Anne Urquhart

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

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

Selection of Bills Committee

Report no. 12 of 2024

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair)

Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)

Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip)

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

Senator Jacqui Lambie (Jacqui Lambie Network Whip)

Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator Ralph Babet

Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm

Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher

Senator Maria Kovacic

Senator Matt O'Sullivan

Senator Fatima Payman

Senator David Pocock

Senator Gerard Rennick

Senator Lidia Thorpe

Senator Tammy Tyrrell

Senator David Van

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

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

2. The committee recommends that—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Anne Urquhart)

Chair

10 October 2024

Appendix 1

S ELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill

Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:

Hear from education stakeholders

Possible submissions or evidence from:

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

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Education and Employment Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Week of 28 Oct, week of 11 Nov

Possible reporting date:

14 November

(signed)

Nick McKim

Appendix 2

S ELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

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

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To allow the Committee to scrutinise this legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Stakeholders and interested parties.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

October

Possible reporting date:

14 November 2024

(signed)

Wendy Askew

I move:

That the report be adopted.

Katy Gallagher

I move:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nick McKim

To Senator Gallagher's amendment, I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

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

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

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

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

Sue Lines

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

David Shoebridge

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

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

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

Sue Lines

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

Jonathon Duniam

I move:

That—

(a) the Senate notes that:

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

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

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

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

Question agreed to.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Karen Grogan

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

Leave granted.

Sue Lines

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

Gerard Rennick

RENNICK () (): I move:

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

Anthony Chisholm

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Anthony Chisholm

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

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

Sue Lines

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

Maria Kovacic

At the request of Senator Nampijinpa Price, I move:

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

Anthony Chisholm

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Anthony Chisholm

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

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

Sue Lines

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

Question agreed to.

Maria Kovacic

At the request of Senator Nampijinpa Price, I move:

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

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

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

leave.

Anthony Chisholm

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Anthony Chisholm

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

Sue Lines

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

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price

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

Sue Lines

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

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Honourable senators interjecting—

James McGrath

I—sorry; you go ahead.

The

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

James McGrath

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

Sue Lines

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

James McGrath

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

Sue Lines

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

Matthew Canavan

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

Sue Lines

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

Maria Kovacic

KOVACIC () (): At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 16 October 2024, any correspondence between the Department of the Treasury and foreign fund managers relating to build to rent tax changes since May 2022.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 643, standing in the name of Senator Bragg and moved by Senator Kovacic, be agreed to.

Maria Kovacic

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 16 October 2024, any correspondence from the Treasurer or his office to the Department of the Treasury requesting modelling, policy proposals or any other information on potential changes to negative gearing or the capital gains tax discount since May 2022.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 642, standing in the name of Senator Bragg and moved by Senator Kovacic, be agreed to.

Sue Lines

I now intend to put the next question: that the remaining paragraphs be agreed to.

Penny Wong

by leave—We will shortly be proceeding to vote on the paragraph in the resolution which deals with a two-state solution:

… so that Israelis and Palestinians can live securely within internationally recognised borders, as the only option to ensure a just and enduring peace;

I understand, and I hope I am wrong, that the opposition and the Greens are not prepared to support that paragraph. Can I say to both the opposition and the Greens that that is not only a longstanding bipartisan and historical position; it is the position of the international community, it is the position of so much of the Palestinian leadership, and it is the position that is the only way in which we will, ultimately, see long-term security and peace for Israelis. If the Greens and the opposition combine to ensure that this parliament is not able to support a two-state solution—a longstanding commitment made by the international community when Israel was established, a longstanding commitment that would reflect the aspirations of both peoples—it really says something about the extent to which domestic politics is now perverting this debate in Australia. It is inconsistent with Australia's longstanding position, it is inconsistent with the international community, it is inconsistent with the aspirations of the Palestinian people and it is inconsistent with long-term security and peace for the people of Israel.

Simon Birmingham

by leave—The coalition will be opposing clause (m), and we will be opposing it, noting that the amendment we proposed was defeated on the opposition of the government. By opposing our amendment, which would have changed the 'support for a two-state solution' to being 'support for a negotiated two-state solution', the government critically tore up decades of bipartisan support. Senator Wong is being entirely misleading when she says that, in the position the coalition is taking, we are opposing longstanding bipartisanship. It is in fact the Albanese government that has reversed the position of longstanding bipartisanship, has walked away from the commitment to a negotiated two-state solution, where difficult questions and issues, such as security guarantees between the two parties, agreed borders and rights of return, would be settled to achieve a lasting and secure two-state solution. It is indeed the government that has rejected longstanding bipartisanship, that has changed position on these matters, and we will not, in a Senate resolution, be railroaded into supporting the government's revised form of wording. That is why we proposed an amendment consistent with the longstanding bipartisan position and, given the government chose to reject that longstanding bipartisan position, we cannot support this clause of the resolution.

Sue Lines

The question is that paragraph (m) be agreed to.

Sue Lines

The question now is that the amendment to the amended motion be agreed to.

Simon Birmingham

On behalf of the coalition, I ask that paragraphs (l) and (m) be put separately on the motion as amended. These paragraphs, in the coalition's perspective, given the defeat of our proposed amendments, do not reflect appropriately what had previously been the longstanding bipartisan approach towards a negotiated two-state solution, nor do they accurately reflect the international approach in relation to securing lasting peace and security.

Sue Lines

Senator Birmingham has requested that paragraphs (l) and (m) be moved separately, so we will deal with these two amendments first. The question is that paragraphs (l) and (m) be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Sarah Hanson-Young

I'm wondering whether the two clauses could be put separately.

Sue Lines

If that's your request then we can do that, Senator Hanson-Young. I am advised that we will put the question again. Senator Hanson-Young has requested that paragraphs (l) and (m) be put separately. It is my intention to move paragraph (l). The question is that paragraph (l) be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

While we're waiting for the bells, I have been asked to read paragraph (l). On the original motion, this was paragraph (k). It says that the Senate:

(l) stresses the need to break the cycle of violence and supports international efforts to negotiate and secure de escalate, for a ceasefire in Gaza and in Lebanon, and for lasting peace and security for Israeli, Palestinian, Lebanese and all people in the region;

That is what we are voting on now.

Jordon Steele-John

I move the amendment in the terms circulated in the chamber:

Omit all words after "That", substitute:

"the Senate:

(a) commemorates the victims of 7 October 2023 and reiterates its condemnation of the attacks;

(b) calls for the unconditional release of the hostages and political prisoners;

(c) condemns all forms of racism including anti-semitism and Islamophobia;

(d) condemns the State of Israel's ongoing genocide and war crimes in Gaza that have killed more than 41,000 people and the ongoing illegal actions and bombing in the West Bank, Syria and Lebanon;

(e) notes the International Court of Justice has made clear the State of Israel's occupation of Palestine is unlawful and based on apartheid;

(f) believes the illegal occupation underlies the escalating cycle of violence in the Middle East which must come to an end; and

(g) calls on the Government to take meaningful action towards a just and lasting peace for Israelis and Palestinians and others in the Middle East by implementing the recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteurs and ending the two-way arms trade and placing sanctions on Netanyahu's extremist government".

Sue Lines

The question is that the amendment to the amended motion as moved by Senator Steele-John be agreed to.