Milton Dick

The question before the House is that this bill be now read a third time.

Kylea Tink

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on the sheet revised 13 May 2024, as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 17 (line 14), omit "18 months", substitute "12 months".

(2) Schedule 1, item 24, page 24 (line 7), omit "18 months", substitute "12 months".

The amendments I'm moving today would shorten the timeframe for the prominence provisions to come into effect to 12 months after the bill passes. As the bill currently stands, manufacturers would have an 18-month transition period, after which they would be required to ensure that their prominence obligations have been met. Having reviewed the views of many stakeholders, the submissions made to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee and the recommendations of that committee, I believe it is both appropriate and feasible to fast-track the prominence provisions. Specifically, the Senate committee, after thoroughly examining this legislation, recommended:

… that the Minister for Communications and the Australian Communications and Media Authority consider options for a phased approach to the proposed prominence framework and or a reduction to a 12-month timeframe.

Manufacturers have been aware of the proposed prominence obligations for some time now, giving them time to consider necessary preparations. Additionally, many of the changes necessary to meet the prominence provisions are controlled by software rather than hardware. So, while many of the manufacturers will be meeting the needs of the global marketplace, the truth is that the software is tailored to where the device is landing. As we all know, software updates happen at a sometimes frightening and frequent pace.

During the Senate inquiry into this bill, experts made it clear that many of the changes required could be made, effectively, overnight through a server update. In fact, some experts have suggested that the prominence requirements for manufacturers could be implemented within six months—six months sooner than the amendment that I am moving actually proposes. But, given the Senate committee's recommendation and given everything that I have heard, my amendments propose that the timeframe be shortened from 18 months to 12 months, because the truth is this: for every month that we delay, we risk Australians paying for content that is actually otherwise available to them free of charge because we simply don't have the prominence framework right in this nation.

Michelle Rowland

I thank the member for North Sydney for her amendments and for her interest and engagement in these matters. I note that the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee recommended that the government consider options for a phased approach to the proposed prominence framework and/or a reduction to a 12-month timeframe. I have given this recommendation close consideration. I remain of the view that the 18-month period in the bill strikes a balance between a range of factors. Firstly, the prominence framework is novel, and an 18-month implementation timeframe is a prudent approach to the commencement of any new regulations. Secondly, the bill interacts with global manufacturing and distribution supply chains, with long lead times involved in the design, development, manufacture and distribution of devices. Manufacturers need a reasonable timeframe to adjust to the new framework. Thirdly, there needs to be a realistic period of time for the regulator, the ACMA, to establish the operative and detailed elements of the framework. This market is evolving rapidly, and connected TV devices are not homogenous. For these reasons, the government will oppose this amendment.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for North Sydney be agreed to.

Lisa Chesters

In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved earlier today for the suspension of standing and sessional orders by the honourable member for Melbourne, on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed.

Milton Dick

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

Andrew Wilkie

I seek leave to move the following motion:

That the House:

(1) notes that:

(a) last night the Member for Clark revealed deeply disturbing allegations of egregious misconduct within the AFL provided by former Melbourne Football Club President, Glen Bartlett, former Melbourne team doctor, Zeeshan Arain, and Shaun Smith, father of Melbourne player and now alleged drug trafficker Joel Smith, including:

(i) the prevalence of drug abuse and other prohibited behaviour across the AFL;

(ii) in particular the "off the books" drug testing of players at Dorevitch Pathology in Heidelberg, facilitated by the former Chief Medical Officer of the AFL, Peter Harcourt;

(iii) the resting of players testing positive in these secret tests, ostensibly on account of injury;

(iv) wilful inaction by AFL executives; and

(v) the removal of Mr Bartlett as President of MFC after he suggested to current AFL Chairman Mr Richard Goyder and then AFL Chief Executive Mr Gillon McLachlan that AFL officials be regularly drug tested;

(b) this subverts the official drug testing conducted by Sports Integrity Australia on behalf of the World Anti-Doping Authority; and

(c) the Member for Clark was denied leave from the Government when seeking to table documents containing evidence relating to these allegations; and

(2) therefore allows the Member for Clark to table the documents referred to in his speech.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Clark from moving the following motion:

That the House:

(1) notes that:

(a) last night the Member for Clark revealed deeply disturbing allegations of egregious misconduct within the AFL provided by former Melbourne Football Club President, Glen Bartlett, former Melbourne team doctor, Zeeshan Arain, and Shaun Smith, father of Melbourne player and now alleged drug trafficker Joel Smith, including:

(i) the prevalence of drug abuse and other prohibited behaviour across the AFL;

(ii) in particular the "off the books" drug testing of players at Dorevitch Pathology in Heidelberg, facilitated by the former Chief Medical Officer of the AFL, Peter Harcourt;

(iii) the resting of players testing positive in these secret tests, ostensibly on account of injury;

(iv) wilful inaction by AFL executives; and

(v) the removal of Mr Bartlett as President of MFC after he suggested to current AFL Chairman Mr Richard Goyder and then AFL Chief Executive Mr Gillon McLachlan that AFL officials be regularly drug tested;

(b) this subverts the official drug testing conducted by Sports Integrity Australia on behalf of the World Anti-Doping Authority; and

(c) the Member for Clark was denied leave from the Government when seeking to table documents containing evidence relating to these allegations; and

(2) therefore allows the Member for Clark to table the documents referred to in his speech.

There is an urgent need to suspend standing orders and deal with this motion, because we now know that there's a secret game happening behind AFL games, and the government needs to act urgently to stop it. In the Federation Chamber last night, I ventilated deeply troubling allegations of misconduct in the AFL, in particular concerning the systemic failure of the AFL to effectively test for and prevent the use of prohibited drugs or to sanction players and officials found to have used prohibited drugs. I noted:

… the term 'white line fever' has taken on a different and sinister meaning at the AFL.

And I made it perfectly clear that the allegations are detailed in signed statements which I tried to enter into the parliamentary record but was stopped from doing so by the government in what I assume was a massive misstep or a cover-up.

Since then, the whistleblowers who provided the material have implored me to do everything I can to ensure that these documents are tabled and read by the Prime Minister, because they're tired of cover ups. We all are. Incredibly, the AFL have this morning chosen not to deny the allegations. The Swans CEO is even being reported as having spoken to the AFL, who have admitted that the off-the-books drug testing regime does in fact exist.

The whistleblowers are so concerned, and I am pushing so hard on this, because such appalling behaviour endangers the lives, safety and future of players and officials; subverts the official drug testing conducted by Sports Integrity Australia on behalf of the World Anti-Doping Agency; and is a fraud on the governments and taxpayers that provide millions of dollars in support to the AFL directly and indirectly, through tax breaks, grants and beneficial capital works, conditional on the AFL being a signatory to and complying with the World Anti-Doping Code. This evidence shows that they are wilfully breaking this requirement.

In essence, the scheme facilitated by former AFL chief medical officer Peter Harcourt would give players access to off-the-books drug tests, before games, at Dorevitch Pathology in Heidelberg in Victoria. If no drugs were detected in the players' systems, they would play. If drugs were detected, the player would be advised to fake an injury. This allowed players to circumvent the match day drug testing by Sports Integrity Australia, as required under the World Anti-Doping Code.

Substantiating this claim is a signed statement from former Melbourne Football Club doctor Dr Zeeshan Arain in which Dr Arain explains how the scheme allows players to use illegal drugs and continue to play through the season. But, as Dr Arain explains, this isn't just a Melbourne problem; it's an AFL problem, with multiple players coming to Melbourne from other teams with pre-existing cocaine dependencies, more than suggesting that drug-testing workarounds are, in fact, commonplace elsewhere in the AFL.

Moreover, I've obtained documents indicating a shocking unwillingness by senior AFL executives to address drug abuse and, in particular, cocaine use—like the very detailed notes of a meeting between former AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan, AFL Commission chairman Richard Goyder and former Melbourne president Glen Bartlett. Two things jump out at you from that record. One, echoed by Mr Barlett in his signed statement, is that the AFL hid concerns about alleged cocaine use by Melbourne coach Simon Goodwin from Mr Bartlett for up to 18 months. The second is that in that meeting Mr Bartlett, who is a lawyer, said he planned to introduce drug testing of players and officials, arguing that sports administrators also should be drug free. Here's the rub: within eight weeks of that meeting, Mr Bartlett had been unexpectedly pushed out of the AFL, despite having just recently been asked to serve as president for three more years. Best I say that again: Glen Bartlett was dumped by the AFL just eight weeks after the meeting with Gillon McLachlan and Richard Goyder where he suggested mandatory drug testing for AFL executives.

There's also the signed statement from retired player Shaun Smith, the father of current player Joel Smith. Joel, of course, is under investigation for allegedly trafficking drugs to his teammates. In his statement, Shaun maintains that his son had not been a cocaine user prior to joining the AFL and attributes his son's situation to the AFL's aiding and abetting of drug use—and he's right, we now know.

To be clear: the AFL is not a private company, and these matters are no ordinary drug scandal. No, the AFL is an entity regulated by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission and receives hundreds of millions of dollars in direct and indirect tax breaks, government grants and beneficial capital works. In reality, the AFL is just a big business, sustained, in part, by helping players secretly break the World Anti Doping Agency code. Moreover, it is not an exaggeration to say that the off-the-books testing scheme sees the AFL effectively involved in a multi-hundred million dollar fraud on the taxpayer.

Australian Rules football plays an incredibly important part in the lives of so many of us, including the kids at Auskick clinics. To be absolutely clear: I'm thrilled that Tasmania is set to finally have an AFL team, but it's exactly because of all that that we expect the AFL to act with integrity and for us not be left wondering just how many young lives have been ruined by illegal drug use known to but not acted on by the AFL.

This matter calls for intervention at the highest level, which is why I asked last night, and why I'm asking again right now, that the Prime Minister personally intervene in this matter, study the documents in my possession and do everything he can to restore and protect the reputation of our beloved game.

In light of all of this, I ask the House to suspend standing orders and to support this motion urgently, because the whistleblowers need the detail of their allegations to be known and the context in which they've spoken up to be understood.

Lisa Chesters

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Zoe Daniel

I rise to second the motion from the member for Clark. In support of the tabling of documents that go to the integrity of, arguably, our nation's favourite sport, these allegations are serious. They go to whistleblower protection, which is grossly inadequate in this country, and it's the reason we're forced to talk about this under privilege this morning. They go to the AFL's duty of care to its players.

In Melbourne and in my electorate, football is life. From Auskick to community club footy to the VFL and VFLW to the big games at the 'G, this is the beating heart of Melbourne. In many ways, as I've said before in this chamber, maybe we've lost sight of what football is about. It's about kids, families, health and fun, not big money and fame.

These allegations go to that loss of perspective. As many know, my father played in the VFL and I grew up at footy training, really. Both of my teenagers play AFL and dream of playing at the highest level. I note that Goldstein, in many ways, is Demons' heartland, and, as an Essendon supporter, I know what drug scandals can do to clubs.

There is zero benefit to me of speaking to this motion, but there is a cost of not fully examining these allegations and releasing these documents to the sport and to the players. These documents must be tabled. I don't stand here to make a judgement on recreational drug use. However, the point of this debate is about what drugs can do to clubs and players—create a culture of normalisation of cocaine use and, in some cases, addiction—and how to protect players, young men and now young women in the hothouse of professional sport, who are on unusually high incomes, often at an early age, and are therefore highly vulnerable.

The documents in question include sworn statements from whistleblowers, which I've examined in granular detail and which the member for Clark has outlined extensively, and this is what we seek to table today.

As well as the concerns about whistleblowers and the way they're treated and role modelling, the thing that jumps out at me most is the allegations from the former Melbourne Football Club doctor. In his statement, Dr Zeeshan Arain says:

At the end of the day it's a business and the players are treated as a commodity. There is no desire to address this issue because it's a fickle world particularly for people in power and people making money.

He says:

Ultimately this is a management issue. The culture comes from management. The players are there to play football. The players don't define culture.'

I note that the AFL uses an opaque three-strike medical model as a way of protecting players from lengthy bans for non-performance-enhancing recreational drug use. My question, then, is: is this other off-the-books testing that's alleged the same thing, and do the sports integrity agencies, WADA and ASADA, endorse it, as it appears directly designed to subvert their systems, with faked injuries thrown in? The exact AFL policy needs to be clearly explained and justified, particularly given the implied concern in these statements about the take-up of recreational cocaine use after players join the AFL and whether such a subversion approach not only facilitates that but covers it up and is in turn innately dishonest. This is a matter of trust, and it's a matter of player welfare.

If one thing convinced me to make this speech, it was this line in the doctor's sworn statement:

Right now, I would not let my children play AFL …

For me, not only as an MP but as a parent and a self-described football tragic, this goes to the future of our children and the very future of the sport. I therefore call on the government to allow these documents to be tabled to open this up to proper scrutiny.

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

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

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.