David Pocock

I seek leave to have my committee of the whole amendments on sheet 2962 and 2963 considered.

Leave granted.

Matt O'Sullivan

The question is that the amendments circulated by Senator Pocock on sheets 2962 and 2963 be agreed to.

Senator Pocock's circulated amendments—

SHEET 2962

(1) Page 119 (after line 14), at the end of Part 6, add:

Division 5 — Review

147 Review of operation of Act

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of this Act.

(2) The review must start as soon as practicable after the end of 5 years after this Act commences.

(3) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months of the commencement of the review.

(4) The Minister must table a copy of the report in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

SHEET 2963

(1) Clause 140A, page 115 (after line 31), at the end of the clause, add:

(7) Subject to subsection (8), if the advisory committee gives the Minister advice under subsection (2) the advisory committee must cause a copy of that advice to be:

(a) published on the Department's website as soon as practicable after giving the advice to the Minister; and

(b) tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after giving the advice to the Minister.

(8) The Minister may direct the advisory committee that subsection (7) does not apply if the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the interests of national security and to deal with an emergency.

(9) The Minister must:

(a) table a copy of each written instrument made under subsection (3) in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after making the instrument; and

(b) table a copy of each written direction made under subsection (4) in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after making the direction.

Malcolm Roberts

Could I have my name recorded as supporting 2518 and supporting 2519, please?

Tim Ayres

Senator Roberts, I'm informed that those two amendments were not in the vote that we did just then.

Jacqui Lambie

by leave—I move my committee of the whole amendments on sheet 2978:

(1) Clause 5, page 9 (after line 6), after the definition of licence, insert:

low level radioactive material means radioactive material (within the meaning of the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012) that is not high level radioactive material (within the meaning of that Act).

(2) Clause 8A, page 14 (after line 15), at the end of the clause, add:

(3) This section has no effect to the extent of any inconsistency with section 8C.

(3) Page 14 (after line 27), at the end of Subdivision A, add:

8C Prohibition on receiving and storing radioactive waste

(1) Nothing in this Act is taken to authorise the receipt or storage of radioactive waste from an AUKUS submarine, unless:

(a) for an AUKUS submarine not operated by Australia for naval or military purposes—arrangements have been made for any low level radioactive material to be removed from Australia by the operator of that AUKUS submarine to a suitable radioactive waste management facility outside of Australia within 12 months; or

(b) for an AUKUS submarine operated by Australia for naval or military purposes—the site of a suitable long-term radioactive waste management facility has been identified and gazetted.

(2) The Regulator must not issue a licence in respect of the receipt or storage of radioactive waste from an AUKUS submarine unless paragraph (1)(a) or (b) applies.

(4) Clause 21, page 24 (lines 13 and 14), omit subparagraph (2)(b)(ii), substitute:

(ii) releases radioactive material into the environment, or could have resulted in a release of radioactive material into the environment; or

(5) Clause 21, page 25 (after line 13), at the end of the clause add:

Definitions of serious illness and serious injury

(7) In this section:

serious illness has the meaning given by an instrument made under subsection (8).

serious injury has the meaning given by an instrument made under subsection (8).

(8) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine the meanings of serious illness and serious injury for the purposes of subsection (7).

(6) Clause 109, page 97 (after line 25), after subclause (3A), insert:

Qualification for nomination

(3B) The Minister must not nominate a person for appointment as Director-General or Deputy Director-General unless the Senate agrees to the nomination by resolution of the Senate, agreed to by an absolute majority of Senators.

(7) Clause 123A, page 106 (line 29), omit paragraph (1)(b), substitute:

(b) the release radioactive material into the environment.

(8) Clause 123A, page 107 (lines 1 to 3), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) If the Director-General becomes aware that a nuclear safety incident has occurred:

(a) the Director-General must notify the Minister about the incident as soon as possible; and

(b) the Minister must notify the Prime Minister about the incident as soon as possible after the Minister has been notified about the incident; and

(c) the Prime Minister must notify the Premiers and Chief Ministers of the relevant State and Territories about the incident as soon as possible after the Prime Minister has been notified about the incident.

(2A) If the Minister and Prime Minister are notified of an incident under subsection (2), the Minister and Prime Minister must issue a joint public statement about the incident within 24 hours of both being notified.

Matt O'Sullivan

The question is that the amendments circulated by Senator Lambie on sheet 2978 be agreed to.

Senator Lambie's circulated amendments—

(1) Clause 5, page 9 (after line 6), after the definition of licence, insert:

low level radioactive material means radioactive material (within the meaning of the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012) that is not high level radioactive material (within the meaning of that Act).

(2) Clause 8A, page 14 (after line 15), at the end of the clause, add:

(3) This section has no effect to the extent of any inconsistency with section 8C.

(3) Page 14 (after line 27), at the end of Subdivision A, add:

8C Prohibition on receiving and storing radioactive waste

(1) Nothing in this Act is taken to authorise the receipt or storage of radioactive waste from an AUKUS submarine, unless:

(a) for an AUKUS submarine not operated by Australia for naval or military purposes—arrangements have been made for any low level radioactive material to be removed from Australia by the operator of that AUKUS submarine to a suitable radioactive waste management facility outside of Australia within 12 months; or

(b) for an AUKUS submarine operated by Australia for naval or military purposes—the site of a suitable long-term radioactive waste management facility has been identified and gazetted.

(2) The Regulator must not issue a licence in respect of the receipt or storage of radioactive waste from an AUKUS submarine unless paragraph (1)(a) or (b) applies.

(4) Clause 21, page 24 (lines 13 and 14), omit subparagraph (2)(b)(ii), substitute:

(ii) releases radioactive material into the environment, or could have resulted in a release of radioactive material into the environment; or

(5) Clause 21, page 25 (after line 13), at the end of the clause add:

Definitions of serious illness and serious injury

(7) In this section:

serious illness has the meaning given by an instrument made under subsection (8).

serious injury has the meaning given by an instrument made under subsection (8).

(8) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine the meanings of serious illness and serious injury for the purposes of subsection (7).

(6) Clause 109, page 97 (after line 25), after subclause (3A), insert:

Qualification for nomination

(3B) The Minister must not nominate a person for appointment as Director-General or Deputy Director-General unless the Senate agrees to the nomination by resolution of the Senate, agreed to by an absolute majority of Senators.

(7) Clause 123A, page 106 (line 29), omit paragraph (1)(b), substitute:

(b) the release radioactive material into the environment.

(8) Clause 123A, page 107 (lines 1 to 3), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) If the Director-General becomes aware that a nuclear safety incident has occurred:

(a) the Director-General must notify the Minister about the incident as soon as possible; and

(b) the Minister must notify the Prime Minister about the incident as soon as possible after the Minister has been notified about the incident; and

(c) the Prime Minister must notify the Premiers and Chief Ministers of the relevant State and Territories about the incident as soon as possible after the Prime Minister has been notified about the incident.

(2A) If the Minister and Prime Minister are notified of an incident under subsection (2), the Minister and Prime Minister must issue a joint public statement about the incident within 24 hours of both being notified.

Long debate text truncated.

Jacqui Lambie

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2979 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Page 90 (after line 11), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 8 — Penalties imposed by the Parliament

Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987

1 Subsection 7(5)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(5) A House may impose on a person a fine:

(a) not exceeding 50 penalty units, in the case of a natural person; or

(b) not exceeding 250 penalty units, in the case of a corporation;

for an offence against that House determined by that House to have been committed by that person.

(5A) The Consolidated Revenue Fund must not be appropriated for the purposes of paying a fine imposed under subsection (5).

Michaelia Cash

These amendments seek to change the existing penalties in the Parliamentary Privileges Act. Essentially, these amendments would replace the existing penalty units and penalties, roughly triple the existing $5,000 penalty for individuals and quadruple the existing $20,000 penalty for bodies corporate. Amendment (2) also says that any such penalty cannot be paid out of consolidated revenue.

The potential second-order effects of that change are not clear to us. It is not immediately apparent which other acts would interact with this particular amendment, and the circumstances in which those interactions may or may not occur—for instance, how would this particular amendment interact with a fine paid by a person who receives an allowance or a subsidy from the government?

In terms of changes to the Parliamentary Privileges Act, these are things that I'd say all parties in the Australian Senate obviously take very, very seriously. The reason is that it is an act which entrenches parliamentary sovereignty and regulates the relationship between the branches of government. It is the reason, as we all know, that we're all able to stand in this place and say whatever we need to say in support of our constituents, the reason that the witnesses before our committees are able to speak freely, without fear of being called before the police or the courts, and it is also fundamental to our democracy. So, when changes to the Parliamentary Privileges Act are being put forward, we do need to very seriously consider them. We need to very seriously consider the implications of them but also what the interactions with other pieces of legislation will be. And we can't make any apologies for being cautious in this regard.

On this particular issue, the decision to have a specific listed penalty instead of penalty units wasn't actually a drafting error; it was deliberate. The penalties were set in 1987. Just five years later, in 1992, we changed the Crimes Act to introduce the penalty unit regime, including a mechanism to convert fixed penalties into penalty units. But, at that time, we specifically excluded penalties that were not handed down by the courts—for those who are interested, that is subsection 4AB(2) of the Crimes Act. That was debated at the time. It was considered by the parliament. It is quite clear that it was a deliberate decision to treat penalties handed down by the parliament differently.

It might also be unsurprising that we would treat penalties under the Parliamentary Privileges Act differently because they are the result of what is a fundamentally different process. A person receiving such a penalty has not been convicted by a court. They don't have all the usual protections that apply in judicial proceedings, such as the presumption of innocence, rights around procedural fairness and the ability to appeal or ask for a review of a decision. Penalties handed down under the Parliamentary Privileges Act, which senators would be aware does include penalties of imprisonment, are decided by the houses of the parliament themselves, according to procedures they determine, and are fundamentally unreviewable by any other body.

So, when it comes to a proposal—in this case, it is amendments to a piece of legislation that is now in committee stage before the Australian Senate—to lift the penalties that can be imposed by this place, we do need to proceed with caution. As I said, in this regard, we have not had the time yet to actually properly analyse what could be the flow-on effects from these amendments. On that basis, the opposition won't be supporting them.

Murray Watt

The government will also not be supporting the amendments. The government is not currently proposing any changes to the penalties that may be imposed by the houses under section 7 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. Neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives has imposed a financial penalty in living memory, so, from the government's point of view, we don't believe that the case for the amendments has been made out in practice. If there were a future circumstance where the financial penalties under the Parliamentary Privileges Act were considered inappropriate, the houses may enforce the observance of their privileges and immunities and punish people found guilty of contempt, including a commitment to prison.

Question negatived.

David Pocock

by leave—Please note my support for that amendment.

Lidia Thorpe

by leave—Mine too, please.

David Shoebridge

by leave—On behalf of the Greens, I ask the same.

Tammy Tyrrell

by leave—I would like my support noted as well.

David Pocock

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2961 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Page 90 (after line 10), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 8 — National Anti-Corru p tion Commission Hearings

1 Subsection 73(2)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(2) The Commissioner may decide to hold a hearing, or part of a hearing, in public if the Commissioner is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so.

2 Subsection 73(3)

Omit "may", substitute "must".

This bill amends the NACC Act, and I have a couple of questions about the NACC. During the committee process into what is now the NACC Act, the committee heard overwhelming evidence from experts that the discretion of the NACC commissioner to hold public hearings should not be curtailed. In fact, the committee heard evidence from commissioners from state integrity commissions that it should be the case that there should be a presumption towards having public hearings. This was put forward to ensure that we have public trust in the NACC and ongoing recognition of the work that it's doing, that it is seen as an institution that not only is important but is undertaking continuous work and that there is some sort of visibility of what is happening.

We see that the Labor Party sided with the coalition to set up the legislation in a way that we have no real oversight of what is happening in the NACC. There's a presumption towards having private hearings. Yes, they report from time to time, but we've seen recently, since the NACC was established, some real concerns being raised, particularly in relation to the robodebt matter. I acknowledge that the inspector-general, which I thank Senator Shoebridge and members of the crossbench for pushing so hard for, is considering this matter. Public confidence has clearly been shaken, and public confidence in the NACC is incredibly important. This amendment would ensure that we do have public hearings—that the NACC is able to hold them and hold them not just when they think there are exceptional circumstances. Minister, has the government reconsidered the unnecessary limit on the ability of the NACC to conduct public hearings to only where there are exceptional circumstances?

Murray Watt

The short answer, Senator Pocock, is no. I will outline at this moment the government's position on this amendment: we won't be supporting the amendment. The reality is that the National Anti-Corruption Commission does have the discretion to hold public hearings under the existing law. The commissioner can hold the hearing or part of a hearing in public if satisfied that it is in the public interest and exceptional circumstances justify doing so. The commissioner may consider a number of factors outlined before deciding to hold a public hearing, including the seriousness or systemic nature of the corrupt conduct and any unfair prejudice to a person's reputation, privacy, safety or wellbeing that would likely be caused if the hearings were held in public. Also, they can consider the benefits of exposing corrupt conduct to the public and making the public aware of corrupt conduct. From the government's point of view, this provides an appropriate balance between the benefits of public hearings and the potential for prejudice to subsequent criminal prosecutions, reputations, safety, privacy, wellbeing or confidentiality.

David Pocock

Thank you, Minister; I appreciate your response. Does the government accept that failure to reconsider the unnecessary condition of exceptional circumstances—it was pointed out during the very extensive hearings that this as an incredibly high bar and witnesses said that, if you go with this, there will basically never be public hearings—is out of line with what experts presented to the committee and, most importantly, out of line with community expectations when it comes to the National Anti-Corruption Commission?

Murray Watt

I'm very much aware that there are members of the public and experts—a range of people—who have supported broader public hearings than what are being provided for, but I'm confident that the government has made the right decision in allowing public hearings to occur if the National Anti-Corruption Commission believe that's necessary and, importantly, if they're satisfied that, firstly, it is in the public interest to do so and, secondly, exceptional circumstances justify doing so. As I said, we believe that provides an appropriate balance between the benefits of public hearings that can arise in some circumstances and be made available in some circumstances and the potential to prejudice subsequent criminal prosecution, reputations, safety, privacy, wellbeing or confidentiality.

David Pocock

Minister, does the government accept that the change proposed in this amendment would improve public confidence in the NACC?

Murray Watt

I'm not sure that I would accept that. I know that there are people who express that view. There are people who express different views. We think that we've struck the right balance.

David Pocock

Minister, do you really think that the majority of Australians are happy with the NACC holding all of their hearings in private and that having more transparency is not a good thing?

Murray Watt

Again, the commissioner does have the discretion to hold a public hearing. Senator Pocock, with respect, I think the way that you're presenting the argument suggests that there's no power to hold a public hearing. That's not the case. The commissioner is independent of government. We have confidence in them to make the right decisions based on the evidence before them as to whether a public hearing is warranted, taking into account the public interest and the exceptional circumstances that would justify doing so.

David Pocock

I accept that you are incredibly skilled at this. When you say that the commissioner has the ability to have a public hearing, yes, that is correct, but the parliament, as you've outlined, sets out the circumstances in which that may happen. Currently, we have a NACC where you have to meet an incredibly high bar. Numerous witnesses warned the committee that this will essentially mean that there are almost no circumstances that meet all of the criteria. Whilst it may be possible, the practical outcome is that it's very rare and very unlikely to happen. It seems to me that we actually need to be building up trust in our institutions, and I'm hearing from so many people I represent, who say, 'We want more transparency not less.'

What's the argument for this? I accept you say that you've struck the right balance, but why aren't we allowing the commissioner—if we trust them so much, and I think there should be a high level of trust in the commissioner—to have a neutral presumption and that it's totally up to the commissioner? If the commissioner thinks that this is in the public interest, then they can hold a public hearing. That to me aligns with the rhetoric I hear about trust in the NACC and the independence of the NACC. If we really believed that, we would say: 'We trust you. We believe we have put very good people in there who are well qualified to do that job, and it's up to you. If you think it's in the public interest to hold a public hearing, you do it.' But that's not what we've done. We've said: 'We trust you. We should be saying to Australians, "The NACC is doing important work," which we believe it is, but also, even if you think it's in the public interest, you have to also meet all these other criteria, including exceptional circumstances.'

I'm just interested why, on the one hand that you think they're independent, that we trust them and that it's up to them, but on the other hand that we're almost hamstringing them a bit? They're hamstrung to actually make a decision because they have to meet these criteria. Those things don't seem to square to me.

Long debate text truncated.

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Liddle, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, by no later than 5 pm on Wednesday, 16 October 2024:

(a) the number of government consultations undertaken by the Department of Social Services (DSS) that required participants to sign non-disclosure agreements since the start of the parliamentary term;

(b) the subject matter of the consultations that required participants to sign non-disclosure agreements since the start of the parliamentary term;

(c) the number of non-disclosure agreements signed by community sector organisations and other stakeholders as a condition of participating in government consultation undertaken by DSS since the start of the parliamentary term;

(d) the number of community sector organisations that refused to sign non-disclosure agreements as a condition of participating in government consultation undertaken by DSS since the start of the parliamentary term; and

(e) the number of breaches of government non-disclosure agreements that have been legally pursued since the start of the parliamentary term and actions taken by DSS.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 655, standing in the name of Senator Liddle and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

Katy Gallagher

I seek leave to amend government business notice of motion No. 1.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That on Thursday, 10 October 2024:

(a) the questions on all remaining stages of the following bills be put at 1 pm:

(i) Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024,

(ii) Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Expansion) Bill 2024, and

(iii) Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024;

(iv) (b) Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2024 Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023;

(b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and

(c) divisions may take place between 1.30 pm and 2 pm for the purposes of the bills only.

Sarah Hanson-Young

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Sarah Hanson-Young

The Greens are disappointed that the government is moving to guillotine these bills through the parliament. We are concerned that the Senate has not had enough time—a reasonable amount of time—to consider in detail the Future Made in Australia piece of legislation. We are only halfway through the second reading speeches. There will be amendments, and the government wants to ram this through. The Senate has a duty to properly consider bills before ramming them through, so we will be asking for the question to be put separately on each of these bills, because we are worried that the government wants to ram things through simply because they are not prepared to negotiate properly.

Sue Lines

Senator Hanson-Young, I just remind you you can only ask for the matter to be split up if you intend to vote differently on each one. If that's your intention, that's all fine. Is that your intention?

Sarah Hanson-Young

I'm just flagging—there might be other people who have problems with this as well.

Sue Lines

Well, they can rise and speak.

Sarah Hanson-Young

What I'm saying is that we have concerns with Future Made in Australia and the naval bill, two things that the government wants to ram through this place without giving it reasonable consideration.

Sue Lines

You've had a minute to explain your opposition. You wanted them all put separately. I have come back to you and said that's only possible—so I'm still not understanding what it is the Greens are seeking. Senator McKim?

Nick McKim

If I could assist, the Greens will be asking that the question be put separately on the Future Made in Australia cognate bills and the bills that have just been included by amendment by Senator Gallagher on the naval matters, but the Greens wish to vote against both of those.

Sue Lines

That means that we will do (i) and (ii) together and (iii) and (iv) together.

Jonathon Duniam

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Jonathon Duniam

We request that (iii) be put separately so that Future Made in Australia is put on its own as opposed to with (iv).

Sue Lines

We're putting (i) and (ii) together, (iii) on its own and then (iv). The question is that the motion in respect of paragraphs (i) and (ii) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question is that the motion in relation to paragraph (iii) be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Senator Thorpe, you are out of order! Senator Thorpe, take your seat.

Senator Thorpe, I've asked you to take your seat. If you're going to be disruptive, leave the chamber.

Anne Urquhart

I present the 12th report of 2024 of the Selection of Bills Committee and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

Selection of Bills Committee

Report no. 12 of 2024

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair)

Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)

Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip)

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

Senator Jacqui Lambie (Jacqui Lambie Network Whip)

Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator Ralph Babet

Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm

Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher

Senator Maria Kovacic

Senator Matt O'Sullivan

Senator Fatima Payman

Senator David Pocock

Senator Gerard Rennick

Senator Lidia Thorpe

Senator Tammy Tyrrell

Senator David Van

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 9 October 2024 at 7.13 pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the provisions of the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 18 November 2024 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral).

(b) the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsideration of Decisions) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 November 2024 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

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

Intelligence Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Cyber Security) Bill 2024

Security of Critical Infrastructure and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Response and Prevention) Bill 2024

Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 [No. 2]

1. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement:

(Anne Urquhart)

Chair

10 October 2024

Appendix 1

S ELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill

Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:

Hear from education stakeholders

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Education experts, approved authorities, unions, state/ territories, parents and carers groups.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Education and Employment Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Week of 28 Oct, week of 11 Nov

Possible reporting date:

14 November

(signed)

Nick McKim

Appendix 2

S ELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsideration of Decisions) Bill 2024

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To allow the Committee to scrutinise this legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Stakeholders and interested parties.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

October

Possible reporting date:

14 November 2024

(signed)

Wendy Askew

I move:

That the report be adopted.

Katy Gallagher

I move:

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

(a) in respect of the Cyber Security Bill 2024, the Intelligence Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Cyber Security) Bill 2024 and the Security of Critical Infrastructure and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Response and Prevention) Bill 2024, the bills not be referred to a committee;

(b) the provisions of the Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 November 2024; and

(c) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 November 2024".

I will speak briefly to this amendment, particularly in relation to the Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill. We would like that to report by 14 November. I understand there is some disagreement about that. I would just point out to the chamber that there has been extensive consultation. The Harris review was handed to the former government in 2021, but its recommendations were not implemented.

Since coming to government there's been a further range of consultations with community groups and industry. The response to these recommendations was released in February this year, with drafting having been completed in the intervening period. The reforms have been open to scrutiny for a number of years now. Pushing consideration off to next year will only delay these much-needed reforms. It's also noted that Senator McKenzie has been calling for these reforms to be implemented as soon as possible. So we would urge the Senate to allow for the inquiry into this amendment bill to report by 14 November 2024, rather than seeking to delay it until next year.

Nick McKim

To Senator Gallagher's amendment, I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"but, in respect of the Cyber Security Bill 2024, the Intelligence Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Cyber Security) Bill 2024, and the Security of Critical Infrastructure and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Response and Prevention) Bill 2024, the provisions of the bills be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 February 2025".

Briefly, I want to say that we all understand, or at least all of us in the Greens understand, what is going on here. This is where the establishment parties, the so-called parties of government in this place, get together and effectively collude to refer really critical pieces of legislation to the closed shop of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which, of course, has no crossbench members on it and—barring a brief period of time when Mr Wilkie had the balance of power in the House of Representatives—hasn't had any crossbench members on it for many decades.

We all know how this goes. The bills disappear into the smoky back room of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. There might be the odd rough edge rasped off those bills through negotiations between the major parties, but they effectively come out unchanged because the intelligence and security apparatus in this country always gets what it wants out of the major parties. Then, those bills, having possibly had one or two of the roughest edges rasped off them, if we are lucky, come into this Senate and, once again, the establishment parties collude to ram them through. So rights and liberties continue to get eroded because we remain really the only so-called liberal democracy in the world that doesn't have a charter of rights or a bill of rights. The ongoing series of well over 200 pieces of legislation that have passed through state, territory and Commonwealth parliaments in the last 20 years continue to get watered down and erode the fundamental rights and freedoms that many Australians, including ancestors of mine, fought and died to protect and enhance. That's because the major parties are not prepared to stand up to the intelligence and security apparatus in this country.

We want this legislation to be examined in public by the legal and constitutional affairs committee, which does have a crossbench member—and a very capable one, I might add—in the form of Senator Shoebridge. That is what we should be doing with legislation like this that erodes fundamental rights and freedoms, and that is why the Greens are moving this amendment.

Sue Lines

For the benefit of all of us, I understand that's an amendment to (a).

David Shoebridge

I thank Senator McKim for moving the motion. We're in the third-last sitting week of parliament, and Minister Burke suddenly pulls out of nowhere three bills, one of which is 100 pages long, another of which is 56 pages long and another of which is 20-odd pages long. Without any prior consultation, without any prior notice, he pulls out these three bills three weeks out from the end of the sitting calendar this year and now wants to send them off to another secret committee, a secret committee dominated by the war and security parties, who have never seen a war they haven't wanted to join or a secret they haven't wanted to hide or a whistleblower they haven't wanted to put in jail. That's the committee that's going to look at these three bills, almost 200 pages of super-secret legislation making it harder and nastier for anyone who wants to actually tell the truth about what's going on in this place. That's what we're seeing.

We've got a rudderless government which can't seem to bring in any effective measure to deal with what people actually want addressed—cost of living, housing and trying to pay grocery bills. And what have they been spending their time doing? Working up some secret deal with the coalition to whack 300 pages of pro-security, pro-ASIO, pro-secrecy legislation to a secret committee populated by the war parties. Nothing changes in this place. People don't want to see another secret hatchet job between Labor and the coalition trying to give increased secrecy powers to the security agencies in this country. They'd like a government that is open and honest about how they're actually going to fix the real problems Australians are facing, problems about being able to pay the grocery bills, to afford unreasonable rents and to sort out housing, but there's nothing like that from the government. Instead, Minister Burke has been working in some dark, smoky room to produce hundreds of pages of super-secret legislation that he now wants to send to a secret committee.

If you wanted to have proof positive about how out of touch this Albanese government is with what people want this parliament to be doing, here it is. They have no serious solution to housing, no serious solution to the cost of living and no serious solution to things that millions of Australians want this government to address. Instead, they've been working on hundreds of pages of secret legislation with a secret deal with the coalition to go to a secret committee to do another job on Australians. That's the Albanese government 2024.

Sue Lines

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

Jonathon Duniam

I move:

That—

(a) the Senate notes that:

(i) on 16 September 2024, the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water provided a link to a document as a response to order for the production of documents no. 601,

(ii) the document identified in that response was not the document being sought—and therefore the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water has not complied with the order, and

(iii) the document actually being sought was the statement of reasons (as referenced by the Minister for the Environment and Water in her Sky News interview of 5 September 2024) in respect of the August 2024 declaration on the tailings dam of the McPhillamys gold mine project; and

(b) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 15 October 2024, the statement of reasons by the Minister for the Environment and Water in respect of her declaration on the tailings dam of the McPhillamys gold mine project, under section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than midday on Friday, 11 October 2024, full final copies of the two ministerial decision briefs titled MS24-001034 and MS24-001339 respectively.

Question agreed to.

Karen Grogan

If I could seek the indulgence of the Senate, I made an error in the count for motion 650. I seek leave to recommit the count.

Leave granted.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 650, standing in the name of Senator Nampijinpa Price and moved by Senator Askew, which is being recommitted, be agreed to.

Gerard Rennick

RENNICK () (): I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Thursday, 10 October 2024, the government response to the final report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on bank closures in regional Australia.

Anthony Chisholm

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Anthony Chisholm

The Albanese government understands the important role cash plays in our economy and is committed to ensuring Australians have continued and reliable access to cash. As the senator may be aware, a revised protocol for bank closures under the ABA industry Banking Code of Practice came into force from 1 July 2023, implementing the Regional Banking Taskforce's principle recommendations. The revised protocol includes a new customer care standard, with additional obligations to be triggered if the nearest branch is more than 10 kilometres away—down from 20 kilometres—mandatory branch closure impact assessments and enhanced customer notification obligations.

Additionally, Australia Post's Bank@Post service is part of the solution for maintaining access to banking services. Through this service, customers can make withdrawals, deposits and balance enquiries at their local post office. There are currently more than 3,400 post offices providing access for more than 80 banks and financial institutions. The government is concerned about the impact that this may have on those who need to refer to or to access face-to-face banking services and is currently considering its response to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs Transport References Committee report.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 653 standing in the name of Senator Rennick be agreed to.

Maria Kovacic

At the request of Senator Nampijinpa Price, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, by no later than midday on Friday, 18 October 2024, the minutes in full of the Council meeting of the Central Land Council held on 17 September 2024 in Tennant Creek.

Anthony Chisholm

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Anthony Chisholm

The government can't support this motion as it does not have the meeting minutes sought by Senator Nampijinpa Price. Senator Price has chosen to play politics with this matter. The senator is able to request the minutes from the Central Land Council directly. Land councils do not routinely send copies of minutes to the Commonwealth and are not required to do so. Senator Nampijinpa Price should seek these documents from the Central Land Council directly.

It is clear that the motions being sought today by Senator Nampijinpa Price are an attempt to use the Senate to further a personal vendetta in relation to the leadership of the CLC, and that is something that the senator should explain. This is particularly improper and concerning whilst Senator Nampijinpa Price is being sued for defamation by the CEO of the CLC.

Sue Lines

I just remind senators that you can't take photos in the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Maria Kovacic

At the request of Senator Nampijinpa Price, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, by no later than midday on Friday, 18 October 2024, the following:

(a) any documents relating to leave taken by Central Land Council Chief Executive Officer, Mr Lesley Turner; and

(b) any documents relating to acting arrangements in place during Mr Turner's

leave.

Anthony Chisholm

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Anthony Chisholm

This motion is completely inappropriate and a concerning use of Senate procedure. It's a matter of public record that Mr Turner, the subject of this motion, has brought defamation proceedings against Senator Price. Those legal proceedings remain underway. Senator Nampijinpa Price's motion directly names Mr Turner and asks for documents to be produced that could potentially form part of the case. The government is concerned that the Senate could be brought into Senator Nampijinpa Price's dispute or at worst potentially interfere with legal proceedings that are underway. For this reason, we will not be supporting the motion.

Sue Lines

Senator Nampijinpa Price? You need to tell me why you're on your feet.

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price

It is a point of order, because twice now, quite evidently, I have been impugned in these accusations.

Sue Lines

Senator Nampijinpa Price, that is not a point of order; it's a debating point.

Honourable senators interjecting—

That is a debatable issue. It is a point of view that you have taken and it's a point of view that Senator Chisholm has taken. But, Senator Nampijinpa Price, I am prepared to seek the Clerk's advice on this.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Nampijinpa Price, I'm going to stand by what I ruled. You are, of course, free to seek leave to make a statement in the Senate at some other point. I now intend to put the—Senator McGrath?

Honourable senators interjecting—

James McGrath

I—sorry; you go ahead.

The

I advised the Senate that I would take the advice of the Clerk, which I took. I am standing by my decision. I invite the senator to seek leave to make a statement at some other time. Senator McGrath.

James McGrath

On a point of order, President, Senator Nampijinpa Price has raised a point of order under standing order 193 that her motivations have been impugned, and she has asked that Senator Chisholm effectively withdraw that imputation. I think it's up to Senator Chisholm to determine whether or not he will withdraw the imputation.

Sue Lines

That's incorrect, Senator McGrath. First of all, it's up to me to rule. I have ruled. I've given a solution to the senator and I now intend to put that vote. Senator McGrath, why are you on your feet? You're not in a debate with me.

James McGrath

I'm not debating; I'm trying to seek clarification on behalf of Senator Nampijinpa Price and other senators that the new ruling in the Senate is that, where a senator is impugned, that cannot now be withdrawn and that they have to seek—

Sue Lines

No. Senator McGrath, I will respond. You've quoted the correct standing order. It is the question of whether or not I believe there was impugnment there. It did come close; I accept that. But I have ruled and I've offered the senator a response, and I now wish to move on. Senator Canavan, no, just a moment. I'm giving you the call, but I'll also advise senators that it is really my prerogative whether or not I entertain further points of order on this. Senator Canavan.

Matthew Canavan

Thank you, Madam President. Just on your ruling, if I could briefly comment, could I ask that perhaps this does get reviewed. As you yourself just mentioned, it was maybe running close to the line there. Senator Chisholm did raise some facts in his points, but, in my view, at the very least he implied a certain motivation behind the moving of a motion in this chamber, which is clearly questioning a senator's motives. I think it might be good for the chamber if this could be reviewed in the light of day and, in particular, the transcript and what was said looked at.

Sue Lines

Senator Canavan, I sought the advice of the Clerk and I've ruled. But, in order to move on, I'm more than happy, always, to review decisions I've made, and I will do that. The question is that general business notice of motion No. 650 standing in the name of Senator Nampijinpa Price be agreed to.