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

I present Report No. 6 of 2024 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. 6 of 2024

27 June 2024

Members o f t he 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 Maria Kovacic

Senator Matt O'Sullivan

Senator David Pocock

Senator Lidia Thorpe

Senator David Van

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 26 June 2024 at 7.12 pm 2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the provisions of the Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 8 August 2024 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(b) the provisions of the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024, and the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, and the Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 2 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:

Customs Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2024

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

(Anne Urquhart)

Chair

27 June 2024

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Private Sexual Material) Bill 2024

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To ensure there is a committee enquiry into this important matter.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Individuals, stakeholders, and other parties.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

July

Possible reporting date:

8 August 2024

(signed)

Wendy Askew

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Private Sexual Material) Bill 2024

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Online safety

Public interest, harm prevention

Regulatory reform

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Public advocacy organisations

Privacy groups

Parents, Principals, victims

Media and technology orgs

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

July 2024

Possible reporting date:

8 August 2024

(signed)

A. E. Urquhart

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024

Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024

Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To enquire into the Governments proposed laws.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Interested parties, agricultural stakeholders, and other individuals.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment and Communications Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

July

Possible reporting date:

8 August 2024

(signed)

Wendy Askew

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Nature Positive Bills (EPA, EIA and transitional)

Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:

Allow time to consider details of proposed legislation

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Environment sector, experts, scientists, business

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Environment & Communications

Possible hearing date(s):

August

Possible reporting date:

3 September

(signed)

Nick McKim

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 Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024 and related bills be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 8 August 2024; and

(b) the provisions of the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 not be referred to a committee.

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

Can I ask that the amendment just moved by the minister be split and voted on separately?

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

Yes.

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

I'm also going to ask that those are put separately, because the Greens intend to vote differently on them, and I move the following amendment:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the provisions of the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024, the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, and the Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024, the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee report by 3 September 2024".

And I want to speak to that briefly. I just want to be clear about how broken our environment laws are in Australia. Our environment laws are misnamed; they are actually development laws, laws that enable the destruction of our environment. They do not do what most people think they should in this country, which is protect our environment from destruction. There are so many flaws in Australia's environment laws. But one, if not the biggest, flaw is that logging is exempt from our environment laws if it is conducted under a regional forest agreement. It's time to end native forest logging in Australia. It's also time to end the carve-out from the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act that the mendicant native forest logging industry in this country enjoys.

To that end I want to tell the Senate about a recent trip I had, hosted by the legends at the Bob Brown Foundation, and the brave Australians who are defending this most beautiful, spectacular piece of forest right in the heart of Takayna, the Tarkine, at the junction of the Arthur and the Frankland rivers, where right now the loggers are logging into the night under floodlights to try and get that coupe completely destroyed before the end of the month when they will have to stop logging it because it is wedge-tailed eagle habitat and they're not allowed to log it into July. That's why they're logging into the night right now under floodlights and that is why heroic forest defenders supported by the legends at the Bob Brown Foundation are now into their 38th day of direct action.

They are brave Australians, who stand on the right side of history and who stand to protect nature, the carbon in those forests, the beautiful myriad creatures that call those forests home, the significant Aboriginal cultural heritage of that area, the carbon in the soils, the carbon in the trees, the carbon in the deadwood and the senescent trees that provide habitat for so many beautiful creatures, including the endangered masked owl. Those brave forest defenders are there on the ground right now, and I want to give a massive shout-out to them. I want to give a massive shout-out to the heroes and legends at the Bob Brown Foundation.

Coupe FR002A is being logged by the Tasmanian Liberal government with the support of a federal Labor government using public subsidies handed out to a mendicant native forest logging industry that would be finished overnight if you just pulled the public subsidies out of it. That would be the end of the native forest logging industry because it can't even turn a profit without tens of millions of dollars a year in Tasmania alone going into public subsidies in that industry.

We need an adequate inquiry into the so-called nature positive cognate package of bills, which I remind folks constitutes a huge and horrendous breach of trust from the environment minister, Ms Plibersek, and in fact every single Labor member in this place and the other place, who committed to the Australian people before the last election that we would get the significant overhaul of our environment laws that so many millions of Australians want to see. It's a broken promise. Here we find ourselves with a massive broken promise. Why did they break that promise? Because this is the Labor Party and they don't care about nature. They just care about their political donors in the fossil fuel industries. They just care about developers turning a profit. And once again it is nature who loses out. Well, the Greens won't let nature lose out. We'll always fight for it.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the amendment that has been moved to the government's amendment. It is absolutely essential that we have a fulsome and fair dinkum inquiry into these government bills because, as Senator McKim has just so articulately described, it is a broken promise from this government. The government told the Australian people that they would strengthen and fix Australia's environment laws and they haven't. They've dumped the promise to do that, and all we've got now is a piece of legislation that is nothing more than a name change and a desk reshuffle. That's what is on the table. There is no point in having someone else inside the environment department whose job it is to simply implement the broken laws of that department and of that minister.

It is as clear as day to anybody watching that Australia's environment laws are broken. They are failing to protect nature, they are failing to stop the destruction of habitat, they are failing to stop the extinction of our wildlife and they are allowing the Minister for the Environment and Water to approve polluting coal and gas projects. What does the minister say about this? 'My hands are tied. My hands are tied.' Oh, give us a break! Do something to protect the environment by acting to protect the environment and stop these polluting projects from going ahead.

The current laws allow the destruction of our native forests. We're in 2024, in an environment and climate change crisis, and the federal environment minister can't protect native forests in this country. You know there are a lot of things that need to be fixed with our environment laws, yet what we've got on the table from this government does nothing to correct the situation. In fact, it might even be worse because what it will do is fast-track the approval of destruction. Rather than putting in place rules that give the minister the power to protect, it's going to give bureaucrats the power to fast-track destruction, making the situation even worse.

The Greens are prepared to talk to the government about how we can help fix the environment laws. There are two really simple things they need to do: stop approving the destruction of our native forests, and stop approving new coal and gas mines that continue to destroy habitat and make the climate crisis even worse. When you ask average, everyday Australians about our environment laws and you tell them that they do not even consider the impact on climate change of projects and mines, people are shocked. They think this is crazy. What is the point of environment laws if they don't protect the environment? I would put this to you, President: what is the point of having an environment minister if the environment minister won't protect the environment?

Of course, it is no surprise that today we have the colluding of the Labor Party and the Liberal Party on these bills. That is no surprise at all because—I tell you what?—the big mining industries, the big polluters, the gas lobby and the coal lobby desperately want these rules passed. It's good for them and bad for nature. So what have they done? They've picked up the phone to their mates in the Labor Party and they've picked up the phone to their mates in the Liberal Party and they've said, 'Can you guys just work this out? Get it done. Don't let the Greens have a say over this, because someone might stand up for the environment.' Is it any surprise that this collusion between the coalition and the Labor Party to do the bidding of the big miners has come only days after the minister for the environment approved a new gas mine and a whole lot of wells for Gina Rinehart. (Time expired)

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Back over here in reality, I think it's important to put a few facts on the record about what we've just heard—eloquently, I might add—from our friends in the Australian Greens. I think Senator McKim has missed his calling, frankly. He'd be a great fiction writer in a life outside of this parliament—loggers in the night, collusion between major political parties. If you were to believe what you just heard, you could walk outside this chamber and find smouldering stumps and the dead carcasses of animals littering everything everywhere, but the reality is that that is not the case. Nothing of what we've just heard is the case.

I might just put on record that the coalition thinks the nature positive bills that somehow form the substance of that—I don't know how you'd describe what was just provided to the chamber—are a dog. The bills are a dog. Yet—do you know what?—we're trying to do our part, as part of this democratic process, to make the bills better. I have a feeling we're going to struggle to get there, because really, as Senator Hanson-Young rightly called out, all this is doing is providing a very expensive legislated way of giving a new logo to the same people—although there are 2,300 more of them, would you believe. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water has had its numbers swell by a further 2,300, with not one of those people out there saving koalas from mad property developers; they're here in Canberra propping up the Public Service's contribution to the economy. Those people are not going to be doing anything more.

I might remind the chamber that it was this government that promised we'd have new environmental laws in the parliament by the end of last year—2023. We're well into 2024 and we have nothing before us in the way of new laws. We do, though, have a law to set up a new bureaucracy which will do diddly squat to protect the environment, and it will do nothing to protect economic activity and jobs.

Again, back over here in reality we're worried about this thing called the cost-of-living crisis. Not one of the previous speakers touched on that. And we need to give credence to the problems being faced by Australian households and businesses. But again, over here, the people who don't represent people in our regions, the people who don't care about jobs in the country—in the mines, on salmon farms, in forests—don't care: lock it up, shut it down, and it doesn't make a damned difference to them and the people who support them. But I'll tell you what, it rips the guts out of our economy.

Balance is key. No-one wants to destroy the environment. But if you listen to the fictitious contributions made by the Australian Greens, it's as though, for giggles on the weekend, coalition and Labor senators fire up their chainsaws and go around forests cutting down trees. We don't! We want to protect the environment as well, but we want to do it in a balanced way that protects the economy. We know mining is essential, because without it you can't build towers for wind turbines, you can't extract the critical minerals for your photovoltaic panels for your solar farms and you can't erect massive power lines that go through beautiful forests; you can't do any of that stuff. But hey, look, we could rip it out of Third World countries, developing countries. That's what these people do.

On forestry, I might add that we do forestry better here than anywhere else in the world does, if you forget the ridiculous contribution fuelled by something that I don't know is legal. The Australian Greens have failed to point out where in the world forestry is done better than here, apart from countries that don't cut down a single tree. The Greens' alternative, of course, is that instead of using the native timbers that we use for beautiful things like this Senate chamber it would be better to rip off the Congo Basin. In their mind, if you can't see it, it doesn't matter. But the by-product of their policy approach is that Australian jobs go out the door, as do regional communities that, frankly, responsible parties of government care about—some more than others, I might say, with the exception of a few. We would never let that happen.

So, with the froth and bubble, the hyperbole that you hear down there—none of it based on fact—we want to have an inquiry into this bill, because, as I said, as it stands today it is a dog. It is a rebranding of a bureaucracy, with a lot more bureaucrats. Hopefully we can make things better, but that sow's ear does not look like it's going to turn into a silk purse anytime soon.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute on this debate on whether or not we will scrutinise a proposal that will barely do anything to fix the environment and whether we will scrutinise that properly or, as the two large parties would prefer, it is a perfunctory inquiry into a bill that appears very ineffective.

I was an environmental lawyer before I came to this place. I have a deep interest in how we manage our precious natural assets. And all the indicators are going downhill. Despite some of the lovely promises by this government when they were seeking to form government, we have seen so very little action, and we have seen such decline in biodiversity. We have seen extinction rates continue to go up, despite, again, the lovely words that promised we wouldn't have any more extinctions. We've seen critical habitat continue to be felled. We've seen coal and gas approvals continue to be dished out like confetti—by this government, who said they were going to be different from the last mob yet continue to approve the fossil fuel projects that come to the minister's desk. One wonders whether the donations that are made by the coal and gas companies have some influence over those decisions; certainly the weakness of our environmental laws do.

Our environmental laws don't even require the climate impacts of coalmines and gas to be directly considered when the minister is deciding whether to approve those projects. It is ludicrous. These laws, which were written by former Prime Minister John Howard in the nineties, are not serving the needs of our current natural biodiversity and climate challenges. They are out of date. They need to be modernised—and that's what I thought this government promised they would do. Well, where are these reforms? We've got before us, with this package of bills, a proposal to change the chairs on the Titanic. It is a proposal to change the name tag of the existing departmental compliance group and give them more power. These are the same people, administering the same laws, who are presiding over the continued destruction of nature.

So yes, we need an inquiry into this, because we want laws that work. We want laws that will protect nature. We want laws that will encourage the minister to say, 'No; I'm not going to approve new coal or new gas.' That is surely the function of our environmental laws. Yet we have this flaccid proposal from the government to simply change the name tag of the compliance branch in the department. I'm sure they're great people, but there are not enough of them, and unfortunately they have been quite ineffective to date. Everybody knows that if you breach your environmental permit, the conditions of your development approval, you don't really get into strife. I'm afraid that changing the name tag is going to do absolutely nothing to address that.

What we need in our environmental laws is strong enforcement, but we need strong enforcement of laws that actually work. We need a climate trigger in our environmental laws. We need the minister to be able to say, 'I've considered the climate impacts of this new coalmine, of those new gas wells, and on the basis of the climate I am saying no.' That is not what we have at the minute, and it is so clear that that is why the confetti of approvals for new coal and new gas keep rolling out of the minister's door. Just 48 hours ago in my home state of Queensland, on some of our best food-producing land, out west of where I live, in Wandoan, approval was given by this government for more coalseam gas wells atop the Great Artesian Basin, atop some of our best food-producing land, out to 2080. On what planet should we still be using gas in 2080? Well, there's not going to be much left of this planet if that's the sort of approach this government is taking—and they're allowed to take that approach because our environmental laws say it is fine; there is no barrier to the minister's ticking off on that wanton pollution, because the laws are broken.

We need a climate trigger. We need native forest logging stopped—again, through our federal laws, not reliant upon the goodwill of some states who have, thankfully, been progressing this. We need environmental laws that actually work to protect the environment, and we need a minister who's prepared to act in the interests of the environment and do their job. Instead, we have a package of bills that won't do a thing. It will simply change the name tag on the door of an existing ineffective regime that sees biodiversity continue to be trashed and the climate continue to worsen. We expected better from this government, and we stand at the ready to fix these environmental laws. Will you please come to the party, and let's do that together.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to foreshadow that I have a motion around the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 and making sure we can send that to an inquiry following the Selection of Bills Committee's report so that the thousands and thousands of primary producers, small business owners, GPs and schoolchildren in Western Australia can have their voices heard. After the sham of an inquiry conducted by the House of Representatives, we know that Labor isn't interested in hearing about the impact that its bill will have, not just on our global trading reputation, as a world leader in animal welfare standards and a world leader in making culturally appropriate protein available in the Middle East, but also on our local communities right through Western Australia. The coalition has made very clear that, if we are given the great privilege of forming government after the next election, we will overturn this outrageous ban. We will reinstate confidence in not just the live sheep trade but the cattle trade, which is also feeling that this government cannot be trusted. Whether you're in the forestry industry, as we heard earlier, or whether you're in the primary production industries—sheep, cattle, horticulture, dairy—you are in this government's gun, absolutely; make no mistake about it. And it's not just the primary producers. We want to make sure that the whole supply chain have an opportunity to have their say.

Primary producers cannot believe that they don't have the social licence to produce clean, green food for the world, that somehow what they do is under attack. This government thinks a paltry $107 million package is going to be enough for intergenerational farming families and production systems which rely on this trade—you can't just send the type of sheep that are bred for this trade into some other market. It actually doesn't work that way, and it shows just how out of touch this agriculture minister is with the production systems, particularly in the west. Those opposite think they can just throw 107 million bucks at primary producers. 'It's not compensation,' the minister said in estimates. No, it's not, because you can never compensate people for taking away their livelihood.

Labor governments have form on this stuff. Remember what they did to the live cattle trade when they were last in power. They shut it down—a billion-dollar industry. So don't think that because you keep your head down and keep quiet they're not going to come for you. This is all about a political deal done for inner-city seats in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne, and they're prepared to sacrifice the primary producers and Western Australian regional communities to get that done. Such is the level of disrespect shown by this government—it's great to see the agriculture minister actually in the chamber for this contribution—that it put more money into producing Mad Max, the movie, than it has put on the table for the primary producers in Western Australia that it's going to put out of business.

It's not just the Western Australian farmers that are not going to take this silently. The Keep the Sheep campaign has been loud and proud. You can go online and sign the petition. They've already raised over $350,000, and they are not going to spend it in safe coalition seats at the next election. They are going to put it up against marginal seat holders and teals who will not support primary producers—the very people that produce food for the country—and they're not afraid to get political. People say, 'Don't be so political.' This is politics. The only reason these farmers are going to be out of business is that Anthony Albanese, who can thank the west for his prime ministership, has shown who he really is. He's an east coast Prime Minister, an inner-city, left-wing, Labor man, as this policy absolutely shows.

We think that these communities deserve a voice. They need a Senate inquiry that will be reporting in September so that those who weren't able to be heard through the House of Representatives inquiry can be. The coalition will never stop fighting for them.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, rise to make a contribution on the amendment foreshadowed by Senator McKenzie. My contribution will be a plea to those on the crossbench. This is not an abstract issue. This is not an issue of simple political games. This affects people and their livelihoods. If you don't believe me, just look at the thousands of farmers and supporters of the sheep industry who turned out in WA. These are not dumb or cruel people. These are not people who are fighting for their lives and livelihoods for the fun of it. This is not a simple issue where you can just, at the stroke of a pen, wipe out a significant part of an industry and expect there to be no consequences. This has real consequences for real people. If you read any of the expert testimony that's been provided, you would realise this is about things like flock structure, which takes eight to 12 years to restructure; seasonal feed availability in WA; and competition in the marketplace.

This will have a devastating impact on regional Western Australia, and all Senator McKenzie's foreshadowed motion is asking for is a proper hearing, because they have not had a proper hearing. The House of Representatives inquiry was truncated. A handful of farmers got to speak. Most of the submissions weren't even read, because there were so many. This was not a proper inquiry. The job of the so-called expert panel that the minister put together did not include looking at whether this was good policy; the panel only looked at how, given that there was going to be a ban, it should be done. Every regional community that expert panel went to said: 'No, there shouldn't be a ban. There can't be a ban. This will destroy our lives and livelihoods. This will destroy generational farming and the sheep industry in Western Australia.' You cannot ignore these voices. So my plea to you is to reconsider. All we're asking for here is an inquiry.

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

Minister Gallagher has moved an amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report. The amendment has been split into parts (a) and (b), and senators have requested that the voting be split across (a) and (b). We are currently dealing with an amendment moved by Senator McKim to part (a) of Senator Gallagher's amendment. So the question is that Senator McKim's amendment be agreed to.

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

The question is that part (a) of the amendment that Senator Gallagher's moved to the motion on the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.

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

I'm now going to deal with part (b) of Senator Gallagher's amendment. Senator McKenzie has foreshadowed an amendment, which she's invited to move.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 November 2024".

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

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator McKenzie to part (b) of Senator Gallagher's amendment be agreed to.

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

The question now is that part (b) of Senator Gallagher's amendment be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question now is that the motion that the report be adopted, as moved by Senator Urquhart and amended by the amendment moved by Senator Gallagher, be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

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

There seems to be some confusion. I'm not sure what the opposition have done. I don't understand what they've done. So we ask for that question to be put again.

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

I ask that the division be cancelled, please.

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

Thank you, Senator Ruston. Senator Ruston has asked for the division to be cancelled, so I am going to call it that the motion that the Selection of Bills Committee report be adopted, as amended, has been agreed to.

Honourable senators interjecting—

I remind senators that I did call it that the motion that the report be adopted was agreed to, and a division was called. The division has now been cancelled, so we've reverted back to the original decision, which was that the motion that the committee report be adopted, as amended, was agreed to.