Matt O'Sullivan

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

David Pocock

I rise today to speak on behalf of young Australians, Australians who cannot yet vote and future generations of Australians. These are, technically, not the people who sent us here to represent our states and territories, but they will inherit every decision that we make in this chamber and in the other place. The Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill was the first private senator's bill I introduced after being elected as a senator for the ACT. It's something I've worked on with young people across the country, but I particularly want to acknowledge Anjali and Hannah, who are in the chamber here today, but also Daisy and Jess, who together make up the duty of care team. Young people understand the huge impact climate change will have on their lives, and they are courageously standing up to fight for a better future.

Every bill comes to this place with a history—a genesis—and I want to give a bit of background. In 2021, Anjali Sharma and seven young Australians applied for a declaration that the minister for the environment owed Australian children a duty of care when using her powers to approve an extension to the Vickery coalmine. They were successful. The court found that, indeed, the minister for the environment did owe young Australians a duty of care. The then environment minister, Sussan Ley, appealed the decision and, on appeal, the court found that a duty is not owed under current laws. In the judgement it was said that a duty of care was not for the judiciary but for the parliament to decide—for the parliament to legislate.

So here we are. This bill seeks to fix that. It does something very simple. It establishes a duty of care to consider the health and wellbeing of children when making decisions to increase greenhouse gas emissions. Since its introduction in 2023, the bill has been met with overwhelming support. Last year the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee held an inquiry to allow members of the public to make their opinions known. There were 403 submissions, and only one outright opposed the bill. The one was from the Institute of Public Affairs, the same IPA that continues to deny the reality of climate change and handed Gina Rinehart an honorary lifetime membership. Meanwhile, more than 26,000 people have signed a petition backing this bill. At the inquiry, doctors, nurses, midwives, scientists, young people, teachers, parents and grandparents provided submissions and gave evidence. They all agreed and all spoke clearly to tell the parliament we do have a duty of care to young people of future generations. That surely is a big part of why we're here—to make decisions that re truly good for our futures, not just good for the next election but good for our young people, who inherit the decisions we make. The most powerful submissions to the inquiry were from young people.

The government gave a two-page response to the report—a two-page dismissal of this effort, this urgency and this hope. Really disappointingly, there was no serious engagement with the evidence, no consideration of the recommendations of the dissenting report and no real engagement with the substance of the bill and suggestions for potential amendments, just a contemptuous brush-off. It was a stark contrast to when Labor in opposition and those young people took the then coalition government to court. I hear from young people that there was overwhelming support from many in the Labor Party when they were in opposition. Now they're in government and they don't seem to want to hear it.

Back in 2005, now prime minister Albanese said:

Climate change is one of the most significant challenges facing the global community and one of the greatest threats to Australia's way of life.

Fast-forward 20 years, and the need for a duty to protect young Australians from climate harm has never been greater. As Doctors for the Environment told the inquiry, 'Children suffer 90 per cent of the burden of death and disability caused by climate change.' The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners told us that 'the health of a child born today will be defined by climate change'. Doctors are a profession that understands duty of care very well. They understand what it means, and at the inquiry they saw a very clear translation to elected representatives to have a duty of care to the people that they represent, not a duty of care to the fossil fuel industry or a duty of care to donors but a duty of care to Australians—a duty of care to young Australians who cannot yet vote and a duty of care to future generations of Australians who will inherit the world that we shape.

Just six weeks ago, the federal government's national climate risk assessment confirmed what experts have warned us for decades—that we are hurtling towards catastrophe. On our current trajectory, we're likely to see around three degrees of warming by 2050. That will bring cascading, compounding and catastrophic impacts. According to the national climate risk assessment, we'll see four times as many heatwaves, leading to a 440 per cent increase in heat related deaths in parts of the country. We'll face 18 times more coastal flooding, exposing twice as many Australians to hazardous conditions along our coast. We're staring down the barrel of more than $600 billion in property value losses.

This is not just about numbers on a graph or economic figures on a balance sheet, though. This is about losing things that make Australia what it is. This is about the people and places that we love. This is about losing the Great Barrier Reef as we know it. It's about watching the places we love—our bushland, our coastline, our communities—become uninhabitable, unaffordable and unrecognisable. This isn't hyperbole or fearmongering. This is in the government's national climate risk assessment. This is in the ONI's national security climate risk assessment. It's all in there. The government knows this. And yet today decision-makers are under no legal obligation to consider how their choices to approve coal mines or greenlight gas fields will affect the lives of children 10, 20 or 50 years from now. I argue that this isn't just negligent. This is actually immoral. This lacks moral courage to do what is right by young people and do what is right by future generations of Australians and leave a legacy for people to look back on and say, 'That was the parliament that made the hard decisions, the hard long-term decisions, to look after us.' Australia can't solve the climate crisis, but what we can do is think longer term, have emissions reductions targets that are in line with science, have long-term thinking embedded in our law that forces ministers to take into account the impact that projects will have on young people and future generations.

We're obviously having this debate on this bill in the context of environmental law reform. We know that the EPBC Act is broken. Graeme Samuel reviewed it and basically said it should be torn up and thrown in the bin. We've got a government that has said so much on climate and on the environment but has gone on to approve 31 new or expanded coal or gas projects since taking power. We've got a Labor government who very cynically delayed the approval of the North West Shelf until straight after the election. At least the coalition had the decency to tell electors that it would be approved. Labor knew that Australians didn't want that. They knew that the people in the south of Canberra in Bean, a seat Labor held onto by 351 votes, probably would have seen the approval of one of the biggest fossil fuel projects in Australia's history as a bit of a red flag—a government that promised the world on climate and the environment but delivered the North West Shelf approval straight after the election.

This bill seeks to embed long-term thinking in our politics and in our legislation, and I want to say a few things to the young people who spoke to the committee inquiry, who wrote submissions, who sent letters, who made their first visit to parliament. I want you to know that you are being heard. You are right to demand more. You are right to say that this is not good enough. You are right to say: 'We are not the ones who created the mess. Do not leave it to us to clean up.' And while Labor and the coalition may lack the courage to act, the tide is turning. More and more Australians are waking up to the intergenerational injustice. More and more people are demanding change. More and more people want to see longer term thinking and decision-making. While you may not see a duty of care today, there will be one someday soon because, as one student told us, 'Our existence should influence your course of action even before we reach voting age.'

There's a clear choice in this chamber. We can refuse to hear the voices of the young Australians. We can deny the science of climate change. We can continue to have targets that aren't aligned with the science, and we can make up all sorts of excuses as to why it's just too hard to listen and to act. Or we can listen to young Australians, we can listen to climate scientists, and we can make changes to ensure that those who will live with the consequences of decisions made in this place look back on what we have done with pride.

This bill is a simple, powerful step forward when it comes to real climate accountability, to show young people that their voices matter and that their futures matter. I again quote now prime minister Albanese talking in 2005 about introducing a climate change trigger bill that would have amended the EPBC Act:

We cannot any longer afford to be complacent on this issue. We need action and one of the actions that we need, which has been acknowledged by the government for many years, is this amendment to the EPBC Act.

To the government I say this: will you stand with young Australians, or will you stand with the IPA and the fossil fuel industry, who clearly don't want a duty of care to young people and future generations?

Again, I want to thank the young people who've engaged on this bill. I want to thank the many Canberrans who have put a huge amount of time and energy into helping shape it and helping advocate for it. It may not be successful today, but, clearly, the tide is turning. Australians understand what is at stake. They understand that this is about the people and places we love, and they understand that it's political will that can actually change that. It is about the cold, hard numbers in this place, with enough elected representatives who agree and say: 'Of course I've got a duty of care to young people and future generations. Of course I do. I'm an elected representative. That's how I should be making decisions.' Again, I thank young people who've engaged, I thank the Senate committee of the last parliament for engaging on this bill, and I commend it to the Senate.

Long debate text truncated.

Nita Green

I now table a copy of the letter as requested. Thank you, Senator McGrath, for your constructive approach to this bill.

Fatima Payman

I move the amendment on sheet 3445:

(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 16 (after line 24), at the end of section 151Q, add:

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within the earlier of:

(a) 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report; or

(b) 30 days after the Minister receives the report.

Slade Brockman

The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 3445 be agreed to.

James McGrath

I move amendment (1) on sheet 3460 revised as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, page 19 (after line 9) at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 4 — Civil penalties

Telecommunications Act 1997

18 After paragraph 570(3)(ac)

Insert:

(ad) in the case of a contravention of subsection 148(1) or (3) of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999$40 million for each contravention; or

(ae) in the case of a contravention of subsection 151D(1) or (2) of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999$40 million for each contravention; or

From the outset, I want to put on the record that, for nearly a month, the coalition has been trying to work with the Albanese Labor government to amend this bill. Last night, the government claimed they'd been working in good faith with us. Let's be clear—they have not. These amendments were moved in the other place three weeks ago, and, whilst they were supported by the coalition and the entire crossbench, the Albanese government voted against them.

On the same day they declined to support the amendments to this bill, the Minister for Communications said in question time:

I offer, in good faith, that, if that is a live issue for you, given this bill is before the House, we can continue to work on penalties where it is already tabled in the House.

The shadow minister for communications wrote to the minister and accepted this offer, stating, 'Considering the significance of this outage, the tragic loss of life and the significant lack of confidence and trust Australians now have in the triple 0 network, the coalition wishes to accept your offer to continue to work with the Albanese government on this matter.' And guess what the coalition have heard since then? Nothing, absolutely nothing. The coalition has heard nothing from the government. I don't know whether the phones aren't working in the minister's office. Maybe they aren't checking their emails again.

The coalition has been calling for a public register of triple 0 outages so Australians can have confidence in the system and be informed. Optus has now had two major and catastrophic outages in under two years, both under the Albanese government's watch, and both times the parliament had to step in through Senate inquiries and Senate estimates to drag information out of them. This is not right. It is not good enough. Australians expect and deserve more. It is pleasing that the government, however slowly, has finally agreed to make this happen, but it is a pity that the coalition has had to drag the government kicking and screaming to do it.

The other amendment the coalition was seeking was for the reporting mechanism created by this bill to be more frequent and for these reports to be made public, so it was really disappointing last night that the Greens political party have done a deal with the government to deny this transparency mechanism from happening. The Greens have come into this place wanting more transparency and accountability and higher penalties, yet they've sold out for lower penalties than they were seeking and absolutely no transparency, leaving Australians languishing.

The Greens crow about selling out to big corporations. Well, the Greens sold out the Australian people for a rubbish deal with this arrogant Labor government. The coalition asked for penalties of $20 million per year. The Greens asked for $100 million, but they settled for $30 million. The Greens didn't talk to the coalition; they talked to the Albanese Labor government instead. The Greens wanted higher penalties. In fact, Senator Hanson-Young said yesterday:

… I want to say right at the beginning that I still think it should be more. I still think these big companies deserve everything we can give them.

These aren't my words. They are the words of Senator Hanson-Young.

Sarah Hanson-Young

And I stand by it.

James McGrath

Well, the coalition has, Senator Hanson-Young. We have $40 million penalties right here on the table. You can agree to this now and quite literally put the corporations' money where your mouth is, or you can hide behind the secret deal that you've stitched up with Labor.

But the real issue here is the Albanese Labor government and their running away from transparency. Today this place will vote on a Senate inquiry into the September Optus outage, and we will examine all facets of not just this outage but the triple 0 network. The six-monthly reports required in this bill, if not made more frequent, at the very least should be published and tabled in parliament. Public safety and the accountability of telcos should not be sold out. Lives were lost. Our triple 0 network appears to be broken under this government, and the government doesn't seem to care. It's now over to the Greens. Will you cut another deal with the government, or will you support the stronger penalties that you wanted? The coalition will not stop until we have confidence the triple 0 network is safeguarded and we have full transparency and accountability in the system. Minister, last night you confirmed the government will require telcos to have a public register of triple 0 outages. On what website will this public register be?

Nita Green

I do want to address the question, but I also think it's important to set the record straight about what has happened in relation to this bill. The truth is that the coalition are a complete broken mess. It is really difficult to work with them in good faith in any way, shape or form because they can't even work in good faith with themselves at the moment. So of course the government worked with the Greens to accept an amendment moved by Senator Hanson-Young to triple penalties in relation to these contraventions. We have always said that there is a further bill with more reform in relation to the full suite of packages that we will be dealing with in the House this week and hopefully in the Senate soon where we will consider even more reform to the penalties regime.

If anyone listened to Holly Rankin's address through the Speaker's Lecture last night, it is clear that this is something that the public wants to see this chamber take action on, not have a debate about who is madder at Optus. Everybody is mad at Optus. It's not a competition about who is madder at Optus. What is important today is that we pass this bill and that we agree to these amendments to triple penalties, as proposed by the Greens. We are doing that because we want to see this bill passed. It is incredibly important that we see this action taken. That's what the public want to see from us today and that is what we are getting on with in spite of the efforts of the coalition to try to claim credit for this. It is really hard to claim credit when you haven't been part of the conversations or participated in any way in making sure that we can take this bill through to completion today.

The telco websites will hold the information. We want the telcos to take responsibility, to be accountable and to do the things that they are required to do by law. That is exactly what the direction from the minister will do. I want to thank senators around the chamber for supporting this legislation today. Let's get on with it. Let's pass this legislation so that we can ensure that triple 0 never fails again.

James McGrath

You've confirmed that the telcos will be the ones who will hold the records of outages on their own websites. If I am an Aldi mobile customer, which website will I go to?

Nita Green

Senator McGrath, not that I need to give you personal advice about how to engage with your telco, but your carrier would be the holder of this information. We want them to take accountability for this information. That's why we are, through a determination and a direction from the minister, demanding that this information be public and that the public can see when these outages occur. This is another way that we are keeping them accountable after the terrible and tragic outage that occurred earlier this year.

James McGrath

So I can confirm there will be no central website where Australians can see who has an outage and when?

Nita Green

I can confirm that the telco websites will hold the information, as directed by the minister. We are requiring them to take this step because we want them to be held accountable for the actions that they have taken, on top of all of the measures that this bill will bring about. The Triple Zero Custodian is designed to make sure that we have the powers not only to investigate outages but to take proactive steps to ensure that they do not occur again.

James McGrath

When will the registers be active?

Nita Green

Certainly, Senator McGrath, as you would understand, we need to pass this bill to ensure that the Triple Zero Custodian is established in law. The public register of network outages will build on the new requirement to publicly report outages and increase transparency and accountability around outages related to impacts on access to triple 0. That register will be set up once the bill is passed.

James McGrath

You can't give a timeframe, in that case. Will this be done within six months?

Nita Green

It's a priority for our government to have these registers established, and, of course, passing the bill will expedite that action today.

James McGrath

The register is being established through the standards and not through the bill. In terms of the register of outages that is going to be required of each telco, under the evidence that you've given, what is the timeframe before those registers will be made public?

Nita Green

I can seek to ensure that there is as much information as possible about that timeframe available to you. What I would say is that it is a priority for the government, and we will ensure that those registers are set up as soon as possible. Of course, it will be done through standards. It will be done through the Telecommunications (Customer Communications for Outages) Industry Standard. To give you that comfort, we will ensure that this will be done by the end of the year.

James McGrath

The minister wrote to ACMA yesterday, instructing them to update the Telecommunications (Customer Communications for Outages) Industry Standard to require that telcos make this information publicly available. In that letter, did the minister set out a timeframe for that information to be made publicly available?

Nita Green

I have given you that confirmation in the Senate that we will ensure that register is set up by the end of the year. We undertake to work with your shadow minister for communications to ensure that that register is set up by the end of the year.

James McGrath

My question was: did the minister, in the letter that she sent to the telcos, establish a timeframe for the outage information to be made publicly available?

Nita Green

I've confirmed to you that it's a priority for our government. We will work with the shadow minister for communications to ensure that it is done by the end of the year. There was a commitment in that letter to ensure that the department is working with the shadow minister for communications to ensure that it happens as soon as possible. I've given you that commitment now that it will be done by the end of the year.

James McGrath

So the letter had no timeframe in it, in terms of when this information is to be made publicly available. That's the evidence you have provided. Can you table a copy of the letter?

Nita Green

I can take some advice on that for you.

James McGrath

I'm sure those in the minister's office are watching this—unless they're checking their emails—and I'm sure they can get a copy of the letter brought down to the chamber so it can be tabled. This issue goes to transparency and accountability. We have been asking questions about whether there is a timeframe in the letter that the minister sent to ACMA yesterday. No timeframe has been forthcoming, in terms of the content of that particular letter. Is there a reason you are unable to table a copy of the letter?

Nita Green

That's a matter for the minister. I have said that I will raise that with her. I just do want to reiterate, though, that I have been very clear about what the direction was. I read that out last night in the Senate, and I have referred to it again today. I can repeat that for you, although I'm conscious that we should not be delaying this bill. I confirm that the direction is to amend the Telecommunications (Customer Communications for Outages) Industry Standard 2024 to mandate that telecommunications providers maintain a public register of their network outages. I have answered these questions for you a number of times. It is a priority for the government, and we will ensure that it is set up by the end of the year.

James McGrath

Minister, with respect, you are the minister. You are here representing the communications minister. In relation to the tabling of this letter, this is something that I think the Senate would like to see as part of its deliberations in relation to this bill. You have failed to give a timeframe as outlined in the letter. You have said that it is the intention of the government to have it completed by the end of the year. What is clear in the absence of the letter being provided to this chamber is that there is no timeframe within the letter that you've been able to speak to that sets out the requirements of the government concerning the publication of this register. While we're waiting for the minister's office to bring down a copy of this letter so it can be tabled, what penalties will the telcos face if they fail to publish real-time updates of network outages?

Long debate text truncated.

Slade Brockman

The question is that opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3459 be agreed to.

Slade Brockman

The committee is considering the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Triple Zero Custodian and Emergency Calling Powers) Bill 2025, as amended. The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 3458, a deferred division, be agreed to.

Slade Brockman

The question now is that the remaining Australian Greens amendments on sheet 3427 be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendments—

SHEET 3427

(1) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (line 18), omit "before,".

(2) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (line 22), omit "before,".

(3) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (line 24), omit "before,".

(4) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (lines 25 and 26), omit ", whether the arrangement was entered into before, on or after commencement".

(5) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (line 29), omit "before,".

(6) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (lines 30 and 31), omit ", whether the arrangement was entered into before, on or after commencement".

Fatima Payman

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 12 September 2025, copies of all letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, meeting invitations, meeting notes, emails and text messages between the Minister for Communications (the minister) and/or her office and the eSafety Commissioner and between the minister and/or her office and the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts in relation to preparations for a legislated digital duty of care.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 169 standing in the name of Senator Payman be agreed to.

Fatima Payman

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 12 September 2025, copies of all letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, meeting invitations, meeting notes, emails and text messages between the Minister for Communications (the minister) and/or her office and the Australian Communications and Media Authority and between the minister and/or her office and the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts in relation to the discharge of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 from the Notice Paper on 25 November 2024, analysis of why the bill failed to earn support in the Senate or in the community and preparations for any future legislation dealing with online misinformation and disinformation.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 167, standing in the name of Senator Payman, be agreed to.

Sue Lines

I'll now put part (b) of that amendment. The question is that part (b) of the amendment as moved by Senator Faruqi on behalf of Senator McKim be agreed to.