Sue Lines

I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendment and the request for an amendment circulated by Senator Thorpe. As these amendments were not circulated within the required timeframe, they can only be considered by leave.

Lidia Thorpe

by leave—I move:

SHEET 3250

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:

(1) Schedule 1, page 26 (after line 21), after item 25, insert:

25A After subsection 19(2)

Insert:

(2A) Despite subsection (2), a medicare benefit is payable in respect of a professional service if:

(a) the professional service has been rendered by, or on behalf of, or under an arrangement with:

(i) a State or an internal Territory; or

(ii) an authority established by a law of a State or a law of an internal Territory; and

(b) the professional service has been rendered in relation to a person who is in prison or has been recently released from prison; and

(c) the professional service is of a kind specified in an instrument made under subsection (2B).

(2B) The Minister must, by legislative instrument, specify one or more kinds of professional services for the purposes of paragraph (2A)(c).

(2C) The first instrument made under subsection (2B) must be made by the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day this subsection commences.

_____

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (1)

Amendment (1) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to increase the kinds of professional services in relation to which a Medicare benefit is payable. Specifically, it would require payments in relation to certain services provided to people in prison or recently released from prison. The amendment would therefore increase the amount of Medicare benefit payments made from the Medicare Guarantee Fund (Health) Special Account.

As the effect of this amendment is to increase payments made from the Medicare Guarantee Fund (Health) Special Account, it will increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 80 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 or in certain circumstances the standing appropriation in section 18 of the Medicare Guarantee Act 2017.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (1)

If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under a standing appropriation, then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.

_____

SHEET 3268

(1) Schedule 2, page 44 (after line 28), after the heading specifying National Health Act 1953, insert:

16A After subsection 100(1)

Insert:

(1AA) Without limiting subsection (1), the Minister must, by legislative instrument, make special arrangements for, or in relation to, providing that an adequate supply of pharmaceutical benefits will be available to persons who are in prison or another place of detention.

(1AB) The first instrument made under subsection (1AA) must be made by the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day this subsection commences.

16B At the end of subsections 100(2) and (3)

Add "or (1AA)".

The

The question is that Senator Thorpe's amendment and request for amendment on sheets 3250 and 3268 be agreed to.

Sue Lines

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

Sue Lines

The question is that the bill be now read a second time.

Sue Lines

I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by the government. I understand the minister has a document to table.

Katy Gallagher

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to the Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2025.

Sue Lines

The question is that the government amendments on sheet FR102 be agreed to.

Government's circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 13 (line 9), before "Matters", insert "(1)".

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 13 (after line 16), at the end of section 58BB, add:

(2) In determining whether a regulated entity has taken reasonable steps for the purposes of a provision of this Division, the primary consideration must be the matter in paragraph (1)(e) (if applicable).

(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 30 (after line 34), after subsection 58BZE(1), insert:

(1A) To avoid doubt, guidelines prescribed for the purposes of subparagraph (1)(b)(ii) do not have to be consistent with sections 58FZD to 58FZK (about proportionate liability for concurrent wrongdoers in actions for damages).

(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 44 (after line 24), at the end of Subdivision B, add:

58EFA Roles and responsibilities statement

(1) The SPF general regulator must publish a statementon its website summarising, in general terms, the roles and responsibilities of:

(a) each SPF regulator; and

(b) each operator of an SPF EDR scheme; and

(c) any other entity the SPF general regulator considers appropriate;

with respect to the regulation, enforcement and administration of the SPF provisions.

Note: The purpose of the statement is to explain these matters at a high level.

(2) Before publishing the statement, the SPF general regulator must consult the entities mentioned in subsection (1).

(3) The statement is not a legislative instrument.

Nick McKim

I ask that you put amendments (1) and (2) separately to amendments (3) and (4). I can indicate that's because the Australian Greens will be voting differently on those matters.

Sue Lines

The question is that government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet FR102 be agreed to.

Sue Lines

I will now deal with the second reading amendment circulated by Pauline Hanson's One Nation. As this amendment was not circulated within the required timeframe, it can only be considered by leave.

Pauline Hanson

by leave—I move:

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

(a) notes that this legislation fails to make adequate provisions for the compensation of vulnerable Australians who have been victims of scams; and

(b) calls on the Government to introduce legislation similar to the successful UK model of reimbursement, which ensures that banks are required to initially refund scam victims, providing stronger consumer protection and accountability in the financial sector".

Sue Lines

The question is that Pauline Hanson's One Nation amendment on sheet 3325 be agreed to.

Louise Pratt

I will start with the second-reading amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. One of these amendments was not circulated within the timeframe and can only be considered by leave.

Nick McKim

by leave—I move Greens amendments on sheets 3294 and 3324:

SHEET 3294

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

(a) notes that:

(i) too many people and their families experience significant harm from scams each year,

(ii) instead of implementing a best practice model to prevent scams, Labor has caved to the interests of the major banks and their multi-billion-dollar profits, and

(iii) under Labor's bill, it would take a person impacted by a scam up to 30 steps and 2 years to seek redress, and at the end of the process there is no guarantee they will get any of their money back; and

(b) calls on the Government to amend the bill to include a presumption of reimbursement, similar to the UK model, which would require banks to promptly reimburse people who have been scammed, and then recover costs from other businesses involved in the scam in proportion to their liability, including telcos and digital platforms".

_____

SHEET 3324

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

(a) notes that:

(i) the bill fails to address the jurisdictional impediments to enforcement of laws against offshore social media companies,

(ii) any measures or civil penalties the bill imposes on online platforms will be unenforceable and require voluntary compliance,

(ii) the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society considered the impact of online scams and jurisdictional impediments and recommended that the Australian Government consider options for greater enforceability of Australian laws for social media platforms, including amending regulation and legislation, to effectively bring digital platforms under Australian jurisdiction; and

(b) calls on the Government to urgently act to bring digital platforms under Australian jurisdiction and ensure jurisdiction is not an impediment to enforcement measures in the bill".

Sue Lines

The question is that the Australian Greens amendments on sheets 3294 and 3324 be agreed to.

David Pocock

Pursuant to the contingent notice standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the bill without limitation of time.

I know it's a pain when the crossbench does this, but I think Australians probably need to know what's happening here. We have record numbers of Australians being scammed, yet we're having the Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2025 just rushed through this place. The crossbenchers haven't even had time to get amendments drafted. Is that what we want our democracy to be? I find this extraordinary.

The coalition need to have a good hard look at themselves. Senator Dean Smith, from the great state of Western Australia, engaged in the Senate inquiry in good faith. Anyone watching would have seen the probing questions he asked. The coalition put in a very good set of comments and recommendations. Then, it seems, his party said: 'Great work, Dean, but do you know what? We don't care. We don't care what the evidence says, what was tendered to the committee or what you're recommending, because we're just going to roll over. We're going to do a deal on electoral reform and we're going to ram through scams legislation.' This is scams legislation that is so undercooked!

Anyone paying attention in the Senate committee process would have heard experts and consumer groups say, 'This is legislation that is stacked in the interests of the banks.' I find it astounding that on such a big issue we have a lack of evidence based policy. We're told: 'We've got to get this legislation through. It doesn't matter that if it's not going to be effective. It doesn't matter if the codes won't come into effect for ages. It's urgent.'

To the coalition: after your additional comments in the report, it is disgraceful that you're happy to put this bill through unamended. I think it shows real disrespect to Australians. I've met so many people who have lost hundreds of dollars, thousands of dollars, tens of thousands of dollars or hundreds of thousands of dollars. Some have lost millions of dollars. And you guys are happy to just give them the middle finger and say: 'Well, here's some scams legislation. It's better than nothing.'

The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has called the bill in its current form 'unworkable'. The crossbench had briefings with the peak consumer groups, and they said, 'In its current form, this does not work for Australians and should not pass.' They engaged in good faith. The crossbench have tried to engage in good faith, and you have put us in a position where we can't even get our amendments drafted. The crossbench has raised concerns about drafting resources in this place many times. It doesn't seem to have improved. The poor drafters in there are working their arses off, and you won't give them extra resources.

I hope Australians see this for what it is: disrespecting our democracy by not allowing elected representatives to at least engage in a debate. We have had no second reading speeches, no time for committee process and no time to even get amendments drafted for this, and why? The codes that hold everything in this legislation haven't even been drafted. We're told that it will take a very long time to develop them.

I wasn't that surprised when Minister Jones put forward legislation that looked like it had been drafted by Anna Bligh and the Australian Banking Association. I honestly wasn't surprised. What I was surprised by was the coalition, after engaging in good faith—as I said, Senator Dean Smith does excellent work in this Senate, at estimates and in committees. But you don't care. At the end of the day, it's self-interest and vested interest. Australians deserve better. I don't understand why you're doing this.

Katy Gallagher

We will not be supporting the suspension motion. We allowed time for consideration of those bills in the motion today, but obviously senators were keen to debate veterans entitlements legislation, which I acknowledge a huge amount of work has gone into, and we are in the middle of that right now.

Can I just also add that the comments from Senator Pocock about the scam legislation are offensive, and there is no-one in this country who has done more to protect people from scams than Minister Jones. He has spent years on this—years and years of attending forums, consulting with people and working with stakeholders—and for you to diminish that and say that he's done this in the pursuit of self-interest is absolutely offensive. From time to time, we need to get things done in this Senate. That was how the Senate resolved on this procedural motion today. I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Louise Pratt

Senator Pocock, on a point of order?

David Pocock

Insinuating motives—that was not why I said that.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

Andrew McLachlan

With the concurrence of the Senate, the statements of reasons accompanying the requests circulated for this bill will be incorporated in Hansard immediately after the requests to which they relate. There being no objection, it is so ordered.

I have a statement, so I'll just give my statement. This is somewhat unusual, so it could be a learning experience for some.

According to the statement of reasons for the government amendments on sheet ZA257, amendment (3) is covered by section 53 of the Constitution because it changes the destination of money appropriated by section 423 of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. This reflects the advice to the government from the parliamentary counsel, but the Clerk's view is that this does not accord with the precedents of the Senate.

The third paragraph of section 53 provides:

The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.

This has relevantly been taken to mean that the Senate may not amend a bill to increase the proposed expenditure under a standing appropriation. However, the amendment in question does not have that effect. Quick and Garran, in their commentaries on the Constitution, say:

… the Senate is only forbidden to amend [bills imposing taxation] and the annual appropriation bill; it may amend two kinds of expenditure bills … those for permanent and extraordinary appropriations … The Senate may amend such money bills so as to reduce the total amount of expenditure or to change the method, object and destination of the expenditure, but not to increase the total expenditure originated in the House of Representatives.

This position is set out at page 671.

The advice of the Clerk, which is set out on the amendment sheet, is that the amendment deals only with the apportionment of expenditure and does not change the total proposed expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 423 of the act. This is highlighted by the note to proposed subsection 80A(2), which makes it clear that the sum of amounts paid to persons cannot exceed the amount the Commonwealth is liable to pay in respect of an eligible person, which is itself a capped amount.

I have considered the views of the parliamentary counsel and the Clerk and consider that the Clerk's view is consistent with the precedents of the Senate. I therefore rule that the amendment should be framed as an amendment, not a request. It's purely of a technical nature, but we won't be making requests to the other House. We will be amending as we see fit.

Long debate text truncated.

Jacqui Lambie

This amendment includes safeguards to stop the clock to account for reasonable delays, like for medical advice. If the commission does not determine the claim by the end of the consideration period, the commission is taken to have accepted the claim. Veterans who have to take their matters to the Veterans' Review Board can't be represented by a lawyer. This is hugely unfair for some of them, and it flips all the power to the DVA staff, which are expert lawyers—the known enemy, as we like to call them, who do have access to legal representation before the hearing. My amendment attempts to level the playing field so veterans can get legal representation themselves when they go before the Veterans' Review Board to plead their case. It's a no brainer, and I reckon it gives the veterans a fair go. It also removes section 353L, which allows the Veterans' Review Board to imprison a veteran for up to six months if they insult a person, interrupt proceedings, create a disturbance or cause contempt as part of their proceedings. We need to know as much as possible about the ongoing health and wellbeing of our veterans. That means research and data gathering.

The amendment responds to recommendations 114, 115 and 117 of the royal commission. It establishes an expert committee on veteran research made up of people with real skills and real experience. The amendment also requires the department to establish work plans to outline the immediate research priorities of the department in relation to health and wellbeing, long-term research goals and detailed actions to address gaps in the legislation.

My amendments are not perfect, but they will go a hell of a long way to fixing the injustice that we've put up with for far too long, that is within the system and that has resulted in so many of your mates taking their lives. I ask everyone in this place to vote for my amendments. Veterans put their lives on the line for this country. The least that we can do is make sure that they are looked after during and beyond their service.

I would also like to put on record the shocking and slow response the coalition displayed over nine years. They did everything they could to resist a royal commission. They were aided and abetted by the national RSL. They kept telling me and the veterans that there is 'nothing to see here'. The National President of the RSL even went after Julie-Ann Finney, accusing her of campaigning for a royal commission to assuage guilt for her failed relationship with her son. You, Mr Melick, subsequently apologised, but I have to ask why on earth this man is still the head of the national RSL. It is certainly not the request and it is not the want of every digger who has served and is serving.

I would like to acknowledge the work of Minister Keogh and his willingness to work with me over the summer and over the past two years. I want to take some time here to make sure that the veterans know this: I cannot praise Minister Keogh enough. He has worked over the Christmas period with me. He's given up time with his family. It has been very enduring of him to go through this with me for the past two years. He has carried tears behind closed doors. I want you to know that. He has, fair dinkum, put everything he possibly can into this, knowing we needed to get as much as we possibly could through before an election.

We have done everything that we possibly can over the last eight weeks to get that national commissioner up and to start ticking off those royal commission recommendations. We cannot possibly have any hours left, between the minister and I, to do anything else that is left. We have nothing left. I just wanted you to know that Minister Keogh—over the last 10 years I have been up there, the revolving door of ministers has been an absolute shocker for you people—has put his heart and his soul into this, and I will pay credit where credit is due. I know, at times, that we have sat behind closed doors and cried together, and we have tried to do everything possible in the last eight weeks. I cannot thank you enough, from the bottom of my heart, Minister Keogh. I want you to know that. I want every veteran out there to know that, because nobody during the period of time I've been up here has ever done what you have done or stood beside me.

I want to thank the Prime Minister for giving me the extra staff member over the last two years. I want to thank you, Luke Brown. I don't think this will get you sacked. I want every veteran out there to know that assistant commissioner Luke Brown has saved many lives in the last two years, because, when this government came in, they gave me full access to Luke Brown. I'm not sure if he works for DVA or Jacqui Lambie, but I cannot thank you enough, Luke. I cannot thank you enough. The pressure that you have taken off the people in my office has been absolutely remarkable. It has stopped being the revolving door for you veterans out there as well, and it's caused a hell of a lot less harm to my office and the people working there in the last two years. Luke, thank you. Just to let you know, I have another six people I will need to come and see in the next day. I'm sorry I didn't ring you Monday. I'll be in touch with you tomorrow, mate, but thank you.

Finally, I would like to thank all the organisations, the veterans, the mothers and the families who have fought for the royal commission. I know it has taken it out of you. I know it has taken it out of me. I want to thank especially Julie-Ann Finney and the other mums and the dads who have worked so tirelessly for many, many years, campaigning for veterans and the recommendations of the royal commission. Julie-Ann, I want you to know that your son would be so proud of you.

I know the royal commissioners. You were shaken, and I know that you have been moved by the testimony from so many. I know that has been extremely harmful to you, and I want to thank you for going through that and doing everything you could for us. Nothing can compensate for the pain and the loss of losing your child, and that is the burden of military service that many parents and many families will have to carry with them for the rest of their lives.

The passage of this bill won't fix everything, but the speed of the government response is now down to you. To you, Matt, once again, thank you. I know that we have tried to rush this through, and I'm pretty sure we've got it right—we've got to be damn close—but there is still a lot of work to be done. There are still over 120 recommendations to be put through as quickly as possible.

We have worked hard in my office over the last eight years to do as much as we possibly can to fix the DVA and Defence. Like I said, it has taken a toll on my staff, and I've lost some of them along the way. To my staff, thank you, once again, for your commitment to the veterans over the last eight years. I thank all of you.

I am up for re-election this year, and I am hoping that Tasmanians will give me another six years, but if they don't I want the veteran community to know that I will always stand beside you. I want you to stay vigilant. You will need to keep holding Defence, the Department of Veterans' Affairs and, most importantly, the government to account. You must do that.

I want you service organisations to listen to me—listen very carefully. There are a lot of you out there; there are thousands. I want you to stop fighting with each other, because it is not helpful. You are not standing together as one, so you have no strength. You have a national RSL that is useless; we know that, but if you service organisations continue to fight with each other and bicker with each other, you will continue to not save lives. Dealing with you makes my job up here very difficult, and you are not being fair to your mates.

If you are part of an organisation and you fall out with your mates, don't go and start another one. It has not been helpful. I know that many of you in these organisations are also physically and psychologically damaged. I know your patience only goes so far. I also know that for many, many years you have been fighting a government that has destroyed you. I know that, but the biggest enemy that I have right now and that we, the veterans out there, have right now is you, because you won't come together as one. For God's sake, even the Vietnam veterans worked it out. They only split into two groups, not thousands. That has been extremely harmful to us. I want you to go away and think about that.

I want to see you guys have one group, one union. That's where you should be—and that is what our national RSL should have been. It has failed us, but it has taken great delight over the years in watching us chew each other up for breakfast. Oh, they've loved it! I beg you to recognise that you will only become a force again if you come together as one. You must come together as one. You have to do that today. Then we will get what we want. But, until you do that, you will make the fight harder. I want you to go away and have a good think about that. Surely one of you is big enough to say, 'The rest of us are not doing our job, and we need to come together as one.' I don't even care what you call us, but bring us together because it gives us more power and it gives us more might. Then we can help our own. That is how it works.

Sometimes I know it feels like two steps forward and one step back. But, whenever I have felt defeated, the resilience and the strength of you, even in the chaos you are in—that service organisation community has got me through. I want to make sure that you know that. I want to thank all of you for helping me along the way. There are some who have, along the way, thrown names at me and others out there, and it has been very unhelpful. But I think I've said enough about service organisations out there.

All I'm asking you to do, in my last minute, is to go away and think about where you are, because what you are doing in thousands of groups out there, how you've all separated, is not helpful. It is not helpful to saving your mates.

Long debate text truncated.

Jacqui Lambie

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 6 February 2025, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 760, relating to access to documents dealing with Australian content quotas and/or or associated models between the office of the Minister for the Arts and 9 commercial entities, and

(ii) to date the Government has refused to comply with the order and has advanced unacceptable public interest immunity claims; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts to attend the Senate after question time on Thursday, 13 February 2025, to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, for the failure to comply with the order and the misuse of a public interest immunity claim, and that:

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

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

Tim Ayres

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Tim Ayres

The government will be opposing this motion. The government firmly rejects Senator Lambie's assertion that we've not complied with the previous order. The documents have already been provided to Senator Lambie with appropriate redactions in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. The government also subsequently provided the documents to the Senate with appropriate redactions under public interest immunity. The redactions were made in order to appropriately protect the commercially sensitive data and personal information of various stakeholders.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 790 standing in the name of Senator Lambie be agreed to.