question now is that Senator David Pocock's remaining amendments on sheet 2872 and the amendments on sheets 2871, 2901 and 2997 be agreed to.
Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments to the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024
SHEET 2871
(1) Clause 7, page 9 (after line 14), at the end of the clause, add:
(5) However, a sector of the Australian economy will not align with the National Interest Framework in the net zero transformation stream or the economic resilience and security stream if:
(a) the sector engages in, or has the overarching purpose of, supporting the exploration, prospecting, discovery, development, production or extraction of fossil fuels; or
(b) the sector engages in, or has the overarching purpose of, supporting the installation, commission, operation or maintenance of a power station that uses an energy source that is not an eligible renewable energy source (within the meaning of section 17 of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000); or
(c) the sector is a technology for carbon capture and storage (within the meaning of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007); or
(d) the sector constructs, installs, commissions, operates or maintains infrastructure for the primary purpose of engaging in an activity mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c).
(2) Clause 8, page 9 (after line 30), after subclause (1), insert:
(1A) A sector assessment must also:
(a) include analysis of the contribution by the sector to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and net zero transformation; and
(b) consider the direct and indirect emissions impacts of operations at scale by the sector; and
(c) consider the decarbonisation potential in global supply chains.
_____
SHEET 2872
(1) Clause 5, page 5 (before line 27), before the definition of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, insert:
ABN has the meaning given by the A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Act 1999.
Australian company means a corporation:
(a) that has an ABN; and
(b) whose headquarters is within Australia; and
(b) that is at least 51 per cent owned by Australian citizens or residents (including by ownership of shares in a company); and
(c) that is at least 51 per cent governed by directors who are Australian citizens or residents; and
(d) that is not a subsidiary of a corporation that is not an Australian company.
(2) Clause 8, page 10 (lines 17 to 31), omit subclause (6) (including the note), substitute:
Consultation requirements
(6) For the purposes of conducting a sector assessment, the Secretary:
(a) must consult with each of the following:
(i) the Productivity Commission;
(ii) the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation;
(iii) the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission;
(iv) Infrastructure Australia;
(v) the Climate Change Authority;
(vi) the Net Zero Economy Authority;
(vii) a person or entity specified in the rules; and
(b) may:
(i) consult with any other Commonwealth entity; or
(ii) arrange for any Commonwealth entity to provide assistance or support.
(3) Page 14 (after line 7), after clause 11, insert:
11AA Requirements before providing Future Made in Australia support
Future Made in Australia support must not be provided to a person in relation to a sector unless:
(a) a sector assessment for the sector is conducted in accordance with section 8; and
(b) the sector assessment report recommends that the support be provided.
(5) Clause 14, page 16 (line 14), before "The annual report", insert "(1)".
(6) Clause 14, page 16 (after line 17), at the end of the clause, add:
(2) The report must include:
(a) the total amount of Future Made in Australia supports provided during the period; and
(b) for each of those supports, details of the following:
(i) the recipient of the support;
(ii) the purpose of the support;
(iii) the kind of support provided;
(iv) the amount of support provided;
(v) the amount of that support that was spent during the period;
(vi) the total amount of support provided to Australian companies during the period.
_____
SHEET 2901
(1) Clause 5, page 5 (before line 27), before the definition of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, insert:
ABN has the meaning given by the A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Act 1999.
Australian company means a corporation:
(a) that has an ABN; and
(b) whose headquarters is within Australia; and
(b) that is at least 51 per cent owned by Australian citizens or residents (including by ownership of shares in a company); and
(c) that is at least 51 per cent governed by directors who are Australian citizens or residents; and
(d) that is not a subsidiary of a corporation that is not an Australian company.
(2) Clause 11A, page 15 (line 3), at the end of subclause (3), add:
; and (c) the amount of all Future Made in Australia support provided or committed by the entity or company to Australian companies during the reporting period.
_____
SHEET 2997
(1) Page 17 (after line 3), at the end of Part 4, add:
16 Independent review of Act
(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of this Act.
(2) The review must commence no later than 3 years after the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.
(3) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months of the commencement of the review.
(4) The Minister must table a copy of the report in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.
Question negatived.
I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator Van. The question is that clause 13 stand as printed.
Senator Van opposed clause 13 of the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 in the following terms—
SHEET 2880
(9) Clause 13, page 16 (lines 3 to 12), to be opposed.
_____
SHEET 2881
(11) Clause 13, page 16 (lines 3 to 12), to be opposed.
Question agreed to.
The question now is that the remaining Senator Van amendments on sheets 2880 and 2881 and the amendments on sheets 2878 and 2879 be agreed to.
Senator Van's circulated amendments to the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024—
SHEET 2878
(1) Clause 10, page 12 (lines 5 to 7), omit subclause 10(1), substitute:
(1) A person or body deciding whether Future Made in Australia support should be provided must have regard to:
(a) the community benefit principles; and
(b) the National Interest Framework.
_____
SHEET 2879
(1) Clause 6, page 8 (after line 5), after subclause 6(1), insert:
(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the Minister must, by notifiable instrument, direct the Secretary to conduct a sector assessment of the domestic defence manufacturing sector.
_____
SHEET 2880
(1) Clause 4, page 5 (line 10), omit "Secretary", substitute "Productivity Commission".
(2) Clause 6, page 8 (line 4), omit "Secretary", substitute "Productivity Commission".
(3) Clause 8, page 9 (line 18), omit "Secretary", substitute "Productivity Commission".
(4) Clause 8, page 10 (line 3), omit "Secretary", substitute "Productivity Commission".
(5) Clause 8, page 10 (line 10), omit "Secretary", substitute "Productivity Commission".
(6) Clause 8, page 10 (line 18), omit "Secretary", substitute "Productivity Commission".
(7) Clause 8, page 10 (lines 23 to 31), omit the note, substitute:
Note: The Commonwealth entities the Productivity Commission may consult with for the purposes of paragraph (a) include (without limitation) the following:
(a) the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission;
(b) the Climate Change Authority;
(c) the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation;
(d) Infrastructure Australia;
(e) the Net Zero Economy Agency.
(8) Clause 9, page 11 (line 2), omit "Secretary", substitute "Productivity Commission".
_____
SHEET 2881
(1) Clause 4, page 5 (line 10), omit "Secretary", substitute "Independent Sector Assessment Panel".
(2) Clause 5, page 6 (after line 26), after the definition of Future Made in Australia support, insert:
Independent Sector Assessment Panel means the Independent Sector Assessment Panel established by section 9A.
(3) Clause 6, page 8 (line 4), omit "Secretary", substitute "Independent Sector Assessment Panel".
(4) Clause 8, page 9 (line 18), omit "Secretary", substitute "Independent Sector Assessment Panel".
(5) Clause 8, page 10 (line 3), omit "Secretary", substitute "Independent Sector Assessment Panel".
(6) Clause 8, page 10 (line 10), omit "Secretary", substitute "Independent Sector Assessment Panel".
(7) Clause 8, page 10 (line 18), omit "Secretary", substitute "Independent Sector Assessment Panel".
(8) Clause 8, page 10 (line 23), omit 'Secretary', substitute 'Independent Sector Assessment Panel'.
(9) Clause 9, page 11 (line 2), omit "Secretary", substitute "Independent Sector Assessment Panel".
(10) Page 11 (after line 17), at the end of Part 2, add:
9A Independent Sector Assessment Panel
(1) The Independent Sector Assessment Panel is established by this section.
(2) The Independent Sector Assessment Panel consists of such members as the Secretary from time to time appoints.
(3) Members of the Independent Sector Assessment Panel must have the appropriate skills, expertise, qualifications or experience to conduct sector assessments.
9B Disclosure of interests to Secretary
A member of the Independent Sector Assessment Panel must give written notice to the Secretary of all interests, pecuniary or otherwise, that the member has or acquires and that conflict or could conflict with the proper performance of the member's duties.
I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator Thorpe. The question is that Senator Thorpe's amendments on sheets 2906, 2907, 2930, 2931, 2932, and 3028 be agreed to.
Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments to the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024—
SHEET 2906
(1) Clause 10, page 13 (lines 19 to 24), omit subclause (4), substitute:
(4) Subsection (1) prevails to the extent of any inconsistency with another law under which Future Made in Australia support is provided.
(2) Page 13 (after line 24), after clause 10, insert:
10A Consultation requirements for recipients of Future Made in Australia support
(1) If the Commonwealth, a Commonwealth entity or a Commonwealth company (the Commonwealth provider) proposes to provide Future Made in Australia support to a person (the recipient) in relation to a project, or an action, of a kind prescribed by the rules, the recipient must comply with subsection (2) before the support is provided.
(2) The recipient must demonstrate that:
(a) the recipient has undertaken community consultation in relation to the project or action, including by consulting the relevant First Nations communities and traditional owners; and
(b) the recipient will use the Future Made in Australia support in a way that is consistent with the community benefit principles; and
(c) the recipient has established, and will maintain, a community engagement plan; and
(d) the recipient has established, and will maintain, a consultative committee for the project or action that includes:
(i) members that represent the interests of the relevant local communities; and
(ii) members that represent the interests of the relevant First Nations communities.
10B Community benefit principles — accountability to communities
(1) If Future Made in Australia support is provided by the Commonwealth, a Commonwealth entity or a Commonwealth company (the Commonwealth provider) to a person (the recipient), the Commonwealth provider must establish and maintain a mechanism through which a person covered by subsection (2) may make submissions (including complaints) to the Commonwealth provider about whether or not:
(a) the recipient is using the Future Made in Australia support in a way that is consistent with the community benefit principles; or
(b) the Future Made in Australia support is providing community benefits consistent with the community benefit principles.
Note: The Commonwealth provider must have regard to the community benefit principles when deciding whether Future Made in Australia support should be provided (see subsection 10(1)).
(2) This subsection covers the following persons:
(a) a person who is employed by the recipient, otherwise performs work for the recipient, or has a commercial relationship with the recipient;
(b) a member of a local community in relation to which, or for the benefit of which, the Future Made in Australia support is provided;
(c) a member, or a traditional owner, of a First Nations community in relation to which, or for the benefit of which, the Future Made in Australia support is provided.
_____
SHEET 2907
(1) Clause 10, page 12 (lines 5 to 7), omit subclause (1), substitute:
(1) A person or body deciding whether Future Made in Australia support should be provided must have regard to:
(a) the community benefit principles; and
(b) if the support would be provided to a person in a sector of the economy that aligns with the National Interest Framework in the net zero transformation stream—the following:
(i) whether providing the support will, or is likely to, contribute to achieving Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets;
(ii) whether providing the support will, or is likely to, contribute to achieving Australia's obligations under the Paris Agreement and other relevant international agreements;
(iii) the desirability of supporting investment in the lowest emissions intensity operations and technologies available to the sector at the time the support would be provided.
_____
SHEET 2930
(1) Clause 3, page 4 (line 24), after "participation", insert ", with a specific focus on including people who are long-term unemployed, First Nations people, people with disability, women and others marginalised in the labour market".
(2) Clause 3, page 4 (lines 25 to 28), omit subparagraph (c)(iii), substitute:
(iii) engaging collaboratively with communities, to realise the community benefit principles and achieve positive social and economic and other outcomes for local communities, such as First Nations communities, communities experiencing disadvantage or marginalisation, and communities directly affected by the transition to net zero; and
(3) Clause 10, page 13 (line 4), after "participation", insert ", with a specific focus on including people who are long-term unemployed, First Nations people, people with disability, women and others marginalised in the labour market".
(4) Clause 10, page 13 (lines 5 to 8), omit subparagraph (3)(a)(iii), substitute:
(iii) engaging collaboratively with and achieving positive social and economic and other outcomes for local communities, such as First Nations communities, communities experiencing disadvantage or marginalisation, and communities directly affected by the transition to net zero; and
_____
SHEET 2931
(1) Clause 3, page 4 (line 36), at the end of paragraph 3(c), add:
; and (vi) supporting climate change adaptation, enhancing resilience, and being nature positive; and
(vii) supporting the long-term temperature goal outlined in Article 2, paragraph 1 (a) of the Paris Agreement, to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
(2) Clause 5, page 6 (after line 28), after the definition of National Interest Framework, insert:
nature positive means halting and reversing the decline in diversity, abundance, resilience and integrity of ecosystems and native species populations by 2030 (measured against a 2021 baseline), and achieving recovery by 2050.
(3) Clause 10, page 13 (after line 16), at the end of paragraph (3)(a), add:
(vi) supporting climate change adaptation, enhancing resilience, and being nature positive; and
(vii) supporting the long-term temperature goal outlined in Article 2, paragraph 1 (a) of the Paris Agreement, to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels; and
_____
SHEET 2932
(1) Clause 3, page 4 (line 18), after "benefits", insert "that are equitable and inclusive".
(2) Clause 10, page 12 (line 30), after "benefits", insert "that are equitable and inclusive".
_____
SHEET 3028
(1) Clause 5, page 6 (after line 20), after the definition of community benefit principles, insert:
constitutional corporation means a corporation to which paragraph 51(xx) of the Constitution applies.
(2) Clause 10, page 13 (lines 19 to 24), omit subclause (4), substitute:
(4) Subsection (1) prevails to the extent of any inconsistency with another law under which Future Made in Australia support is provided.
(3) Clause 12, page 15 (after line 30), after subclause 12(2), insert:
(2A) Without limiting subsection (1), the rules must prescribe a requirement for a person who receives Future Made in Australia support to:
(a) publish information about the actions the person is taking to ensure the provision of the Future Made in Australia support is consistent with the community benefit principles; and
(b) do so on a regular basis, and no fewer than 2 times a year.
(2B) Without limiting subsection (1), the rules must prescribe a requirement for a person or body that provides Future Made in Australia support, or another person or body prescribed by the rules, to establish and maintain a mechanism through which an intended beneficiary of the support may seek a remedy if:
(a) the person who receives the support (the recipient) is not using the support in a way that is consistent with the community benefit principles; or
(b) the support is not providing community benefits consistent with the community benefit principles.
(2C) For the purposes of subsection (2B), an intended beneficiary of the Future Made in Australia support includes:
(a) a person who is employed by the recipient mentioned in paragraph (2B)(a), otherwise performs work for the recipient, or has a commercial relationship with the recipient; and
(b) an employee organisation (within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009) that is capable of representing the industrial interests of a person employed by the recipient; and
(c) a member of a local community (within the meaning of subparagraph 10(3)(a)(iii)); and
(d) a member, or a traditional owner, of a First Nations community in relation to which, or for the benefit of which, the Future Made in Australia support is provided; and
(e) a constitutional corporation with involvement in the domestic industrial sector, or involvement in a local supply chain.
Question negatived.
I will now deal with the amendments to the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024, starting with the amendments circulated by the government. The question is that the government amendments on sheet SK127 revised be agreed to.
Government's circulated amendments to the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024
(1) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 21), after item 3, insert:
3A At the end of paragraph 8(2)(b)
Add:
; and (iv) in the case of EFIC's overseas infrastructure financing functions—Australia's commitments under the Statement on International Public Support for the Clean Energy Transition.
(2) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (line 28), omit "Note", substitute "Note 1".
(3) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (after line 30), at the end of subsection 23B(2), add:
Note 2: The Future Made in Australia Act 2024 may also prevent the provision of a service or product under this section in certain circumstances: see paragraph 10(2)(b) and section 10A of that Act (Future Made in Australia support not to be provided for coal, natural gas or crude oil etc.).
(4) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (after line 30), after section 23B, insert:
23C Approval required before providing services or products to finance certain coal, crude oil or natural gas activities
Despite any other provision of this Part, EFIC must not provide a service or product under this Part that would:
(a) directly finance the extraction of coal, crude oil or natural gas; or
(b) directly finance the construction of infrastructure for the primary purpose of extracting coal, crude oil or natural gas; or
(c) directly finance investments for the sole purpose of the use of coal, crude oil or natural gas;
unless an application for the service or product has been referred to the Minister under section 25.
Note: A direction under section 26 may prevent such applications from being referred to the Minister. EFIC cannot provide a service or product covered by this section in those circumstances.
(5) Schedule 2, items 44 and 45, page 18 (lines 20 to 23), omit the items, substitute:
44 Subsection 63(3)
Omit "staff referred to in section 62", substitute "persons who have been employed by, or made available to, ARENA as referred to in section 61".
I will now deal with the amendment circulated by the Australian Greens.
On indulgence, it's my understanding that this amendment is identical in terms to the amendment that we've just passed on sheet SK127, as they—this amendment by the Australian Greens and SK127 by the government—were both circulated within a couple of minutes of each other. If that is the case then I will seek leave to withdraw this amendment. But I'd just like it confirmed if possible that it is identical in terms.
Thank you, Senator McKim. We're talking about the Greens amendments on sheet 3232. I am advised by the Clerk that, to the Clerk, they do look identical—if you're happy to proceed on that basis, Senator McKim.
by leave—I withdraw the Australian Greens amendments.
I will now deal with the amendment circulated by Senator David Pocock. The question is that item 13 of schedule 1 stand as printed.
Senator Pocock opposed schedule 1 to the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024 in the following terms
(1) Schedule 1, item 13, page 7 (lines 1 to 8), to be opposed.
Question agreed to.
The question now is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and the bills be now passed.
I will now deal with the Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill 2024. I will first deal with the second reading amendment circulated by the opposition. The question is that the opposition amendment on sheet 3071 be agreed to.
Opposition's circulated amendment—
Omit all words after "That", substitute "further consideration of the bill be made an order of the day for the first sitting day after draft National Student Ombudsman Rules are presented to the Senate".
Question negatived.
by leave—I would like to have the opposition's support for that amendment recorded.
The question now is that the bill be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by the opposition. The question is that opposition amendments on sheet 3027 be agreed to.
Opposition's circulated amendments—
(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 6 (after line 15), after the paragraph beginning "However, the" in Section 21AA, insert:
The National Ombudsman must take reasonable steps to consult with an expert on antisemitism in relation to the exercise of their powers or performance of their functions or duties that relate to a complaint concerning antisemitism.
(2) Schedule 1, item 5, page 7 (after line 24), after Division 2, insert:
Division 2A — Expert on antisemitism
21ACA Consultation with expert on antisemitism
The National Student Ombudsman must take reasonable steps to consult with an expert on antisemitism in relation to the exercise of the powers, or the performance of the functions or duties, of the National Student Ombudsman that relate to a complaint concerning antisemitism.
Question negatived.
The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I ask that the opposition's opposition to the motion be recorded.
Bill read a first time.
I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendment circulated by the opposition. The question is that the opposition amendment on sheet 3229 be agreed to.
Opposition 's circulated amendment—
(1) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 9 and 10), omit "Fairer for Families and Farmers", substitute "Failing Families and Farmers".
Question negatived.
The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I ask that the opposition's opposition to the motion be recorded.
Bill read a third time.
PRESIDENT (): I will now deal with the Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2023. I will deal with the second reading amendment circulated by the opposition. The question is that the opposition amendment on sheet 2863 be agreed to.
Opposition's circulated amendment—
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) the former Government delivered major reforms to superannuation that supported better member outcomes, better performance and transparent governance, and were driven by the clear understanding that superannuation is Australians' money,
(ii) the Prime Minister and the Treasurer promised no changes to superannuation prior to the election and the Prime Minister promised 'no major changes' to superannuation in February 2023, but have since broken that promise by introducing a new superannuation tax on unrealised capital gains, which is an unprecedented tax on unrealised capital gains that will hurt farmers and family businesses and force Australians to pay tax on money they have not earned,
(iii) the Government's failure to index their new superannuation tax means up to 2 million young Australians earning average wages today will face this doubled super tax; and
(b) calls on the Government to abandon its broken promise on taxing superannuation".
Question negatived.
The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I shall now deal with Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by Senator David Pocock. The question is that the Senator David Pocock amendments on sheet 2507 be agreed to.
Senator David Pocock's amendments—
(1) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 21), after the definition of objective of superannuation, insert:
registrable superannuation entity has the same meaning as in the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993.
(2) Clause 6, page 4 (after line 21), after subclause (3), insert:
(3A) Without limiting subsection (3), a statement of compatibility must include:
(a) modelling and analysis of:
(i) the short, medium and long-term distributional impacts of the Bill on retirement incomes (including demographic considerations) and the effect of these impacts on the compatibility of the Bill with the objective of superannuation; and
(ii) the long-term fiscal impact of the Bill on the sustainability of the retirement system; and
(iii) any impact the Bill may have on the investment decisions of registrable superannuation entities and the impact of any changes to investment decisions on the compatibility of the Bill with the objective of superannuation; and
(b) any relevant data, modelling or assumptions that have been relied on when preparing the statement of compatibility.
(3) Clause 7, page 5 (after line 15), after subclause (2), insert:
(2A) Without limiting subsection (2), a statement of compatibility must include:
(a) modelling and analysis of:
(i) the short, medium and long-term distributional impacts of the regulations on retirement incomes (including demographic considerations) and the effect of these impacts on the compatibility of the Bill with the objective of superannuation; and
(ii) the long-term fiscal impact of the regulations on the sustainability of the retirement system; and
(iii) any impact the regulations may have on the investment decisions of registrable superannuation entities and the impact of any changes to investment decisions on the compatibility of the regulations with the objective of superannuation; and
(b) any relevant data, modelling or assumptions that have been relied on when preparing the statement of compatibility.
(4) Page 6 (after line 22), after clause 7, insert:
7A Periodic reviews of changes to laws relating to superannuation
(1) The Minister must cause periodic reviews to be undertaken of changes to laws relating to superannuation as soon as practicable after the end of:
(a) the 5-year period following the commencement of this Act; and
(b) each subsequent 5-year period.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), a review must consider the following matters in relation to all Acts and regulations relating to superannuation that commenced during the 5-year period to which the review relates:
(a) whether the impacts described in the statements of compatibility prepared in respect of:
(i) each Bill for an Act under subsection 6(1); and
(ii) regulations under subsection 7(1);
have been realised or are likely to be realised; and
(b) whether the operation of those Acts and regulations is compatible with the objective of superannuation.
(3) The persons who conduct a review must give the Minister a written report of the review.
(4) The Minister must table the report in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after receiving the report.
PRESIDENT (): The question is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
PRESIDENT (): I will now deal with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reserve Bank Reforms) Bill 2023. The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by the Greens. The question is that, in schedule 1, items 2 and 4 to 6 and part 2 stand as printed.
The Australian Greens opposed items 2 and 4 to 6 and part 2 of schedule 1 in the following terms
(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 20 to 23), to be opposed.
(2) Schedule 1, items 4 to 6, page 4 (lines 1 to 9), to be opposed.
(3) Schedule 1, Part 2, page 5 (lines 1 to 8), to be opposed.
I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by Senator David Pocock. The question is that Senator David Pocock's amendments on 3231 be agreed to.
Senator Pocock's circulated amendment s
(1) Schedule 1, item 17, page 13 (after line 26), at the end of section 9B, add:
(5) In performing its functions under paragraph (1)(a), the Monetary Policy Board must give equal consideration to the matters set out in subparagraphs (1)(a)(i) and (ii).
(2) Schedule 1, item 56, page 24 (after line 21), at the end of section 25AB, add:
(3) A person must not be appointed under subsection (1) unless the person is:
(a) selected for the appointment as a result of a process that includes:
(i) public advertising of selection criteria for the position; and
(ii) assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members, including at least 1 member with expertise on the impact of monetary policy on people experiencing economic disadvantage; and
(iii) shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment who are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and
(b) one of the shortlisted candidates.
Question negatived.
The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
I will now deal with the Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals and Other Measures) Bill 2024. The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
The question now is that the bill be read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I will now deal with the Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional Broadcasting Continuity) Bill 2024. The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that the Australian Greens amendments on sheets 2754 and 2755 be agreed to.
Australian Green s' circulated amendments—
SHEET 2754
(1) Clause 1, page 1 (line 6), after "Continuity", insert "and Prohibition of Gambling Advertisements".
(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute:
(3) Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 1), omit "Amendments", substitute "Regional Broadcasting Continuity".
(4) Page 9 (after line 30), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 2 — Prohibition of gambling advertisements
Part 1 — Prohibition of gambling advertisements
Broadcasting Services Act 1992
1 Paragraph 3(1)(hb)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(hb) to prohibit the broadcasting of gambling advertisements on certain television and radio broadcasting services; and
(hc) to prohibit the provision of gambling advertisements on certain online content services; and
2 Paragraph 3(1)(ia)
Omit "gambling promotional content provided on online content services", substitute "gambling advertisements that are prohibited from being broadcast or provided".
3 Subsection 3(2)
Repeal the following definitions:
(a) definition of gambling promotional content;
(b) definition of online content service provider.
4 Subsection 4(3AB)
Repeal the subsection.
5 Subsection 4(4)
Repeal the following definitions:
(a) definition of gambling promotional content;
(b) definition of online content service provider.
6 Subsection 6(1) (definition of gambling promotion program standard )
Repeal the definition.
7 Subsection 6(1) (definition of program standards )
Omit ", and includes a gambling promotion program standard".
8 After section 121H
Insert:
121J Prohibition on broadcasting gambling advertisements
Application of section
(1) This section applies to the following persons (a broadcaster):
(a) a commercial television broadcasting licensee;
(b) a commercial radio broadcasting licensee;
(c) a subscription television broadcasting licensee;
(d) a person providing a subscription radio broadcasting service under a class licence.
Prohibition
(2) A broadcaster must not broadcast a gambling advertisement.
Exception accidental or incidental broadcast
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply in relation to the broadcasting of a gambling advertisement if:
(a) the gambling advertisement is broadcast as an accidental or incidental accompaniment to the broadcasting of other matter; and
(b) the broadcaster does not receive any direct or indirect benefit (whether financial or not) for broadcasting the gambling advertisement (in addition to any direct or indirect benefit that the broadcaster receives for broadcasting other matter).
Implied freedom of political communication
(4) This section has no effect to the extent (if any) that its operation would infringe any constitutional doctrine of implied freedom of political communication.
(5) Subsection (4) does not limit the application of section 15A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 to this Act.
Acquisition of property
(6) This section has no effect to the extent (if any) to which its operation would result in an acquisition of property (within the meaning of paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution) from a person otherwise than on just terms (within the meaning of that paragraph).
Definitions
(7) In this section:
gambling advertisement has the same meaning as in Schedule 8.
9 Section 125A
Repeal the section.
10 Subsection 204(3)
Repeal the subsection.
11 After paragraph 7(1)(aa) of Schedule 2
Insert:
(ab) the licensee will comply with section 121J (prohibition on broadcasting gambling advertisements);
12 After paragraph 8(1)(a) of Schedule 2
Insert:
(aa) the licensee will comply with section 121J (prohibition on broadcasting gambling advertisements);
13 After paragraph 10(1)(a) of Schedule 2
Insert:
(aa) the licensee will comply with section 121J (prohibition on broadcasting gambling advertisements);
14 After paragraph 11(1)(ab) of Schedule 2
Insert:
(ac) in the case of a person who provides a subscription radio broadcasting service—the person will comply with section 121J (prohibition on broadcasting gambling advertisements);
15 Clause 1 of Schedule 8
Omit:
substitute:
16 Clause 1 of Schedule 8
Omit:
substitute:
(a) the prohibition on the provision of gambling advertisements; or
(b) the online content service provider rules.
17 Clause 2 of Schedule 8
Repeal the following definitions:
(a) definition of commentator betting odds promotion;
(b) definition of conclusion.
18 Clause 2 of Schedule 8
Insert:
gambling advertisement has the meaning given by clause 17A.
19 Clause 2 of Schedule 8
Repeal the following definitions:
(a) definition of gambling promotional content;
(b) definition of gambling service provider;
(c) definition of in conjunction with;
(d) definition of representative venue-based promotion;
(e) definition of scheduled start;
(f) definition of sporting event.
20 Part 3 of Schedule 8 (heading)
Omit "promotional content", substitute "advertisements".
21 Division 1 of Part 3 of Schedule 8
Repeal the Division, substitute:
Division 1 — Provision of gambling advertisements prohibited on certain online content services
13 Prohibition on providing gambling advertisements
(1) This section applies to the following kinds of online content service (a relevant online content service):
(a) an online content service that delivers content that consists of coverage of a sporting event (whether or not the coverage is live);
(b) an online content service that consists of an on-demand program service (within the meaning of the Online Safety Act 2021).
(2) An online content service provider must not provide a gambling advertisement on a relevant online content service.
(3) Subclause (2) does not apply in relation to the provision of a gambling advertisement if:
(a) the gambling advertisement is provided as an accidental or incidental accompaniment to the provision of other matter; and
(b) the online content service provider does not receive any direct or indirect benefit (whether financial or not) for providing the gambling advertisement (in addition to any direct or indirect benefit that the online content service provider receives for providing other matter).
22 Paragraph 17(2)(a) of Schedule 8
Omit "promotional content", substitute "advertisements".
23 After clause 17 of Schedule 8
Insert:
17A Gambling advertisement
For the purposes of this Schedule, gambling advertisement means any writing, still or moving picture, sign, symbol or other visual image, or any audible message, or any combination of 2 or more of those things, that gives publicity to, or otherwise promotes or is intended to promote the following:
(a) gambling;
(b) a gambling service in general;
(c) the whole or part of a trade mark in respect of a gambling service;
(d) a domain name or URL that relates to a gambling service;
(e) any words, abbreviations, initials or numbers that are closely associated with a gambling service (whether also closely associated with other kinds of services or products);
but does not include a designated interactive gambling service advertisement (within the meaning of Part 7A of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001).
24 Clauses 19 to 23 of Schedule 8
Repeal the clauses.
25 Subclause 24(1) of Schedule 8
After "contravened", insert "clause 13 of this Schedule or".
26 Clause 25 of Schedule 8 (heading)
Before "the online", insert "clause 13 and".
27 Subclause 25(1) of Schedule 8
Repeal the subclause, substitute:
(1) An online content service provider must not contravene:
(a) clause 13 of this Schedule; or
(b) the online content service provider rules.
28 Clause 26 of Schedule 8 (heading)
Before "the online", insert "clause 13 and".
29 Subclauses 26(1), (2) and (3) of Schedule 8
Before "the online content service provider rules" (wherever occurring), substitute "clause 13 of this Schedule or".
30 Application provision
The amendments made by items 11 to 14 of this Part apply, on and after the commencement of this item, in relation to a licence regardless of when the licence was allocated.
Part 2 — Staged implementation of prohibition of gambling promotional content
31 Definitions
In this Part:
broadcaster means the following persons (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992):
(a) a commercial television broadcasting licensee;
(b) a commercial radio broadcasting licensee;
(c) a subscription television broadcasting licensee;
(d) a person providing a subscription radio broadcasting service under a class licence.
commentator betting odds promotion has the same meaning as in Schedule 8 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.
commercial radio broadcasting licensee means the holder of a commercial radio broadcasting licence (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992).
gambling promotional content has the same meaning as in Schedule 8 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.
live, in relation to a sporting event, has the same meaning as in Schedule 8 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.
Minister means the Minister administering the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.
news and current affairs programs has the same meaning as in Schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.
online content service has the same meaning as in Schedule 8 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.
sporting event has the same meaning as in Schedule 8 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.
32 Minister must make rules for staged implementation of prohibition of gambling promotional content
(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules providing for a prohibition of gambling promotional content.
(2) As soon as practicable after the commencement of this item, the Minister must make rules under subitem (1) to provide for the prohibition of:
(a) the broadcast of gambling promotional content by broadcasters:
(i) that is intended to induce gambling; and
(ii) during news and currents affairs programs; and
(b) the provision of gambling promotional content by online content service providers:
(i) that is intended to induce gambling; and
(ii) during news and currents affairs programs; and
(c) the broadcast of gambling promotional content about online gambling by commercial radio broadcasting licensees at the following times:
(i) the period beginning at 8:30 am and ending at 9:00 am;
(ii) the period beginning at 3:30 pm and ending at 4:00 pm.
(3) Within 12 months of the commencement of this item, the Minister must make rules under subitem (1) to provide for the prohibition of the following:
(a) by broadcasters—the broadcast of:
(i) gambling promotional content; and
(ii) commentator betting odds promotion;
(b) by online content service providers—the provision of:
(i) gambling promotional content; and
(ii) commentator betting odds promotion;
during the period beginning one hour before the start of live coverage of a sporting event and ending one hour after the end of live coverage of a sporting event.
(4) Within 2 years of the commencement of this item, the Minister must make rules under subitem (1) to provide for the prohibition of the following during the period beginning at 6:00 pm and ending at 10:00 pm:
(a) the broadcast of gambling promotional content by broadcasters;
(b) the provision of gambling promotional content by online content service providers.
_____
SHEET 2755
(1) Clause 1, page 1 (line 6), after "Continuity", insert "and Anti-Siphoning".
(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute:
(3) Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 1), omit "Amendments", substitute "Regional Broadcasting Continuity".
(4) Page 9 (after line 30), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 3 — Expansion of anti-siphoning scheme
Broadcasting Services Act 1992
1 Section 146S
Omit the section, substitute:
146S Simplified outline
2 Section 146T (after the definition of Australia )
Insert:
broadcasting video on demand service has the same meaning as in Part 9E.
comprehensive coverage of an event means coverage via both:
(a) television; and
(b) a broadcasting video on demand service.
3 Subsection 146V(1)
Omit "televising", substitute "coverage".
4 Subsection 146V(3)
Omit "televise", substitute "provide comprehensive coverage of".
5 Subsection 146V(5)
Omit the examples, substitute:
Examples: The following are examples of situations in which the Minister might exercise the power to remove an event from the anti-siphoning list:
(a) The national broadcasters and commercial television broadcasting licensees have had a real opportunity to acquire the right to provide comprehensive coverage of an event, but none of them has acquired the right within a reasonable time. The Minister is of the opinion that removing the event from the list is likely to have the effect that the event will receive a greater level of media coverage than if it remained in the list;
(b) A commercial television broadcasting licensee has acquired the right to provide comprehensive coverage of an event, but has failed to provide coverage of the event or has covered only an unreasonably small proportion of the event. The Minister is of the opinion that removing that event, or another event, from the list is likely to have the effect that the removed event will receive a greater level of media coverage than if it remained in the list.
6 Section 146W (heading)
Omit the heading, substitute:
146W Coverage of events in anti-siphoning list should be provided for free
7 Subsection 146W(2)
Omit the subsection, substitute:
(2) A media content service provider must not acquire the right to provide coverage of the whole or a part of an event that is included in the anti-siphoning list to end-users in Australia unless:
(a) a national broadcaster has the right to provide comprehensive coverage of the whole or a part of the event; or
(b) both of the following apply:
(i) one or more commercial television broadcasting licensees (other than licensees who hold licences allocated under section 38C or subsection 40(1)) have the right to provide comprehensive coverage of the whole or a part of the event;
(ii) the television broadcasting services of that licensee, or of those licensees, cover a total of more than 50% of the Australian population.
The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I will now deal with the Crown References Amendment Bill 2023. I will first deal with the second reading amendment circulated by the opposition. The question is that the opposition amendment on sheet 2344 be agreed to.
Opposition's circulated amendment—
Omit all words after "That", substitute "further consideration of the bill be deferred until the first sitting day after the Government tables a letter in the Senate stating that:
(a) the Government has consulted with the King or the Governor-General, on behalf of the King, on the legislative amendments proposed in the bill; and
(b) the King or the Governor-General, on behalf of the King, supports the legislative amendments in the bill".
Question negatived.
I will now deal with the second reading amendment circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that the Australian Greens amendment on sheet 2261 be agreed to.
Australian Greens' circulated amendment—
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:
(a) calls on the Government to:
(i) stop celebrating the monarchs of an empire built on stolen lives, land and wealth of colonised peoples,
(ii) cut ties with the British monarchy and make Australia a republic, and
(iii) establish truth telling and treaties with First Nations people; and
(b) acknowledges the need for reparations and justice for peoples harmed by colonisation".
I will now deal with the second reading amendment circulated by Senator Thorpe. The question is that Senator Thorpe's amendment on sheet 2428 be agreed to.
Senator Thorpe's circulated amendment—
Omit all words after "That", substitute:
(a) the Senate recognises that:
(i) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have never ceded Sovereignty, and therefore are the true Sovereigns over these lands, waters and skies,
(ii) the Sovereignty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples means an unceded right held in collective possession by the members of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nations which confers usage, access and custodianship to the lands, waters, minerals and natural resources of what is now known as Australia, and the right of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to exercise an unimpeded and collective self-determinate governance over their political, economic and social affairs,
(iii) horrific events and a legacy of genocide, dispossession and enslavement of First Peoples have occurred since colonisation in the name of the British Crown,
(iv) in order to move forward from this horrific past, we must establish a National Truth and Justice Commission to tell the true history of what has happened on these lands since British invasion,
(v) while First Peoples seek justice for the genocide and crimes against humanity that they have been, and continue to be, subjected to, reparatory justice must involve holding to account the British Crown for the atrocity crimes committed in its name, and
(vi) the government of so-called Australia must commit to Treaty negotiations with all Sovereign First Nations as a matter of urgency; and
(b) further consideration of the bill be deferred until the first sitting day after the Government tables a letter in the Senate from the King or the Governor-General, on behalf of the King, outlining the King's commitments to immediately:
(i) start a process for administering reparations for the oppression of First Peoples, including the plundering of resources, denigration of culture and to redistribute the wealth that underpins the Crown back to the peoples from whom it was stolen,
(ii) repatriate all remains of collective First Peoples that reside in UK museums and institutions and that represent their family histories, genealogies, cultural history and spiritual ancestry,
(iii) return all cultural treasures and artefacts stolen from First Peoples throughout the hundreds of years of genocide, enslavement, discrimination, massacre and racial discrimination by the authorities empowered by the protection of the British Crown,
(iv) acknowledge and adopt, on behalf of the Royal Family, the renunciation of the 'Doctrine of Discovery' made by Pope Francis in April 2023 and to start the process of consultation and reparations for the First Peoples who suffered the consequences of genocide in fulfilment of that doctrine in the name of God, and
(v) start the conversation on slavery's enduring impact.
Question negatived.
The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I ask that the opposition's position opposing the second reading be recorded.
Bill read a second time.
I will deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by Senator Thorpe. The question is that Senator Thorpe's amendments on sheet 2453 be agreed to.
Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments—
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 7 to 8), omit "Sovereign" (wherever occurring), substitute "occupying colonial force".
(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 13), omit "Sovereign", substitute "occupying colonial force".
(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 18), omit "Sovereign", substitute "occupying colonial force".
(4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 21), omit "Sovereign", substitute "occupying colonial force".
(5) Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (line 25), omit "Sovereign", substitute "occupying colonial force".
(6) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (line 10), omit "Sovereign's", substitute "occupying colonial force's".
(7) Schedule 1, item 9, page 4 (line 14), omit "Sovereign", substitute "occupying colonial force".
(8) Schedule 1, item 10, page 4 (line 20), omit "Sovereign", substitute "occupying colonial force".
(9) Schedule 1, item 11, page 4 (line 23), omit "Sovereign's", substitute "occupying colonial force's".
(10) Schedule 1, item 12, page 4 (line 25), omit "Sovereign's", substitute "occupying colonial force's".
(11) Schedule 1, item 14, page 5 (line 9), omit "Sovereign", substitute "occupying colonial force".
(12) Schedule 1, item 15, page 5 (line 16), omit "Sovereign's", substitute "occupying colonial force's".
(13) Schedule 1, item 16, page 5 (line 19), omit "Sovereign's", substitute "occupying colonial force's".
(14) Schedule 1, item 17, page 5 (line 21), omit "Sovereign's", substitute "occupying colonial force's".
(15) Schedule 1, item 18, page 5 (line 24), omit "Sovereign's", substitute "occupying colonial force's".
(16) Schedule 1, item 19, page 5 (line 26), omit "Sovereign", substitute "occupying colonial force".
(17) Schedule 1, item 20, page 6 (line 2), omit "Sovereign", substitute "occupying colonial force".
(18) Schedule 1, item 21, page 6 (line 7), omit "Sovereign", substitute "occupying colonial force".
(19) Schedule 1, item 22, page 6 (line 13), omit "Sovereign's", substitute "occupying colonial force's".
(20) Schedule 1, item 23, page 6 (line 17), omit "Sovereign", substitute "occupying colonial force".
(21) Schedule 1, item 24, page 6 (line 22), omit "Sovereign", substitute "occupying colonial force".
(22) Schedule 1, item 25, page 7 (line 3), omit "Sovereign", substitute "occupying colonial force".
(23) Schedule 1, item 26, page 7 (line 7), omit "Sovereign", substitute "occupying colonial force".
(24) Schedule 1, item 27, page 7 (line 13), omit "Sovereign's", substitute "occupying colonial force's".
(25) Schedule 1, item 28, page 7 (line 16), omit "Sovereign's", substitute "occupying colonial force's".
(26) Schedule 1, item 29, page 7 (line 20), omit "Sovereign's", substitute "occupying colonial force's".
(27) Schedule 1, item 30, page 7 (line 23), omit "Sovereign's", substitute "occupying colonial force's".
(28) Schedule 1, item 32, page 8 (line 3), omit "Sovereign's", substitute "occupying colonial force's".
(29) Schedule 1, item 33, page 8 (line 6), omit "Sovereign's", substitute "occupying colonial force's".
(30) Schedule 1, item 34, page 8 (line 11), omit "Sovereign", substitute "occupying colonial force".
(31) Schedule 1, item 35, page 8 (line 18), omit "Sovereign", substitute "occupying colonial force".
(32) Schedule 1, item 37, page 8 (line 26), omit "Sovereign", substitute "occupying colonial force".
(33) Schedule 1, item 38, page 9 (line 3), omit "Sovereign", substitute "occupying colonial force".
(34) Schedule 1, item 39, page 9 (line 5), omit "Sovereign", substitute "occupying colonial force".
(35) Schedule 1, item 40, page 9 (line 8), omit "Sovereign", substitute "occupying colonial force".
(36) Schedule 1, item 41, page 9 (line 10), omit "Sovereign", substitute "occupying colonial force".
(37) Schedule 1, item 42, page 9 (line 12), omit "Sovereign", substitute "occupying colonial force".
(38) Schedule 1, item 43, page 9 (line 15), omit "Sovereign's", substitute "occupying colonial force's".
(39) Schedule 1, item 44, page 9 (line 18), omit "Sovereign", substitute "occupying colonial force".
(40) Schedule 1, item 45, page 9 (line 20), omit "Sovereign", substitute "occupying colonial force".
(41) Schedule 1, item 46, page 10 (line 5), omit "Sovereign", substitute "occupying colonial force".
Question negatived.
The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
by leave—Could you record the opposition's position opposing that.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I will now deal with the Treasury Laws Amendment (2024 Tax and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2024. The question is that this bill now be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments starting with amendments circulated by the opposition.
by leave—I withdraw opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3221.
by leave—I withdraw amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3217.
The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I will now deal with the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, first dealing with the second reading amendments circulated by the opposition. The question is that the opposition amendments on sheets 3163 and 3227 be agreed to.
Opposition's circulated amendments—
SHEET 3163
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that:
(a) this bill inappropriately consolidates 3 separate and distinct matters into a single bill, hindering the Senate in expressing its view on distinct matters about which opinions may reasonably differ;
(b) the Government decided not to release any cost-benefit or impact analysis of this legislation, hindering the Senate in understanding the effects of the proposed changes;
(c) despite requests from multiple stakeholders and the highly technical nature of the legislation, the Government decided not to conduct an exposure draft process, preventing those affected from understanding the impact of the legislation before it was introduced into the Parliament;
(d) the Government provided inadequate time for inquiry into the legislation, preventing those affected—including critical stakeholders who are directly affected—from properly scrutinising the legislation; and
(e) these basic failures of process prevent the Senate from carrying out its democratic function of scrutinising legislation and are inconsistent with the Government's own commitment to transparency".
_____
SHEET 3227
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that both the Coalition and Labor support doxxing reforms".
by leave—Could I have the minutes record that because we wanted an efficient process we didn't split those two, but the Greens do not support 3227.
Yes, it will be recorded that the Greens do not support 3227.
by leave—Please could I note my support for 3227.
It is noted. The question now is that the bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments, starting with amendments circulated by the government. I understand the minister has documents to table.
I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. The addendum responds to matters raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. I also table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to government amendments to be moved to this bill.
We come to sheet RZ120.
Could I ask that amendments on sheet RZ120 be separated and put separately? So can amendments (1) to (14) be put separately to amendments (15) to (35)?
So that the chamber is aware, I'll be splitting the question on sheet RZ120. I'll be putting the first question, that the government amendments (1) to (14) on sheet RZ120 be agreed to, and then I will be going to amendments (15) to (35). Is everyone clear? I put the question that government amendments (1) to (14) on sheet RZ120 be agreed to.
Government's circulated amendments—
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1, column 1), omit "Sections 1 to 3", substitute "Sections 1 to 4".
(2) Page 3 (after line 8), after clause 3, insert:
4 Review of operation of amendments made by Schedule 3
(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be undertaken of the operation of the amendments made by Schedule 3 to this Act.
(2) The review must commence as soon as practicable after the end of the period of 24 months starting at the commencement of that Schedule.
(3) The persons who undertake the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months of the commencement of the review.
(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.
(3) Schedule 1, item 13, page 9 (line 19), at the end of paragraph 80KA(2)(b), add ", the Australian Broadcasting Corporation or the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation".
(4) Schedule 1, item 32, page 16 (after line 7), after subparagraph 26GC(8)(a)(ii), insert:
(iia) industry organisations or bodies representing the interests of one or more entities that may potentially be bound by the Code;
(5) Schedule 1, item 32, page 16 (line 17), omit "40 days", substitute "60 days".
(6) Schedule 1, item 43, page 22 (line 26), at the end of paragraph 26X(3)(b), add ", the Australian Broadcasting Corporation or the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation".
(7) Schedule 1, item 56, page 34 (line 3), after "notices", insert "or compliance notices".
(8) Schedule 1, item 57, page 35 (line 20), after "notices", insert "or compliance notices".
(9) Schedule 1, item 57, page 35 (line 21), omit "information).", substitute "information);".
(10) Schedule 1, item 57, page 35 (after line 21), after paragraph 80UB(1)(b), insert:
(c) subsection 80UC(4) (failure to comply with a compliance notice).
(11) Schedule 1, item 57, page 35 (line 28), after "or (2)", insert ", or 80UC(4),".
(12) Schedule 1, item 57, page 36 (line 3), after "or (2)", insert ", or 80UC(4),".
(13) Schedule 1, page 36 (after line 7), after item 57, insert:
57A After Division 1A of Part VIB
Insert:
Division 1B — Compliance notices
80UC Compliance notices
Giving a compliance notice
(1) Any of the following persons may give an entity a notice if the person reasonably believes that the entity has contravened subsection 13K(1) or (2) (civil penalty provision for which infringement notices or compliance notices can be issued):
(a) the Commissioner;
(b) a member of the staff of the Commissioner who holds, or is acting in, an office or position that is equivalent to an SES employee.
Note: The notice may be varied or revoked under subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.
(2) The notice must:
(a) set out the name of the entity to whom the notice is given; and
(b) set out details of the contravention; and
(c) specify either or both of the following:
(i) action the entity must take, or refrain from taking, within a reasonable period specified in the notice, to address the contravention;
(ii) steps the entity must take, within a reasonable period specified in the notice, to ensure that the conduct constituting the contravention is not repeated or continued; and
(d) explain that a failure to comply with the notice may contravene a civil penalty provision; and
(e) explain that the entity may apply to the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) for a review of the notice on either or both of the following grounds:
(i) the entity has not committed the contravention set out in the notice;
(ii) the notice does not comply with this subsection.
(3) The notice may also require the entity to produce, within a reasonable period specified in the notice, reasonable evidence of compliance with the notice.
Entity must comply with compliance notice
(4) An entity contravenes this subsection if:
(a) the entity is given a notice under subsection (1); and
(b) the entity fails to comply with the notice.
(5) Subsection (4) is a civil penalty provision.
Note: Section 80U deals with civil penalty provisions in this Act.
(6) The amount of the penalty payable by a person in respect of a contravention of subsection (4) must not exceed 200 penalty units.
Effect of complying with a compliance notice
(7) An entity that complies with a notice given under subsection (1) in relation to a contravention of subsection 13K(1) or (2) is not taken by that compliance:
(a) to have admitted to contravening that subsection; or
(b) to have been found to have contravened that subsection.
Relationship with civil penalty provisions
(8) The Commissioner must not apply for an order under Part 4 of the Regulatory Powers Act in relation to a contravention of subsection 13G(1), 13H(1) or 13K(1) or (2) of this Act constituted by particular conduct engaged in by an entity, if:
(a) the entity has been given a notice under subsection (1) of this section in relation to a contravention constituted by the same conduct; and
(b) either of the following subparagraphs applies:
(i) the notice has not been withdrawn, and the entity has complied with the notice;
(ii) the entity has made an application under section 80UD of this Act in relation to the notice and the application has not been completely dealt with.
Relationship with infringement notices
(9) A notice must not be given under subsection (1) to an entity in relation to a contravention if:
(a) the entity has been given an infringement notice under Part 5 of the Regulatory Powers Act in relation to the contravention; and
(b) the infringement notice has not been withdrawn.
(10) An infringement notice must not be given to an entity under Part 5 of the Regulatory Powers Act in relation to a contravention of subsection 13K(1) or (2) of this Act if the entity has been given a notice under subsection (1) of this section, in relation to the contravention, that has not been withdrawn or cancelled.
Relationship with enforceable undertakings
(11) A notice must not be given under subsection (1) to an entity in relation to a contravention if:
(a) the Commissioner has accepted an undertaking from the entity under Part 6 of the Regulatory Powers Act in relation to the contravention; and
(b) the undertaking has not been withdrawn or cancelled.
80UD Review of compliance notices
(1) An entity that has been given a notice under subsection 80UC(1) may apply to the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) for a review of the notice on either or both of the following grounds:
(a) the entity has not committed the contravention set out in the notice;
(b) the notice does not comply with subsection 80UC(2).
(2) At any time after the application has been made, the court may stay the operation of the notice on the terms and conditions that the court considers appropriate.
(3) The court may confirm, cancel or vary the notice after reviewing it.
(14) Schedule 1, item 58, page 36 (line 12), omit "and 13K", substitute ", 13K, 80UC and 80UD".
Question agreed to.
The question is that government amendments (15) to (35) on sheet RZ120 be agreed to.
Government's circulated amendments—
(15) Schedule 2, item 10, page 61 (line 20), after "intelligence agencies", insert "and law enforcement bodies".
(16) Schedule 2, item 10, page 61 (line 21), after "agencies", insert "or bodies".
(17) Schedule 2, item 10, page 61 (line 22), after "agencies", insert "or bodies,".
(18) Schedule 2, item 10, page 61 (lines 23 and 24), omit "Journalists, certain persons associated with journalists and enforcement bodies", substitute "Journalists and certain other persons".
(19) Schedule 2, item 10, page 61 (line 25), omit "interim".
(20) Schedule 2, item 10, page 62 (line 1), omit "The Minister may make rules for the purposes of this Schedule.".
(21) Schedule 2, item 10, page 63 (before line 27), before the definition of Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation in clause 6, insert:
agency has the meaning given by subsection 6(1) of this Act.
ASIO affiliate has the same meaning as in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.
(22) Schedule 2, item 10, page 64 (lines 7 and 8), omit the definition of enforcement body in clause 6.
(23) Schedule 2, item 10, page 64 (lines 9 and 10), omit the definition of enforcement related activity in clause 6.
(24) Schedule 2, item 10, page 65 (after line 1), after the definition of journalistic materialin clause 6, insert:
law enforcement body means:
(a) the Australian Federal Police; or
(b) the National Anti-Corruption Commissioner; or
(c) the Australian Crime Commission; or
(d) a police force or service of a State or a Territory; or
(e) the New South Wales Crime Commission; or
(f) the Independent Commission Against Corruption of New South Wales; or
(g) the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission of New South Wales; or
(h) the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission of Victoria; or
(i) the Crime and Corruption Commission of Queensland; or
(j) the Corruption and Crime Commission of Western Australia; or
(k) the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption of South Australia.
(25) Schedule 2, item 10, page 65 (after line 5), after the definition of reckless in clause 6, insert:
staff member of an agency or State or Territory authority(including an intelligence agency or a law enforcement body) includes:
(a) the head (however described) of the agencyor authority, or another person who holds an office or appointment in relation to the agencyor authority; and
(b) a person who is otherwise a member of the staff of the agency or authority(whether an employee of the agency or authority, a consultant or contractor to the agency or authority, or a person who is made available to perform services for the agency or authority by another agency or authority, or another person); and
(c) in the case of the Australian Federal Police—a member or special member of the Australian Federal Police; and
(d) in the case of a police force of a State or Territory—a member (however described) of that police force.
State or Territory authority has the meaning given by section 6C of this Act.
(26) Schedule 2, item 10, page 65 (line 25), at the end of subclause 7(1), add:
; and (e) the public interest in the plaintiff's privacy outweighed any countervailing public interest.
(27) Schedule 2, item 10, page 65 (line 27) to page 66 (line 10), omit subclauses 7(3) and (4), substitute:
Countervailing public interest
(3) Without limiting what constitutes a countervailing public interest, any of the following matters of public interest may constitute a countervailing public interest:
(a) freedom of expression, including political communication and artistic expression;
(b) freedom of the media;
(c) the proper administration of government;
(d) open justice;
(e) public health and safety;
(f) national security;
(g) the prevention and detection of crime and fraud.
(28) Schedule 2, item 10, page 68 (after line 10), after clause 8, insert:
8A Determination whether exemption applies
(1) The court may, at any stage of the proceedings, determine whether an exemption in Part 3 applies in relation to the invasion of privacy.
(2) The court may make the determination on application of a party to the proceedings or on its own motion.
(3) If a party to the proceedings applies for a determination under this clause before the trial for the proceedings commences, the court is to make the determination as soon as practicable, and before the trial commences, unless satisfied that there are special circumstances justifying the postponement of the determination to a later stage of the proceedings (including during the trial).
(4) This clause does not limit any powers that the court has apart from this clause.
(29) Schedule 2, item 10, page 68 (line 11), omit the heading to clause 9, substitute:
9 Injunctions
(30) Schedule 2, item 10, page 71 (line 15), after "employer of", insert ", or a person engaging,".
(31) Schedule 2, item 10, page 71 (lines 16 and 17), omit paragraph 15(1)(c), substitute:
(c) a person assisting a journalist who is employed or engaged by:
(i) the journalist's employer; or
(ii) a person engaging the journalist;
(32) Schedule 2, item 10, page 71 (after line 19), after subclause 15(1), insert:
(1A) This Schedule does not apply to an invasion of privacy to the extent that the invasion of privacy involves the publication or distribution of journalistic material that was prepared for publication by a journalist.
(33) Schedule 2, item 10, page 71 (line 30), at the end of subclause 15(3), add:
; or (c) consists of editorial content relating to news, current affairs or a documentary.
(34) Schedule 2, item 10, page 72 (lines 3 to 8), omit clause 16, substitute:
16 Agencies and State and Territory authorities (other than intelligence agencies and law enforcement bodies)
This Schedule does not apply to an invasion of an individual's privacy by an agency or a State or Territory authority (other than an intelligence agency or a law enforcement body) to the extent that the agency or authority invades the individual's privacy, in good faith:
(a) in the performance or purported performance of a function of the agencyor authority; or
(b) in the exercise or purported exercise of a power of the agency or authority.
16A Staff members of agencies or State and Territory authorities (other than intelligence agencies and law enforcement bodies)
This Schedule does not apply to an invasion of an individual's privacy by a staff member of an agency or a State or Territory authority (other than a staff member of an intelligence agency or a law enforcement body) to the extent that the staff member invades the individual's privacy, in good faith:
(a) in the performance or purported performance of a function of the agencyor authority; or
(b) in the exercise or purported exercise of a power of the agency or authority.
16B Law enforcement bodies
This Schedule does not apply to:
(a) an invasion of privacy by a law enforcement body; or
(b) an invasion of privacy by a person who is a staff member of a law enforcement body in the performance of the person's duties, powers or functions as such a staff member; or
(c) an invasion of privacy to the extent that it involves a disclosure of information to a law enforcement body; or
(d) an invasion of privacy to the extent that it involves information that was disclosed by a law enforcement body.
(35) Schedule 2, item 10, page 72 (after line 11), after paragraph 17(a), insert:
(aa) an invasion of privacy by a person who is an ASIO affiliate, or an agent or staff member of an intelligence agency, in the performance of:
(i) if the person is an ASIO affiliate—functions or services for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation; or
(ii) otherwise—the person's duties, powers or functions as such an agent or staff member; or
I will now deal with Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by the opposition. We are coming to sheet 3144, amendment (2). The question before the Senate is that schedule 2 stand as printed.
The opposition opposed schedule 2 in the following terms—
(2) Schedule 2, page 59 (line 1) to page 74 (line 24), to be opposed.
This means that the opposition amendment on sheet 3144 cannot be moved. We are now on sheets 3016, 3017 and 3018 in the name of the Australian Greens. The question is that the Australian Greens amendments on sheets 3016 revised, 3017 revised and 3018 be agreed to.
Australian Greens' circulated amendments—
SHEET 3016 REVISED
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 7), insert:
(2) Schedule 1, page 58 (after line 27), at the end of the Schedule, add:
Part 17 — Meaning of personal information
Privacy Act 1988
92 Subsection 6(1) (definition of de-identified )
Omit "is no longer about an identified individual", substitute "no longer relates to an identified individual".
93 Subsection 6(1) (definition of personal information )
Omit "about an identified individual", substitute "that relates to an identified individual".
94 Subsection 6(1)
Insert:
reasonably identifiable: an individual is reasonably identifiable if the individual is capable of being distinguished from other individuals, even if the identity of the individual is not known.
_____
SHEET 3017 REVISED
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 7), insert:
(2) Schedule 1, page 58 (after line 27), at the end of the Schedule, add:
Part 16 — Meaning of consent
Privacy Act 1988
90 Subsection 6(1) (definition of consent )
Repeal the definition, substitute:
consent means:
(a) when used in relation to the collection, use or disclosure of information that is about an individual—consent that is in accordance with subsection (12); and
(b) otherwise—express consent or implied consent.
90A At the end of section 6
Add:
(12) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of the definition of consent in subsection (1):
(a) the consent must be:
(i) voluntary; and
(ii) informed; and
(iii) current; and
(iv) specific; and
(v) unambiguous; and
(b) the individual must be able to withdraw the consent in a manner that is easily accessible to the individual.
91 Application of amendment
The amendment of the Privacy Act 1988 made by this Part applies in relation to the collection, use or disclosure of information on or after the commencement of this item.
_____
SHEET 3018
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 7), insert:
(2) Schedule 1, page 58 (after line 27), at the end of the Schedule, add:
Part 18 — Fair and reasonable test for collection, use or disclosure of personal information
Privacy Act 1988
95 At the end of clause 3 of Schedule 1
Add:
Collection must be fair and reasonable
3.8 An APP entity must not collect personal information about an individual unless the collection is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
3.9 Subclause 3.8 applies:
(a) despite any other provision of this Act; and
(b) regardless of whether the individual has consented to the collection.
96 At the end of clause 6 of Schedule 1
Add:
Use or disclosure must be fair and reasonable
6.8 An APP entity must not use or disclose personal information about an individual unless the use or disclosure is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
6.9 Subclause 6.8 applies:
(a) despite any other provision of this Act; and
(b) regardless of whether the individual has consented to the use or disclosure of the information.
97 Application of amendments
The amendments of the Privacy Act 1988 made by this Part apply in relation to the collection, use or disclosure of information on or after the commencement of this item.
The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
I move:
That this bill be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Surveillance Legislation (Confirmation of Application) Bill 2024.
The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I will deal with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Bill 2024. The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
The question now is that this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I will now deal with the Migration Amendment Bill 2024 and two other bills, starting with the second reading amendments. The question is that the Pauline Hanson's One Nation amendment on sheet 2619 be agreed to.
Pauline Hanson's One Nation's circulated amendment in respect of the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that this bill does not:
(a) solve the problem of removing non-citizens from immigration detention and deporting them or removing non-citizens who have no valid reason for remaining in Australia; or
(b) actually enforce deportation, it only swaps detention centres for jail".
I will now deal with the second reading amendment circulated by Senator Thorpe on sheet 2500. The question is that the amendment on sheet 2500 be agreed to.
Senator Thorpe's amendment in respect of the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024
Omit all words after "That", substitute "the bill be withdrawn and the Senate notes that the bill:
(a) raises significant human rights concerns, including breaking Australia's human rights obligations as a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol to adhere to international standards in the protection of asylum seekers and refugees;
(b) was not subject to a proper consultation process, with key stakeholders and experts from lived experience refugee communities not consulted;
(c) criminalises refugees rather than looking at long-term strategies and solutions to address the underlying structural causes; and
(d) gives the Government power to impose punitive measures on countries, which could erode diplomatic ties and weakens Australia's foreign policy relations and stability globally".
Question negatived.
by leave—I withdraw the amendment on sheet 2495.
The question is that Senator David Pocock's second reading amendment on sheet 3168 be agreed to.
Senator David Pocock's amendment in respect of the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that:
(a) the separation of powers established by the Australian Constitution is fundamental to the protection of Australia's democracy, and
(b) the executive government cannot exercise Chapter III judicial power, including to impose punishment".
The question is that the Australian Greens second reading amendment on sheet 3228 be agreed to.
Australian Greens ' circulated amendment in respect of the Migration Amendment Bill 2024—
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that:
(a) this bill will be part of a brutal package of bills that will be one of the most extreme changes in migration policy since White Australia;
(b) this bill and related bills will result in families being torn apart, communities being separated, and serious damage to Australia as a multicultural country; and
(c) this bill should have never been proposed, and Australia is a worse place because it was".
The question now is that these bills now be read a second time.
I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments to the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024, starting with amendments circulated.
I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Migration Amendment Bill 2024. The addendum responds to matters raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. And I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024.
The question is that the government amendments on SV105 be agreed to.
Government's circulated amendments to the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024
(1) Clause 2, page 1 (line 7) to page 2 (line 6), omit the clause, substitute:
2 Commencement
(1) Each provision of this Act specified in column 1 of the table commences, or is taken to have commenced, in accordance with column 2 of the table. Any other statement in column 2 has effect according to its terms.
Note: This table relates only to the provisions of this Act as originally enacted. It will not be amended to deal with any later amendments of this Act.
(2) Any information in column 3 of the table is not part of this Act. Information may be inserted in this column, or information in it may be edited, in any published version of this Act.
(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 1), omit "Main amendments", substitute "Removal and removal concern countries".
(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (lines 8 to 10), omit paragraph 199B(1)(a), substitute:
(a) an unlawful non-citizen:
(i) who is required to be removed from Australia under section 198 as soon as reasonably practicable; or
(ii) who would be required to be so removed except for the operation of subsection 197E(5);
(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (after line 19), at the end of subsection 199B(1), add:
Note: For subparagraph (a)(ii), subsection 197E(5) temporarily suspends the duty to remove an unlawful non-citizen under section 198 if the Minister decides to consider whether to exercise a Ministerial intervention power in relation to the non-citizen. However, the suspension does not prevent other action being taken, or things being done, to facilitate or otherwise prepare for the removal of the non-citizen under section 198 (see subsection 197E(10)).
(5) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (line 36), omit "Note", substitute "Note 1".
(6) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (after line 37), at the end of subsection 199C(2), add:
Note 2: The Minister may give a direction under subsection (1) or (2) to a removal pathway non-citizen during the period that the non-citizen's removal is not required or authorised under section 198 as a result of the Minister considering whether to exercise a Ministerial intervention power in relation to the non-citizen (see section 197E).
(7) Schedule 1, item 3, page 9 (after line 25), after subsection 199F(2), insert:
(2A) Before the Minister designates a country under subsection (1), the Minister must have regard to the matters (if any) prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.
(2B) Neither of the following limits, or otherwise affects, the matters the Minister may consider for the purposes of deciding under subsection (1) whether it is in the national interest to designate a country to be a removal concern country:
(a) the requirement under subsection (2A) that the Minister must have regard to matters (if any) that are prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of that subsection;
(b) the prescription of particular matters by the regulations for the purposes of subsection (2A).
(8) Schedule 1, item 3, page 10 (after line 13), after subsection 199F(8), insert:
Automatic repeal
(8A) Unless revoked earlier, the designation is repealed at the end of 3 years after the day on which the designation commences.
(9) Schedule 2, page 13 (line 1), omit "Other amendments", substitute "Measures relating to bridging visas and protection findings".
(10) Page 14 (after line 16), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 3 — Ministerial intervention
Migration Act 1958
1 Subsection 5(1)
Insert:
Ministerial intervention power means a power exercisable personally by the Minister under any one or more of the following provisions:
(a) subsection 46A(2) (about visa applications by unauthorised maritime arrivals);
(b) subsection 46B(2) (about visa applications by transitory persons);
(c) subsection 48B(1) (about further applications for a protection visa after refusal or cancellation);
(d) paragraph 72(1)(c) (about bridging visas for eligible non-citizens);
(e) subsection 91F(1) (about non-citizens for whom there is a safe third country);
(f) subsection 91L(1) (about holders of temporary safe haven visas);
(g) subsection 137N(1) (about revocation of visa cancellation on the Minister's initiative);
(h) subsection 195A(2) (about grant of visas to detainees);
(i) subsection 198AE(1) (about Minister's power to determine that section 198AD does not apply);
(j) subsection 351(1) (about Minister's power to substitute certain ART decisions);
(k) subsection 501J(1) (about Minister's power to substitute ART protection visa decision).
2 After section 197D
Insert:
197E Relevance of Ministerial intervention powers to removal of unlawful non-citizens under section 198
(1) For the purposes of section 198, it is irrelevant whether the Minister has been requested to exercise, or consider exercising, a Ministerial intervention power in relation to an unlawful non-citizen.
(2) To avoid doubt:
(a) an officer's duty to remove as soon as reasonably practicable an unlawful non-citizen under section 198 arises irrespective of whether the Minister has been requested to exercise, or consider exercising, a Ministerial intervention power in relation to the unlawful non-citizen; and
(b) the fact that the Minister has been requested to exercise, or consider exercising, a Ministerial intervention power in relation to an unlawful non-citizen is irrelevant to whether or not the removal of the unlawful non-citizen is reasonably practicable for the purposes of section 198.
(3) Subsection (1) applies whether a request is made by:
(a) the unlawful non-citizen; or
(b) an officer of the Department; or
(c) any other person.
(4) Subsection (1) applies whether or not a request has been drawn to the Minister's attention.
Temporary suspension of duty to remove unlawful non-citizens
(5) Despite subsection (1), if the Minister decides to consider whether to exercise a Ministerial intervention power (whether on request or otherwise) in relation to an unlawful non-citizen, section 198 does not require or authorise an officer to remove the non-citizen from Australia during the period covered by subsection (6).
Note: Despite this subsection, an unlawful non-citizen who asks the Minister, in writing, to be removed, must be removed under subsection 198(1) (see subsection (11) of this section).
Period during which duty to remove is suspended
(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), the period is 6 months starting on the day (the start day) the Minister decides to consider whether to exercise the Ministerial intervention power in relation to the unlawful non-citizen, unless:
(a) before the end of that 6 month period, the unlawful non-citizen has agreed, in writing, to a day occurring after the end of that 6 month period nominated, in writing, by the Minister—in which case the period ends on the agreed day (subject to paragraph (b)); or
(b) the period ends earlier under subsection (7).
(7) For the purposes of paragraph (6)(b), the period ends at the earliest of the following times:
(a) the end of the day the Minister decides not to exercise the Ministerial intervention power in relation to the unlawful non-citizen;
(b) the end of the day the Minister decides to stop considering whether to exercise the power in relation to the non-citizen;
(c) if the Minister exercises the power in relation to the non-citizen, and subsection (8) specifies a day—the end of that day;
(d) if the Minister exercises the power in relation to the non-citizen but the exercise does not result in the non-citizen being able to make a visa application—the end of the day that the Minister exercises the power.
(8) For the purposes of paragraph (7)(c), this subsection specifies the following days:
(a) in a case where, as a consequence of the exercise of the Ministerial intervention power, the unlawful non-citizen may make a visa application within a specified period—the last day of the period in which the non-citizen could make the visa application;
(b) in any other case where, as a consequence of the exercise of the power, the non-citizen may make a visa application—whichever of the following days occurs first:
(i) the last day of the period determined by the Minister in which the non-citizen could make the visa application;
(ii) the day that is 3 months after the Minister exercises the power.
Working out start day for certain requests
(9) If the Minister decides to consider whether to exercise a Ministerial intervention power in relation to a particular category of requests for such exercise by unlawful non-citizens, then, for the purposes of subsection (6), the start day, in relation to a particular unlawful non-citizen, is the day that the non-citizen's request is received, in writing, by the Minister.
Scope of suspension of duty to remove unlawful non-citizen
(10) To avoid doubt, subsection (5) of this section:
(a) prevents the removal of an unlawful non-citizen during the period covered by subsection (6); but
(b) does not prevent any other action being taken, or thing being done, during that period to facilitate or otherwise prepare for the eventual removal of the non-citizen after the period ends.
Example: The Minister could give the unlawful non-citizen a removal pathway direction under section 199C during the period covered by subsection (6).
Unlawful non-citizen must be removed at non-citizen's request
(11) Despite subsection (5), an officer is required and authorised to remove an unlawful non-citizen who asks the Minister, in writing, to be so removed under subsection 198(1).
3 At the end of subsection 198AD(2)
Add:
Note: For how this subsection operates if the Minister has been requested to exercise, or is considering exercising, a Ministerial intervention power in relation to an unauthorised maritime arrival, see section 198AHC.
4 Before section 198AI
Insert:
198AHC Relevance of Ministerial intervention powers to transfer of unauthorised maritime arrivals
(1) For the purposes of subsection 198AD(2), it is irrelevant whether the Minister has been requested to exercise, or consider exercising, a Ministerial intervention power in relation to an unauthorised maritime arrival.
(2) To avoid doubt:
(a) an officer's duty to take, as soon as reasonably practicable, an unauthorised maritime arrival from Australia to a regional processing country under subsection 198AD(2) arises irrespective of whether the Minister has been requested to exercise, or consider exercising, a Ministerial intervention power in relation to the unauthorised maritime arrival; and
(b) the fact that the Minister has been requested to exercise, or consider exercising, a Ministerial intervention power in relation to an unauthorised maritime arrival is irrelevant to whether or not the taking of the unauthorised maritime arrival from Australia to a regional processing country is reasonably practicable for the purposes of subsection 198AD(2).
(3) Subsection (1) applies whether a request is made by:
(a) the unauthorised maritime arrival; or
(b) an officer of the Department; or
(c) any other person.
(4) Subsection (1) applies whether or not a request has been drawn to the Minister's attention.
Temporary suspension of duty to transfer unauthorised maritime arrivals
(5) Despite subsection (1), if the Minister decides to consider whether to exercise a Ministerial intervention power (whether on request or otherwise) in relation to an unauthorised maritime arrival, subsection 198AD(2) does not require or authorise an officer to take the unauthorised maritime arrival from Australia to a regional processing country during the period covered by subsection (6).
Note: Despite this subsection, an unauthorised maritime arrival who asks the Minister, in writing, to be taken from Australia to a regional processing country must be taken to that country (see subsection (10)).
Period during which duty to transfer is suspended
(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), the period is 6 months starting on the day (the start day) the Minister decides to consider whether to exercise the Ministerial intervention power in relation to the unauthorised maritime arrival, unless:
(a) before the end of that 6 month period, the unauthorised maritime arrival has agreed, in writing, to a day occurring after the end of that 6 month period nominated, in writing, by the Minister—in which case the period ends on the agreed day (subject to paragraph (b)); or
(b) the period ends earlier under subsection (7).
(7) For the purposes of paragraph (6)(b), the period ends at the earliest of the following times:
(a) the end of the day the Minister decides not to exercise the power in relation to the unauthorised maritime arrival;
(b) the end of the day the Minister decides to stop considering whether to exercise the power in relation to the unauthorised maritime arrival;
(c) if the Minister exercises the power in relation to the unauthorised maritime arrival, and subsection (8) specifies a day—the end of that day;
(d) if the Minister exercises the power in relation to the unauthorised maritime arrival but the exercise does not result in the unauthorised maritime arrival being able to make a visa application—the end of the day that the Minister exercises the power.
(8) For the purposes of paragraph (7)(c), this subsection specifies the following days:
(a) in a case where, as a consequence of the exercise of the Ministerial intervention power, the unauthorised maritime arrival may make a visa application within a specified period—the last day of the period in which the unauthorised maritime arrival could make the visa application;
(b) in any other case where, as a consequence of the exercise of the power, the unauthorised maritime arrival may make a visa application—whichever of the following days occurs first:
(i) the last day of the period determined by the Minister in which the unauthorised maritime arrival could make the visa application;
(ii) the day that is 3 months after the Minister exercises the power.
Scope of suspension of duty to transfer unauthorised maritime arrival
(9) To avoid doubt, subsection (5) of this section:
(a) prevents an unauthorised maritime arrival being taken from Australia to a regional processing country during the period covered by subsection (6); but
(b) does not prevent any other action being taken, or thing being done, during that period to facilitate or otherwise prepare for the unauthorised maritime arrival being taken from Australia to a regional processing country after the period ends.
Unauthorised maritime arrival may request transfer to regional processing country
(10) Despite subsection (5), if an unauthorised maritime arrival to whom section 198AD applies asks the Minister, in writing, to be taken from Australia to a regional processing country under section 198AD, the unauthorised maritime arrival must be taken, under that section, to that country.
5 At the end of Division 9 of Part 2
Add:
206A Relevance of Ministerial intervention powers to deportation
(1) For the purposes of:
(a) determining whether section 200 applies to a non-citizen; or
(b) executing a deportation order in relation to a non-citizen under subsection 206(1);
it is irrelevant whether the Minister has been requested to exercise, or consider exercising, a Ministerial intervention power in relation to the non-citizen.
(2) Subsection (1) applies whether a request is made by:
(a) the non-citizen; or
(b) an officer of the Department; or
(c) any other person.
(3) Subsection (1) applies whether or not a request has been drawn to the Minister's attention.
Temporary suspension of deportation
(4) Despite subsection (1), if the Minister decides to consider whether to exercise a Ministerial intervention power (whether on request or otherwise) in relation to a non-citizen, the Minister must not order the deportation of the non-citizen, and the non-citizen must not be deported, during the period covered by subsection (5).
Period during which deportation is suspended
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), the period is 6 months starting on the day (the start day) the Minister decides to consider whether to exercise the Ministerial intervention power in relation to the non-citizen, unless:
(a) before the end of that 6 month period, the non-citizen has agreed, in writing, to a day occurring after the end of that 6 month period nominated, in writing, by the Minister—in which case the period ends on the agreed day (subject to paragraph (b)); or
(b) the period ends earlier under subsection (6).
(6) For the purposes of paragraph (5)(b), the period ends at the earlier of the following times:
(a) the end of the day the Minister decides not to exercise the power in relation to the non-citizen;
(b) the end of the day the Minister decides to stop considering whether to exercise the power in relation to the non-citizen;
(c) if the Minister exercises the power in relation to the non-citizen, and subsection (7) specifies a day—the end of that day;
(d) if the Minister exercises the power in relation to the non-citizen but the exercise does not result in the non-citizen being able to make a visa application—the end of the day that the Minister exercises the power.
(7) For the purposes of paragraph (6)(c), this subsection specifies the following days:
(a) in a case where, as a consequence of the exercise of the Ministerial intervention power, the non-citizen may make a visa application within a specified period—the last day of the period in which the non-citizen could make the visa application;
(b) in any other case where, as a consequence of the exercise of the power, the non-citizen may make a visa application—whichever of the following days occurs first:
(i) the last day of the period determined by the Minister in which the non-citizen could make the visa application;
(ii) the day that is 3 months after the Minister exercises the power.
6 Application of amendments
(1) The amendments of the Migration Act 1958 made by this Schedule apply in relation to a request made to the Minister to exercise, or consider exercising, a Ministerial intervention power in relation to a person, whether the request is made before, on or after the commencement of this Schedule.
(2) The amendments of the Migration Act 1958 made by this Schedule apply in relation to a decision by the Minister to consider exercising a Ministerial intervention power (whether on request or otherwise) in relation to a person, whether that decision is made before, on or after the commencement of this Schedule.
(3) If:
(a) apart from this subitem, the start day mentioned in subsection 197E(6), 198AHC(6) or 206A(5) of the Migration Act 1958, as inserted by this Schedule, is a day before the day on which this item commences; and
(b) none of the days mentioned in subsections 197E(7) and (8), 198AHC(7) and (8) or 206A(6) and (7) of that Act, as the case requires, are days before the day on which this item commences;
then the start day mentioned in subsection 197E(6), 198AHC(6) or 206A(5) of that Act, as the case requires, is taken to be the day on which this item commences.
(4) For the purposes of subitems (1) to (3), the power of the Minister under subsection 417(1) of the Migration Act 1958, as in force immediately before the commencement of Schedule 2 to the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024, is to be treated as if it were a Ministerial intervention power under the Migration Act 1958, as amended by this Schedule.
Note: Former subsection 417(1) of the Migration Act 1958 allowed the Minister to substitute, for the Tribunal's decision, a more favourable Part 7-reviewable decision.
(11) Page 14, at the end of the Bill (after proposed Schedule 3), add:
Schedule 4 — Contingent amendments
Migration Act 1958
1 Subsection 5(1) (definition of removal pathway non-citizen ) (the definition inserted by item 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act)
Repeal the definition.
2 Subsection 5(1) (paragraph (a) of the definition of removal pathway non-citizen ) (the definition inserted by item 4 of Schedule 1 to the Migration Amendment Act 2024 )
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(a) an unlawful non-citizen:
(i) who is required to be removed from Australia under section 198 as soon as reasonably practicable; or
(ii) who would be required to be so removed except for the operation of subsection 197E(5); or
3 Subsection 5(1) (before the note at the end of the definition of removal pathway non-citizen ) (the definition inserted by item 4 of Schedule 1 to the Migration Amendment Act 2024 )
Insert:
Note 1: For subparagraph (a)(ii), subsection 197E(5) temporarily suspends the duty to remove an unlawful non-citizen under section 198 if the Minister decides to consider whether to exercise a Ministerial intervention power in relation to the non-citizen. However, the suspension does not prevent other action being taken, or things being done, to facilitate or otherwise prepare for the removal of the non-citizen under section 198 (see subsection 197E(10)).
4 Subsection 5(1) (note to the definition of removal pathway non-citizen ) (the definition inserted by item 4 of Schedule 1 to the Migration Amendment Act 2024 )
Omit "Note", substitute "Note 2".
5 Subsection 5(1) (note to the definition of removal pathway non-citizen ) (the definition inserted by item 4 of Schedule 1 to the Migration Amendment Act 2024 )
Omit "paragraph (1)(c)", substitute "paragraph (c)".
6 Subsection 76E(6) (the subsection (6) added by item 2 of Schedule 2 to this Act)
Repeal the subsection.
7 Subsection 197D(2A) (the subsection (2A) inserted by item 6 of Schedule 2 to this Act)
Repeal the subsection.
8 Section 199B (at the end of the heading)
Add "—protection findings etc.".
9 Subsection 199B(1)
Repeal the subsection.
10 Subsection 199B(2) (heading)
Repeal the heading.
11 Subsection 199C(6)
Omit "mentioned in paragraph 199B(1)(b)", substitute "covered by paragraph (b) of the definition of that expression in subsection 5(1)".
I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Pauline Hanson's One Nation. The question is that the amendments on sheet 2491, circulated by Pauline Hanson's One Nation, be agreed to.
Pauline Hanson's One Nation's circulated amendments to the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024
(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 8 (line 22), omit the penalty, substitute:
Penalty: 25 years imprisonment or 900 penalty units, or both.
(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 8 (line 24), omit "12", substitute "36".
Question negatived.
I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator Thorpe on sheets 2597 and 2605. The first question is that, in schedule 1, items 2 and 4 and clauses 199C(5), 199E, 199F and 199G in item 3 stand as printed.
Senator Thorpe opposed items 2 and 4 and clauses 199C(5), 199E, 199F and 199G in item 3 of the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 in the following terms
SHEET 2597
(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 6 (lines 10 to 13), subsection 199C(5) to be opposed.
(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 8 (line 16) to page 9 (line 15), section 199E to be opposed.
_____
SHEET 2605
(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 12 to 15), to be opposed.
(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 9 (line 16) to page 12 (line 10), sections 199F and 199G to be opposed.
(4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 12 (lines 11 and 12), to be opposed.
Question agreed to.
We now come to the second question. The question now is that the remaining Senator Thorpe amendments on sheets 2597 and 2605 and the amendments on sheets 2533, 2551, 2552, 2553, 2554, 2557 and 2596, be agreed to.
Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments to the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024
SHEET 2533
(1) Schedule 2, items 3 to 9, page 13 (line 11) to page 14 (line 16), omit the items, substitute:
3 Paragraph 197C(3)(c)
Omit "none", substitute "neither".
4 Subparagraph 197C(3)(c)(ii)
Repeal the subparagraph.
5 Section 197D
Repeal the section.
6 Section 408 (paragraph beginning "Part 7")
Omit "or to decisions under subsection 197D(2)".
7 Subparagraph 411(1)(d)(iii)
Omit "(b);", substitute "(b).".
8 Paragraph 411(1)(e)
Repeal the paragraph.
_____
SHEET 2551
(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 17), omit "Australia;", substitute "Australia.".
(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (lines 18 and 19), omit paragraph 199B(1)(d).
(3) Schedule 2, item 4, page 13 (line 19), omit ", (c) or (d)", substitute "or (c)".
(4) Schedule 2, item 6, page 14 (line 8), omit ", (c) or (d)", substitute "or (c)".
_____
SHEET 2552
(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 9 (line 1), omit "not".
_____
SHEET 2553
(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (line 18), omit paragraph 199D(2)(b), substitute:
(b) either:
(i) the application is not yet finally determined; or
(ii) a decision that has been made in respect of the application is subject to any form of judicial review or the period within which such a review could be instituted has not yet ended.
_____
SHEET 2554
(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (after line 4), insert:
199AA Rights of the child
(1) In making a decision under this Subdivision in relation to a child, the Minister must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.
(2) In determining what is in the best interests of the child, the Minister must have regard to the Convention on the Rights of the Child done at New York on 20 November 1989 ([1991] ATS 4), as amended and in force for Australia from time to time.
Note: The text of the Convention could in 2024 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (www.austlii.edu.au).
_____
SHEET 2557
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 9), omit "or (2)".
(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (after line 25), at the end of subsection 199C(1), add:
Note: For the circumstances in which the Minister must not give a direction under this subsection, see section 199D.
(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (lines 26 to 37), omit subsection 199C(2).
(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 6 (lines 4 to 9), omit subsection 199C(4), substitute:
Period for compliance
(4) A removal pathway direction must specify the period within which the non-citizen must do a specified thing.
(4A) The period specified in the direction must be no longer than 12 months.
(5) Schedule 1, item 3, page 6 (line 25), omit ", or not do a thing".
(6) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (line 5), omit ", or not do,".
(7) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (line 28), omit ", or not do,".
(8) Schedule 1, item 3, page 8 (lines 8 to 15), omit subsection 199D(6), substitute:
Court or tribunal proceedings etc.
(6) The Minister must not give a removal pathway direction to a removal pathway non-citizen directing the non-citizen:
(a) to discontinue court or tribunal proceedings; or
(b) to take particular steps in the conduct of such proceedings; or
(c) to withdraw a visa application made under this Act.
_____
SHEET 2596
(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 8 (lines 4 to 6), omit subsection 199D(5), substitute:
(5) The Minister must not give a removal pathway direction to a removal pathway non-citizen directing the non-citizen to do a thing in relation to a child under 18.
_____
SHEET 2597
(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (lines 20 to 30), omit subsection 199B(2), substitute:
Removal pathway non-citizens for whom protection findings have been made
(2) To avoid doubt, a removal pathway non-citizen for whom a protection finding has been made within the meaning of subsection 197C(4), (5), (6) or (7) may be given a removal pathway direction by the Minister.
Note: For the circumstances in which the Minister must not give a removal pathway direction, see section 199D.
_____
SHEET 2605
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 6 and 7), omit the definition of removal concern countryin subsection 5(1).
Question negatived.
I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator David Pocock on sheets 2494 and 2522. The first question is that the following stand as printed: in schedule 1, subsection 199E(2) in item 3; and, in schedule 2, items 3 to 9.
Senator David Pocock opposed subsection 199E(2) in item 3 of schedule 1, and items 3 to 9 of schedule 2, of the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 in the following terms
SHEET 2494
(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 8 (lines 23 to 25), subsection 199E(2) to be opposed.
_____
SHEET 2522
(1) Schedule 2, items 3 to 9, page 13 (line 11) to page 14 (line 16), to be opposed.
The question is that the following stand as printed: in schedule 1, item 3, in subsection 199E(2), and in schedule 2, items 3 to 9.
Question agreed to.
The next question is that the Senator David Pocock amendments on sheets 2492, 2493, 2497, 2520, 2521, 2602, 2603 and 2604 be agreed to.
Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments to the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024
SHEET 2492
(1) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 17), at the end of the Schedule, add:
6 Sunset of amendments
The amendments of the Migration Act 1958 made by this Schedule 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.
(2) Schedule 2, page 14 (after line 16), at the end of the Schedule, add:
10 Sunset of amendments
The amendments of the Migration Act 1958 made by this Schedule 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.
_____
SHEET 2493
(1) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 17), at the end of the Schedule, add:
6 Sunset of amendments
The amendments of the Migration Act 1958 made by this Schedule 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.
(2) Schedule 2, page 14 (after line 16), at the end of the Schedule, add:
10 Sunset of amendments
The amendments of the Migration Act 1958 made by this Schedule 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.
_____
SHEET 2497
(1) Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert:
4 Review of the operation of amendments
(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider:
(a) whether the operation of the amendments is consistent with Australia's international human rights obligations; and
(b) whether the operation of the amendments is consistent with Australia's non-refoulement obligations; and
(c) the likely impact of the operation of the amendments on the wellbeing, safety and family unity of removal pathway non-citizens who are given removal pathway directions; and
(d) the likely impact of the operation of the amendments on Australian citizens who are family members of such removal pathway non-citizens; and
(e) the likely impact of the operation of the amendments on Australian citizens who have family members residing in removal concern countries; and
(f) the likely impact of the amendments on Australia's international relations.
(3) The review must commence as soon as practicable after the end of 3 months after the day this section commences.
(4) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review as soon as practicable and, in any event, not later than 6 months after the day this section commences.
(5) The Minister must:
(a) prepare a written response to the report of the review; and
(b) cause a copy of the report, and of the Minister's response, to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 5 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.
(6) The following expressions used in this section have the same meaning in this section as in the Migration Act 1958:
(a) non-refoulement obligations;
(b) removal concern country;
(c) removal pathway direction;
(d) removal pathway non-citizen.
_____
SHEET 2520
(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 12), omit "visa;", substitute "visa.".
(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (lines 13 to 19), omit paragraphs 199B(1)(c) and (d).
(3) Schedule 1, item 5, page 12 (lines 14 and 15), omit "Paragraphs 199B(1)(b) and (c) of the Migration Act 1958, as inserted by this Schedule, apply", substitute "Paragraph 199B(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958, as inserted by this Schedule, applies".
(4) Schedule 2, item 4, page 13 (line 19), omit ", (c) or (d)".
(5) Schedule 2, item 6, page 14 (line 8), omit ", (c) or (d)".
_____
SHEET 2521
(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 9 (lines 1 to 12), omit subsection 199E(4).
_____
SHEET 2602
(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 8 (after line 15), at the end of section 199D, add:
Immediate family members
(7) The Minister must not give a removal pathway direction to (or in relation to) a removal pathway non-citizen who is the spouse, de facto partner or dependent child (within the meaning of the regulations) of:
(a) an Australian citizen; or
(b) the holder of a permanent visa that is in effect; or
(c) a person who is usually resident in Australia and whose continued presence in Australia is not subject to a limitation as to time imposed by law; or
(d) a non-citizen who has no country of nationality and who is residing, or who is usually resident, in Australia.
(8) The Minister must not give a removal pathway direction to a removal pathway non-citizen who is the parent of a child, under 18, who is:
(a) an Australian citizen; or
(b) the holder of a permanent visa that is in effect; or
(c) usually resident in Australia and whose continued presence in Australia is not subject to a limitation as to time imposed by law; or
(d) a non-citizen who has no country of nationality and who is residing, or who is usually resident, in Australia.
_____
SHEET 2603
(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 10 (after line 25), after paragraph 199G(1)(a), insert:
(aa) the non-citizen is:
(i) a government official of a removal concern country; or
(ii) a member of the immediate family (within the meaning of the regulations) of a government official of a removal concern country; and
(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 12 (after line 10), at the end of section 199G, add:
Definitions
(9) In this section:
government official, of a removal concern country, means an employee or official of:
(a) the government of the removal concern country or of part of the removal concern country; or
(b) an authority of the government of the removal concern country; or
(c) an authority of the government of part of the removal concern country; or
(d) a local government body, or regional government body, of the removal concern country.
_____
SHEET 2604
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (before line 6), before the definition of removal concern country, insert:
finally reviewed:
(a) in relation to a valid application for a visa: see subsection (10A); and
(b) in relation to a request to the Minister to exercise a power: see subsection (10B).
(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 12), before item 2, insert:
2A Before subsection 5(10)
Insert:
(10A) A valid application for a visa is finally reviewed when:
(a) the application is finally determined; and
(b) a decision that has been made in respect of the application:
(i) is not, or is no longer, subject to any form of judicial review; or
(ii) was subject to some form of judicial review, but the period within which such a review could be instituted has ended without a review having been instituted.
(10B) A person's request for the Minister to exercise a power in relation to the person is finally reviewed when:
(a) a decision has been made in respect of the request:
(i) to not consider whether to exercise the power; or
(ii) to exercise, or not exercise, the power; and
(b) a decision that has been made in respect of the request:
(i) is not, or is no longer, subject to any form of judicial review; or
(ii) was subject to some form of judicial review, but the period within which such a review could be instituted has ended without a review having been instituted.
(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (lines 13 to 18), omit subsection 199D(2), substitute:
Non-citizens who have applied for visas or requested Ministerial intervention
(2) The Minister must not give a removal pathway direction to a removal pathway non-citizen if:
(a) the non-citizen has made a valid application for a visa and the application is not yet finally reviewed; or
(b) the non-citizen has made a request to the Minister to exercise the Minister's power under subsection 48B(1), 351(1), 417(1) or 501J(1) in relation to the non-citizen and the request is not yet finally reviewed.
Non-citizens who have had visa applications finally reviewed
(2A) If a removal pathway non-citizen has made a valid application for a visa that is finally reviewed, the Minister must not give a removal pathway direction to the non-citizen within the period of 28 days starting on the day the application is finally reviewed.
Note: The non-citizen could, for example, make a request within that 28-day period to the Minister to exercise a power mentioned in paragraph (2)(b) in relation to the non-citizen.
(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (before line 19), before subsection 199D(3), insert:
Non-citizens who are unauthorised maritime arrivals
(3A) The Minister must not give a removal pathway direction to a removal pathway non-citizen if:
(a) the non-citizen is an unauthorised maritime arrival; and
(b) the Minister has not exercised the Minister's power under subsection 46A(2) to determine that subsection 46A(1) does not apply to an application by the non-citizen for a visa of a specified class.
Note: This subsection applies whether or not the non-citizen has made a request to the Minister to exercise the power.
Non-citizens who are transitory persons
(3B) The Minister must not give a removal pathway direction to a removal pathway non-citizen if:
(a) the non-citizen is a transitory person; and
(b) the Minister has not exercised the Minister's power under subsection 46B(2) to determine that subsection 46B(1) does not apply to an application by the non-citizen for a visa of a specified class.
Note: This subsection applies whether or not the non-citizen has made a request to the Minister to exercise the power.
Non-citizens who are holders of temporary safe haven visas
(3C) The Minister must not give a removal pathway direction to a removal pathway non-citizen if:
(a) the non-citizen is a non-citizen to whom Subdivision AJ of Division 3 of Part 2 (temporary safe haven visas) applies; and
(b) the Minister has not exercised the Minister's power under subsection 91L(1) to determine that section 91K does not apply to an application for a visa by the non-citizen.
Note: This subsection applies whether or not the non-citizen has made a request to the Minister to exercise the power.
(5) Schedule 1, item 3, page 9 (line 12), omit "or who have applied for a protection visa", substitute ", who have applied for a visa or requested Ministerial intervention".
Question negatived.
I will deal now with Committee of the Whole amendments to the Migration Amendment Bill 2024, starting with the amendments circulated by Senator David Pocock. The first question is that the Senator David Pocock amendments on sheets 3166 be agreed to.
Senator David Pocock 's circulated amendments to the Migration Amendment Bill 2024
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 16), after paragraph 76AAA(1)(c), insert:
(ca) the non-citizen has been convicted by a final judgment of a serious offence; and
(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (after line 5), at the end of section 76AAA, add:
(10) In this section:
serious offence has the same meaning as in Part 070 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (lines 12 to 14), omit all the words from and including "whether" to the end of the item, substitute:
whether:
(a) the Subclass 070 (Bridging (Removal Pending)) visa, or the permission of the foreign country, was granted; or
(b) the serious offence was committed;
before, on or after the commencement of this item.
(4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (line 15), omit "Australia; or", substitute "Australia".
(5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (lines 16 to 21), omit paragraph (d).
(6) Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (lines 21 to 22), omit ", (c) or (d)", substitute "or (c)".
Question negatived.
We now come to sheet 3167. The question is that schedule 2 stand as printed.
Senator David Pocock opposed schedule 2 to the Migration Amendment Bill 2024 in the following terms
(1) Schedule 2, page 9 (line 1) to page 11 (line 8), to be opposed.
Question agreed to.
I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator Thorpe. We come to sheet 3177. The first question is that schedule 1, items 6 to 9, stand as printed.
Senator Thorpe opposed schedule 1 to the Migration Amendment Bill 2024 in the following terms
(1) Schedule 1, items 6 to 9, page 6 (line 27) to page 7 (line 24), to be opposed.
Question agreed to.
The next question is that the remaining Senator Thorpe amendments on sheet 3177 and the amendments on sheet 3173, 3174, 3175 and 3176 be agreed to.
Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments to the Migration Amendment Bill 2024
SHEET 3173
(1) Schedule 5, item 1, page 19 (after line 10), after section 198AHB, insert:
198AHC Requirement to consider Australia's non-refoulement obligations
(1) The Commonwealth must not enter into an arrangement (third country reception arrangement) with a foreign country in relation to the removal of non-citizens from Australia and their acceptance, receipt or ongoing presence in the foreign country unless:
(a) the Minister has considered whether the arrangement is consistent with Australia's non-refoulement obligations; and
(b) the Minister is satisfied that the arrangement is consistent with Australia's non-refoulement obligations.
(2) This section limits:
(a) the executive power of the Commonwealth; and
(b) any other power or duty under this Act to the extent that it is relevant to the Commonwealth entering into a third country reception arrangement.
(3) In this section:
arrangement includes an arrangement, agreement, understanding, promise or undertaking, whether or not it is legally binding.
_____
SHEET 3174
(1) Page 25 (after line 14), after Schedule 7, insert:
Schedule 8 — Prohibiting removal and deportation of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander individuals
Migration Act 1958
1 In the appropriate position in Division 8 of Part 2
Insert:
Subdivision E — Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander individuals
199H Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander individuals must not be removed
Despite any other provision of this Division, an individual who is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander must not be removed from Australia unless the individual agrees to the removal.
2 In the appropriate position in Division 9 of Part 2
Insert:
206A Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander individuals must not be deported
Despite any other provision of this Division, an individual who is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander must not be deported from Australia unless the individual agrees to the deportation.
_____
SHEET 3175
(1) Page 25 (after line 14), after Schedule 7, insert:
Schedule 9 — Prohibiting removal and deportation of individuals with immediate family in Australia
Migration Act 1958
1 In the appropriate position in Division 8 of Part 2
Insert:
Subdivision F — Individuals with immediate family in Australia
199J Individuals with immediate family in Australia must not be removed
(1) Despite any other provision of this Division, an individual must not be removed from Australia if the individual is the spouse, de facto partner or dependent child (within the meaning of the regulations) of:
(a) an Australian citizen; or
(b) the holder of a permanent visa that is in effect; or
(c) a person who is usually resident in Australia and whose continued presence in Australia is not subject to a limitation as to time imposed by law; or
(d) a non-citizen who has no country of nationality and who is residing, or who is usually resident, in Australia.
(2) Despite any other provision of this Division, an individual must not be removed from Australia if the individual is the parent of a child, under 18, who is:
(a) an Australian citizen; or
(b) the holder of a permanent visa that is in effect; or
(c) usually resident in Australia and whose continued presence in Australia is not subject to a limitation as to time imposed by law; or
(d) a non-citizen who has no country of nationality and who is residing, or who is usually resident, in Australia.
2 In the appropriate position in Division 9 of Part 2
Insert:
206B Individuals with immediate family in Australia must not be deported
(1) Despite any other provision of this Division, an individual must not be deported from Australia if the individual is the spouse, de facto partner or dependent child (within the meaning of the regulations) of:
(a) an Australian citizen; or
(b) the holder of a permanent visa that is in effect; or
(c) a person who is usually resident in Australia and whose continued presence in Australia is not subject to a limitation as to time imposed by law; or
(d) a non-citizen who has no country of nationality and who is residing, or who is usually resident, in Australia.
(2) Despite any other provision of this Division, an individual must not be deported from Australia if the individual is the parent of a child, under 18, who is:
(a) an Australian citizen; or
(b) the holder of a permanent visa that is in effect; or
(c) usually resident in Australia and whose continued presence in Australia is not subject to a limitation as to time imposed by law; or
(d) a non-citizen who has no country of nationality and who is residing, or who is usually resident, in Australia.
_____
SHEET 3176
(1) Schedule 5, item 1, page 18 (after line 29), after subsection 198AHB(4), insert:
(4A) As soon as practicable after the end of a financial year, the Secretary must prepare a report that contains the following information about each third country reception arrangement that was in force at any time in the financial year:
(a) details of the third country reception arrangement, including the foreign country that is a party to the arrangement;
(b) the age and nationality of each non-citizen that was accepted, received or present in the foreign country in the financial year in accordance with the third country reception agreement;
(c) details of any action taken, or caused to be taken, by (or on behalf of) the Commonwealth in the financial year in relation to the third country reception agreement or the third country reception functions of the foreign country;
(d) details of any payments made, or caused to have been made, by (or on behalf of) the Commonwealth in the financial year in relation to the in relation to the third country reception agreement or the third country reception functions of the foreign country;
(e) details of any other thing done by (or on behalf of) the Commonwealth in the financial year that is incidental or conducive to the taking of action referred to in paragraph (c) or the making of payments referred to in paragraph (d);
(f) any other information prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.
(4B) The Secretary must:
(a) give the report to the Minister; and
(b) publish the report on the Department's website;
as soon as practicable after the report is prepared and no later than 90 daysafter the end of the financial year.
(4C) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.
_____
SHEET 3177
(2) Schedule 1, item 11, page 7 (line 28), omit "(1)".
(3) Schedule 1, item 11, page 8 (lines 1 to 3), omit subitem (2).
(4) Page 25 (after line 14), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 10—Repeal of section 197D
Migration Act 1958
1 Subparagraph 197C(3)(c)(ii)
Repeal the subparagraph.
2 Section 197D
Repeal the section.
Question negatived.
I will now deal with Committee of the Whole amendments to the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2024 circulated by Senator David Pocock on sheet 3213. The question is that section 252BB in item 19 of schedule 1 stand as printed.
Senator David Pocock opposed section 252BB in item 19 of schedule 1 to the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2024 in the following terms
(11) Schedule 1, item 19, page 18 (line 19) to page 19 (line 23), section 252BB to be opposed.
Question agreed to.
The question now is that the remaining Senator David Pocock amendments on sheet 3213 be agreed to.
Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments to the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2024
(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 5 to 8), omit paragraph 251A(2)(b), substitute:
(b) there is a risk (an immigration detention facility risk) that the thing might be used in an immigration detention facility to commit an offence against:
(a) a law of the Commonwealth; or
(b) a law of the State or Territory in which the facility is located.
(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (lines 17 and 18), omit paragraph 251AA(3)(b), substitute:
(b) the prohibited thing is being used, or is intended to be used, in an immigration detention facility to commit an offence against:
(i) a law of the Commonwealth; or
(ii) a law of the State or Territory in which the facility is located.
(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 7 (lines 1 to 2), omit subparagraph 251AA(7)(b)(v).
(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 8 (after line 6), after section 251AA, insert:
251AAA Search and screening powers only to be exercised by certain authorised officers
(1) Despite any other provision of this Division, a power covered by subsection (2) may only be exercised by an authorised officer who is:
(a) the Secretary of the Department; or
(b) the Australian Border Force Commissioner; or
(c) an officer of the Department; or
(d) a person who is a protective service officer for the purposes of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979; or
(e) a member of the Australian Federal Police; or
(f) employed by the Commonwealth.
(2) This subsection covers the power of an authorised officer to conduct a search or screening procedure under the following provisions:
(a) section 252 (searches of detainees etc.—general powers of personal search and seizure);
(b) section 252AA (searches of detainees—screening procedures);
(c) section 252A (searches of detainees—strip searches);
(d) section 252BA (searches of certain immigration detention facilities—general).
(3) In this section, a reference to the exercise of a power under a provision of this Act includes a reference to the exercise of any particular aspect of the power under any particular part of that provision, and of any related power (or any particular aspect of such a related power).
(5) Schedule 1, item 2, page 8 (line 13), omit "under subsection (2)", substitute "under subsections (2) and (3)".
(6) Schedule 1, item 2, page 8 (after line 32), at the end of section 251AB, add:
(3) The alternative means of communication meets the requirements under this subsection if:
(a) the alternative means of communication is available to the detainee:
(i) for free; and
(ii) at any time; and
(iii) in private; and
(b) the use of the alternative means of communication is under the control of the detainee.
(7) Schedule 1, item 4, page 12 (lines 18 and 19), omit ", whether or not the officer has any suspicion", substitute "only if the officer reasonably suspects".
(8) Schedule 1, item 8, page 15 (line 18), omit ", whether or not the officer has any suspicion", substitute "only if the officer reasonably suspects".
(9) Schedule 1, item 19, page 17 (lines 29 to 31), omit subsection 252BA(3), substitute:
(3) An authorised officer may conduct a search under subsection (1) or (2) only if the officer reasonably suspects:
(a) there is a weapon or escape aid at the facility; or
(b) there is a prohibited thing at the facility.
(10) Schedule 1, item 19, page 18 (lines 3 to 14), omit subsections 252BA(4) to (6).
(12) Schedule 1, item 30, page 25 (lines 10 and 11), omit "whether or not, before making the request, the officer has any suspicion", substitute "only if the officer reasonably suspects".
Question negatived.
The question now is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and the bills be now passed.
The question before the Senate is that the second reading amendment standing in the name of Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to.
We now come to the second second reading amendment, standing in the name of Senator Roberts. The question is that the second reading amendment standing in the name of Senator Roberts be agreed to.
Pauline Hanson's One Nation's circulated amendment—
Omit all words after "That", substitute "further consideration of the bill be postponed until Wednesday, 12 February 2025".
The question is that the bill now be read a second time.
I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to government amendments to be moved to the bill. I seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (8) on sheet SY115 together:
Leave granted.
I move:
(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 6 (after line 29), after section 63D, insert:
63DA Information that must not be collected
(1) A provider of an age-restricted social media platform must not collect information:
(a) for the purpose of complying with section 63D; or
(b) for purposes that include the purpose of complying with section 63D;
if the information is of a kind specified in the legislative rules.
Civil penalty: 30,000 penalty units.
(2) Before making legislative rules specifying a kind of information for the purposes of subsection (1), the Minister:
(a) must seek advice from the Commissioner, and must have regard to that advice; and
(b) must seek advice from the Information Commissioner, and must have regard to that advice.
(3) Section 63D does not apply to the provider of an age-restricted social media platform if, because of legislative rules made for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, there are no reasonable steps that the provider could take in order to comply with section 63D.
Note: In proceedings for a civil penalty order against a person for a contravention of section 63D, the person bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in this subsection (see section 96 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014).
63DB Use of certain identification material and services
(1) A provider of an age-restricted social media platform must not:
(a) collect government-issued identification material; or
(b) use an accredited service (within the meaning of the Digital ID Act 2024);
for the purpose of complying with section 63D, or for purposes that include the purpose of complying with section 63D.
Civil penalty: 30,000 penalty units.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) the provider provides alternative means (not involving the material and services mentioned in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b)) for an individual to assure the provider that the individual is not an age-restricted user; and
(b) those means are reasonable in the circumstances.
Note: In proceedings for a civil penalty order against a person for a contravention of subsection (1), the person bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in this subsection (see section 96 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014).
(3) This section does not limit section 63DA.
(4) In this section:
government-issued identification material includes:
(a) identification documents issued by the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, or by an authority or agency of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory (including copies of such documents); and
(b) a digital ID (within the meaning of the Digital ID Act 2024) issued by the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, or by an authority or agency of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.
(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 7 (line 1), omit the heading to section 63E, substitute:
63E Delayed effect of requirement to take reasonable steps to prevent age-restricted users having accounts
(3) Schedule 1, item 7, page 7 (line 6), omit "earlier", substitute "later".
(4) Schedule 1, item 7, page 9 (line 9), after "section 63D", insert "or subsection 63DA(1) or 63DB(1)".
(5) Schedule 1, item 7, page 9 (line 27) to page 10 (line 12), omit section 63J, substitute:
63J Platform provider notifications — failure to take reasonable steps
If the Commissioner is satisfied that the provider of an age-restricted social media platform has contravened:
(a) section 63D (failing to take reasonable steps to prevent age-restricted users having accounts); or
(b) subsection 63DA(1) (collecting information); or
(c) subsection 63DB(1) (identification material and services);
the Commissioner may:
(d) prepare a statement to that effect; and
(e) give a copy of the statement to the provider of the platform; and
(f) if the Commissioner considers that it is appropriate to publish the statement—publish the statement on the Commissioner's website.
63K Platform provider notifications — privacy
If the Information Commissioner is satisfied that the provider of an age-restricted social media platform has used, disclosed or failed to destroy information in a way that is taken to be an interference with privacy under subsection 63F(1) or (3) (privacy), the Information Commissioner may:
(a) prepare a statement to that effect; and
(b) give a copy of the statement to the provider of the platform; and
(c) if the Information Commissioner considers that it is appropriate to publish the statement—publish the statement on the Information Commissioner's website.
(6) Schedule 1, item 13, page 11 (after line 3), after paragraph (da), insert:
(daa) section 63DA;
(dab) section 63DB;
(7) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 4), after item 13, insert:
13A After section 222
222A Liability for damages — Information Commissioner
The Information Commissioner is not liable to an action or other proceeding for damages for, or in relation to, an act or matter in good faith done or omitted to be done:
(a) in the performance or purported performance of any function; or
(b) in the exercise or purported exercise of any power;
conferred on the Information Commissioner by or under this Act.
(8) Schedule 1, item 16, page 11 (lines 13 to 21), omit section 239B, substitute:
239B Review of social media minimum age framework
(1) Within 2 years after the day section 63D takes effect in accordance with section 63E, the Minister must cause to be conducted an independent review of the operation of Part 4A.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must include consideration of:
(a) the adequacy of privacy protections in, and in relation to, Part 4A; and
(b) any other matters relating to the operation of Part 4A determined by the Minister.
(3) The Minister must cause to be prepared a written report of the review.
(4) The Minister must cause copies of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the report is given to the Minister.
Keeping Australians safe online is a top priority for the Albanese government. We are focused on positive solutions to issues of national concern, and the issue of harms to children and young people from social media is right up at the top of that list.
These amendments provide additional privacy-enhancing measures to part 4A of the Online Safety Act 2021. In practical terms, these amendments mean that no Australian will be forced to use government identification, including digital ID, for age-assurance on social media. This will give Australians confidence regarding the impact of the social media minimum-age obligation on their personal information. It does this through supplementary amendments. The first is a new section 63DA. This provides for the Minister for Communications to make legislative rules to exclude certain types of information being collected and used by platforms for the purposes of a minimum-age obligation. A breach of this provision gives rise to significant penalties.
The rule-making power enhances the privacy of users and their information. It gives the minister the discretion to prohibit the collection of specified kinds of information, subject to advice from both the eSafety Commissioner and Information Commissioner. This is an important change and will ensure the legislation continues to meet community expectations as technology evolves.
This is complemented by a new section 63DB. This new section provides that platforms must not collect identification issued by government or require the use of an accredited service, within the meaning of section 9 of the Digital ID Act 2024, as the only means of age-assurance to comply with the minimum-age obligation. To promote user choice and an inclusive set of assurance options, age restricted social media platforms will only be able to use government issued identification or accredited services under the Digital ID Act 2024 information or material if other alternative age assurance methods have been provided to users. Additionally, the bill expands on Australia's privacy framework by giving the information commissioner oversight over the privacy related aspects of the minimum age obligation. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner is best placed to ensure that privacy provisions are administered consistently and robustly.
Finally, any breaches of these proposed amendments give rise to significant penalties—a maximum of 30,000 civil penalty units, currently equivalent to $9.9 million, or 150,000 penalty units, currently equivalent to $49.5 million, if the provider is a body corporate. The penalty amounts are intentionally large. This reflects the important privacy implications of the provisions. It also sends a strong signal to social media platforms: treat Australians' privacy seriously. Australia has consistently paved the way in global online safety. These supplementary amendments will strengthen the already robust and strong privacy arrangements included in the original bill.
The coalition supports these amendments. We are pleased to say we have been involved in constructive negotiations with the government to strengthen the bill. One of the major issues we sought changes on related to privacy. This is a very important issue. We provided the proposed changes to the government, which of course have now been incorporated into this amendment. We are very pleased that the government has accepted our changes, which, as I said, are reflected in the government's amendments. The new provisions make it clear that people cannot be compelled to provide digital ID or government issued identity documents, such as drivers licences or passports, under this legislation. This has now, due to the hard work of the coalition, been explicitly prohibited.
There was a second important change as well regarding strengthening ministerial oversight. Following our negotiations with the government, changes will be made so that the communications minister will be able to make rules specifying information which social media platforms are not able to collect in order to comply with the legislation. This will enable the minister to make rules to ensure that guidelines issued under the legislation are appropriate and proportionate to the objectives of the law. These are both very significant changes which materially strengthen the bill. We, of course, thank the government for agreeing to make these changes.
The coalition has led the charge on this bill, and we know what has driven this. What has driven this is the very profound mental health concerns that so many young people are suffering as a result of social media. We know there is widespread concern and evidence about the severe mental health impact of social media on children. We've seen very disturbing global trends in youth mental health since the rise of social media, especially for girls. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, there has been a more than three-fold increase in the rate of intentional self-harm hospitalisations for girls under 14 from 2008-09 through to 2022-23. In recent years, there have also been very large increases in the rate of mental health issues amongst children and young people. As a 2022 independent report on self-harm, commissioned by Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration, noted, there have been very large increases in all intentional self-poisonings in older children and adolescents worldwide over the recent decade. We know that, particularly for the parents of the children who have tragically taken their own lives, passing this bill right now is absolutely critical.
I have a question for you, Minister, but I want to first reflect on the bravery of parents who've spoken out about the importance of this bill—parents like Mat and Kelly Howard, the parents of Charlotte O'Brien, with whom I met a couple of weeks ago. When I met with them, all I could say was that there are no words for the tragedy that they have suffered. Charlotte took her life in September after suffering systemic bullying, in part caused by social media. Her message to her mum and dad was that she wanted them to raise awareness about what she had endured; she wanted to see change. I cannot tell you how humbling it is to meet with parents like Mat and Kelly, to listen to their story and listen to their mission. As I say, I think it is absolutely incumbent on this parliament to do the right thing.
I want to also commend both the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton—who has led the charge on this; I'm pleased that the government has caught up—and the shadow minister for communications, Mr Coleman. They have really led the charge on behalf of the coalition. We have heard the cries of families who are suffering, and we cannot continue to allow this to happen.
Minister, does the government believe this legislation will force the tech giants to actually use their technology to help identify and remove underage kids? We're very cognisant, of course, that TikTok removed 76 million underage children from its platform around the world; one million young Australians are here in Australia. Minister, could you just provide confirmation in relation to that?
I should indicate that the government has been grateful for the willingness of the opposition to constructively engage in some of the ways that we might improve this bill. We have similarly been grateful to those senators who participated in the Senate inquiry. Many of them are here in the chamber this evening. We're also grateful for the many Australians who have spoken out about this issue, either in the context of the Senate's inquiries or in the broader public debate.
Senator Henderson, you spoke about some of the harms that you've observed in your interactions with families and with parents. I think, for many of us, this is a common experience in our interactions with parents, and also with teachers, because parents are deeply distressed about some of the material that their children are exposed to online. They are uncertain about how to navigate the peer pressure that children experience, from their friends and peers at school and at sport, to be in these social media environments. They are looking for support from government to help them navigate these questions.
These were not questions that were relevant questions when I was growing up—I think it's safe to portray my age here. There were other difficult questions for me to navigate as a young person. Parents, I think, are finding it very difficult. In my home state of New South Wales the ban on mobile phones in schools has made a significant difference to the behaviour of children in schools and the way that children interact socially at school. It is clear that while technology has brought really significant benefits, it's also brought non-trivial harms for children.
We are confident that there are technological solutions available to us. You cited the example of TikTok; it's been much canvassed. That platform was able to identify, by its own public statements, a very large number of underage users on its platform and remove them. That did not require access to government documentation. It was based on information already available to that platform.
The amendment that we are presently considering is actually based on that foundational understanding of the state of the technology. It may be that, in some instances, social media platforms choose to offer an option to users to provide government documentation, but what this amendment ensures is that that will not be able to be the only means, the only choice, offered to a potential user. What this amendment seeks to do is, in fact, to ensure that, on every occasion when a person is asked to engage in an age-assurance process, they have a choice, and it enlivens the obligations on technology companies to utilise the technology capabilities that they already possess to undertake this work and to make sure these platforms are safe and that people are using them in an appropriate way.
You just said that taking mobile phones off children at schools has been very successful. The question I have is: why can't you take mobile phones off children when they're at home? We take the phones off our children in the bedroom. We take the phones off them during the week days. They're allowed to have the mobile phone or the devices on the weekend, but that's in between sporting requirements, me forcing them to take the dog for the walk and their mother telling them to get out there on the trampoline or go gardening—whatever it is. So I'm confused as to why we can't have some good old-fashioned parental supervision. Whatever happened to the role of the parents in the family?
I've been advocating for years the need to have a parent stay at home while you're raising your children. I stayed at home for four years. I don't want to turn this into me saying women should stay at home—I've never said that. Dad should stay at home more often. Indeed, I was just talking to Senator Hanson-Young yesterday, and she was saying how she fought to have children in the chamber. What a great thing that is. Yet again we've got another example of the government thinking it can solve a problem.
I note Senator Henderson said before there are things like anorexia and that children are subjected to these things on the internet, and that's fair enough; they are. But these things have always been around. Kate Moss was criticised in the 1990s. I well remember Karen Carpenter, who died from anorexia in the late seventies or early eighties. We've always had to deal with issues with our children, and the important thing is that they have close parental supervision so that you can detect if something's going on.
The other thing is—and I've raise this before, but it's worth raising again—you can have software that monitors your children's activity. We do that already. We monitor our children. It is effective because we have a middle child that loves to get up at about three o'clock on a Sunday morning. The only way we can bust him is to actually—
Yes, he sneaks the iPad into his room. He's terrible! So, yet again, what guarantees do we have that this will actually be effective? I think you'll find that children are very good at getting around laws. What guarantees do we have that this will stop bullying? This won't stop bullying per se. What will stop bullying is, again, having a parent keep a close eye on the children while they're growing up and being in touch with your children so if they are being bullied you're aware of it.
I'll note a question raised the other day about VPNs. Thirty-three per cent of people in this country use VPNs, and I suspect most of that 33 per cent are probably people aged under 40 because most people over 40 probably wouldn't even know what a VPN is—that is, a virtual private network. The reply from the government in estimates was, 'We're going to get the social media companies to track the person if they have a VPN, through geotracking.' Here we've again got Big Brother surveillance coming in and watching every little thing we do, every breath you take. What is it? Every time we come down here, I feel like we're just holding the line, and we're not even doing that when it comes to government overreach and surveillance and command and control. So my question to you, Minister, is: why it is that parents can't be encouraged to keep the devices from their children? You have quoted an example of taking mobile phones off children in the schools, which is a good idea. Why can't that very simple principle be applied in this situation when it comes to children having a social media account and monitor it that way?
Thanks for the question. Perhaps I can say this: we have been really clear, and many of people participating in this debate, including the opposition leader, to be fair, have been very clear that this is not the only thing we would advocate to support families in relation to some of these challenging questions nor do we expect this intervention to be a silver bullet. However, what we do hear from parents is that this is very significant and they are looking for assistance because they are not receiving the support they expect should be available to them from the platforms themselves.
So one of the key features in the design of this bill is it really puts the onus on the platforms, not on the parents and not on the kids. We want platforms to simply take reasonable steps to ensure users under the minimum age cannot create or hold an account. I think, based on the tenure of your questioning and your contribution just now, you would accept the harms associated with excessive time online at the very least and it may be that you accept the harms associated with exposure to some of the more challenging features of social media. For example, the Australian psychological association, if you look at the evidence, found significant links between excessive social media use and poor sleep quality and poor mental health outcomes. In particular, they pointed to the use of algorithms and the influence of those algorithms and, frankly, the near-addictive nature of some of those algorithms, because they increase the likelihood of exposing young people to content that is inappropriate and negatively influential such as glorifying eating disorders, glorifying self-harm, or exposing young people to extremist content. I think it would be a matter of agreement across this chamber that those things are not acceptable and are not good for our kids and it is why this bill is being brought to this place.
I said to you earlier in my contribution that the onus is on the platforms, not on parents. For clarity, there are not any penalties for Australians who gain access to an age-restricted social platform and there aren't any penalties for parents or educators who provide that access. It is impossible, and we accept this, for governments to completely stop young people from accessing harmful products or content but we can help by asking the social media companies to play their role. One of the things we hear and was discussed, as I understand it, at the hearing that took place into this bill, is the significance of setting norms. The bill will set clear parameters and norms for our society and assist in ensuring the right outcomes.
Senator Canavan, on a point of order?
I rise on a point of order on relevance. The government and the opposition conspired to gag this debate tonight and the minister has taken up half the time, which I think was set aside for other senators who did not get an opportunity in the second reading debate to put points of view. The minister is repeatedly going over points that were already raised in the second reading debate by government ministers. So on the grounds of repetition, with the limited time we have, I would ask if we could be succinct and give all senators the respect and opportunity to contribute to this important debate.
I think the minister is in order. I'm sure the minister is aware of the different views of the chamber. Senator Henderson, I was going to go to Senator Lambie.
On the point of order, Chair—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I actually made a ruling on that. Senator Lambie.
I wanted to know what algorithm changes you have told the social media companies to make. What algorithm changes have you told them to make?
Thanks for the question, Senator Lambie. As I indicated in my response to Senator Rennick, we are not asserting that this bill represents all of the work that is needed to engage. One of the things that Minister Rowland has been very clear about is that she intends to legislate a duty of care. That goes to some of those questions around safety by design and the way the algorithms work, not just to affect, frankly, users under 16, but to affect all users of platforms of this kind. That's work she has indicated she intends to undertake. This is also important.
Can I just indicate to Senator Canavan, who made a set of points about his desire, I imagine, and expectation that other senators wish to contribute—that's perfectly fine, and I'm happy to try and keep my remarks as brief as possible. I was just now seeking to answer the question put to me by Senator Rennick. If senators direct questions to me, I do intend to answer them. I understand that sometimes in the committee stage senators wish to make a more general contribution, and that's fine as well.
There's no duty of care so far, because this won't come into effect for another 12 months. We haven't worked out what the duty of care is. We haven't worked out what the rules are. What about the data? Have you told them to destroy our data as soon as the social media companies receive it, or haven't you made that rule either?
Would you prefer I don't answer the questions? I've been asked a question. The bill contains really explicit requirements for data that is collected in relation to age assurance. What it may be used for and requirements for it to be destroyed—that is in the legislation.
On a point of order—all I asked was: are the social media companies destroying that data when they have finished with it? It's simple: yes or no.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I can't direct the minister—
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young, please. I can't direct the minister as to how they can answer the question. I'll make sure the minister is aware of the question and I call the minister.
Until the legislation passes, the privacy arrangements that are in the legislation are not in place. Social media companies are subject to some of Australia's privacy provisions, but the legislation actually establishes a higher standard in relation to the uses of information provided to these companies as part of meeting the requirements in this bill. It also requires the destruction of such data.
My remarks are directed to the minister but also to people listening at home to the Senate and to researchers and historians that will look back at this vote today in an attempt to understand what the hell the Senate was thinking. The amendment the government circulated, no doubt with the approval of the Liberal Party, answers that question. The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 can act to force every Australian to be the subject of a digital ID in the name of keeping children safe—and that's what my question is about.
The government accepted widespread public concern that the bill was designed to force everyone to get a digital ID and promised to include an amendment to specifically rule that out. In this government amendment that you've moved, SY115, new provision 63DB(1) excludes use of government issued identification or use of digital ID. That is great, except 63DB(2) provides that, if social media platforms can come up with an alternative means of assessing age that does not involve digital ID or government documents, they can—wait for it—accept a digital ID identification. In effect, this amendment specifies that a social media platform cannot use digital ID by itself but it can use digital ID as part of a more comprehensive verification. There's no need to guess what that could be; this bill contains the answer: age-assurance software. The company which has been awarded the tender for the age-assurance trial is a British company called Age Check Certification Scheme. whose main business is provision of digital IDs backed by age-assurance software.
TikTok has used age-assurance software to remove one million underage accounts from TikTok in Australia. This software can tell if a person is, for instance, under 12. That's useful. The smaller the gap between the user and target age—16 in this case—the less accurate it is. This software can't tell age within six months, and there's no way of knowing a person turned 16 on the day of their application. You just can't tell that from face scan. Accessing social media on your 16th birthday and, most likely, for months afterwards will require a second identifier containing the child's facial scan and their date of birth, which is a digital ID, which this company specialises in. You're setting them up.
I have criticised this bill as an opportunistic attempt to capitalise on the public desire for better regulation of social media to force all Australians to get a digital ID. I'll say that again. I have criticised this bill repeatedly, as have others, as an opportunistic attempt to capitalise on the public desire for better regulation of social media to force all Australians to get a digital ID. This amendment requires a change in my language, which is now that this bill is an opportunistic attempt to require every child, once they turn 16, to get a digital ID if they want to access social media. What age does the government's digital ID start from? Sixteen. What a coincidence! This wasn't the intention all along? That's misinformation.
This amendment exposes the original intention of the bell. Your amendment exposes the original intention of the bill, which was hidden in what looked like a poorly drafted bill. It wasn't poorly drafted; it was deliberately dishonest, and the short committee referral, which the government fought against, has exposed the deceit. The truth is now out there, and the decision before the Senate is a simple one. A vote for this bill is a vote to require every child to get a digital ID on their 16th birthday.
Compulsory digital IDs aside, there are many other reasons not to pass this bill. I will now share with the Senate and with posterity the words of Australian Human Rights Commission on the bill. One Nation fully supports the commission's position, which deserves to be included in the Hansard record of the debate:
Social media is a vital platform for young people to share their ideas and opinions, engage in dialogue, and participate in social and cultural activities. It can be a valuable educational tool by providing access to diverse perspectives, news and learning opportunities, as well as vital information about health, well-being and safety. A blanket ban risks unjustly curtailing these freedoms.
… … …
Social media is integral to modern communication and socialisation. Excluding young people from these platforms may isolate them from their peers and limit their ability to ability to access much-needed information and support. This is particularly important for young people from marginalised, vulnerable or remote communities.
These are the words of the Human Rights Commission.
The social media ban will rely on effective age assurance processes being adopted, which means that all Australians may be required to prove their identity in order to access social media. This may potentially require all Australians to provide social media companies with sensitive identity information, which poses a risk to our privacy rights in light of recent examples of data breaches and personal information being stolen.
… … …
Technological workarounds—such as VPNs and false age declarations—may undermine the effectiveness of the ban. Additionally, a ban will not address the root causes of online risks or make the platforms safer for everyone.
The workarounds to this measure have not received enough debate. The bill carves out gaming sites, many of which have a chat feature. Children will move over to chatrooms and gaming sites which are not supervised. Tor—or, more accurately, onion routing—will provide another avenue for communication which is designed to make supervision exponentially harder than on mainstream social media platforms. I have advice from a leading internet security company that peer-to-peer social media, which again is harder for parents to supervise than current social media platforms, is making a comeback. As a result of this legislation, children will be exposed to more harm, not less. I had a call from a constituent—
You are right.
It's not often Senator Hanson-Young tells me I'm right. A moment ago, I had a call from a constituent who had called their local Liberal member of parliament about this bill and was told, 'Oh, it's okay; you can just sign up for your children.' With age-assurance software, that will not work. With Digital ID connected to age-assurance software, the social media platform will know what you're doing. Don't be telling people: 'It's nothing. You can defeat it. You can still talk to Grandad on Facebook.' You won't be able to. Children may be able to use VPNs, virtual private networks, and the new PPNs, personal private networks, to appear to be in another country. That really won't work either. The keystroke logging that accompanies the age-assurance software will assume someone pretending to be in Canada but interacting with Australian accounts is probably using a VPN.
Minister, why did you say that this won't lead to Digital ID when your amendment says exactly that?
I appreciate the many pieces of advice I've had about how I might answer questions, but I'll answer the questions in the way that I think is most appropriate to give Australians the information that I think is necessary in relation to the bill. So thanks for all of the free advice, but I'll just answer the questions.
Senator Roberts, I think, foundationally misunderstands the amendment that's before him. The amendment specifically seeks to set up the circumstances where a platform may not require a person to provide a government form of identification, including identification within the meaning of section 9 of the Digital ID Act, as the only means of assuring age. The platforms must provide another option. That's to deal with the concern you and others have raised, Senator, which is that you do not believe that it ought to be compulsory for such material to be provided for the purposes of age assurance. That is precisely what the amendment before you seeks to do.
I think from the debate it's very clear that we are not sure yet whether this hasty, blunt attempt will do anything to reduce the social harms of social media to children, but what we do know for sure is that we have successfully disillusioned a whole generation of Australians with Australian politics. A whole generation of Australians have watched this sordid saga play out over the past week and have been completely disillusioned with their democratic process, which they should have an involvement in. We have completely denied them their voice. Maybe we've scheduled the debate for 10.30 pm on the last day of 'school' because we know that all the people who will be impacted by this ban will be in bed. It's past their bedtime. They can't even watch it.
They haven't been able to have a process through the Senate inquiry. We had 15,000 submissions in 24 hours, and we had an inquiry of three hours the day after. Nobody, of course, could read anything but a fraction of those submissions. Less than one per cent of them were published on the website before the report. This is an absolute outrage and a stitch-up of grand proportions.
I don't think it's going to work. I don't have time tonight, because I want to let other senators speak. I don't think it is going to work. I know that the stitch-up is in. I am going to try to make the bill better. I am going to try to fix the issue that Senator Roberts logically pointed out: why are we letting Digital ID be a means of identification at all? It's not used at the moment at all, really. It's not in widespread use, so why don't we just rule that out right now? If it's something that comes into use in years to come, we can always change the law. There's a review built into this law in two years time. We can do it then. If we are serious about responding to the concerns about Digital ID, let's just get rid of it. My amendment would do that.
Also, why is it that this bill seeks to—we think, the minister says—help parents, but the word 'parent' is not mentioned at all? There is not a single mention of the word 'parent' in this bill. Why? Why aren't we helping parents, rather than trying to replace them? That's what this bill tries to do; it tries to set up a nanny state. We here in Canberra think that we can pass this law and all look at how great we are and pat ourselves on the back for how we've saved the world. But the bill won't do that; it won't help at all. Parents use their own agency, their interaction with their children to use social media responsibly.
So I have an amendment which will allow some children to continue to use social media with parental approval. It's based on the law in Florida that's just went through. Our inquiry barely looked at that law. It went through after an actual process. It got vetoed by the governor in the first instance. It went back to congress in Florida, and they've approved it. That's the way democracy should work. But we have completely ridden roughshod over that with this hasty, truncated process this week.
I have another amendment that would narrow the definition. There is a ridiculous definition in this bill which basically captures any app that enables interaction between two or more people, which is basically everything you do on the internet. It's going to cover apps like Strava for bike riding. It's going to cover apps like Deputy which are used by people who work. Fourteen-year-olds can get a job, but apparently they can't have social media. I know the minister's going to say we'll exempt them, but why create this uncertainty when, again, the Florida law has a much more targeted definition which focuses the law on apps which cause social harm. That's what we should be focusing on.
I don't have the time to go through the other amendments in detail. I want to let other senators have their turn. But I come back to the point that a whole generation has been activated by this process. There is a silver lining, perhaps. Right now a guy called Mr Anthony Khallouf is running a livestream of our broadcast here. He has 38,000 people watching. The official YouTube channel of parliament has 800. He's got 38,000 young people absolutely pissed off with this parliament right now watching. They are totally angry, and those people are going to grow up and they're going to keep voting. And I think there will be a lot of change coming to our parliament in years to come if we keep ignoring those people, like we are tonight.
What a sham this is. This is a piece of legislation that does not do what the government or the Leader of the Opposition propose that it does. It doesn't make social media safer. It doesn't make children and young people safer online. It's a sham. The whole process has been a sham. The bill has been rushed through with limited inquiry—three hours of inquiry—and with no ability for the bureaucrats to actually answer questions properly, all under the guise that this is urgent and needs to be done, but it doesn't take place for another 12 months.
I'll tell you what this is about. This is about the pretence that parents over the summer holidays can tell their kids: 'It's illegal to be on your phone. It's illegal to be on social media. Get off it. The Prime Minister says, the Leader of the Opposition says, the parliament says, it's illegal, kids. It's not my fault. I'll take it away.' It doesn't actually make social media safer for young people, and that's the devastating thing about this. We know that there are families who are struggling with this. We know there are young people who are struggling with their body image and their connection with their community, their peers. There are young people who are finding themselves addicted to these dangerous algorithms. But this bill doesn't do any of that; this bill does none of that. All this bill does is gives the government and Peter Dutton the illusion, the fig leaf, that they've given parents some certainty. You can say, 'Look, kids, it's illegal.' This is a rubbish bill. It has no substance, and it doesn't even take place for another 12 months. This bill is so weak, is such a veneer. It's to make old people, oldies, adults feel like they've done something. It's a false sense of security. It's also obvious that the people who have drafted and fought for the particular elements of this bill actually have no idea how young people engage with the internet—absolutely no idea. It's almost embarrassing. This is boomers trying to tell young people how the internet should work. That's what this bill is: boomers trying to tell teenagers and young people how the internet should work to make themselves feel better.
We have Australian artists in this country who have only been discovered because young people have found them on YouTube and they've engaged with their music, their creativity. This is going to put an axe through Australian creatives. The government hasn't even thought about that. The opposition leader hasn't even thought about that. The consequences of this bill are going to reach far further than this government and this parliament has been able to uncover.
It is being rushed through. It hasn't been considered properly. It's not even going to take place for 12 months. There is no excuse for doing it in this way, except for the desperation that the Prime Minister had to match the dare that the Leader of the Opposition put, which was get it in place before Christmas. It's pathetic. It's a headline. It doesn't do what they say it will do. It creates a more unsafe culture and platform and environment and will have unintended consequences. I can't fathom who in the Leader of the Opposition's office is advising him and who is advising the government to understand that this was a good idea to rush through. The Leader of the Opposition called the Prime Minister's bluff, and the Prime Minister blinked. Silly, silly, silly. This is a piece of legislation that says boomers want to control what young people access online. They don't even know how it works. It's pathetic.
We are running out of time, which is the most regrettable part of this entire situation. All of us in here have had a lot to say about this bill because it's so complicated. One of the issues we've got is that this bill required a deep, fulsome look. Instead we got the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 introduced into the House this time last week, Thursday of last week. It was then put through to a committee, the hearing was on Monday, the report was delivered two days ago and now here we are. It's an extraordinary sequence of events for something that is highly complicated. We just heard the previous speaker, Senator Hanson-Young, quite rightly say that we don't know what the long-term effect of this bill on various platforms is. We don't know because it keeps evolving. This time last week we were told Snapchat was out and YouTube was in, in terms of the ban. How far we've come in a week. It's extraordinary.
We all hear the stories about bullying. We hear and have a lot of concern about that. We don't want to discount those concerns by any stretch, but we are in the process, in this chamber tonight, of throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. We've heard the Human Rights Commission, we've heard commentators and others from across the country tell us about the thing that we're not talking about, which is the value of social media to kids.
Commissioner Finlay from the Human Rights Commission wrote an article in the paper this week stating very clearly, and very correctly, that in fact there are lots of instances where children benefit greatly from social media, including but not limited to instances of social isolation, the tyranny of distance and sometimes even with learning difficulties and so forth. So this has not been considered enough. The fact that we're standing here now rushing, with ten minutes to go, when many of us couldn't even make proper contributions to a second reading debate is a disgrace.
Senator Canavan is absolutely right: what does this message send to the children of this country when we have spent all day talking about ourselves in this building, by the way—as we do all the time—and we've crammed this critical legislation in and made senators juggle between ministerial answers, which are being filibustered? This is not the way to conduct a democracy, and I think we're much the poorer for it.
I'm going to cut to the chase, because I think we still have other senators speaking. Let's be very clear about this. We don't know if this is going to work. We don't know if it will have any impact on the problem they're trying to solve here. If you want to see some of the most egregious abuse you'll ever see online, go online to a Call of Duty game and listen to the kids going at each other, talking about people—
An honourable senator: It's exempt.
It's exempt—quite right. So who has thought of that one, Minister? Who has taken that into account? Who ultimately is going to take responsibility when this goes the way of the Hindenburg, which it will, because it is a disaster waiting to happen?
The Prime Minister and the Minister for Communications have boasted that the passing of this bill will make Australia a world leader in online safety. They're wrong, because, if this bill passes, we won't be leading the world in online safety—we'll be leading ourselves and those naive enough to follow us down the road to further digital authoritarianism, as outlined by Senator Roberts today. My fear is that, when we finish tonight, we will have put another brick in the wall of a social-credit style system in this country. Let everybody look back on tonight as a night of shame.
The most important thing that we should all be thinking about and talking about in here is the affirmation that parental responsibility rests in the hands of parents, not in the federal government. I would have thought that that were a very simple statement, but apparently it's not. Apparently the government has to be our daddy now. I think it's absolutely ridiculous.
The fact that the Labor Party, along with the Liberal Party, have come together to take away parental rights and parental responsibility is, in my opinion, shameful. The fact that we are now in a position, in this country, where the government is so big, so unwieldy and so, in my opinion, authoritarian leaning that it's making decisions for parents is just wrong.
We didn't even get a chance to properly debate this bill. Look, mums and dads are the best people to raise their children as they see fit. It's their right. It's their responsibility. The government's determination to do the job of parents through this blanket ban of under-16s undermines the primacy of these parents. Like I said before, it's not the state's role to go around telling 16-year-olds and under what they can and can't do. Can you have friends on TikTok? No, the government is going to decide for you. Can you see your family photos on Instagram? The government is going to decide that for you. Can you get the news off Elon Musk's X platform? The government is going to decide that for you. It's wrong. Decisions are for parents. It's an intrusion of the state.
For that reason, obviously I'm not going to support this bill. I don't agree with it at all. Like Senator Antic mentioned before, it is another brick in the wall of an authoritarian digital tyranny that most people can't even see is being built around them right now. In my opinion, this bill has got nothing to do with kids. Like Senator Canavan said, parents don't even appear in the bill at all. It's about building that digital prison. It's about age verification for everybody in the country. We all know, whether the minister will admit it or not, that digital ID, combined with digital currency, is the foundation of a social credit type system. You are enabling right now a system in the future where the government will be able to control every single facet of your life and what you do online. We are creeping towards this totalitarian state very, very slowly, but it is happening.
At the end of the day, this bill is obviously ill-conceived. We're spending money on this. We're going to spend time on this. It is going to be a failure of a bill. If you really wanted to protect kids you would say, 'Let's put some programs together where we can help parents—teach parents, empower parents—to make better decisions for their own children. That's because, at the end the day, parental responsibility rests with parents, not with the government. Even though most of you have come together to rush this bill through, I want the record to show, I want history to show, that Senator Babet from the United Australia Party was against this bill, and I will vote against it.
If you want an example of how not to legislate something that is important and of moment to our community, have a look at this piece of legislation. It arrived in the parliament last Thursday, spent four hours in a Senate inquiry on Monday night, and we're expected to pass with effectively very little debate in this place. Quite frankly, the legislation deserved a proper parliamentary process, and this government shows its disrespect for the parliament and the Australian community by trying to shove it through in the way that it is.
As many across the chamber have said—and I'm surprised to see some of the 'coalition', if you like, that's opposing this legislation—it really hasn't had the work that needs to be done. This is a genuinely important issue for our community. I don't diminish for a moment the pain and anguish that people have felt through the impact of online bullying on their children and families. I don't diminish that for a moment. I feel it; I've been close to families who have seen it, as we most likely all have. But this is not the way to deal with it. This is not the way that a parliament properly deals with a matter of this moment. The concept of excluding a huge swathe of our community from a form of communication just does not sit well with me. I respect my colleagues and I respect the arguments that are being made by those who want to do something—and clearly we should be doing something—but this is not the way to do it.
In that circumstance, I cannot vote for this legislation. It should not be rammed through in the way that it is. It won't come into place until 2026, so the government should do the parliament and our community the respect of looking at this process properly, so we can make sure we can come up with something that will work—that will support our families and communities and mitigate the problems that are there. I fear that this is not it.
I want to ask a simple, practical question of the minister before we wrap this up. I've got a real-world example that's come to me. It's of a 15-year-old in a basketball team who communicates over Facebook Messenger with their coach and teammates. Will that person be able to continue to do that, even if they have parental approval, once this legislation comes into effect?
I'm advised that messaging and gaming are not intended to be covered by the purpose of the bill.
Opposition senators interjecting—
I have not finished speaking, in fact, Chair. In the minutes available, I will read this quote from a parent involved in a Safe on Social group. She said: 'What I've seen in the past 12 months alone has made it impossible for me to remain on the sidelines. For every mother sobbing on the phone or emailing me because her child has been humiliated or manipulated, there's another parent in despair because they don't know how to stop the chaos. I can no longer ignore that what we've been doing simply isn't working. Education alone is not enough.'
CANAVAN () (): To clarify, as I was trying to point out with limited time, you need a Facebook account to use Facebook Messenger. So how will that work?
The advice that I have is that these carve-outs will be able to be effective in relation to messaging products.
In the final 20 seconds, as I say this it is being live-streamed and up to 45,000 people are watching now. They're obviously very disappointed with the process this place has gone through. I think it's not the finest hour for our Senate to guillotine a debate of this importance to so many Australians. There was no need for this rush—absolutely no need for it. We could have done this next year and still had the intended start date. It's a real shame that we've got to this state in the Australian Senate.
Order! Senators, pursuant to the order agreed to earlier today, the time for consideration of the bill in detail has expired. The question now is that the government amendments on sheet SY115 be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The question now is that the Australian Greens amendments on sheet 3201 be agreed to.
Australian Greens ' circulated amendments—
(1) Clause 1, page 1 (line 6), after "Age", insert "and Digital Duty of Care".
(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 4), before item 1, insert:
1A At the end of section 3
Add:
; and (c) to impose reporting obligations on providers of online services regulated by this Act about the number of Australian end-users of those services; and
(d) to impose obligations on large providers of online services regulated by this Act to identify, mitigate and manage the risks of harm or detriment from those services to Australian end-users.
1B Section 4 (before the paragraph beginning "The complaints system for cyber-bullying")
Insert:
(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (after line 15), after the definition of age-restricted user in section 5, insert:
key personnel of a provider: see section 5C.
large provider of a regulated online service: see section 5B.
regulated online service: see section 5A.
(4) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 18), after item 3, insert:
3A After section 5
Insert:
5A Meaning of regulated online service
For the purposes of this Act, each of the following is a regulated online service:
(a) a designated internet service;
(b) a relevant electronic service;
(c) a social media service.
5B Meaning of large provider
For the purposes of this Act, a provider is a large provider of a regulated online service if:
(a) the provider provides the service during a calendar year to any one or more of the following:
(i) a total number of Australian end-users equal to or greater than 10% of the population of Australia;
(ii) 2.6 million or more Australian end-users;
(iii) 630,000 or more Australian end-users that are children; and
(b) the Minister, by notice given to the provider and published on a website maintained by the Department, determines that the provider is a large provider.
5C Meaning of key personnel
For the purposes of this Act, an individual is one of the key personnel of a provider if:
(a) the person holds a position in, or relating to, the provider; and
(b) because of that position, the person has actual or effective senior executive responsibility:
(i) for management or control of the provider; or
(ii) for management or control of a significant or substantial part or aspect of the operations of the provider.
3B Section 25 (after paragraph a)
Insert:
(aa) monitoring and enforcing the obligations of providers of regulated online services; and
(5) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 12), after item 6, insert:
6A After Part 2
Insert:
Part 2A — Minimum obligations of providers and key personnel of regulated online services
Division 1 — Simplified outline of this Part
(a) duty of care obligations; and
(b) the key personnel obligations; and
(c) the risk assessment obligations; and
(d) the risk mitigation obligations; and
(e) the transparency obligations; and
(f) the end-user privacy and control obligations.
Division 2 — Providers must comply with obligations
28A Obligations of all providers
A provider must comply with its reporting obligations under Division 3.
Civil Penalty: The greater of 100,000 penalty units or 10% of the annual turnover of the provider during the period of 12 months ending at the end of the month in which the provider contravened, or began to contravene, the provision.
28B Obligations of large providers
In addition to its obligations mentioned in section 28A, a large provider must also comply with each of the following:
(a) its duty of care obligations under Division 4;
(b) its key personnel obligations under Division 5;
(c) its risk assessment obligations under Division 6;
(d) its risk mitigation obligations under Division 7;
(e) its transparency obligations under Division 8;
(f) its end-user privacy and control obligations under Division 9.
Civil Penalty: The greater of 100,000 penalty units or 10% of the annual turnover of the provider during the period of 12 months ending at the end of the month in which the provider contravened, or began to contravene, the provision.
Division 3 — Reporting obligations
28C The reporting obligations of all providers
(1) The reporting obligations of a provider of a regulated online service are to publish the following information on a publicly available website:
(a) the total number of Australian end-users of the service during a month, averaged over the last 6 month period (the reporting period);
(b) the number of Australian end-users of the service that are children during a month, averaged over the last 6 month period (the reporting period).
within the period provided under subsection (2) and in accordance with the requirements under subsection (3).
Note: For the consequences of a contravention of these requirements, see section 28A.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the period is:
(a) for the reporting period ending immediately before 1 July 2025—1 July 2025; and
(b) for each successive reporting period—within 30 days of the end of that period.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), the information must:
(a) be in the form required by the legislative rules; and
(b) contain the details required by the legislative rules.
Division 4 — Duty of care obligations
28D The duty of care obligations of large providers
The duty of care obligations of a large provider of a regulated online service are:
(a) to take reasonable steps to conduct its business (including the design of systems and processes relevant to providing the service), and to provide the service, with honesty and integrity, and with due skill, care and diligence; and
(b) in conducting its business (including the design and operation of systems and processes relevant to providing the service) and providing the service, to take reasonable steps to prevent matters from arising that would (or would be likely to) cause harm or detriment to Australian end-users of the service.
Note: For the consequences of a contravention of these requirements, see section 28B.
Division 5 — Key personnel obligations
28E The key personnel obligations of large providers
(1) A large provider must notify the Commissioner if any of the following events occurs:
(a) an individual becomes one of the key personnel of the provider;
(b) an individual ceases to be one of the key personnel of the provider.
(2) The notification must:
(a) be given within 14 days after the event occurs; and
(b) be in the form approved by the Commissioner; and
(c) if the notification is of an individual becoming one of the key personnel of the provider—be accompanied by a signed declaration that the individual:
(i) is a fit and proper person; and
(ii) is a resident of Australia; and
(iii) meets the requirements (if any) set out in the legislative rules.
Note: For the consequences of a contravention of these requirements, see section 28B.
Division 6 — Risk assessment obligations
28F The risk assessment obligations of large providers
(1) A large provider of a regulated online service must undertake an assessment (a risk assessment) that identifies and assesses the risks associated with providing the service.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the provider must have regard to the following matters in undertaking a risk assessment:
(a) the dissemination of illegal and harmful materials;
(b) the dissemination of online scams;
(c) negative effects on electoral processes and public security;
(d) negative effects on civil and political rights, such as political freedoms, freedom of opinion and expression;
(e) negative effects on gender-based violence, children's best interest, public health;
(f) serious negative consequences to Australian end-users, including their physical and mental wellbeing;
(g) the matters (if any) specified in the legislative rules.
(3) Without limiting subsection (1), the provider must consider the following systems in undertaking a risk assessment:
(a) recommender systems and any other relevant algorithmic systems;
(b) content moderation systems;
(c) terms and conditions and their enforcement;
(d) systems for selection and presenting advertisements;
(e) relevant data related practices of the provider.
(4) The provider must exercise due diligence in undertaking the risk assessment.
(5) A risk assessment must be consistent with any relevant standards made under section 28G.
Provider must review and update risk assessments
(6) A large provider must review its risk assessment for the purpose of identifying and assessing any new or changed risks:
(a) if either of the following occur:
(i) the Commissioner communicates to the provider information that identifies or assesses risks associated with providing the service;
(ii) circumstances specified in the legislative rules; and
(b) in any event—at least once every 3 years.
(7) A large provider must update its risk assessment to address any issues identified by a review as soon as practicable after the review is completed.
Notification and publication requirements
(8) A large provider must, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year:
(a) give the Commissioner a copy of its risk assessment as prepared under subsection (1) or updated under subsection (7); and
(b) publish that risk assessment on a publicly available website.
(9) A risk assessment given or published under subsection (7) must be accompanied by a report including the following:
(a) details of the risks identified;
(b) indications of the severity of the risks;
(c) measures of the scale of the risks in Australia;
(d) a risk mitigation plan about managing and mitigating the risks in accordance with Division 7.
Note: For the consequences of a contravention of these requirements, see section 28B.
28G Commissioner may make standards
(1) The Commissioner may, by legislative instrument, make one or more standards about requirements for risk assessments.
Note: For varying or revoking a standard, see subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.
(2) Without limiting subsection 33(3A) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, standards under subsection (1) may provide differently for different kinds of entities, things or circumstances.
Division 7 — Risk mitigation obligations
28H The risk mitigation obligations of large providers
Risk mitigation policies, procedures and systems
(1) A large provider of a regulated online service must have policies, procedures and systems to monitor, manage and mitigate risks associated with providing the service.
(2) The policy, procedure or system must be consistent with any relevant standards made under section 28J.
Risk mitigation plans and measures
(3) A large provider of a regulated online service must prepare a risk mitigation plan in relation to risks identified in a risk assessment prepared by the provider under section 28F.
(4) The plan must identify measures to manage and mitigate those risks.
(5) Without limiting subsection (4), such measures may include any one or more of the following:
(a) changing the design, features or functioning of the regulated online service, including the online interface;
(b) changing the terms and conditions and their enforcement;
(c) changing content moderation processes;
(d) testing and changing algorithmic systems, including recommender systems;
(e) changing advertising systems, including the way advertisements are targeted at or presented to Australian end-users;
(f) improving internal business processes to maximise safety;
(g) collaborating with other digital services;
(h) taking targeted measures to improve child safety, such as age assurance or parental control tools;
(i) taking into account the best interests of children when making decisions;
(j) ensuring information and evidence about potential illegal activities is appropriately recorded and reported.
(6) The plan and the measures must be consistent with any relevant standards made under section 28J.
Providers must implement measures
(7) The provider must take reasonable steps to implement those measures.
Note: For the consequences of a contravention of these requirements, see section 28B.
28J Commissioner may make standards
(1) The Commissioner may, by legislative instrument, make one or more standards about either or both of the following:
(a) requirements for policies, procedures and systems to monitor, manage and mitigate risks;
(b) requirements for risk mitigation plans and measures.
Note: For varying or revoking a standard, see subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.
(2) Without limiting subsection 33(3A) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, standards under subsection (1) may provide differently for different kinds of entities, things or circumstances.
Division 8 — Transparency obligations
28K Annual transparency report
(1) A large provider of a regulated online service must prepare a report a transparency report) in respect of the 12 month period ending immediately before 1 July 2025 and each consecutive period of 12 months.
(2) A transparency report in respect of a period must include the following information:
(a) metrics about design, features and functioning of the service;
(b) metrics about access of the service by Australian end-users that are children;
(c) metrics about online scams, including Australian end-user reporting and response times;
(d) metrics about child sexual exploitation and abuse;
(e) metrics about content moderation;
(f) details about measures to prevent and deal with misuse;
(g) details about monthly number of Australian end-users;
(h) details about advertising on the service;
(i) the information (if any) required by the legislative rules.
(3) A transparency report in respect of a period must be published on a publicly available website within 30 days of the end of that period and in accordance with the requirements under subsection (4).
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the report must:
(a) be in the form required by the legislative rules; and
(b) contain the details required by the legislative rules.
Note: For the consequences of a contravention of these requirements, see section 28B.
28L Compliance audits
(1) The Commissioner may appoint or establish a person or body that is independent of the Commissioner to conduct an audit (a compliance audit) of a large provider of a regulated online service for the purpose of determining whether the provider is complying, or has complied, with this Part.
(2) The provider must:
(a) cooperate fully with the auditor in relation to the compliance audit; and
(b) provide the auditor with all reasonable facilities and assistance in relation to the compliance audit.
(3) This section does not limit any of the other powers or functions of the Commissioner or ACMA.
Note: For the consequences of a contravention of these requirements, see section 28B.
28M Making research data accessible to researchers
Researchers may request research data
(1) Subsection (2) applies if a researcher that is:
(a) either:
(i) affiliated with an Australian research organisation (including an academic entity or not-for-profit organisation); or
(ii) an Australian resident or permanent resident of Australia; and
(b) undertaking research for non-commercial purposes;
requests a large provider of a regulated online service to give, or make accessible, research data that is:
(c) collected using the service; and
(d) already established and maintained for the purposes of research.
Note: Examples of research data include research API access schemes.
Provider must ensure access to research data
(2) The provider must ensure that the research data is accessible to the researcher:
(a) as soon as reasonably practicable after the request is made; and
(b) where technically possible, in real-time.
(3) However, subsection (2) does not apply in relation to research data that includes:
(a) protected information; or
(b) personal information (within the meaning of the Privacy Act 1988); or
(c) any information the disclosure of which the provider reasonably considers might cause a significant security vulnerability for the service.
Note: For the consequences of a contravention of these requirements, see section 28B.
28N Public Information Register
(1) A large provider of a regulated online service must establish and maintain a register to be known as the Public Information Register.
(2) The register must contain the following information:
(a) information included in a report published by the provider under section 28C;
(b) information included in a risk assessment (including a risk mitigation plan) published by the provider under section 28F;
(c) information included in a transparency report published by the provider under section 28K;
(d) information (if any) prescribed by legislative rules made for the purposes of this paragraph.
(3) The provider must ensure that:
(a) a person may access the register to search for information contained in the register; and
(b) the register is operational at all times.
Note: For the consequences of a contravention of these requirements, see section 28B.
Division 9 — End-user privacy and control obligations
28P The end-user privacy and control obligations of large providers
The end-user privacy and control obligations of a large provider of a regulated online service are:
(a) to ensure that privacy settings for Australian end-users of the service default to maximum privacy protections; and
(b) to ensure that Australian end-users of the service can opt to reset or disable engagement based content recommender systems; and
(c) to ensure that Australian end-users of the service can opt out of targeted advertising.
Note: For the consequences of a contravention of these requirements, see section 28B.
Division 10 — Obligations of key personnel of large providers
28Q Obligations of key personnel of large providers
A person who is one of the key personnel of a large provider must conduct the responsibilities of their position:
(a) by acting with honesty and integrity, and with due skill, care and diligence; and
(b) by dealing with the Commissioner and ACMA in an open, constructive and cooperative way; and
(c) by taking reasonable steps in conducting those responsibilities to prevent matters from arising that would (or would be likely to) result in a material contravention by the provider of this Act or the legislative rules.
Penalty: 500 penalty units
(6) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 4), after item 13, insert:
13A Before paragraph 164(1)(a)
Insert:
(aa) section 28A;
(ab) section 28B;
13B Before paragraph 165(1)(a)
Insert:
(aa) section 28A;
(ab) section 28B;
13C Before paragraph 182(4)(a)
Insert:
(aa) section 28G;
(ab) section 28J;
13D After paragraph 182(4)(zb)
Insert:
(zba) section 194A;
13E After paragraph 183(2)(zb)
Insert:
(zba) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 194A during that year;
13F At the end of section 193
Add:
13G After section 194
Insert:
194A Commissioner may obtain information or documents etc.
Scope
(1) This section applies to a person if:
(a) the person is a large provider of a regulated online service; and
(b) the Commissioner believes on reasonable grounds that the person has information or a document that is relevant to the operation of Part 2A (minimum obligations of providers and key personnel of regulated online services).
Commissioner may require information or documents
(2) The Commissioner may, by written notice given to the person, require the person to:
(a) give to the Commissioner any such information; or
(b) produce to the Commissioner any such documents; or
(c) attend an interview with the Commissioner, including to make a statement or answer questions.
(3) The notice must:
(a) if the notice requires the person to give information or produce a document or thing—specify:
(i) the period (which must be at least 14 days after the notice is given to the person) within which the person is required to comply with the notice; and
(ii) the manner in which the person is required to comply with the notice; and
(b) if the notice requires the person to attend an interview—specify:
(i) a time and place at which the person is to attend; and
(ii) the nature of the matter to which the interview will relate.
194B Copies of documents
The Commissioner may:
(a) inspect a document produced under subsection 194A(2); and
(b) make and retain copies of, or take and retain extracts from, such a document.
13H Section 195
After "section 194", insert "or 194A".
13I Subsections 196(1) and (3)
After "section 194", insert "or 194A".
13J At the end of subsection 221(2)
Add:
; or (i) a notice under subsection 194A(2).
Question negatived.
I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator David Pocock on sheets 3205, 3206 and 3207.
I ask that the question be put separately on sheet 3205.
I will be putting two questions, then. The first will be on sheet 3205, and then there will be a second question in relation to sheets 3206 and 3207. The question before the committee is that the Senator David Pocock amendments on sheet 3205 be agreed to.
Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments—
(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 7 (line 27), omit "applies; or", substitute "applies".
(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 7 (lines 28 and 29), omit subparagraph (b)(iii).
(3) Schedule 1, item 7, page 8 (lines 3 to 11), omit subsection (2).
I will now put the second question on Senator David Pocock's amendments. The question is that Senator David Pocock's amendments on sheets 3206 and 3207 be agreed to.
Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments—
SHEET 3206
(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (after line 21), after the paragraph beginning "Providers of" in section 63A, insert:
(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 6 (after line 29), after section 63D, insert:
63DA Civil penalty for failing to take reasonable steps to remove or suspend inauthentic and bot accounts
A provider of an age-restricted social media platform must take reasonable steps to remove or suspend inauthentic accounts and bot accounts with the age-restricted social media platform.
Civil penalty: 30,000 penalty units.
(3) Schedule 1, item 7, page 7 (line 2), omit "Section 63D takes", substitute "Sections 63D and 63DA take".
(4) Schedule 1, item 7, page 7 (lines 8 to 13), omit subsection (4), substitute:
(4) To avoid doubt, the obligations in sections 63D and 63DA apply in relation to accounts with an age-restricted social media platform if the accounts exist on or after the day sections 63D and 63DA take effect (including accounts that began to exist before that day, and accounts that began to exist before the day this section commences).
(5) Schedule 1, item 7, page 9 (line 9), after "section 63D", insert "or 63DA".
(6) Schedule 1, item 7, page 10 (after line 2), after paragraph 63J(a), insert:
(aa) has contravened section 63D (failing to take reasonable steps to prevent inauthentic or bot accounts); or
(7) Schedule 1, item 13, page 11 (after line 3), after paragraph (da), insert:
(daa) section 63DA;
(8) Schedule 1, item 16, page 11 (line 14), omit "section 63D takes", substitute "sections 63D and 63DA take".
_____
SHEET 3207
(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 7 (after line 25), after subparagraph 63F(1)(b)(i), insert:
(ia) for the purpose of complying with a requirement specified in a legislative instrument made under subsection 63K(1); or
(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 10 (after line 12), at the end of Part 4A, add:
Division 6 — Data access rules
63K Data access rules
(1) The Minister must, by legislative instrument, determine rules that require providers of an age-restricted social media platform to give access to data to approved researchers for the purposes of independent research in relation to the impact of age-restricted social media platforms on young people with reference to any of the following areas of social harm:
(a) loneliness;
(b) isolation;
(c) mental health;
(d) eating disorders;
(e) suicide;
(f) body dysmorphia;
(g) extreme views;
(h) any other matter.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), rules made for the purpose of that subsection may provide for the following:
(a) criteria to be satisfied before the Minister approves a researcher to be given access to data under those rules;
(b) means by which approved researchers are given access to data under the rules;
(c) requirements for the protection of personal and other information in data which approved researchers are given access to under the rules;
(d) any other relevant matters.
Question negatived.
I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator Canavan. We come to sheet 3181. The question is that item 6 of schedule 1 stand as printed.
Senator Canavan opposed item 6 of schedule 1 in the following terms—
(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (lines 9 to 12), to be opposed.
The question before the committee is that Senator Canavan's remaining amendments on sheet 3181 and the amendments on sheets 3180, 3183, 3195, 3215 and 3216 be agreed to.
Senator Canavan's circulated amendments—
SHEET 3180
(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 6 (line 26), before "A provider", insert "(1)".
(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 6 (after line 29), at the end of section 63D, add:
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the taking of reasonable steps to prevent age-restricted users having accounts with an age-restricted social media platform does not include creating, collecting or using the digital ID (within the meaning of the Digital ID Act 2024) of an individual for the purpose of determining whether or not the individual is an age-restricted user.
_____
SHEET 3181
(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (lines 5 to 8), omit paragraphs 27(1)(qa) and (qb), substitute:
(qa) to promote guidelines formulated under section 63EA.
(3) Schedule 1, item 7, page 7 (after line 13), at the end of Division 2, add:
63EA Ministerial guidelines on reasonable steps
The Minister must, by legislative instrument, formulate guidelines for the taking of reasonable steps to prevent age-restricted users having accounts with age-restricted social media platforms.
_____
SHEET 3183
(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 6 (before line 18), before paragraph 63C(7)(a), insert:
(aa) the Minister must be satisfied that the legislative rules would not have the effect, or be likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition in the market for that kind of electronic service; and
_____
SHEET 3195
(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (line 1) to page 6 (line 22), omit section 63C, substitute:
63C Age-restricted social media platform
(1) For the purposes of this Act, age-restricted social media platform means an electronic service that satisfies the following conditions:
(a) the service allows end-users to upload content or view the content or activity of other end-users;
(b) at least 10% of daily active end-users of the service who are under the age of 16 spend an average of at least two hours per day using the service;
(c) the service employs algorithms that analyse end-user data or information to select content for end-users;
(d) the service has any of the following addictive features:
(i) infinite scrolling;
(ii) push notifications or alerts intended to inform an end-user about specific activities or events related to the user's account or activity on the service;
(iii) interactive metrics intended to inform an end-user about the number of times other end-users have reacted to content or have shared or reposted content.
Note: An age-restricted social media platform may be, but is not necessarily, a social media service under section 13.
(2) An electronic service is not an age-restricted social media platform if none of the material on the service is accessible to, or delivered to, one or more end-users in Australia.
(3) In this section:
infinite scrolling means either:
(a) continuously loading content or content that loads as the user scrolls down the page without the need to open a separate page; or
(b) seamless content or the use of pages with no visible or apparent end or page breaks.
(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 9 (lines 10 to 15), omit subsection 63G(2), substitute:
(2) This section also applies to a person if the Commissioner believes on reasonable grounds that the person is a provider of an electronic service.
_____
SHEET 3215
(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 7 (line 27), omit "applies; or", substitute "applies;".
(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 7 (lines 28 to 29), omit subparagraph 63F(1)(b)(iii).
(3) Schedule 1, item 7, page 8 (lines 3 to 11), omit subsection 63F(2).
(4) Schedule 1, item 7, page 8 (line 17), omit "the purposes for which it was collected", substitute "the purpose of taking reasonable steps to prevent age-restricted users having accounts with the platform".
_____
SHEET 3216
(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 14 to 15), omit the definition of age-restricted user in section 5, substitute:
age-restricted user has the meaning given by section 63CA.
(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 6 (after line 22), at the end of Division 1, add:
63CA Age-restricted user
(1) For the purposes of this Act, age-restricted user means an Australian child who has not reached 16 years.
(2) Despite subsection (1), an individual is not an age-restricted user if:
(a) a parent or guardian of the individual consents to the individual not being an age-restricted user; and
(b) the individual meets the criteria (if any) specified in the legislative rules.
(3) Without limiting paragraph (2)(b), the criteria specified under that paragraph may relate to:
(a) the age of the individual; and
(b) whether the individual has a disability or other special needs.
The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.
At the request of the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, I present the committee's report on the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2), together with additional information.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present Human rights scrutiny report:report 11 of 2024.
Pursuant to order, at the request of the Chair of the Economics References Committee, I present the committee's report on the financial regulatory framework and homeownership, together with documents presented to the committee, additional information and submissions.
Pursuant to order, at the request of the Chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, I table the committee's report on the performance of the Department of Defence in supporting the capability and capacity of Australia's defence industry, together with submissions.
Pursuant to order, at the request of the Chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, I table the committee's report on the wrongful detention of Australian citizens overseas, together with additional information and submissions.
At the request of the Deputy Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I table the committee's report entitled Pursuing the priorities of the Pacific: Inquiry into Australia's alignment with the priorities of Pacific island countries.
On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia, I table the committee's interim report on energy, food and water security; and the committee's final report on workforce development, together with documents presented to the committee, additional information and submissions.
The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees.
by leave—I move:
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Waters to replace Senator Barbara Pocock for the committee's inquiry into the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill 2024
Participating member—Senator Barbara Pocock
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Chandler
Appointed—Senator Sharma
Measuring Outcomes for First Nations Communities—Select Committee—
Appointed—
Senators Cox, Green and Stewart
Participating members: Senators Allman-Payne, Bilyk, Brown, Ciccone, Darmanin, Faruqi, Ghosh, Grogan, Hanson-Young, Hodgins-May, McKim, O'Neill, Barbara Pocock, Polley, Pratt, Sheldon, Shoebridge, Marielle Smith, Steele-John, Sterle, Urquhart, Walsh, Waters and Whish-Wilson.
Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Chandler
Appointed—Senator Sharma
Question agreed to.
I table a replacement explanatory statement for the National Anti-Corruption Commission Regulations 2023.
This will be the best news for everybody here this evening. I move:
That—
(a) the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 4 February 2025 at midday, or such other time as may be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable, by the Deputy President, and that the time of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator; and
(b) leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the end of the sitting today to the day on which the Senate next meets.
Question agreed to.
Happy Christmas and Hogmanay.
Senate adjourned at 23:18