Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the request of Senator Chisholm, I move:

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens oppose what is effectively an urgency motion to bring on this legislation contrary to the standing orders, which would otherwise require proper consideration of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023. We ask this: why is it the only occasion on which this parliament is willing to consider something is urgent is when it comes from either Defence or the security industry, when it comes from either somebody with golden braid on their shoulders or it comes from ASIO? Those are the only things that this chamber seems persuaded are urgent. When have we ever seen urgent legislation or urgent policy change dealing with the climate crisis treated like this? Never, never. When have we ever seen urgent legislation dealing with the housing crisis and the rental crisis and this agreement between the so-called parties of government that needs to be brought on and dealt with now because we have a crisis, an urgency? Never. When have we ever seen the crisis in public education and our universities and funding for young people to get that essential start in life dealt with as an urgent motion? When have we seen those issues brought on with urgency? Never. The only occasion we see the club come together and say: 'This is urgent. It needs to be dealt with now. It is super important to the nation,' is when it's Defence or it's spooks. And, again, this is what is happening here.

This is no more urgent than the climate crisis. This is no more urgent than the housing crisis. Those are the things that this parliament should be focusing on, but we can't get the club to listen. Millions and millions of Australians want those issues to be the feature of today. So, yes, we think this is an important bill, and let's deal with it appropriately. But it's an insult to say this is more important than the climate crisis or more important than the housing crisis, and that insult is being felt in millions of houses across this country and billions of households across the planet. We oppose this motion.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition will be supporting this motion. Not to put too fine a point on it, following our debate earlier this week about the intelligence and security committee, but this is an example of how the parties of government—a term I know the crossbenchers and the Greens hate—can come together in the national interest to promptly and appropriately resolve issues relating to national security. I hope this is a lesson for the government that your other friends up there on the crossbench, the Greens, cannot be relied upon, whether members of the PJCIS or not, to get things like this done.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will briefly indicate that the government does consider that this bill requires attention now. The current threat environment does call for increased collaboration and engagement across and outside of the government, and the ability to use and disclose this information is critical to the ability of agencies to protect key national security interests. I understand that it is not common in this place for the Greens party to acknowledge that there are national security interests that require our attention. In fact, nearly every bill that's brought before this place is described as overreach. That is not the approach of the government. We will consistently bring forward legislation which is in the national interest and requires debate in this chamber, and we do so today.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the exemption of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023 from the cut-off be agreed to.