Milton Dick

The member for Fisher has indicated that he wants to raise a point of order.

Andrew Wallace

Yes, thanks, Mr Speaker. I just want to raise this to your attention, and this goes to the neutrality of the chair, which is a fundamental principle of this place. The member for Wentworth stood in her place trying to speak on the amendments moved by the member for Indi. Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, who was in the chair at the time, did not give the member for Wentworth the call. The members on this side of the House were alerting the Deputy Speaker to the member for Wentworth being on her feet. This is not the first time this has happened, and I would ask that you inquire into the issue. Every single member in—

Milton Dick

Okay, resume your seat. You've made your point. Resume your seat. It's not a speech or a statement. You've raised the issue at the first opportunity to speak. I understand that. I'm aware of the issue, and I'll give a statement regarding the issue, but I'll hear from the Leader of the House first.

Tony Burke

Just to the point of order, I'd remind the member of standing order 47, which allows motions to suspend standing orders to be moved at any time. That's exactly what happened.

Milton Dick

Yes. The standing order enables, mid-sentence or mid-behaviour, for that to be moved. I like to give, and all the chairs like to give, all members a fair go, and I think that has been evident. I disagree with the member's statement—the way that it was phrased. What will also help is if the House in order and there are not people just standing around and making interjections, as I believe occurred at the time.

Honourable members interjecting—

No, we're not going any further with this. I've given a statement to the House. I've recognised that. But I want to reinforce what the Leader of the House says: at any time under that standing order—during a debate, when someone's on their feet or not on their feet—a suspension motion can be moved. So that is the standing order. If you're not happy with the standing order, I can appreciate that, but they're the rules that we all operate under.

Now we're going to move to the unresolved question on the amendments moved by the member for Indi. The question is that amendments (3) and (4) moved by the honourable member for Indi be agreed to.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is amendments (1) and (2) moved by the honourable member for Indi be agreed to.

Anthony Albanese

():  I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

In June 2020, in the days when oppositions actually developed policy, I went to the National Press Club to deliver my vision statement on science. My opening words were, 'One day, when the pandemic is over …'. With the spectre of a second wave of COVID then hanging over us, I talked about how the pandemic had been a wake-up call for Australia. I pointed out the anomaly that we were the only OECD country without an equivalent of America's Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. Knowing that a stronger future for our country depended on that anomaly being addressed, I called for the establishment of an Australian Centre for Disease Control, properly resourced and independent—a CDC that would provide governments with consistent, rapid advice and a CDC with a focus on preparedness for any future pandemics, including drills and exercises.

We must not forget that one of the factors that saw Australia even more vulnerable to COVID and its impacts was that we hadn't had a pandemic drill since Exercise Sustain under the Rudd government a dozen years earlier. The grim consequence of the coalition government's complacency was that we were woefully underprepared for what came. As the COVID-19 inquiry report would eventually lay bare, Australia went into the pandemic with no playbook for the pandemic, limited readiness of the National Medical Stockpile, and badly stretched aged- and healthcare systems.

A few months after my vision statement I used my budget-in-reply speech to commit a future Labor government to establishing an Australian Centre for Disease Control to bring us into line with other advanced economies. I'm pleased that, with this legislation, having followed considerable work to make sure we got it right, we're once again turning a vision from opposition into a reality delivered in government and maintaining our momentum in delivering for all Australians.

We are heeding one of the core recommendations of the COVID-19 inquiry: to ensure that in the future we are as prepared, as a nation, as we can be. So what we did was the systematic, orderly, considered development of policy into progress that defines the way that this government operates. We came into government with a commitment. We established the COVID-19 inquiry first and waited to hear that evidence in our first term. We took that influence and used that input into policy, and then, of course, we introduced the legislation in this term. Now, these amendments will improve that legislation on the basis of being prepared to consider advice and the process which we have gone through.

This will make the ACDC operational from 1 January. It will be an independent statutory agency led by a director-general. It will bring together critical information and experts to protect Australia from diseases and other threats to public health. The Australian CDC will provide high-quality analysis and advice on public health risks to governments and the Australian community. It will also promote and coordinate action to prepare for and respond to these tasks. Just as we've worked to apply the economic lessons of the pandemic by investing in our manufacturing capacity, strengthening our supply chains and building our economic self-reliance, we must learn the health lessons of that time as well. That is what this legislation does.

On a small sidenote, you couldn't ask for a more Australian acronym than ACDC, though if this ACDC were to have a theme song—and I know raising contemporary music is dangerous in this House—it would have to be 'Highway to Hell'. Once again, our government is delivering for Australians, delivering carefully and delivering methodically. We are a government that looks to Australia's future armed with the lessons of the recent past and an understanding that Australians are always best served by a government that governs not just for today but for the long-term future of this nation. I commend the amendments and the bill to the House.

Milton Dick

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

Alex Hawke

I note the Leader of the House's remarks about the calendar; I thank him for that. We'll celebrate the Burke birthday sitting tonight; I look forward to that! I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent all remaining proceedings on the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 taking place in this Chamber.

The opposition has looked carefully at what the government is attempting to do here. The Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025 should go to the Federation Chamber, but it was never intended to have matters of supreme importance to this parliament, like freedom of information—the primary governing legislation that protects citizens' rights against this government—dealt with in the Federation Chamber. We are moving today to stop this Labor government sending what is an important bill to the media and to the public—it was a commitment of the Prime Minister's at several elections that the government would have increased transparency and integrity in their legislation—off to the Federation Chamber. We do need to debate it here.

We've canvassed widely across the crossbench and the parliament, and there is extreme concern for the government's agenda in relation to freedom of information bills. Sending it to the Federation Chamber sends a signal that this parliament is not taking this primary piece of legislation as seriously as it ought to in relation to what is a critical matter to its citizenry. This government came to office promising increased transparency and increases to the protections of citizens against government, and we do need to suspend the Standing Orders so we can get this bill back to the House. That's why we didn't oppose the Leader of the House's motion—because he had two bills attached to it. The customs bill can go there—that's a simple matter for the House. No-one in this House would suggest that the freedom of information changes the government is proposing is a simple bill or an unimportant bill. Let the government come forward today and say this matter isn't important enough to be debated in the primary chamber of our country's parliament, the House of Representatives.

We have moved with great passion to make sure that this is debated here. It should be in the full light of scrutiny, in the daylight that the Prime Minister has called for repeatedly on many occasions of the media, before every single member here, and before the public who can be here to witness this in the galleries, and who are here today in many numbers to see us speak to the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill and to access their rights against government. There are a lot of people here; I want to note that.

In the 47th Parliament, amendments in 201 bills about this issue—or 44 per cent of all bills presented to the House—were referred to the Federation Chamber, sometimes with objections from the opposition. The government is regularly sending matters to the Federation Chamber that probably shouldn't be going there, so we will object where that's possible. This is the first time we have objected in this parliament. I want a government minister to come forward and say 'Freedom of information is a matter that should be shunted to a second chamber, because it isn't controversial.' I can assure the government and the Prime Minister that their changes to freedom of information are highly controversial and deserve a serious examination by this parliament.

We know what the government are trying to do here; they are trying to restrict freedom of information for citizens. They are trying to charge people as a way of limiting access to freedom of information requests   —the foundation of our democratic system. It's not just my view; it's a view of the Prime Minister's. It's his view, and he can come here and tell us why he is allowing his Leader of the House to move this to the Federation Chamber when he has insisted that Australia needs increased transparency from its government. I look forward to that contribution.

In the perspective that I have just raised, the Federation Chamber has become a legislative clearinghouse, and that is bad for democracy and bad for transparency on a bill that is so important to democracy and to transparency. The opposition and many of the crossbench cannot accept that in relation to a bill like this. This is a reasonable argument, and I know members sitting opposite understand that. I know that they like to have views exchanged between us about this. Let every single member of the government come forward with passion to say, 'We are restricting access to freedom of information under our changes,' let them argue why it's better for the executive and their own government to have less scrutiny over them.

I can tell you, having been in the executive of a government, freedom of information provides a great discipline to ministers. It's good for ministers, it's good for their office and their staff, it's good for their departments. It means citizens have fundamental rights to get information when they need it. It has led to so many things in so many governments, I can't list them all here today. I can only say to this House that the process—the sacred process in our democracy—whereby citizens should have access to the executive to say, 'We know something has gone on, we have a right to access it,' that exchange between citizen and executive government is an important fundamental. That's why this bill should not be sent to the Federation Chamber and that's why this suspension is saying, 'We must debate this here.' Let the citizenry witness; let the kids who come here to say 'democracy is fantastic' come and see the exchange of ideas. We will advocate as a coalition for greater scrutiny and transparency over the executive of government. Let government members come forward and say, 'We don't want that, we want more restricted access, we want limitations on the access regime that people will have under freedom of information.' Let them say that this should be sent to a secondary chamber where the debate won't so fulsome, where it won't be scrutinised and where it won't be in transparency. It's not lost on anyone listening to this debate, or anyone who's concerned about the freedom of information. I can tell you the entire media gallery is concerned about their access under this. It doesn't matter what their political persuasion, their background or their length of time in the gallery, the gallery—if they had a vote in the gallery—would say: 'This is limiting our access to information, and we oppose this bill.' That would be it, if they had a vote. They're the extra chamber. But they should be here to witness it. They can't all fit in the Federation Chamber. There's another important argument. They want to be here. They didn't know this was on the agenda. I'm sure we're going to tell them very shortly and say: 'Get in here and help us defeat this government on freedom of information.' And we know they're going to turn up in numbers, en masse. So that's another reason why we need to have this debate in this House, in the full glare of the media.

I welcome it, because there are not many times where we can all be in alignment. But the crossbench, I know, have concerns about this. The media have grave concerns about it. Individual transparency and freedom organisations have already raised that this is a massive overreach from the government. It just got a massive majority, but this wasn't on the platform—there was no mandate to reduce transparency or to reduce integrity. In fact, the Prime Minister promised the exact opposite from his government. So this is not the mandate the Australian people gave the government—to restrict freedom of information and to take a step backwards in relation to transparency. They have said, clearly, that they believed the Prime Minister when he said: 'We need the full light of day over government operations. We need the full light of day and scrutiny. Let the sunshine in.'

Well, let the sunshine in. We can't charge people to let the sunshine in; that's just not going to work. In fact, we know what that means—a regime to increase the cost means, effectively, that people won't be able to afford access to freedom of information.

You can see, just from my own contribution, how important this matter is. We can't let this go to the Federation Chamber. I know the Leader of the House is considering it. He's weighing up the matter very carefully. I think, on the customs amendment, we agreed—that was something that could go to Federation Chamber. The customs amendment is a straightforward matter for the government. But on freedom of information—not for us, as an opposition, not for the member for Hume, not for the member for Lindsay, but for each individual citizen who has come to the gallery today to access information from their own government, their rights will be restricted under this proposed bill from the government. So we want to stand up for them today. We want to stand up for our friends in the media, who also deserve access.

Frankly speaking, on the serious point here, all governments need this discipline. This will weaken the quality of your government. So I say to any of the backbenchers that are wavering—I can see their faces, frowning in concern at what I'm saying—your executive will be weaker. Ironically, that may help you get to the front! I'm just saying: you want to run a good government; I'm sure you do—and I'm sure every member here wants to run a good government—but your executive will be weaker; your discipline will be less.

More importantly, in an era of big government—with more public servants than ever and bigger and more bloated bureaucracies—citizens need to access the information they need. They need rights against their own government. And the freedom of information regimes are fundamental rights. They belong in the hands of our citizenry.

We oppose the government sending this to a secondary chamber. This is not a clearing-house issue. This is not a debate that should be sent somewhere to just ram it through or have no scrutiny. In fact, ironically, this is the bill about scrutiny of government! It should be scrutinised by this House. It should be watched by everybody here and everyone that wants to be here. Let's have this debate in this House. Let's have a fulsome debate. We want to hear arguments. We want to hear why the Prime Minister was wrong when he said, 'We want more transparency and more scrutiny,' and why whoever designed this bill got it wrong in restricting citizens' rights, restricting the media's rights, and restricting what has been a well-functioning system, for all governments, of access to information.

Milton Dick

The member for Macnamara, the chief government whip and the chief opposition whip and the member for Longman are not in their seats. You can't interject if you're not in your seat. I'm just reminding everyone. I'm not saying you did, but, everyone, we're just going to have normal rules. Is the motion seconded?

Andrew Wallace

I second the motion. The House of Representatives is the pre-eminent debating forum in this country, and, on an issue that is as important as government accountability and transparency, I would have thought that this government would relish the opportunity to have the debate in this chamber.

I've had the privilege of serving in this place for nine years, mostly on that side of the House rather than this side of the House, and I had the opportunity for six of those nine years to watch the Leader of the House go from Defcon 5 to Defcon 1 over issues around transparency and accountability. In fact, no-one does Defcon 1 like the Leader of the House. The issue of government transparency and accountability was, according to those members opposite—the government—one of their principal tenets, one of their principal pillars. I sat there and listened to speech after speech about how important it is to ensure that we have accountability in this place.

So you can only imagine my great surprise, when the chamber has an opportunity to debate a bill that talks about significantly altering the Freedom of Information Act, about significantly watering down the powers of the people to hold their government to account, that this government wants to send it off to the Federation Chamber, where none of you folk in the gallery will get an opportunity to look at it or listen to it. The students up there all want this matter debated in the House of Representatives, because this is the pre-eminent forum in this country.

Where the government consistently banged on for years and years about the importance of honesty, integrity, transparency and accountability, what do we get? We get the Leader of the House moving a motion to squirrel it away to the Federation Chamber. I say, even though it's his birthday: shame on him. I say to the Leader of the House, based on the previous speech and mine, I think we're getting to you. I know, deep down, that the Leader of the House has some modicum of respect for executive accountability. The concept of executive accountability is one of our fundamental tenets—

Josh Burns

Is this an audition for leader? Has he had a haircut as well?

Andrew Wallace

I take that interjection from the member for Macnamara—

Angus Taylor

He's good: that's it; it's in Hansard!

Andrew Wallace

and I hope he's in his correct seat, but I don't think he is.

This is an incredibly important issue. I will speak to the substance of the bill very shortly, and I encourage everybody to hang around for a few moments afterwards. But I implore the Leader of the House to let the sunshine in. This chamber has a skylight, and the best form of disinfectant is sunlight. The Leader of the House might notice that the Federation Chamber does not have a skylight. The House of Representatives will let the sun in and hold to account—it is a sign, it is a metaphor—the executive and this hopeless, arrogant government that would try to introduce a bill that would lessen accountability yet squirrel it away to the Federation Chamber.

For all those people who are listening on their radios, tuning in right now, I ask this question: have you ever even heard of the Federation Chamber? Most Australians will never have heard of the Federation Chamber. They want this debate heard right here today in the House of Representatives.

Long debate text truncated.

Lisa Chesters

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025 has been a long time coming for people on my side of politics. This bill is common sense. This bill will be welcome news to all Australian workers. For businesses doing the right thing: keep doing what you're doing. This bill will have minimal impact on you, because it's not about you, the businesses that pay their employees super on time. This is about giving tools to the employers that might get a bit caught up and accidentally not pay on time, or the employers or businesses for whom not paying super on time has become part of their business model or who are unable to pay super on time.

It is a fact in this country that far too many workers go without super. Along the way, some in business in Australia have not accepted that super is not their money but their employees' money. Many, many years ago, this parliament, with the support of industry and the trade union movement, agreed to set up the superannuation industry. Today, it is worth billions upon billions of dollars, safeguarding savings for Australian workers for their retirement. It was founded on that fundamental principle: super is employees' pay. They defer collecting it, and it is kept in safeguard by superannuation accounts until they retire, but essentially it is their pay. They have earnt it.

As I stated at the beginning, the majority of businesses do the right thing. I acknowledge that. They put the pay aside and pay super. All of us in this place receive super on time, as do employees of the Parliamentary Service. The majority of businesses do the right thing and pay super on time. Advancement of technology has made it so much easier for our small businesses. The ATO already supports businesses using the Single Touch Payroll data system to ensure workers are paid super on time. This is how the ATO will enforce the legislation that is before us.

What we are proposing in this legislation is that, from 1 July 2026, employers will be required to pay superannuation guarantee contributions on the same day as wages instead of quarterly, aligning, for the first time, your regular pay with your regular super payment. Employers must ensure that contributions are received by an employees' super fund within seven days of payday. This change will make it easier for employees to track their super. It will ensure that they earn on their savings but also ensure that employers have the ability to manage cash flow.

I know those opposite like to claim that people in Labor don't understand small business. It is just a falsehood. We do, many people on this side of the House being small business owners themselves or having close connections with families through small business. I myself grew up in a family of small business. I can remember the work my parents did managing cash flow in the running of their small businesses, a second-hand furniture business and then a holiday hire company.

Cash flow with small business has always been king, and the ability to manage cash flow is critical, so I can understand why some small businesses, that are so focused on the day-to-day running of their business and delivering the goods and services, can sometimes get caught out with that super bill. Have they put enough aside? That is why this reform will help them. The Australian tax office and the Treasurer have already committed to supporting businesses to adapt to this system and manage their super. There will be a way in place, working with chambers of commerce and with the ATO, to ensure small businesses can transition to this system.

Those who will not like this bill are those businesses who are doing the wrong thing, undermining all of us, undermining the businesses doing the right thing and ripping off their workers—the ones who build that into their business model: the phoenixers, the people who will go and undercut or underquote another small business because they bank on never having to pay their super bill.

Before coming to this place, my background was working for the United Workers Union, in their cleaning and security divisions. Time and time again we saw dodgy cleaning companies and security companies undercutting someone who did the right thing by their workers—paid them properly—and then phoenixing at the point when the ATO chased them for unpaid super. Those workers would lose their jobs. The company would go into bankruptcy and would phoenix. The workers would lose their super. Through the Fair Entitlement Guarantee and, before that, GEERS, we would try to manage payment of what they were owed. The ATO, of course, would miss out on payments, and whilst, quite often, through the federal government-backed scheme, we could recover annual leave, they lost their sick leave and they lost their super. It was just accepted that you would not get that super.

This changes that. It catches out those businesses early and it will help break that phoenixing model that exists. It will be a game changer for those service based industries, such as cleaning and security and so many others, where wages are a critical part of the competitive tender. But, most importantly, apart from helping to create fair competition in those industries so businesses can compete against businesses on quality, not on the fact that you'll rip off super from your employees, those employees who've done that hard work and who might have been paid their weekly, fortnightly or monthly wages will also know that their super is being paid.

Since the creation of super, far too many people in our history have missed out on super, and many people in this place have shared those stories. Quite often it was when they were younger and they worked in hospitality or in a retail business, in those early days—and in those early days of super too. Quite often, when I'm talking to people in my electorate, I talk about my generation being the generation of super. Like so many others, I started working at 14 and nine months—legitimately, of course. I worked in my family's businesses. When you're working in a family business, it's a little bit of pocket money for those hours that you do when you're in the truck helping your dad with the deliveries or helping with the till. But I was 14 and nine months when I got my first job, and it was early days.

My generation, the people now in their 40s and 30s, will have a working life of super when they retire. Technically, for when it is planned, we should have enough to retire on. But far too many people in their 30s and 40s missed out on those early days of super because we didn't have the system set up. It was paid quarterly, and not all businesses did the right thing and put it aside. And there was the phoenixing that I talked about.

One of the reasons I got actively involved in the union movement was that I was one of those young workers at university who didn't get paid their super. I was being paid cash, and I said: 'Hey, this isn't right. I've got a pay slip here, but there's no super on it.' It was only when I started to ask questions that I discovered I actually wasn't being paid properly. There was something really dodgy going on with my pay slip. I got sacked because I was a casual worker, and I brought that up. But the bar didn't want to have a bar of it. So that was one of the reasons why I started to get actively involved in my union. I was one of those young workers who said: 'I should be getting pay slips. I've got this dodgy thing that doesn't look like a pay slip. Where's my super?' That is the experience of far too many young people. Even with all the advances in technology, where we're at today, this is still happening. This bill will change that.

This bill will ensure that super, for the first time since its creation, will be paid on payday. From 21 July 2026, employers will be required to pay super guarantee contributions on the same day as wages. The changes will make it easier for businesses, easier for employees, and easier for the ATO to detect missing payments earlier—before debts become unrecoverable and before some businesses are unable to pay. The legislation also updates the super guarantee charge, which is the penalty employers face if they fail to pay super on time. Under the new framework, the super guarantee charge will apply for each payday an employer fails to pay super in full and on time. The updated super guarantee charge includes national earnings, administrative uplift and choice loading as well as a number of other ways to help ensure that employers pay on time.

As I said before, this isn't just a great advancement and support for employees, to make sure that they get what they're owed. For those industries where wages are a big part of competition, it helps to ensure an equal playing field so employers who are doing the right thing are not disadvantaged in the market because of employers doing the wrong thing. It's something that's quite often forgotten in this debate. They think it's about employees versus employers, but it's not. It's about employees and good employers having the opportunity to compete in a fair playing field on the very fundamental that is their wages. This is what they've earned.

I'm reminded, as I stand in this debate, of all the heartbreaking cases that have come into my office and into all of our offices. People ask, 'I realised too late I didn't get paid my super; what can I do?' Standing in this place, I have to acknowledge Meryl Birch. She and her brother first came to see me when I first got elected. Her's is a legacy case that goes back to the previous two federal members for Bendigo. They knew her brother wasn't being paid super. They tried to pursue it, to get the money owed to her brother, and it never came. They went through the ATO, and they pursued the business. When the business eventually went bankrupt, they tried to get the money any way they could. It never came. She continues to try to get justice for her brother—even though he has, sadly, passed away—because it is money that he earned as part of his wages. He never got that money because it was deferred.

If this had been in place from the inception of super, then Meryl may have never had to go through this. Her brother may have been able to enjoy his retirement with his retirement savings, through super, that he would have earned. Meryl and her brother are just one example of the countless cases that we have all seen come through unpaid super and the impact it has on people's lives and their retirements.

Then there are the hundreds of thousands of other people who have just written it off: 'It doesn't matter; I've written it off. I can't cry over what I can't fix.' This reform will be a game changer for workers. It will ensure that every dollar they've earnt in their super will be there when they retire. It will make it easier for business to be able to pay on time and equal the playing field, disrupting the way in which the dodgy ones use it as part of their business model to phoenix. In construction, cleaning, security and other service based industries, it is real.

I'm proud to be part of a government that is making this reform happen, and I am ready and willing to work with our local small businesses to make sure they're aware of the changes they need to make to ensure they're ready for this. We can make this happen so it is a win-win for all. Ultimately, it's good for workers, it's good for businesses and it's good for the future.

Long debate text truncated.

No motion text available

Milton Dick

The time has expired. The question now is that the motion be agreed to.

Andrew Wallace

I seek leave to move the following motion:

(1) the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Child Sexual Abuse) Bill 2025 stand referred to the Federation Chamber;

(2) the bill be called on for debate immediately following constituency statements today, with the time for each second reading speech limited to 10 minutes; and

(3) proceedings on the bill have priority over all other government legislation, with debate concluding no later than 6 pm today and any questions required to complete the bill's consideration in the Federation Chamber being put immediately.

Leave not granted.

I move:

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

(1) the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Child Sexual Abuse) Bill 2025 standing referred to the Federation Chamber;

(2) the bill being called on for debate immediately following constituency statements today, with the time for each second reading speech limited to 10 minutes; and

(3) proceedings on the bill having priority over all other government legislation, with debate concluding no later than 6 pm today and any questions required to complete the bill's consideration in the Federation Chamber being put immediately.

I rise today to speak on a matter of the utmost seriousness and urgency. This parliament must act now to protect the most vulnerable members of our society: our children. This is not an issue that can wait for another sitting week or another round of debates. The safety of our children demands immediate action, which is why I moved that the standing orders be suspended so that this bill can be brought on and dealt with immediately. This bill is about the protection of Australian children. It is about sending an unmistakable message to those who exploit, abuse or prey upon children that they will face justice and that they will face serious prison time. Child sexual offences are among the most serious offences in the Commonwealth statute book. Any person who commits one of these crimes should expect to spend a long time in prison. I do not believe there is a single right-minded decent parent in this country who would disagree.

This bill is also about restoring public confidence in the justice system. Families across Australia have been clear: they want their children to be safe. They are horrified by what they see in the media. They are deeply concerned about the proliferation of child abuse, child sexual abuse, particularly online, and they are dismayed when they see offenders walking free after only a few months behind bars. Four Corners showed what parents already fear: gaps in staffing, ratios and checks are letting offenders near our kids. Parents deserve more than promises. After last night's revelations, we need stronger sentencing for Commonwealth offences and a national lift in safeguards, information sharing, and enforcement to make clear that if you exploit a child online or through a carriage service you will face real prison time, not a slap on the wrist.

The statistics are devastating. The Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation recorded 82,764 reports of online child exploitation in 2024-25. That is more than 226 reports every single day. Over the last year alone, reports of online child sexual abuse increased by 41 per cent. This is not an isolated problem. This is a national epidemic. Given those numbers, there is no justification for delay. We cannot allow a system that hands down sentences measured in months for crimes of extraordinary depravity.

The case that has shocked the Australian community in recent times is the case of the DPP v Maloney in Victoria. It involved a father who sexually abused his five-year-old daughter on 19 separate occasions, and who produced and transmitted 77 separate files of child sexual abuse material. Those files included 13 videos and 64 images. The judgement makes for unbearable reading. The little girl knew what was happening to her was wrong. On at least two occasions, she told her father she didn't like it. She was just five years old. Yet, despite this, the offender will be eligible for release after just 2½ years.

For the Commonwealth offences of producing and transmitting child abuse material, he received a sentence of only six months imprisonment before release on a recognisance order. Six months for producing and sharing videos of a child—his own daughter no less—being sexually assaulted. That is not justice; that is an abject failure, and that failure demands immediate action by this government.

The Commonwealth does not have a general power to make criminal laws—that is a matter for the states—however the Commonwealth does have jurisdiction when a carriage service, such as the internet or the postal service, is used to commit these crimes. This bill deals with those specific offences. It does not create new offences. It strengthens sentences for existing ones. Specifically, the bill amends the Crimes Act to establish mandatory minimum sentences of five years imprisonment for five existing offences relating to child abuse material transmitted or possessed through a carriage or postal service. For second or subsequent offences, the mandatory minimum will increase to six years. Importantly, this bill closes the loophole that allows the court in Maloney case to release the offender after just six months in prison. Under this bill, a recognisance release order cannot be granted for these crimes unless exceptional circumstances exist. This reform is not radical. It is necessary, it is reasonable and it reflects the expectations of the Australian community.

When the coalition introduced mandatory minimum sentences in 2019, it was because 39 per cent of Commonwealth child sex offenders were not serving a single day in prison. That was unacceptable then and it remains unacceptable now. Since the introduction of those reforms we've seen real improvements: more offenders are pleading guilty, sentences are longer, rehabilitation rates have improved, the community is safer. But cases like Maloney show that more must be done. That is why we must act now.

The coalition seeks bipartisanship on this bill. The attorney has said publicly that she's open to considering this proposal. I welcome that but, words are not enough. The time for consideration is over. It is time to act. This bill should not be delayed by procedural obstacles. Standing orders should be suspended so it can be debated and passed without delay. The community expects no less.

The impacts of child sexual abuse are lifelong: 95 per cent of survivors experience long-term mental health consequences, 67 per cent struggle in their relationships, and 56 per cent suffer setbacks in their education and finances. The trauma endures for decades. It destroys lives; it breaks families. Too often, victims of abuse become offenders themselves. That is the devastating cycle that we are duty-bound to break.

Some will argue that longer sentences don't reduce reoffending, but while an offender is behind bars they cannot harm another child. Longer sentences incapacitate offenders, protect communities and send a clear and powerful message that this nation will not tolerate sexual abuse of children. Longer sentences also deter potential offenders who know the consequences are real and severe. Most importantly, they restore faith that our justice system stands with victims, not with perpetrators.

Every day that we delay, another 226 reports of online child exploitation are received. Every day that we delay, more children are abused. Every day that we delay, we fail those who depend upon us for protection. That is why this bill must be passed urgently, and that is why the standing orders must be suspended today. I call on every member of this House, regardless of their political affiliation, to support this motion. Let's act together, let's act decisively, and let's act now. Every child deserves protection, and every offender deserves real punishment. This parliament has the power to make that happen. Let us not waste another day. I commend the motion to the House.

Lisa Chesters

Is the motion seconded?

Mary Aldred

I second the motion. In rising to support the shadow Attorney-General, I reflect on the No. 1 priority of any government: to keep Australians safe. Protecting children is an imperative of that special compact. This proposal has been put together in a considered, thorough and careful way because we have a problem here. And we, as a collective of this federal parliament, need to fix it. This is above politics, this is beyond partisanship, and this is solely and entirely centred on wanting to protect children, to deter predators and to keep Australians safe.

I am deeply disturbed by the horrific allegations of abuse occurring in child care around Australia. We cannot look the other way. We cannot hope that it will go away. The ABC's Four Corners program last night identified almost 150 childcare workers convicted, charged or accused of sexual abuse and inappropriate conduct against children. I saw some of journalist Adele Ferguson's story. It was shocking, and what she uncovered chilled me to the bone. I'm familiar with Adele Ferguson's work across several topics. She is forensic and has a strong sense of justice.

As a proud Victorian who currently watches in despair at the lawlessness running rampant across my state, let me remind the House about why we are here on this issue. We are here because of the Maloney case. Let's remind ourselves of the main points of this case. I'm not going to go into the details of offending, but this is about a parent who abused their child—their daughter, who was five. The offender abused their child on no less than 19 occasions. They then produced and communicated child abuse material from those occasions. There could not be a more profound breach of trust.

I think of that little girl, that five-year-old, and I think about how she is doing now, a few years on. And I think about the rest of her life and what that holds because of that abuse. That child, who hopefully will become an adult one day, has a life sentence. Her abuser does not. He doesn't have a fraction of the life sentence that he imposed on that child. Maloney was given an effective non-parole period of six months for the Commonwealth offences of producing and distributing child abuse material. That followed a two-year non-parole period for the other offences. That is manifestly inadequate; that is wrong.

We are offering the government an opportunity to show the Australian people that their parliament can come together and work in the common good, beyond the political fray, when there are circumstances such as this. The sentence was in part due to mitigating circumstances. In instances of child abuse, there should be none, because there is never any reason—any excuse—for abusing a child. There should be no mitigating circumstances, and today we seek to fix that.

This bill ensures that those who abuse, exploit or prey upon children face real consequences. This bill, which is the subject of the motion which I am proud to second, introduces mandatory minimum sentences of five years imprisonment for serious Commonwealth child sexual abuse offences. This increases to six years for second or subsequent offences, as it should. The bill also closes a loophole that has allowed some offenders to walk free on recognisance release orders after serving only a fraction of their sentence. This is not good enough. Australians deserve better. We have to do better on this. Our children deserve to grow up safely. I implore my colleagues on the other side of this chamber to support this motion, and I strongly commend it to the House.

Julian Hill

Everyone in this chamber has contempt for those who harm or seek to harm children. There should be no suggestion or intimation to the contrary. I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Andrew Wallace

Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Lisa Chesters

Well, I can't proceed on that. I just want to check something with the Clerk, because I believe I've got to proceed straight to what the minister has moved, which is that the debate be adjourned.

Andrew Wallace

Point of order.

Lisa Chesters

Yes, Member for Fisher.

Andrew Wallace

Madam Deputy Speaker, I refer you to page 530 of the Practice. Whilst I appreciate the minister's commentary before he moved the motion, the reality is that, under standing order 79(a) and as detailed on page 530 of the Practice, a member who speaks to a motion—he made brief remarks and then moved the motion. That can't happen. Both can't happen under the rules. Under standing order 79(a) and as detailed on page 530 of the Practice, a person who speaks to a motion can't move an adjournment of the motion.

Lisa Chesters

( ):  Just so I can clarify, Member for Fisher, you're suggesting that because the assistant minister said a short phrase before moving the motion—

Andrew Wallace

That is exactly what I'm saying.

Lisa Chesters

that's a speech and a contribution?

Andrew Wallace

Correct.

Lisa Chesters

Okay.

Andrew Wallace

And the Practice supports me on that point of order. I'll await your ruling on that.

Lisa Chesters

Yes, okay. We take it as a speech.

Andrew Wallace

I move:

That the question be now put.

Milton Dick

The question is the question be now put.

Helen Haines

I move amendment (1) circulated in my name.

(1) Clause 78, page 63 (line 22) to page 64 (line 12), omit the clause, substitute:

78 Review of operation of Act

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be undertaken of:

(a) the operation of this Act during the 5 year period beginning at the commencement of the Act; and

(b) the operation of this Act during each subsequent 5 year period.

(2) The review must be conducted by an expert panel comprised of 3 members appointed by the Minister.

(3) Each member of the expert panel must have experience in at least one of the following:

(a) public health;

(b) clinical practice;

(c) economics;

(d) human rights;

(e) health data and statistics;

(f) emergency management;

(g) communications.

(4) A member of the expert panel must not be any of the following:

(a) a current employee of the Commonwealth public service;

(b) a current member of the Advisory Council;

(c) a current or former member of the Commonwealth Parliament;

(d) a current or former employee or executive of a registered political party.

Timing of review and Minister to be given report

(5) The expert panel must be appointed by the Minister within 6 months after the end of the 5 year period to which the report relates.

(6) The review must be completed and the report submitted to the Minister by the expert panel within 12 months of the panel's appointment.

Minister to table copy of report of review and response to review

(7) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

(8) The Minister must cause the government's response to the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within three months of the report being tabled.

I moved this amendment circulated in my name because it's important. This amendment would establish best practice for the statutory review of the CDC act, improving the independence and integrity of the review process. It would strengthen public trust in the CDC and its operation.

As it currently stands, the statutory review requirement in this legislation is not strong enough. In fact, I'd say it's weak. It makes feeble stipulations about who is able to undertake the review, limited to a requirement that they cannot be employed by the CDC. Well, obviously, that seems like a pretty basic requirement! Neither does it guarantee the independence, impartiality or relevant expertise of the reviewer. I have moved an amendment to fix this so that the government and all Australians can be confident that the CDC is operating effectively, as it's intended and as I know the minister intends it to be.

I am heartened that the minister has indicated that he will look seriously at recommendations coming through the Senate inquiry. I hope this is one of the recommendations that he will see and take seriously, because it is a good faith amendment.

Impartiality, transparency and rigorous review are all things that we fundamentally expect in our healthcare advice, and we should expect no less from the CDC. We're seeing right now in the United States what happens when health advice becomes politicised. This is a clear warning to Australia—in fact, it's a warning of biblical proportions—not to let the same thing happen here.

As I said to the minister earlier, we don't legislate for the here and now alone. We don't legislate for the good faith minister that we have with us here and now. I say that genuinely. We have to legislate to prevent what's happening in the United States from ever happening here. By rejecting amendments that safeguard the CDC's independence, the government truly risks undermining trust in this vital institution from the very start. Legislate right and legislate now to make sure that we protect against any risk.

My amendment would require the five-year statutory review of the CDC act to be independent and undertaken by an expert panel. Members would have relevant and related experience to comprehensively understand the CDC's operations and importance. To ensure impartiality, they must not be on the CDC advisory council. They must not be current employees of the Commonwealth public service, current or former member of the Commonwealth parliament, or current or former employees or executives of a registered political party. The reasons for that should be obvious to any thinking member of parliament. They are obvious to the public.

We must protect the CDC from vested political interests, now and into the future. Politics has absolutely no place in best practice health advice, and my amendment ensures we keep it at arm's length. I've already given you the example of what's happening in the United States. This is not a theoretical concept. This amendment will improve the timeliness and transparency of the review. The report must be completed within 12 months of the panel's appointment, tabled in parliament within 15 sitting days, and the minister's response must be tabled within three months. This is a sensible, non-controversial amendment, and it does not burden the government, the CDC or the review process.

I also support the amendments of my colleagues the member for Kooyong, around scope and remit, and the member for Mackellar, to enhance the governance of the CDC—and together these suite of amendments come forward with good faith and with, I must say, decades and decades of commitment to health in this country. The CDC will support public health prevention and response for pandemics, disease outbreaks, preventive health and the health effects of climate change. This is a major responsibility. We must be assured the agency operates as intended and delivers the highest quality of health advice.

Australians deserve a CDC that is independent, transparent and trusted. Safeguarding the independence of the review process gives us confidence and gives the people confidence. We must get it right from the very start. I call on the minister and the government more broadly to consider these amendments seriously with the intent to which they are put and safeguard the precious CDC that we're legislating for.

Milton Dick

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

Ed Husic

We debate a lot of things in this place. We move new legislation that becomes law and we set up new institutions. Understandably, there is sometimes confusion, not necessarily appreciating the significance of the moment, but I think this bill represents an important long-term contribution to the better health of the nation. We have said, through the course of a once-in-a-generation pandemic, that we would learn a lot of lessons. Now it's time to back that up with hard evidence. I would submit to the House that this is one of those cases that demonstrates just that. We've moved beyond the talk, and we're setting in place something that has been called for for nearly 40 years. The reality is that many people recognised we needed such a centre to help us with moments in time where there were threats to public health at a large scale and that we needed a coordinating body that could best inform and draw together efforts to combat those moments in time where public health was at threat.

Clearly, having something like the Australian Centre for Disease Control is one of those investments in the long-term health of the nation. It will be an independent, non-corporate Commonwealth entity, with the bill establishing the roles, the powers, the functions and the duty of the agency and its director-general. It was a commitment made by former shadow health minister Chris Bowen that then continued to be championed by the now Minister for Health, Mark Butler. I think it's an important and enduring part of our long-term public health architecture. An interim CDC was established in January last year, and this bill will bring to life what's required, particularly in transferring public health responsibilities to the director-general of the CDC and for the Biosecurity Act, the National Health Security Act and the National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry Act. It will have a number of other important functions to be embedded in this CDC.

The CDC idea was brought to the fore during this last pandemic that we had to all endure. As indicated, we've had to go through these once-in-a-generation pandemics. Often, people would remind us of the experience of our forebears through Spanish influenza back in the last century and how devastating that was. We've had other major public health threats as well. Sometimes the distance between those events means that our collective memory fades. We don't necessarily put the same amount of investment in being able to protect and prevent the impact of some of these things on the broader public. Or there are, understandably, advances in care and containment that would not require of us the same level of approach as has previously been experienced.

However, I think there are some important things that do need to be reflected on. My contribution in this debate was brought on by listening to the former deputy prime minister and member for Riverina, who I've got a lot of regard for. Even though we have differences of opinion, I do respect his contribution to the debate and his contribution in the last government, particularly being part of a government responding to COVID. However, while I might have regard for him, we do have different opinions. We have different opinions on the way that the COVID pandemic was managed by the former government. I think it is important that some of those differences be put on the record.

The former deputy prime minister may be proud of Australia's response to COVID, and there were a lot of elements to be proud about relative to other nations. What we saw in terms of their responses and the impacts on their populations was pretty significant. But perspective also gives you a different vantage point from which to review past events, and the history, as it was experienced in our part of the world and in Western Sydney, was different. I also think it's important to recognise that the incoming coalition government of 2013 did make cuts to pandemic preparedness that had been worked on back in 2008 and 2009 by the government before them, because people recognised that you need to. Even though it might not affect you straight away or during your course of government, at some point it will, and it's important to replenish the institutions that manage it.

When we started to see evidence of COVID emerging in late 2019 and early 2020, the concern about what effect this would have started to mount. I found it a bit hard, as a member of this parliament, to see a government response to COVID relegated to a dixer—a three-minute response in question time—as opposed to taking the serious step of convening a ministerial statement that would walk through what the risks were and what things needed to be done to help prepare the nation. I was critical at the time, too, of the former health minister. I appreciate that he did undertake a number of things at that point in time, but the country should have been taken into the confidence of the government and walked through what was being done ahead of what we actually experienced.

We had leaders of this former government encourage attendance at mass events when scientists and medical practitioners were saying that that was the worst thing to do—to attend major sporting events and be part of a potential distribution of COVID. They then had to walk that back. We tried to get vaccines developed here. Unfortunately, it didn't work, but I commend the former government for encouraging that. But then, when it was clear other jurisdictions were developing the vaccine and we needed to order the vaccine in large numbers for the population, that didn't happen, and we were in the back of the queue in terms of vaccine purchase. I don't need to mention the COVIDSafe app in any great degree; that did not work out as a great contact-tracing platform. There was a $60 billion rounding error on JobKeeper, and not everyone got access to JobKeeper. I remember talking in the parliament about workers at places like dnata who were in the electorate I represent and who couldn't get JobKeeper and were laid off and couldn't maintain contact with their work. I want to thank the Transport Workers Union for maintaining the focus on that issue. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, the former government would not amend its JobKeeper provisions to allow for people to be sustained in their employment.

I spoke in this place about the docking of the Ruby Princess. I have friends I went to school with whose parents were on the Ruby Princess and died as a result of getting COVID on there. There were a whole lot of questions about why it was allowed to be docked at that point and why those aboard were just released en masse—2,000 people—into the community when there was evidence that COVID was being experienced on that vessel.

The New South Wales government did a good job on a lot of things, but I had big differences with them about locking down Western Sydney and dividing the city in half, and it seemed to be accepted by the former federal government. There was a saying at the time, 'We're all in this together,' but the former federal government did undertake partisan attacks on state jurisdictions. I remember the Palaszczuk government in Queensland calling for support to set up quarantine facilities. They couldn't get anywhere. The Victorian government was continually chipped and criticised by senior representatives of the former Morrison government. The federal government joined with Clive Palmer to put pressure on the WA government to bring down its borders and stop the lockdown that protected that state. That happened at the time. It was astounding. No Western Australian forgot the fact that Scott Morrison and Christian Porter, the Attorney-General, sided with Clive Palmer to bring down that lockdown. That was staggering.

So it seemed to me we were all in it together as long as you voted for the coalition, and I don't think that's acceptable from a public health perspective. That is a significant and, I appreciate, offensive remark for members of the coalition. I get that. But that's how it was felt. When they locked down Western Sydney—and from my recollection no national or state leader visited when that lockdown occurred—people at the time felt like they had been discriminated against and racially profiled because of where they lived. That was absolutely a point that was raised in a report by the Australian Catholic University and the United Workers Union, who said that people from Western Sydney suburbs felt targeted and racially discriminated against compared to Sydney's affluent eastern suburbs residents, who were allowed greater freedoms in the lockdown. So we had that.

The other thing that got to me was that, at the point of lockdown, the supports that were necessary for the region going through the lockdown—a region that contained essential workers who sustained the city during COVID—were not provided. Here are some examples. In Mount Druitt, which I represent, we fought for ages to get a vaccination hub and were denied it. There was no support out of the federal government or the state government, the Berejiklian government, to get that vaccine hub. The Premier was questioned repeatedly about this, at a time when 3,000 people a week were getting infected. The hardest thing for me is hearing stories about kids orphaned because both their parents died as a result of COVID. That was too hard. That is still, for me, a scar in my mind for the people who I represent. They didn't get the support that they needed. Mental health support hubs were set up in Liberal electorates but not in the areas that were hardest hit. That is a fact you can go and see. In the electorate of Lindsay—the state electorate of Penrith—they got a mental health support hub. Why wasn't this done across Western Sydney? It shouldn't be that way.

Public health is too important to be politicised. The reason why we're proud of our public health system and our universal health care is that it reflects a value of this nation. Australia says that, regardless of your income or where you live, we should fight to make sure you get the health care that you need. I'm proud of the fact that our country values that and that it fights for it. To be frank—putting aside the politics—both sides of politics get the importance of Medicare and a universal healthcare system. We may have different levels of commitment to it, but I think we have now gone beyond thinking that Medicare will be dismantled. It's about the level of investment in it. But I did feel really strongly, and I still feel really strongly, about the fact that Western Sydney was treated differently. We didn't have national or state leaders in, and we didn't have the supports that were needed, and we didn't have the coordination required to help people in need. The other thing, to talk about salt in the wound, was that the areas that were hit hardest by COVID were also hit hardest by COVID related fines. In Mount Druitt, nearly $1.4 million in fines were handed out to people in the areas I represent, some of which are huge low-socioeconomic areas. So they were not given the support—the vax hubs and the mental health hubs—and they were locked down, treated differently and fined hard.

The reason I speak on this bill is that, if we've learnt anything out of that pandemic, it's the need to better coordinate, to not treat people in different regions differently and to be able to do what we can to coordinate a response—particularly standing up greater levels of support for vulnerable communities. In large part, the way to do that, I would argue to the House, is setting up something like a CDC that can do just that and work across jurisdictions. I hope, when we say we've learned the lessons of the pandemic, we genuinely mean it, and I'm proud of the fact that this CDC is evidence we may be doing something to do better.

Long debate text truncated.