Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the amendments moved by the honourable minister be agreed to.

Milton Dick

The question is that the member for Warringah's amendments be agreed to.

Adam Bandt

I move:

That:

(1) The House notes:

(a) the House agreed to a resolution requiring all questions necessary to complete consideration of the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 to be put at 1:40 pm;

(b) the opposition was permitted to move its detailed amendment at 1:45 pm; and

(c) the member for Warringah was not permitted to move her detailed amendments after that time, despite her having circulated the amendments and having sought the call.

(2) So much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the resolutions that the bill be agreed to and that the bill be now read a third time being rescinded in order to enable further consideration in detail of the bill, and for the member for Warringah to move amendments as circulated in her name.

There has been a double deception of the House today, as part—

Milton Dick

Just before the Leader of the Greens continues, the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?

Paul Fletcher

I just want to understand the basis on which the Leader of the Greens has jumped to move this motion. He hasn't called for standing orders to be suspended. We've already had one item which, frankly, should not have come on. And this is showing great disrespect, I may say, to the coalition, which has the MPI for today.

Milton Dick

Under the standing orders, any member can move a suspension at any time. I have confirmed that the MPI will follow this immediately. So any member can move a suspension, but I'd just remind members of the order of business that is occurring and to take that in mind in future for any decisions made. The Leader of the Australian Greens has the call.

Adam Bandt

Thank you, Speaker. There has been a double deception of the House today. First, there was a dirty deal between the government and the opposition to ram through a bill that takes away people's rights and could see people end up in jail, right? As part of that, the government and the opposition agreed to a debate management motion. That debate management motion massively favoured the opposition, at the expense of the crossbench, and denied all members of this parliament the ability to contribute to the debate, because the debate management motion that Labor and the Liberals agreed to not only deprived us of any capacity to debate this bill in the ordinary course, by being able to take it back to our constituents, gain advice on it and seek how to deal with something so critical as minimum mandatory sentencing that could see people ending up in jail with no discretion at all, but the debate management motion that was agreed to between the government and the opposition said at point 3:

… at 1.40 pm, if debate has not concluded earlier, the question being put on any remaining questions necessary to complete consideration of the bill …

That's what they agreed to. We opposed this debate management motion—this gagging of debate to ensure that this dirty deal would be done. But, once it was there, we expected it would be stuck to.

But a second deception occurred, because, once it hit 1.40 pm, amendments were allowed to continue to be moved. And, at 1.45 pm, the opposition moved their amendments. So it was clear, at that stage, that one of two things was happening: either the resolution was not being followed, or the government had accepted that there would be time for amendments to be moved, debated and voted on. That is critical, because what the debate management motion also said was that, once we got into the debate, there would be a provision for crossbenchers to move amendments. There would be the provision for the government to move amendments, for the opposition to move amendments and for crossbenchers to move amendments. That was all in the motion.

Now, the member for Warringah did the right thing. She circulated amendments and sought the call, after the opposition, after 1.40 pm, according to the Hansard, was able to move their amendments, but then was not given the opportunity to do it. So there was a double deception where not only was everyone in this place denied the chance to scrutinise the bill and participate in it properly, but then, when it came to following even the rules of the motion itself, that got thrown out the window. What became clear was that not only was there a double deception but also a double standard. When you have a motion that passes this place that says it will go, 'Opposition amendments and then amendments being moved by crossbenchers,' and when it is the case that obviously some leniency appears to be granted because the opposition is allowed to move theirs out of time, but then the crossbenchers are not, on a bill as critical as this, that is a double standard.

The answer has to be that we go back and afford the member for Warringah the same rights that were given to the opposition—namely, to move an amendment out of time and have it debated and voted on. To do that, the second reading question and the third reading question have to be rescinded to allow the debate to be reopened. That is the way to ensure fairness.

If this motion is opposed, and the government says no, then the government is saying: 'We will come into this place and bring a debate management motion. We won't require the opposition to follow it but we will make the crossbench follow it, and they will get punished. We will give special treatment to the Liberals; they get to flout the time lines, if this motion is not supported here in the House today and we are not able to recommit the second and third questions.' It also says to us on the crossbench that we can't take at face value what is put in writing and passed through this parliament. It seems there is one rule for the opposition and a different rule for the crossbench.

This is especially critical when you come in here with a dirty deal—not you, Deputy Speaker Claydon; I withdraw that. It is especially critical when the government comes in here with a dirty deal between Labor and Liberal to ram through legislation that could see people end up in jail and say, 'Oh, we will only give you five minutes to speak. But it's okay, you will have a chance to debate your amendments.' And then that doesn't even turn out to be the case.

This is so critical because we are dealing with legislation that, in the short time we have had available to look at it, permits the following scenario. It could permit a situation where a minister is able to direct a mother to apply for passports for her and her children to return to Iran, even though there is fear of persecution. And, if she doesn't do it, she gets put in jail with a mandatory minimum sentence of one year. Labor's policy platform says that they oppose mandatory minimum sentencing. But this bill doesn't say that. This bill says you get a mandatory minimum sentence.

So that mum, who says she has a genuine fear she will face persecution if she has to be returned there, faces a jail sentence here in Australia. When we seek to contribute to that debate, we are not only denied time to do it by being forced to debate it immediately as soon as it comes in, but we are told we can move amendments, and then we are told we can't but that the opposition can. There is no rationale for this double standard. I urge the government to think about the precedent that this sets for whether or not we can take at face value what they say when they bring it to this place.

Sharon Claydon

Just before I go, I need the attention of the crossbench just for a moment. As I understand it, you are moving a suspension of standing orders, so I want to assist the House to enable this to progress. Your first point would be regarded as out of order. So I am asking if the member for Melbourne might accept that the first point of your motion should in fact be: 'I move that so much of standing orders be suspended in order to move to the second point'—which is in order. Are you agreeable to that?

Adam Bandt

Yes. I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the resolutions 'That the bill be agreed to' and 'That the bill be now read a third time' relating to the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 being rescinded to enable further consideration in detail of the bill and for the Member for Warringah to move amendments as circulated in her name.

Sharon Claydon

Thank you. And now I am seeking a seconder for the motion.

Zali Steggall

I second the motion moved by the member for Melbourne in relation to suspending standing orders to enable proper conduct in this place. To be very clear about what happened today, the government moved a very specific procedural motion to limit debate on the second reading of a controversial bill to 40 minutes. It then included in that procedural motion very specific provisions for questions to be put at the consideration in detail stage, with an express provision for the opposition to be able to put its question and then for a separate question to be put by crossbench members.

The second reading was not concluded in accordance with that motion. It went beyond that 40 minutes. The opposition was then given the call to move its amendment at the consideration in detail stage, and the record indicates that was at 1.45 pm. But, upon seeking the call following the division that ensued, I was overlooked by the chair, and the chair proceeded to go straight to that. At no point was there a question of any member of government standing to say that I was unable to seek the call from the chair to move my consideration in detail amendment, because of there being a decision to revisit the 1.40 time line. It's clear that, when the opposition were given the opportunity to move their amendment past the time in those provisions, the government had waived the provisions of that motion.

It does give rise to a question—I would say a legal question. Once the government allowed the opposition to move their amendment at consideration in detail at 1.45, it had departed from the motion, its own procedural motion. Unless there was intervention by the government to deny the call being granted to me to be able to move my consideration in detail amendment, I respectfully put that it was not within the power of the Speaker to ignore my request for the call to move that motion, because no-one from government sought to deny me that call by saying that the motion limited it.

There is a procedural question here that really raises questions of the integrity of the chamber and the way this works, and I think it puts the Speaker in a really difficult position. I do not wish to cast any negative imputation or anything in relation to the role of the Speaker, but it has put the Speaker in a very difficult position as to the proper management and operation of the House, by the conduct of the government itself. It has failed to implement its own procedural motion and then allow for proper debate to occur.

So that we're really clear, the consideration in detail amendment that was proposed and circulated was to provide that women at risk of or suffering from domestic violence or abuse could not be provided a removal order by the minister. Everyone in this place stands up time and time again to say that they stand for fighting against domestic violence and protecting the rights of women. Yet here we had a real case, an opportunity to make sure that law was not going to be a complete overreach when it comes to women and children in situations of domestic violence and abuse, and the government did not comply with its own motion to allow me to move that amendment. That is why we should be suspending standing orders and revisiting the question.

If, legally, there is a question that we've departed from that procedural motion then the provisions of the standing orders should be regenerated. On the question of reconsideration, standing order 154, for example, specifically provides:

Before the third reading of a bill is moved, a Member may move without notice that a bill be reconsidered in detail, in whole or in part, by the House.

I sought to do that, trying to go by the book, relying on these standing orders. But what was made clear today, by how the House operated and the really difficult position the chair was put in, was that it appears to be a free-for-all. It appears that the government can move a procedural motion that makes specific considerations and provisions for the debate and the process for a bill—rightly or wrongly, of course; I'll put aside my concerns around the curtailing of debate—but then depart from that without amending the motion and, I would say, put the whole consideration in question as to the legitimacy of the vote that occurred. The only way that can be fixed is by supporting this motion to suspend standing orders, return to the question and enable standing order 154 to be engaged so that the bill can be reconsidered and consideration in detail can properly proceed.

Milton Dick

The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Australian Greens be agreed to.

Dan Tehan

What a sham this whole process is. This is a marathon—no, it's not a marathon; it's an ultramarathon in incompetence. It dates back to last May, and here we are today facing more and more incompetence. What a complete and utter mess.

Let's look at the process that we went through today. At 7.30 am, we had some legislation dropped off to us, and we were told that there would be a briefing at eight o'clock. That legislation, the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024, was ready, and it had a time and date on it: last Friday. Now, did the minister come to us and say, 'Okay, we want to give you this legislation so that you can look at it over the weekend and so that you can make sure there are no unintended consequences'? No, he did not. He sat on it over the weekend. He sat on it yesterday. Then he presented it to us today.

That is incompetence because, if it's not considered properly, if we can't look at the detail, if we can't make sure that there are no unintended consequences, this legislation might not do the job that the minister is hoping that it will do. That is why we have called on the government to have an inquiry in the Senate tonight. I hope that the government will support that enquiry. I hope that the crossbenchers will make sure that they support that enquiry. Although we only have limited time to look at this, we need that time to make sure we can interrogate this bill.

Let's look at the minister's track record when it comes to legislation going through this House and through this parliament. Let's look at his failure, on three key times, to turn up to legal briefings from his own department, which led us to the mess that we are in today. That in and of itself should be enough for the Prime Minister to have acted, but he hasn't. That's why we're sitting here today having to consider, debate and discuss a piece of legislation that we received at 7.30 am.

This piece of legislation was prepared and ready to go last Friday, yet the minister decided: 'Oh, no, I've got to be really careful. I don't want anything that I'm doing properly scrutinised or properly looked out, because it might show, once again, the errors of my ways.' That is the problem. When you have a minister in witness protection, a minister who can't even front up to the media today to say, 'We're going to be introducing this legislation. This is what it will do,' you end up getting mistake after mistake. That is why we want an inquiry tonight. We want that inquiry in the Senate so that at least we've got some time to be able to grill the department and see whether this legislation will do what it's set out to do and won't lead to unintended consequences.

What is one of our greatest fears when it comes to the botched and chaotic way that this legislation continues to be produced? You have to remember, I think this is the fourth or the fifth time that we've had rushed legislation put into this place. That is why we want it looked at. One of the serious unintended consequences that we are very, very concerned about is what this chaotic and botched approach is going to do to people smugglers. Our great fear—and, sadly, we saw this last Friday—is that we are going to see the people smugglers get their model going again. We really need to be able to drill down on this legislation to make sure that it's not providing that incentive. We've already seen boats arrive on the mainland and we saw, tragically, people drowning at sea last Friday. We have to be very conscious that this legislation and the way it's been drafted—the chaotic way the minister continues to do his job—doesn't provide perverse incentives for the boats to start up again, because no-one in this place wants to see that happening.

But, sadly, the way the government has approached this issue, dating back to the autumn of last year, has seen the people smugglers get their business model up and running again. That is our gravest concern when it comes to this legislation, and that is why we want to make sure we can get the department before a Senate hearing and grill them to make sure the chaotic and dysfunctional approach the government is taking won't lead to the type of unintended consequences that none of us want to see. When it comes to the way this government has handled immigration, the Australian people want the confidence that the government are getting something right, and so far they haven't been able to get anything right. The approach they're taking, the processes they're using, the botched and rushed way they're doing this gives the Australian people no confidence whatsoever that the immigration portfolio is being handled in a way that protects their safety.

I say to the minister and I say to the government: when your No. 1 priority is to keep the Australian community safe, they deserve better than what you're dishing up at the moment; they deserve much, much better. The fact that you would produce this legislation in the way and the form that you have shows that you have no idea what you are doing. What the Australian people want to see when it comes to their protection is a methodical approach, a considered approach, an approach where you go out and where you consult, an approach where, if you need bipartisanship, you just don't ram it down people's throats. That is what the Australian people are looking for when it comes to their safety.

Instead, the Australian people have now had, dating back to last autumn, error, mistake and buffoonery from the government the whole time, and they deserve better than that. So, I say to the minister: if you are going to get anything right and do something correctly in your portfolio, you need to make sure your government agrees to an inquiry tonight so that we have some time to consider this bill, some time to consult on this bill and then some time to interrogate your department on this bill. The sad reality is that we know that your track record of attending legal briefings is three-zip—three legal briefings, zero times attending those legal briefings. It is simply not good enough. We want to make sure you are doing your job, because there is no more important job than keeping the Australian community safe.

Kylea Tink

I'm rising to raise a number of concerns with the piece of legislation that has been put before the House, the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024. Had there been more time, I may have actually moved a second reading amendment on it. Given that time does not allow for that process, at this point in time I would like to make the following points.

Upon reviewing the piece of legislation that was provided to us this morning, I think there are a number of key weaknesses. The first of them is the breadth of the legislation. While it would appear that the immediate justification or impetus for this bill is the need to deal with the NZYQ affected cohort and, in particular, the pending litigation in the High Court examining whether people who are refusing to cooperate with their removal fall under the test for release put forward in NZYQ, the bill goes far beyond that by targeting anyone on a removal pathway. That includes unlawful noncitizens; those that are on a bridging removal pending visa, or BVR holders as they're called; those on a bridging general visa, a BVE holder; and, extraordinarily, any other noncitizens prescribed in the Migration Regulations, which would allow the minister to basically designate other cohorts to be added.

At a minimum, I think this bill should be revised to only apply to the NZYQ affected cohort, noting that the previous bills relating to the monitoring conditions and the preventative detention disorders, moved in this House in a very similar fashion, were limited to that cohort. There's a real risk under this legislation that people with whom Australia has non-refoulement obligations will be forced, through criminal sanctions, to cooperate in their removal to countries where they face persecution.

Section 119(4)(b) of subdivision E makes it clear that, even when someone is a person with respect to whom Australia has a non-refoulement obligation, that's not a reasonable excuse for non-compliance. What is the justification for including this provision, and what measures has or will the government take to ensure that people are not returned to countries where they'll face persecution?

The second point I'd like to make is that we know as a parliament and we know as a country that our asylum processes do not always get it right, particularly for those who have been subject to the fast-track procedures that we know were unfair. Where the process fails to accurately identify protection needs, applicants will be forced to cooperate in their removal to a country where they may face persecution.

The third point is that this act should concern us all when it comes to the welfare of children. Under this reformed legislation, parents and guardians will be forced, through the threat of criminal sanction, to take actions in aid of having their children removed from Australia. This violates the foundational principle under the international law in relation to the best interests of the child.

Ultimately, Australia is a signatory to the Refugee Convention. We are a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. By passing laws like this, we do our country and our citizenry a disservice.

Andrew Hastie

Here we are again. The government is trying to bind up a weeping sore with rushed, reflexive legislation in a portfolio that they do not control, and they are panicked. You can sense the panic across the table. Fundamentally, this is about leadership, or rather the absence of leadership—which is really just another way of saying 'bad leadership'. We have a hapless minister for immigration presiding over a debacle running since the middle of last year in his portfolio, and time and time again we see this minister unable to impose himself on the situation.

Governing a country requires dynamic, responsive leadership not just at the top but across all portfolios, and we're not seeing that at all in the immigration portfolio. Sadly, what we see instead is a flat-footed, confused, panicked minister and this bill, the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024, briefed to the coalition at 7.30 am for just 20 minutes. That happened this morning, and the Australian people deserve better than this. They expect us to be transparent and accountable when we pass bills of this consequence. This government has been floundering since the middle of last year. They have been unable to anticipate events as they unfold, with grave consequences for the Australian community.

The handling of the NZYQ case was a case study in failed government. This government has had from the middle of last year, when the High Court had a directions hearing on NZYQ, and it was plain to see then that there would be issues with this case and others like it. Yet did the minister act? No, he did nothing—no legislation, no prudential action to protect the Australian community. At every turn it's been up to the opposition to lead the government. It was the member for Wannon, Senator Paterson in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition leading and guiding the government on legislative responses to the case at hand. The opposition has been leading. It's been the tail wagging the dog, which is frankly not good enough from this government.

Even then, the government failed to act. We saw 149 criminals, murderers, sex offenders and paedophiles, among others, released into the Australian community—you can't make this up. It's shameful. Now we see the government flapping in anticipation of the High Court ruling in ASF17, the case of an Iranian man who has refused to cooperate with authorities in Australia and been found not to be owed protection. If he is successful in his case, it could have implications for hundreds more people currently in immigration detention in this country who would be released into the community on the basis that their detention is indefinite because they refused to cooperate with Australia's efforts to deport them.

So here we are—new legislation, briefed this morning at 7.30 am for only 20 minutes, rushed. I'm confident the crossbench hasn't had a briefing. It's right that we call for a Senate inquiry immediately into this bill. You've got the Greens and their affiliates on the crossbench firing their cannons, and they have a point; there's been no due process and no Senate inquiry. But we part company there with the crossbench, because we believe in strong borders on this side of the House. It was the coalition who stopped the boats after the debacle of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. And now Labor, since coming to power, are weakening our borders. That weakness is provocative, and we see that because we've seen 12 or 13 boats arrive on Australian shores since May 2022.

This bill gives the minister significant powers to direct cooperation of noncitizens in their removal from this country. There's power in this bill, but this bill can't substitute for strong prudent government and leadership from the Albanese government. This minister is weak; he's unable to impose himself on the situation, and he is now seeking to slam rushed legislation through both houses without an inquiry. It's not good enough, and the Australian people deserve better. They deserve transparency and accountability. The side of the House is calling for a Senate inquiry immediately because we all deserve better from this government.

Long debate text truncated.

Tony Burke

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent:

(1) debate on the second reading resuming immediately, with the time limit for the first Opposition speaker being 10 minutes, and the time limit for all other Members speaking being five minutes;

(2) the second reading debate continuing for no longer than one hour, after which the bill being passed through all its stages without delay.

I'd indicate to the House that, in a moment, while we have the debate on the contingent motion, the government will move an amendment to what's on the Notice Paper. That amendment is to make sure a few things happen. Firstly, and most importantly, it will make sure that this bill is fully dealt with before we get to question time. The reason for that is that there is a time sensitivity to this legislation, and we want to make sure that the Senate is in a position to be able to consider the bill today. Transmission between the houses means the only way to make sure that's possible is for us to have completed our consideration of the bill prior to question time.

Secondly, and this is not on the contingent motion, there is the capacity for there to be a consideration-in-detail stage at the request of the opposition. We are making sure it that it will be possible for an amendment to be moved in consideration in detail, and that will be part of the amendment to the resolution that I've just moved. The minister has made clear the government's reasons for why this is time sensitive. We're wanting to make sure that both houses have an opportunity in the time that we are here this week to make the decisions that need to be taken in the national interest.

I respect the different views around the parliament in terms of wanting to make sure that legislation is never dealt with in this fashion. I hear those arguments. I'm sure we'll hear those arguments again in a few moments time. The reality is that there is a strong national interest here. There is a particular time sensitivity, and there is a need to make sure that both houses have an opportunity to be able to deal with this issue prior to the parliament rising on Wednesday evening. I commend the motion to you, knowing full well it's about to be amended.

Mark Butler

As foreshadowed by the Leader of the House, I move, as an amendment to the motion by the Leader of the House, that paragraphs (1) and (2) be amended and paragraphs (3) and (4) be added as follows:

That paragraphs (1) and (2) be amended and paragraphs (3) and (4) be added as follows:

(1) debate on the second reading resuming immediately, with the time limit for the first two Opposition speakers being 10 minutes, and the time limit for all other Members speaking being five minutes;

(2) the second reading debate continuing without interruption for no longer than 40 minutes, questions being immediately put on any amendments moved to the motion for the second reading and on the second reading of the bill, after which the bill being considered in detail with the bill being considered as a whole, with all Government amendments to be moved together, all Opposition amendments to be moved together, and any crossbench Members' amendments to be moved as one set per Member, with:

(a) one question to be put on all Government amendments;

(b) one question to be put on all Opposition amendments;

(c) separate questions to be put on any sets of amendments moved by crossbench Members;

(d) one question to be put that the bill [as amended] be agreed to; and

(e) any question provided for under subparagraphs (2)(a) to (2)(d) being put after no more than five minutes of debate on each set of amendments;

(3) at 1.40 pm, if debate has not concluded earlier, the question being put on any remaining questions necessary to complete consideration of the bill; and

(4) automatic interruptions to business under the standing orders, and deferral of divisions, not applying during proceedings on the bill".

Adam Bandt

Firstly, I wonder whether a written copy of the amendment to the contingent motion is available. It has not been made available to us. Secondly, I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the second reading debate on the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 not be resumed until the next day of sitting".

This is extraordinary. Legislation was first made available and introduced to the parliament this morning. Usually it then gets deferred to another day so that people have time to consider it and make considered contributions. When we are talking about something so vital as the relationship between this parliament and the High Court, and the constitutional rights of people and what it means for immigration in this country, and when we see a bill that is introduced here that, in the time that we've had available to look at it, says in express terms 'even if someone has a genuine fear of persecution' they can be forced to do things that could see them put in jail if they're not prepared to go back to the country that they fear being persecuted in—we should have time to consider that and we should have time to debate that and scrutinise it.

Despite what the Leader of the House said, nothing in the immigration minister's speech talked about the urgency of this. It was boilerplate rhetoric that could have been written by the coalition, about maintaining strong borders—and no doubt the coalition is going to get up and talk about how this was all there idea to begin with. Nothing was put forward that justifies us losing the usual rights that everyone in this parliament has to consider such important legislation.

On our reading of the legislation, this could occur: a mum who refuses to sign a passport application for her children to be returned to Iran, where they have a fear of persecution, could be put in jail—not only could be put in jail but with a mandatory minimum sentence. Labor's party platform says Labor opposes mandatory minimum sentencing. No, you don't! It's in this bill! You're saying that someone who has a genuine fear of persecution for themselves or their kids can end up in jail—and not just once but repeatedly. As we read this bill, in the short time that we've had available to digest it, the minister can say: 'I give you a direction to apply for a passport for you and your kids to go back to a place where you have a genuine fear of persecution, and if you don't comply you get put in jail for a year, minimum.'

I want to hear from the minister how he is going to explain what happens when the first woman who is sent back to Iran under this legislation gets put in prison and what happens when the first person who has fled Russia because of a fear of persecution gets sent back there and is no longer contactable. They're the kinds of things that everyone in this place deserves the time to consider and answer.

What we do know—the only glimmer that we've had—is that there is a court case that is on foot where someone is fearing persecution on the basis of their sexuality and their religion. They've identified that; they've stuck their hand up and said that. And before even letting the court decide, the minister says: 'We now want the unilateral power to send you back to a country where you face persecution, where you have a genuine fear that you, yourself, are facing persecution. If you don't do it, we'll lock you up with a mandatory minimum sentence, because Labor has thrown that principle out the window.'

This is Labor desperately trying to outflank the coalition in a race to the bottom on immigration, which is only going to whip up attacks on migrants and more racism in our community. I've got a lesson for the government, a piece of advice: don't try and engage in a race to the bottom with the Leader of the Opposition, because there's nothing he won't do. He has built his career on punching down and demonising people.

To come in here and say, in a speech that could have been written by the Leader of the Opposition himself, 'We are tough on borders'—no. It'll be this today and it'll be something else tomorrow. We were in exactly this position last year, we're in this position now and we're going to be in this position again and again.

If you want to know why Labor's vote went backwards at the last election, why the coalition's vote went backwards and why you have more third voices here than ever before, it's because people want scrutiny over the dirty deals that get done by Labor and the opposition, especially when it comes to people's rights and protecting them. That's why the debate should be adjourned.

Milton Dick

Is the amendment seconded?

Elizabeth Watson-Brown

I second the amendment.

Milton Dick

And you reserve your right to speak.

Zali Steggall

It is deeply disappointing, from the government and from the minister, to find ourselves here now, debating a motion to essentially fast-track this legislation with no delay, no scrutiny and no debate. This is legislation on which we were briefed by the minister only a couple of hours ago, that has numerous questions and detail to which there was no answer from the minister. There are grave questions about the consequences and the far-reaching implications of this legislation, yet you are here asking this place to fast-track it without even 24 hours to consider it. It is outrageous and incredibly undemocratic. It is an absolute parody of what this place is supposed to be about, in relation to looking at what good legislation can do and having the time to consider whether it has unintended consequences.

I would look at the backbenches behind you, Minister. I can imagine everyone squirming because, for everyone, this is uncomfortable. This is not part of the Labor policy platform. As the Leader of the Greens just said, the question of mandatory sentencing is incredibly significant. This is an incredibly important step that has to be taken very carefully with a lot of scrutiny for unintended consequences—the risk in relation to domestic violence and for people that, maybe through domestic violence, abuse or homelessness, find their way into a position where they could be subject to these provisions. There are so many areas that need to be looked at. For people not understanding the consequences of this legislation, this is far reaching. This is asking of people: either cooperate with your removal or we will take action against your entire country, against anyone wanting to come from that country.

In terms of precedents for this, the minister indicated that the UK passed similar legislation two years ago but haven't really applied it, so we have nothing to go by, and then there is the US. So we're in completely new territory. You are saying that, without proper scrutiny or debate, we should all just consider and vote on this legislation. It's says something about the opposition that they are also willing to contemplate that this debate go forward. I haven't heard any speakers yet in relation to slowing this down.

For all of the backbenchers of Labor: are these really the values you subscribe to? Is this what selling your soul to a party means—that you will not have a voice when it comes to very important debates to give proper policy and legislation true scrutiny? Will you go back to your communities and say: 'We waved this through with'—what is it?—'40 minutes of debate. There was no opportunity for consultation with law societies to truly consider the proper implications of this legislation.' I have a lot of time for the minister but I am deeply, deeply disappointed with his actions today, in trying to push this through with such a short time line. If this were such a problem, it should have been worked on for a long time.

It's not going to only apply to those that were released as a direct consequence of the High Court decision. This will apply to many more people that are in these kinds of situations, who are here under bridging visas. We know that the previous Administrative Appeals Tribunal was incredibly bad, slow and ineffective in dealing with a lot of migration and refugee cases. We have a situation now where you've acknowledged that as a government. We've passed Administrative Review Tribunal legislation to have a new body in place, yet you're implementing legislation that will capture many people that fell foul of the AAT, who will be caught by this legislation. It's just so far reaching. It's hard to comprehend that this is the path and the legacy that you, as a government, want to leave behind.

Your legislation doesn't even include a mandatory review period. In the 30 minutes spare we've had since our briefing, we've at least been able to present some amendments to at least ensure there's a review process. But I'm sure the answer from government will be, 'We haven't even had time to consider your amendments, so we couldn't possibly support them.' But here we are being asked to suspend standing orders and put in place a joke of a debate. This is a parody of what democratic debate should look like. Shame on every member of government for supporting this and for coming into this place and doing something that is deeply, deeply undemocratic.

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Ryan be agreed to.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Australian Greens be agreed to.

Gavin Pearce

On behalf of the federal coalition I rise today to speak on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024. In doing so, I'm proud to affirm to the House that on this side of the chamber the coalition continues to be a strong, dependable and ardent supporter of Australia's resources sector. On this side we remain committed to ensuring that this crucial industry, which generates and delivers so much wealth, is able to keep investing in our nation.

It's worth recognising just how important that contribution is. In 2022 and 2023 Australia's gas industry generated approximately $92 billion in export earnings, which provided direct economic support to federal, state and territory budgets. Australian gas also powers energy and manufacturing across our country and provides affordable energy security to our international partners. Therefore, if these sorts of projects continue to be threatened, we jeopardise billions and billions of dollars worth of investment and run the risk of not being able to supply the international market with the vital energy supplies it needs. Further to this, Australia is set to hit a gas supply cliff by 2026, and with continued attacks on the gas sector we run the risk of not being able to encourage, to facilitate and to secure the substantial investment our country requires to avert this crisis. Therefore sensible government policy which supports the resources industry, which incentivises investment and which will help develop greater prosperity of this sector and the whole nation is so desperately needed at this time.

But this is not what we're seeing from this government. The circulation of an amendment attempting to restrict sensible reforms to offshore regulations is an attempt to appease the Greens. These amendments add a new EPBC trigger into the decision-making process, which would completely remove the EPBC exemption for offshore products if the minister for the environment decides they don't like a particular offshore gas regulation. And by adding the sunset clause into these amendments the government has assured that when they inevitably bungle the regulation reform there'll be no chance to fix it. We're going through this entire process right now because of provisions to fix regulations that simply don't exist. Why would the government then move an amendment to remove those exact provisions, which we are voting on right now?

We will be opposing this amendment to this bill. And it is telling that, despite the government having bipartisan support from the coalition for this bill in its original form, when Mr Bandt said 'jump', Labor couldn't help itself from watering down those parts of the bill—important reforms—whilst running scared of the radicals who want to shut the industry down.

Because we want to continue to see a government that puts good policy before politics, especially if it means cooperating with the coalition, this bill has bipartisan support. Labor had no need to crumble to the Greens pressure—yet they did. It begs the question: why do they always slap away the hand of bipartisanship in favour of bowing to the Greens' agenda? This is indicative of the type of government the Prime Minister leads. Labor will go to the media and plead the bipartisanship thing, or attack the coalition for not blindly supporting them in their legislative agenda. But when the opportunity for real bipartisanship presents itself, Labor cannot help themselves. Instead of continuing to work with the coalition, whose support Labor had already secured, they folded to the Greens. Yet again, it's the Greens' tail wagging the Labor dog. When will Labor end the charade and just offer Mr Bandt a position in their cabinet, because he's obviously already there writing their policies. Despite all of the posturing by Labor and all that they do to support the resources sector—

Mike Freelander

Order. The member for Melbourne has a point of order.

Adam Bandt

Mr Deputy Speaker, my point of order is that you should enforce the rule that members should be referred to by their titles.

Mike Freelander

That's true. Members should be referred to by their titles. So I would ask the member for Braddon to do that, please.

Gavin Pearce

I take the point, Deputy Speaker. Despite all the posturing that Labor does about supporting the resources sector and understanding the need for gas in our energy mix, they still cannot bring themselves to deliver the proper reform. Instead, as usual, they bow to the Greens and to the radical Labor Environmental Action Network. It's disappointing to see the resources minister's authority being stripped by the environment minister. But it does not come as any surprise to the coalition, because we all know that it is ideology that drives this government, not good policy. To continue to attack this sector, which is still under immense pressure thanks to Labor's policies, is simply layering bad policy on top of more bad policy.

There are elements of this bill that are important, and it is important that we discuss those. It's important to note that the workplace health and safety reforms contained within this bill are based on a review that the coalition conducted during our term of government. In fact, many of the measures are already in place, with the oil and gas industry holding themselves to very high standards when it comes to matters of health and safety in the workplace. Ultimately, Australians who are employed in the resources sector are fortunate enough to operate in one of the best environments in the world. They earn great wages. They operate in safe and secure conditions, and they support those vital projects which provide such tremendous contributions to our domestic energy security and to the energy security of our partners. The coalition remain ardent supporters of those workers in our resources sector. We support the necessary reforms to workplace health and safety measures that ensure all Australians can go to work and can return home safely. That's why we initiated this review.

The bill before the House today also enables the government to deliver urgent reforms for offshore regulations. Although, unfortunately, it must be pointed out that the Albanese Labor government has put Australia's natural gas market under extreme pressure, with heavy-handed interventions and policies that are harming investment, not increasing supply. Over the past 18 months, at every single opportunity, the coalition has repeatedly warned the government of long-term impacts that their policies will have on this vital sector. We have called on the Labor government to cease and desist with their constant interventions and to instead proactively engage with the industry to urgently address the looming natural gas shortfalls. And today we repeat this message loud and clear.

The coalition notes that a significant component of this bill strengthens the potential for the Minister for Resources to genuinely and constructively engage with industry and to ensure that these sorts of projects are able to progress without delay. Despite Labor watering down their own reforms by letting the environment minister empire-build and seize control of the resources minister's decision, it is still vital that urgent reforms to these regulations and processes exist. These are reforms that the coalition have been demanding for more than 18 months.

The coalition will not block this bill. Despite the government trying to undermine the bipartisan work that has occurred within the second amendments. We acknowledge that modelling released late last year confirmed that more natural gas is needed, with the demand for Australian gas rising by up to 30 per cent from current levels by 2050. And so, faced with looming shortfalls on the east coast and Western Australia, it is now critical that new gas developments are supported and brought online. Otherwise, we run the risk of blackout and shortfalls dramatically increasing as time goes on.

In terms of the immense contributions of royalties and taxes from our gas sector and the taxes that they provide to state and federal budgets, in 2022 and 2023 this amounted to a staggering $16 billion. These taxation receipts could fund the construction of around 11 new public hospitals or 160 new schools or cover annual public health care to the tune of 1.67 million Australians.

However, despite all that wealth, despite all the revenue and despite all the investment that the gas industry gives to our nation, we continue to witness the shameful spectacle of the ideological crusaders and extreme activists who are hellbent on waging war against this great sector.

When it comes to legislation such as this, it's absolutely paramount that the government does everything it can, everything in its power, to ensure that proper reforms are made to support the Australian gas industry, for both the continued strength of the sector and the continued protection of workers, their rights and their safety. Every Australian worker should be able to come home safe at the end of a day's work. This bill strengthens health and safety standards for this industry. Our offshore workers play an important role for both our domestic energy supply and supporting our international community.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, not only does our gas industry power Australian homes and businesses, but it's also crucial to keeping the lights on for our strategic partners—countries like South Korea and Japan, who already rely on Australian gas in order to power their populations—and it is essential that we continue to provide a stable and secure gas supply to these countries.

It's as simple as this: if Australia's offshore oil and gas sector continues to face the combination of sustained and relentless attacks from activists, as well as the damaging and misguided government policies, then all of the supply is put at tremendous risk, which in turn puts many international relationships at risk.

To conclude, while the federal coalition will not block this bill from progressing through the House, it's imperative that the government takes the decisive action to implement real and urgent changes to support the gas industry and sector as well as the broader resource sector throughout the country. Right now, the layering of industrial relations policies, the safeguard mechanism, the ongoing attacks from legal activists and general anti-business environment will have a long-term impact on investment prospects going into the future.

We cannot afford to lose the tremendous prosperity that this sector has brought our nation. So, despite Labor's unnecessary yet unsurprising capitulation to the Greens political party, the coalition will support the passage of the bill because we know the importance of delivering certainty and security for our resources sector.

Long debate text truncated.

Jason Clare

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

This is a great day for Australian research. It's a great day for our researchers. It's a great day for our universities. It's a great day for our reputation in the international research community. The Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023, which will pass the parliament in a few minutes, modernises the Australian Research Council and sets it up for the future. It gives certainty to our researchers and universities around research grant funding. It strips away the political interference that has held Australian research back. It does all these things despite the opposition of the coalition.

They opposed this bill right from the get-go. They opposed it in the face of an independent review from a panel of eminent experts, and they opposed it despite broad sector support. They opposed it when regional universities were applauding it for giving a voice to regional, rural and remote researchers. Why did they oppose it? Because they want the ARC to be a political plaything for Liberal Party ministers. That ends today with the passage of this bill.

I once again thank the ARC Review Panel led by Professor Margaret Sheil AO. I thank the many stakeholders who supported the review and this bill—like the Group of Eight, who said that these governance reforms were not only overdue but were essential to the nation's long-term interests; Universities Australia who called it 'game-changing'; and Science and Technology Australia who called the review report a 'thoughtful blueprint for modernisation'. My thanks also go to Senators David Pocock, Faruqi and Thorpe for their thoughtful engagement on it and their amendments which have made this bill even stronger. I commend those amendments and the bill to the House.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the Senate amendments be agreed to.