Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (09:01): It gives me great pleasure and it's a real honour to stand up here today and open the debate on this—I believe it to be—very popular private member's bill across this nation, to have an extended producer responsibility scheme, which in simple terms means that producers of plastic packaging are responsible for the end of life of their product. This is not really necessarily an environmental or green issue; it's actually very much an economic issue. This is about whether we want to waste resources and ask ourselves the fundamental question: why are we making things that end up going to landfill and aren't kept within a circular economy? It's a very simple concept. Every bit of packaging in this country should be made for its end of life. The corporations that produce this packaging, like plastic packaging, need to design their products for end of life so that they stay within the system, so that they can be reused, recycled or composted. It's actually not that hard. I want to keep it really simple today, because around 80 countries around the world have gone down this road, of putting in place some form of extended producer responsibility, making producers of plastic responsible for the waste and the pollution that they create and the end of the life of their product.

Over my lifetime, most Australians have been the ones who have been told they need to be responsible and put it in the bin. They need to be responsible and recycle. They need to be responsible and, to quote the slogan, 'do the right thing', while the producers of this rubbish take no responsibility. They're all care and no responsibility for the end of life of their product. One of my first campaigns as a senator was to get container deposit schemes in place around the country. We didn't manage to get a national scheme, but the states went it alone, and my home state of Tasmania, I think, had the most successful container deposit scheme out of all of them. A container deposit scheme is a recycling refund scheme. It puts a value on what we might have called waste and makes it worth something so that people bring it back for recycling. The beauty of this scheme—it is a producer responsibility scheme—is that the producers play a role, the consumer of the product plays a role and the government plays a role. All three key stakeholders play a role in solving the waste crisis in this country—solving the problem of plastic pollution. As I said, many other countries around the world have gone down this road.

Let's name this up. Plastic pollution is one of the biggest pollution issues on the planet. It's not just the plastics in the ocean, which I'll get to in a minute, which is where my journey started. We now are getting very disturbing, very chilling research about the impact that plastic and microplastics are having on human health, from fertility to cancers—a whole range of different health and immuno diseases because of microplastics. It is very much an emerging area of research. There's a lot we can do to stop this from happening.

My journey to today started well over 20 years ago. My first campaign on plastics specifically was called the Rise Above Plastics campaign, in 2006, when I was a part of Surfrider Foundation. Now this is a global campaign. Twenty years ago, it was about trying to remove plastics from our life—to get problematic single-use plastics banned and to get these kinds of product stewardship schemes in place for different waste streams.

I want to say it has been not just my journey; it has been the journey of all these amazing people that I've got to work with over the years. Last night in the Senate, I gave a shout-out to my old colleagues from the Surfrider Foundation and from Surfers for Climate. I'm not sure if they're here. There they are. Fantastic. My other tribe, Josh Kirkman and Tim Silverwood—few have done more than Tim. Josh does amazing work, but Tim has been a campaigner on this ever since I can remember. Certainly he predates my work on this, with Take 3 for the Sea and a whole bunch of other initiatives.

This is one of the most popular environmental issues anywhere, in any place. It doesn't matter what your demographics are or what your politics are, people support getting action on plastic pollution and waste. They just don't like it. It shouldn't happen. And the reason it's happening is that governments aren't stepping in and solving this externality. Every first-year economics student and, in fact, school economics student can tell you what an externality is. It's when a corporation produces something that has an external effect, like pollution that impacts people, and it's the government's job to step in and solve the problem. It's our job to protect you from plastic pollution, okay? But we're not. We're letting corporations produce as much of this stuff as they want, and there's no regulation on them whatsoever.

That's what this bill does. It puts in place some basic regulations that mandate national targets. The industry has had voluntary targets for years, and they've failed. This bill not just mandates those national targets and says, 'There are consequences if you don't meet your own targets,' but also provides the framework for doing that. We had a Senate inquiry into this—it was very short, with a number of amazing stakeholders—and there are some issues with this bill, and I expect that they'll be pointed out, and they're in the report. They're easily solvable with simple amendments. We can make those amendments to this bill, and we can pass this legislation, send it to the other place and make sure the Prime Minister and the government get the message that the Senate wants to see action on plastic pollution.

Some of those stakeholders that came to the Senate inquiry in Sydney—and, by the way, thank you to the Labor Party for giving me the floor for the entire day. It was one of the hardest days of my Senate career! I like to hand the questions to someone else so I can think about what my next question is going to be. But it was 10 hours of non-stop questioning, made very easy for me by the incredible people that were there, who I have seen at every Senate inquiry we have had into this issue. There have been three of them that the Greens have initiated, where we've worked across parties—across the Labor Party, across the Liberal and National parties, across Independents.

The first one was in 2015. The report was called Toxic tide. It was the first Senate inquiry of its kind in the world. That looked at the impact of plastic pollution on marine life. The next one was when we did have a real waste crisis in this country, after China's national sword decision, when we couldn't export our waste; we had to learn to deal with it ourselves. That report was called Never waste a crisis. Unfortunately, we have. We're more than 10 years down the track now and we still don't have in place the proper legislation.

The Greens introduced a private member's bill in 2020 to do what we're doing today, and it was a tied vote. I wanted to remind the Labor Party of this. The Labor Party supported the Greens bill at the time to mandate national targets and to have a producer responsibility scheme in place. They did, I must admit, knock back some elements of the bill because some states had already gone it alone, but they supported it. One Nation even supported it right to the bell. We had the numbers to get this bill through to the House, and I was so happy. Pauline Hanson's One Nation flipped at the last minute and didn't turn up to vote. We had a tied vote, and the President cast the vote, unfortunately, as they do, in favour of the government. We had a tied Senate. We could have got reform six years ago, and we wouldn't be having to do what we're doing now. We came so close to getting that bill into the House. I ask senators to think about that.

Nearly everybody agrees. The coalition recently chaired a Senate inquiry into the effects of plastic pollution on human health. In those recommendations—I think it was the fourth recommendation—was a recommendation that the government consider an extended producer responsibility scheme, which is exactly what this bill is today. This bill is based on both the existing legislation that we have that enables this under the RAWR Act—the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act, which I commend the Liberal Party for bringing in in 2020—and it uses the New South Wales extended producer responsibility legislation and moulds the two together. It's a good piece of legislation in this bill. It's not perfect; it can be amended. Senators, please, can we not deal with the technical details today? I know it's an easy thing to do. This bill is doable with some minor amendments.

We need to talk about why we're not doing this. We really need to understand why, after 20 years of having voluntary targets, they're consistently not met by big corporations. Well, they're not met by big corporations because under law they're required to maximise the present value of future cash flows, which means to make as much profit as possible for their shareholders. Of course they're not going to do anything unless they're required to. It's great to greenwash and say you're going to do all these things. There have been some good companies, by the way, who have done the right thing, but they're not going to do it unless they're forced to. It is the role of government.

This is what I wanted to say today, and this is really, really important. In all the time I've been campaigning on this—and in all the time that other legends like Jeff Angel at Boomerang, the godfather of waste in this country who everybody knows; Kate Noble, an amazing campaigner; Cip at AMCS; and all these other people that have been campaigning—this is the first time in this public debate that all the ducks are lined up to get this done. The recycling industry, which employs 90,000 Australians—a shout-out to Gayle Sloan and Suzanne, who wanted to be here today—wants to see this legislation. They are desperate for it, as they were in 2020. The packaging industry, including APCO, who've always been agnostic or anti regulation, and a number of the big packaging producers, wants to see mandated in law an extended producer responsibility scheme. Some of them may have differing opinions on what that might look like, but I can tell you it's not often you see corporations asking to be regulated. They understand this is coming. It's happening all around the world. There have been global negotiations to get a plastic treaty in place. By the way, we as a country have been pushing for a legally mandated global scheme when we haven't had one at home. This is our chance to do that, so I ask senators to look at this bill.

I wanted to finish where I started with this, which is plastic in the oceans. I was invited on a fishing trawler to go down to the south-west of Tasmania. It literally is one of the last wilderness areas left on the planet where you can go and be at peace. While it was one of the most stunning places I've ever seen, the beaches were covered in plastic. This plastic has washed up from all around the world—not just from Australia but from all around the world. We got there after one of the biggest storms ever recorded in Tasmania. The Navy buoy was ripped off its moor on the west coast of Tasmania. The swells had washed away the sand dunes that were 60 feet high. I saw, stratified in these sand dunes, the Anthropocene—levels of plastic going back 20 or 30 years. It was the most incredible thing I've seen and a massive motivator for me to actually do something about this, not to mention all the plastic that I found on the beach. That's what you can see. It's what you can't see, the microplastics, doing damage to marine life as well.

It's not just surfers and coastal communities; all Australians want this. I wanted to do a special shout-out to Dr Jenn Lavers from Adrift Lab, who's been campaigning on trying to get governments to have this kind of legislation, firstly, to raise attention and awareness on the impacts that plastic pollution in particular is having on seabirds. Jenn's an international expert on shearwaters. She goes with the team to Lord Howe Island every year. Minister Watt, if you haven't been to Lord Howe, please go with Adrift Lab. I know Minister Plibersek went and spent some time with their crew. You'll do what I did. You'll go into the rookery at night-time.

These shearwaters are the great athletes of the sea. They're like triathletes. They fly from Lord Howe all the way to Japan and back, and, by the time they get home, they literally hit the trees. They've got no energy left. They hit every bloody branch on the way down. Then these clumsy little buggers land on top of you, and they look at you, and then they waddle away to find their chicks in their nests.

These rookeries are full of plastic. I sadly witnessed—as you will, minister, when you go there, and I hope you do—all the dead chicks that we had to take out of the rookery that had been fed plastic by their parents who'd returned from their trip to Japan, because these birds sometimes cannot differentiate between plastic from the ocean and sea life. In one bird, we broke the existing record; we cut 840 pieces of plastic out of this poor little creature. We called it the crunchy bird. It made international news, sadly, but that's what is required for people to understand how serious this issue is. We picked this bird up and it crunched. You could hear the plastic in its stomach. It literally starved to death. It choked to death.

We have a responsibility. These are the effects. These are the impacts we are having on our natural world. I just ask senators as human beings—you're all humans too. You must understand we have to do something on this. The rest of the world wants us to do something on this. The oil and gas industry doesn't. They've openly said that they see that 50 per cent of all future oil and gas production is going to go into plastic production. They want plastics to grow—they're the only ones who do—because they're making so much frigging money out of this.

Not only do we have a responsibility to look after human health, even just as a precautionary principle; we have a responsibility to the natural world and to these creatures that can't run for parliament, sign petitions or phone in to the radio. They need us to go in to bat for them. I'm going in to bat for the shearwaters, the scientists and all the stakeholders I've worked with. Please pass this legislation.

Senator ANANDA-RAJAH (Victoria) (09:16): Senator Whish-Wilson, you are a fierce advocate for the environment and particularly the marine environment. You're a great person. I know this is a topic that is so close to your heart. It is so close to the heart of so many Australians, including people in this chamber and certainly people in the government.

The government will not be supporting this bill, the Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme for Packaging (No Time to Waste) Bill 2026. However, we recognise the problems that we have with plastic. We are drowning in plastic. I'm going to wear my environmental hat, and I'm going to wear my medical hat. I was recently on the community affairs committee's microplastics inquiry, and I heard some truly sobering and alarming testimony, and I did my own personal research. With respect to plastics, we are in the midst of a pandemic of plastic.

With regard to microplastics and nanoplastics, they are ubiquitous. They are all over the environment. When you go looking for them, you will find them. They're in the soil. They're in the air that we breathe. They're in the clothes that we wear; polyester is derived from plastics. Our foods are wrapped in plastic. And, when you go looking in the human body, you actually find plastic—microplastics—in every single organ of the body and in our fluids. It's in the brain, the placenta, the lungs, the heart and the musculature. It's in semen.

In terms of the health problems that are associated with microplastics and nanoplastics, plastics are linked to a litany of problems from in utero all the way to childhood and adulthood. This has probably been best studied by the Minderoo Foundation, who recently, in March this year, published a paper in Nature. Minderoo have done a power of work. We heard testimony from Minderoo and scientists and medical specialists.

These microplastics—or plastics in general—have about 16,000 chemicals. The chemicals are loosely bound to a polymer matrix. In other words, once these are ingested into the body, the chemicals can leach out into the body, and it's that leaching out which causes problems.

And it's not just PFAS, folks. It's 16,000 chemicals. We don't really understand what most of these chemicals do to the body, but we've got some clues. We know that these are endocrine disruptors, so they damage the endocrine system. By the way, our endocrine system means tiny, tiny chemical amounts of hormones that make our body function. So you have something in there that disrupts the hormonal axis. It leads to all kinds of knock-on effects.

One of them is infertility. We heard testimony that, in the last 30 years, IVF success rates in Australia have not shifted. We spend billions on in vitro fertilisation, but success rates have not shifted. Why? Has it something to do with microplastics and their transmission across the placenta in what was termed by a Minderoo expert as 'toxic trespass'—that these chemicals are crossing the placenta and may in some way be then harming the growing fetus? If I read out the list, you would all be in the foetal position, but I'm going to read out some of the harms: in utero miscarriage, preterm birth, low birth weight, small head size, genital malformation, asthma, wheeze, bronchitis. In childhood there are ADHD, autism, obesity, asthma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma—a whole litany of problems as long as my arm. In adulthood that list gets even bigger. It is linked to endometriosis, uterine fibroids, sperm concentration and quality problems, diabetes, PCOS, insulin-resistant type-two diabetes—and it goes on and on and on. These are linked. They are not necessarily causal but are linked.

What was also alarming from this inquiry that we did was that we heard testimony that big oil is planning on increasing plastic production. In fact, this was in the Lancet. It was published in the Lancet last year. The Lancet Countdown on Health and Plastics produced a weighty document, and there was one passage that jumped out at me. It basically said that the Saudi Arabian oil company plans to channel about one-third of its oil production to plastics and petrochemicals by 2030. They are pivoting. They're pivoting away from oil and fuel to plastic production. They're looking for another market. What is driving this is, overwhelmingly, single-use plastics. We've got to get ahead of this.

One thing that was also evident was that we had a really good discussion with the CEO of the Australian Council of Recycling, and I'm going to read from the Hansard of 20 March this year. And this was her view with regard to the extended producer responsibility scheme, which has been operating in Europe for decades. The problem is:

Even in Europe over the last 18 months or so they've lost about a million tonnes of processing capacity for recycled plastic because the demand for the product hasn't been there and you can buy it much more cheaply offshore. So, whilst we really need extended producer responsibility for packaging, and, by the way, for most manufactured products, we also need to see much stronger procurement drivers to make sure that what we remake here has a market and we can keep that system viable.

In other words, when you talk about plastic—and she laid it out for us—you're talking about three components: collection, processing and then markets. Where this has fallen down in Europe is in the market side. Because there hasn't been a market for recycled plastic, it has meant that they've had an overcapacity, plants have shut down and they've lost one million tonnes of recycling capacity. That's in Hansard. The reason for that is, of course, because recycled plastic is more expensive than virgin plastic. This is why Saudi Arabian oil wants to churn out more plastic. It's going to make them money, right? But it's our job as a government and as a parliament to figure out a holistic approach to this that will ensure that it actually works and we land this. That means that we have to collaborate and consult widely with industry and with the states and territories as well, because they collect these items. It's not as easy as just pulling one single lever, calling it the EPR and saying, 'Job done,' because we've seen in Europe that their history has shown that, without the market signals to procure this recycled plastic at a higher cost, the whole system can fall over.

In terms of Australia's response, we should be incredibly proud of the advocacy led by former environment minister Tanya Plibersek and now Minister Murray Watt. Within a few months of our forming government in 2022, in November of 2022, Australia joined the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution. This is a coalition of over 100 countries from all continents around the world. There is a recognition around the world that we have a pandemic of plastic. Actually, we heard testimony during this inquiry that Australia is relatively 'clean' when it comes to plastic, which tells you that automatically it is much, much worse elsewhere. In the Pacific islands and in South-East Asia, there are rivers literally clogged with plastic. So we have to work globally to reduce the supply of plastic right at its source.

To that end, Australia also supported the Global Plastics Treaty, and we were very vocal in wanting it to pass. We were very vocal, staunch supporters of this measure. But, unfortunately, talks broke down in August of last year, and it was kiboshed by the big petro states: Saudi Arabia, the US and Kuwait—no surprise there. Had that plastics treaty actually passed, it would have led—and this is the nub of it. It's not just about recycling, folks. Recycling doesn't fix this problem. It's about actually committing to reducing plastic production and putting in restrictions. In allowing that to happen, you then create space for alternatives—bioplastics, for example. These are plastics or plastic-like materials that are derived from seaweed and other types of biodegradable materials. As a committee, we also saw evidence from scientists here in Australia who are developing these kinds of materials. They are already there. They need a market. They need to have space created so that these alternatives can be used by Australians and by businesses and hospitals, which are huge producers of plastic waste around the country. But they're crowded out because virgin plastic is so cheap.

So we've got to get to the source, and that will require, I think, global cooperation and countries standing up to these big petro states and fossil fuel interests. Australia has nailed its colours to the mast in that regard. We want this to pass, and we're going to have to work now in alternative channels to figure out a way we can land this Global Plastics Treaty. But talking about this problem is part of the solution. Mobilising Australians and the global community to back this kind of treaty is incredibly important.

That's why I thank you for your sustained advocacy in this space. I know it will disappoint you that we're not going to support this bill, but understand that we get it. We get the problems here, but we want to work in a collaborative way in order to land a solution that will actually have teeth and be effective and will not just deal with plastic recycling, which is—and this should really be the take-home message—not the full solution. It's about stopping this at its source and calling out those fossil fuel interests who are looking for new markets, and that's going to take a global effort. I might stop there.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (09:29): I thank Senator Whish-Wilson for his bill, the Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme for Packaging (No Time to Waste) Bill 2026. I acknowledge Senator Whish-Wilson's passion for reducing environmental waste and his efforts, which resulted in a ban on Australia exporting recycling waste to Third World countries where it was picked over and then in some cases dumped into rivers which took the rubbish out to sea. Australian waste was partially responsible for the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

I do agree there's a need to control waste from excessive packaging. This bill, though, is not the answer. The purpose of this bill is to provide for the government of the Commonwealth to establish a uniform national Extended Producer Responsibility, an EPR, a scheme for packaging through a legislative instrument. The Extended Producer Responsibility scheme would place a direct and legally binding obligation on producers, importers or distributors of packaging for the end-of-life management of the packaging they place onto the Australian market. This bill would see Australia's National Packaging Targets made mandatory and legally binding. The bill would cumulatively serve to meet the intent of reducing demand for virgin plastic, preventing plastic waste, supporting the economy, increasing recycling and resource recovery rates, as well as reducing emissions and better protecting the Australian environment. These are represented in the National Packaging Targets, which in this context are as follows. The scheme enforces benchmarks for 100 per cent reusable, recyclable or compostable packaging alongside a 70 per cent plastic recycling rate and 50 per cent recycled content. Currently, this is voluntary. This bill would make it mandatory—compulsory. The law applies a strict nationwide mandate to anyone defined as a 'responsible person', which covers commercial manufacturers, importers and distributors of packaging. Businesses can no longer opt out or ignore recycling targets. It replaces fragmented state rules with a single, uniform, Commonwealth-led framework. The core economic driver of the scheme is a producer funded fee structure. Companies pay levies based on the type and total weight of the packaging they introduce into the Australian market. Hard-to-recycle materials, composite plastics and virgin plastics face heavy financial penalties. Levies are heavily discounted—that's 'eco-modulated', to use their term—for businesses using highly recyclable materials or high percentages of local recycled content. Modulated!

Now the part which is typical of the Greens, sadly, taking the kernel of a good idea and taking it so far it becomes intolerable. I'm talking about their bill's lifecycle data tracking. The scheme requires transparent continuous data reporting into an independent national tracking system. Companies must log exact material weights, chemical composition and supply volumes. I'll say that again: companies must log exact material weights, chemical composition and supply volumes. This data is used to calculate their exact financial obligations and verify whether they're meeting the mandatory 2030 recycling targets. The revenue collected from producer levies forms a dedicated stable funding stream explicitly earmarked to build up Australia's circular economy. Now, the phrase 'circular economy' is code for everyday Australians never owning anything new. The wealthy will be able to pay the price penalty for new products; everyday Australians will not.

The elitism of the concept of circular economy sits poorly with One Nation's approach of advancing the lives of everyday Australians. It does seem typical, sadly, of the inner-city Greens, though, marketing themselves as the party of the disenfranchised while bills like this will serve to weigh down the economy, reduce productivity and reduce opportunity for the very people the Greens pretend to represent. This bill will impose a very high cost on business and consumers for a very small and unproven reward for the environment. Everything that comes in a package will go up in price. More inflation, higher prices, less wealth for everyone. This bill, especially its compulsory nature, onerous reporting conditions and cost, is what One Nation means when we talk about excessive green tape. One Nation opposes green tape strangling our society. One Nation opposes this bill.

Senator HODGINS-MAY (Victoria) (09:34): I want to start by acknowledging and thanking my colleague Senator Whish-Wilson for his relentless heart-driven work on this important but inherently solvable issue. Senator Whish-Wilson, alongside an extraordinary movement of community groups and ecologically minded but commonsense groups, fights for change and to protect those shearwaters that he spoke so passionately about. I remember seeing a turtle wash up with the plastic ring from a beer sixpack around its neck. Just seeing the horror of that, I thought: 'This is entirely preventable. How is this allowed to continue?' For 15 years, Pete and these advocates have been fighting. I hear the government get up and say, 'We're not supporting this. We're not ready. We need more time. We need more time to talk this through, more symbolisms, more international conventions.' I'm sorry, but the clock is ticking. Those shearwaters need more than talk. They need more than conversation and diplomatic words. It means nothing to them.

Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson, for the passion that you've brought to this. I don't know of anyone else who could have made this issue of waste as significant and wide reaching as you and the movement have managed to make it. We're so grateful, and those shearwaters and turtles are grateful, because this issue matters enormously, and I think that most Australians know this instinctively. We've walked along the beach and had a Coca-Cola bottle lid dig into our foot. I was on Elwood Beach last weekend and I gave my kids a bucket and said, 'Go and see what shells you can collect,' so I could read a few pages of my book. They came back and their buckets were full of trash. There were bits of plastic, metal and all sorts of things, and that was in about 10 minutes of walking along the beach. We've all seen this, we've all experienced it and we all know what a great tragedy it is. It comes back to the question of where the leadership is on this.

Takeaway containers, coffee cups, wrappers and plastic bottles are all designed and sold in minutes, but they are capable of remaining in our environment for decades and decades. People are asking a simple question: why is this an issue of individual responsibility when individuals have no say over how the product is designed or packaged in the first place? They want leadership on this, so why should it come down to them? This bill, put forward by Senator Whish-Wilson, would do something about that.

I want to acknowledge the environmental groups, the community organisations, the campaigners and the advocates who have been pushing for this reform alongside Pete, including the Australian Marine Conservation Society and the Boomerang Alliance, as well as the Elwood Canal Action Team, Love Our Streets and all of those little groups who are out every single week picking up rubbish before it ultimately hits the bay. They trundle along the canal, using their personal time to do something that leaders in this place should be acting on. Their work gives us an opportunity to do something genuinely important, and that is to make Australia a world leader in how we deal with packaging and waste.

Let's not wait for the others. Let's get on with it. Let's lead. Since when do we have to be the little deputy waiting for someone else to show the courage to do something? Let's set a global example. How about that for an idea? We—Australia, the world—are not winning the war on waste. Plastic pollution is one of the biggest environmental challenges of our time. This isn't some distant problem; we know that. It's not floating around in an ocean somewhere else for someone else to deal with. It's everywhere. It's in our waterways. It's on our beaches. It's in landfills. It's in our bodies. It's breaking down into microplastics that are increasingly entering our bodies in the environment.

There is another reason we need to take this seriously. Most plastic is made from fossil fuels. Plastic production already accounts for around 45 per cent of the petrochemical sector, and the expansion of plastics is expected to be one of the major drivers of the demand for oil in the decades to come. As the world moves away from fossil fuels for energy, the fossil fuel industry are licking their lips and looking for new markets, and plastics is an enormous one of them. So when we talk about plastic pollution we are also, of course, talking about climate action. We're talking about shifting away from fossil fuel extraction and the power of some of the world's biggest corporations to shape the products that end up in our homes, streets, oceans and bodies. We ingest something like a credit card's worth of plastic every year.

For too long, governments have put this burden unfairly onto consumers. And how's that going for us? We're told to recycle harder, to sort our rubbish more carefully and to make better choices at the supermarket. I don't know about you, but my supermarkets don't allow me to choose a cucumber that's not wrapped in plastic—or even bananas, God forbid! I don't decide whether a product needs three layers of packaging. I don't decide whether the packaging is actually recyclable in the future. We don't have these options. We don't have these choices. The producers do. The brands do. The retailers do. So they should carry responsibility for what happens to that packaging at the end of its life—a very simple proposition. This is the principle of extended producer responsibility. Find me an individual who isn't influenced by massive corporations or peddling the lines of the fossil fuel industry who'll genuinely rebut that and argue a case against that. Find me someone who won't benefit financially from plastics and get them to put a case for why we should not have an extended producer responsibility. I throw down a challenge to you.

This bill would establish a uniform national EPR scheme for packaging, creating a direct, legally binding obligation on producers, importers and distributors for the end-of-life management of the packaging that they put into the Australian market. It would also make Australia's national packaging targets mandatory and legally binding. It's beyond time. It's not enough that we simply clean up the mess—not that we're doing a great job of that either—we also need to stop creating so much of it in the first place. We need to prioritise avoidance and reduction. We need proper eco design standards. We need to build markets for recycled materials and a genuinely circular economy where products and materials are designed to be reused, recovered and kept in circulation. This can work and this must work.

Look at the container deposit scheme, where producers are responsible for the costs of recovering their products. We've seen dramatically higher collection rates. Around 60 per cent to 80 per cent of containers are now being collected for recycling. Compare that with Australia's plastic packaging recycling rate, which sits at around 12 per cent. It's 12 per cent for plastics and 60 per cent to 80 per cent for aluminium containers. The difference is not that Australians suddenly become better recyclers when they get a refund. The difference is a system. This requires system change.

Australians have had enough of voluntary targets that industry can simply fail to meet with no repercussions. Sixty-three per cent of Australians support mandatory packaging laws to replace voluntary targets, rising to 70 per cent among Labor voters. Here we have another example. Seven in 10 Australian Labor voters are supporting leadership and action from the people that they elected to represent them but are being told: 'No, this is too hard. It's too difficult.' Again, follow the money, the donations that are going to these corporate parties to peddle their interests, to save them money and to make profits for their shareholders. I've had a gutful of this mob over here coming in to represent their donors over the Australian people. What sort of statistics do we need to get for you to take some leadership on this issue?

Australians understand that, if you make something, sell something and profit from something, you should not be able to simply walk away when that becomes waste. The Greens have been campaigning for decades to overhaul Australia's waste and recycling system. Senator Whish-Wilson has chaired three Senate inquiries into this issue over the past decade.

Senator Whish-Wilson: Five.

Senator HODGINS-MAY: I correct myself—he has chaired five Senate inquiries into this issue over a decade. The evidence has been gathered. The community has spoken. Industry itself is increasingly supporting mandatory reform, which is really encouraging. That is a remarkable legacy that he's passing the baton on. I just want to note that evidence received from the EPA said that this wouldn't be complicated to implement. It could take between six to 12 months. So what are we waiting for—six to 12 months to make an enormous difference for our communities, for our marine ecosystems, for our oceans and for humans who are ingesting this crap. We're running out of excuses. We need political will now.

In 2022, Australia's environment ministers committed to reforming packaging regulation. Four years on—tick, tock—Australians are still waiting. Excuse the pun, but there is no time to waste. This bill gives parliament an opportunity to finally put responsibility where it belongs—with the companies that design, that produce and that profit from packaging—while creating the certainty we need to build a genuinely circular economy with less waste in our streets and our oceans, less demand for virgin plastics, more recycling and reuse, new markets, new jobs and a cleaner environment for future generations and every living organism that we share this planet with.

I thank Senator Whish-Wilson for his incredible persistence. There is enormous respect for him from across the sector and I'm sure from across the aisles, frankly, if we're honest. This is a commonsense policy. How many more inquiries do we need to have? How much more talk do we need to have in this place to do what that 70 per cent of Australians want us to do? So thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson. Thank you to the advocates and the community campaigners who have refused to let this issue disappear and I know aren't going anywhere. We will win this. It's just a question of how many shearwaters and turtles lose their lives before we get this outcome. But we're not going anywhere.

How many more Senate inquiries do we need to have? I hope not many. I hope that the government sees the light on this—that they see the common sense and act for our environment and for our communities who are demanding action. It is not enough to keep asking Australians to clean up the mess they made. We must change the system that creates the waste in the first place. Thank you again, Senator Whish-Wilson.

Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE (Queensland) (09:47): I rise to speak in support of this Greens private senator's bill, the Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme for Packaging (No Time to Waste) Bill 2026. Like my colleagues before me, I want to congratulate Senator Whish-Wilson on bringing this bill before the Senate. I think it's a really fitting way to finish your Senate career and your time in this place, and it's a real honour to stand up in support of it.

This place has the capacity to do really good things, but a lot of the time we spend our time talking about things where people are quite ideologically opposed. But it would seem to me that reducing plastics in our environment is something that shouldn't be too hard for us all to agree on. I had the privilege recently of chairing the Senate inquiry into microplastics and other toxics, and I have to admit to being really shocked by some of the evidence that we heard. I don't think it's controversial to say that we all know that there's too much plastic in our environment. Most of us know that we want something done about it, but to really understand the extent and nature of the problem was really eye opening not just for me but for other members of the committee. I know that Senator Ananda-Rajah has spoken about this, but to hear evidence that plastic is in every cell of the human body and we don't really understand just what that is doing to us, I thought was really quite shocking. We went to the University of Adelaide for a site visit and we looked down the microscope at eggs and sperm cells that have plastic in them. Think about that—the unborn child already impacted by plastics before they've even arrived into the world. I think that's something that should really scare us, especially when we don't know the impacts that that's having on childhood and human development.

Researchers think they've got a pretty good idea. They know that it's endocrine disrupting. They know that it has impacts on conditions like cardiovascular diseases and polycystic ovary syndrome, just to name a couple. Given that we know that these plastic products have become so ubiquitous that they're in our soil, they're in the air and they're in our bodies, that really seems like the perfect issue for us to do something about.

Senator Ananda-Rajah put the government's position on the record, saying that the government won't be supporting this bill, and she said that there are a range of issues and challenges, but I put it to the government that we have been talking about dealing with plastic for at least 15 years. Surely there has to come a time where we stop talking about it and we act. The inquiry that I chaired—the inquiry into microplastics and other toxics—produced a consensus inquiry report. That consensus report, supported by Liberal and coalition senators, said that we need to expand extended producer responsibility schemes in this country, and that is precisely what Senator Whish-Wilson's bill is looking to do. We all agree that this is a problem and we all agree that we need to expand EPR schemes to help tackle it. So why don't we get on with it?

As my colleague Senator Hodgins-May said, the inquiry into the bill heard from the New South Wales EPA that it would take only six to 12 months to get a scheme like this up and running, because the bulk of the work has already been done. So it's not that hard. We have a recycling industry which, as Senator Whish-Wilson said, already employs 90,000 people in this country, and it is calling for this to be done. This begs the question then: why aren't we getting on and doing it? The community wants this to happen. The community is concerned about the level of plastic in our environment. When they go to the beach, they see it on the sand dunes. When they go fishing, they see it out in the water.

We've actually tackled some aspects of the plastic problem. I was reflecting just the other day, when I opened my loaf of bread, that we don't have plastic bread tags any more, because they're harmful to our environment and to nature. And so we said, 'Okay, let's put cardboard ones on.' The sky didn't fall in. We've tackled single-use plastics in our supermarkets. We go and get a recycled paper bag to put our groceries in. We use paper straws when we go and buy a smoothie. Again, the sky hasn't fallen in, and our bodies and our planet and the other shearwaters and turtles and flora and fauna that we share it with are better for it as well.

We heard, during the inquiry into microplastics, about the falling over of the treaty on plastic pollution. When I questioned one of the witnesses giving evidence who was at that particular convention, they talked about the fact that the fossil fuel industry reps outnumbered the people actually negotiating the treaty by something like three to one. It shouldn't be the case that fossil fuel companies are hijacking action on dealing with the plastic problem.

Years ago we realised that asbestos was no good for us. We've now recognised that silica in stone is no good for us. There's some pretty compelling evidence that the ubiquity of microplastics in our environment is no good for us, and the precautionary approach would say that we need to do something about that now. We're already seeing, as Senator Whish-Wilson so vividly described, the impact of plastics on nature—shearwaters and penguins and other birds with bellies full of plastic—yet that's something that we can work together on pretty easily to prevent. This bill gives us an opportunity, a framework, to help do that.

It makes no sense that we are out on the international stage pushing for action on plastics when we're not doing that here at home. The majority of Australians want us to act on this issue. We have the capacity to act on this issue. We've already heard that there have been multiple inquiries telling us what needs to be done, and, as leaders in this place, we are the ones—given that, as we said, we've had more than one inquiry that's given a consensus report, we all agree we need to do something about this. So let's get on and do it.

Like my colleagues, I want to thank all of the campaigners and advocates across the country who have consistently pushed this issue. It's not going to go away. We are drowning in plastic; we are drowning in it. We've been put on notice by the fossil fuel industry saying that they want to make more and more and more of it, because, as the world wakes up to the fact that we cannot continue to burn oil and gas and turbocharge the climate crisis that is well underway, those companies are looking for somewhere else to make profit, and plastics is where they want to go.

So we have a choice now. Do we want to wait for the fossil fuel industry, as they watch the markets for coal and gas collapse as we get deeper and deeper into the climate crisis? Prime Minister Andy Burnham has convened Cobra this week because of the impact of the drought in the UK and Wales. Nuclear power stations in Europe are shutting down because there's not enough water to keep them cool. People are starting to get concerned about food security. Meanwhile, people in the Global South have been dealing with floods and typhoons and cyclones and drought and heatwaves long before them.

We are in the middle of a climate crisis. When we wake up to that and the market falls out of coal and gas, the fossil fuel industry is going to be turbocharging its efforts to make sure that plastic production goes through the roof. We have an opportunity to get ahead of that. We have an opportunity to put in place an extended producer responsibility scheme that the packaging industry wants, that the recycling industry, which supports over 90,000 jobs in this country, wants, that the community wants, and that people across this Senate want, as more than one report has said. We have an opportunity to get that done.

So my request to this chamber, given that across the room, across our parties, we know we have a willingness to tackle this problem and we've recognised the issue, is that we work together to get it done. I don't want to see children born with plastic in their bodies as they enter the world. I don't want to keep seeing couples struggling to conceive because the level of microplastics in their body has affected their fertility. I don't want to see people suffering from increases of cancer, cardiovascular disease and other endocrine disorders because there's a really good chance that microplastics are causing those things. I don't want to see penguins and shearwaters and other birds and animals dying because they're starving because their parents are mistakenly feeding them plastic or because they've had a plastic noose around their neck. These are all things that we have the power in this chamber to tackle. So I implore you. The work has been done. The bill is on the table. Let's work together, even if we have to amend it to find a way to pass it.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (10:02): It was in the first half of last year—I think around May—when I was in Sydney Airport and Senator Whish-Wilson, my colleague, was walking past the other way. He looked pretty upset. I had a chat with him. He'd just come back from Lord Howe, and he said: 'David, I'm going to show you this. It's really upsetting.' I remember him pulling out his phone and showing me those images of those little baby mutton birds, the shearwaters. One of them had been dissected by researchers. The whole of this furry little body was just full of plastics. Pete said to me: 'It's just all of them, David. It's just all of them.' We were looking at this picture of this little bird, and again I saw how much Senator Whish-Wilson gets this.

You'd think Lord Howe Island, more than a thousand kays off the coast, would be isolated. You'd think it would be away from the waste streams being produced. It's thousands and thousands of kilometres from North America, thousands of kilometres from north Asia, a thousand kilometres from Australia, this little island. Yet these little mutton birds on Lord Howe—according to the researchers, when they weighed one of them, one fifth of its body weight was plastic. They can't properly digest food. Their intestines get perforated by the plastics. If they do survive, they have a life of pain. These little creatures have a life of pain. That life of pain is, yes, delivered by the plastics industry, the oil industry and the fossil fuel industry, but it's also delivered by governments and parliaments that won't act to keep that industry under control. That little bird suffering in pain—that is also delivered by parliaments like this who refuse to support legislation like this.

What does this legislation do? It establishes a uniform national extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging. This is something that this government, the previous government and the one before that said that they want. It's like St Augustine: 'Oh, Lord, give me chastity, but not yet.' Never yet—it's never yet for this lot. They say they want it. They say that they've got this process in place. I'll go through and talk about some of the wash—this endless stream. The one thing they recycle isn't plastic. The one thing they recycle is the talking points of the industry and the fossil fuel lobby who want to keep making their profits from polluting this planet on a scale and with a product that is literally poisoning our waterways, poisoning our oceans, poisoning our bodies, poisoning our food. If that little shearwater, that little baby mutton bird, is not a warning to us, if that's not a reason to act, I don't know what is.

The purpose of the bill, the Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme for Packaging (No Time to Waste) Bill 2026, is to do something the plastics industry, the fossil fuel mates and the billionaires who own them have been fighting for decades. It's to place a direct and legally binding obligation on producers, importers and distributors of packaging for the end-of-life management of the packaging. You make the waste, you deal with it and you pay the cost of it—not some little baby shearwater, not some mum who's worried about the plastics that are poisoning her baby from birth, not all of us as we worry about the plastics we're ingesting through the food we eat and through the water we drink. Those who make the waste are responsible for it.

Every so often, you hear about personal responsibility from the coalition. You hear about One Nation saying, 'That little eight-year-old kid should be personally responsible for his actions.' Or they say, 'Those school students should be responsible for their actions and not go out on strike about the climate. They should all be responsible for their actions.' But it turns out, from the coalition and from One Nation and, tragically, from Labor too, that the one part of this society they never talk about having responsibility is corporate Australia, the plastics industry, the fossil fuel industry—your donor mates. Suddenly, this whole rhetoric of responsibility just ends at the door of a big corporate donor for you lot, and you're unwilling to take on what is unquestionably a powerful industry.

Look at the Pratts of this world. I don't often agree with Donald Trump, but he did have a colourful description of that bloke, which I won't repeat because it's a little bit unparliamentary. But look at the Pratts of this world, who have made obscene profits from polluting our country, with a multinational company literally polluting the planet. He uses those profits to buy his way into private meetings with the Prime Minister and private meetings with a minister.

Senator Whish-Wilson: Katy Perry.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Yes, he'll fly Katy Perry in and then invite the political class from One Nation and the coalition and Labor to a Katy Perry concert, and say, 'Isn't this lovely? Aren't we all great friends? Would you mind if I just kept polluting the world?' 'Yes, sure. No worries. Katy sang beautifully, though.' That's how the political class operates in this country. You don't care about polluting our food and polluting our water. You don't care about it, because you care about the money that can flow and the influence that can flow from Pratt and his packaging empire, and you want to keep your donors in the fossil fuel industries and their billionaire owners happy.

That is why we're not progressing this bill—not for the reasons that were given by the usual suspects from industry. It's not for the reasons that are given by the majority in this report. Here's something: sent out to do the government's dirty work is Cameron Hutchison, the branch head of the circular economy division of the department. I think it's 'circular' insofar as they produce circulars and just share them amongst the department and they make sure that never has any kind of reference to actually fixing the world! He said:

The department is currently developing advice for government on packaging reform.

Isn't that comforting? They're currently developing advice! Did I mention that this has been going on for decades? Anyhow, apparently the department is 'currently developing advice for government on packaging reform'. He said:

This work has been informed by extensive consultation with industry, governments, non-government organisations and the community, and reflects strong stakeholder interest in nationally consistent arrangements. The department is also undertaking a statutory review of the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020. The review report is anticipated to be delivered to the minister shortly and will subsequently be tabled in parliament.

… implementation of any national scheme would involve detailed design work, consultation with industry and jurisdictions, development of supporting rules and guidance, and establishment of administrative arrangements.

That kind of word salad, which is everything other than action, everything other than legislation, everything other than binding obligations, is the reason why people are losing faith in government. People see a little baby shearwater riddled with plastics and get told that 'implementation of any national scheme would involve detailed design work, consultation'—blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. If you wanted a summary of the Albanese government's action on dealing with plastics, dealing with pollution, I reckon 'blah, blah, blah, blah' would be about the neatest summary I could think of, as the Albanese response. And that's what the majority did in this report.

In the committee review—you only have to read this stuff to kind of lose faith in humanity—the majority report says: 'The committee considers'—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Shoebridge, the time for the debate has expired.

The CHAIR (10:12): The committee is considering the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2026 and amendment (1) on sheet TK115, moved by the government to opposition amendment (2) on sheet 3803.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:12): We are, as we know, in the continuation of a committee stage. Minister, yesterday during the committee stage, I asked you—and I've got the Hansard in front of me—some questions in relation to the employment of the current CDPP, and you said you'd get back to me. I just don't know if you've been able to do that. I also said:

Is it not the case that the director of the CDPP worked as counsel assisting the special investigator to investigate war crimes, and that she is now in charge of prosecuting war crimes?

Your response was:

I don't have that information with me. I can certainly take it on notice and try to get back to you. That is not the reason that this provision has been included in this bill, but we will certainly endeavour to get as much information for you as possible.

Given it has been some time since we had that exchange, have you been able to get that additional information for me—please?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:13): Thanks, Senator Cash. Just to remind you—you've got the Hansard there in front of you—I did give you the information in a later question. But, for the purposes of today's conversation, I will reiterate that information for you. I refer to my previous answer. I'm advised that the director in a previous role as counsel assisting provided advice to the Office of the Special Investigator that had been established by the former coalition government. I'm advised that this advice in no way conflicts with her new role as director. The director will continue to review and consider, and the director would declare and stand aside if need be. I'll leave it at that. I think that answers your question. If you need more information, let me know.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:14): Can I confirm then, based on what you've said, that, at this point in time, in relation to the prosecution of Ben Roberts-Smith, there has been no conflict of interest, whether actual or perceived, declared by Raelene Sharp as the CDPP?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:15): With respect to the matter to which you refer, the director has considered her position and sees no conflict.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:15): Thank you for that. You said that the director sees no conflict. Can you confirm that the Attorney-General does not believe that the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Raelene Sharp, has any concerns over a potential, not a direct, conflict of interest in relation to the prosecution of Ben Roberts-Smith?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:15): I did answer this question yesterday. To clarify for the chamber and the senator, I want to refer to my previous answers. The government does not accept that there is an actual or perceived conflict of interest that relates to the current director of public prosecutions.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:16): Can I confirm for the Hansard record that that is in relation to the current prosecution on foot in relation to Ben Roberts-Smith?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:16): Senator, I'm referring to all prosecutions that are currently on foot.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:16): Yesterday we talked about whether or not the Office of the Special Investigator actually worked with the AFP in relation to the investigation into war crimes. I want to note for the Hansard record that, on 7 April 2026, the opening statements by the AFP commissioner and the OSI director of investigations, following the arrest of the former Australian soldier stated:

Good afternoon.

A former Australian Defence Force member has today been arrested and will be charged with five counts of War Crime—Murder after a joint investigation between the Office of the Special Investigator (OSI) and the AFP.

For the benefit of the Hansard record, it was a joint investigation, as stated by Krissy Barrett as the Commissioner of the AFP. In that press conference, she was joined by—I'll make sure I say it correctly—the OSI director of investigations. So it was a joint investigation.

Can I also confirm that, on 14 November 2023, the former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus announced the appointment of Ms Raelene Sharp as the next Commonwealth director of public prosecutions? This is a press release that was issued at the time. It goes through Ms Sharp's legal career, and then it also confirms:

Ms Sharp has also been working as counsel assisting the Special Investigator appointed to investigate possible breaches of the Laws of Armed Conflict allegedly committed by members of the Australian Defence Force in Afghanistan from 2005 to 2016.

I also want that on the Hansard record, as it pertains to the legislation in front of us.

I also place on the Hansard record—I think you also gave me evidence of this yesterday—that Ms Sharp herself was actually counsel assisting the Office of the Special Investigator in relation to the investigation into the war crimes. As you've now noted, there are now two prosecutions on foot. Can I confirm all of that, please?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:19): Senator Cash, everything you've stated is on the public record. I understand you're seeking to do that for yourself, but there's nothing that I can add to what you've said. Can I just use this opportunity though to remind the Senate and all senators that the prosecution to which Senator Cash is referring is currently ongoing. I made mention of this yesterday. We certainly should be scrutinising this legislation before us, but I would just caution senators on using this opportunity to politicise a current prosecution in any way. I'm not suggesting that Senator Cash is veering into that territory just yet, but it's very important that we concentrate and scrutinise this legislation. I certainly am cautious about politicising a prosecution which is currently underway.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:20): I'm actually not sure how asking questions about a provision in a piece of legislation that your Attorney-General is asking us to vote on—and I can tell you now it may not be today, as far as the coalition's concerned, based on the evidence that you have just given—is an attempt to politicise this. We are establishing on the record that your Attorney-General has now formally put on the record, via you, that she does not believe that there is any actual or perceived conflict in the fact that the current CDPP, Raelene Sharp, was counsel assisting the Office of the Special Investigator in relation to war crimes that had allegedly been committed. This was actually disclosed in the press release that was issued by your former Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, when he then appointed her as the now Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

But, on top of that—seeing as we do now need to clearly get things on the Hansard record—can I therefore confirm this. On 26 May 2026, in our Senate estimates proceedings, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Raelene Sharp, appeared before us. I was there and you were there. I asked questions of her and she gave evidence—it is on the Hansard record—about the process followed by the CDPP before the charges were commenced with. Her evidence was that the CDPP, Ms Sharp, sent advice to the Attorney-General on 30 March 2026 seeking the Attorney-General's consent in relation to the proposed prosecution of Mr Roberts-Smith. The contemporaneous record of the estimates hearing records that the CDPP had sent advice to the Attorney-General requesting consent to charge Ben Roberts-Smith on 30 March. She then gave evidence about what was contained in that material. Her evidence was that the brief to the Attorney-General essentially contained the information explaining why she as the CDPP considered that the charges were warranted. Then, as you know, on 1 April, a day or two later, the Attorney-General gave that consent. So can I again confirm, given we are going to actually now change the law apparently in relation to conflicts of interest when they involve the CDPP, that the Attorney-General of Australia does not believe that there is any actual or perceived conflict of interest in relation to the current CDPP, who provided the brief of evidence and requested the consent to go ahead with the charges from your Attorney-General—and that consent was provided—and the fact that she was directly involved, as is set out in your former Attorney-General's press release, with the Office of the Special Investigator, who investigated the alleged war crimes?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:24): I've already answered this question. I refer to my previous answer.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:24): On the Hansard record, you have said the current Attorney-General does not believe there is any actual or perceived conflict. Can I also confirm, should this legislation today pass, that there will be no change in the position in relation to the CDPP and her involvement in the prosecution of this particular case—in other words, a conflict of interest won't suddenly be declared because this legislation passed?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:25): Senator Cash, as we canvassed yesterday, there are current arrangements already in place where actual, potential or perceived conflict of interests arise. A director must take a leave of absence from their duties entirely to allow an acting director to be appointed to then perform or exercise the functions of powers. The provisions that we are seeking to amend don't create a new process. They simply make it more effective.

Senator COLLINS (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (10:25): The CDDP's powers derive from section 9 of the DPP Act. In describing that section, the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth at 4.1 says:

This provision encapsulates in a statutory form one of the main purposes in establishing the DPP—that the decision whether and how a prosecution proceeds should be made by the DPP independently of those who were responsible for the investigation.

If someone acted as an investigator and later became the prosecutor in the same matter, would that contradict the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:26): I've already answered the question about whether there is an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest. The answer is no.

Senator COLLINS (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (10:26): Thank you, but that wasn't what I asked. I asked: if someone acted as an investigator and later became the prosecutor in the same matter, would that contradict the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:27): Senator, if you refer to that legislation, you would note that it's actually up to the director to decide whether there's a conflict. We've gone through that back-and-forth today. That's been considered. The director doesn't consider that there is an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest. The provisions we're seeking to amend today would make it even easier for a conflict to be managed, and we hope to get the support of the parliament.

Senator COLLINS (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (10:27): If the director has not declared a conflict of interest, can the Attorney-General then step in and declare that there is a conflict of interest—if an investigator then becomes a prosecutor?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:28): No.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:28): Can I just go back to some earlier evidence that you've given, Minister? You said that the CDPP has concluded that she does not believe there is a conflict of interest in the Ben Roberts-Smith case. Given that, again, we are talking about changing the current process in relation to conflicts of interest, are you aware of how the CDPP arrived at this conclusion that there was no conflict of interest, given—in particular—the policy that Senator Collins has just referred to?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:29): Senator Cash, as you are aware, the CDPP is an independent agency. I can't speak on the director's behalf. You're entitled to ask questions of her, obviously, through Senate estimates or other methods, but I can't speak for her. The director is independent and has considered this matter.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:29):  If the director is therefore independent—your evidence appears to be that the Attorney-General has no role, including in relation to the policy, if she herself thought, 'Well, hey, hold on, there is a conflict;' your answer was no—can I ask, therefore, why the government has drafted legislation that therefore allows the Attorney-General to select the person who exercises the director's powers?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:30): That's a really simple answer, and it's in the explanatory memorandum. It's really about making sure that the person who is selected to undertake the position is of enough seniority to do it. We understand that the position and the duties of the director are of great importance, particularly to our justice system, so we want to ensure that a duly qualified and senior member of staff is appointed.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:30): Again, you just gave advice that the office of the CDPP is independent. On that basis, why did the government not say, 'Well, the director, because she is independent, is able to nominate the appropriate substitute'? Is not the independence therefore compromised because you are now saying, 'Despite all of that independence, which I've just put on the Hansard record, we're actually going to nominate the Attorney-General of the day to select the person'? That is in direct conflict with the evidence you've just given to the chamber.

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:31): No, it's not. What's being proposed is that the Attorney-General make an authorisation, given the importance of the powers and functions, to ensure that the identified conflict of interest is adequately managed. I'm sure you would agree that that's an appropriate thing for the Attorney-General to do, but it does not in any way interfere with the independence of the agency. It would not be appropriate for the director to use their power of delegation to delegate the performance of the relevant function or exercise of the relevant power in circumstances where they have identified a conflict of interest.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:32): Does the government accept that prosecutorial independence must be protected both in fact and in appearance?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:32): Yes.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:32): Therefore, does the government accept that allowing the Attorney-General to select the person exercising the DPP powers in a particular matter could create a perception of political involvement?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:32): No, because that person who is selected would still be required to undertake the duties and the powers of the director in accordance with the legislation.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:32): You said earlier that the CDPP has concluded that she does not believe there is a conflict of interest in the case of Ben Roberts-Smith. Are you aware of how the CDPP arrived at this conclusion that there was no actual or perceived conflict?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:33): I've answered that question.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:33): Do you know if she sought independent advice about whether or not there was an actual or perceived conflict?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:33): That's a matter for the director, which is why I answered that way previously. If you have further questions in relation to this, I will be giving you the same answer.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:33): Has the Attorney-General discussed the matter of a direct or perceived conflict of interest with the CDPP about the Ben Roberts-Smith matter?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:33): Senator, I've indicated to you what the government's position is in relation to the conflict of interest. I won't in any way, shape or form go into conversations between ministers and the heads of agencies. But, to be clear, the government does not accept that there is any actual or perceived conflict of interest that relates to the current Director of Public Prosecutions.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:34): In terms of the provision that we are dealing with today, is the director required to be consulted before the Attorney-General makes the authorisation?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:34): That's not a requirement, for the reasons I gave to you previously. Once the conflict is identified, that decision is made by the Attorney-General to ensure that the person who undertakes those duties is of enough seniority to undertake the powers and particularly the duties required by the director.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:35): Just so we understand exactly, for the Hansard record, can you again take us through how the Attorney-General determines who this nominated person will be.

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:35): As outlined in the explanatory memorandum, the Attorney-General may authorise a person to perform or exercise the relevant functions or powers if the person is:

a member of the staff of the CDPP

an APS employee who is classified as a Senior Executive Service Band 2 or an equivalent or higher, or acting as such, and

a legal practitioner.

This ensures the authorised person is of sufficient seniority to exercise powers … that would otherwise be vested in the head of the agency.

And, to be clear:

… an authorisation may authorise a person to perform a function or exercise a power in relation to specified proceedings, specified acts or omissions, or in specified circumstances.

It also provides that the authorisation can authorise a person to perform a function or exercise a power under the act. I can take you through some examples of that, but they are in the act and the explanatory memorandum.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:36): Is the Attorney-General, at any stage, required to have regard to the director's views in terms of the appointee? For example, if the director were to object to the Attorney-General's proposed appointee, could the Attorney-General nevertheless authorise that person?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:37): No, there's no requirement in the provisions that are in front of us for that to occur, primarily because, once a conflict has been identified, we wouldn't want that conflict to influence the decision. It's not part of the decision that the Attorney-General would make. As I said, the only factors that the Attorney-General would take into account is that they're a member of staff, they're of Senior Executive Band 2 and they're a legal practitioner.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:37): Is the Attorney-General required to give reasons—publicly available reasons—for determining a particular person will actually be delegated the powers of the CDPP?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:37): No, Senator.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:37): But they do need to be an officer of the Commonwealth DPP because they have to be staff within the department, I think you said.

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:38): Yes, Senator—a member of the CDPP, an APS employee which is at SES Band 2 or higher, and a legal practitioner. They're the three criteria that the Attorney-General would require.

Senator Cash: And that's 'and'?

Senator GREEN: Yes, that's 'and'.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:38): In the event that a conflict is identified, is the Attorney-General expressly required to then be satisfied that the person that is being authorised has no actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest themselves, given, as you just said, there are lots of people in the CDPP and they may well have worked on a particular matter. So how do you then ensure that the infection that has been identified does not then flow through?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:39): This is in the legislation that we've proposed. That person would be required to provide information to the Attorney-General in the same way that a potential director would. I'm not necessarily talking about conflicts of interest for a proceeding, but we'll get to that. In the first instance, that person would have to provide all direct and indirect pecuniary interests that that person has or acquires in any business, whether in Australia or anywhere else. That's how we deal with those types of conflicts of interest. You're talking more in relation to the conflict that might arise from a proceeding. That person would also need to declare that to the Attorney.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:40): Can I confirm the way this particular clause of the legislation is then triggered? It's not the Attorney-General who utilises the powers because she or he perceives there is a conflict. In the first instance, the director identifies the conflict and then says to the Attorney-General, 'Those powers are now triggered,' not the other way around.

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:40): Yes, that's correct. That is how it works under the current arrangements. There's no change to the fact that a conflict of interest can be identified and dealt with. What we're dealing with is how it's dealt with. At the moment, a conflict of interest requires that the DPP takes a period of leave. This proposal enables that not to occur. We think that's a more effective way and a way that it is dealt with in other types of agencies and, quite frankly, within the legal system and law firms. So this is an appropriate update to the legislation. As I said to you earlier, just to confirm for the Hansard record, this is not motivated by any particular proceeding or conflict.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:41): The CDPP identifies an actual or perceived conflict. This now steps in. The Attorney-General appoints someone to step in. In terms of the appointment itself, must the authorisation relate to a single identified matter? Can the authorisation cover a class of matters? Does it cover all relevant functions of the director for a period of time? Is there any maximum statutory minimum duration for an authorisation? How does the ending of the authorisation come into play? For example, if the conflict ceases, does that mean that suddenly the authorisation ends? Is there a formal written instrument et cetera in terms of the delegation now ending? Could I get that on the Hansard record?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:42): I'm not seeking to be disrespectful in any way, but it's on the Hansard record because it's in the bill.

Senator Cash: Yes, but I just would like it read out when people are actually reading this.

Senator GREEN: Well, it's in the bill. You can read it. It relates to a number of different ways that the authorisation is designed to be flexible. I can take you through those provisions. They're in proposed 31A, 'Authorisation of persons in cases of conflict of interest':

(3) Without limiting subsection (2), an authorisation may authorise a person to perform a function or exercise a power:

   (a) in relation to specified proceedings; or

   (b) in relation to specified acts or omissions; or

   (c) in specified circumstances.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:43): What about the length of the authorisation and what triggers the ending of the authorisation?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:43): That will depend on the conflict.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:43): I understand that it depends on the conflict, but what is the trigger for the authorisation coming to an end? Is it written?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:44): I understand your question. To clarify: the Attorney-General can make an authorisation that will allow someone to undertake functions of powers in relation to a specific proceeding. Once that proceeding is finalised, the authorisation can allow a person to undertake specified functions or powers. The Attorney-General can also make a standing authorisation to avoid having to remake the same authorisation multiple times.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Blyth ): Senator Shoebridge.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (10:44): Thanks very much. I was in my own world!

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:44): Sorry, Senator Shoebridge. Can I just clarify, Senator Cash, for completeness. Proposed section 31B, subsection (1), says:

The Attorney-General may, in writing, vary or revoke an authorisation under section 31A at any time.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (10:45): I was moving to a different matter, which is the surveillance warrant. This bill proposes an extension for over three years, to September 2029. What was the rationale for a three-year extension, given this government, I think, has been in receipt of the INSLM's recommendations for more than 12 months about the need for fundamental reform? What was the thinking behind a three-year extension period?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:46): I might answer that question by also making some comments about the amendment that you've proposed in relation to the sunset. That might be a convenient way to do that. The government is opposing your amendment in relation to the sunsetting date. As you say, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, in his review of the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Act 2021, found that the powers that we are referring to must not be allowed to sunset. That's very, very clear. The extension of the sunsetting date to 4 September 2029, in the government's view—you asked for the rationale. The rationale is that it ensures these critical powers remain in place until comprehensive reform to modernise the electronic surveillance framework is completed and has been considered by parliament and also commences. The government intends to further consider the framework for the powers and the recommendations of the INSLM's review as part of these comprehensive reforms.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (10:47): But the government's had the INSLM review for more than 12 months, and the INSLM said that these powers have been used very rarely, but there are circumstances where, in the INSLM's opinion, they were appropriate. But the INSLM also said they should not continue without a whole series of additional safeguards. Now, does the government still support the INSLM's recommendations for safeguards of these powers? Is that still the government's position, or have you changed your position—because this bill puts no safeguards in. It just totally ignores all of those parts of the INSLM's report. Is it still the government's position to support those safeguards?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:47): I want to confirm for you that the review, particularly those recommendations relating to safeguards—it's the government's view that they're more appropriately considered as part of a broader electronic surveillance reform, and that will ensure that issuing arrangements and safeguards for the powers introduced by the act align with the arrangements for other electronic surveillance warrants.

You go to the timeframe, and I respect your views. I think it's really important for those listening to understand that the work around progressing comprehensive reforms to Australia's electronic surveillance laws is happening as quickly as possible, and the government is committed to getting those reforms right. The reforms are some of the most complex and significant national security law reforms undertaken in Australia's history.

Before we get into talking about how quickly we should move on this, I just want to remind senators that the reform involves the repeal and replacement of more than 1,200 pages of legislation across four acts of parliament affecting more than 20 Commonwealth, state and territory law enforcement agencies. The legislation, we believe, must be carefully developed to ensure that new laws remain effective, given the rapid pace of change.

The government is committed to those reforms. We are working to progress them. It's a matter for the Home Affairs portfolio, but we certainly recognise the complexity and significance of these changes and we look forward to broad support in the parliament when they're brought forward.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (10:49): I hear the arguments. We hear it every time from the Attorney-General's Department: 'Oh, you know, it's all very complex. It's all very hard. We have to write this really tortured series of impenetrable pieces of legislation.' Yet, what the INSLM said was that there was a series of protections you could literally lift and shift from other jurisdictions that already have these protections in place. Other jurisdictions in the UK and some of the state jurisdictions already have the protections in place that the INSLM is recommending happen at a Commonwealth level. But, again, we get this statement from this government, in particular, that any kind of reform is going to take us two years, three years, four years, five years, 10 years or 12 years.

If you look at the Attorney-General's department in particular, their ability to produce meaningful legislative reform seems almost zero. They spend their time producing things like the FOI reform, which nobody asked for or supported and which was countless hundreds of pages of legislation. Then we put it in the recycling bin. When it comes to these basic reforms that the INSLM is recommending—and, as I said, you could literally go and pick up the drafting from other jurisdictions—we get told that it's going to be three years, four years, 10 years or eight years.

How about this one? The INSLM recommended that issuing authorities should be retired judges and, if you can't make them retired judges, make them current judges. That's not what I would call a major drafting exercise. That could have absolutely come with this legislation, or it could have come in a standalone piece of legislation that accompanies this legislation. Are you really seriously saying, Minister, that it takes three years to put in a legislative provision to say that these warrants need to be issued by retired judges or current judges? Is that really going to take this department three years to write that?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:52): I'll just make a number of points. That's not the suggestion that I've made. We are working around that sunsetting date that's been proposed to ensure that the new framework can be in place, that it's gone through parliament and that it commences. We do recognise that it is complex.

I just wanted to make a couple of points, though, about your political commentary. It is not fair to say that the Attorney-General's Department has not undertaken legislative reform. As the former chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee over three years, they kept us very busy with important reform. You might not view things like the Criminal Code amendment on deepfake sexual material important or—

Senator Shoebridge: No prosecutions.

Senator GREEN: Well, you might not think that that's important, but I can tell you that it's incredibly important, particularly to Australian women. You might not think that the reforms that this government made on improving the family law system are consequential in any way or some of the work that we've done around improving our national security, banning state sponsored terrorists. This is complex legal work. I just think your constant diminishing of public servants who serve our country and do really difficult work in an increasingly complex environment, particularly around national security, demeans you and not them.

We understand your sense of urgency to progress these reforms. We have undertaken extensive work already and we will continue to do that, but to dismiss this as a simple 'switcheroo' of provisions is nonsense. Quite frankly, the government and, I would suggest, the opposition are not going to take any type of national security advice from the Greens.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (10:54): We're suggesting you take national security advice from the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, the INSLM. These are the recommendations we're putting forward. I asked how it could possibly take three years to put in place an amendment that said these warrants should be considered by retired judges or current judges. Instead, we get another word salad, political attack on me for daring to ask the question.

Then we get this desperate effort to come up with a list of meaningful reforms that have come out of the Attorney-General's Department, and the one thing we get is the criminalisation of deepfakes. When that legislation passed, we said, 'Fine, pass that legislation.' I think it was maybe three pages long. What the Greens said was: 'Criminalising it won't fix it. These things don't get prosecuted. Women don't feel safe coming to the police. The police aren't properly trained. It's not really going to fix it. It's all a political play. Show us the prosecutions.' After that so-called landmark reform from the Labor Party, do you know how many prosecutions there have been under that legislation for deepfakes? Last time I checked, one. One prosecution. That's what you put forward as saying the Attorney-General's Department is some kind of meaningful reform agent.

The legislation no doubt got some kind of political hit for the government, pretending to do something that was going to be meaningful. But in terms of protecting women, only one prosecution last time we looked. One prosecution in the whole country. That's what you put forward as the meaningful reform coming out of the Attorney-General's Department. So I ask again: how could it possibly take three years to put an amendment in to say these warrants should only be issued by retired or current judges? How can that possibly take three years?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:56): I've answered that question. To go to the point you made around taking advice from the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, we are. That review found that these powers must not be allowed to sunset. By passing this bill, we will ensure that that does not occur, although the Greens have decided to vote against that advice.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (10:56): The Greens have an amendment to increase—you ask about not being verballed, Minister, and then you make that deliberately false contribution. Our amendment here is to give you 12 months of sunsetting; 12 months to get done the job that the INSLM has been saying for over a year you should get done. So don't you verbal me—through you, Chair. The minister shouldn't be verballing me. We say 12 months is enough time for a department with countless hundreds of staff to come through and pass some legislation to put these protections in.

There are three core protections the INSLM says should be attached to these warrants. These are covert warrants that the people who are subject to never find out about most of the time. The INSLM has said not only should these covert warrants be done by retired or current judges but there should be a public interest monitor there. I'll read the recommendation:

There should be Public Interest Monitors whose role includes providing submissions on matters of public interest and feedback from oversight processes, identifying matters where independent technical advice may be required and providing comments on draft warrant applications and templates.

That's what the INSLM said because the INSLM is worried that ASIO, the AFP and, under the current law, the ACIC, in secret exchanges that happen without any public hearings, without anyone contesting it and without any independent person reading this, are going in secret and getting these warrants with no-one contesting them. No-one's checking for the public interest. No-one's checking if they're overly extensive. No-one's checking about the technology.

Does the government support that recommendation from the INSLM to have public interest monitors as part of this so that, when the state goes in and covertly wiretaps and gets their warrants, there's somebody checking? Do you support the recommendation?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:59): Senator, as I said previously, and as you well know, the government is working through those recommendations as part of the comprehensive reform, and we will consider those recommendations. The legislation before us does not deal with that recommendation, in terms of relevance of the question, but we will continue to engage and progress those reforms as required.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (10:59):  Now I'm really confused, because the government's response to the INSLM's report—again, this was tabled in this parliament last year—said in response to recommendation 1—which was where the monitor recommended that the AFP should retain these warrants subject to recommendations 6 to 8 being implemented, and I just read two of those recommendations, recommendations 6 and 7—was, 'The government agrees to this recommendation.' That's what you told parliament last year. You said you support public interest monitors. You said you support having retired or current judges. You put it in writing. You tabled it in the parliament. You told the parliament that, and now, when I test you on it, you go to water. Your advice now is: 'Oh, we're considering it. It's under advisement. It'll be part of a complex review.' So I ask you: is that what's happened—that you've gone to water on accepting recommendations 6, 7 and 8 of the INSLM between when the response was tabled last year and whatever advice you're getting now? Is that what's happened—that you've backpedalled?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (11:01): Senator, why don't we just cease the personal attacks that you're directing at me? It is not becoming of the parliament and it is unnecessary. I have all of the information in front of me.

Senator GREEN: No. Well, what do you think that is? Maybe you should just go back to attacking me about women's safety. Is that a better place for you to be?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Blyth ): Senator Shoebridge, do you have a point of order?

Senator Shoebridge: I'd ask the minister to withdraw that. When I'm saying 'you' in this context, it's a reference to the government. I understand that we have an assistant minister here who's not responsible for the legislation and who's getting the advice from the bureaucrats. You want to personalise this, Minister. I don't. My reference is to the government.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Shoebridge, if you can resume your seat, I was listening to what the minister was saying. I don't believe there was anything there that she needs to withdraw, but I would ask you both to direct your comments through the chair.

Senator GREEN: Gladly, Chair. I would love to do that. I think that what Senator Shoebridge has sought to do is clarify his comments—that he was directing them at the government and not to me personally. That was what I was responding to. It's not helpful in terms of the debate today.

Senator Shoebridge, you asked me about a government response which is on the public record. It's not in front of me, because it doesn't relate to this bill. I know that you would like me to have every piece of document that's been tabled in the parliament in my head or in front of me, but I don't. I can get that information for you. But, as it relates to the government's response to recommendations of a review that was tabled, that has not changed. I think that, if we were to go to those recommendations, you would find that that is exactly what the government is seeking to implement—ensuring that this provision does not sunset and considering further reform. I don't have the wording of the response in front of me. You clearly do. We can get that for you if you really need a public document to be presented through this debate. But what I've got in front of me relates to the current provisions, and what I've said to you is that we are seeking to extend the sunset to 2029 to allow us to undertake that comprehensive reform to modernise the electronic surveillance framework. That is not a changed position from the government. We will continue to work on that, and this bill today will ensure that that these really important powers do not sunset.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (11:03): Minister, you get the advice that's been given to you by the Attorney and her office and by the department, and I find it incredible that they are not giving you the support you need for this debate, because one of the core issues with extending the sunset provision is that the INSLM said that these powers should only be extended if these protections are in place. The INSLM said it in black and white. It said you should only extend the sunset provision, that these powers should only be continued, if they are subject to a raft of protections for the public and for those who are targeted by these powers. So it is absolutely relevant to the debate today to extend these to address the failure of your government to legislate the now longstanding recommendations from the INSLM.

I want to be clear: the Greens do not support giving you three years to spin your wheels and not deliver this reform. I'm surprised the coalition is agreeing to giving you three years to do this, to spin the wheels and not deliver the reforms and protections that the INSLM is doing. That's why I'm moving this amendment on behalf of my party, the Greens, to say a maximum of 12 months to the sunset. It is absolutely critical to this debate to get an understanding of what the government's intention is and what the timeframe is for these INSLM recommendations. It looks like we'll have some time to come back and discuss this later today, so maybe in that time those who are advising you would be well minded to bring down the 300-page INSLM report and the six-page government response that's been tabled to the INSLM report and be able to answer questions that this parliament has about giving you a three-year get-into-jail-free card to extend this.

The other question that we have is: does the government support reforms to these warrants, which you want a three-year extension for? Do you support a mechanism to give access to independent technical advice about the warrants so that those issuing the warrants have an understanding about what the security agencies are proposing to do with their covert surveillance? I've met a bunch of judges. They're nice people. Sometimes they have an interest in things; sometimes they don't. In my experience, given their generation, they're not what I'd call tech savvy. They often have their associate print out their emails for them. Yet you're going to be asking them to issue warrants that have incredibly technical provisions in them that undertake really complex online surveillance and operate quite sophisticated hardware and software without any kind of technical advice. Do you support the INSLM when the INSLM says, 'Whoever's issuing these warrants should have a mechanism to access independent technical advice so they can understand what they're doing'? Do you support that?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (11:07): Perhaps the best way to answer this series of questions is to confirm my previous answer to the senator, which is that the government's response to the review—which was tabled in parliament and is publicly available—has not changed. We can go through every single one of those recommendations and the government's response. I think, with the one you're referring to, the government noted that those positions haven't changed. It's publicly available.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (11:08): This isn't one that the government noted. This was a key safeguard that was an essential part of recommendation 1. This is recommendation 8 of the INSLM—that's one element of it, and you'll be pleased to know there are other elements to explore. Recommendation 1 of the INSLM was:

AFP should retain DDWs, subject to recommendations 6-8 being implemented.

I'll read the first sentence from the government's response to that, which was:

The Government agrees to this recommendation.

Now, we're told that you're actually just noting recommendation 8, and—

Senator Green: On a point of order, Senator Shoebridge is verballing my answers and it is misleading the Senate. The Hansard is very clear. I do not have the report in front of me. I'm not quoting from it, but it is publicly available. So, if you would like the answers on what is in that report, you can read it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Blyth ): Minister, that is a debating point. Senator Shoebridge, when you resume, could you just keep to the questions in the committee stage.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Perhaps we can, after the break, have an answer to the riddle. It is a little bit confusing in the government's response as well. The government's response is that they agree to recommendation 1, which is dependent on having recommendations 6 to 8 implemented. But then, when they're dealing with recommendation 8 in the body of their response, they say that they 'note' recommendation 8. This is a riddle I'm trying to understand. On the one hand, you agree to it. Then, on the other hand, you note it in the government's response. So perhaps when we come back on this sometime after quarter past 11, Minister, you can get some advice from the department about whether the answer that your government does accept recommendation 1 is true or whether it is actually the answer that you give on recommendation 8, that you just note it and you're not really interested in putting in place the protections the INSLM says are needed before these covert warrants are extended.

One of the other key concerns the INSLM had was that, in a system where there's no-one checking, there's no independent check, there's no defendant contesting it, there's no-one testing what the police say and there's no-one testing what ASIO says, it's all just them and a judge or them and whichever officer is issuing the warrant, what are the checks and balances in place? The INSLM said that there needs to be a statutory duty of candour requiring disclosure of all matters of which the applicant is aware, both favourable and adverse. There's currently no such statutory duty. So my first question to you, Minister, is this. You're proposing to extend these powers for another three years. Does the government believe that the AFP and ASIO have a duty of candour in putting these applications? Do you believe that they have a duty to put before whoever is being asked to issue a warrant all the relevant material, both in favour of and not in favour of the application? Do you believe that obligation exists now?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (11:13): Senator Shoebridge, as I've said to you, our response to that review is in the government response that was tabled. If there's any clarification required, we will get that for you. I think it's really important to understand that, while the recommendations relate to the comprehensive reform that the government's undertaking, there are existing safeguards that apply to concealment activities. I won't run you through them. I'm not going to insult your intelligence by implying that you're not across those. But there are current safeguards, including that the Commonwealth Ombudsman has independent oversight for account takeover and data disruption warrants, as the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has for network activity warrants. There are obviously other safeguards that are already in place. I don't think parliament would have passed the original provisions without those being applicable.

In regard to further safeguards or more reform, that is what the government is undertaking now. If there is any clarification needed on the recommendations, we can obtain that for you. But, to be clear and because we're going to wrap up in a minute, these access powers are incredibly important and they cannot be allowed to sunset. They allow agencies to take reasonably necessary steps to hide actions and take warrants and retain the covert nature of incredibly important operations that would otherwise be jeopardised. We seek the parliament's endorsement to ensure that that really important work can continue.

Progress reported.

Senator SHELDON (New South Wales—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (11:15): I present Report No. 9 of 2026 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. 9 OF 2026

13 August 2026

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Tony Sheldon (Government Whip, Chair)

Senator Maria Kovacic (Opposition Whip)

Senator Sean Bell (One Nation Whip)

Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator Ralph Babet

Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip)

Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm

Senator Jessica Collins

Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher

Senator Jacqui Lambie

Senator Kerrynne Liddle

Senator Fatima Payman

Senator David Pocock

Senator Lidia Thorpe

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 9 OF 2026

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 12 August 2026 at 7.10 pm.

2. The committee made no recommendations to refer bills to committees.

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

Trade and Investment Agreements (Consultation) Bill 2026

Wine and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:

A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Amendment (No Jab No Pay Repeal) Bill 2025

Anti-Discrimination Legislation Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Sex Characteristics Discrimination Commissioner) Bill 2026

Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Amendment Bill 2026

Broadcasting Services Amendment (Audio Description) Bill 2019

Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2025

Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024

Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) Bill 2026

Commonwealth Land (Affordable Housing) Bill 2026

Competition and Consumer Amendment (Divestiture Powers) Bill 2024

Constitution Alteration (Right to Free Speech) 2025

Copyright Legislation Amendment (Fair Pay for Radio Play) Bill 2023

Crimes Amendment (Repeal Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Bill 2025

Criminal Code Amendment (Equal Access to Voluntary Assisted Dying) Bill 2026

Customs Legislation Amendment (Commercial Greyhound Export and Import Prohibition) Bill 2021

Digital ID Repeal Bill 2024

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Communications) Bill 2025 (No. 2)

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair Territory Representation) Bill 2024

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fairer Contracts and Grants) Bill 2023

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Lowering the Voting Age) Bill 2023

Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Low Emissions Future) Bill 2025

Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2026

Fair Work Amendment (Paid Reproductive Health Leave and Flexible Work Arrangements) Bill 2025

Higher Education Support Amendment (End Dirty University Partnerships) Bill 2025

Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Consideration of UNDRIP) Bill 2023

Lobbying (Improving Government Honesty and Trust) Bill 2025

National Housing and Homelessness Plan Bill 2024

News Journalism Payments Bill 2026

News Journalism Payments (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2026

News Media Bargaining (Administration) Bill 2026

News Media Bargaining Charge Bill 2026

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Domestic Reserve) Bill 2026

Online Safety Amendment (Broadening Adult Cyber Abuse Protections) Bill 2026

Online Safety Amendment (Fix Our Feeds) Bill 2026

Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2026

Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018

Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026

Prime Agricultural Land Protection Bill 2026

Right to Protest Bill 2025

Social Media Minimum Age Repeal Bill 2025

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Responding to Robodebt) Bill 2025 [No. 2]

Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment (Frontline Emergency Service Workers) Bill 2025

Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Fair Super for Young Workers) Bill 2026

Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media Bargaining) (Consequential) Bill 2026

Treasury Laws Amendment (Removing the Widows and Spouses Tax) Bill 2026

Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Accountability for Tax Adviser Misconduct and Other Measures) Bill 2026

Unlocking Supply of Family Homes Bill 2025

Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Clearing the Fair Work Commission Backlog) Bill 2026 5. The committee considered the following bills but could not reach agreement:

Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2026

Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) (Extending Support and Strengthening Safety) Bill 2026

(Tony Sheldon)

Chair 12 August 2026

Senator SHELDON: I move:

That the report be adopted.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for Finance, Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Women, Minister for Government Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:16): I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", and the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Amendment Bill 2026 and the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 not be referred to committees".

Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Australian Greens Whip) (11:16): I also have amendments. I'm happy to move them as amendments to Senator Gallagher's amendment. I move:

At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of:

(a) the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2026, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 October 2026; and

(b) the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Amendment Bill 2026, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 October 2026".

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the amendment moved by Senator McKim to the government's amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.

The PRESIDENT (11:23): I understand there are a number of amendments. I intend now to put the amendment moved by Minister Gallagher. Then I'll go to Senator Duniam, and I understand there might then be a further amendment. So the question is that the amendment moved by Minister Gallagher be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (11:24): I move the opposition amendment to the report relating to the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) (Extending Support and Strengthening Safety) Bill 2026 as circulated in the chamber:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) (Extending Support and Strengthening Safety) Bill 2026, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 8 October 2026".

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for Finance, Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Women, Minister for Government Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:24): I have an amendment to Senator Duniam's amendment, as circulated in the chamber, which would essentially shift the reporting date to 4 September from 8 October. I move:

Omit "date 8 October 2026", substitute "4 September 2026".

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the amendment as moved by Minister Gallagher to the amendment as put by Senator Duniam be agreed to.

The PRESIDENT (11:31): The question now is that Senator Duniam's amendment, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Senator HANSON (Queensland—Leader of One Nation) (11:31): I move my amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026, the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 7 September 2026".

One Nation is a party of principle. One of our most important principles is putting Australians and their interests first—their freedom, their rights, their safety and the security of our nation. These are not only our principles; they should be national principles. Unfortunately, we have a Labor government which is deliberately and actively compromising these principles. This is why One Nation has introduced the Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026. This legislation is based on the principle of keeping Australians safe from people who would do them harm. We are acting where the Labor government is refusing to act.

Labor has denied assisting the return of terrorists who supported the ISIS terrorist group. Labor has in fact actively assisted their return. Home affairs minister Tony Burke has said that the law leaves him with no choice but to permit their return. One Nation's legislation aims to fix the law so that it gives the minister the ability to prevent their return. It should be this parliament's first responsibility to make laws that keep Australians safe. That's another principle behind this bill.

Labor and the Greens claim One Nation's legislation is unconstitutional. The government has not tabled any advice to this effect. Their claim is also contrary to advice One Nation has received and contrary to public comments made by people who know a lot more about the Constitution than Labor or the Greens. We're very happy for the constitutional validity of One Nation's bill to be examined. That's why we are moving this amendment. In the end, only the High Court can determine the matter, but, at the very least, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee can consider these issues.

Instead of making excuses about letting terrorists into Australia, Labor should be doing everything possible to prevent it. If the law is a problem, then change it. Stop worrying about your precious Muslim votes in Western Sydney. Act on principle instead of your cheap grubby politics. Stop putting Australians in danger. Act on what Australians want you to do. Keep them safe and keep terrorists out of our country. Failure to support this legislation is a failure to protect Australians.

We must not forget who we are dealing with here. Islamic State horrified the world. It enslaved thousands of people. It burned captives alive and filmed it. Individuals who left Australia to join this organisation celebrated these acts and actively took part in them. Thirteen of them are reported to be held in prison in Baghdad. It is reported they may soon be released from custody and may seek to return to Australia.

One Nation's legislation is aimed at putting in place every possible barrier to prevent their return and to protect Australians. It creates a new foreign terrorist fighter exclusion order for which the minister may apply to the Federal Court. The bill creates stronger bail laws, making community safety and national security the most important factors. The legislation gives the minister the power to refuse, cancel or suspend passports where an exclusion order is in force or if an individual is charged with, or convicted of, a terrorism offence. Finally, One Nation's bill makes it an offence to facilitate bringing a foreign terrorist fighter into Australia without the prior written permission of the Foreign Minister or the Minister for Home Affairs.

These are sensible and necessary measures. So if any member votes against this referral it is anti Australian and supports the ISIS fighters by not doing everything we can legally to keep them out of the country. These are sensible and necessary measures. I ask that the Senate support this amendment in the best interests of the Australian people.

Question agreed to.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (11:39): I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 14 September 2026:

The Australian Government's response to the recommendations of the fourth cycle of the Universal Periodic Review, with particular reference to the adequacy of Australia's response to the review and any related matters.

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

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory—Independent ACT Whip) (11:46): I, and also on behalf of Senator Canavan, move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

Senator DAVID POCOCK: I present the bill and move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory—Independent ACT Whip) (11:47): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Monday marked 90 days since Labor's bin fire of a Budget. A Budget full of toxic taxes.

Taxes on housing, on savings, on trusts.

Taxes on shares, on crypto, on every asset class.

Taxes on aspirational young Australians trying to build a nest egg. Taxes on small and family businesses.

Taxes on farmers and charities.

And the cruellest taxes of them all: A wicked tax on widows and divorcees.

What type of government thinks it's acceptable to whack a tax on Australians who are grieving the loss of a spouse or a partner?

What type of government sees dollar signs when looking at someone who's gone through a traumatic break-up?

What type of government is so desperate for money that it goes after Australians who are the victims of family and domestic violence?

I'll tell you what type of government: A government that's lost its moral compass.

A government so heartless that it goes after Australians who are heartbroken and hurt.

The justifiable public backlash to Labor's Budget is of a magnitude unlike any we have seen. Australians are rightly calling it the worst Budget in living memory.

Labor's Budget has blown up in their faces. And don't they know it.

That's why they proposed carve-outs.

That's why the Treasurer wanted extraordinary powers to make captain's calls.

That's why when the Treasurer appeared on the ABC's Insiders program and was asked about his widow tax, he said he would "fix" it.

Well, more than 40 days have passed since the Treasurer made that promise.

And where's the legislation? There's none to be seen.

Instead, the Government is doing a two-week consultation period before it brings forward any legislation.

Lazy Labor is doing the consultation now that it should have done before the Budget. And all this procrastination and delay mean one thing:

The Government won't "fix" its cruel widow tax until as late as September—or even October.

In the meantime, widows, divorcees, and victims of family and domestic violence will be hit by Labor's toxic taxes.

We've already seen the ramifications of this tax.

News.com.au recently reported on the effects of the widow tax on a 44-year-old domestic abuse victim.

The woman couldn't refinance an investment property she co-owned with her ex-partner because of Labor's negative gearing changes.

And that means she could lose a retirement asset she's spent more than 15 years building. The widow's tax is unacceptable.

We're not going to let Labor get away with it.

We're not going to let this Government's incompetence and inaction injure Australians one moment longer.

We want the widow tax gone.

We're putting forward a Bill to repeal Labor's widow tax.

If the Government is serious about fixing the problem it has created, it should welcome our Bill today.

The widow tax can be scrapped in this sitting period.

And there's no reason this mean-spirited tax shouldn't be scrapped in this sitting period.

Labor failed a simple test when the Parliament last sat.

They had the chance to fix their unfair widow tax. They had the chance to protect people who have already been through some of the hardest moments in life. They had the chance to stand up for widows, divorcees and families trying to keep what they have worked for.

Instead, Labor voted to increase their taxes.

That tells Australians everything they need to know about this lying and incompetent government.

They say one thing before an election and do another in Parliament. They talk about fairness, but they keep coming after people who have worked hard, saved, invested, built a business, bought a home, or planned for their family's future.

Labor's toxic taxes hit Australians trying to get ahead, including widows and divorcees who should not be punished because life has already dealt them a tough hand.

Labor's toxic tax changes are a dog's breakfast.

They're desperately papering over a long list of errors, backflips and failures.

If the Government can't even produce a simple example explaining how its own tax changes work, what chance do ordinary Australians have of understanding them?

This latest Treasury error shows these toxic taxes were rushed through Parliament without proper consultation or scrutiny. Australians are being asked to live under laws the Government itself can't explain properly.

Every week there's another mistake, another carve out or another unintended consequence. That's what happens when you rush through the biggest tax changes in a generation.

The Government keeps trying to patch up a broken policy. These toxic taxes don't need another amendment. They need an axe.

Labor says these taxes will make life simpler and fairer, yet taxpayers are being told they'll need new calculators, new software and new guidance just to work out what they owe.

The Coalition has been clear from the start. The only real solution is to scrap Labor's toxic taxes and get back to a tax system that rewards aspiration, backs investment and helps grow the economy.

Labor's record more broadly

Since Labor was elected, Australia has had the biggest fall in living standards in the developed world.

Labor's record spending means the budget is now forecast to be in deficit for a decade and debt is about to pass $1 trillion.

Labor's toxic taxes are an assault on aspiration.

It is locking young Australians out of opportunities afforded to older Australians, by whacking toxic taxes on housing, savings, investment and small businesses.

Because Labor can't manage money, they're coming after yours.

Senator DAVID POCOCK: I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia—Manager of Australian Greens Business in the Senate) (11:48): I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I present the bill and move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia—Manager of Australian Greens Business in the Senate) (11:49): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have my second reading speech—which is very good, by the way—incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

I rise today to introduce the Criminal Code Amendment (Equal Access to Voluntary Assisted Dying) Bill 2026.

All Australians deserve access to high quality healthcare, and to be treated with dignity, regardless of their postcode. Every Australian deserves to be treated equally under the law, regardless of where they live. Sadly, right now equal access and choice to end of life care and medical assistance is not a reality for many terminally ill Australians, particularly those living in rural and remote areas.

This Bill seeks to address current laws that block many Australians from having access and choice over their end of life care simply because they need to use the phone to speak to their doctor. This means a number of Australian citizens are suffering unnecessarily, and left in pain longer, because they are blocked from accessing the medical care they wish to choose.

Within the Criminal Code, it is an offence to counsel, or incite suicide, via carriage service provider. This change to the legislation was made with good intent. It was meant to protect vulnerable people from pro-suicide websites, minimise the harm of cyberbullying and make the internet a safer place for all.

What it did not intend to do was prevent health professionals, acting in the best interest and choices of their patients, from using telehealth in the process of voluntary assisted dying.

What it did not intend to do was override the state and territories' right to legislate on the very matters they are responsible for dealing with. Yet, this is exactly the effect that the current Criminal Code has.

Let me be clear—this amendment is not a debate on the ethics of voluntary assisted dying. That is a matter for the states and territories. Voluntary assisted dying is legal across Australia and the state and territories have the responsibility to make sure that the appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure that when VAD does happen, it is carried out with the strict safeguards, informed consent, and in line with their jurisdiction's legal requirements.

The safeguards in place are working. This Bill does not seek to make changes to the existing safeguards that are in place in each state and territory to ensure that a person makes a free, informed choice, has decision-making capacity, and faces no pressure or coercion from others

What this amendment does debate is why the Criminal Code continues to be so outdated, that when health professionals engage in actions and activities that are part of their duty of care, they could be declared a criminal. This is ridiculous and must be changed.

Beyond this part of the Code seriously compromising the laws of our states and territories, it also significantly limits access to what is fundamentally a medical procedure. By outright banning the use of telehealth for VAD, it creates a two-class medical system.

Someone whose physical health is declining so much that you can no longer physically go to the clinic or hospital? You can't access this care. Someone who's living in a rural, remote, or regional area, who has to take a three-hour car ride to the nearest doctor? You can't access this care. Meanwhile, those who live in inner city areas can access a fundamentally different level of medical care.

This Bill is a matter of health equity, through a small and minor amendment to a part of the criminal code that we know is deeply outdated and not fit for purpose.

This should not be controversial; it is common sense. I implore all my parliamentary colleagues, from across the Chamber, of all parties to act with compassion, empathy and care. It is time to fix what is a fundamentally unfair, unjust and cruel law, and allow all Australians to have a choice for their end of life care. It is time to give all those whose pain and suffering is already robbing them of a quality of life, the freedom to choose how they wish to spend their last days, with their loved ones, making memories. Not forcing people to endure even more unnecessary pain because a law that was never intended to cause harm and suffering is stopping a patient speaking to their doctor. Every Australian deserves dignity in their final days, regardless of where they live. This Parliament has the chance to relieve some of that suffering and it is cruel and inhumane not to.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (11:50): I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to repeal legislation relating to firearms—

Labor's unfair firearm legislation—

and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion as moved by Senator McKenzie be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye. Against? I believe the ayes have it.

Honourable senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Order! There were two voices. You're not in a debate with me.

The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Shoebridge!

Question agreed to.

Senator McKENZIE: I present the bill and move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (11:51): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

Senator McKENZIE: I table an explanatory memorandum, and I seek leave have my second reading speech, which is excellent reading, incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

On January 20 this year a great injustice was done to Australia's law-abiding firearm owners, who number almost a million people.

Australian citizens and their families who were unfairly, wrongly and improperly blamed for the worst terrorist attack in our nation's history.

They were ambushed by legislation that was not consulted on in a country that already has amongst the toughest firearm laws in the world.

This Bill seeks to right that wrong.

The Firearms Legislation Amendment (Repealing Unfair Gun Laws) Bill 2026 restores Commonwealth law relating to firearms and the importation of firearms, firearms parts and accessories, to the position that applied before passage of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Act 2026.

The Bill also repeals the Government's National Gun Buyback Scheme.

The Bill does not repeal the prohibition on importing or exporting certain violent extremist material or material depicting or containing prohibited symbols as implemented by the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Act 2026.

The Bill does not repeal Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Act 2026 changes to enhance background checks by facilitating consideration of national security information in firearms licencing decision-making, to reduce the risk that individuals who pose a threat to national security or community safety can obtain or retain access to firearms.

Australia has almost one million licensed firearm owners. Who are they?

They live in every electorate in the country; they are law-abiding members of your community and mine.

Before the Prime Minister condemned the Islamic extremism that inspired this attack, he blamed these Australians.

Who are they?

They are the volunteer shooter who spend his weekends culling the foxes, feral pigs, rabbits and goats on farms or bushland that government programs can't.

They are the paraplegic athlete who discovered in target shooting the one sport where her wheelchair is no disadvantage, and who now beats able-bodied competitors across the state.

They are the young woman with the breath technique, incredible eyesight and steadiness to hit a target five hundred metres away.

They are the farmer two hours from the nearest vet, who owes a horse with a shattered leg a quick, compassionate, and painless end.

They are the hardworking electrician who takes the same week of leave every year to sit in a swamp at dawn with his mates and come home to the city with ducks for dinner.

They are the fifteen-year-old junior marksman, shooting under his coach's supervision, who says should seriously dream of being an Olympian.

They are the retired schoolteacher whose locked safe holds a dozen registered historic firearms, among them the Lee-Enfield of the pattern his grandfather carried at Tobruk.

Yes, they are farmers, sporting shooters, hunters, recreational users, collectors and Olympians.

In my home state of Victoria that I represent there are around 243,000 of them.

Many are members of clubs or associations, and this time their members said they would not take this lying down.

They weren't going to be blamed for something horrific and unimaginably inhuman by their own government.

So, they fought back.

Our law-abiding firearm owners follow the rules and use their firearms responsibly, under some of the strictest firearm's laws in the world.

One of the often-used arguments about the Government's legislation was to get guns "off our streets".

But the guns that are "on the streets" in the hands of bikie gangs or criminal gangs are the illegal guns.

In January this year, the Australian community was penalised for a crime it did not commit.

The atrocity at Bondi Beach in December was an act of Islamic terrorism that horrified every Australian.

The firearms laws introduced by Labor were brought forward in a rushed manner, without consultation with key affected stakeholder groups and limited consultation with state jurisdictions.

The laws were implemented without any basis of evidence relevant to the Bondi Islamic terrorist attack.

The perpetrators of the Bondi Islamic terrorist massacre should never have had access to a firearm in the first place under pre-existing laws.

How they obtained one, why the warning signs were missed, and whether gaps between our agencies allowed it to happen are questions now before a Royal Commission, and that is where they belong.

The January legislation was a Prime Minister's deflection from the real cause of the atrocity, which was radical Islamic terrorism and the tacit permission for antisemitism to run rife in the community for two years., and from the questions about agency coordination that are now before the Royal Commission.

Rather than confront those failures, the Labor Government targeted law-abiding firearm owners.

Consider what that legislation did.

It established a National Gun Buyback Scheme directed at firearms lawfully acquired and lawfully held.

It restricted by permit or banned outright the importation of whole categories of commonly used firearms and accessories, including straight pull and assisted repeating action firearms, magazines, handgun categories and sound suppressors.

Not one of those measures would have stopped the antisemitic Bondi attack.

The Interim Report of the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion has found:

"No material or advice from any agency identified any gap in the existing legal and regulatory frameworks that impeded the ability for law enforcement, border control, immigration and security agencies to prevent, or respond to, an attack of the kind that occurred at Bondi on 14 December 2025. No Commonwealth or state intelligence or law enforcement agency has suggested that it was prevented from taking prohibitive actions before or on 14 December 2025 by the then current legislative and authorising framewo rk. In these respects, no issue requiring urgent or immediate action has been identified." (page 8)

Law-abiding firearm owners bear no responsibility for the Bondi Islamic terrorist attack, and they should not be treated by the law of this country as though they do.

A national buyback requires the co-operation of states and territories, because they are the jurisdictions that license and register firearms.

To date only New South Wales and the ACT have committed.

Queensland is refusing to participate, the Northern Territory has rejected the buyback, South Australia will not overhaul its laws, and Victoria has rejected both the buyback and the Government's proposed ownership cap. Tasmania is pursuing its own arrangements, compensating owners fairly for reclassified firearms while rejecting a cap.

While negotiations with states drag on, and deadlines come and go, the damage to lawful businesses is happening now.

When the legislation commenced in January, dealers' standing import approvals were cancelled overnight.

Containers of lawfully ordered stock sat stranded at the border while importers paid the holding costs, with no transition period and public servants unable to explain the new rules.

Dealers now report sharp falls in sales and shelves of stock they may never be permitted to sell.

The buyback announced in December has not commenced and may be a year away, yet there is no timetable, no published valuation framework, no cashflow support, and no answer on whether businesses will be compensated for stranded inventory, leases, staff or forced closures.

Many are small family businesses that have served their communities for generations.

They are carrying the losses of a policy the Government announced and then walked away from.

On top of that sits an important constitutional question.

Section 51(xxxi) contains the only words of our Constitution that everyday Australians can quote verbatim:

the acquisition of property (must be) on just terms.

They can quote it because it goes to the very Australian principle of fairness.

Australians don't like government over-reach, whether it is world record vaccine lockups, exorbitant and unfair fines and charges and taxes, or laws that take away property rights unjustly.

The national buyback was a gambit and a diversion by the Labor Government—designed to pressure law-abiding Australians into surrendering lawfully acquired property, and every firearm owner in the country knows it.

The contribution of the shooting community has been documented because my party, The Nationals made sure of it.

The Economic and Social Impacts of Recreational Hunting Report, found that recreational hunters and shooters contributed more than $2.4 billion to the Australian economy in 2019—worth considerably more today—much of it flowing into regional towns.

Shooting is open to all Australians regardless of gender, age or physical ability, and the nation cheers when our Olympic shooters stand on the podium.

They should not have to do so under a government that makes it harder to train and compete.

The Nationals led the fight against this legislation in January, with the support of our Coalition partners. I tabled a petition ahead of the vote, which has now been signed by more than 71,000 Australians.

The Coalition moved amendments and opposed the buyback scheme and import restrictions. This is a bill about justice.

The legislation it reverses was unjust, it was unfair, and it was not based on evidence. The way to make Australians safer is simple.

Enforce the law against the people who break it and stop burdening the people who keep it.

If this Government really want to make Australia safer, deport hate preachers, the indoctrinators and the urgers, who encouraged this antisemitic atrocity.

And stop giving tacit approval to antisemitic behaviour in this country. This Bill restores commonsense to Australia's firearms laws.

It takes us back to where we were before January 20, that is all.

But it tells almost a million law-abiding Australians that their Parliament has not forgotten them, and that they deserve to be treated by their government with fairness and respect—not with suspicion, and certainly not as second-class citizens.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator McKENZIE: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator KOVACIC (New South Wales) (11:52): At the request of Senator Colbeck, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 18 August 2026, any document, message or text held by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry relating to grant GO ID GO7209, granted from the Support Plantation Establishment program to Tasmania Natural Asset Trust to support the planting of 9000 ha of radiata pines on the property known as Rushy Lagoon.

Question agreed to.

Senator KOVACIC (New South Wales) (11:52): At the request of Senator Colbeck, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 18 August 2026, any document, message or text messages held in relation to the agricultural assessment conducted in connection with the granting of access to the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme of 9000 ha of radiata pine plantations on the property known as Rushy Lagoon in north-east Tasmania.

Senator KOVACIC (New South Wales) (11:57): At the request of Senator Paterson, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than midday on Monday, 17 August 2026, the following documents:

(a) the official correspondence from the Government of Japan to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, reported by media outlets to have been dated 13 July 2026, concerning the Prime Minister's comments in an interview with podcaster Nikki Osborne;

(b) all correspondence between the Prime Minister's office and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet concerning the official correspondence from the Government of Japan referred to in paragraph (a), including emails, letters, text messages, instant messages, handwritten notes, minutes, briefings and submissions; and

(c) all internal documents held by the Prime Minister's office concerning the official correspondence from the Government of Japan referred to in paragraph (a), including emails, letters, text messages, instant messages, handwritten notes, minutes, briefings and submissions.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for Finance, Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Women, Minister for Government Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:58): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator GALLAGHER: As Minister Wong has made clear in this place and the Prime Minister has made clear in the other place, it's entirely inappropriate for the opposition to seek to score political points on Australia's relationship with Japan. The Prime Minister of Japan is a friend of Australia and a friend of the Prime Minister, and the relationship with Japan is closer than it has ever been. The government opposes the motion, and I call on those opposite to reflect on their position on this matter.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 586, standing in the name of Senator Paterson, moved by Senator Kovacic, be agreed to.

Senator KOVACIC (New South Wales) (12:01): At the request of Senator Ruston, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, by no later than 17 August 2026, the final report and roadmap of the Health Technology Assessment Review Implementation Advisory Group, and related documents.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (12:02): I seek leave to make a short statement of no more than a minute.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator STEELE-JOHN: We have heard from many stakeholders that there is an urgent need for reform to the PBS to ensure that medicines are available and affordable, and an important part of that is the recommendation of the HTA review. Since the review concluded in 2024, there has been very little action taken. Meanwhile, people are missing out on life-saving medicines because of government inaction. The release of this report is a small part of this, and I have been assured by the government that they will release this report in due course at a time that is in the public interest. As it will be released soon, the Greens will not be supporting this motion today, in order to allow the government to undertake the necessary processes to ensure this report is released at an appropriate time. We encourage the government to continue communicating openly about the progress of this report and its release date.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for Finance, Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Women, Minister for Government Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (12:03): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator GALLAGHER: The government will be opposing this motion. We are working in close consultation with patient, consumer and industry representatives regarding the Health Technology Assessment Review and have commenced negotiations on the strategic agreement. We are progressing the release of the HTA review and continuing to engage with consumers on these reforms, and it's important that these processes be allowed to play out. We'll have more to say on these matters as the process progresses.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 587 standing in the name of Senator Ruston be agreed to.

Senator KOVACIC (New South Wales) (12:10): At the request of the Chair of the Select Committee on Productivity in Australia, Senator Bragg, I move:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee on Productivity in Australia be extended to 31 March 2027.

Question agreed to.

Senator KOVACIC (New South Wales) (12:11): At the request of Senator Antic, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, by no later than midday on Monday, 7 September 2026, all documents held by the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, from 1 January 2020 to the present, relating to:

(a) adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with or suspected to be associated with COVID-19 vaccination;

(b) adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination during any stage of pregnancy including pre-conception and early pregnancy;

(c) the risk of miscarriage in pregnant women associated with or suspected to be associated with COVID-19 vaccination; and

(d) infertility or impaired fertility associated with, related to, or suspected to be caused by COVID-19 vaccination.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 590 standing in the name of Senator Antic and moved by Senator Kovacic be agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Grogan ) (12:41): The committee is considering amendment (1) on sheet TK115, moved by the government, to opposition amendment (2) on sheet 3803.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Australian Greens Whip) (12:42): I appreciate that we are on the amendment that's just been detailed by the Chair for the chamber, but I do want to just take this opportunity to raise concerns that I have and that the Greens have around some of the provisions in this legislation. The bill makes two substantive changes to Commonwealth drug law. It creates a new evidentiary certificate regime and it shifts from a purity based method to a gross weight method for assessing drug quantities. It's the second of those changes that I want to raise some concerns about at this stage.

In lay terms, what this provision does is to provide for the weight of cutting agents to be counted as if those cutting agents were the drug itself. So, for the avoidance of doubt, here you have a quantity of a particular drug, and, at the moment, the quantity of the drug is the determinant in the assessment made. If these changes were to go through, it would be the case that it would not only be the drug itself but also the cutting agents, concealment materials or any other substance that would be assessed as the quantity of the drug is determined.

Now, let's be very clear about who this is going to disadvantage. This is going to disadvantage people at the bottom of supply chains. This is going to disadvantage people who are more likely to be possessing low-quality products. This is not going to disadvantage the people at the top of the chain, the people that are running organised crime, for example. This is going to overwhelmingly disadvantage people who may have health or addiction issues, people who are desperate for money, people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. This is not a bill that's going to touch the organisers and profiteers at the top of drug operations. It's a bill that seeks to inflate the apparent seriousness of what low-level, often vulnerable people are caught with.

My question to the minister is: why is a Labor government doing this? It's fundamentally unfair that you want to include things like cutting agents when you determine the quantity of a particular drug that someone might have. That is just fundamentally unfair. If someone's cut a drug—I don't know what they cut it with; washing powder or whatever it might be—why would you want that washing powder to be included when you determine the quantity of the drug? Washing powder is not a drug; you can go to the supermarket and buy it. I don't know what cutting agents people use, but I'll just leave that as an observation, as an example.

I do want to take this chance, while I'm on my feet, to explain why this matters. There are a number of offences in part 9.1 of the Criminal Code which carry absolute liability elements tied to drug quantity. I understand there are at least 23 offences in part 9.1 of the Criminal Code that do carry absolute liability elements. Under an absolute liability offence, the prosecution does not have to prove any mental element about the quantity, and, critically, the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact is not available. This has ramifications for how our legal processes and our judicial processes work. Combine those matters with a gross weight approach, which is being proposed by this legislation, and you get people facing more serious absolute liability thresholds because of the weight of a mixture they had no real knowledge of and, under the law as it would stand, no defence to explain. Let's be clear. The defence of honest and reasonable mistake will be available to fewer people because of these provisions. The Law Council of Australia's submission to the inquiry into this bill said—sorry, I'll withdraw that.

I'll go to evidentiary certificates quickly, while I'm on my feet. Evidentiary certificates remove the requirement for individual written witness statements on chain of custody matters. Chain of custody is critical in legal cases because courts and juries, if juries are empanelled, need to be satisfied that the physical evidence that is being tendered has not been interfered with or manipulated on the way through the system. The changes that are proposed are to remove the requirement for individual written witness statements on chain of custody matters.

National Legal Aid has flagged the practical consequences, which are that defence practitioners lose early visibility of problems like improper storage or contamination risk, because those issues no longer have to be documented until they surface at trial. This is an access-to-justice cost and, again, it falls hardest on people who already have the least resources to identify and contest deficiencies in the evidence against them. The Law Council's submission to the inquiry said that the evidentiary certificate framework should not proceed in its current form and that, if it does, the bill should be amended so that it applies only to continuity of handling evidence, not as a broader substitute for proper witness evidence.

In the last minute or two that I have available for this contribution, I just want to take a step back and engage in a bit of a helicopter view about the kinds of amendments that we regularly see in this place. I offer the observation that these are almost always supported in a bipartisan way by the parties of government in this place, and I yearn for the day when that descriptor applies to more than just the Labor Party and the coalition.

What we have been seeing in this country over many, many decades is the fundamental erosion of civil liberties in Australia. This has been delivered by Labor governments and it's been delivered by coalition governments. There have been hundreds of pieces of legislation just in the last couple of decades that erode the fundamental rights and freedoms that, back in the day, people, including ancestors of mine, fought and died for. We're just handing them away willy-nilly, because the security complex in this country demands ever more power, and ever more opportunities to surveil and ever more opportunities to control people's lives. I will leave thoughts on the role that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security plays in that ongoing erosion of rights and freedoms until another opportunity, but it is time that we stopped eroding fundamental rights and freedoms in this country, which is something that this legislation does.

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (12:52): Thank you, Senator McKim. For completeness, I might just respond to a few comments that you've made so you have the government's view on record. I just want to begin with the issue you raised around purity of substances. The government doesn't accept the characterisation that you've put forward that this is somehow targeting what I would characterise as the personal use of illicit substances. Commonwealth drug offences are concerned with the importation, trafficking, cultivation or manufacture of commercial, marketable and trafficable quantities of illicit substances. Commercial, marketable and trafficable quantities of illicit substances are expressed to reflect the potency, form and scale of trafficking associated with those particular substances. These offences don't relate to someone who accidentally trafficked drugs. We're talking about serious organised criminal gangs. These are the types of drug offences that we are referring to and that this will apply to.

There are a few very good reasons we are doing this. One of the reasons the Greens political party is perhaps not aware of or you're personally not aware of is that we know that serious, organised criminal gangs are responsive to the laws that we put in place and, because of that, we are seeing those cutting agents being used on purpose to get substances under a particular threshold. The government's view is that that should not be a reason why particular thresholds should not be met when the harm to the public is the same.

Under the current regime, the prosecution must establish the purity level of the drug to determine which category of offence applies. There are a number of issues with this current model—one that I've taken you to. Practically, this means the AFP forensic examiners are required to break apart compressed powders, use toxic chemicals and extract drug material from concealed forms. This process is hazardous, resource intensive and contributes to investigation and prosecution delays given forensic examiners are required to undertake this work. The testing also fails to reflect the practical reality that illicit drugs are typically imported or trafficked in a mixed form. Mixtures often contain undisclosed hazardous components that pose serious risks to users and essential to the commercial model of organised crime.

I note your concerns for people who are not traffickers of drugs but users of drugs. We seek to protect those people too. In any event, nothing in this bill changes the ability for an offender to raise matters relating to purity of an illicit substance as a mitigation matter during sentencing. That maintains through this process. That is why the government has introduced this new scheme of considering the purity of drugs in relation to the size of the entire material that is trafficked, imported and of commercial value. Those are the reasons that the government is putting forward.

You dealt with evidence certificates, and I just wanted to put on the record some of the measures that are being put in place. Obviously, under the current arrangements, each individual officer who is engaged in the seizure, movement, tagging, cataloguing and transferring of substances may be required to provide a written statement setting out each step taken in relation to that seized substance. Additionally, each of those witnesses may have to be called to give oral evidence in a trial as to their interaction with the seized substance in order to prove every single step that was taken while the item was in custody or law enforcement.

The new certificate regime that's proposed in this bill, of which you've raised concerns, allows for one person to make a certificate and cover the actions of many. In most matters, information contained in these certificates is most likely to be a shared fact that is uncontroversial or unchallenged. But, to be clear, if there are any issues from a defence point of view, the new regime does not remove the ability for the accused to challenge chain-of-custody evidence. It also doesn't prevent the accused from being able to call each and every police officer involved in the chain of custody of said exhibit. The certificate provides efficiencies in circumstances where chain of custody is not in dispute. This new measure does not alter the burden of proof. The prosecution maintains the responsibility for proving each and every element beyond reasonable doubt.

What this measure seeks to do is ensure that our hard-working police officers and law enforcement agencies are focused on protecting people, keeping Australians safe and prosecuting the people who are accused of serious crimes. We think that is a reasonable step to take. It is not uncommon in the justice system across the country for this type of certificate to exist, but our proposal does not alter the ability of defendants to question that evidence in court.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Australian Greens Whip) (12:58): I thank the minister for the response and take some of the points that she has made on board. But I do want to offer just a quick couple of responses to the minister's response. Firstly, to be clear, we're not suggesting that the government is targeting people who personally use drugs. The assertion that I believe I made in my previous contribution was that the impact of these changes will fall more strongly on people at the bottom of an organisation than it will people at the top. I made the point that people at the bottom of an organisation often do have a drug addiction or are from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.

Again, I'm not suggesting that you're targeting the personal use of drugs here. I do understand that the Commonwealth has responsibility, compared with states and territories. Nevertheless, the point remains that this is going to catch and disadvantage drug mules, drug runners, people at the bottom of the supply chains—people who are more likely to be carrying a low-purity product—and people who, let's face it, make up the majority of legal aid's Commonwealth drug clients. The burden will fall disproportionately less on the organisers and the profiteers at the top of those operations.

Also, to respond to the minister's point about the assertion that people are using cutting agents to get under a particular threshold, I'd ask why they don't just carry a quantity that's under the threshold. Why do they need to use a cutting agent to get it under the threshold? If you wanted to smuggle drugs and you wanted to have a quantity of drugs under a particular threshold, why would you cut it with a cutting agent and bulk it up and make it harder to conceal? I don't really understand the argument that's being put there. It's quite possible that, in attempting to cast my mind into the mind of someone who's smuggling drugs, I might have missed an obvious response to that! But that was my first response.

I also understand that people in compliance operations work hard, but I want to place on the record that we don't think that reducing someone's workload is a reasonable reason to propose changes such as this.

The last response I wanted to make was the obvious observation—which was stated, I might add, by the minister; I guess it's a concurrence—that pleas in mitigation are in relation to sentencing. They're not in relation to the way trials might be conducted, and the points I made were in relation to the defence of an honest and reasonable mistake of fact, and that's a matter that is at least considered in a trial. I think Senator Cash has—

Senator Cash: I'm happy for you to keep going if you want.

Senator McKIM: Okay. While I'm on my feet—and I do thank the minister for the response on those matters—I'll go to the surveillance warrant sunset extension; obviously this is an omnibus bill that contains a range of measures. I will take this opportunity to place on the record something I've spoken about repeatedly in my time in the Senate, and that's the erosion of fundamental rights and freedoms in this country over a long period and the role the security apparatus and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security play in that.

What happens and what has happened repeatedly—and, unfortunately, I believe will continue to happen into the future—is that, whichever of the Labor or the coalition parties are in government, the security apparatus forms a view that they want more power to surveil people. They want more power to control people's lives. We're very close to living in a panopticon at the moment, even though most people remain unaware of that fact. After they form a view that they want more powers to surveil and to control people's lives, they go to the government and ask for those powers, and the government rolls over. We've seen that repeatedly, whether it be a Labor or a coalition government.

They basically bring a bill that effectively delivers the increase in powers to surveil and control. In this case, we are talking about surveillance. Then it goes into the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which obviously is designed to specifically exclude the crossbench—with the one notable exception of the member for Clark, which was formerly Denison, in my home state of Tasmania when Mr Wilkie was in the balance of power a few parliaments ago. He was, as part of negotiations, permitted to enter through the normally closed doors of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. But apart from that—and I do stand to be corrected here—I'm certainly not aware of any other crossbench member who's ever been invited into the inner sanctum there.

Anyway, what happens inside that room is generally that, once the government has proposed legislation, that committee will rasp off a few of the absolute roughest edges but make very few, if any, recommendations for material changes, and the legislation will come through this parliament and then it will get smashed through by the votes of the Labor Party, along with their partners—in terms of being parties of government—in the coalition, and so it goes. The losers are the Australian people and the fundamental rights and freedoms that so many Australians fought and died to protect through our history.

This is happening not just here, by the way. A version of the same thing happens in state and territory governments, and we find ourselves with no fundamental protections in this country. We have no bill of rights in this country and no provisions in our Constitution that enshrine protections for ordinary, everyday people against this creeping invasion into their privacy by the state.

That's the context, and I well remember trying, when I held the justice portfolio for the Australian Greens, to get the numbers in this place for an inquiry into a bill of rights—just an inquiry into a bill of rights. This is when the Labor Party had in its platform support for a bill of rights. I don't know if it's still there, but it was back in the day. Mr Dreyfus was the shadow attorney-general at that stage. Could the Greens get the Labor Party's support simply for an inquiry into whether or not Australia should have a bill of rights? No, we couldn't. We couldn't even get the Labor Party to support an inquiry into a bill or charter of rights in this place, what form a bill or charter of rights might take, and what matters could and ought to be enshrined in a bill or charter of rights.

So the people of Australia have very little defence against this creeping erosion of their privacy and their freedom, and it is an indictment of the parties of government and, in fact, this parliament as a whole that those erosions continue apace. This legislation is yet another step down that path.

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (13:08): I can respond briefly. I know others have contributions to make. I just think it's important to recognise that the bill extends the sunsetting clause of current provisions which already contain safeguards. The government is considering recommendations from the INSLM review so that we can enact comprehensive reform of this system to deal with some of the things that Senator McKim raises. We'll seek to do that, but we can only do that if we are able to extend this sunsetting provision.

The only other comment I'd make is that I know the Greens political party have a position about this concept that our law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies are just trying 'to control people's lives'—I think those are the words that you used—but I think the element that you miss is the demand from the community to keep the community safe. That is there too, and that is what the government responds to, not some conspiracy theory about controlling people's lives. I think even you, Senator McKim, would admit we can't ignore the increased threat that is present when it comes to terrorism, or the increased concerns that people have about online violence and the like. I'm really being very general in my commentary; I'm not referring to a particular provision. We are unapologetic about keeping Australians safe, and I think that these provisions in this bill do that.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Australian Greens Whip) (13:10): Of course it's part of government's job to keep people safe. Let's be very clear about this, Minister: the biggest threat in the medium term to the safety of Australians is climate change. That's the biggest threat. And your government, the Labor political party's government, is opening new coal and gas mines just as fast as you possibly can. Through public subsidies, you are enabling the destruction of native forests in this country hand over fist—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Cox ): Minister?

Senator Green: On a point of order, although I do love to debate Senator McKim on real action on climate change, which is what the Labor Party delivers, it's not relevant to this bill. I think he knows that, and he can make a contribution at a later time today. We need to focus on this bill, at least for the next 15 minutes.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator McKim, I will remind you that relevance is pertinent to this debate, so could we keep it to the containments of what's in the bill.

Senator McKIM: I will attempt to do that. The minister did crack the door open a fraction there and I was attempting to gently wander through it, but I will confine my remarks to the provisions of the legislation.

The Law Council's submission to the inquiry into this legislation made it clear that their view is that the sunset extension shouldn't proceed without substantive implementation of recommendations 6, 7 and 8 of the INSLM review and that, if it does proceed, the committee should extract a clear assurance from government that those safeguard improvements are prioritised as part of the broader reform and not left to drift further.

I wonder if I could just ask you to respond to that, Minister. That seems, on the face of it, to be a quite reasonable request from the Law Council. Of course, the INSLM review is itself a very reasonable proposal, and I note that it would be quite reasonable to suggest that the government has by no means accepted all of the recommendations in that review. So could I ask you, please, to explain, in terms as detailed as you're able, why the government has ignored so many of those recommendations and, critically, why it is the view of the government that the sunset extension should proceed in the absence of the substantive implementation of recommendations 6, 7 and 8 of the INSLM review.

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (13:14): We dealt with this a little bit earlier, but if I can, I will put it in the most succinct way possible. The government's position on that review was contained in a government response which was tabled in the parliament. Senator Shoebridge asked me some questions about recommendation 1, and I can confirm that the government response to recommendation 1 is clear that we agree to extend the sunsetting date, which is currently 4 September 2026, in the first instance to allow recommendations 6 and 8 to be further considered as part of comprehensive reforms to the electronic surveillance framework. This will ensure that the recommendations relating to how warrants are issued can be considered in the context of the framework as a whole. This will ensure that the issuing arrangements and safeguards for the powers introduced by the SLA(ID) Act align with the arrangements for other electronic surveillance warrants. The government response continues throughout to make clear reference in subsequent recommendations that further work contemplated in recommendation 6 and 8 be undertaken as part of that reform.

I'm not going to pre-empt what that reform is. It's extensive, complex and significant. We're going through that process at the moment and it will be, I'm sure, a bill that is scrutinised very heavily by our colleagues at the end of the chamber when it is introduced. To be clear, the bill implements parts of recommendation 1, not the whole recommendation. That includes that the ACIC not retain the ability to use data disruption warrants, which is also part of the provisions of this legislation.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:16): I'll just close off the previous line of questioning that I was pursuing. I have also been looking at answers to questions on notice that we have received via the budget estimates of 2026-2027. These are questions on notice BE26-124. They were questions put to the Office of the Special Investigator. They were kind enough to respond to them in quite some detail. When I look at the timeline, they confirm that, on 1 April 2026, the current CDPP and Mr Moraitis, the current OSI director-general, met with the Attorney-General to discuss the consent to prosecute the submission. That consent referred to the now prosecution of Ben Roberts-Smith. A number of other documents were provided to us, including media releases and drafts of media releases, pursuant to the OSI taking these on notice. A media release dated 7 April 2026 also clearly states:

The OSI and AFP are investigating allegations of criminal offences under Australian law related to breaches of the Laws of Armed Conflict by Australian Defence Force personnel in Afghanistan between 2005 and 2016.

I just want to go back to this given we are currently discussing the change in law to how a conflict is now managed by the CDPP and just in terms of your evidence given on behalf of the Attorney-General. Raelene Sharp previously served, as we've established, as counsel assisting the Office of the Special Investigator. We know that was in relation to alleged breaches of the laws of armed conflict by Australian Defence Force personnel in Afghanistan between 2005 and 2016. Her previous role as special counsel providing advice to the OSI was also acknowledged in the press release that was released by former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus when he announced her appointment. She subsequently obviously became the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. As we already established at a previous Senate estimates hearing and as we've again referred to today, in the capacity of CDPP, the consent of the Attorney-General was sought to prosecute Mr Roberts-Smith. As I said, the OSI themselves provided the answer that on 1 April 2026 the CDPP and the OSI director-general met with the Attorney-General in relation to this.

We've also discussed an actual conflict of interest and a perceived conflict of interest. The actual conflict of interest would arise, I would put to you, if Ms Sharp's previous involvement affected or was capable of affecting the exercise of her prosecutorial functions. But, of course—and again you acknowledged this in particular when Senator Shoebridge put questions to you yesterday in terms of actual and perceived conflicts of interest—a perceived conflict is obviously different. It's different at law. It concerns whether the circumstances could reasonably give rise to a perception that the CDPP's independence or even impartiality might be affected, even if there were no actual conflict in fact.

Again, I want to get this on the record. Given Ms Sharp's prior role advising the OSI, her subsequent position as head of the prosecuting authority—this is all on the record at Senate estimates, but also now we've got the answers to the questions on notice, as I said, from the OSI, saying that on 1 April 2026 the CDPP and the OSI director-general met with the Attorney-General to discuss the consent to prosecution submission. Ultimately, that was actually given that same day, on 1 April, by the Attorney-General. I'm going to again ask: is the Attorney-General satisfied that Ms Sharp's involvement gives rise to no actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest in relation to the prosecution of Mr Roberts-Smith?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (13:21): Yes.

Senator COLLINS (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:21): If the CDPP identified a conflict of interest in the matter of war crimes, could the Attorney-General create a standing authorisation for someone to prosecute all war crimes?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (13:22): I will address the question by responding to the provisions that are in front of us. I gave this evidence to Senator Cash before. I will speak in general terms, because you're referencing a particular type of crime, not a particular proceeding. The provisions that we've put forward enable the Attorney-General to make an authorisation in relation to a particular proceeding—in relation to a particular function—or a standing authorisation. That authorisation can be revoked or varied at any time. That's a very abbreviated version of the provisions that are in the bill.

Senator COLLINS (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:23): Sorry, can I just get clarification. If the CDPP identified a conflict of interest in the matter of war crimes, then could the Attorney-General create a standing authorisation for someone to prosecute all war crimes?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (13:23): It's a hypothetical question.

Senator Cash: No, actually directly to—

Senator GREEN: No, no—Senator Cash, hold on. Let me just answer.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Cox ): Order! The minister has the call, and she's on her feet, so interjections are disorderly. Can we give her the opportunity to provide an answer.

Senator GREEN: The current arrangements allow for a conflict of interest to be identified and for an arrangement to be put in place to manage that conflict. The new arrangements change the way that the conflict would be managed. It's not that it's identified, but it would be managed in a different way. It would be a matter for the DPP to identify what that conflict is and what it relates to, and then it's a matter for the Attorney-General to make an appropriate authorisation.

Senator COLLINS (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:24): Would that authorised person have all the powers of the CDPP?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (13:24): Senator Collins, proposed section 31A(3) on page 23 of the bill steps out that, without limiting subsection (2), an authorisation may authorise a person to perform a function or exercise a power in relation to specified proceedings, in relation to a specified act or omission, or in specified circumstances. So it would depend on what the authorisation says.

Senator COLLINS (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:25): Just to clarify, not all of the substituted CDPPs will have all of the powers of the CDPP. And is it possible that a person substituted in for the CDPP will have all of the powers of the CDPP?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (13:25): It's getting a little repetitive. The functions—

Senator Cash: You're not answering.

Senator GREEN: No, it is, because the answer is in the bill.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Cox ): Order!

Senator Cash: Then read it out.

Senator GREEN: I'll read it out. You could just read it yourself, but I'm going to read it out for you.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Cash, I've already called the chamber to order and I've already said, while the minister is on her feet, interjections are disorderly. Could you please allow her to complete her answer. If you have a question, you may seek the call.

Senator GREEN: The authorisation may authorise a person to perform a function or exercise a power in relation to a specified proceeding, in relation to specified acts or omissions, or in specified circumstances. The current arrangement requires the Director of Public Prosecutions to take a leave of absence, in which case none of those powers would be performed by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

This proposal is a way of dealing with the need for a conflict to be managed by an authorised person undertaking those functions that are under section 6 of the DPP Act, such as instituting prosecutions on indictment and the power to consent to the commencement of prosecutions as required under certain legislation. The DPP has current delegation powers, but not for these types of powers and exercises of functions. The bill seeks to establish a system that allows a senior member of the DPP to perform those functions and exercise those powers because, in that case, delegation is not really appropriate.

Senator COLLINS (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:28): Under section 31B(1), could the CDPP, for war crimes, be switched out for another person by the Attorney-General?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (13:28): Senator Collins, it is, in a sense, hypothetical. I don't have the facts in front of me. I'm not the Attorney-General. I'm not making an authorisation today. There has been no conflict that's been identified. But it is possible, under the authorisations that are listed under 31B, to allow a certain function or exercise a certain power in relation to certain proceedings.

Senator COLLINS (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:28): So it is possible. Does section 31B effectively give the Attorney-General the ability to create an unlimited number of parallel CDPPs whose appointment is subject to the absolute discretion of the Attorney-General?

Senator GREEN (Queensland—Assistant Minister for Tourism, Assistant Minister for Pacific Island Affairs and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (13:29): No, Senator Collins. This is about managing conflicts of interest in an appropriate way for the efficient carrying-out of justice, which is incredibly important, particularly for serious criminal allegations. There is a system in place; this improves the current arrangements in a way that is efficient. It's not been designed or motivated to be used in that sort of conspiratorial way. This is not about a particular proceeding. I already put that on the record yesterday when you weren't in the chamber. This is not in response to a particular conflict, because there has been none identified.

Progress reported.