Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the 15th report of 2023 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 15 OF 2023

30 November 2023

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 Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator Ralph Babet

Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Matt O'Sullivan

Senator David Pocock Senator Paul Scarr Senator Lidia Thorpe Senator Tammy Tyrrell Senator David Van

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 15 OF 2023

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 29 November 2023 at 7.15 pm

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the provisions of the Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 1 February 2024 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b) the provisions of the Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 9 February 2024 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(c) the provisions of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 March 2024 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(d) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 April 2024 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(e) contingent upon introduction in the Senate, the Digital ID Bill 2023, and the Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 February 2024 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(f) the provisions of the Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 March 2024 (see appendix 6 for a statement of reasons for referral).

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

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

Live Sport) Bill 2023

Superannuation (Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions) Imposition Bill 2023

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

Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023

(Anne Urquhart)

Chair

29 November 2023

Appendix 1

S ELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To carefully scrutinise this legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

A range of stakeholders.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs legislation committee

Possible hearing date(s):

January 2024

Possible reporting date:

1 February 2024

(signed)

Wendy Askew

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To carefully scrutinise this legislation and understand any impacts it has on employers.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

A range of stakeholders including employers

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Employment and Education Legislation Committee.

Possible hearing date(s):

January 2024

Possible reporting date:

9 February 2024

(signed)

Wendy Askew

Appendix 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To carefully scrutinise this legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

A range of stakeholders including those from the Communications industry.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

January and February 2024

Possible reporting date:

26 March 2024

(signed)

Wendy Askew

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Public, industry and stakeholder scrutiny of new prominence framework for connected television devices and modernised anti-siphoning scheme.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Free-to-air TV, subscription TV, streaming services, device manufacturers, digital platforms, sporting codes.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment and Communications Committee.

Possible hearing date(s):

23 Jan 2024.

Possible reporting date:

February 2024.

(signed)

Anne Urquhart

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti- siphoning) Bill 2023

Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment and Communications

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

26th March 2024

(signed)

Nick McKim

Appendix 4

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To carefully scrutinise this legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

A range of stakeholders including those from the Defence industry.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

January to March 2024

Possible reporting date:

30 April 2024

(signed)

Wendy Askew

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bjll to a committee

Name of bill:

Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

The Bill will strengthen Australia's export control framework and create a national exemption for the UK and the US from certain Australian export control permit requirements.

The Bill amends the Defence Trade Controls Act 2012 (OTC Act) through the insertion of provisions which:

1. regulate the supply of Defence and Strategic Goods List (DSGL) military or dual- use technology (i.e. technical data) to foreign persons within Australia;

2. regulate the supply of DSGL military and dual-use goods and technology, that were previously exported or supplied from Australia, from one foreign country to another country, or to another person within the same foreign country;

3. regulate the provision of services related to military items on the DSGL; and remove the requirement to obtain a permit for supplies of certain DSGL goods and technology and the provision of certain DSGL services to the United Kingdom or the United States.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence & Trade Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date:

30 April 2024

(signed)

Anne Urquhart

Appendix 5

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Digital ID Bill 2023

Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To carefully scrutinise this legislation.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

A range of stakeholders and interested parties.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

January 2024

Possible reporting date:

28 February 2024

(signed)

Wendy Askew

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bjll to a committee

Name of bill:

Digital ID Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Digital ID is a major whole of economy reform. There will be substantial interest from participants in the Digital ID system, businesses, both current ad potential users of digital ID, various civil society groups such as privacy advocates, as well as individual citizens.

It is a relatively complex system and law, which involves states, territories, the Commonwealth business and individual citizens.

Referral to the committee will allow broader consideration of the bill and issues, prior to debate in the Parliament.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Economics Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Early 2024

Possible reporting date:

21 February 2024

(signed)

Anne Urquhart

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Digital ID Bill 2023 Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023

Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:

Matters raised by the bill including privacy implications and overall digital privacy landscape

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Attorney General's Department Electronic Frontiers Australia Communications Alliance

DIGI

Reset Tech

Digital Rights Watch Tech Council of Australia Council for Civil Liberties

Australian Communications Consumer Action Network Centre for Responsible Technology (Aus. Institute branch) Tech Policy Design Centre

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

9 February 2024

23 February 2024

Possible reporting date:

28 February 2024

(signed)

Nick McKim

Appendix 6

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2023

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To carefully scrutinise this legislation and understand the changes this legislation will make to the Superannuation system.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

A range of stakeholders from the Financial and super industries, consumer groups and others interested in this legislation.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

January to March 2024

Possible reporting date:

28 March 2024

(signed)

Wendy Askew

I move:

That the report be adopted.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

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

(a) the provisions of the Help to Buy Bill 2023 and the Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 22 February 2024;

(b) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 22 February 2024; and

(c) the provisions of the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023 not be referred to a committee".

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move an amendment to the government amendment:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of:

(a) the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 18 April 2024; and

(b) the Help to Buy Bill 2023 and Help to Buy Bill (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023, the provisions of the bill referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 April 2024".

These are both extremely complex pieces of legislation. The Senate is developing a habit of jamming through, with undue haste, legislation that is extremely complicated and extremely consequential to the lives of many Australians. In particular, we need to understand why the Labor Party is not actually requiring the gas corporations to pay their fair share of tax so that those revenues can then be used to do things like put dental into Medicare and other measures that the Australian Greens are proposing to help Australians who are getting smashed by the cost-of-living crisis. We want an opportunity to understand the complexities of things like the carry-forward regime under the PRRT, the liabilities that the big gas cartel corporations have and the absolute rort that is the PRRT system in this country.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the amendment moved by Senator McKim: the government won't be supporting this amendment, although I understand perhaps an agreement has been reached with the Opposition and the Greens on both of these bills.

The government will argue, certainly on the PRRT bill, that this is an important budget repair bill. It's important that it passes this Senate not only to provide the certainty that the sector has been seeking around arrangements but also to support the budget repair that the government has been working on for some time now, since coming to government, and it contributes to that over the forward estimates. I don't believe it is as complex as Senator McKim would argue. It clearly puts in place the arrangements going forward, but, importantly, it brings forward revenue into the forward estimates for budget repair.

On the Help to Buy scheme, I think we again see an alliance between the Greens and the Liberal Party on measures and legislation that we are trying to pass through this chamber to improve people's access to affordable housing. This is an important commitment we took to the election. We've negotiated it with the states. There's been agreement at National Cabinet to progress this legislation. And now, similarly to what happened with the HAFF bill, we see the Greens and the Liberal Party trying to slow this down. You can't on the one hand attack the government over rents and housing and then, at the same time, slow down legislation that we are seeking to pass here so that people can get access to cheap mortgages and get into the housing system from the rental system. That's what Help to Buy will deal with—it will help people who have been unable to purchase a house get into the housing ownership market.

This legislation, again, is not complex. It is pretty straightforward in aiming to establish a scheme that has been operating in the states for some time and has proven to be very successful in delivering those outcomes. We get that the Liberals and the Greens want to gang up on matters about housing and then go out and campaign on that, but here is a piece of legislation that very clearly creates access to the housing market for people who, for whatever reason, are currently locked out. The Commonwealth wants to move into this space. We agree that the Commonwealth should provide leadership on housing, as we've been doing through Minister Collins's work, through establishing the HAFF and through all of the other arrangements that we're putting in place.

But, by delaying the legislation, kicking it off to April and not having it dealt with, instead of coming back and dealing with it in the first sessions of next year, we're saying 'no' to potentially 40,000 applicants under a Help to Buy scheme being able to access affordable mortgages and enter the housing market. It's just nonsensical that the Senate would be standing in the way of that. We've got legislation in the House. It could easily be dealt with. The schemes have been operating. Talk to your state colleagues about how they're working, but please don't stand in the way of the government making progress in the area of housing.

We've seen it with the HAFF. It delayed the HAFF by months and months. We expect it from those opposite—the 'no-alition'. We've come expect it from the Greens on housing, which is extraordinary. But please consider what you're actually doing out there, which is preventing thousands of Australians out in the suburbs in your communities from being able to access affordable mortgages through the Help to Buy scheme. It's a good scheme. It works; it's been proven to work. The states and territories are behind it. The first ministers and the Prime Minister have agreed on arrangements to put this in place. And then the Senate and the coalition—or the 'no-alition', which has been building up on a number of different measures on legislation in this place—are standing in the way of thousands of Australian families being able to enter the housing market. There is no logical argument for it other than that you want to delay, point-score and campaign but you don't actually want to be part of any solutions to fix the decade of delay and neglect that we inherited from those opposite on housing policy.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all, I put on record that we will be supporting the Greens' amendments to this Selection of Bills Committee report. I find it quite extraordinary that the minister opposite would come in here and deny this place its actual role. This is the place of review. Today, we've seen the government try to push for these two bills to be reported on by February, throughout a period when we're hoping that some people in this place may have the opportunity to spend some time with loved ones. Instead, the government want senators, in the family-friendly environment that they've created here, to work through the Christmas break and January so that the government can get these bills through committee inquiries in an expedited time. Given the time-critical nature of these particular bills, all we're talking about is probably seven or eight weeks to enable two really important committees of this parliament to have the opportunity to fully scrutinise bills which the minister herself has said are extremely important. If they are so extremely important, what is the problem with providing a little bit of extra time to enable the committees to do their job, to do it fully and to report back to this place?

One of the things that has become part of the track record of this government is that they rush things through and then we have to go back later to fix up the mess. In fact the bills we are currently debating in this place, that Senator Paterson has been putting through this place this week, are an absolute classic example of making haste too hastily. If you'd bothered to take the time to get it right in the first place, or if you took the opportunity to start the process when the process was flagged that it should have been started, then some of these things could have been expedited in a more timely fashion.

One of the things that we will not do as a coalition, we will not allow the government to rush things through this place when the consequences often have an impact on Australians. That's because this government don't always get it right because they're in such a hurry to fix a problem. It seems a completely and utterly reasonable thing for these bills to be referred until April, as has been done by the Greens.

Another part of their other track record that we are seeing here is this complete and utter aversion to any transparency at all. One of the big problems we see with a lot of the legislation that comes in here is it's all very high level, it's all very 'frameworky' but there is no detail in it. Time and time again we see legislation with so little detail and so much left to the delegated legislation, which they will not show you until after the bill has been passed. The opportunity for the committees to flush out some of this lack of detail that's contained in the legislation is one of the most important processes of Senate committees. What the Greens have done here, and what we are going to support—we're calling out the government and saying: 'You need to provide greater transparency. You need to let some sunlight shine on your legislation because of your refusal to provide the detail of much of the legislation.'

Once again, lack of consultation means legislation often isn't developed properly. So instead of us having to come in here and clean up your mess after the mess has been created, we think we should do what this place is supposed to do, as the house of review of this parliament, and have a thorough look at it in the first place. Let's get everything right. Let's make sure that if there are amendments that need to be put to any of this legislation, we have the opportunity for the stakeholders to have their say. Because you know what? Policy that is not informed by the people it impacts is policy that is invariably poor.

What we're asking this place to do and what we're asking the chamber to vote for is to have adequate time so that we can scrutinise what this government doesn't want scrutinised. Every single time we see any bill of any consequence, it is pushed through here with great speed. And it seems almost ironical, doesn't it, that the very day we have sat in this place and guillotined one of the most important pieces of legislation for my home community in South Australia and many communities up and down the length and breadth of the Murray-Darling Basin, the government want to truncate the time that is available for this place and for a very important Senate committee to actually scrutinise these bills. We're starting to see a really troubling track record here from those opposite: they come in here, they push their way through and they try to deny scrutiny. And if they don't get their own way, they guillotine it. We will support the Greens amendment because we believe in transparency.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment, as moved by Senator McKim, to the motion on the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that the question be put separately in regard to paragraph (c) of this motion, which relates to the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill. I indicate that we will be voting differently on that compared to the rest of the motion.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that paragraphs (a) and (b) of the motion as amended be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question is that paragraph (c) of the Selection of Bills Committee report, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I ask that the Greens' opposition to that motion be recorded.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"but, in respect of the Digital ID Bill 2023 and the Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023, the Economics Legislation Committee report by 14 May 2024".

The Digital Identity Bill may be the most significant piece of legislation this 47th parliament will introduce. The effect of this bill is to tie every Australian to a digital identity that unlocks services necessary for life. This bill does not make identifying oneself online easier. It will facilitate making a digital identity check mandatory. That onerous measure comes at the price of putting identifying information for every Australian in the one spot and emits a giant, flashing, neon sign above everyone, saying, 'Hack me.' The ALP, Greens and the crossbench have rightly condemned the robodebt tragedy, yet the program was based on the same hubris and arrogance that informs this legislation. Time will be needed to review four key areas: the technical feasibility of a digital identity in light of previous data-matching failures; security over the data; the outcomes from identical legislation in other jurisdictions; and implications for misuse of digital identity. If those in this chamber are unaware of the significance of this legislation then they are proving the need to extend the inquiry period.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Everything that Senator Roberts just said is incorrect and is not part of the bill. It is not mandatory; it is actually putting in place legislation that regulates the existing system—10½ million Australians have a myGov ID. The system is working under the TDIF that the opposition put in place.

This reform started in 2014, when it was recommended. There have been nine years of work. I have been getting representations from the opposition—from the shadow minister—to say that we are being too slow in putting this in place, and now the opposition are going to vote to delay it. When you meet with business and small business, this is the thing that they want in place. They want a regulator in place. They want legislation around it. It is not about giving anybody a digital identity. It is about people being able—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I'm sorry, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts has just moved his amendment, Senator Canavan, and he was heard in silence. I remind senators who are being disorderly that, for one, you are not in your seats, so you are being even more disorderly. The minister has the right to be heard in silence.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill is about reducing the amount of information that is being held to verify your ID. That information is currently being held in a number of places. Every time you have to prove your ID, where you provide information to different organisations—this is about reducing that. This is in response to Optus. It's in response to Medibank. The private sector wants it in place. They want it regulated. We have the system in place now, and we have private sector ID providers who are unregulated. There's no regulator. The ACCC is going to be put in place. This is a system that's operating now. If people choose to get a digital identity—whether it be a public identity through myGovID or through one of the private sector ones—they are operating in it now. This is about enshrining it in legislation and making sure we've got an accreditation system in place.

I can see all of those up there laughing. I can see what's going to happen. We know what's going to happen. You're going to misrepresent this bill, like Senator Roberts did just then. It is not mandatory. It's voluntary. It's secure. It's safe. People get to control the information that they provide to verify their identity. It's about personal control. The hypocrites on this side, who are sitting here—the opposition—are going to vote against it.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On this side? This is your side.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you lot all sitting here. The opposition are arguing to get it in—

No, I'm not, Senator McDonald.

No, I'm not, Senator Henderson.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Gallagher, I will ask you to withdraw your comment.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. The opposition, who, in one breath, are arguing for it to be put in place faster, are now arguing for delay. You're making people less safe. You're making their identity documents less safe. That is what you are doing by supporting delaying this report until 14 May. It means that we will not have this system in place by July 2024, which is what has been sought and what has been consulted on for nine years.

I inherited this from the opposition, who had failed to get it to legislation stage after eight years of working on it. This has not come out of the blue. This does not require a long committee process. There have been exposure drafts. There have been consultation processes. This is about making sure that people's information and the amount of information they have to share is reduced. It's about making sure there's a legislative framework. It's about making sure there's a regulator in place to ensure that the system works efficiently. It is about protecting individuals' own information.

I cannot believe that those opposite are going to side with people who are going to pretend this bill is a whole range of things that it absolutely isn't. When they say it's mandatory, it's not. When they say it's going to steal your identity or it's a big government conspiracy, it is not. This is about personal control of your own information. It is completely voluntary. It's an important economic reform that needs to happen, and it needs to be done quickly so that we can respond to Optus and Medibank, where people's documents have been taken and have been misused and their privacy and their control over those documents has been abused. Please support the government's position, which is for a committee inquiry to report by the end of February.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wasn't going to contribute, but I heard the minister in her contribution say that this bill is not about a digital identity. The bill is called the Digital ID Bill 2023. Talk about misinformation here! Why is your bill called the Digital ID Bill 2023 if it's not about providing a digital ID?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cash!

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is going on here? All Senator Roberts is asking to do is to extend the inquiry into May next year. We're not really going to get going again until February, after the Christmas break. We're asking for February, March and April—three months to have an inquiry on a massively significant piece of legislation.

Government senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Canavan, please resume your seat. Once again, senators on my right are being incredibly disorderly. You're not even in your seats. The interjections are disorderly. Senator Canavan has the right to be heard in silence, and that is what I am requesting.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister is saying that somehow it will be unsafe if we wait another few months while we have an inquiry into a significant piece of legislation. This government has been in power for 18 months. If this was so important, why has it taken them 18 months to bring this legislation forward? If it's so important, why is all our data already contained and safe, apparently, and no problems?

We know there are already issues with the security of people's data. We know, from the Medibank fiasco that occurred just recently, that people can't always trust governments to keep their data safe. That's why there should be a significant and comprehensive inquiry that gives all Australians the opportunity to have their say.

What the government is trying to do here is to rush this through without proper scrutiny, without Australians being able to understand what the government is doing with their data, with their security and with their privacy. This should go through because it is our job to scrutinise legislation, and there is nothing lost by waiting a few more months to get this right.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for debate on this amendment has expired. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Roberts be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

():  The question now is that the Selection of Bills Committee report, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.