Penny Allman-Payne

The President has received the following letter from Senator Hanson:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Senate to express a vote of no confidence in the Albanese Labor Government due to its broken promises and multiple failures to deliver for the Australian people on everything from national security to cost of living pressures."

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Pauline Hanson

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Senate to express a vote of no confidence in the Albanese Labor Government due to its broken promises and multiple failures to deliver for the Australian people on everything from national security to cost of living pressures.

Back in 2017 I was in a delegation to India with other parliamentarians, including the current Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese. I learnt quite a bit about him and his leadership style, and my assessment back then was that he was a nice bloke but no leader. Since last year's election, my assessment has been proven correct. I have no confidence in the Albanese Labor government. The Prime Minister is unfit to lead and Labor is unfit to govern this nation. They are controlled by unions and by the anti-Australian Greens. They pursue policies which directly harm the Australian people and the national economy. Their list of failure, neglect and incompetence is a long one in only 18 months.

Their obsession with climate change and renewables is directly responsible for the record energy bills hurting Australian families and businesses, not to mention transmission lines on farming land. This obsession is well on the way to killing our mining and farming industries, our economic mainstays, which support regional communities and much of the taxpayer funded services Australians take for granted. They're also attacking farmers by taking more water from the communities in the Murray-Darling Basin, shutting down live exports, and polluting agricultural land with renewables or locking it up for nature repair. If you think your groceries are expensive now, just wait.

Labor's incompetence has seen the release of dangerous criminals, three of whom have already been arrested for more alleged crimes, into the community. One hundred and forty-seven have been released or are about to be released, despite the fact that the High Court's decision on extended detention related to only one of them. The government jumped the gun after they were caught with their pants down, and their only response is to blame the former government. People smugglers also have heard the message loud and clear, with a boat actually reaching the Australian mainland a few weeks ago. Immigration is out of control, with record numbers driving inflation and the national housing and rental crisis.

The PM sowed division in Australia with his disastrous campaign for a Voice to Parliament, wasting $450 million At least his divisive referendum exposed the failure of the $40 billion-per-year Aboriginal industry to close the gaps. Labor refuses to investigate and audit this industry to get to the bottom of why it has failed Indigenous Australians in genuine need.

Labor has made the family law system even more one-sided against fathers by removing shared parental responsibility, and it is failing men across a range of issues It has done absolutely nothing to address the epidemic of male suicide, which in the past year has claimed the lives of more than 2,500 men and boys. The PM has a Minister for Women and even an Assistant Minister for the Republic, which doesn't exist, but not a minister for men. Go figure.

Labor refuses to support an inquiry into the huge increase in the number of children being treated for gender dysphoria with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. Say no more.

Labor has given the chop to critical infrastructure projects that would improve road safety and water security. It hasn't reduced spending; it's just moved money around and held projects hostage against favourable state election outcomes, especially in Queensland.

Australians are hurting from the cost-of-living crisis. Virtually everything costs more than it did in May last year, when the Albanese Labor government was elected, including groceries, fuel, energy, rents, mortgages and insurance.

These costs just keep going up and there's no end in sight. On average, mortgagees are paying over $20,000 more per year on their home loans as the RBA desperately tries to rein in this inflation.

Labor has made a sport of disrespecting this parliament, the seat of democracy and the people's elected representatives. They've rammed through laws heavy with negative consequences for the economy, national security and the cost of living, giving the people's representatives virtually no time to review them, and I can vouch for that. When I don't get the legislation and you put it on the floor and I have no idea what is going to happen here and you expect us to vote on it, you have no respect for the chambers or the other members in parliament, especially the crossbench. That's why there was my notice of motion.

I have no confidence in the PM or his government, and increasing numbers of Australians agree. They're actually calling for a fresh election now. If you think he's a great leader, call an election and see how the people feel about this. As I said, this is the worst government I have ever seen in parliament under four prime ministers.

Tony Sheldon

The problem with this One Nation motion is that the Liberals and the Nationals say one thing about the cost of living but their actions say the exact opposite, and that's what this One Nation motion goes to the heart of. They come here and talk about the cost of living, but when we introduce bills for laws to relieve those measures, they vote against them.

Labor introduced an emergency energy bill relief plan to reduce power bills by $230 per year. The Liberals and Nationals voted against it. Labor invested $10 billion in new affordable housing. The Liberals and Nationals voted against it. Labor introduced laws for 60-day prescriptions, saving people millions of dollars on prescription costs. The Liberals and Nationals voted against it. Labor increased the rate of JobSeeker by $40 a fortnight. The Liberals and Nationals voted against it. Labor set up 300,000 people to go to TAFE for free. We sent them there for free, and the Liberals and Nationals said it was a waste of money. Labor made the biggest investment in bulk-billing in Australian history. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, led the biggest ever attack on bulk-billing when he was the health minister. He had a plan to introduce a GP tax for people to pay every time they saw the doctor.

Now, you've seen the pattern here. Every single week we come here to get more cost-of-living support out to working families, and every single week the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation come here to obstruct. Nowhere is that more obvious than when we talk about wages and conditions at work. We understand there are two parts to the cost of living: how much things cost and how much you earn. When it comes to making energy, medicine, GP visits, child care, TAFE and housing affordable, they oppose all of that. And when it comes to helping Australians get better paying and more secure jobs, they oppose that too.

We had a bill in this place last year that was literally called the secure jobs, better pay bill and the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation opposed it. What was so terrible about it? Why did they vote against it? The bill made it easier for employers and employees to make agreements that would increase wages. It ended the use of old agreements that expired years ago that trapped workers below the minimum wage. It put limits on the use of rolling fixed-term contracts for years at a time. It introduced a right to request flexible work. It made it illegal for employers to ban their workers from talking about their wages. It made it illegal to put up job ads for less than the minimum wage. These are all things the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation voted against.

The shadow workplace minister said:

We can now expect jobs will be lost … and large and small businesses will fold …

What actually happened? We have unemployment at record lows. Female employment and participation are at record highs. New job creation is at a record high. Wage growth is at a record high. So we know for a fact that the steps this government is taking are keeping more Australians in secure work and are delivering higher wages.

We want to go further. We want to close the loopholes that some employers like Qantas and BHP use to keep wages low. One Nation and the Nationals claim to represent coalminers in Queensland and the Hunter. But, at the same time, they are voting to keep the labour hire loophole open.

We saw in the House the member for Flynn, Colin Boyce, vote against same job, same pay for mine workers in his own area. We saw the member for Capricornia, Michelle Landry, vote against same job, same pay in her own area, abandoning her community. They are all spitting in the face of mine workers who are being ripped off by the richest companies in Australia. Will One Nation and the National senators for Queensland do the same thing when the bill comes here?

Dwayne Arnold, who works through labour hire at the Grosvenor mine and is a fourth-generation mine worker, told the closing loopholes inquiry:

… I'm still paid quite substantially less than the permanent employees. It makes you feel worthless and undervalued when you're doing the same job and getting paid that much less for it …

(Time expired)

James McGrath

When I look at those who are sitting around the cabinet table, I think there are a lot of villages missing their village idiots. You're looking at the hapless halfwits who are attempting to run this country at the moment. When I speak to my fellow Queenslanders, I think, 'I wouldn't trust these people to operate a toaster, a kettle, a remote control', because—guess what?—they wouldn't be able to do it.

The interjections start like seagulls coming in for the chips. I'll throw out the chips to those Labor people over there, because that's all they can do. All they can do is shout and interject. It comes down to the simple fact that Australians do not have confidence in this government. They do not have confidence in this government, which is not keeping Australians safe, because—guess what?—the fourth person who was released 10 days ago has now been arrested. It's up to four! Congratulations, Labor. You're stuffing up the economy and now you're making sure that Australians do not feel safe at home because of your failure to—

Penny Allman-Payne

Senator McGrath, resume your seat. Senator Bilyk?

Catryna Bilyk

I've been told previously that 'stuffing up' is an unparliamentary term. I ask you to ask Senator McGrath to withdraw that.

Penny Allman-Payne

Senator McGrath, it would assist the chamber.

James McGrath

I withdraw. Labor, in a ham-fisted way, are completely messing up the economy. They're like a bunch of toddlers who've been given a very expensive tractor and are just sitting there drooling, wondering what to do with it. Then, of course, they'll press a button and break it all up. This is the damage that the Labor Party are causing to the economy, and this is quite serious because we're in a cost-of-living crisis.

What did the Labor Party do? They had a cunning plan. Like Baldrick out of Black Adder, it was a cunning plan that didn't really work. Prime Minister Albanese's cunning plan was to spend half a billion dollars on a referendum that would divide Australians on the basis of race. This was going to be the defining moment of Prime Minister Albanese's political career—

Paul Scarr

His legacy.

James McGrath

His legacy. Everybody would come together. Like a Roman Caesar being crowned, he would be the one true ruler of this continent. Sadly, he forgot to think about what the Australian people might think of his quite bonkers plan to divide Australians on the basis of race, and they, sensibly, voted no to it.

Like Ozymandias—from Tennyson, I think it was, Senator Scarr—in terms of 'look down and despair', we have a Prime Minister who bet everything on the Voice getting up. And when he woke up on 15 October with a political hangover, there was no plan B. There was no plan C, D, E, F or G. There was no other plan. What's clearly happened is that they've had to go to some focus groups. They've gotten Labor Party secretariats to do some focus groups to find out: What does middle Australia think? What are they thinking about? Three words have come in—three words that were not mentioned before 14 October—cost of living. You didn't need to spend money on focus groups. You didn't need to waste half a billion dollars on a referendum. The No. 1 issue since Labor has come to power has been the cost of living, because we've had 12 interest rate rises.

We have high inflation and we do not have real wages growth in this country. This is happening under a Labor government who promised to make life better for people. But my question and my challenge to anyone who is listening to this today is: do you feel better off today than you did 18 months ago? You don't. Do you feel safer today than 18 months ago, knowing that this Labor government has released murderers, rapists, sex offenders and a contract killer out into the streets of this country? And the question people will be asking—

Penny Allman-Payne

Senator Polley?

Helen Polley

My point of order is that the motion before the chair is not the issue that the good senator is addressing. We know we have a wideranging view on motions, but he's not speaking to the motion.

Long debate text truncated.

Sue Lines

I'm now going to move to the deferred vote. I remind senators that on Monday, after 6.30 pm, a division was called on the motion moved by Senator Roberts proposing a reference to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. I understand that it suits the convenience of the Senate for the deferred vote to be held now. The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Roberts be agreed to.

Ross Cadell

I, and also on behalf of Senator Colbeck, move:

That, noting that as the National Electricity Grid is rapidly transitioning to more dispersed methods of generation, transmission and storage, and acknowledging that such transitions will transgress on agricultural, Indigenous, national or marine parks, and protected environmental lands, the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 16 July 2024:

The compulsory acquisition of land, including interests in land, for purposes related to electricity generation, transmission, distribution and storage, with particular reference to:

(a) the interaction and efficacy of compulsory access and acquisition powers and responsibilities of Commonwealth, state and territory governments;

(b) the adequacy of Commonwealth, state and territory legislation, policies, programs, schemes and funding relating to compulsory access and acquisition of land from landholders;

(c) provision of, and disbursement of, compensation under Commonwealth, state and territory governments' compulsory access and acquisition legislation and policy;

(d) identifying best practice approaches to the development and implementation of a fair national approach to compulsory access and acquisition consultation and compensation;

(e) measures required to secure the rights of landowners, farmers and fishers to maintain and safeguard the continued productivity of agriculture and fisheries, including emergency management;

(f) the efficacy of consultation processes between Indigenous landholders, farmers and fishers, and Commonwealth, state and territory governments and energy companies seeking to compulsorily access or acquire agricultural, Indigenous and environmental lands and marine environments; and

(g) any related matters.

Sue Lines

The question is that business of the Senate No. 1 standing in the name of Senators Colbeck and Cadell and moved by Senator Cadell be agreed to.

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Cash, I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 6 May 2024:

The Commonwealth Government's response to the 8 November 2023 High Court ruling in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor, with particular reference to:

(a) the Commonwealth Government's planning and preparedness for a ruling against the Commonwealth Government in this case;

(b) the Commonwealth Government's preparation of legislation to address the implications of the High Court ruling;

(c) the risks to the community associated with the release of individuals from immigration detention following the High Court ruling;

(d) actions taken by the Commonwealth Government in the days following the High Court ruling, including:

(i) the decision to release individuals from immigration detention, and to subsequently grant visas including conditions,

(ii) the enforceability of visa conditions,

(iii) the steps the Government took to manage risks to the community associated with the release of the cohort of individuals impacted by the High Court decision,

(iv) other interventions or options the Government considered but did not pursue to manage risks to the community associated with the release of the cohort of individuals impacted by the High Court decision,

(v) communication with individuals in immigration detention impacted by the High Court ruling,

(vi) efforts made to inform victims and victims' families about the release of individuals convicted of serious crimes, and

(vii) communication with impacted communities where individuals released from detention will reside;

(e) any expenditure of taxpayer money associated with the High Court case and subsequent actions taken by the Commonwealth Government; and

(f) any other related matters.

Sue Lines

The question is that business of the Senate No. 2 in the name of Senator Cash and moved by Senator Askew be agreed to.

Michaelia Cash

We've obviously now moved into the committee stage of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023. I want to respond to a number of points that have been made to date to ensure the Senate understands what we are actually dealing with versus what a number of government members say we are dealing with.

The first issue is that Senator Sterle made a number of comments in his second reading contribution which, I would put to Senator Sterle, are actually wrong. What Mr Dreyfus warned about wasn't the thing that the High Court actually addressed. Of course, we don't want to let facts get in the way of what is good rhetoric. In fact, the measure that the High Court had a problem with, which was citizenship cessation by ministerial decision, was the one that Mr Dreyfus had himself welcomed. Senator Sterle also said—and we'll explore this during the committee stage—that the government had moved 'quickly and carefully'. I would defy anybody to say that 18 months—because that's what it's taken for this government to actually bring this legislation before the parliament, and we'll explore why the legislation is important—is quickly and carefully, unless, of course, you are a member of the Albanese Labor government and you believe taking 18 months to do something that is urgent is, in Labor's terms, moving quickly and carefully. Maybe it is. Maybe I am verballing Senator Sterle. Maybe he genuinely does believe, on behalf of the Albanese Labor government, that when something is urgent—and we'll go through the urgency shortly—the Labor Party taking 18 months to act on it is moving quickly. I, personally, am going to dispute that.

It was in June 2022 that the Alexander decision was handed down. June 2022: the Labor government is in power, Mr Albanese has been elected as Prime Minister, and the Alexander decision is brought down by the High Court. Everybody knows what the result of that decision is. Eighteen months later—because that is where we are—and it is December, we're heading towards Christmas 2023 and Senator Sterle believes that the Australian Labor Party, under Mr Albanese, has moved quickly and carefully. I would put to the Australian people that perhaps, by that measure—an 18-month turnaround—if the Australian Labor Party wanted to respond to something happening today, they'd bring it forward in the next parliament.

Let us also, though, make some comments in relation to why this bill is before the Senate. I want to remind those opposite of the provisions that were invalidated in the Benbrika decision—and similarly in the Alexander decision, which I just referred to, almost 18 months ago. You would think from the comments made by the Australian Labor Party that they actually opposed them. But, you see, the provisions that were invalidated by the High Court of Australia were not only bipartisan—in political terms, bipartisan means agreed between the two parties of government: the coalition and the Australian Labor Party—they were expressly welcomed by the Australian Labor Party.

The provisions that were knocked out by the High Court were sections 36B and 36D of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Cessation) Act 2020. The reason they were knocked out was that they operated to allow the removal of a person's citizenship by ministerial decision rather than by the courts. We're going to hear a lot of rhetoric over the next 85 minutes from the Australian Labor Party. Let's just put the facts on the record so the public can distil the rhetoric that we're going to hear from the actual facts.

Here is what the Labor members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the PJCIS, led by the current Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus, said at the time in their additional comments on the PJCIS report: 'Labor members welcome the move to a ministerial decision-making model of citizenship cessation.' So it was not only bipartisan but also expressly welcomed by the Australian Labor Party. As I said, that was from the PJCIS members led by—you would not believe it given the statements he's currently making—the current Attorney-General. Here's another quote:

Fortunately, the move to a ministerial decision-making model of citizenship cessation will provide the Government with the flexibility to better manage the risk of potential adverse security outcomes (e.g. the Minister could decide not to cancel a person's citizenship where the cancellation would increase the risk the person poses to Australians overseas, or where citizenship cancellation would seriously damage Australia's international relations).

Again, that was Labor members of the PJCIS, led by the current Attorney-General. Again, that's bipartisanship—two parties of government working together and expressly welcoming these changes.

In his second reading speech on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Cessation) Bill, the then shadow Attorney-General described Labor as—I quote because we're going to hear a lot of rhetoric from the other side, so let's just put the facts on the table—'fully supporting the move to a ministerial decision-making model'. Of course, the thing that the Australian Labor Party fully supported was precisely the thing that was later found to be invalid by the High Court when it knocked out sections 36B and 36D on the basis that they 'repose in the Minister for Home Affairs the exclusively judicial function of punishing criminal guilt, contrary to chapter 3 of the Constitution'.

The truth is that the model that was found to be invalid by the High Court was developed and supported on a bipartisan basis—the coalition in government working with the then opposition, the Australian Labor Party—over a number of years. It didn't happen overnight. This was bipartisanship when it came to national security, through multiple inquiries by the PJCIS, to ensure that the privileges of Australian citizenship could be revoked in appropriate circumstances. Over the next 80 minutes, we are going to hear a lot of rhetoric coming from the government, but let us be very clear for the Hansard record and for those listening in: what was knocked out by the High Court had been worked on for years in a bipartisan manner and was expressly welcomed by the then shadow Attorney-General and Labor members in their report in the PJCIS inquiry. To come in here, as they have been doing in the media and as they will shortly do here, and purport that the thing found invalid was something other than a product of a shared process is base politics and nothing more and is disingenuous in the extreme.

For the Hansard record, and so that people understand what occurred: the Australian Senate—in other words, the people here—had already agreed to refer the operational effectiveness and implications of the amendments made by the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023 to the PJCIS. Labor clearly forgot that because they still wanted me to move my amendment. I don't know why. Perhaps they have short memories. The Senate had already agreed to do that. On the basis that the Senate had already agreed to do that, it would appear to be irrelevant, in fact superfluous, to again move a second reading amendment to require the Senate to do what the Senate had already voted to do. But the Australian Labor Party work in very strange ways. Let's leave it to their confusion and nothing more as to why they forgot that the Australian Senate had already agreed to do that.

My question to the minister is: when were drafting instructions for this current bill first submitted to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel?

Long debate text truncated.

Sue Lines

The time allotted for the consideration of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023 has expired. I will first deal with the second reading amendments circulated by the opposition. The question is that the opposition's second reading amendment on sheet 2249 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendment

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

(a) notes that:

(i) the former Coalition Government implemented more than a dozen measures to combat multinational tax avoidance including by:

(A) playing a leading role in the original OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project, and committing to the OECD two-pillar solution to multinational tax, and

(B) introducing the Multinational Tax Avoidance Law; the Diverted Profits Tax; strengthening the thin capitalisation and transfer pricing rules; doubling penalties for multinational tax avoidance; and establishing the Tax Avoidance Taskforce,

(ii) despite promising to only raise taxes on multinationals at the election, the Labor Government have broken promises to:

(A) raise taxes on superannuation, unrealised capital gains and franking credits, and

(B) end small business tax incentives,

(iii) this bill introduces major tax changes that have not been subject to an appropriate public consultation, demonstrating yet again that Labor does not understand business and refuses to implement regulations and policies to support business, which then grow the economy and employ Australians,

(iv) the Senate Economics Legislation Committee heard evidence that the bill—far from being limited to multinationals and tax avoidance—will increase taxes on Australian companies, harm investment in Australian industries, and negatively affect housing affordability in Australia; and

(b) calls on the Government to withdraw Schedule 2 to the bill and undertake an appropriate consultation with industry and tax bodies to ensure the bill does not hurt Australians jobs, industries and businesses".

Question negatived.

Anne Ruston

by leave—Can I ask that the opposition's support for this amendment be recorded please.

Sue Lines

Thank you, Senator Ruston—and Senator Roberts? Thank you. I'll go to the second one. The question is that the opposition's second reading amendment on sheet 2274 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendment

Omit all words after "That", substitute:

(a) the Senate notes that:

(i) the bill, as currently drafted, is not suitable for an industry like plantation forestry because the harvesting period for structural timbers used for buildings is between 30 to 50 years, and if passed this bill would damage the plantation forestry industry and prevent expansion significantly at time when a strong forestry industry is critical to relieving supply chain issues within the domestic construction industry and to our competitiveness internationally,

(ii) the third party debt test in the bill does not accommodate non-consolidated tax structures such as trusts, which are a common commercial vehicle, particularly in the property and infrastructure sector, and that in its current form the bill will impede the delivery of 150,000 new homes that could reduce rental costs for Australians, and

(iii) the bill, as currently drafted, favours industry superannuation funds over managed investment trusts, attribution managed investment trusts and corporate collective investment vehicles by exempting superannuation funds from the associate entity test, which is designed to determine whether an entity is subject to the thin capitalisation rules; and

(b) further consideration of the bill be postponed until the day after the Senate passes a resolution that it is of the opinion that each of the following conditions has been met:

(i) the Treasury has consulted with industry on the bill for a period of no less than three months and that consultation has appropriately considered:

(A) how the bill can be amended to account for the unique long-term nature of the plantation forestry sector, and

(B) how the third party debt test be amended to accommodate non-consolidated tax structures such as trusts to deliver more housing supply into the market, and

(ii) the Government has circulated amendments to the bill that either exempt similar funds from the associate entity test or removes the exemption for superannuation funds.

Question negatived.

Anne Ruston

by leave—Could I have the opposition's support for the amendment recorded, please.

Malcolm Roberts

by leave—I record my support.

Jacqui Lambie

by leave—I also put our support down for 2274. Thank you.

Sue Lines

The question is that the opposition's amendment on sheet 2292 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendment—

Omit all words after "That", substitute:

(a) the Government amendments to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023 on sheet RU100 be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 5 February 2024; and

(b) further consideration of the bill be made an order of the day for the first sitting day after the committee has presented its report.

No motion text available

David Pocock

by leave—President, could you note my support for 2304.

Sue Lines

Yes. The question now is that the amendment on sheet 2163 be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendment—

(1) Clause 14, page 10 (after line 6), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) If a member of the Committee is a person who has direct contemporary experience of living with a low income and economic exclusion, that member is to be paid allowances appropriate to the circumstances of the member and having regard to the time and expertise the member contributes to the work of the Committee, including:

(a) any preparation undertaken by the member for a meeting of the Committee; and

(b) any other activity undertaken by the member relevant to the Committee's function.

Sue Lines

I will now deal with the amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. I understand senators have requested that the question be put separately on sheet 2164. The question is that the amendment on sheet 2164 be agreed to.

Australian Greens ' circulated amendment—

(1) Clause 8, page 6 (lines 20 to 27), omit subclause 8(6), substitute:

Direction by Joint Ministers

(6) The Joint Ministers may, by written notice to the Chair, direct the Committee to ensure that a particular report under this section at least addresses specified matters mentioned in subsection (2).

Question agreed to.

Anne Ruston

by leave—Could I have the coalition's opposition to this motion recorded?

Malcolm Roberts

by leave—One Nation would like our opposition to sheets 2164 and 2303 recorded.

Sue Lines

The question now is that the amendments on sheets 2162, 2163, 2165 and 2304 be agreed to.

Tammy Tyrrell

Could we split out sheet 2163?

Sue Lines

Yes. The question now is that the amendments on sheet 2162, 2165 and 2304 be agreed to.

SHEET 2162

Australian Greens' circulated amendment s

(1) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 5), after the definition of Committee , insert:

Community Affairs References Committee means the Senate Community Affairs References Committee, or such other committee constituted under a resolution of the Senate.

(2) Clause 11, page 8 (after line 11), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) Before the Minister appoints the Chair and other members of the Committee:

(a) the Minister must have referred the proposed appointment to the Community Affairs References Committee under section 26A; and

(b) one of the following must have occurred:

(i) the Community Affairs References Committee was taken to have approved the proposed appointment under subsection (4) of that section;

(ii) the Community Affairs References Committee has notified the Minister that it has decided to approve the proposed appointment.

(3) Page 14 (after line 13), after clause 26, insert:

26A Community Affairs References Committee—approval or rejection of proposed appointment

(1) The Community Affairs References Committee must approve or reject a proposed appointment for the Chair and other members of the Committee referred to the Community Affairs References Committee by the Minister.

(2) The Community Affairs References Committee must make the decision on a proposed appointment within :

(a) 14 days after the referral; or

(b) if, within the first 14 days after the referral, the Community Affairs References Committee notifies the Minister that it requires additional time to consider the referral—44 days after the referral.

(3) As soon as practicable after making the decision, the Community Affairs References Committee must:

(a) give the Minister written notice of the decision; and

(b) report the decision to the Senate.

(4) The Community Affairs References Committee is taken to have approved the proposed appointment if the Community Affairs References Committee does not give notice under subsection (3) within the period specified in paragraph (2)(a) or (b) as the case requires.

_____

SHEET 2165

(1) Clause 8, page 5 (lines 19 and 20), omit "including options to boost economic inclusion and tackle disadvantage", substitute "with a specific focus on the reduction of poverty".

(2) Clause 8, page 6 (after line 5), after subclause (2), insert:

(2B) Without limiting subsection (2), the report must include, in relation to the period since the last Commonwealth Government budget was delivered in the House of Representatives, the following information about access and eligibility for income support payments:

(a) data and analysis on the suspension and cancellation of income support payments resulting from a recipient's failure to meet mutual obligation requirements;

(b) for each kind of income support payment:

(i) the number of debts raised; and

(ii) the number of debts repealed;

(c) data and analysis on key points of disengagement from the social security system;

(d) the adequacy of income support payments, including whether income support payments ensure that recipients are above the poverty line.

(3) Clause 8, page 6 (line 5), at the end of subclause (2), add:

; (h) the eradication of poverty.

_____

SHEET 2304

(1) Clause 17, page 11 (after line 14), at the end of the clause, add:

(5) The Chair must give written notice to the Joint Ministers setting out the interests that have been disclosed to the Committee under subsection (1) as soon as practicable after the end of the meeting in which the disclosure was made.

(2) Page 11 (after line 14), after clause 17, insert:

17A Minister must establish register of interests

(1) The Minister must establish and maintain a register of interests setting out:

(a) the interests that have been included in a written notice given to the Joint Ministers under section 16 or subsection 17(5); and

(b) any other information prescribed by the regulations.

(2) The Minister must cause the register of interests to be:

(a) published on the Department's website; and

(b) updated as soon as practicable following written notice being given to the Joint Ministers under section 16 or subsection 17(5).

(3) If a person ceases to be a member of the Committee the Minister must remove information about the person from the register as soon as practicable after the Minister becomes aware that the person is no longer a member.

(4) The regulations must make provision for, or in relation to:

(a) the correction of information that is included in the register, including how a person may seek the correction of information that is about the person; and

(b) any other matter relating to the administration or operation of the register.

Sue Lines

The question now is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and the bills be now passed.