Larissa Waters

With the Senate failing to support our amendment to insert criminal penalties and the amendment you just voted down to remove chapter 4 from the bill, the Greens can no longer support the passage of this legislation. We are deeply concerned that the parliament is conceding the opportunity for once-in-a-generation reform to the self-interest of for-profit providers at the expense of participants. With the rejection of our amendment to put criminal penalties back into the bill, we have significant concerns about the enforceability of the rights based framework. We've long supported the shift to the rights based framework, but older people, their advocates and their loved ones have been clear that those rights must be unequivocal, clear and enforceable. Aspirational rights do not go anywhere near the heart of the problem in aged care. The operation of Australia's aged-care system as a market means the incentive for providers to profit always trumps the provision of high-quality care. Further, we're worried the bill will usher in a permanent state of expanded means testing and user pays. Instead of treating aged care as health care, we'll turn it into a marketplace. Participants and the government will continue to subsidise for-profit aged-care providers. We cannot risk a two-tiered system that bakes in equality. The elderly are not commodities; they're people. First and foremost, aged care must be universal, and for these reasons we cannot support the passage of the bill. I'll now seek leave to move the last lot of Greens amendments to the bill.

Leave granted.

I move amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 3101 as well as amendments on sheet 3102 to sheet 3104 altogether:

SHEET 3101

(1) Clause 547, page 508 (before line 4), insert:

Internal disclosures

(2) Clause 547, page 508 (line 4), omit "A disclosure", substitute "(1) A disclosure".

(3) Clause 547, page 508 (lines 17 to 19), omit paragraph 547(c), substitute:

(c) the discloser has reasonable grounds to suspect that the information:

(i) indicates that an entity may have contravened a provision of this Act; or

(ii) indicates that an entity may have engaged in conduct covered by subsection (2); or

(iii) if an entity is a body corporate—indicates that a related body corporate of the entity may have engaged in conduct covered by subsection (2); or

(iv) concerns misconduct, or an improper state of affairs or circumstances, in relation to an entity.

(4) Clause 547, page 508 (after line 19), at the end of clause 547, add:

(2) This subsection covers the following conduct:

(a) conduct that constitutes an offence against a law of the Commonwealth that is punishable by imprisonment for a period of 12 months or more;

(b) conduct that represents a danger to the public or an individual who accesses the aged care system;

(c) conduct that is prescribed by the rules.

(3) A disclosure covered by subsection (1) is an internal disclosure.

(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to a disclosure of information to the extent the information disclosed concerns a personal work-related grievance of the discloser.

External disclosures

(5) A disclosure of information (an external disclosure) by an individual (the discloser) qualifies for protection under this section if:

(a) the discloser has previously made an internal disclosure of the information; and

(b) the person to whom the internal disclosure was made:

(i) took no action in relation to the internal disclosure; or

(ii) did not complete an investigation in relation to the internal disclosure before the end of the period of 90 days beginning on the day the internal disclosure was made; or

(iii) completed an investigation in relation to the internal disclosure that resulted in no further action being taken; and

(c) the external disclosure is made to one or more of the following:

(i) a member (however described) of the Parliament of the Commonwealth or a State, or of the legislature of a Territory;

(ii) a person who works in a professional capacity as a journalist; and

(d) the discloser reasonably believes that the external disclosure is in the public interest.

Disclosures to support persons

(6) A disclosure of information by an individual (the discloser) qualifies for protection under this section if:

(a) the disclosure is made to one or more of the following:

(i) an officer or employee of a trade union;

(ii) an independent aged care advocate;

(iii) a legal practitioner; and

(b) the disclosure is made for the purposes of seeking support or advice in relation to the information, or another disclosure relating to the information.

(7) A disclosure of information by an individual (the discloser) qualifies for protection under this section if:

(a) the disclosure is made to a medical practitioner or psychologist; and

(b) the disclosure is made for the purposes of seeking or obtaining medical or psychiatric care, treatment or counselling (including psychological counselling).

(5) Clause 550, page 511 (line 3), omit "paragraph 547(c)" substitute "paragraph 547(1)(c)".

_____

SHEET 3102

(1) Page 509 (after line 3), after clause 548, insert:

548A Claims for protection

(1) If, in civil or criminal proceedings (the primary proceedings) instituted against an individual in a court, the individual makes a claim (relevant to the proceedings) that, because of section 548, the individual is not subject to any civil, criminal or administrative liability for making a disclosure that qualifies for protection under section 547:

(a) the individual bears the onus of adducing or pointing to evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility that the claim is made out; and

(b) if the individual discharges that onus—the party instituting the primary proceedings against the individual bears the onus of proving that the claim is not made out; and

(c) the court must deal with the claim in separate proceedings; and

(d) the court must adjourn the primary proceedings until the claim has been dealt with; and

(e) none of the following:

(i) any admission made by the individual in the separate proceedings;

(ii) any information given by the individual in the separate proceedings;

(iii) any other evidence adduced by the individual in the separate proceedings;

is admissible in evidence against the individual except in proceedings in respect of the falsity of the admission, information or evidence; and

(f) if the individual or another person gives evidence in the separate proceedings in support of the claim—giving that evidence does not amount to a waiver of privilege for the purposes of the primary proceedings or any other proceedings.

(2) To avoid doubt, a right under section 126K of the Evidence Act 1995 not to be compelled to give evidence is a privilege for the purposes of paragraph (1)(f) of this section.

_____

SHEET 3103

(1) Clause 551, page 511 (after line 24), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) In proceedings for a civil penalty order against an entity for a contravention of subsection (1):

(a) the person seeking the order bears the onus of adducing or pointing to evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility of the matters in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b); and

(b) if that onus is discharged—the entity bears the onus of proving that the claim is not made out.

(2) Clause 551, page 512 (after line 19), after subclause (5), insert:

(5A) In proceedings for a civil penalty order against an entity for a contravention of subsection (3):

(a) the person seeking the order bears the onus of adducing or pointing to evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility of the matters in paragraphs (3)(a) and (b); and

(b) if that onus is discharged—the entity bears the onus of proving that the claim is not made out.

_____

SHEET 3104

(1) Page 509 (after line 22), after clause 549, insert:

549A Certain recipients to take steps to protect disclosers

If:

(a) an individual makes a disclosure that qualifies for protection under section 547 to an entity (the recipient); and

(b) the recipient is:

(i) a registered provider; or

(ii) a responsible person of a registered provider;

the recipient must take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to protect the individual against any reprisals that have been, or may be, taken in relation to the disclosure.

The Greens are concerned about the strength of the whistleblower provisions contained in the bill. In the absence of a worker voice, it's critical that participants and workers are protected from adverse consequences for whistleblowing. The royal commission shows that people must feel safe to speak up when something is wrong, particularly in a sector like aged care, where it can be a matter of life or death. These amendments go towards strengthening the protections for whistleblowers, and we strongly encourage the Senate to support them.

Katy Gallagher

The government will not be supporting these amendments. The Aged Care Bill introduces a new expanded whistleblower framework to ensure that anyone is protected if they make a whistleblower disclosure about aged care. Whistleblowers will be protected from any civil, criminal or administrative liability, including disciplinary action. No contractual or other right or remedy may be exercised against a whistleblower on the basis of a disclosure.

The identity of whistleblowers will be also protected and not be disclosed except in limited circumstances, or with the consent of the whistleblower. An example of a circumstance in which their identity may be disclosed includes, where necessary, to lessen or prevent a serious threat to safety, health or wellbeing. Neither a whistleblower nor any individual who employs or is associated with them may be victimised or threatened by any entity as a result of making a protected disclosure or for intending to make such a disclosure. For example, if a family member or staff member makes a disclosure on behalf of an older person, the older person must also not be victimised under the bill.

David Pocock

Given where we are at with whistleblowers in this country—and the government is currently prosecuting Richard Boyle—it seems to me that taking on expert advice and beefing up whistleblower protections is a very good thing, so I certainly will be supporting the Greens' effort to do that.

Andrew McLachlan

The question before the committee is that amendments on sheets 3101, 3102, 3103 and 3104, standing in the name of the Australian Greens, be agreed to.

Andrew McLachlan

The committee is considering the Aged Care Bill 2024. The question before the committee is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.

Larissa Waters

by leave—On behalf of Senator Allman-Payne, I move amendments (1) to (10) on sheet 3110 together:

(1) Heading to subclause 179(3), page 186 (line 23), omit "Serious", substitute "Civil penalty provision__serious".

(2) Clause 179, page 187 (after line 4), after subclause 179(3), insert:

Strict liability offence serious failures

(3A) A registered provider commits an offence of strict liability if:

(a) the provider has a duty under subsection (1); and

(b) the provider engages in conduct that does not comply with the duty; and

(c) the conduct amounts to a serious failure by the provider to comply with the duty.

Penalty:

(a) in the case of an offence committed by a registered provider that is an individual—150 penalty units; or

(b) in the case of an offence committed by a registered provider other than an individual—1,000 penalty units.

(3) Heading to subclause 179(5), page 187 (line 12), omit "Death", substitute "Civil penalty provision__death".

(4) Clause 179, page 187 (after line 25), at the end of clause 179, add:

Strict liability offence death or serious injury or illness

(6) A registered provider commits an offence of strict liability if:

(a) the provider has a duty under subsection (1); and

(b) the provider engages in conduct; and

(c) the conduct amounts to a serious failure by the provider to comply with the duty; and

(d) the conduct results in the death of, or serious injury to, or illness of, an individual to whom the duty is owed.

Penalty:

(a) in the case of an offence committed by a registered provider that is an individual—500 penalty units; or

(b) in the case of an offence committed by a registered provider other than an individual—4,800 penalty units.

Fault-based offence death or serious injury or illness

(7) A registered provider commits an offence if:

(a) the provider has a duty under subsection (1); and

(b) the provider engages in conduct; and

(c) the conduct amounts to a serious failure by the provider to comply with the duty; and

(d) the conduct results in the death of, or serious injury to, or illness of, an individual to whom the duty is owed.

Penalty:

(a) in the case of an offence committed by a registered provider that is an individual—1,000 penalty units or 5 years imprisonment or both; or

(b) in the case of an offence committed by a registered provider other than an individual—9,500 penalty units.

General defence of reasonable excuse

(8) Subsection (3A), (6) or (7) does not apply if the registered provider has a reasonable excuse.

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (8) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code).

(5) Clause 180, page 188 (lines 19 to 22), omit subclause 180(3), substitute:

(3) A person may be found liable to pay a civil penalty under this Act, or be convicted or found guilty of an offence against a provision of this Act, relating to a duty under this section whether or not the registered provider has been found liable to pay a civil penalty under section 179, or been convicted or found guilty of an offence against section 179.

(6) Heading to subclause 180(4), page 188 (line 23), omit "Serious", substitute "Civil penalty provision__serious".

(7) Clause 180, page 188 (after line 30), after subclause 180(4), insert:

Strict liability offence serious failures

(4A) A person commits an offence of strict liability if:

(a) the person has a duty under subsection (1); and

(b) the person engages in conduct that does not comply with the duty; and

(c) the conduct amounts to a serious failure by the provider to comply with the duty.

Penalty: 150 penalty units.

(8) Heading to subclause 189(6), page 189 (line 4), omit "Death", substitute "Civil penalty provision__death".

(9) Clause 180, page 189 (after line 15), at the end of clause 180, add:

Strict liability offence death or serious injury or illness

(7) A person commits an offence of strict liability if:

(a) the person has a duty under subsection (1); and

(b) the person engages in conduct; and

(c) the conduct amounts to a serious failure by the person to comply with the duty; and

(d) the conduct results in the death of, or serious injury to, or illness of, an individual to whom the duty in section 179 is owed by the registered provider.

Penalty: 500 penalty units.

Fault-based offence death or serious injury or illness

(8) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person has a duty under subsection (1); and

(b) the person engages in conduct; and

(c) the conduct amounts to a serious failure by the person to comply with the duty; and

(d) the conduct results in the death of, or serious injury to, or illness of, an individual to whom the duty in section 179 is owed by the registered provider.

Penalty: 1,000 penalty units or 5 years imprisonment or both.

General defence of reasonable excuse

(9) Subsection (4A), (7) or (8) does not apply if the person has a reasonable excuse.

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (9) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code).

(10) Clause 186, page 191 (line 7), after "subsection 179(3) or (5)", insert "or is found guilty of an offence against subsection 179(3A), (6) or (7)".

The Greens have long called for and supported a shift to a rights based framework. Advocates and older people have made clear that older people must have rights that are not only unequivocally clear but also enforceable. It is a key concern for the Greens and many others that the rights within this bill remain aspirational for providers. The removal of the criminal penalties has been a significant problem for many participants and advocates. This has been bitterly disappointing for participants and their loved ones seeking justice, and we strongly urge the government to support the inclusion of criminal penalties in the bill to signal to participants that their rights are enforceable and that they can seek justice.

It is a wonderful move that we are moving to a rights based framework but it makes a mockery of that move if those rights are not enforceable. We understand that the reason that part was taken out was to please the Liberals, and what an appalling outcome.

Question negatived.

Linda Reynolds

Minister, I wanted to pick up with a line of questioning from Senator Ruston this morning. As I understand it, if I heard correctly, you talked about the enabling ICT changes that need to occur to implement this system to have it operational. Can you just confirm that you said that it would be delivered by 1 July next year and that the implementation is critical for this scheme to take effect?

Katy Gallagher

Sorry, Senator Reynolds. What was the second part of your question?

Linda Reynolds

REYNOLDS () (): The first one was about the criticality of the IT system to the effective implementation of these reforms, and the second one was about your having said that all the system changes will be implemented by 1 July next year.

Katy Gallagher

I don't have the budget papers in front of me, but I believe that it was phased over the forward estimates in terms of expenditure. But the ICT changes that will need to be in place for 1 July 2025 will be in place.

Linda Reynolds

Thank you, Minister. So they will be in place by 1 July. Is that the changes required by the My Aged Care system—that is, Health and Services Australia—or is that also all of the providers, because obviously the providers need to have their systems updated as well?

Katy Gallagher

We did cover this this morning at some length. That is just for the government's internal systems. In terms of the providers, there is a small grant round of $10 million, providing grants of $10,000 for those providers in the Support at Home program, who are going to face the majority of the most significant changes. For many of the other providers, including in residential care, we don't believe that there will be significant change, although I know that there are some providers who disagree with that. This is a matter that the transition taskforce no doubt will be considering. It has its first meeting next Thursday, so I imagine things like this will be on the agenda. But, for providers who aren't directly involved with the new Support at Home program, we expect the ICT needs to be minimal. In fact, it's more of a reporting into the system that the government has than requiring a new system for themselves.

Linda Reynolds

Thank you, Minister. Would it be safe to say that these reforms that are in the current legislation can't be implemented until the IT system is in place?

Katy Gallagher

Not all of it will be dependent on the IT system. Elements of it will, but not all of it, because there are a whole range of other changes in the legislation that wouldn't be dependent on the IT program being in place. But we are conscious that, for some elements of it, we do need that in place, including for the Support at Home program, and that needs to be in place by 1 July 2025.

Linda Reynolds

Minister, can you describe, then, what elements will be impacted and won't be able to be delivered if the IT system reforms are not in place?

Katy Gallagher

The government's program will be to enable registered provider operation under the new act through reforms, including Support at Home, places to people, worker screening and registration, and some of the regulatory framework subsidies and payments. It will also streamline interactions with government through the existing GPMS, service referrals, payments and reporting. So, if we're going to the hypothetical of what would be affected if the system were not in place, I would say that those would be the key areas.

Linda Reynolds

So, essentially, they're the key elements to be delivered under this policy change. Can I just clarify something that I may have misheard. I have the budget papers here and had a look. In the budget papers for 2024-25 it does say that it was $1.2 billion over five years from 2023-24—last financial year. Did I correctly hear you say that it was $1.5 billion now?

Katy Gallagher

No, it's $1.2 billion.

Linda Reynolds

It is $1.2 billion? Thank you. That's helpful. Also in the budget measures for improving aged-care ICT support, which are, as we know, going to be delivered by Services Australia, the actual delivery is over five years. Can the minister explain why it's over five years, what things are going to be delivered over the next seven months to get it operational by 1 July, and what is the remainder of funding for the forward estimates?

Katy Gallagher

I am again advised that all of the features needed to start on 1 July 2025 will be done. I think from memory—I just don't have the budget papers in front of me—that it is frontloaded across the forward estimates. So we expect that upfront build, but then there will be continuing costs—maintenance and otherwise—of the system that you would expect with any large IT program. I'll see if there's any further information. Of the $1.2 billion, $589 million was provided as sustainment funding critical to maintain core ICT systems which are central to the continued operation of the aged-care system. Core ICT includes Aged Care Gateway and the Government Provider Management System, as well as associated business to government, B2G, and the aged-care data warehouse systems. Costs include platform hosting, software licensing, cybersecurity, general operating costs and digital contractors once the current funding expires on 30 June 2024.

Linda Reynolds

So that is $589 million of the $1.2 billion. If I understand it correctly, that's to maintain and upgrade the core ICT systems. Is that correct? If that's correct, what's the rest of the $1.2 billion being spent on, and when?

Katy Gallagher

The rest has been allocated for new or enhanced funding for foundational reform, including the new Aged Care Act, GPMS, B2G and the integration of My Health Record and My Aged Care.

Linda Reynolds

Thank you very much, Minister. That's very interesting. So $600,000 is for systems integration and to provide some of those essential services. You mentioned the integration with My Health Record. Is that correct?

Katy Gallagher

Yes.

Long debate text truncated.

Ross Cadell

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 Tuesday, 26 November 2024, the following:

(a) any briefs prepared by the General Counsel of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) for the APRA Executive in relation to operation of section 56 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS Act) since December 2020;

(b) any briefs prepared by the General Counsel of APRA for the APRA executive in relation to APRA's appearance in legal proceedings brought by superannuation trustees seeking the advice of the court on trust deed changes relating to amendments to section 56 of the SIS Act; and

(c) any submissions made by APRA to a supreme court of any state or territory as part of legal proceedings brought by superannuation trustees seeking the advice of the court on trust deed changes relating to amendments to section 56 of the SIS Act.

Andrew McLachlan

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Anne Ruston

Can we cancel?

Anthony Chisholm

No, we oppose it.

Andrew McLachlan

I can cancel if there's concurrence.

I'll cancel the division. Let me put the question again. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Cadell, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, for an order for the production of documents of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority be agreed to.

David Pocock

I move paragraphs (a) and (b) as circulated, to try give the crossbench a bit more time on these bills:

At the end of the motion, add:

"but, in respect of

(a) the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 3 March 2025; and

(b) the provisions of the Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024, the Economics Legislation Committee report by 3 February 2025."

Andrew McLachlan

The question before the Senate is that paragraphs (a) and (b) of the amendment moved by Senator Pocock be agreed to.

David Pocock

DAVID POCOCK () (): I move paragraph (c) of my amendment:

At the end of the motion, add:

"(c) the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 November 2024".

I move this amendment to give us an extra couple of days to have a look at the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024.

Sue Lines

I do draw your attention to the Greens' motion which was similar and has just been defeated, but if you want it put, I will put it. The question is that paragraph (c) of the amendment moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.

Sue Lines

The question now is that the amendment moved by the minister be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Nick McKim

As flagged, we have another amendment, in relation to the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 and associated bills. I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"but, in respect of the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 and Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Communications) Bill 2024, the provisions of the bills be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 3 February 2025".

I'm aware that my colleague Senator Waters wants to make an observation in regard to that, if that is possible.

Sue Lines

She can't, the time has expired. The question is that paragraph (b) of the amendment which was circulated earlier by Senator McKim be agreed to.

Anne Urquhart

I present the 13th 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. 13 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, 20 November 2024 at 7.14 pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the provisions of the Free TAFE Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 27 February 2025 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b) the provisions of the National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 6 February 2025 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(c) the provisions of the Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 January 2025 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(d) the provisions of the Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 January 2025 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(e) the provisions of the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 January 2025 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral).

1. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:

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

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

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Communications) Bill 2024

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

(Anne Urquhart)

Chair

21 November 2024

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Free TAFE Bill 2024

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To allow the Committee to scrutinise this legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Interested parties and stakeholders.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Education and Employment Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

January 2025

Possible reporting date:

27 February 2025

(s igned )

Wendy Askew

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To allow the Committee to scrutinise this legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Interested parties and stakeholders.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

January 2025

Possible reporting date:

27 February 2025

(signed)

Wendy Askew

Appendix 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To allow the Committee 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):

January 2025

Possible reporting date:

30 January 2025

(signed)

Wendy Askew

Appendix 4

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To allow the Committee to scrutinise this legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Interested parties and stakeholders.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

January 2025

Possible reporting date:

17 February 2025

(signed)

Wendy Askew

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2024

Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:

To examine the Bill in more detail and hear from stakeholders

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

23 January, 2025

(signed)

Nick McKim

Appendix 5

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To allow the Committee to scrutinise this legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Interested parties and stakeholders.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

January 2025

Possible reporting date:

30 January 2025

(signed)

Wendy Askew

I move:

That the report be adopted.

Anthony Chisholm

I move:

At the end of the motion, add: ", and the provisions of the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 November 2024".

Nick McKim

I would like to move an amendment to the minister's amendment:

Omit "26 November 2024", substitute "3 February 2025".

Just so folks are clear, we've circulated a sheet in my name with two amendments. I'm just moving (a) at the moment, which is in respect of the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024. To anticipate the next matter, I believe my colleague Senator Hanson-Young would like to make a contribution on this amendment.

Sarah Hanson-Young

The stitch-up is in, isn't it? The two big parties are desperate for distraction and desperate to get something done in this space so quickly before anybody looks at the detail and before they've worked out they've got no answers to the real questions. They want to smash through before Christmas this bill that kicks young people off the internet. They want to smash it through the parliament with a fake inquiry of only five days. What a joke. Have the courage of your convictions to put forward legislation and have it scrutinised properly.

Why are they smashing this through so quickly? Why do they not want anyone to look at the details and to ask the hard questions? Their very own joint social media inquiry report, handed down only on Monday this week, didn't recommend this as a measure. In fact it was the exact opposite. All of the experts have said that, if you want to protect young people online, you have to make these platforms safer, you have to regulate them properly, you have to put in place guardrails and you have to work with parents to make sure their needs and their children's needs are being met. But you are desperate to get a distraction, because nothing else is getting through this parliament this fortnight. Your mis- and disinformation bill is a bloody bin fire. That's what's going on. This is a distraction because you haven't even been able to run the argument on your own response to mis- and disinformation, so you ram this through as a big distraction.

It's not very often, I must say, that I agree with Senator Canavan, but on this particular issue, on social media, I agree that this should not be rammed through. This should not be put through, on such a complex issue, without proper review and proper scrutiny. But, of course, we know what's going on here: the government's desperate for a distraction because of the mis- and disinformation bill bin fire, and the opposition are split on the issue of social media, so Mr Dutton wants this done as quickly as possible, before anyone realises that he can't keep his own team in the tent. That is what is going on here.

We're about to see it all over again on the next bill, which is, of course, the electoral reform legislation, another stitch-up. When the two big parties decide to get together and ram stuff through in this place, you know they are failing the public debate. They are always failing the public debate when they want to ram stuff through with no real inquiry, no review and no scrutiny, because they have no bloody answers. It's a disgrace.

Sue Lines

Senator Hanson-Young, please. Have you finished your remarks?

Sarah Hanson-Young

I have.

Jacqui Lambie

I would like to make a short statement, if I can, on this as well.

Sue Lines

You're free to speak for five minutes, Senator Lambie.

Jacqui Lambie

Thank you. I am terribly worried about this, as much as we all have good intentions. I haven't even seen a draft. How am I supposed to, over a weekend, get expert advice on this when you've given it five days?

Sarah Hanson-Young

It was tabled an hour ago.

Long debate text truncated.

Jordon Steele-John

I move the second reading amendment as foreshadowed and circulated in my name:

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

(a) notes that:

(i) the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety recommended that no person with disability under the age of 65 should remain living in residential aged care from 2025,

(ii) while the Government accepted this recommendation, this Bill works in direct opposition to the recommendation by formalising a pathway to place people under 65 in aged care,

(iii) there are 911 people aged under 65 in residential aged care who are NDIS participants who should be receiving the disability-specific supports they need to exit residential aged care; and

(b) calls on the Government to implement the recommendation of the Royal Commission and ensure no disabled person under the age of 65 remains living in residential aged care".

Sue Lines

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Steele-John be agreed to.

Sue Lines

The question is that the second reading amendment as moved by Senator Kovacic be agreed to.

Sue Lines

I will now move to the second deferred vote, a proposed reference to the Senate Legal and Constitution Affairs References Committee, moved by Senator Rennick. The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Rennick be agreed to:

That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 7 March 2025:

The benefits of establishing an independent and transparent judicial commission to encourage public confidence in the justice system and uphold the separation of powers, with particular regard to:

(a) current and best practice complaints handling and resolution processes related to judicial officers and courts administration;

(b) the financial cost associated with establishing such a commission;

(c) current and best practice processes to support appropriate scrutiny and accountability of courts, commissions and tribunals, to ensure equity is upheld;

(d) processes to improve efficiency of the justice system;

(e) how the Commonwealth Government can support the effective and efficient administration of state and territory courts, tribunals and commissions;

(f) how costs are awarded and whether reform in this area is required; and

(g) any other related matters.