Katy Gallagher

At the request of Senator Chisholm, I move:

That in respect of the requirement for an explanation to be provided of the response to order for documents no. 761, the explanation may be provided at the conclusion of question time on Thursday, 13 February 2025, instead of at 12.15 pm.

Sue Lines

The question is that government business notice of motion No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Chisholm and moved by Senator Gallagher, be agreed to.

Anne Urquhart

I present the second report of 2025 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated into Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 2 OF 2025

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, 12 February 2025 at 7.42 pm

2. The committee recommends that-

(a) the provisions of the Whistleblower Protection Authority Bill 2025 (No. 2) be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 29 August 2025 (see appendix l for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(b) contingent upon introduction in the Senate, the provisions of the AusCheck Amendment (Global Entry Program) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 21 March 2025 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral).

1. The committee considered the following bills and, noting that they had been referred to committees on 12 February 2025, makes no further recommendation:

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

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

(Anne Urquhart)

Chair

13 February 2025

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Whistleblower Protection Authority Bill 2025 (No. 2)

Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Law Council, Bar Associations, Integrity Civil Society Groups, whistleblowers

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

TBA

Possible reporting date:

31 August 2025

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

AusCheck Amendment (Global Entry Program} Bill 2025

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To scrutinise this legislation

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Interested parties and stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

February

Possible reporting date:

21 March 2025

(signed) /

Wendy Askew

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

AusCheck Amendment (Global Entry Program) Bill 2025

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Public scrutiny of bills

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Migration Institute of Australia

Human Rights Law Centre

Civil Liberties Australia

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

March 2025

Possible reporting date:

21 March 2025

(signed) /

Nick McKim

I move:

That the report be adopted.

Jonathon Duniam

I would like to move an amendment:

At the end of the motion, add "and the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 April 2025".

In speaking to this amendment, I just want to make the point, which was actually helpfully highlighted by the last government speaker, that this legislation has nothing to do with the problems being faced by Australian people—the households and businesses, of course, that are struggling under the cost of living. The last government speaker on the legislation we are now seeking to refer to a committee had nothing to do with addressing the problems being faced in this country. Again, this is why we should send this legislation to a committee for an inquiry—so stakeholders, including Australian households, who are paying more for electricity, can have their say about this legislation, which does nothing to address the problems being faced by Australian households. The cost of living is something that again, as predicted, did not feature in the contribution by the Australian Greens on this debate.

This is why it's important. As demonstrated by what is happening here today—led by the Australian Greens cheerfully pushing their agenda and supported by the Australian Labor Party blindly following this ideological road to economic destruction, to households not being able to pay their power bills, to people being out of jobs—this is another step in that pathway. As I said before, it is a preview of what is to come. We have seen it here in the ACT at the territory level. We have seen it in Tasmania at a state level. We have seen Labor-Green governments and their agenda around legislation like this, which does require scrutiny. If the last government speaker in the substantive debate on this legislation was happy to point out that this has nothing to do with the cost of living then tell us exactly why this is good legislation. Tell us why we need to do it. Justify it to the community through the process of transparency.

Let's not of forget, of course, that it was the Prime Minister who said this government would usher in a new age of transparency. I don't know who the usher is, but they're doing a terrible job, because there is no transparency. Here we are again, at the end of this week, at the end of this parliamentary term, in probably the last sitting day before we go to the polls, Australia, with this government rushing through this legislation. Now, I could understand if it were legislation to do with the problems being faced by Australian households and businesses—that is, legislation that would assist with the cost of living—but apparently, according to the government, this has nothing to do with the cost of living. So, again, the government should be justifying to the Australian people why this legislation should pass. They should be justifying to this Senate why this legislation should pass and not rush it through. That's why Senate committees, like we are proposing today, should be able to look at the legislation, interrogate this and ask the government if there's any modelling that's been done about what this would do to the cost of living, what this would do to grid reliability, what this would do to manufacturing jobs in this country, what this would do to their flimsy, glossy, Future Made in Australia agenda. Of course, on one hand, they are strangling our economic drivers—small business, manufacturing—with things like the safeguard mechanism; their ridiculous nature-positive agenda, which has failed, thankfully; and all of the rest of the antibusiness, antijob, pro-Greens agenda that this government has been running. That's why the coalition would desperately love to see this legislation sent to committee for inquiry. If the Prime Minister and others are to be believed, we've got time for this. We're going to be back for estimates; there'll be further sittings of the Senate, so let's send this off. Let's have a discussion.

Why rush this through? It is unbelievable that this government would lock in behind the Australian Greens to rush this through when it does nothing to assist Australian households and businesses. Again, it demonstrates this government's tone-deaf approach to dealing with the issues being experienced by households and businesses across this country. They've been crying out for solutions. If the government wants to tell us that this legislation is the solution to the problems being faced by the Australian people, then let us do that through a Senate inquiry process. Come and justify what it is you're trying to rush through this place. Don't jam it through in here today just because your coalition partners, the Greens, want that to happen. Australians know something is up, because they're the ones who are paying higher power bills. They're the ones whose employers are saying: 'Times are getting tough. We are not able to compete with overseas imports because electricity is too expensive.'

Tell us how this legislation is going to help with any of that. Tell us how this is actually a solution. Tell us how it honours the promise made by the Prime Minister that power prices would go down by $275—a promise he made 97 times. Tell us how it actually honours your agenda, and we'll back it in.

Long debate text truncated.

Lidia Thorpe

Labor, you claim to support First Peoples. You claim to stand for justice. But today your words mean nothing unless they are backed by action. This bill before us, the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Consideration of UNDRIP) Bill 2023, is about the rights of First Nations peoples. It hits the three Rs: it is reasonable, rational and responsible. It is a simple change to ensure the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, when scrutinising legislation, is able to consider rights and freedoms laid out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the UNDRIP, a human rights instrument this country signed up to in 2009. It means that, every time a minister puts forward a piece of legislation, they have to write a statement of compatibility that forces them to consider the rights and freedoms of First Nations peoples as laid out in the UNDRIP.

It was actually a Labor government who signed this country up to the UNDRIP, which was developed over many years by First Peoples all over the world. It was a Labor senator, Patrick Dodson, who, in his last act of parliament, tabled the UNDRIP report, which recommended not only this change but that the whole of UNDRIP be implemented into domestic legislation. I won't go into the whole story of how Labor hijacked my original bill and watered down the inquiry; that's a yarn for another time.

Last year I tried to do exactly what the UNDRIP report recommended and introduced a bill that set up the framework for its implementation in domestic legislation. I thought: 'Labor themselves recommended this. Surely they can't vote against it. That would be so unlike them.' But Labor and Liberal voted it down right after their gammon referendum. When I asked them why they couldn't support the bill, Labor told me they needed the permission of their Liberal mates before they could move forward on the rights of First Peoples. Today I come with an even more modest proposal for the human rights committee to just be able to consider the rights in UNDRIP when scrutinising legislation. It is not that hard. Once again, this is something the Labor Party apparently supports. It was in their own committee recommendations. This support will come to a test today. If the government do not support this bill, we know that it is only because it was not written by yourselves and that policy does not matter in this place—only political games.

I am not fighting for this for myself; I am fighting for the rights of blackfellas all over this country. Not supporting this bill meant not even having the courage to let a human rights committee, who they ignore anyway unless it suits them, put some words on a piece of paper, which none of you will bother to read anyway. Theoretically, the government should already be bound by the provisions outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples anyway, from back when they agreed to it in 2009. There should be nothing to fear.

Let's be real. The colonial masters have a long history of treating human rights like an optional guideline, not a binding obligation. They don't care about First Peoples' rights. They don't care about truth-telling. All they care about is their own survival. Minister McCarthy, you can have a legacy. You could actually fight for the rights of our people. I don't mean fighting me; that's exactly what the colony wants. I mean fighting the people in your own party to stand up for our people. If you really care for your people, cross the floor if your party won't support this bill. Show the people on the ground that you are willing to put yourself on the line for them. Instead, you will go down in history as just another minister for Indigenous Australians who did not fight for real justice for our people. Shame.

Disappointingly, I didn't even get a phone call or reply when I requested a meeting with you, the Minister for Indigenous Australians, and the Attorney-General about this bill. You shut the door. You didn't even want to talk about it—too ashamed to front up. Apparently, Minister McCarthy, you were too busy. What in your calendar, Minister, was more important than the rights of your people? The letter even had the signatures of the majority of crossbench senators and members of parliament, meaning you have the support to pass this bill today in both houses.

How's that, mob out there? This place and the place next door have an opportunity to take seriously the rights of our people in this country, and we have a gammon Labor government who will do nothing, except to turn up to the Sorry Day morning tea and make a few gammon speeches about how much they care about us. You've got to see through this. Look how many people are locked up. Look how many babies are taken away. Look how much destruction there is of our water and our land. They are so gammon.

The support for this change is unanimous and has been called for by experts, academics and civil society more broadly, including by the Australian Human Rights Commission in their 2021 report F ree and equal : a reform agenda for federal discrimination laws (2021); the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, who recommended this amendment in a report after her visit to this country in 2017; the I nquiry into the U nited Nations De claration on the_ Rights of Indigenous _P eoples in Australia report 2023, recommendation 6; the Human Rights Joint Committee Inquiry into Australia's Human Rights Framework report 2024, recommendation 13; and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Katie Kiss, is calling for this amendment in her current listening tour. You appoint these commissioners. You say that they're going to do all these deadly things. You just appointed a children's commissioner. What's the point if you don't take on board what they are saying?

It is a simple yet critical amendment that ensures that no matter who is next in government—and we know you're doing really badly out there—we have to consider the human rights of First Peoples every time they put forward a piece of legislation. So they can't send the army into communities to destroy peace and harmony, because we would have an instrument that calls out the human rights and the Indigenous rights prior to that happening. Today I anticipate we will hear nothing but excuses from Labor. They will tell us to wait and to compromise, and to negotiate within the boundaries they set on their white line that they're not allowed to cross. They will tell us that there are too many unintended consequences. The human rights committee is not powerful. There is a majority of Labor and Liberal people around the table to ensure that the human rights committee doesn't have any power.

Our people have waited for over two centuries for rights in this country. We have negotiated with the colonial boots on our necks every time. This is not governance; this is domination by delaying. Labor has real power, a crossbench that today is ready and would support human rights and First Peoples' rights in this country. So, Labor, are you genuine? You wear your Aboriginal earrings and your deadly little dot-painted scarves and you pretend to care, but, in fact, you really don't, because you've got to uphold the colonial system, and the colonial system is not about giving us rights; it's about taking away our rights and stripping us of our rights. It's about stripping us of our land, resources, water, babies, families—the list goes on.

You sip your morning tea and celebrate Rudd's apology, even though we've got 24,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care today. After he said sorry, they kept going; they kept taking our children. We have mothers who are being shackled to beds to have their babies and we have child protection waiting at the end of those beds to take those babies. If you are genuine, let the First Peoples in your party speak about what they genuinely want. Stop shutting them down. Stop gaslighting them. Let them speak. Let them cross the floor. If you are genuine, please prove this country wrong, prove me wrong, prove my people wrong: give this bill your support, especially today, on the national apology day.

We know Rudd's apology was carefully written. It was carefully scrutinised by the highest lawyers in this country so that there was no comeback to this government ever. We know that that apology was hollow. It ensured that there were no reparations. It ensured that they were able to continue to steal our children. So, while you sip your tea and have your cake and pat yourselves on the back, think about what else you can do today for our rights in this country, because our people are dying at a faster rate than anybody else in this country, and it's because of what comes out of this place. If you don't support this bill then you'll have to live with that. I hope you don't sleep well at night. I hope our ancestors haunt you all.

Long debate text truncated.

Andrew McLachlan

I will now deal with amendments circulated by Senator David Pocock. As the amendments on sheet 3248 were consequential on a motion to divide the bill that was negatived earlier today, I will not put the question on those amendments. The question before the committee is that Senator Pocock's amendments on sheets 3158 and 3199 be agreed to.

Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments—

SHEET 3158

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 13), insert:

(2) Page 205 (after line 19), after Schedule 9, insert:

Schedule 9A — Fair territory representation

Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918

1 Subsections 40(1) to (3)

Repeal the subsections, substitute:

(1) The Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are each to be represented in the Senate by senators for the Territory directly chosen by the people of the Territory voting as one electorate.

(2) The number of senators for each of these Territories is to be half of the number of senators for a State (rounded up or down to the nearest whole number (rounding up if the number ends in .5)).

2 Sections 42 and 43

Repeal the sections, substitute:

42 Term of service of a senator for a Territory

(1) Section 13 of the Constitution applies in relation to a senator for the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory as if:

(a) a reference in that section to a State included a reference to the Territory; and

(b) a reference in that section to:

(i) when the Senate first meets; or

(ii) the first election;

included a reference to the first Senate election held after the commencement of this subsection.

(2) The term of service of a senator for any other Territory:

(a) commences on the day of the senator's election; and

(b) ends on the day immediately before the polling day for the next general election.

43 Times of elections of senators for Territories

(1) The times of elections of the senators for the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory are to be determined in a corresponding way to the way determined for the senators for a State.

(2) An election of the senators for any other Territory is to be held at the same time as each general election.

3 Application of amendments

Subsection 40(2) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (as inserted by this Schedule) applies for, and on and after, the first Senate election held after the commencement of this Schedule.

_____

SHEET 3199

(1) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 6 and 7), omit "Electoral Reform", substitute "Reducing Electoral Competition to Stitch-up Major Party Duopoly".

Andrew McLachlan

The question now is that the Australia's Voice amendments on sheets 3187 and 3266 be agreed to.

Australia's Voice 's circulated amendments—

SHEET 3187

(1) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 6 and 7), omit "Electoral Reform", substitute "Compromising Our Rightful Representation and Undermining Political Trust".

_____

SHEET 3266

(1) Clause 2, page 3 (table item 14), omit "10 and 11", substitute "10, 11 and 12".

(2) Page 221 (after line 29), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 12 — Ceasing allowances for former members

Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017

1 Paragraph 3(2)(a)

Repeal the paragraph.

2 Paragraph 3(2)(aa)

Omit "in recognition that the resources mentioned in paragraph (a) will not be provided".

3 Section 13

Omit "A former member may be paid allowances and expenses relating to ceasing to be a member, as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal.".

4 Section 15 (heading)

Omit "former members and".

5 Subsection 15(1)

Repeal the subsection.

6 Subsection 15(2)

Omit "(2)".

7 Subsection 15(2)

Omit "in recognition that allowances are not payable to such persons under subsection (1) of this section".

8 Section 46

Repeal the section.

9 Subsection 46A(1)

Omit "(1)".

10 Subsections 46A(2) and (3)

Repeal the subsections.

11 Application and transitional provision

(1) The amendments of the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017 made by this Schedule apply in relation to a person who is a former member if the person ceases to be a member on or after the commencement of this item.

(2) Despite the repeal of subsection 15(1) and section 46 of the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017 by this Schedule, Part 4 of the Remuneration Tribunal (Members of Parliament) Determination 2024, as in force before the commencement of this item, continues to apply on and after that commencement to a person who is a former member if the person ceases to be a member before that commencement.

Andrew McLachlan

The question now is that the Jacqui Lambie Network amendments on sheets 3198 and 3317 be agreed to.

Jacqui Lambie Network 's circulated amendments—

SHEET 3198

(1) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 6 and 7), omit "Electoral Reform", substitute "Snouts in the Trough".

_____

SHEET 3317

(1) Page 94 (after line 28), after Schedule 3, insert:

Schedule 3A — Prohibiting donations from gambling, liquor and tobacco industries

Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918

1 Before Division 5B of Part XX

Insert:

Division 5AA — Prohibited donations

314AGA Definitions

In this Division:

close associate of a corporation means each of the following:

(a) a director or officer of the corporation or the spouse of such a director or officer;

(b) a related body corporate of the corporation;

(c) a person whose voting power in the corporation or a related body corporate of the corporation is greater than 20%, or the spouse of such a person;

(d) if the corporation or a related body corporate of the corporation is a stapled entity in relation to a stapled security—the other stapled entity in relation to that stapled security;

(e) if the corporation is a trustee, manager or responsible entity in relation to a trust—a person who holds more than 20% of the units in the trust (in the case of a unit trust) or is a beneficiary of the trust (in the case of a discretionary trust).

electoral expenditure has the same meaning as in Division 5.

gambling industry business entity means:

(a) a corporation engaged in a business undertaking that involves wagering, betting or other gambling (including the manufacture of machines used primarily for that purpose); or

(b) a person who is a close associate of a corporation referred to in paragraph (a).

liquor industry business entity means:

(a) a corporation engaged in a business undertaking that involves the manufacture or sale of liquor products; or

(b) a person who is a close associate of a corporation referred to in paragraph (a).

officer, in relation to a corporation, has the same meaning as in the Corporations Act 2001.

political donation has the meaning given by section 314AGB.

prohibited donation, for a relevant donor, has the meaning given by section 314AGC.

related body corporate has the same meaning as in the Corporations Act 2001.

relevant donor means:

(a) a gambling industry business entity; or

(b) a liquor industry business entity; or

(c) a tobacco industry business entity.

spouse of a person includes a de facto partner of that person.

Note: For de facto partner, see section 21 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

stapled entity means an entity the interests in which are traded along with the interests in another entity as stapled securities and (in the case of a stapled entity that is a trust) includes any trustee, manager or responsible entity in relation to the trust.

State branch includes a division of a State branch.

tobacco industry business entity means:

(a) a corporation engaged in a business undertaking that involves the manufacture or sale of tobacco or inhaled nicotine products; or

(b) a person who is a close associate of a corporation referred to in paragraph (a).

voting power has the same meaning as in the Corporations Act 2001.

314AGB Meaning of political donation

Each of the following is a political donation:

(a) a gift made to or for the benefit of a political party or a State branch of a political party;

(b) a gift made to or for the benefit of a member of the Commonwealth Parliament;

(c) a gift made to or for the benefit of a candidate (including a member of a group);

(d) a gift made to or for the benefit of an associated entity of a registered political party;

(e) a gift made to or for the benefit of a significant third party;

(f) a gift made to or for the benefit of an entity or other person (not being a party, elected member, group or candidate), the whole or part of which was used or is intended to be used by the entity or person:

(i) to enable the entity or person to make, directly or indirectly, a political donation or to incur electoral expenditure in relation to an election;

(ii) to reimburse the entity or person for making, directly or indirectly, a political donation or incurring electoral expenditure in relation to an election;

(g) a loan:

(i) that, if it had been a gift, would have been a political donation under this section; and

(ii) that was not made by a financial institution (within the meaning of section 306A).

314AGC Meaning of prohibited donation

A political donation is a prohibited donation for a relevant donor if the relevant donor is:

(a) a gambling industry business entity; or

(b) a liquor industry business entity; or

(c) a tobacco industry business entity.

314AGD Prohibited donations by relevant donors unlawful

(1) It is unlawful for a relevant donor to make a political donation that is a prohibited donation for the relevant donor.

(2) It is unlawful for a person to make a political donation on behalf of a relevant donor if the political donation is a prohibited donation for the relevant donor.

(3) It is unlawful for a person to accept a political donation that was made (wholly or partly) by a relevant donor, or by a person on behalf of a relevant donor, if the political donation is a prohibited donation for the relevant donor.

(4) It is unlawful for a relevant donor to solicit another person to make a political donation that is a prohibited donation for the relevant donor.

(5) It is unlawful for a person to solicit another person on behalf of a relevant donor to make a political donation that is a prohibited donation for the relevant donor.

(6) If a person receives a gift that, under this section, it is unlawful for the person to receive, an amount equal to the amount or value of the gift is payable by that person to the Commonwealth and may be recovered by the Commonwealth as a debt due to the Commonwealth by action, in a court of competent jurisdiction, against:

(a) in the case of a gift to or for the benefit of a political party or a State branch of a political party:

(i) if the party or branch, as the case may be is a body corporate—the party or branch, as the case may be; or

(ii) in any other case—the agent of the party or branch, as the case may be; or

(b) in any other case—the candidate or a member of the group or the agent of the candidate or of the group, as the case may be.

314AGE Offences — prohibited donations

(1) A person (the defendant) commits an offence if:

(a) the defendant is a relevant donor; and

(b) the defendant makes a gift; and

(c) the gift is a prohibited donation for the relevant donor.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or 400 penalty units, or both.

(2) A person (the defendant) commits an offence if:

(a) the defendant makes a gift on behalf of another person; and

(b) the other person is a relevant donor; and

(c) the gift is a prohibited donation for the relevant donor.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or 400 penalty units, or both.

(3) A person (the defendant) commits an offence if:

(a) the defendant accepts a gift; and

(b) the gift was given (wholly or partly) by, or by a person on behalf of, a relevant donor; and

(c) the gift is a prohibited donation for the relevant donor.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or 400 penalty units, or both.

(4) A person (the defendant) commits an offence if:

(a) the defendant is a relevant donor; and

(b) the defendant solicits another person to make a gift; and

(c) the gift is, or would be, a prohibited donation for the relevant donor.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or 400 penalty units, or both.

(5) A person (the defendant) commits an offence if:

(a) the defendant solicits another person to make a gift; and

(b) the defendant does so on behalf of another person (the donor); and

(c) the donor is a relevant donor; and

(d) the gift is, or would be, a prohibited donation for the relevant donor.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or 400 penalty units, or both.

Fault element

(6) The fault element for the following paragraphs is knowledge by the defendant:

(a) paragraphs (1)(a) and (c);

(b) paragraphs (2)(b) and (c);

(c) paragraphs (3)(b) and (c);

(d) paragraphs (4)(a) and (c);

(e) paragraphs (5)(c) and (d).

Civil penalty

(7) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes any of subsections (1) to (5).

Civil penalty:

The higher of the following amounts:

(a) 400 penalty units;

(b) if there is sufficient evidence for the court to determine the amount or value, or an estimate of the amount of value, of the gift at the time the gift is made—3 times that amount or value.

314AGF Offence — scheme to circumvent prohibitions

(1) A person commits an offence if the person enters into or carries out a scheme (whether alone or with others) for the purpose of circumventing a prohibition or requirement of this Division.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

(2) It does not matter whether the person also enters into or carries out the scheme for other purposes.

(3) In this section:

scheme includes an arrangement, an understanding or a course of conduct.

314AGG Electoral Commission may determine that a person is presumed not to be a relevant donor

(1) The Electoral Commission may determine, in writing, that a person (the donor) is presumed not to be a relevant donor for the purposes of this Division if:

(a) a donor or another person (the applicant) applies to the Commission for the determination to be made; and

(b) the Commission is satisfied that it is more likely than not that the donor is not a relevant donor.

(2) The Electoral Commission can decide whether or not to make a determination under subsection (1) on the basis of information provided by the applicant and their own inquiries.

(3) A determination under subsection (1) remains in force for 12 months after it is made, unless it is revoked earlier.

(4) The Electoral Commission may, by written notice to the applicant, revoke a determination under subsection (1) if the Commission is no longer satisfied of the matter in paragraph (1)(b). Subsection (2) does not apply to a decision of whether or not to revoke a determination under this subsection.

Effect of presumption

(5) If a person is, under a determination made under subsection (1), presumed not to be a relevant donor, then sections 314AGD, 314AGE and 314AGF do not apply in relation to a gift made by or on behalf of the person.

(6) However, subsection (5) does not apply to a person who knows that information provided to the Electoral Commission in connection with the making of the determination was false or misleading in a material particular.

(7) The onus of proving that a person is not presumed not to be a relevant donor under a determination made under subsection (1) is born by:

(a) in proceedings under section 314AGD—the Commonwealth; or

(b) in proceedings for an offence against section 314AGE or 314AGF—the prosecution.

Register of determinations

(8) The Electoral Commission must maintain, and publish on the Commission's website, a register of determinations made under subsection (1).

Determination is not a legislative instrument

(9) A determination made under subsection (1) is not a legislative instrument.

2 Subsection 315A(1)

After "or subsection 301(3)", insert "or 314AGD(6)".

Fatima Payman

by leave—I request to have my support recorded in the Journals for the amendments on sheet 3309.

Andrew McLachlan

The question is that Senator Thorpe's amendment on sheet 3200 be agreed to.

Senator Thorpe's circulated amendment—

(1) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 6 and 7), omit "Electoral Reform", substitute "Sham Democracy".

David Fawcett

I will now deal with Senator Thorpe's amendment on sheet 3316. As this amendment was not circulated within the required timeframe, it can only be considered by leave.

Lidia Thorpe

by leave—I move:

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

(a) the Senate notes that:

(i) the bill and the associated explanatory memorandum are together more than 400 pages long,

(ii) there has been limited parliamentary scrutiny of the more than 400 pages,

(iii) Australians expect the Senate, as the house of review, to consider legislation carefully,

(iv) in the midst of cost of living pressures, the Government is giving itself and other parties substantial increases in public funding instead of prioritising increased support to Australians who are doing it tough,

(v) the bill creates an unfair playing field, giving advantage to incumbents over new candidates by failing to give all candidates the same public funding for administrative support and failing to account for incumbent resources such as an office, staff, a vehicle and marketing budget whilst imposing a spending cap on candidates,

(vi) the bill provides disproportionate yearly administrative assistance funding to major political parties, and fails to account for any economies of scale,

(vii) the bill entrenches political party advantage over independent candidates by imposing a spending cap on individual seats while still permitting additional party advertising under a party's $90 million national cap,

(viii) the bill provisions particularly disadvantage independent candidates from diverse cultural and socio-economic backgrounds, resulting in a parliamentary system and policy outcomes less representative of a wide range of the population; and

(b) the Senate calls on the Government to:

(i) undertake an assessment of realistic administrative compliance costs under the bill, and

(ii) place a cap on administrative assistance funding to political parties to accurately reflect administrative compliance costs".

David Fawcett

The question is that Senator Thorpe's amendment on sheet 3316 be agreed to.

David Fawcett

The time allotted for the remaining stages of the bill has expired. I will first deal with the Australian Greens' amendment moved by Senator Waters on sheet 3194. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Waters on sheet 3194 be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendment—

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

(a) notes that:

(i) any legislation to deliver electoral reforms must strengthen democracy and not just the political fortunes of the major parties,

(ii) the Greens are concerned that the proposed reforms entrench incumbency advantages that stack outcomes in favour of the two-party system, and

(iii) the Greens continue to advocate for genuine electoral reform including getting big money out of politics, banning donations from fossil fuel corporations and other social harm industries, implementing truth in political advertising laws, strengthening the Lobbying Code of Conduct and enforcing longer post-parliamentary cooling-off periods for Ministers before they go to work for industries they were regulating; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) separate the transparency measures in this bill so that Parliament can pass them as a matter of urgency, and

(ii) support an inquiry into the funding elements of the bill to allow for democratic scrutiny of its provisions".

David Fawcett

The question before the chamber is that the standing orders be suspended.