Anne Ruston

At the request of Senator Cash, I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report by 3 February 2025".

This is a really simple motion asking for the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee to report back on this important bill before the parliament comes back next year. Let's be clear about what we're talking about here, money laundering and terrorism financing are serious, serious issues and we agree with the government that they are serious issues. In fact, that's why the coalition passed the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act in 2006.

The Attorney-General has now introduced 165 pages of dense and highly technical legislation that businesses saw for the first time just eight days ago. So let's look at what the government's own impact analysis says. It says that implementing this bill is estimated to result in an additional regulatory burden of $13.9 billion. These costs will apply to more than 100,000 businesses. This includes 90,000 new businesses who have never had to deal with a complex financial regulatory scheme and it appears that, overwhelmingly, they are small businesses.

What sorts of businesses are we talking about? We're talking about businesses in country towns. We're talking about country town lawyers who run small practices in rural and regional areas. We're talking about accountants who do the tax for cafes and bookshops and mums and dads who engage someone to help with their financial affairs. We're talking about the real estate agents who manage your sales and your rentals.

One of the main transaction types we're talking about is dealing with property. If you impose $1.85 billion in new upfront costs on businesses that help you buy a property, what does that do to the cost of your home? This is a new home-buying tax by stealth. We are driving the small law firms closer to the wall with increasing regulatory burdens. What impact does that have on our communities, especially in our small country towns? We've already had stakeholders raising concerns that we're going to make it even harder to get a lawyer in the regions. These are questions worth answering.

Money laundering is serious, but so is helping people buy a home. We want to make it easier, not harder, to buy a home. We want to make it cheaper, not more expensive, with less paperwork, not more. So it is reasonable to say: 'Let's take the time to look at this properly. Let's make sure we get it right, and let's be clear about the timeframes.' There was no exposure draft for the $13.9 billion bill. The most we've had is a few high-level papers circulated by the Attorney-General's Department. The bit that matters—the actual legislation—wasn't released to the public until just eight days ago. Most of the 100,000-plus businesses who will be covered don't even know it's coming. They need time to look at it. They need time to get advice and draft submissions explaining the bits that work and the places where tweaks are needed.

That is how you run a proper committee process, that is how you ensure your legislation is actually fit for purpose, and that is all we're asking the government to do today.

Katy Gallagher

Just on the amendment, we won't be supporting it, obviously. We want this report to be done by 13 November. That is ample time. I would just say to the opposition: just work hard; work hard and get it done.

Opposition Senators

Opposition senators interjecting—

Katy Gallagher

Well, that's your job. That's your job. Your job is to do this work. We're giving you essentially six or seven weeks to do this work. Get it done. There is nothing more urgent. They're overdue reforms. We need to get them done. I think the Senate has shown this week how slow those opposite sometimes are to do any work. They don't want to do any work. We want to get some work done. We suggest that 13 November is more than enough time to get that work done.

Jacqui Lambie

While you want to try and rush these bills, we've got a problem here. Remember, you took a couple of staff off us. When you're talking about our national security—

Opposition Senators

Opposition senators interjecting—

Jacqui Lambie

Yes, I should work seven days a week, right? This is the problem. You are backing us up. You are throwing it in our faces. We don't have enough time because we don't have the resources. You give us stuff about national security, but you don't want us to look at this stuff. This is where we're at. I can't physically get through this at this point in time, so I doubt if the other crossbenchers can either.

Sue Lines

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Ruston to Senator Gallagher's amendment to the selection of bills committee report be agreed to.

Claire Chandler

Pursuant to standing order 57(3), the Senate shall now proceed to a division on the motion.

Sue Lines

The question is that the second reading on the Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023 be agreed to.

Anne Ruston

I seek leave to move an amendment to general business notice of motion No. 626 relating to an order for the production of documents.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, by no later than 11 am on Thursday, 19 September 2024, the final report of the Private Hospital Sector Financial Health Check.

Katy Gallagher

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Katy Gallagher

The government opposes this motion for the simple reason that the minister has not been provided with the final report of the Private Hospital Sector Financial Health Check, so there is no document to provide. Private hospitals are an important part of the Australian health system and an important partner for public health providers. We are working closely with the sector on the financial health check, and the minister and his department have appreciated their close cooperation in that work. The minister has said publicly that this has included the sector providing highly sensitive commercial-in-confidence information. As such the government is unlikely to be in a position to release the full report once it's provided. However, the minister has indicated he is hoping to publicly release a form of the report which will not breach the faith of the companies who provided that commercial-in-confidence information. If Senator Ruston wishes to request a briefing on the matter she is interested in, I'm sure the minister would look to assist.

Nick McKim

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Nick McKim

The Greens will not be supporting Senator Ruston's motion at this time. But I want to place on the record that we will reconsider this position if the government has not provided the report to the public by the next Senate sitting week. We understand that the Department of Health and Aged Care is preparing this report for public release and intends to publish it in the near future, and we urge Minister Butler to ensure that the department releases the report as a matter of priority.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 626, standing in the name of Senator Ruston, as amended, be agreed to.

Larissa Waters

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 2852, revised:

(1) Schedule 1, item 41, page 44 (line 4), before "The", insert "(1)".

(2) Schedule 1, item 41, page 44 (after line 30), at the end of section 24CU, add:

(2) If the decision-maker proposes to refer a preliminary serious breach finding to the Privileges Committee of a House of the Parliament under paragraph (1)(e), the draft report must set out proposed suggestions for the type and nature of parliamentary sanction the Privileges Committee should recommend that the House impose.

(3) Schedule 1, item 41, page 47 (after line 20), after subsection 24CY(2), insert:

(2A) If the decision-maker decides to refer a serious breach finding to the Privileges Committee of a House of the Parliament under paragraph (1)(d), the decision-maker must make suggestions as to the type and nature of parliamentary sanction the Privileges Committee should recommend that the House impose.

(4) Schedule 1, item 41, page 58 (after line 6), after subsection 24EA(1), insert:

(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the statement must include any suggestions made by the decision-maker under subsection 24CY(2A).

(5) Schedule 1, item 41, page 59 (after line 6), after subsection 24EB(1), insert:

(1A) If the decision of the Privileges Committee is not consistent with any suggestions made by the decision-maker (see subsection 24EA(1A)), the report mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) must set out the reasons the Committee did not endorse those suggestions.

As I mentioned in my earlier contribution, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission are the ones who will have undertaken the investigation into a parliamentarian, found that they have committed a serious breach of the code of conduct and written a report. These amendments would require them to make a recommendation as to the sort of parliamentary sanction that the privileges committee should impose on that parliamentarian who's been found to have committed a serious breach of the code of conduct.

As I went through before, at the moment, you've got a situation where, unfortunately, because of the Constitution, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission can't discipline parliamentarians. Only parliamentarians can do that. Only the chamber can do that. So the system that's been proposed and agreed to between the two big parties is that the privileges committee is the one to perform that function. They're not people who are trained in dealing with trauma and they're not investigators; they're parliamentarians. So the very least we can do is give them trauma training. I again reiterate to government that that must happen. Otherwise we could see some serious miscarriages of justice, as my colleague Senator Faruqi referred to, with a bunch of non-diverse people on that committee. But also the IPSC should be required to make a suggestion to the privileges committee. It can only be a suggestion because the privileges committee can't be told what to do by IPSC because of the Constitution. But the folk who have done that primary investigation and who formed a view that there's been a serious breach should give the benefit of that knowledge to the privileges committee in the form of a suggestion as to what sort of parliamentary sanction should apply.

It will still be up to the privileges committee to decide what to do, but they will at least have the suggestion and the benefit of the wisdom of the IPSC. That's exactly what this amendment does. It says, 'You've got to at least make a suggestion.' The privileges committee, of course, can choose to depart from it. But, if they do choose to depart from it, this amendment also says that the committee should explain why they don't think that suggested sanction is appropriate. This is because, at the moment, there's a perception—and I fear that that perception might become a reality—that this is not a transparent process and that there are not going to be the strongest possible decisions taken by the privileges committee not only to discipline parliamentarians who breach the code but to deter others from breaching the code in future.

I assumed—perhaps naively—that this wouldn't be a problematic amendment. It turns out that this is such a big deal, and we're not going to get support from anyone on it. What a crying shame! Please let's make this system work more effectively. Please let's ensure that the privileges committee can be armed with the best information to make the right decision. Given that we can't tell them what to do because of the Constitution, at the very least let's give them the best information to make the right decision. Aren't we meant to be setting the standard here? Shouldn't we be making sure that the best-quality decisions are made for not only the delivery of justice but the appearance of justice, both of which are important?

I commend this amendment.

Jane Hume

The opposition will be opposing this amendment, noting that the privileges committee shouldn't be directed, or shouldn't be bound, in a deliberation. But I note that, before, Senator Waters suggested voluntary trauma informed training for privileges committee members. It's not something we would have a problem with. Again, it would need to be voluntary because the privileges committee should never be bound or directed in any deliberation or any action, and that's certainly not something we would stand in the way of. It's not appropriate for it to be put into legislation, but it's certainly something that should be considered.

Katy Gallagher

The government won't be supporting these amendments, either. I agree with Senator Hume that trauma informed training may be very sensible for privileges committee members, considering the new roles that they are taking with this legislation. We would leave that up to the privileges committee, but we'd certainly see the sense, Senator Waters, in ensuring that that training is available to members of the privileges committee. On the broader point, this is clearly a disagreement about how the system should work, essentially, and we've had lots of discussions about this. I don't come at the establishment of an IPSC and the role of the parliament to enforce or impose sanctions on parliamentarians from a lack of faith in that process.

I think, Senator Waters, you come at it with an approach that starts from a point of lack of trust, whereas I'm coming from a point where I trust. And I think the responsibility of all of us in this place is to make this system work. To make the system work means that, when a finding of a serious breach of the code of conduct is made—and there are safeguards in the legislation that require the privileges to report—that is accountability, because they have to report. It will be clear that, by reporting, they have been considering a serious breach of the code. If they were to consider a serious breach of the code and say, 'Nothing to see here,' then that is open and clear for the public to see, and they would have to defend that decision. It is a responsibility on all of us to make sure that members of the privileges committee are trained and understand their responsibility and do all those things, but we have confidence in the system that we are establishing here. I don't come at it from a view that there is some inherent problem with privileges considering what the sanction should be. The legislation itself sets out what some of the sanctions for serious breach of the code should be. That in itself I think is also very clear and transparent for people. On this amendment, accepting your position, we fundamentally disagree. I think we're coming at it with a different view of how the system will work in operation.

Larissa Waters

I have just a brief retort to that. Minister, it's not about your level of trust in privileges. Surely, it needs to be about the level of trust that staff in this building have in a process that will finally exist to potentially hold their boss to account if their boss has committed harassment, assault or bullying against them. I take your point, but I just want to push back and say that it's very easy for us in these privileged positions to have confidence and trust, but unfortunately the system hasn't worked for so long for people with less power and privilege than we have. I commend the amendment.

Katy Gallagher

On that point, I would say again that the responsibility falls on all of us to make sure that trust is there. If this system is to work and have the confidence of staff, MPs and senators—let's face it; all of our colleagues have to trust it—then the responsibility falls again to all of us to make sure that's the case.

Jane Hume

I want to ask the minister some questions about the appointment of commissioners. Can I confirm, Minister, how the commissioners will be appointed?

Jess Walsh

Minister, if you would not mind, resume your seat for a moment. It might suit the chamber if I put the amendments moved by Senator Waters before moving to other matters. Senator Faruqi?

Mehreen Faruqi

I just have a question on Senator Waters's amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I'll come back to you, Senator Hume.

Minister, can you tell us how people of colour, people with disability, First Nations people and other diverse people can trust committees that are made up of all white members, and what are you going to do about that?

Katy Gallagher

The appointment of members to privileges committees is a matter for individual parties. For example, if the Greens political party wanted to appoint you or another member of the Greens to privileges, that's a matter for the Greens. I disagree that people representing the groups that you have outlined in your question can't have faith in a process that it is being overseen by senior and professional members of parliament. Again, it's our responsibility and those members' responsibility to make sure people are dealt with fairly through the process we are establishing by this legislation today.

Mehreen Faruqi

Minister, those committees are dominated by Labor and the coalition. Are you telling me that you won't even consider diversity on those committees? I mean, I can't trust white people making decisions all the time. A full committee with no diversity making decisions on issues of racism—that is illogical. It is illogical to do that. Would you consider, at least, that these committees should have some diversity and that Labor and the coalition have the vast majority of members on those committees and there are enough people in parliament, in your parties, to be able to have more diversity in those committees?

Katy Gallagher

The matter of who gets appointed to those committees is a matter the parties. That is as it is on every committee in this place. The broader point that you raise is that the committees themselves are not the investigators of complaints.

Well, you can shake your head, Senator Faruqi, but they are not the investigators of the complaints.

You said—

Mehreen Faruqi

They are enforcers.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order! The minister has the call.

Katy Gallagher

You asked the question. If you have another question, that's fine, but you asked how you can have faith that someone would perhaps make a finding of racism. For a start, the IPSC would undertake to investigate the complaint. If they were to find that there was a serious breach of the code of conduct then that matter would be handed over to the privileges committee, but the privileges committee does not investigate that; they determine a sanction. That is the big difference there. So the point you raise wouldn't happen, because the privileges committee is not conducting the investigation. If there was a finding of a breach of the code based on racism, that would be determined by the commissioner undertaking the investigation.

Mehreen Faruqi

I don't think I spoke about investigation. It is that the committee will be enforcing sanctions, and that's the issue here. It's beyond me, and I'm flabbergasted that you can't actually say that the committee does need more diversity. Some diversity exists in this parliament, and more people with lived experience of these issues should be deciding what the enforcement should be. It's not that hard, Minister. If we want to change this place, we need to make it more diverse. Why can't you just say, 'Sure, we can look into this'? That is one of the cruxes of the problem: the privilege that people have had which has been entrenched for such a long time.

I ask you again: will you consider that those committees need to be more diverse to make a more just and considered decision on experiences of people who, at the moment, don't have a place on that committee?

Katy Gallagher

I can take responsibility for the government members, and, representative of the most diverse group of politicians in this parliament, we consider all of those matters as routine, Senator Faruqi. I don't need to give an undertaking, because we are the most diverse group in this parliament, and we consider all of those things as part of our core operations.

Jess Walsh

The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.

Jacqui Lambie

I move:

That—

(a) the Senate notes that orders for the production of documents nos 541, 550 and 568 relating to the final report of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force twenty-year review have not been complied with; and

(b) until the Senate resolves that the orders have been satisfactorily complied with, the Minister representing the Minister for Defence be required to attend the Senate at the start of proceedings on the first day of each sitting week to provide an explanation of the failure to comply with the orders, and that:

(i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, and

(ii) any such motion can be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each.

Katy Gallagher

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Katy Gallagher

The government will be opposing this motion. The government has been transparent in making clear to the Senate in writing and in statements that this review will be released when consultations have concluded with stakeholders, including Defence, other agencies and the families of ADF personnel who have lost their lives while serving.

Offers for Senator Lambie to be briefed and to read the review remain. Motions of this nature are not constructive for the Senate's ability to scrutinise the government's legislative program. Other avenues exist under the standing orders to raise these matters.

Sue Lines

The question is that notice of motion No. 586 standing in the name of Senator Lambie be agreed to.

Matt O'Sullivan

I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024, the bill be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 November 2024".

Sue Lines

The question is that the amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report, as moved by Senator O'Sullivan, be agreed to.

Sue Lines

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

Sue Lines

Yesterday evening after 6.30 pm a division was called on the motion moved by Senator Rennick relating to a proposed reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. Senator Lambie, are you seeking something?

Jacqui Lambie

Madam President, I intend to vote differently. I would like to remove one of the parts from that motion and split it. I would like paragraph (f) to be put separately.

Sue Lines

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Rennick, relating to a proposed reference to a committee—minus (f), as asked for by Senator Lambie—be agreed to.

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Paterson, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, by no later than 10 am on Monday, 16 September 2024, a copy of all advice provided by the Department of Home Affairs to the former Minister for Home Affairs, the Honourable Clare O'Neil MP, and the former Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, the Honourable Andrew Giles MP, relating to the issuance of visas to Palestinians in response to the Israel-Hamas conflict.

Katy Gallagher

I seek leave to make a statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Katy Gallagher

Senator Paterson's motion highlights the lack of trust in our security agencies the opposition has demonstrated throughout the debate on this issue. The opposition is recklessly asking the government to table advice from our intelligence and security agencies in relation to the Middle East. We've acted in accordance with the advice of our security agencies on this issue. The personnel and the processes that underline that advice remain the same as when the opposition were in office. Rather than engaging on the cost of living, the Liberals seek to drive fear and division in our community.

Senator Paterson has talked of a social cohesion crisis. These types of motions and the coalition's dog whistling are what is causing it. We urge the crossbench to send a message to the opposition that enough is enough. Leave our intelligence and border agencies to do what they do best, which is to keep us safe. Our visa processes are strong. The system has multiple checks built into it, and referrals can be made at any point. This is the same visa system that existed under those opposite.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 592, standing in the name of Senator Paterson, be agreed to.

Pauline Hanson

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Resources, by no later than 10 am on Tuesday, 17 September 2024, the expert analysis of the viability of the Laminaria and Carollinea oil fields used by the Australian Government to decide to decommission the Northern Endeavour facility and remediate the Laminaria-Corallina oil fields and infrastructure.

Katy Gallagher

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Katy Gallagher

The government will be opposing this motion. The decision to decommission the Northern Endeavour was a decision taken by the former government in 2021. It may be the case that the former government's decision to decommission the N orthern_ _E ndeavour was informed by expert analysis, but we don't have access to advice provided to the former government and no documentation of the type described has been furnished to the Minister for Resources, the Hon. Madeleine King MP. We oppose the motion on that basis.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 604, standing in the name of Senator Hanson, be agreed to.