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.

Kylea Tink

I seek leave to move the following motion:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the routine CPI indexation that took effect yesterday will increase Jobseeker payments by just 96 cents per day, and other income support payments including Disability Support Pension and Carer Payment by similarly nominal amounts;

(b) indexation will lift the Jobseeker payment to just $55 a day (including the energy supplement), which equates to less than half the minimum wage full-time;

(c) this increase is insufficient to prevent the widespread distress experienced by income support recipients due to inadequate payments alongside rising prices and rent; and

(d) the Government's media release, announcing these changes, titled 'indexation puts more in the pockets of millions of Australians', does not acknowledge that income support payments are not enough to cover the cost of essential goods and services including housing, food and energy; and

(2) calls on the Government to significantly increase income support payments, beyond indexation, in the upcoming May budget.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for North Sydney from moving the following motion:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the routine CPI indexation that took effect yesterday will increase Jobseeker payments by just 96 cents per day, and other income support payments including Disability Support Pension and Carer Payment by similarly nominal amounts;

(b) indexation will lift the Jobseeker payment to just $55 a day (including the energy supplement), which equates to less than half the minimum wage full-time;

(c) this increase is insufficient to prevent the widespread distress experienced by income support recipients due to inadequate payments alongside rising prices and rent; and

(d) the Government's media release, announcing these changes, titled 'indexation puts more in the pockets of millions of Australians', does not acknowledge that income support payments are not enough to cover the cost of essential goods and services including housing, food and energy; and

(2) calls on the Government to significantly increase income support payments, beyond indexation, in the upcoming May budget.

With the latest data telling us that one in eight Australians are currently living below the poverty line, it's time this parliament prioritised a debate about the woefully inadequate income support system that we now have in this country. The fact that most people relying on unemployment and parenting payments in Australia are being forced to choose which everyday essentials they will give up, just to survive, is something that should be of the highest concern to this parliament and this government. Ultimately, urgent agent is required to increase income support payments so that recipients can afford the basics and be lifted out of poverty. And the government has a very real opportunity to do this in the upcoming federal budget.

The truth is: despite recent media reports, this dire situation will not be significantly addressed by yesterday's routine indexation, which saw some payments increase by just 96c per day. More than 3.3 million Australians are currently living in poverty. That is more than the populations of South Australia, Tasmania, the ACT and the Northern Territory combined. Sole parent families, women and people with disability are all experiencing poverty at above average levels. The system that should be helping these people to get through tough times and supporting them to find suitable employment is broken.

Surely, as a parliament, we should be able to agree that the income support payment should be enough to cover the basics—food, rent, energy and medicines—so that people can focus on getting on with their lives, be that as parents or as employees once they find jobs. For young Australians, this payment should be enough for them to study and find employment without worrying about where their next meal will come from or how they're going to pay the rent. But these payments remain totally inadequate to cover the essentials.

The Australian Council of Social Services' latest survey of people receiving JobSeeker payments, youth allowance, parenting payment, Austudy, Abstudy, or a special benefit found that nine in 10 people renting privately are in rental stress, which means that they're paying more than 30 per cent of their income on rent. Seven in 10 are eating less or skipping meals. Seven in 10 are cutting back on heating or cooling for their homes. Three out of five experience difficulty affording their medicines or medical care. Ninety-eight per cent said that the low rate of income support harmed their mental health, while 93 per cent said it harmed their physical health.

This is an appalling situation. And we, in this place, should be ashamed. Every day that this parliament fails to increase welfare payments is another day that people on welfare struggle to keep a roof over their heads, skip a meal or suffer mental and physical distress.

Many people with courage have shared with me their personal experiences of living on income support, and I want to thank them for doing so. I now want to share some of these stories with you, so this place can hear the experience of those living on income support in their own words.

One person receiving JobSeeker said: 'After several years off work to care for my parents, I've not been able to return to the workforce. I have been actively applying for employment since 2017 and have literally applied for hundreds of jobs and have not been successful. Meanwhile, the gap in my employment record has widened, and employers are now discriminating against me for it. I am now 59 years of age, single, with no super. And, due to the ongoing financial stress, I suffer from mental health issues, along with physical health issues, the result of years of unemployment, stress and poverty. I don't have family or friends to lean on for support, and I'm quite isolated and alone.' Separately, someone on Austudy actually said that they were 'staring down the road of homelessness with each lease renewal or rent hike,' while another receiving JobSeeker said: 'Relying on income support makes you depressed and anxious and gives you panic attacks. It adversely affects your overall physical health and confidence. You feel less of a person. You feel like you don't belong—like an outcast.' Hearing these stories is truly heartbreaking, and I believe it is our job, the job of the people in this place, to say: 'You do belong.'

More than that, this parliament—this government—has a very real opportunity to show the more than one million people who are relying on these payments that they belong by significantly increasing income support payments in the upcoming budget. Routine indexation, while better than nothing, simply doesn't cut it. This week JobSeeker payments increased, because of indexation, by just 96c. That isn't even enough to buy the reusable shopping bag, let alone the groceries to put in it—96c a day. It won't help with the rent, it won't make a dent in the energy bills and it certainly won't buy a bottle of water, let alone a meal.

For this reason, I think the government's media release announcing this indexation, titled 'Indexation puts more in the pockets of millions of Australians' and boasting that it boosts payments, is insulting to the more than one million Australians who are struggling to live on these inadequate support payments. People are systematically being left behind. Young people who are trying to kickstart their working life are being left behind, with students struggling to pay for essentials while trying to complete their degrees. In fact, those on youth allowance experience the deepest poverty. And women are being left behind, particularly single mothers and older women. People with a disability are being left behind. The situation is worsened by a cost-of-living crisis that is not easing. Inflation may have slowed, but that doesn't mean costs are coming down; they are merely rising less quickly than in previous months. Many of the costs that rose faster than inflation were for essential goods and services, things that households cannot avoid spending on even when the prices increase faster than their wages.

Over the 12 months to the December 2023 quarter the CPI rose by 4.1 per cent. That's indexation. But the price of food and non-alcoholic beverages rose by 4.5 per cent, housing costs rose by 6.1 per cent, electricity prices rose by 6.9 per cent and health costs rose by eight per cent. Under that scenario, regular indexation can clearly be seen to be inadequate. An urgent boost to welfare payments is needed.

The OECD has recommended that Australia lift unemployment payments, highlighting that they remain amongst the lowest in the OECD and are well below the poverty line. Last year the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee report found that JobSeeker payments are inadequate against all benchmarks and recommended substantially increasing the payment, potentially to 90 per cent of the value of the age pension, as the most effective way to tackle poverty. Today the Australian Council of Social Service has called for social security payments to be increased to 100 per cent of the age pension. But it should be noted that the age pension itself does not provide a comfortable standard of living, and I am frequently contacted by members of my community sharing with me their struggles in trying to get by on the age pension. It's just not good enough. While increasing all social services payments to the same rate as the age pension might be a starting point—and it will lift millions out of poverty—it's by no means the entire solution. I acknowledge that the government did increase payments in the May budget last year. But it did so by only $20 a week. That's $4 a working day. It's not a coffee. It's well below the increase called for by the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, the Australian Council of Social Service, those with lived experience and many others.

Ultimately this piecemeal approach of small increases and routine indexation is not addressing this national crisis with anywhere near the urgency that we should adopt as a parliament. The upcoming May budget provides us with an opportunity to fix this. While we may continue to debate what income we should be generating as a government through reforms like an adjustment of the PRRT or changes in individual tax circumstances, ultimately it's beyond belief that in a country as wealthy as Australia those 3.3 million people continue to live in poverty. I call on this government, I call on this parliament, to urgently act to end poverty in Australia. We can begin by delivering a substantial increase in income support payments in the upcoming budget.

Scott Buchholz

Is the motion seconded?

Long debate text truncated.

Kylea Tink

I rise to speak to amendment (1) as circulated in my name. The package of bills moved through this House in the last few days—the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023, the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2023 and the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 2) Bill 2024—will deliver much-needed reform to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. However, it must be noted that, as it currently stands, the provisions within the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill mean that, ultimately, this reform will fall short of meeting its objective of creating a unified system because of its unequal treatment of migrant and refugee applicants.

Quite simply, because of the provisions in the piece of consequential legislation, some of the benefits sought to be introduced by the overall reform will not apply to the Migrant and Refugee Division. Given the backlog and ongoing work of that division, this means a significant number of the key reforms will not apply to most cases currently seeking redress. It has taken years of advocacy from civil society groups, human rights bodies and refugee and migrant communities to get us to where we are today with this legislation. But we must take it further.

The amendment I am moving addresses the different and unfair time limits that apply for some refugees and migrants seeking an administrative review. It has been put to me by advocates as one of the key elements of the separate procedural code that must change if we are to truly realise just treatment for all.

Indeed, the Refugee Advice and Casework Service submission on the ART Bill sought to draw our attention to the fact that the general rule that provides for 28 days to lodge an appeal will not be extended to those seeking a review from within detention. Rather, these refugees and people seeking asylum would have only seven days to apply for a review of a decision. I want to recognise that this is significantly more than the two days currently provided under the existing AAT. But the truth is that it's still not enough time when, in the majority of cases, we are talking about people who are already facing structural exclusion and intersecting barriers to accessing justice. These barriers include the impacts of trauma, language barriers, mental health issues, financial distress and cultural differences. In the pursuit of equality before the law, any reform to the administrative review processes in this country must account for this. Section 347(5) of the bill stipulates that the power of the ART to extend these deadlines under clause 19 of the bill would also not be applicable to reviewable migration and protection decisions, further excluding applications with a migrant or refugee background from the benefits of this refreshed ART.

This amendment seeks to change that. This amendment, quite simply, removes sections 347(3) through to 347(5) of Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2023 so that the general timing rule for making an application for review under division 3 of the ART would apply to migration and protection applicants as it does for all others. If Australia is serious about having systems that uphold our human rights obligations, I appeal to the government to take these amendments seriously and strengthen this legislation. In the words of North Sydney constituent and long-time human rights advocate Professor Mary Krock: 'Where it is separate for migration applicants, the code is always more punitive and restrictive than the general ART provisions.'

It is very disappointing that migrants should continue to be treated as persons with inferior procedural entitlements, specifically at a time when almost one in two Australians were either born overseas or have an overseas-born parent. We should stop seeing migrants as less worthy of procedural entitlements just because they are non-citizens. The law should apply equally to all people regardless of race, colour, gender, language, religion, political beliefs, status in society, or any other unlawful reason.

As a nation Australia recognises the following rights and treaties: the right to seek asylum and be free from persecution; the right to equality under the law and equal protection of the law; the right to enjoy the same treatment as a national in matters pertaining to access to the courts; the right in full equality to a fair and public hearing by a fair and impartial tribunal in the determination of rights and obligations; and the right to be recognised everywhere as a person before the law. Ultimately, citizen or non-citizen, all people deserve to be treated with dignity and have their basic human rights respected. We must ensure that this new system is one that delivers on that obligation. I believe this amendment does just that. I commend the amendment to the Attorney-General.

Steve Georganas

Can I remind the member for North Sydney that you are required to move the amendment

Kylea Tink

I move the amendment circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 2, item 136, page 60 (line 18) to page 61 (line 3), omit subsections 347(3) to (5).

Mark Dreyfus

I take the member for North Sydney's comments to be in large part an endorsement of the approach that the government has taken, which is that the ART bill standardises timeframes for a majority of decisions under the Migration Act. When I stood before to speak to the member for North Sydney's second reading amendment, I explained overall the way in which this works, which is that we have legislation before the parliament which standardises timeframes for the majority of decisions under the Migration Act to the standard ART timeframes for making an application for review, which cannot be less than 28 days.

But there are two exceptions, and I will come to them in a minute. Perhaps this is a reflection of the complexity of government decision-making, but there are reasons for the exceptions, and it is for that reason that the government cannot support these particular proposed amendments. I will endeavour to explain why. The two exceptions are first where a person is in immigration detention, for which the timeframe is seven days. So we're taking the opportunity to increase what was formerly two days for some applications—a pretty short time—to seven days. The other exception is where a person's visa has been cancelled on character grounds: the timeframe for that is to be nine days.

In the government's view is not feasible to remove these exceptions. They are required to minimise the amount of time that a person spends in detention and to maintain the overall integrity of Australia's migration system. All that is required within the seven-day window is that the application is made. The requirements for doing so are minimal and the applicant does not need to submit additional documentation until the proceeding is underway. So we have a very special form of administrative decision that is dealt with in these two exceptions. It's decisions relating to immigration detention. We've got a government approach that is, very directly, that the amount of time that a person spends in immigration detention should be reduced, should be minimised. So there would be a problem in applying the standard ART time frames, for making an application for review not less than 28 days, to the immigration detention setting. We've got much shorter time frames, which are required to minimise the amount of time that a person spends in detention. I would hope that reason for having special provisions for immigration detention review matters is understood.

As to extensions of time, which would be the other effect of the amendment that the member for North Sydney is moving, the immigration system does rest on having certainty as to a person's visa status at all times. In order to provide an opportunity for visa applicants to seek a review of a decision, applicants are provided with a bridging visa that expires a short time after the time frame for making an application for review comes to an end. If the tribunal were able to grant an extension of time for making an application for review of these decisions, it wouldn't be possible to determine the end of the application period. That would be incompatible with how the migration system works.

We're here recognising that the migration system is a specialised and quite distinct part of Australian government decision-making. We have tried to, at the same time, as far as possible, standardise all of the review processes for all of the myriad decisions that the Administrative Review Tribunal will look at. There needs to be a recognition that, for a small number of administrative decisions, particularly some decisions under the Migration Act, we need to make special provisions, which is what we're doing. It should not be looked at through the frame of discriminating against some people because they are not Australian citizens. It needs to be looked at through the frame of having a migration system that works. As I've said, if it were possible for the— (Time expired)

Kylea Tink

I thank the Attorney-General for standing and voicing all of that context around why the government won't be supporting these amendments. I would just offer the following back: arguably this reform of the AAT is the most important reform that we've seen in over a decade. I know from personal interactions with the Attorney-General and his staff that they are very committed to re-establishing an administrative review process in this country that Australians can be confident in, and that they can trust that the process is fair and equal for all. The truth of the matter is that, as long as we continue to carve out people who find themselves in a situation within our immigration systems where they are not given the same treatment under law as every other person living in this country, we are creating a two-tier system.

I want to respond to what the Attorney-General said with a number of things. No. 1, I don't think there's any person that has any connection with the refugee and asylum-seeking sector in this country who doesn't know that the two days previously applied under the AAT was completely and wholly unacceptable. It was unworkable. We're not talking about pleasant centres where legal advocates can enter an environment to talk calmly with clients around what their legal recourse may be. Many of the people being held in these immigration detention facilities and awaiting a decision around their status of citizenship are highly traumatised individuals. They come from environments where they've already experienced trauma. They're now arriving and have had to face a number of intersectional discriminatory behaviours when it comes to our country. Many of them have not been fully assimilated when they've arrived. They've escaped violent situations only to find themselves thrust into our community with no appropriate education or appropriate assimilation, and then they find themselves in trouble with the law and back in immigration detention.

The refugee area largely does welcome this reform. We need to be really clear. As the Attorney-General said and as he and I have spoken about, this is 500 per cent better than what we have had in this country to date. If I were a teacher, I'd be giving this a nine out of 10. The reality is, though, that what I'm arguing is that the government could get a 10 out of 10, and they could do it by being braver than the governments we've seen in the past and by stepping forward and saying, 'We are prepared to be the agency of change.' In fact, a change in this legislation could ultimately push changes in our immigration detention systems, which arguably are long past due for reform. As many in this place would know, there are widespread calls for a royal commission into how our detention system works in this country.

What I'm saying here will be no surprise to the Attorney-General, because we have talked about it and his team has been really great in talking to my team about what we're seeking to achieve here. There are some moments, I believe, when a government has the opportunity to step into a true ambition that fundamentally shifts the dial in how a country addresses certain challenges.

It's interesting to see that we have the immigration minister sitting with the Attorney-General. I feel like I have a great audience to have this discussion in front of. If we are going to reform this process meaningfully, in a way that sees us as a nation fundamentally commit to realising our international obligations under all the international treaties that we say we abide by—whether that's the right to seek asylum and be free from persecution under the Refugee Convention; the right to equality before the law and equal protection of law under the UDHR; the right to enjoy the same treatment as a national in matters pertaining to access to the courts, again under the Refugee Convention; the right, in full equality, to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal in the determination of rights and obligations under the UDHR; or the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law under the UDHR—the time for that is now, with this piece of legislation.

So I thank the Attorney-General and his team for their time, but I continue to argue that the best-case scenario would be that even those in detention would be treated in the same way as every other person under the Administrative Review Tribunal process.

Long debate text truncated.

Kylea Tink

I move the second reading amendment as circulated in my name:

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

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes that this bill maintains the carve out of a separate, more restrictive procedural code for the Migration and Refugee Division in the Migration Act 1958;

(2) further notes that the bill falls short of meeting its objectives because of its unequal treatment of migrant and refugee applicants;

(3) notes that non-citizens, including those seeking asylum, refugees, and the stateless, already experience structural exclusion and intersecting barriers to accessing justice once they enter into Australia, including impacts of trauma, language barriers, mental health issues, financial distress, and cultural differences; and

(4) calls on the Government to ensure all applicants can equally access a fair and just review and accordingly remove the separate set of procedures under the Migration Act 1958, from this bill so the procedures that apply to applicants generally, also apply to migrant and refugee applicants in the same way".

The package of bills moved through this House in the past few days—the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023 and the consequential and transitional bills No. 1 and No. 2—will deliver much-needed reform to the administrative review processes in this country, and this is welcomed by my community in North Sydney. Indeed, as a community, we've long argued that the decisions of government should always be open to public scrutiny and that elected representatives should do everything in their power to ensure that the people they represent not only participate in the decisions that affect them but also ultimately find ways to make decisions for themselves.

In this context, the administrative review system is one of the most important lines of defence when it comes to protecting individuals' rights from unfair use of power, and its effective operation is therefore essential for public confidence in government. Yet, sadly, the current Administrative Appeals Tribunal has been plagued with inefficiencies and failures after years of abuse. Consequently, this reform cannot come soon enough.

But, in pursuing this reform, this government has ultimately missed an opportunity to finally redress a fatal flaw in our democracy and one that has long stained our international human rights reputation, that being our continued pursuit of the idea that not all people are equal before the law, as, while much of this legislation represents an improvement to the administrative review process in Australia, it falls short of meeting its overall stated objective of creating a unified system because of its unequal treatment of migrant and refugee applicants. Quite simply, many of the benefits sought to be introduced will not apply to the migrant and refugee division, which, given the workload of that division, means they will not apply to the majority of cases currently seeking redress.

It has taken years of advocacy from civil society groups, human rights bodies and refugee and migrant communities to get us to where we are today with this legislation, and I commend the Attorney-General and his team for bringing us this far. But we can take it further.

The amendment I am moving today calls on the government to note that, by maintaining the carve-out of a separate and more restrictive code for the migrant and refugee division in the Migration Act of 1958, the bill ultimately falls short of meeting its objectives. At the same time, it notes that noncitizens, including those seeking asylum, refugees and the stateless, already experience structural exclusion and intersecting barriers to accessing justice once they enter into Australia, including the impacts of trauma, language barriers, mental health issues, financial distress and cultural differences. Finally, it calls on the government to ensure that all applicants can equally access a fair and just review. Accordingly, it removes the separate set of procedures under the Migration Act 1958 from this bill so the procedures that apply to applicants can apply to one and all.

If Australia is serious about having systems that uphold our human rights obligations, then we need to address the current weaknesses we have every step of the way. I call the government to take these amendments seriously and strengthen this legislation, as it is incredibly disheartening to see that those who are seeking our protection continue to be treated as persons with inferior procedural entitlements, when we live in a country where nearly one in two Australians were either born overseas or have an overseas-born parent.

Every human being is born equal and deserving of justice. No-one is above the law. And the law should apply to all equally, regardless of their status in society. This means that the same standards must apply to all when it comes to our Administrative Review Tribunal processes, regardless of race, colour, gender, language, religion, political beliefs, status, or any other unlawful reason. Citizens or noncitizens, all people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect for their basic human rights. We must ensure this new system is one that sees human rights protected for all, equally. Let's give this Administrative Review Tribunal the very best shot we have and ensure that every applicant before it receives equal and fair treatment.

Ross Vasta

Is the amendment seconded?

Andrew Wilkie

Deputy Speaker, I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Stephen Bates

I just want to say that we welcome the creation of this new body to replace the AAT—especially, as I said before, given the political stacking by the former coalition government. It should never have been possible to appoint political mates, especially those without legal qualifications, to a federal tribunal responsible for hearing cases on social security and migration—matters which can often be literally life and death for people.

Delays in the AAT are very real, and it is hoped that this new tribunal is not characterised by these delays in the same way. The Administrative Review Tribunal will be an extremely high-volume tribunal, which will have an impact each year on tens of thousands of individuals and families. There are a number of defects with the legislation as drafted, which we believe will need to be remedied. This new body will be in place for decades and will have a broad jurisdiction to deal with critically important matters relating to people's rights and entitlements under federal law. We cannot afford to rush it or get this wrong.

We have worked with stakeholders, including the Centre for Public Integrity, to address the bill's provisions for fixing appointments to the new body to make these measures mandatory, rather than optional, and it's good to see amendments from the government to that effect, as this was a key promise by the ALP regarding the new tribunal. It's extremely positive that, after significant public pressure and growing political opposition, the government amendments will now go some way to addressing this. The Greens have consistently advocated for a proper review of the operation of this new tribunal. We have been joined in this by numerous NGOs and engaged stakeholders. The government is now responding to that pressure by bringing amendments in to require such a review.

One of the core requirements for support of this bill is that it cannot cause harm, especially to some of the most vulnerable existing users of the AAT. As drafted, this bill does not meet that test, by abolishing critical review rights for people on Centrelink. The Greens believe it is necessary to preserve the existing two-tier jurisdiction to resolve appeals from Centrelink or Services Australia. This existing two-tier review process is critical to providing a just remedy for some 10,000 to 12,000 of the most vulnerable applicants each year. The government has sought to move a large number of amendments on this issue, and our Senate team is working them through. While they appear to go some way towards reinstating the original two-tier review process, the drafting is somewhat opaque and it is unclear how they will achieve this goal in practice.

There remain multiple elements in this reform that provide unfair outcomes for refugee and migration cases in this new body. While there are some modest improvements to the existing law, such as the abolition of the IAA, it continues to have multiple unfair non-discretionary time frames and unfair adverse inferences in this part of its jurisdiction. Assessing the real impact of these amendments is a complex task with an already incredibly lengthy and convoluted bill that has hundreds and hundreds of accompanying pages of text in the explanatory memorandum and in the transitional provisions.

As noted above, this is a generational reform and we need to take the time to get this right. While we will be supporting the bill and not opposing any government amendments in this House, we reserve our position in the Senate. To that end, we will continue to be guided by the valuable input of stakeholders and by two core principles— that this reform must leave no-one behind and must leave no door open for future governments to undermine its integrity.

Mark Dreyfus

I want to briefly address the second reading amendment that has been moved by the member for North Sydney. The government opposes this second reading amendment, and I want to make some general comments about these bills. The ART bills substantially harmonise procedural arrangements for review of decisions under the Migration Act, which is a very substantial improvement compared with the current system.

Under the current arrangements—that's the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act—none of the provisions relating to the AAT's powers and procedures apply at all to reviews of migration and protection decisions. Instead—and this has happened over many years—there's a separate set of powers and procedures that are set out in the Migration Act called codes of procedure. The Administrative Review Tribunal bills remove this dichotomy. They apply standard tribunal powers to migration and protection matters.

As far as possible, that's the approach that we've taken with the new Administrative Review Tribunal: it's to have standard processes for all of the tribunal's jurisdictions, including—and this is a very major change—migration and protection matters. There are a small number of special procedures retained, as there are in separate legislation for many jurisdictions, to ensure that tribunal reviews are workable within the framework of the migration system. Of course, it's the case that we're going to have to make sure in the coming years—if the Administrative Review Tribunal legislation passes the Senate and we create the tribunal, as we sincerely hope will happen in short order—that the intent of these reforms it being achieved. That's what the statutory review enables us to do.

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

The matter before the House is the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023. The question is that the bill be read a second time.

The majority voted against an amendment introduced by Wentworth MP Allegra Spender (Independent), which means it failed.

What is the purpose of this amendment?

Ms Spender explained that:

My amendment would insert a statutory review of the changes to the PRRT, to be commenced no later than 1 July 2026. This would allow two full financial years for the government changes to take effect and for it to become clear whether these reforms are delivering an equitable return to the taxpayer.

Amendment text

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "to 3", substitute "to 4".

(2) Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review of operation of amendments made by Schedule 5

(1) The Minister must cause a review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by Schedule 5 to this Act.

(2) Without limiting the matters that may be considered when conducting the review, the review must have regard to:

(a) the appropriate distribution of petroleum resource rents and the need to provide a fair return to the Australian community; and

(b) the appropriateness of the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987 (as amended by Schedule 5 to this Act) and associated regulations in light of recent, and potential future, developments in industries subject to that Act; and

(c) the applicability of the review's findings to resource export industries not subject to that Act.

(3) The review must start no later than 1 July 2026.

(4) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review no later than 1 January 2027.

(5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 3 months after the day the Minister receives the report.