Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move:

That on Thursday, 4 July 2024:

(a) the questions on all remaining stages of the following bills be put at 1 pm:

(i) Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2024,

(ii) Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024,

(iii) Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024,

(iv) Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024,

(v) Creative Australia Amendment (Implementation of Revive) Bill 2024,

(vi) Australian Postal Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, and

(vii) Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Bill 2024;

(b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and

(c) divisions may take place between 1.30 pm and 2 pm until consideration of the bills has concluded.

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

I move, as an amendment:

Omit paragraph (a)(iii), relating to the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024.

This amendment would seek to pull out the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024 from the guillotine. There are two reasons we say that this is essential. The first is that this is an important piece of legislation. I think all of us recognise that, if Defence is given a budget of three-quarters of a trillion dollars over the next decade, there needs to be far greater oversight on that three-quarters of a trillion dollars worth of public money than there has been to date.

We've seen scandal after scandal after scandal in defence procurement: the disastrous Hunter frigates project; the $5 billion that Defence managed to spend on not getting French submarines; the $5 billion they're giving to the United States for US workers and dockyards; the $5 billion they're, potentially, giving to Rolls-Royce because those poor people at Rolls-Royce need Australian taxpayers' money to build nuclear submarine parts; and the $5 billion that Defence is gambling on the life of time extension project for the Collins class submarines, which a retired US deputy secretary of their naval department has said is speculative, is highly contingent and may well fail.

It's hard to know where you end the list of defence procurement disasters which have happened, because, whether it's Labor in government or the coalition in government, whether it's Labor in opposition or coalition in opposition, the usual practice is that the club doesn't hold Defence to account. The club just signs off on whatever new funding fantasy Defence comes up with and pretends that Defence can achieve it. We know that Defence is squandering billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars of public money. I've just underestimated how many billions worth of public money Defence is squandering. And the reason they're able to get away with it is that the 'defence club of the war parties', Labor and the coalition, just sign off on whatever nonsense Defence puts in front of them. Whenever they see a bit of gold braid in front of them, they go to water. They pretend they're tough on Defence until somebody strides into the room with a little bit of gold braid on their shoulder and then there's this obscene subservience from both the Labor party and the coalition: 'Oh, Sir! Oh, Madam! How much money can we give you? Does it go "whoosh"? Will it go "bang" at some point? Oh, that's great! You can have the money.'

The idea that another secret committee populated just by Labor and the coalition will in any way hold Labor to account is just ridiculous. But there is a worse problem with this. There is a real chance that, with the creation of yet another secret committee—where Defence can have their secret chats and get their secret billions for their secret weapons that we all know secretly won't work or Defence won't be able to deliver or will arrive 10 years later and do half of what was promised—that secret committee will be used as a reason to squash even more any effort to hold Defence to account in any public forum. Defence will use that secret committee to refuse to answer even more questions in Defence estimates and to refuse to answer even more questions on notice. They'll say: 'Oh, no, no, no. We've already discussed this in a secret committee with the war party club, and they're fine with it.' That is a real danger, not just to taxpayers and expenditure but to national defence, because it turns out an incredibly secret club-based decision-making process has made us less safe.

Two decades of this nonsense on submarines has given us a $20 billion hole. I'm trying to think how many submarines we got in the last 20 years—oh, zero. We've given $5 billion to the French for no subs, $5 billion to the US for no subs, $5 billion to the UK for no subs and $5 billion trying to keep the Collins class going for another 10 years under an experimental project. How many new subs have we got? Zero. It's not only bad for scrutiny but bad for any sense of national security. This is the same bizarre club, the war party club, that signed off on a $45 billion Hunter frigate project even though a whole bunch of people in Defence said, 'This contractor can't deliver, we've never seen the ship, it might topple over in a heavy sea and it won't be delivered on time.' That's what some people in Defence said, but they were ignored by the war parties, they were ignored by the previous Defence secretary, Richardson, and they were ignored by the current Defence secretary, Moriarty, who, for some reason, wanted to deliver a $45 billion project to one British contractor called BAE.

Despite all the warnings, bang, the war parties signed off on it. The current secretary signed off on it. I think we were meant to get nine frigates for $45 billion. Now it looks like we're going to get six frigates, and guess what the price tag will be? It's $45 billion and counting. How do we know the price tag will be $45 billion? It's not what we've been told by Defence. Defence are desperately trying to hide that figure from Australian taxpayers. We know about it largely because the Audit Office has had to squeeze out little bits of information about it in the most scathing assessment you could ever see of a procurement project. Let's be clear: the $45 billion on the Hunter frigates is to date the single largest procurement contract ever signed by the Commonwealth, and it's a disaster zone. How many Hunter frigates do we have? You'll be pleased to know we have the same number of Hunter frigates in service as we have new submarines: zero. There's not one. This isn't just a procurement problem; this is a national security problem.

The same war party club have signed off on offshore patrol vessels. Offshore patrol vessels are meant to be the simplest possible ship you can make. They're a little bit bigger than a patrol boat and a hell of a lot smaller than a frigate. They signed a contract with two multinational arms dealers to make them. Those are meant to be pumped out first of all in Adelaide and then moved across to Perth. That contract was meant to be having offshore patrol vessels in the water and in commission years and years and years ago. Guess how many offshore patrol vessels are currently in commission after having spent more than $1 billion on the project? The exact same number of offshore patrol vessels are in commission as new subs and new Hunter frigates: zero. There's not one. Yet this $4½ billion mess continues.

I think Defence have spent the better part of $800 million trying to work out if they're going to put a gun on the ship. Initially there was going to be no gun. But some people in Defence said, 'You can't have a ship without a gun,' so they decided to put an old, renovated gun from a retired class of vessel on it. They spent a couple of hundred million dollars doing that and redesigning it. Then someone in Defence said: 'No, the old, renovated gun won't work. We need a new, shiny gun.' So they spent a couple of hundred million dollars more to put a new, shiny gun on it. Now it looks like that new, shiny gun is going to be too expensive and not much use on it, so they're going to take the new, shiny gun off it, and we're back to where we were three years ago, with no gun on a ship that the surface fleet review report says nobody knows what to do with. It turns out the offshore patrol vessel is too big to do patrol boat work and too small to put in any kind of conflict zone. They don't know what to do with it, but they're trying to come up with a plan for it. Defence have a plan to have a plan to maybe use this ship, maybe with a gun or maybe without a gun. They're not quite sure. Guess how much we're spending on that? The better part of $5 billion.

Do we think that a private club run by the war parties, who have created this disaster zone to date, is going to help to hold Defence to account? No, absolutely we don't. But the more fundamental thing is to create this private club, which most of the crossbench are excluded from. We've heard the coalition say they absolutely don't want questions like this from the committee and they absolutely don't want the Greens on it, because what a danger to national security it would be if questions like this were asked in the sub-committee!

The real danger is that Defence will use this to avoid answering any more questions in estimates, and we saw that already, in the last estimates round, from the Chief of Navy. When hard questions were being asked about the billions and billions and billions of dollars squandered on the AUKUS submarine project, the Chef of Navy said words to the effect: 'I feel awkward answering these questions about our disaster, in public. I'm hoping we get a new secret place where I can give those answers to avoid ever having to answer tough questions like this in public again.'

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That sounds like them at the royal commission for veterans.

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

I note the interjection from Senator Lambie. Do we think this should be decided by a guillotine without debate? Absolutely not. That's why I moved the amendment.

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

I stand to make a contribution on the amendment that has been moved by Senator Shoebridge. I think the bigger issue here is: what are we actually doing here again? We're here again because we are under a guillotine, or that's the proposal that's been put forward. I want to put on the record that, if you have a look in Odgers' and at Senate procedure, it's clear:

… a majority of the Senate may agree with the declaration by a minister that a particular bill is urgent.

We have had so many guillotines in this place over the last few months, and I would contend that you could hardly say every one of the bills that was subject to a guillotine was urgent. So I'm interested to understand what the government's determination of 'urgent' is.

What are guillotines to be used for? They're to be used to:

… provide finite debating times for a particular bill or to bring protracted debates to a close.

Well, it's hardly a protracted debate if you haven't had any debate at all. A guillotine is:

… most frequently imposed at the end of a period of sittings when the time available to deal with complex or copious legislation is running out.

I would have hardly thought that bringing on a guillotine on the first day of the sitting fortnight means it's for complex, copious legislation or because we're running out of time. So it appears, from looking at the definition of why one would put legislation under a guillotine, that that is not the purpose for which this government is seeking to use this particular provision that is contained in the standing orders. They're seeking to use it as a standard management tool for the running of this particular chamber. In doing so, they're trashing the conventions of many, many years that have served this place well and enabled this place to run on an understanding that legislation is able to be debated and allowed to be scrutinised, that there is a level of transparency around it and that we have the opportunity to refer it to committee. There are a whole heap of reasons you would not put legislation under a guillotine, but it appears that that is no longer the view of the government.

As I said, they're using this as a standard practice. There's nothing urgent about anything that we've got here today. In fact, the Australian Postal Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 is listed to, in a minute, go into non-contro legislation, which would hardly suggest that it is terrifically urgent. There has been agreement around the chamber that many of these bills will be passed today, but, no, we're going to cut the neck off them just because we don't want to debate.

Today's guillotine is probably not the most egregious use of the guillotine that we have seen in the last few weeks because, as I said, many of the bills are largely not controversial, although I respect the fact that the Greens are seeking to remove one of the bills because they clearly have an issue with it. But we've seen a number of very high-profile bills shoved through this place in an attempt to avoid scrutiny and transparency. And don't forget this is a government that went to the people of Australia at the election in 2022 saying it was bringing in a new type of government: transparency was going to be at the centre of everything it did. But nothing could be further from transparent than what we have seen from this government.

I'll just raise a couple of bills that we've seen go under the guillotine—but they haven't gone under the guillotine at the end of a period; they've gone under the guillotine simply for the purpose of not allowing debate, transparency or reference to a committee. Just this week, there's the live exports bill, which is going to impact 3,000 farmers, mostly in the state of Western Australia. They've got a compensation package that is going to provide little more than $15 million a year to those farmers. We're talking about hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars that this industry is worth, and they're going to get $15 million a year or thereabouts under this package of compensation that's being proposed by this government. I mean—really? More money was spent on the Mad Max movie than was spent on compensating the 3,000 farmers in Western Australia. And let's not forget that Australia rides on the sheep's back; it always has. That is like a euphemism for our agricultural sector, which is constantly being destroyed.

All that was asked for by the sector, by the farmers, by their supporters in Western Australia, by rural and regional communities and by the coalition on this side was, 'Could we have an inquiry?' The premise on which the government put forward this piece of legislation was based on something from a very long time ago. We all saw the terrible footage, back in 2019, when we had a terrible catastrophe with a live export ship going into the Middle East. Since then, the sector has gone to extraordinary lengths to now be regarded as the gold standard for the rest of the world in animal standards. But here we've seen no ability for the sector to put to this parliament the reasons it believes that the live export trade should continue. There was the guillotine, and that was the end of that debate.

The week before, exactly the same thing happened on vaping. The government sought to put a bill through here. They sought, at the last minute, to make a significant change to that bill, with no consultation whatsoever with anybody apart from the Greens. And because they didn't want scrutiny on that bill, instead of allowing it to go through a normal process—to come in here and let the people who have been elected by the Australian public to be in here have their say—we just got a short period of time in which people could put a contribution on the record about it, and then, boom! That one was also cut off before we could have any scrutiny.

It really is quite amazing, the length this government is prepared to go to in order to avoid scrutiny. Who could forget Labor's guide on how not to answer questions in the Senate? I cannot believe the audacity of this government—that they would actually put in writing to their members and their bureaucracy how not to answer questions. I would have thought a government that had built its reputation on supposed transparency would actually want to answer those questions. Let's not forget; if you're proud of what you've done, you should be proud to put what you've done into the public arena. As I said, we have seen the guillotine used absolutely wantonly by this government.

But, as a general rule and a general principle, at the end of a sitting period, when you're about to go on a protracted break, there is a sort of unwritten convention that we can put through legislation under a guillotine. So the opposition won't stand in the way of this guillotine today, for that very reason. But I want to make it very clear that any other time a guillotine is brought into this place—and it's being brought in time and time again, on bills that are not urgent, and it is being used now as a measure to avoid transparency and scrutiny—the opposition will not support the guillotine under that particular premise. But we will begrudgingly accept this one today.

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

Hypocrite.

An honourable senator: Acting Deputy President, can she withdraw that?

I will withdraw.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young, you have the call.

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

I rise to contribute to the debate on this hours motion and concur with the comments made by my colleague Senator Shoebridge in relation to the defence committee bill. What a disgrace! I know what's going to happen here. The coalition is going to squawk about what they want, the government will fold, and, low and behold, we will have a committee that looks after the two big parties rather than looking after the actual defence of Australians and transparency.

I want to raise, in particular, the egregious addition of the prominent anti-siphoning bill to this guillotine list. We know why this is in here. This is in here because both the government and the coalition are doing the dirty work and the bidding of the Murdoch press and News Corp. That is why this is listed in this hours motion today. It will ram through a bill that is going to make it harder for millions of households around the country to be able to access sport for free, to be able to watch their favourite sporting teams on their phone or their smart television without having to pull out their credit card and pay Mr Murdoch for the privilege of barracking for their own team and to participate in the joy that is part of a national religion in this country, which is celebrating the wins and commiserating the losses of our key sporting moments, our key sporting teams and our incredible athletes.

I thought the coalition may have had a bit more spine than simply ramming this bill into a guillotine motion and think that no-one would notice. We are noticing, and we have noticed that you've done nothing to ensure that everyday Australians have access to sport for free and that people in regional areas, in particular, will have access to sport for free.

What this bill does is say: if you've got a television with an old-school aerial, yes, you'll be able to watch key sporting moments on your television, but if you happen to be one of the millions of Australians who use a smart television or your phone or your tablet, bad luck. Why? Because the big corporations and the big streaming corporations—like the American companies Netflix, Amazon and News Corp—want you to be forced to hand over your credit card details and to sign up and spend hundreds of dollars a year just to be able to watch your favourite footy team or the cricket.

We've got the Olympics coming up over the next month. Imagine if this bill goes through unamended, in a few years time Australians will be locked out of being able to access the Olympics because Amazon decides to buy up the rights or Kayo—by the way, it's owned by Murdoch—decides to buy up the rights. It is just unthinkable that a Labor government is doing this to everyday people. And young people in particular are going to cop the brunt of this, because we know that our younger population doesn't sit at home wondering about how the aerial works. If they want to watch something, they whack out their phone or they pull it up on their laptop. This is the way of the world. It is 2024. Everything is moving digital, and we need laws in this country that are fit for purpose.

I saw the National Party went weak and went to water. They pretended they cared about this issue for five seconds, and then they went to water. They are gutless. They couldn't stand up to Dutton, couldn't stand up to Mr Murdoch and have now just rolled this in for the Labor Party.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order—

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

I must have hit a nerve.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm anticipating a point of order with regard to the correct usage of names. I'll give the call now to you, Senator Scarr, to raise your point of order.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If Senator Hanson-Young could refer to members of the other place by their proper titles, please.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is what I thought your point of order was going to be. Senator Hanson-Young, could you be mindful in your comments? If you're going to refer to the Leader of the Opposition, use his name with the correct 'Mr' in front of it.

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

Mr Dutton is good mates with Mr Murdoch. What is happening here is that the National Party have gone to water. They have gone to water because Mr Dutton has said, 'We've got to make the big corporations happy and so we'll tick this one through with the Labor government and Mr Albanese.' This is an opposition party who can never bring themselves to actually debate topics properly. They have been blocking everything else that this government does, but as soon as Mr Murdoch picks up the phone and calls in they go to water. So National Party voters across the country should know that the National Party has sold them out. Their television stations are becoming fewer and fewer. They're getting less and less news in local areas, and now they're not even going to be able to watch the sport. What is the point of the National Party if, every time they are up against a challenge, they fold? It's called bitching and folding, whining and folding.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young, I ask you to consider the standards that are required.

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

I withdrew. It's called whining and folding, rolling over and being spineless and gutless. What is the point of the National Party? Bring back Barnaby Joyce as the leader. I reckon he would have at least stood up for something. He would have actually stood up against this. He probably would have. Mr Barnaby Joyce probably would have stood up to Mr Dutton on this issue and actually stared them down. But he has been gagged, hasn't he? He has been gagged because the Liberal Party and the Labor Party know that, if you want to be government in this country, you have to bow to Murdoch. You've got to kiss the ring. That's what's going on here. It's a disgrace. Everyday Australians are losing access to sport. It's locked behind paywalls. It's going to cost them hundreds of dollars a year. This is an absolute disgrace. It's weak, gutless and pathetic.

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

I am rising only briefly to make one point about this routine of business variation. That is about a bill that's missing from this list, that somehow didn't make its way onto the government's suggested agenda for the guillotine. It's surprising because it's a bill that the government has told us, time and time again, is urgent. In fact, it was so urgent that, when it was introduced in March, we were told that it must be passed in 36 hours and that we couldn't have a Senate inquiry to consider this bill because it was so urgent. The government eventually relented and allowed us to have a two-hour hearing but only on the expectation that the parliament would consider it within 72 hours.

So where are we? Several months on, the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 has not made it onto the government's agenda for this week. They have not listed it on the program. Given the opportunity of a guillotine, to list bills that they consider to be urgent that must be passed before the parliament rises for the winter break, they haven't listed it. Why not? The Minister for Home Affairs, Clare O'Neil, in March, when the opposition teamed up with the entire Senate crossbench to refer this to an inquiry, said that we were delaying this, that it was going to do great harm to our national security and our community safety, that it was a disgrace, that we were standing in the way and playing politics and that this was so urgent that they couldn't possibly allow the community to have their say on this bill in the orthodox and standard way through a parliamentary inquiry. And yet the parliament has now sat in March, May, June and July and, before we are to rise for a long winter break, this urgent bill that must be passed hasn't even made it onto the agenda.

So that raises the question: was this bill ever really urgent in the first place? Was the real urgency of the government that they didn't want scrutiny of this bill, that they didn't want human rights groups, multicultural groups, legal experts and others to scrutinise this legislation, that they were worried about what would happen on their left flank if they tried to push through this bill, which may have even been introduced for political purposes, ahead of a High Court hearing that they couldn't be guaranteed would go their way and subsequently did and therefore the urgency has passed?

For the record, the coalition has offered to work with the government on this bill. We, with Senator Scarr and others, provided a dissenting report on the Senate inquiry that made constructive suggestions about how this bill could be improved and about how due process could be restored to the powers that it proposes to grant to the minister for immigration. We've had further meetings with government. We've had amendments drafted and we've put those to the government. What have we heard in response? Radio silence, crickets, nothing. In fact, the Minister for Home Affairs, when asked about this bill at a press conference the other day, said that it was up to the opposition to facilitate its passage. It's pretty hard to facilitate the passage of a bill that's not even listed on government's program. It is your bill. You need to introduce it. If you want it to be passed, put it on the Notice Paper. Maybe even take the opportunity of the guillotine that you're moving today to list this bill so the parliament can consider it.

We've said time and time again—and I'll repeat it today—that we think there's a genuine public policy problem here that needs to be solved. We do have people who refuse to cooperate with their own removal after being found by every court and every tribunal not to be owed protection. We believe that the measures in this bill can help address that problem, and that's why we've offered to work with government in a sensible bipartisan way to get it passed, with some amendments, to make sure some basic elements of due diligence and parliamentary scrutiny are introduced into that process. But the government hasn't brought it forward, and it's really up to them to explain what has happened to this urgent bill. Why has it disappeared? Why haven't you put it forward? Have the courage of your convictions. Either put forward the bill that you said was urgent for the parliament to consider or admit that you never had any serious intention of legislating this bill, that it was just a political smokescreen to protect yourself against a potentially adverse High Court ruling and that you are in fact walking away from and abandoning a bill that you told us we must ram through this place in 36 hours.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note Senator Lambie will be moving an amendment to government business notice of motion No. 1, which I support, but I want to offer some comments on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2024 that is subject to this guillotine today. This is clearly a bill that deserves further scrutiny in Committee of the Whole and some time for the Senate to ask questions and flesh out some of the remaining questions and issues. I'm confident that we all support the intention of the bill but, looking at the range of the amendments that have been circulated, clearly, there are some issues that the Senate wants to iron out.

This is a bill that jams a digital reform into an analogue-era law and, in parts, it is clumsy. It expands the anti-siphoning list so that people can watch more iconic sporting events for free, but only if they have an aerial. We know that more and more people are watching TV through their smart TVs or over their NBN connection—if you're in the ACT, maybe not over your NBN connection. If you have an aerial, it is probably fine, but if you're going to be living in a new build without an aerial or if you're watching sport on a device, then this won't work for you. It's just going to see sporting rights put behind a paywall, and I really fear that means that a huge chunk of people who can't afford a subscription are going to miss out on events that unite us as a country—events that make us proud, events that offer a collective sense of participating in or watching something, such as cheering on our Olympians or your favourite team.

One of the things that I think is particularly clumsy about this bill is that, on the one hand, the bill recognises that more and more of us are going to be watching TV via an app but, on the other hand, it does nothing to make sure that the same safeguards that we have when we watch television through an aerial are applied to the technology that's evolving as more and more people watch on an app—on their phone, on their laptop or through their smart TV—and I just want to give the Senate some tangible examples. Recently, my office did a sweep of complaints through the alcohol advertising regulator, ABAC. We found Grey Goose vodka ads during Sunrise at 8.30 in the morning.

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

At 8.30 in the morning?

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, at 8.30 in the morning, Senator Hanson-Young. Smirnoff ads were shown to 10-year-olds watching the Amazing Race at 6.30 pm. Beer ads were playing between performances from the Wiggles and Cinderella. How's that for a target audience! Truly a mind-blowing number of ads were shown to children watching LEGO Masters with their families. This includes ads for Gordon's gin, Johnnie Walker, Baileys, Jack Daniel's and Vodka Cruiser. None of these ads would be allowed if you were watching through your aerial on your old-school television. But more and more Australians are watching through their smart TVs, with streaming and video on demand, and there are no rules. Hence, we're getting dozens and dozens of complaints from concerned parents who are tuning in to LEGO Masters and then having to sit through Gordon's gin, Johnnie Walker, Baileys, Jack Daniel's and Vodka Cruiser ads with their eight-year-olds.

Why are we allowing this to happen? Why are we allowing this loophole to continue? This legislation does nothing to close that loophole, despite the government acknowledging that this is a problem. It's a problem, but we're not going to fix it in this legislation. There are simple amendments to actually force the industry, as they do with terrestrial television, to come up with a code and enforce it. What happens with all these complaints from dozens and dozens of parents is that they complain and they get a response saying, 'There are no grounds for your complaint because there are no rules because the parliament is currently failing your children.' We can fix this today during this guillotine.

I'm keen to also have a quick look at gambling. We also had a look at complaints made to Ad Standards and found an absolute clanger. If this doesn't make you think that the rules as they currently stand—and as they'll probably be after this guillotine, because the major parties don't seem to want to address this—need to change, I don't know what will. This was an ad that played during LEGO Masters via the 9Now app before 8.30 pm. So rest assured that there would have been a lot of young people watching. It was an ad for a pokies app literally named Hit it Rich! before 8.30 pm. This ad depicted a woman in a panda onesie hitting it rich and winning big on a pokies app. It even showed an inducement in the form of a welcome bonus. Then—this is the kicker—it failed to display a gambling warning after the ad.

So you're sitting there watching LEGO Masters with your kids. They love LEGO. They're always hassling you about the big LEGO sale here in the ACT or to get down to the toy shop and get the next set of LEGO that they can put together. You're being shown an ad for Hit it Rich! that says, 'Play some pokies on an app. You'll get an inducement,' and there's no warning that this is actually a gambling ad. What's that doing to our kids in a country where we're seeing more and more problem gambling, where we're already the biggest losers in the world? It's no surprise. Again, we could fix this today in this chamber, and I urge my Senate colleagues to do that. It's hard to argue that LEGOMasters is not a show for children. We've seen some advertisers try and argue that, but, at the very least, it's a show for families. Again, it's particularly egregious that it didn't even show the required warning, and this complaint—quite unbelievably, I think—was dismissed because there are no laws about gambling ads shown on free TV apps.

My question to the Senate is: is this within community standards? I've had so many people reach out to me who say that they feel it isn't—that they would like to see us deal with this. We have a bill that touches on it. I have an amendment that deals with it in a sensible way that's in line with what we do with terrestrial TV. If you're watching through an aerial, there's been a process where they come up with a code and then they enforce it. Everyone knows the standard. If you break it, you're held to account. If you want to stream TV through an app, it's a free-for-all, with no rules. There's no standing for people to make complaints and for them to be heard.

I fear that we will see this guillotine supported by the major parties, we'll see amendments that actually deal with this be voted down, and tomorrow night young people are going to be shown alcohol ads and gambling ads. It's hard to believe. This leads into the point that, over one year after the Murphy review, there has been no response on gambling. So I probably shouldn't be surprised that we don't want to close this loophole as a Senate—the majority of the Senate don't want to. I really express my serious concern about this guillotine and not dealing with this incredibly important part of this legislation.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a proposed amendment in relation to the Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2024. I can assure you that, like many other things in this place, this bill can be improved with a bit of thought about the best interests of Australians rather than the best interests of big business, just for once this morning. That'd be delightful to go on the winter break with. My amendment will seek to strengthen the prominence and antisiphoning framework to help Australians easily access free-to-air television programs and sporting events. Seriously, it's a no-brainer, because Australians deserve to see what is free and to be able to see the sport and the teams that they love without having to sign up to a streaming service. The government will not be supporting these changes and I can tell you that neither will the other side, the blue team. They've already done the deal together. They don't care. They don't care that you're going to pay more. They don't care about your kids and the sporting heroes that stand in front of them.

The average Aussie household already spends around 50 bucks a month on streaming services. I imagine that will get less, because things are extremely tight out there. Your government over there has been promising to lower the cost everywhere it can, right across the board. You're not doing a very good job of that. There's a lot of talk and no action. You should be doing everything that you can to lower streaming prices and the cost of living for people around this country, rather than encouraging households to fork out money to watch sport and other programs for your own benefit because you're too scared to take on the Murdochs. That's the truth of it about both of you. Both of you don't want to take on Murdoch. God forbid they might put something terrible about you on the front page of the Australian! Most people don't give a stuff about the Australian. I'll be honest with you: they couldn't care less. Most people don't read the rubbish. Most people don't read newspapers across Australia anymore. They just don't care. They are more interested in the Kardashians than they are in Murdoch.

Under the current bill, the prominence rules will make it easier to find new sport and Aussie shows on smart TVs. But get this, Australians—it's a great day for you today—it will only apply to people who have enough money to buy a brand-new TV. That's right: you may be doing it tough already, but hey! Race out and get a brand-new TV! I'm sure that would be great for the inflation rate, eh? These changes completely ignore the fact that—you might want to do your homework—just one in 10 households have changed their TV in the last six months. There's no money. Normal people out there don't have spare cash, and you don't want them spending anyway—remember?—because that's what drives up interest rates. You call yourselves great economists over here. Blow me over!

My amendment will mean that prominence rules apply to existing television devices rather than just new devices. This means that, when Australians switch on a smart TV, the home screen will include free-to-air application icons alongside paid streaming services. My amendment will make sure that free-to-air television will be easily accessible on TVs, which will benefit many Australians who cannot afford to buy a new smart TV. You're struggling to put milk and bread on the table to feed your kids, and they want you to buy a new smart TV. How disconnected are they from what is really going on out on the ground in society around our great nation?

My amendment also extends search functions on smart televisions so that Australians can easily find what they are looking for and easily find what is free to watch on TV. It's pretty simple. Although the bill doesn't stop streamers like Amazon, Apple and Disney from buying exclusive broadcast rights, it doesn't put the same protections on broadcasts through the internet. My amendment means that free broadcasting and digital streaming rights must be acquired by a free-to-air broadcaster before that event can be bought by subscription providers.

Watching free sport on TV is part of the Australian way of life. How could we get to paying to watch Australian sport on TV? How could we get to this? If my amendment doesn't pass, I want to tell you what's going on in America. I want to make this very clear when it comes to paying for services. The Guardian recently reported that, if American NFL fans want to watch every game, they must pay $1,600 a year for that privilege. That is what they're paying for the privilege to watch the NFL in America now. That's how much they're paying. Australians, wake up! If you think you're not going to pay for your AFL, if you think it's great to spend family time sitting with your kids in the lounge room on a Saturday afternoon and spending time with them, watching the good old footy without paying for it, then those days are over. To all the young kids out there who love the Matildas: your mums and dads are going to be paying for them. They will have to pay to watch them.

How is this supposed to inspire our kids to stay off drugs and alcohol and to become great citizens instead of going into youth crime when they have no idols they can watch on TV for free? You talk big on youth crime, which, by the way, you've done nothing about in the two years you've been here. You haven't done a damn thing! You should be ashamed of yourselves! Now you're going to take those sporting idols off our kids, and they may have encouraged them to stay on the right side of life. You're going to make them pay. How is that helpful and for what? It's so you don't end up being named and shamed on the front of the papers. I don't know if you guys have noticed, but it happens every day to you. It's already happening. If they had made such a big difference to voters in this country, Clive Palmer would have bought up newspapers years ago. Wake up to it! God forbid! No idea!

I want to guarantee that every Australian has the right to watch free sport in this country—not just today and not just this year but next year and the year after. I want our kids to spend time with family. I want those in public housing who can't afford it—those mums and dads—spending time with their kids. I want to see them spending time with their kids. They will be less likely to run into trouble when they become teenagers. They will be less likely to run around with knives through our shopping malls or out there driving cars at 13 and killing people. This is a deterrent. You're taking something else away from them. People have no idea about youth crime and how to fix it in this country, and you should be ashamed of yourselves. You're doing nothing. There will be no more freebies for those families out there who are feeling it tough. You are completely disconnected from them. Australians have always had free access to sports like AFL and NRL, cricket and the Olympics, but global streamers are now buying them up and putting them behind a paywall, like the cricket on Amazon.

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

Exactly!

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's right—your cricket! How are you Aussie kids going out there paying for your cricket? Your heroes are behind paywalls because your politicians have allowed that. You have to pay for access to your heroes and not to stand in front of them but to watch them on the big screen. It is so unfair.

My amendment will make it harder for companies to do this. I agree with the government that this bill goes some way to expand the prominence of the anti-siphoning framework, but it can be improved. Think of the effect it's going to have on that next generation of kids. You should be ashamed of yourselves. You should be totally ashamed of yourselves.

As for the Tasmanian representatives here—both sides, Liberal and Labor—they are doing it tough down there. They are doing it tough. If anyone is doing it tough in those rural and regional areas, it's in Tasmania. And you're going to make those families pay for these services so their kids can watch it. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves today. It's all because you're too cowardly and don't have the guts to take on the Murdochs. Absolutely shameful.

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

I was going to facilitate the putting of the question, but it looks like people may have exhausted anyway. I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

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

There's a Senator Shoebridge amendment, and there's a Senator Lambie amendment. The question is that the question be put on Senator Shoebridge's amendment.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

For the sake of clarity, the minister stood and asked for the question to be put. There are two amendments. One is in the name of Senator Shoebridge, which I intend to put first, and the second is in the name of Senator Lambie. The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

Omit paragraph (a)(i), relating to the Communication Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-Siphoning) Bill 2024.

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

The question is that Senator Lambie's amendment be agreed to.